cure for superstition. Yet she was not cured. The nation which, according to his theory, ought to have been soonest delivered from superstition, according to his statements has retained its yoke the longest of any.

From Spain Mr. Buckle passes to Scotland, where he finds a still more complicated problem. Superstition and loyalty ought to go together, he thinks, — and usually do; but in Scotland they are divorced. The Scotch have always been superstitious, but disloyal. To the explanation of this fact Mr. Buckle bends his energies of thought, and of course is able to find a theory to account for it. This theory we shall not stop to detail; it is too complex, and at the same time too superficial, to dwell upon. Its chief point is that the Protestant noblemen and Protestant clergy quarrelled about the wealth of the Catholic Church, and so there was in Scotland a complete rupture between the two classes elsewhere in alliance. Thus "the clergy, finding themselves despised by the governing class, united themselves heartily with the people, and advocated democratic principles." Such is the explanation given to the course of history in a great nation. A quarrel between its ministers (who are of course represented as mercenary self-seekers) and its noblemen determines its permanent character! Mr. Buckle may call this profound philosophy; to us it seems shallow theorizing.

Mr. Buckle, to whom the love of plunder appears as the cause of what other men regard as loyalty or religion, explains by the same fact the loyalty of the Highlanders to King Charles. They thought that, if he conquered, he would allow them to plunder the Lowlanders once more. This is his account of it. An ethnologist would have remembered the fact that the Gaels are pure-blooded Kelts, and that the Kelts pur sang are everywhere distinguished for loyalty to their chiefs.

Mr. Buckle encounters another difficulty in Scottish history in this, that though a new and splendid literature arose in Scotland at the beginning of the eighteenth century, it was unable to diminish national superstition. It was thoroughly sceptical, and yet did not produce the appropriate effect of scepticism. So that at this point one of Mr. Buckle's four VOL. LXXI. 5TH S. VOL. IX. NO. III.

34

great laws of history seems to break down. For a moment he appears discouraged, and laments, with real pathos, the limitations of the human intellect. But in the next chapter he addresses himself again to the solution of his twofold problem, viz.: "1st, that the same people should be liberal in their politics and illiberal in their religion; and, 2d, that their free and sceptical literature in the eighteenth century should have been unable to lessen their religious illiberality."

In approaching this part of his task, in the fifth chapter, our author gives a very elaborate and highly colored picture of the religion of Scotland. It is too well done. Like some of Macaulay's descriptions, it is so very striking as to impress us almost inevitably as a caricature. Every statement in which the horrors and cruelties of Calvinism are described is indeed reinforced by ample citations or plentiful references in the foot-notes. But some of these seem capable of a different inference from that drawn in the text. For instance, he charges that the Scottish clergy taught, that, though the arrangements originally made by the Deity to punish his creatures were ample, "they were insufficient; and hell, not being big enough to contain the countless victims incessantly poured into it, had in these latter days been enlarged. There was now sufficient room." He supports the charge by this reference to Abernethy," Hell has enlarged itself," apparently not being aware that Abernethy was merely quoting from Isaiah. He says that to write poetry was considered by the Scotch clergy to be a grievous offence, and worthy of special condemnation. He supports his statement by this reference: "A mastership in a grammar school was offered in 1767 to John Wilson, the author of 'Clyde'" (a poet, by the by, not found among the twenty John Wilsons commemorated by Watt). "But, says his biographer, the magistrates and ministers of Greenock thought fit, before they would admit Mr. Wilson to the superintendence of the grammar school, to stipulate that he should abandon the profane and unprofitable art of poem-making."" This fact, however, by no means proves that poetry was considered, theologically, a sin, for perhaps they only regarded it, practically, as a disqualification. It is to be feared that many of our school committees

now

country shopkeepers, perhaps, or city aldermen would, apart from Calvinism, think that a poet must be necessarily a dreamer and an unpractical man.

A few exaggerations of this kind there may be. But, on the whole, the account must be correctly given; and it is one which must do good.

In the remaining portion of the second volume Mr. Buckle gives a very vigorous description of the intellectual progress of the Scotch during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. His account of Adam Smith as a writer is peculiarly brilliant. His views of Hume and of Reid are ably drawn. Thence he proceeds to discuss the discoveries of Black and Leslie in natural philosophy, of Smith and Hutton in geology, of Cavendish in chemistry, of Cullen and Hunter in physiology and pathology. These discussions are interesting, and show a great range of knowledge and power of study in the writer. Yet they are episodes, and have little bearing on the main course of his thought.

We have thus given a cursory survey of these volumes. We do not think its philosophy sound, its method good, or its doctrines tenable. Yet we cannot but sympathize with one who has devoted his strength and youth with such untiring industry to such a great enterprise. And we must needs be touched with the plaintive confession which breaks from his wearied mind and exhausted hope in the last volume, when he accepts the defeat of his early endeavor, and submits to the disappointment of his youthful hope. We should be glad to quote the entire passage, because it is the best in the book, and because he expresses in it, in the most condensed form, his ideas and purposes as an historic writer. But our limited space only allows us to commend it to the special attention of our readers.

*

* See Vol. II. pp. 255-259, American edition.

The Monks of the West, from St. Benedict to St. Bernard. By the COUNT DE MONTALEMBERT, Member of the French Academy. Authorized Translation. Volumes I. and II. Edinburgh and London: W. Blackwood and Sons. 1861. 8vo. pp. xii. and 515, 549.

THE first work by which Montalembert became widely known as an author was his Life of St. Elizabeth of Hungary, published when he was only twenty-six years old. Encouraged by the remarkable degree of popularity which this memoir at once acquired, the young author determined to prepare a Life of St. Bernard of Clairvaux as a complement to it, in order that he might exhibit another phase of the religious life of the Middle Age, and "contribute to the vindication of the monastic orders." To this task he seems to have devoted himself immediately; but as he proceeded, his plan expanded until he was led to substitute for the single biography, which was all that he at first intended to write, a comprehensive history of Western Monasticism. The cares and anxieties of public life, however, have long and often interrupted the work, and even now, after the lapse of nearly a quarter of a century, only a fragment of this history has been given to the public. But even this incomplete portion of Montalembert's labors will be cordially welcomed. The two volumes now published contain, it is true, much in the soundness of which we cannot concur, but the patient research everywhere exhibited, the passionate love of liberty which the author never fails to show, and the glow and fervor with which he often writes, go far to disarm criticism. He has evidently sought before all things to vindicate the truth, and he has prosecuted his inquiries through nearly the whole range of medieval literature with unwearied diligence and the strictest fidelity. His plan is perhaps as free from serious defects as any which he could have formed for dealing with so comprehensive a theme; and he seldom or never assumes a controversial tone, except in one or two passages in his Introduction. On only one point do we deem it necessary to take exception in this place. While Montalembert justly represents monasticism as meeting a real want in

the Middle Age, and has not exceeded the limits of a proper discrimination in dwelling on the importance of the services rendered by the monks in that period, he does not always seem to apprehend rightly the nature of those services; and certainly no Protestant can accede to the views which he expresses respecting the worth of monasticism considered as a permanent institution of the Church. Monasticism perished simply because there was no longer need of it; and any attempt to restore it in our time must prove ineffectual, if not pernicious. This Montalembert fails to perceive, and he accordingly suffers himself always to regard the revival of the institution as not only possible, but desirable. In this misconception of the real character of monasticism, as an institution which has been completely drained of vitality, lies the chief defect of his book, -the only one, we are inclined to think, of much importance.

The portion of the work now before us comprises an Introduction and seven Books, forming a part of the history of the first two centuries after the establishment of the monastery of Monte Cassino. The first volume is entirely devoted to preliminary discussions and to the history of monasticism before the time of Benedict. In the Introduction, which extends over nearly two hundred and fifty pages, and is divided into ten chapters, Montalembert enters at length into a discussion of the fundamental character of monastic institutions and the true nature of monastic vocations, describing with much eloquence the happiness of a monastic life, and examining the various charges brought against the monks. This, the most difficult part of his task, has been performed with marked ability; and nowhere is that love of truth which forms one of his most conspicuous characteristics more apparent than it is here, where the temptation to become the apologist rather than the impartial historian must often have been very great. While he praises the monks without stint, he does not ignore their faults and vices; and few of their censors have passed a severer judgment on them than is often implied in his simple statement of facts.

In considering the fundamental character of monastic institutions, he very naturally dwells on the significant fact that the most prosperous periods in the history of the Church were