<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0022" id="link2H_4_0022"></SPAN></p>
<br/>
<h2> BARON D'HOLBACH. </h2>
<p>Paul Thyry, Baron D'Holbach, was born at Heidesheim, in the Palatinate, in
the month of January, 1723. His father appears to have been a very wealthy
man, and brought his son to Paris, for the purpose of superintending his
education, but died white he was still a child. In his youth, D'Holbach
appears to have been noted for his studious habits and retentive
faculties, and ultimately attained to some eminence in chemistry and
mineralogy. He married when very young, and he had not been married one
year when his wife died. He afterwards obtained a dispensation from the
Pope, and married his deceased wife's sister, by whom he had four
children, two sons and two daughters.</p>
<p>D'Holbach appeared to have spent the greater part of his life in Paris,
and for forty years he assembled around his table, every Sunday, the <i>elite</i>
of the literary world, including nearly the whole of those who took part
in the first Encyclopedia. If that table were only in the hands of some of
our spirit friends of the present day, what brilliant anecdotes might it
not rap out—the sparkling wit of Diderot, the good humor of out
host, the hospitable and generous D'Holbach, the occasional bitterness of
Jean Jacques Rousseau, the cautious expression of opinion by D'Alembert,
the agreeable variety of Montesquieu, and the bold enthusiasm of the
youthful but hardworking Naigeon! If ever a table were inclined to turn,
this table should have been; but perhaps it may be that tables never turn
when reason is the ruler of those who sit around.</p>
<p>It seems more than probable that D'Holbach at first held opinions
differing widely from those entertained by him during the later periods of
his life, and it is asserted that Diderot contributed much to this change
of opinion. D'Holbach was an amiable man of the world, fond of amusement,
and without pretension; he was, notwithstanding, well versed in Roman and
Grecian literature, mathematics, chemistry, botany, and modern languages.
He was generous to every one. "I content myself," he said, "with
performing the disagreeable character of benefactor, when I am forced to
it. I do not wish to be repaid my money; but I am pleased when I meet with
some little gratitude, if it be only as proving that the persons I have
assisted were such sort of men as I desired."</p>
<p>Although about forty-five works are now ascribed to D'Holbach, not one of
them was published during his life-time in his own name. The manuscripts
were taken to Amsterdam by Naigeon, and there printed by Michael Rey.
D'Holbach never talked publicly of his literary productions himself and
his secrets seem to have been well kept by his friends. Several of the
works were condemned and suppressed by the government; but D'Holbach lived
unsuspected and unmolested. The expression used by the Avocat, General
Seguier, in his réquisitoire against the "System of Nature" is worthy of
notice. The Avocat General said—"The restless spirit of Infidelity,
inimical to all dependence, endeavors to overthrow all political
constitutions. Its wishes will not be satisfied until it has destroyed the
<i>necessary</i> inequality of rank and condition, and until it has
degraded the majesty of kings, and rendered their authority subordinate to
the <i>caprices</i> of the <i>mob</i>." Note the three words we have
italicised. For the first read unnecessary; for the second, voice; for the
third, peoples. We trust that Free-thought never will be satisfied until
it has destroyed the unnecessary inequalities of rank and condition, and
rendered it impossible for the authority of kings to be enforced in
opposition to the voice of the people.</p>
<p>The following description of D'Holbach is given in a little sketch,
published by Mr. Watson in 1834, as taken from Grimm's "Correspondence:"—"D'Hol-bach's
features were, taken separately, regular, and even handsome, yet he was
not a handsome man. His forehead, large and open, like that of Diderot,
indicated a vast and capacious mind; but his forehead having fewer
sinuosities, less roundness than Diderot's, announced less warmth, less
energy, and less fecundity of ideas. A craniologist would say that in both
D'Holbach and Diderot, the philosophical organs were largely developed,
but that Diderot excelled in ideality; D'Holbach's countenance only
indicated mildness, and the habitual sincerity of his mind. He was
incapable of personal hatred. Though he detested priests and Jesuits, and
all other supporters of despotism and superstition; and though when
speaking of such people, his mildness and good temper were sometimes
transformed into bitterness and irritability; yet it is affirmed that when
the Jesuits were expelled from France, D'Holbach regarded them as objects
of commiseration and of pity, and afforded them pecuniary assistance."</p>
<p>The titles of D'Holbach's works may be found in Barbier's "Dictionary of
Anonymous Works," and in St. Surins's article in the "Biographie
Universelle," so in the little tract before mentioned as published by J.
Watson. D'Holbach contributed largely to the first French Encyclopaedia,
and other works of a like character. Of the "System of Nature" we have
already spoken, and shall rather leave our readers to the work itself than
take up more space in discussing its authorship.</p>
<p>After having lived a life of comfort, in affluent circumstances, and
always surrounded by a large circle of the best men of the day, D'Holbach
died on January the 21st, 1789, being, then sixty-six years of age. The
priests have never pictured to us any scene of horror in relation to his
dying moments. The good old man died cheered and supported in his last
struggle by those men whom he had many times assisted in the hard fighting
of the battle of life. J. A. Naigeon, who had been his friend for thirty
years; paid an eloquent tribute to D'Holbach's memory, in an article which
appeared in the "Journal de Paris" of February the 9th, 1789, and we are
not aware that any man has ever written anything against D'Hol-bach's
personal character.</p>
<p>EXTRACTS FROM "THE SYSTEM OF NATURE."</p>
<p>Although we may not attempt to express a decided opinion as to the
authorship of "Le Système de la Nature," we feel it our duty to present
some of its principal arguments to the consideration of our readers. The
author opens his work with this passage:—</p>
<p>"Man always deceives himself when he abandons experience to follow
imaginary systems. He is the work of nature. He exists in nature. He is
submitted to her laws. He cannot deliver himself from them. He cannot step
beyond them even in thought. It is in vain his mind would spring forward
beyond the visible world: an imperious necessity ever compels his return—for
a being formed by Nature, who is circumscribed by her laws, there exists
nothing beyond the great whole of which he forms a part, of which be
experiences the influence. The beings his imagination pictures as above
Nature, or distinguished from her, are always chimeras formed after that
which he has, already seen, but of which it is utterly impossible he
should ever form any correct idea, either as to the place they occupy, or
their manner of acting—for him there is not, there can be nothing
out of that nature which includes all beings. Instead, therefore, of
seeking out of the world he inhabits for beings who can procure him a
happiness denied by Nature, let him study this nature, learn her laws,
contemplate her energies, observe the immutable rules by which she acts."</p>
<p>Speaking of the theological delusions under which many men labor, and of
the mode in which man has been surrounded by those delusions, he says:—</p>
<p>"His ignorance made him credulous: his curiosity made him swallow large
draughts of the marvellous: time confirmed him in his opinions, and he
passed his conjectures from race to race, for realities; a tyrannical
power maintained him in his notions, because by those alone could society
be enslaved. It was in vain, that some faint glimmerings of Nature
occasionally attempted, the recall of his reason; that slight
corruscations of experience sometimes threw his darkness into light; the
interest of the few was bottomed on his enthusiasm; their pre-eminence
depended on his love of the wonderful; their very existence rested on the
solidity of his ignorance they consequently suffered no opportunity to
escape, of smothering even the lambent flame. The many were thus first
deceived into credulity, then coerced into submission. At length, the
whole science of man became a confused mass of darkness, falsehood, and
contradictions, with here and there a feeble ray of truth, furnished by
that Nature of which he can never entirely divest himself, because,
without his knowledge, his necessities are continually bringing him back
to her resources."</p>
<p>Having stated that by "nature" he means the "great whole," our author
complains of those who assert that matter is senseless, inanimate,
unintelligent, etc., and says, "Experience proves to us that the matter
which we regard as inert or dead, assumes action, intelligence, and life,
when it is combined in a certain way:"—</p>
<p>"If flour be wetted with water, and the mixture closed up, it will be
found, after some little lapse of time, by the aid of a microscope, to
have produced organized beings that enjoy life, of which the water and the
flour were believed incapable: it is thus that inanimate matter can pass
into life, or animate matter, which is in itself only an assemblage of
motion. Reasoning from analogy, which the philosophers of the present day
hold perfectly compatible, the production of a man, independent of the
ordinary means, would not be more marvellous than that of an insect with
flour and water. Fermentation and putrefaction evidently produce living
animals. We have here the principle; with proper materials, principles can
always be brought into action. That generation which is styled <i>equivocal</i>
is only so for those who do not reflect, or who do not permit themselves,
attentively, to observe the operations of Nature."</p>
<p>This passage is much ridiculed by Voltaire, who asserts that it is founded
on some experiments made by one Needham, who placed some rye-meal in
well-corked bottles, and some boiled mutton gravy in other bottles, and
found that eels were produced in each. We do not know sufficient of the
history of Needham's experiments, either to affirm or deny their
authenticity, but we feel bound to remind our readers of the much-decried
experiments conducted by Mr. Crosse, and which were afterwards verified by
Mr. Weekes, of Sandwich. In these cases, insects were produced by the
action of a powerful voltaic battery upon a saturated solution of silicate
of potash, and upon ferro cyanuret of potassium. The insects were a
species of acarus, minute and semi-transparent, and furnished with long
bristles, which could only be seen by the aid of the microscope. The sixth
chapter treats of man, and the author thus answers the question, "What is
man?":—</p>
<p>"We say he is a material being, organized after a peculiar manner,
conformed to a certain mode of thinking, of feeling, capable of
modification in certain modes peculiar to himself, to his organization, to
that particular combination of matter which is found assembled in him. If
again it be asked, What origin we give to beings of the human species? We
reply, that like all other beings, man is a production of nature, who
resembles them in some respects, and finds himself submitted to the same
laws; who differs from them in other respects, and follows particular laws
determined by the diversity of his conformation. If then it be demanded,
Whence came man? We answer, our experience on this head does not
capacitate us to resolve the question; but that it cannot interest us, as
it suffices for us to know that man exists, that he is so constituted as
to be competent to the effects we witness."</p>
<p>In the seventh chapter the author, treating of the soul and spirit says:—</p>
<p>"The doctrine of spirituality, such as it now exists, offers nothing but
vague ideas, or, rather, is the absence of all ideas. What does it present
to the mind but a substance which possesses nothing of which our senses
enable us to have a knowledge? Can it be truth, that man is able to figure
to himself a being not material, having neither extent nor parts; which,
nevertheless, acts upon matter without having any point of contact, any
kind of analogy with it; and which itself receives the impulse of matter
by means of material organs, which announce to it the presence of other
beings? Is it possible to conceive the union of the soul with the body; to
comprehend how this material body can bind, enclose, constrain, determine
a fugitive being, which escapes all our senses? Is it honest, is it plain
dealing, to solve these difficulties, by saying there is a mystery in
them, that they are the effects of a power more inconceivable than the
human soul, than its mode of acting, however concealed from our view? When
to resolve these problems, man is obliged to have recourse to miracles, to
make the Divinity interfere, does he not avow his own ignorance? When
notwithstanding the ignorance he is thus obliged to avow by availing
himself of the divine agency, he tells us, this immaterial substance, this
soul, shall experience the action of the element of fire, which he allows
to be material; when he confidently says, this soul shall be burnt; shall
suffer in purgatory—have we not a right to believe, that either he
has a design to deceive us, or else that he does not himself understand
that which he is so anxious we shall take upon his word?"</p>
<p>The ninth chapter, after treating of the diversity of the intellectual
faculties, proceeds, "Man at his birth brings with him into the world
nothing but the necessity of conserving himself, of rendering his
existence happy; instruction, examples, the custom of the world, present
him with the means, either real or imaginary, of achieving it; habit
procures for him the facility of employing these means:"—</p>
<p>"In order that man may become virtuous, it is absolutely requisite that he
should have an interest, that he should find advantages in practicing
virtue. For this end, it is necessary that education should implant in him
reasonable ideas; that public opinion should lean towards virtue, as the
most desirable good; that example should point it out as the object most
worthy of esteem; that government should faithfully recompense, should
regularly reward it; that honor should always accompany its practice; that
vice should constantly be despised; that crime should invariably be
punished. Is virtue in this situation amongst men! Does the education of
man infuse into him just, faithful ideas of happiness—true notions
of virtue—-dispositions really favorable to the beings with whom he
is to live? The examples spread before him, are they suitable to innocence
of manners? Are they calculated to make him respect decency, to cause him
to love probity, to practice honesty, to value good faith, to esteem
equity, to revere conjugal fidelity, to observe exactitude in fulfilling
his duties? Religion, which alone pretends to regulate his manners, does
it render him sociable? does it make him pacific? does it teach him to be
humane? The arbiters, the sovereigns of society, are they faithful in
recompensing punctual in rewarding, those who have best served their
country, in punishing those who have pillaged, who have robbed, who have
plundered, who have divided, who have ruined it? Justice, does she hold
her scales with a firm, with an even hand, between all the citizens of the
state? The laws, do they never support the strong against the weak, favor
the rich against the poor, uphold the happy against the miserable? In
short, is it an uncommon spectacle to behold crime frequently justified,
often applauded, sometimes crowned with success, insolently triumphing,
arrogantly striding over that merit which it disdains, over that virtue
which it outrages? Well, then, in societies thus constituted, virtue can
only be heard by a very small number of peaceable citizens, a few generous
souls, who know how to estimate its value, who enjoy it in secret. For the
others, it is only a disgusting object; they see in it nothing but the
supposed enemy to their happiness, or the censor of their individual
conduct."</p>
<p>In the tenth chapter, which is upon the soul, the author says:—</p>
<p>"The diversity in the temperament of man, is natural, the necessary source
of the diversity of passions, of his taste, of his ideas of happiness, of
his opinions of every kind. Thus this same diversity will be the fatal
source of his disputes—of his hatreds—of his injustice—every
time he shall reason upon unknown objects, but to which he shall attach
the greatest importance. He will never understand either himself or
others, in speaking of a spiritual soul, or of immaterial substances
distinguished from nature; he will, from that moment, cease to speak the
same language, and he will never attach the same ideas to the same words.
What then shall be the common standard that shall decide which is the man
that thinks with the greatest justice?</p>
<p>"Propose to a man to change his religion for yours, he will believe you a
madman; you will only excite his indignation, elicit his contempt; he will
propose to you, in his turn, to adopt his own peculiar opinions; after
much reasoning, you will treat each other as absurd beings, ridiculously
opinionated, pertinaciously stubborn; and he will display the least folly
who shall first yield. But if the adversaries become heated in the
dispute, which always happens, when they suppose the matter important, or
when they would defend the cause of their own self-love, from thence their
passions sharpen, they grow angry, quarrels are provoked, they hate each
other, and end by reciprocal injury. It is thus that for opinions, which
no man can demonstrate, we see the Brachman despised; the Mahomedan hated;
the Pagan held in contempt; that they oppress and disdain each with the
most raucorous animosity: the Christian burns the Jew at what is called an
<i>Auto-da-fe</i>, because he clings to the faith of his fathers; the
Roman Catholic condemns the Protestant to the flames, and makes a
conscience of massacreing(sp.) him in cold blood; this re-acts in his
turn; sometimes the various sects of Christians league together against
the incredulous Turk, and for a moment suspend their own bloody disputes
that they may chastise the enemies to the true faith: then, having glutted
their revenge, return with redoubied fury, to wreak over again their
infuriated vengeance on each other."</p>
<p>The thirteenth chapter argues as follows, against the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul and a future state:—</p>
<p>"In old age, man extinguishes entirely, his fibres become rigid, his
nerves lose their elasticity, his senses are obtunded, his sight grows
dim, his ears lose their quickness, his ideas become unconnected, his
memory fails, his imagination cools,—what, then, becomes of his
soul. Alas! it sinks down with the body, it gets benumbed as this loses
its feeling, becomes sluggish as this decays in activity; like it, when
enfeebled by years, it fulfils its functions with pain; this substance,
which is deemed spiritual, which is considered immaterial, which it is
endeavored to distinguish from matter, undergoes the same revolutions,
experiences the same vicissitudes, submits to the name modifications as
does the body itself. In despite of this proof of the materiality of the
soul, of its identity with the body so convincing to the unprejudiced,
some thinkers have supposed that although the latter is perishable, the
former does not perish; that this portion of man enjoys the especial
privilege of immortality; that it is exempt from dissolution; free from
those changes of form all the beings in nature undergo: in consequence of
this, man is persuaded himself that this privileged soul does not die.</p>
<p>"It will be asked, perhaps, by what road has man been conducted to form to
himself gratuitous ideas of another world. I reply, that it is a truth man
has no idea of a future life; they are the ideas of the past and the
present, that furnish his imagination with the materials of which he
constructs the edifice of the regions of futurity. Hobbes says, 'We
believe that, that which is will always be, and that the same causes will
have the same effects.' Man in his actual state has two modes of feeling—one,
that he approves; another, that he disapproves: thus persuaded that these
two modes of feeling must accompany him even beyond his present existence,
he placed in the regions of eternity two distinguished abodes; one
destined to felicity; the other to misery: the one must contain those who
obey the calls of superstition, who believe in its dogmas; the other is a
prison, destined to avenge the cause of heaven on all those who shall not
faithfully believe the doctrines promulgated by the ministers of a vast
variety of superstitions. Has sufficient attention been paid to the fact
that results as a necessary consequence from this reasoning; which on
examination will be found to have rendered the first place entirely
useless, seeing, that by the number and contradiction of these various
systems, let man believe whichever he may, let him follow it in the most
faithful manner, still he must be ranked as an Infidel, as a rebel to the
divinity; because he cannot believe in all; and those from which he
dissents, by a consequence of their own creed, condemn him to the
prison-house?—Such is the origin of the ideas upon a future life, so
diffused among mankind. Everywhere may be seen an Elysium, and a Tartarus,
a Paradise and a Hell; in a word, two distinguished abodes, constructed
according to the imagination of the enthusiasts who have invented them;
who have accommodated them to their own peculiar prejudices, to the hopes,
to the fears of the people who believe in them. The Indian figures the
first of these abodes as one of inaction, of permanent repose, because,
being the inhabitant of a hot climate, he has learned to contemplate rest
as the extreme of felicity: the Mussulman promises himself corporeal
pleasures, similar to those that actually constitute the object of his
research in this life: each figures to himself that on which he has
learned to set the greatest value."</p>
<p>"As for the miserable abode of souls, the imagination of fanatics, who
were desirous of governing the people, strove to assemble the most
frightful images to render it still more terrible; fire is of all things
that which produces in man the most pungent sensation; not finding
anything more cruel, the enemies to the several dogmas were to be
everlastingly punished with this torturing element: fire, therefore, was
the point at which their imagination was obliged to stop; the ministers of
the various systems agreed pretty generally, that fire would one day
avenge their offended divinities; thus, they painted the victims to the
anger of the gods, or rather those who questioned their own creeds, as
confined in fiery dungeons; as perpetually rolling into a vortex of
bituminous flames; as plunged in unfathomable gulfs of liquid sulphur;
making the infernal caverns resound with their useless groanings, with
their unavailing gnashing of teeth. But it will, perhaps, be inquired, how
could man reconcile himself to the belief of an existence accompanied with
eternal torments; above all, as many according to their own superstitions
had reason to fear it for themselves—Many causes have concurred to
make him adopt so revolting an opinion: in the first place, very few
thinking men have ever believed such an absurdity, when they have deigned
to make use of their reason; or, when they have accredited it, this notion
was always counterbalanced by the idea of the goodness, by a reliance on
the mercy, which they attributed to their respective divinities: in the
second place, those who were blinded by their fears never rendered to
themselves any account of these strange doctrines which they either
received with awe from their legislators, or which were transmitted to
them by their fathers; in the third place, each sees the object of his
terrors only at a favorable distance; moreover, superstition promises him
the means of escaping the tortures he believes he has merited."</p>
<p>We conclude by quoting the following eloquent passage:—</p>
<p>"Oh! Nature! sovereign of all beings! and ye, her adorable daughters,
Virtue, Reason, and Truth! remain forever our reverend protectors. It is
to you that belong the praises of the human race; to you appertains the
homage of the earth. Show us, then, oh! Nature! that which man ought to
do, in order to obtain the happiness which thou makest him desire.—Virtue!
animate him with thy beneficent fire! Reason! conduct his uncertain steps
through the paths of life. Truth! let thy torch illumine his intellect,
dissipate the darkness of his road.... Banish error from our mind,
wickedness from our hearts, confusion from our footsteps. Cause knowledge
to extend its salubrious reign, goodness to occupy our souls, serenity to
dwell in our bosoms.... Let our eyes, so long either dazzled or
blindfolded, be at length fixed upon those objects we ought to seek.
Dispel forever those mists of ignorance, those hideous phantoms, together
with those seducing chimeras, which only serve to lead us astray.
Extricate us from that dark abyss into which we are plunged by
superstition, overthrow the fatal empire of delusion, crumble the throne
of falsehood, wrest from their polluted hands the power they have
usurped."</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />