character furnish the author opportunities to introduce multitudinous events and characters, for the purpose of ridiculing the follies of the day. The most of them are believed to conform to history, yet he uses the privilege of the romancer in altering incidents to suit his purposes. Had it been artistically possible, it was not always safe to be too exact. Rabelais satirized living personages, and had but too much reason to fear their resentment, as the event proved. When he wished to tell an unpalatable truth he had only to transport himself into an imaginary world without danger of shocking received notions.*

The satire of Rabelais is never malicious. He takes no pleasure in contemplating the worst side of human nature, which is forced upon his observation. He finds plenty of errors in church and state, and is roused to a lofty scorn by the consideration of so much meanness and so many shams-noble, hypocrite, and profligate are convertible terms with him. Yet he is not misanthropic. He considers that human nature is weak, and the best way to cure mankind of their follies is to show them that they are ridiculous. There is wisdom as well as charity in this. To condemn severely and uncharitably inspires hatred and resentment. The acrid reformer who denounces others, often merits the punishment which is his portion. He has no right to assume that he is privileged to launch the divine thunderbolts. If he does so, let him beware of the rebound. The history of Rabelais' time illustrates this. The Huguenots and other serious reformers were destroyed by sword and fire, while the good-humored satirist was the pet of princes and ecclesiastics. Rabelais was one of the greatest reformers of his day. He told his severest truths palatably, and thus insured their reception. Some of the greatest minds of succeeding times have heartily commended him. Sir Wm. Temple says: "The great wits of the moderns have been, in my opinion, and in their several kinds, of the French, Rabelais, and Montaigne. Rabelais seems to have been the father of the ridicule, a man of excellent and universal learning, as well as wit." †

Guizot, Annales d' Education.

† Miscellanea, р. 11.

1

The Abbe Costar sums up his qualities thus excellently: "Rabelais est autant à la mode qu'il fut jamais. Les railleries sent agreeables d'un agrément qui ne finera point tant qu'il y aura sur la terre d'habiles rieurs. Des modes et les habillements changeront toûjours, mais non pas celles des bons contes et des bons mots qui se soustiennent d'eux mesmes, et qui sont en effet de bonnes choses."*

Besides the works we have mentioned, Rabelais left several Latin and French epistles: the "Prognostication Pantagrueline, La Chresme Philosophicale des Questions Encyclopediques de Pantagruel, Deux Epitres à Deux Vieilles de Different Meurs," in verse, etc. The "Chresme Philosophicale" is a series of comical questions in ridicule of philosophical pedantry.t

The two versified epistles to "Deux Vieilles" furnish a fine contrast.

Thus the firsť:

"Vieille edentee, infame et malheureuse,
Vieille sans grace, aux vertus rigoreuse,
Vieille en qui gist trahison et querelle;
Vieille truande, inicque macquerelle;
Vieille qui vends les pucelles d'honneur,
Femmes aussy en crime et deshonneur."

And the second a beautiful picture :

"Vieille d'honneur dont la grace et la forme
A la beaulté des jeunes se conforme.

Vieille qui as Jesus Christ imprimé
En ton cerveau (tout vice supprimé);
Vieille traictable en vertu accomplié,
Vieille toujours de charité remplié," etc.‡

If at one period of his life in conflict with the dignitaries of the church, Rabelais seems at length to have become fully reconciled to her, and to have died in her bosom. Like Erasmus, though with a somewhat different spirit, Rabelais contended vigorously with the prevalent follies and vices of ecclesiastics, and when he met with opposition, was only impelled to wage still fiercer warfare; but when driven to consider an entire separation from the church, he shrunk from it with terror. "It is certain," says Colletet, "that toward the end of his days, looking within himself, recognizing his sins, and having recourse to the infinite mercy of the Deity, he restored his spirit to the condition of a faithful christian. Thus all the absurd stories that have been told concerning him, and all the licentious words which have been attributed to him, are only vain chimeras and reprehensible falsehoods invented at pleasure to render him odious in the eyes of the world."* Another author says, "I have spoken of François Rabelais in my Bibliothèque, following the general voice, and what we are able to judge from his works; but his end requires that he be judged by a different standard than the common talk. He was touched by repentance, for the common belief, sought absolution of the pope for his apostasy and irregularity, as though he were guilty." This speaks well for the heart of Rabelais, though many would doubtless like him more had he gone to the length of most bitter opposition and an entire separation from the church. We confess that our protestantism is not of that sort. We prefer to contemplate Rabelais as laughing at folly and vice, but never disposed to make a serious matter of it, only making those appear ridiculous who would do so. A life of dogmatic contention did not suit the temper of his mind. The martyr's crown would not have sat well upon that laughing brow. We like him as he was, and would not have had him different unless we could purify him somewhat. He took the world exactly as he found it, and depicted it accordingly, with the hope of making it better.

The obscenity of Rabelais' work is its chief fault. Yet we must remember the time in which, and the manners of the people, for whom, he wrote. It was delicate for the age. Read by the light of our more fastidious epoch, it is shockingly gross. The cotemporaries of Rabelais thought it delightful, and not particularly exceptionable. Tastes change rapidly, and even during an individual lifetime it is found that what is agreeable at one period is intolerable at another. Sir Walter Scott relates an incident in point. He was applied to by an estimable old lady for the loan of a book which had charmed her in youth. Scott sent it to her, but warned her that the tastes of the time had so changed, and she had, doubtless, changed with them, that she would, probably, find the work shocking. It was even so, and she sent it back, saying that she could not read it, although in youth she had found it delightful, and did not then dream of its being improper.

It is a pity that Rabelais was ever translated into English, as has been but too faithfully done by Urquhart and Matteux. The English language is equal to any degree of grossness of expression, and the work of Rabelais, as rendered, taxed it to the utmost. No one ought to read the book who is not equal to the task of understanding it in its obscure French garb. Those who can do so will be likely to read it from a scholarly point of view, and not to satisfy a prurient curiosity. It is difficult to read the work in the original. No one will do so who has not a loftier end in view than mere amusement or the gratification of a voluptuous craving. Yet, we believe there is really nothing immoral in Rabelais, with all his grossness. He uses the plainest language, but, like Shakspeare, never panders to pruriency or vice. Foul things he paints with vile colors, and sensuality is never represented in an attractive garb. True religion is always spoken of with reverence. The buffoonery of the work has led some to believe and to assert that Rabelais was a mere scoffer at all that is sacred. Some persons can see nothing but impiety in jocularity, especially if it in any way impinges upon their religious prejudices. La Harpe, who is not disposed to be very favorable to Rabelais, yet says of him: "Au fond, il a, parmis beaucoup de fatras et d'ordures, des traits et même des morceaux pleins d'une verve satirique, originale et piquante; et, apres tout, on ne saurait croire qu'un auteur que La Fontaine lisais sans cesse,

et dont il a souvent profité, n'ait été qu'un fou vulgaire."*

The disposition of Rabelais was not contentious. He was a scholar, a man of letters, a wit, and a humorist. For religious controversial warfare he had, evidently, little taste, and would not have appeared in it to advantage. His mind required scholarly ease and quiet for its best development and exercise. The catholic church furnished him with the means of education, a secure asylum, and such advantages during his whole career as the student and man of letters would desire. Whether or not the church merited his gratitude for early favors, when she became to him a mother, he did well to cling to her. True, she was vulnerable, and he could and did deal her many severe thrusts, so that, from this point of view, the association between them would seem to have been altogether to his advantage. For a moment, when considering the case in this aspect, we feel like charging the satirist with drawing nourishment from the maternal breast to acquire strength with which to pierce it with the shafts of his wit. We like Rabelais for presenting his unpleasing truths in the least offensive manner that was practicable to make his strictures effective. We, by no means, blame him that he found much in the church of his fathers that he believed worthy of his admiration, and that he adhered to the communion that included so many of his esteemed friends and patrons.t

On the subject of drinking, Rabelais is excellent, convivial,