The Life of Jesus, by Mr. Renan.

— This work is too well known today for there to be any need to make an analysis of it. We shall limit ourselves, then, to examining the point of view in which the author placed himself, and to drawing from it some consequences.

The moving dedication to the soul of his sister, which Mr. Renan places at the head of the volume, though very short, is in our opinion a capital passage, for it is a whole profession of faith. We cite it in full, because it will afford us some important observations of general interest.

TO THE PURE SOUL OF MY SISTER HENRIETTE.

Died at Byblos, on the 24th of September, 1861.

“Do you remember, from the bosom of God where you repose, those long days of Ghazir, where, alone with you, I wrote those pages inspired by the places we had just traversed? Silent at my side, you reread each leaf and recopied it as soon as it was written, while the sea, the villages, the ravines and mountains unfolded at our feet. When the stifling light gave way to the innumerable army of the stars, your fine and delicate questions, your discreet doubts brought me back to the sublime object of our common thoughts. One day you told me that you would love this book, first because it had been made with you, and then because it pleased you. If at times you feared for it the petty judgments of the frivolous man, you were always convinced that truly religious souls would end by taking pleasure in it. In the midst of these sweet meditations, death struck us both with its wing; the sleep of fever took us at the same hour; I awoke alone!… Now you sleep in the land of Adonis, near holy Byblos and the sacred waters where the women of the ancient mysteries came to mingle their tears. Reveal to me, O good genius, to me whom you loved, those truths that overcome death, that prevent us from fearing it and almost make us love it.” Unless one supposes that Mr. Renan acted out an unworthy comedy, it is impossible that such words should proceed from the pen of a man who believes in nothingness. No doubt there are writers of pliable talent who play with the most contradictory ideas and beliefs, to the point of deceiving their own feelings. This is because, like the actor, they possess the art of imitation. For them an idea need not be an article of faith; it is a theme on which they work, however little it lends itself to the imagination, and which they adapt now in one way, now in another, as circumstances require. But there are subjects which the most hardened unbeliever could not touch without committing a profanation: such is that of Mr. Renan’s dedication. In a similar case, a man of heart will prefer to abstain rather than speak against his conviction; these are not among those subjects which one chooses in order to make a strong impression. Taking the forms of this dedication as the conscientious expression of the author’s thought, there is found in it more than a vague spiritualist idea. Indeed, it is not the soul lost in the depths of space, absorbed in eternal and beatific contemplation, or in endless sorrows; nor is it the soul of the pantheist, annihilating itself in the ocean of universal intelligence: it is the picture of the individual soul, with the memory of its earthly affections and occupations, returning to the places it inhabited, near the persons it loved. Mr. Renan would not speak thus to a myth, to a being engulfed in nothingness. For him, the soul of his sister is at his side; she sees him, inspires him, takes an interest in his labors; there is between them an exchange of thoughts, a spiritual communication; without suspecting it, he makes, like so many others, a true evocation. What does this belief lack to be completely Spiritist? Material communication. Why, then, does Mr. Renan repel it, classing it among superstitious beliefs? Because he does not admit the supernatural, nor the marvelous. But if he recognized the real state of the soul after death, the properties of its perispiritual envelope, he would understand that the phenomenon of Spiritist manifestations does not escape natural laws, and that for this there is no need to have recourse to the marvelous; that, since the phenomenon must have occurred in all times and among all peoples, it has been the source of an immensity of facts erroneously qualified by some as supernatural and by others attributed to the imagination; that no one is given the power to prevent such manifestations and that, in certain cases, it is possible to provoke them. What, then, does Spiritism do, if not reveal to us a new law of Nature? It does, with respect to a certain order of phenomena, what for others was done by the discovery of the laws of electricity, of gravitation, of molecular affinity, etc. Would Science, then, have the pretension of having said the last word of Nature? Could there be anything more surprising, more marvelous in appearance, than to correspond in a few minutes with a person who is five hundred leagues away? Before the knowledge of the law of electricity, such a fact would have passed for magic, sorcery, deviltry, or miracle. Without any doubt, even a scholar to whom the fact had been related would have repelled it, and would not have lacked excellent reasons to demonstrate that it was materially impossible. Impossible, perhaps, according to the laws then known, but quite possible according to a law that was not known. Why, then, should there be more possibility of instantaneous communication with a living being, whose body is five hundred leagues away, than with the soul of that same being, which is at our side? It is, they say, because it no longer has a body. And who tells you that it does not have one? It is precisely the contrary that Spiritism comes to prove, demonstrating that if its soul no longer has the material, compact, ponderable envelope, it has a fluidic, imponderable one, which is nonetheless a kind of matter; that this envelope, invisible in its normal state, in certain circumstances and by a kind of molecular modification, can become visible, like vapor, by condensation. As we see, this is nothing but a very natural phenomenon, the key to which Spiritism gives, through the law that governs the relations between the visible world and the invisible world. Persuaded that the soul of his sister, or her Spirit, which amounts to the same thing, was near him, Mr. Renan saw and heard her, and must have believed that this soul was something. If someone had come to say to him: This soul, whose presence your thought divines, is not a vague and indefinite being; it is a being limited and circumscribed by a fluidic body, invisible like most fluids; for it death was nothing but the destruction of its corporeal envelope, but it preserved its ethereal, indestructible covering, so that you have at your side your sister, just as she was in life, minus the body which she left on Earth, as the butterfly leaves its chrysalis; in dying, she only divested herself of the gross garment, which could no longer serve her, which held her to the surface of the soil, but she preserved the light raiment, which allows her to transport herself wherever she wishes, to traverse space with the swiftness of lightning; as for the moral aspect, she is the same person, with the same thoughts, the same affections, the same intelligence, but with new perceptions, vaster, more subtle, since her faculties are no longer compressed by the heavy and compact matter through which they had to transmit themselves. Say whether this picture has anything irrational about it. By proving that it is real, is Spiritism then as ridiculous as some claim? In the final analysis, what does it do? It demonstrates in a patent manner the existence of the soul; by proving that the latter is a defined being, it gives a real object to our memories and affections. If Mr. Renan’s thought was nothing but a dream, a poetic fiction, Spiritism comes to transform that fiction into reality.

— In all times philosophy has been bound up with the search for the soul, its nature, its faculties, its origin and its destiny. Countless theories have been made on the subject, and the question has always remained in uncertainty. Why? Apparently because none has found the knot of the problem and has not resolved it in a manner satisfactory enough to convince everyone. Spiritism comes, in its turn, to give its theory. It rests upon experimental psychology; it studies the soul, not only during life, but after death; it observes it in a state of isolation; it sees it act in freedom, whereas ordinary philosophy sees it only in its union with the body, subjected to the trammels of matter, which is why it often confuses the cause with the effect. Philosophy strives to demonstrate the existence and the attributes of the soul by abstract formulas, unintelligible to the masses; Spiritism gives it palpable proofs and, so to speak, makes it touch with the finger and see, expressing itself in clear terms, within the reach of everyone. Would the simplicity of language take away its philosophical character, as certain scholars claim?

— In spite of this, in the eyes of many people Spiritist philosophy contains a grave error, and that error is enclosed in a single word. The word soul, even for unbelievers, has something respectable and imposing about it. On the contrary, the word Spirit awakens in them fantastic ideas of legends, fairy tales, will-o’-the-wisps, bogeymen, etc. They naturally admit that one may believe in the soul, although they themselves do not believe in it, but they cannot understand that one may sensibly believe in Spirits. Hence a prejudice that makes them regard this science as puerile and unworthy of their attention; judging it by its label, they believe it inseparable from magic and sorcery. If Spiritism had abstained from pronouncing the word Spirit and had, in all circumstances, substituted for it the word soul, the impression for them would have been completely different. With all rigor, these profound philosophers, these freethinkers admit that the soul of a being who was dear to us hears our laments and comes to inspire us, but they will not admit that the same occurs with his Spirit. Mr. Renan was able to place at the head of his dedication: To the pure soul of my sister Henriette; he would not have put: To the pure Spirit. Why, then, did Spiritism make use of the word Spirit? Is it an error? No, on the contrary. First, because, from the earliest manifestations and before the creation of Spiritist philosophy, that word was already used; since it was a matter of deducing the moral consequences of those manifestations, there was utility in preserving a denomination consecrated by usage, in order to show the connection between these two parts of the science. Moreover, it was evident that the prejudice attached to that word, confined to a special category of persons, was bound to fade with time. The inconvenience was only momentary.

In the second place, if for certain persons the word Spirit was a vulgar word, for the masses it was an attraction and was bound to contribute more than the other to popularizing the doctrine. Thus, then, the greater number was preferable to the lesser.

A third motive is more serious than the other two. The words soul and Spirit, although synonymous and used indifferently, do not express exactly the same idea. The soul is, properly speaking, the intelligent principle, unattainable and indefinite like thought. In the state of our knowledge, we cannot conceive of it isolated from matter in an absolute manner. The perispirit, although formed of subtle matter, makes of it a limited, defined being, circumscribed to its spiritual individuality, whence may be formulated this proposition: The union of the soul, the perispirit, and the material body constitutes MAN; the soul and the perispirit separated from the body constitute the being called SPIRIT. In manifestations, then, it is not the soul alone that presents itself; it is always clothed in its fluidic envelope; that envelope is the necessary intermediary through which it acts upon compact matter. In apparitions it is not the soul that is seen, but the perispirit, just as, when one sees a man, one sees his body, and not the thought, the force, the principle that makes him act. In summary, the soul is the simple, primitive being; the Spirit is the double being; man is the triple being. If one confounds man with his clothes, we shall have a quadruple being. In the circumstances under discussion, the word Spirit is the one that best corresponds to the thing expressed. By thought one represents to oneself a Spirit, but one does not represent to oneself a soul.

— Convinced that the soul of his sister saw and understood him, Mr. Renan could not suppose that she was alone in space. A simple reflection should have told him that the same must occur with all those who leave the Earth. The souls or Spirits thus scattered through immensity constitute the invisible world that surrounds us and in the midst of which we live, so that this world is not composed of fantastic beings, of gnomes, of goblins, of monstrous demons, but of the same beings who formed terrestrial Humanity. What is there absurd in that? The visible world and the invisible world thus find themselves in perpetual contact, whence results an incessant reaction of one upon the other; whence an immensity of phenomena that enter into the order of natural facts. Modern Spiritism did not discover them, nor invent them; it studied them better and observed them better; it sought their laws and, by that very fact, removed them from the order of marvelous facts. The facts that pertain to the invisible world and to its relations with the visible world, more or less observed in all epochs, are bound up with the history of almost all peoples and, above all, with religious history. This is why, in many passages, sacred and profane writers allude to them. It is for lack of knowledge of these relations that so many passages have remained unintelligible and have been interpreted so diversely and so falsely.

It is for this same reason that Mr. Renan was so singularly mistaken as to the nature of the facts related in the Gospel, as to the meaning of the words of Christ, his role and his true character, as we shall demonstrate in a forthcoming article [below]. These reflections, to which his preamble led us, were necessary in order to appreciate the consequences he drew from the point of view in which he placed himself.

[Review of June 1864].

THE LIFE OF JESUS, BY MR. RENAN.

(2nd article. – See the number of May 1864.)

This is one of those books that cannot be completely refuted except by another. It would need to be discussed article by article. This is a task we shall not undertake, as it touches on questions that are not within our province and with which many others will concern themselves. We shall limit ourselves to the examination of the consequences drawn by the author from the point of view in which he placed himself.

There are in this work, as in all historical works, two quite distinct parts: the account of the facts and the appraisal of the facts. The first is a question of erudition and good faith; the second depends entirely on personal opinion. Two men may agree perfectly as to the one and differ completely as to the other.

It is natural that the religious part should have been attacked, since it is a question of belief, but the historical part does not appear to be invulnerable, to judge by the criticisms of the theologians, who not only contest its appraisal, but the exactness of certain facts. We shall leave to those more competent than ourselves the care of deciding this latter question. Nevertheless, and without constituting ourselves judge of the debate, we recognize that certain criticisms are evidently well founded, but that, on several important points of History, Mr. Renan’s observations are perfectly just. Among the numerous refutations that have been made of his book, we believe we ought to point out that of Father Gratry as one of the most logical and most impartial. He there brings out with great clarity the contradictions found at every step. n Nevertheless, let us admit that Mr. Renan has in no way departed from historical truth. This does not imply the justness of his appraisal, because he did this work with a view to an opinion and with preconceived ideas. He studied the facts in order to seek in them the proof of that opinion, and not in order to form an opinion; naturally he saw only what seemed to him conformable to his way of seeing, not having seen what was contrary to it. His opinion is his measure; moreover, he says so in this passage of his introduction, on page 5: “I shall be satisfied if, after having written the life of Jesus, it is given to me to recount how I understand the history of the apostles, the state of Christian conscience during the weeks that followed the death of Jesus, the formation of the legendary cycle of the resurrection, the first acts of the Church of Jerusalem, the life of Saint Paul, etc.” There may be diverse ways of appraising a fact, but the fact in itself is independent of opinion. It is, then, a history of the apostles in his own manner that Mr. Renan proposes to write, as he wrote, in his own manner, the history of the life of Jesus. Is he in the conditions of impartiality required for his opinion to make law? Let him permit us to doubt it. Persuaded that he was right, he was able to act, and we believe that he did so in good faith and that the material errors with which he is reproached do not result from a premeditated design to alter the truth, but from a false appraisal of things. He is in the position of a conscientious man, an exclusive partisan of the ideas of the old regime, who should write a history of the French Revolution. His account may be of scrupulous exactness, but the judgment he forms of men and things will be the reflection of his own ideas; he will censure what others approve. In vain will he have traversed the places where the events unfolded; the places will confirm the facts for him, but will not make him regard them in another manner. Such was Mr. Renan, traversing Judea with the Gospel in hand; he found the traces of Christ, whence he concluded that Christ had existed, but he did not see Christ in any manner different from that in which he saw him before. Where he saw only the footsteps of a man, an apostle of the orthodox faith would have perceived the seal of Divinity. His appraisal flows from the point of view in which he placed himself. He defends himself against atheism and materialism, because he does not believe that matter thinks, because he admits an intelligent, universal principle, distributed among individuals in a dose more or less strong. What becomes of that intelligent principle after the death of each creature? If we are to believe Mr. Renan’s dedication to the soul of his sister, the latter preserves its individuality and its affections. But if the soul preserves its individuality and its affections, there is, then, an invisible, intelligent and loving world. Now, since that world is intelligent, it cannot remain inactive; it must play some role in the Universe. Well then! The entire work is the negation of that invisible world, of all active intelligence outside the visible world; consequently, of all phenomena resulting from the action of hidden intelligences, of all relation between the dead and the living, whence it must be concluded that his touching dedication is a work of the imagination, called forth by the sincere grief he feels at the loss of his sister, and that in it he expresses his desire rather than his belief. For, if he had seriously believed in the individual existence of his sister’s soul, in the persistence of her affection for him, in her solicitude, in her inspiration, that belief would have given him truer ideas about the meaning of the greater part of the words of Christ. Indeed, Christ, preoccupied with the future of the soul, incessantly alludes to the future life, to the invisible world, which he presents, consequently, as far more enviable than the material world and as having to constitute the object of all the aspirations of man. For one who sees nothing outside tangible Humanity, these words: “My kingdom is not of this world; There are many mansions in my Father’s house; Seek not treasures of the Earth, but those of heaven; Blessed are the afflicted, for they shall be consoled,” and so many others, can only have a chimerical sense. It is thus that Mr. Renan considers them. He says: “The part of truth contained in the thought of Jesus had dragged him into the chimera that obscured it. Yet let us not despise this chimera, which was the coarse husk of the sacred bulb on which we live. This fantastic kingdom of heaven, this endless search for a city of God, which has always preoccupied Christianity in its long career, was the principle of the great instinct of the future, which animated all the reformers, obstinate disciples of the Apocalypse, from Joachim of Flora, to the Protestant sectarian of our days.” (Chap. XVIII, page 285, 1st edition). n The work of Christ was wholly spiritual. Now, since Mr. Renan does not believe in the spiritualization of the being, nor in a spiritual world, he naturally was bound to take the opposite of his words and to judge them from the exclusively material point of view. A materialist or a pantheist, judging a spiritual work, is like a deaf man judging a piece of music. Judging Christ from the point of view in which he placed himself, Mr. Renan must have been mistaken as to his intentions and his character. The most evident proof of this is found in this strange passage of his book: “Jesus is not a spiritualist, since for him everything flows into a palpable realization; he has not the least notion of a soul separated from the body. But he is a complete idealist; for him matter is nothing but the sign of the idea, and the real the living expression of what does not appear.” (Chap. VII, page 128). Is it conceivable that Christ, the founder of the spiritualist doctrine par excellence, did not believe in the individuality of the soul, of which he has not the least notion, and, in this way, did not believe in the future life? If he is not a spiritualist, he is a materialist and, consequently, Mr. Renan is more of a spiritualist than he. Such words are not to be discussed; they suffice to indicate the scope of the book, because they prove that the author read the Gospels, either with much frivolity, or with a spirit so prejudiced that he did not see what leaps to the eyes of everyone. One may admit his good faith, but one will certainly not admit the justness of his vision.

All his appraisals flow from the idea that Christ had in view only earthly things. According to him, he was an essentially good man, disinterested in the goods of this world, of very gentle manners, of instruction limited to the study of the sacred texts, of superior natural intelligence, whom the religious disputes of the Jews gave the idea of founding a doctrine. In this he was favored by circumstances, which he knew how to exploit skillfully. Without preconceived idea and without definitive plan, seeing that he would have no success with the rich, he sought his point of support among the proletarians, naturally animated against the rich; by flattering them, he was bound to transform them into his friends. If he said that the kingdom of heaven is for children, it was to please the mothers, whom he took for his weak side, and to make them his partisans. Thus, under many aspects, the nascent religion was a movement of women and children. In a word, in him everything was calculation and combination and, aided by the love of the marvelous, he triumphed. Moreover, not very austere, because he loved Magdalene much, by whom he was loved. Several rich women provided for his needs. He and his apostles were merrymakers and did not disdain banquets. See rather what he says:

— “Three or four devoted Galilean women always accompanied the young master and disputed the pleasure of listening to him and caring for him, each in turn. They brought to the new sect an element of enthusiasm and of the marvelous, whose importance is already apprehended. One of them, Mary of Magdala, who made famous in the world the name of her poor village, seems to have been a very exalted person. According to the language of the time, she had been possessed by seven demons, that is, she had been afflicted with nervous diseases, apparently inexplicable. Jesus, by his pure and gentle beauty, calmed that disturbed organism. Magdalene was faithful to him unto Golgotha and, on the day following his death, played a role of the first order, having been the principal element by which faith in the resurrection was established, as we shall see later. Joanna, wife of Chuza, one of the stewards of Antipas, Susanna and others, who remained unknown, followed him without cease and served him. Some were rich and put, by their fortune, the young prophet in a condition to live without exercising the trade he had professed until then.” (Chap. IX, page 151). “Jesus understood very quickly that the official world of his time would by no means lend itself to his kingdom. He made his decision with extreme petulance. Leaving aside all those people of hardened heart and narrow prejudices, he turned toward the simple. The kingdom of God is made for children and for those who resemble them; for the despised of this world, victims of social arrogance, which repels the good but humble man… Pure Ebionism, that is, that the poor (ebionin) are the only ones to be saved and the kingdom of the poor is going to arrive, was, then, the doctrine of Jesus. (Chap. XI, page 178).

“He appreciated the states of the soul only in proportion to the love that is mingled in them. Women with hearts full of tears and disposed by their faults to sentiments of humility were nearer to his kingdom than the mediocre natures, who often have little merit for not having fallen. On the other hand, one conceives that these tender souls, finding in their conversion to the sect an easy means of rehabilitation, attached themselves to him with passion.

“Far from seeking to attenuate the murmurs provoked by his disdain for the social susceptibilities of the time, he seemed to take pleasure in exciting them. Never was that scorn of the world, which is the condition of great things and of great originality, more haughtily confessed. He pardoned the rich only when the latter, by force of some prejudice, was ill-regarded by society. He clearly preferred persons of equivocal life and of little consideration to the orthodox notables. He said: ‘Publicans and harlots will go before you into the kingdom of God. John came; publicans and harlots believed in him and, in spite of this, you did not convert.’ One understands that the reproach for not having followed the good example given to them by the daughters of pleasure was bound to be cruel for people who made profession of austerity and of a rigid morality. “He had no exterior affectation, nor did he show any signs of severity. He did not flee from joy and went willingly to wedding feasts. One of his miracles was performed to enliven the wedding of a village. Weddings in the Orient take place at night. Each one carries a lamp; the lights that come and go have a very agreeable effect. Jesus loved this gay and animated aspect and drew from it his parables. (Chap. XI, page 187).

“The Pharisees and the doctors cried out, scandalized. They said: See with what people he eats! Jesus then had subtle replies, which exasperated the hypocrites: It is not the healthy who need a physician.” (Chap. XI, page 185).

Mr. Renan takes care to indicate, in reference notes, the passages of the Gospel to which he alludes, in order to show that he relies on the text. It is not the truth of the citations that is contested, but the interpretation he gives them. It is thus that the profound maxim of this last paragraph is travestied into a simple witty sally. Everything is materialized in the thought of Mr. Renan; in all the words of Jesus he sees nothing beyond the down-to-earth, because he himself sees nothing outside material life.

After an idyllic description of Galilee, of its delicious climate, of its luxuriant fertility, of the gentle and hospitable character of its inhabitants, of whom he makes true shepherds of Arcadia, he finds, in the disposition of spirit that was bound to result from it, the source of Christianity.

— “This contented and easily satisfied life did not lead to the gross materialism of our peasant, to the great gaiety of a generous Norman woman, to the heavy gaiety of the Flemings. It spiritualized itself into ethereal dreams, into a kind of poetic mysticism, confounding Heaven and Earth… Joy will form part of the kingdom of God. Is it not the daughter of the humble of heart, of the men of good will?”

“The whole history of nascent Christianity became a kind of delicious pastoral. A Messiah at wedding repasts, the courtesan and the good Zacchaeus called to his feasts, the founders of the kingdom of heaven, like a procession of groomsmen: behold what Galilee dared and made accepted.” (Chap. IV, page 67).

“Jesus was dominated by a sentiment of admirable profundity, as well as the group of joyful children who accompanied him, and made of him for eternity the true creator of peace of the soul, the great consoler of life.” (Chap. X, page 176).

“Utopias of blessed life, founded on the fraternity of men and the pure worship of the true God, preoccupied elevated souls and everywhere produced bold, sincere attempts, but of little future.” (Chap. X, page 172).

“In the Orient, the house into which a stranger enters becomes, thereupon, a public place. The whole village gathers there; the boys invade it; the servants drive them away; they always come back. Jesus could not bear that these ingenuous listeners should be mistreated; he drew them near to him and embraced them. The mothers, encouraged by such a welcome, brought him their babies that he might touch them… The women and the children equally adored him…

“Thus, the nascent religion was, under several aspects, a movement of women and children. The latter surrounded him in the fashion of a young guard for the inauguration of his innocent royalty and gave him little ovations, which pleased him much, calling him son of David, crying: Hosanna! and waving palms around him. Like Savonarola, perhaps Jesus made them serve as instruments of pious missions. He was quite at ease to see these young apostles, who did not compromise him, cast themselves forward and confer upon him titles that he himself did not dare to take.” (Chap. XI, page 190).

Jesus is, in this way, presented as a vulgar ambitious man, of petty passions, who acts in secret and has not the courage to confess himself. For lack of an effective royalty, he contents himself with the most innocent and least dangerous one that the boys confer upon him. The following passage makes of him an egoist:

“But from all this there resulted neither a Church established in Jerusalem, nor a group of Hierosolymite [Jerusalemite] disciples. The charming doctor, who pardoned everyone, provided they loved him, could not find much echo in that sanctuary of vain disputes and antiquated sacrifices.”

“His family seems not to have loved him and, at moments, he is harsh toward it. Like all men exclusively preoccupied with an idea, he came to hold the ties of blood in little account… Soon, in his audacious revolt against Nature, he was bound to go still further, and we shall see him trampling on all that is of man, blood, love, fatherland, keeping resentment only for the idea that presented itself to him as the absolute form of the good and the true.” (Chap. III, pages 42 and 43).

Behold what Mr. Renan entitles: Origins of Christianity. Who would ever have believed that a group of joyful people, a band of women, of courtesans and of children, having at their head an idealist who possessed not the least notion of the soul, could, aided by a utopia, by the chimera of a celestial kingdom, change the face of the religious, social and political world? In another article we shall examine the manner in which he regards the miracles and the nature of the person of Christ.

[1]

[Vie de Jésus, par Ernest Renan — Google Books.]

[2] Brochure in-18 – Price: 1 fr.; Plon, 8, rue Garancière. [Jésus-Christ:

réponse à m. Renan — Google Books. — See also: [Le livre de l’Abbé Anglade sur ouvrage de M. Renan. - Google Books.]

[3] All our citations are taken from the 1st edition.