Jacques-Bénigne Lignel Bossuet
Part of a Series on the Philosophy of History
Today is the 395th anniversary of the birth of Jacques-Bénigne Lignel Bossuet (27 September 1627–12 April 1704), who was born on this date in 1627, and who came to be known as the Eagle of Meaux.
Bossuet is known in the philosophy of history for his work Discourse on Universal History. Some have characterized Bossuet’s history as being a modern re-statement of St. Augustine’s City of God, though there are significant differences between the two that should not be glossed over. However one views this interpretation of Bossuet’s work, clearly Bossuet was working in the tradition of a providential interpretation of history. His Discourse is more history than philosophy, following the traditions of universal history of his time. The book was written to instruct the Dauphin, son of Louis XIV, for whom Bossuet served as tutor for eleven years; one might compare this to Aristotle’s tutelage of Alexander, or Seneca’s tutelage of Nero, though the Dauphin went on to no career comparable to Alexander or Nero (he never ascended the throne as he pre-deceased his father).
Bossuet’s experience with the Dauphin was described by Philippe Erlanger in his Louis XIV:
“For a preceptor, the heir to the throne had Bossuet, Bishop of Condom and France’s most learned expert in divine right. This qualification had erased the memory of his bold speeches against the King’s adultery. Bossuet overwhelmed his backward pupil with such splendid lessons that the Dauphin developed a lasting horror of books, learning and history. By the age of eighteen, Monseigneur had assimilated almost none of the knowledge amassed to so little purpose, and the apathy of his mind was second only to that of his senses.”
This sounds more like Plato trying to made headway with Dionysius of Syracuse — unsuccessfully — than the reasonably cordial relationship between Aristotle and Alexander. Recall that the following was attributed to Pascal, a contemporary Bossuet:
“He was often heard to say (in connection with the education of a prince) that there was nothing to which he would sooner contribute if invited, and he would willingly give up his life for something so important.” (Pascal, Pensées, Penguin, 1984, p. 356)
One could rightly say that Bossuet must have had a similar attitude, though it seems to have come to naught, and, historically speaking, as a tradition, royal pedagogy seems to have mostly come to naught.
Near the beginning of Discourse on Universal History Bossuet explains the task of universal history as he sees it:
“…universal history is to the history of every country and of every people what a world map is to particular maps. In a particular map you see all the details of a kingdom or a province as such. But a general map teaches you to place these parts of the world in their context; you see what Paris or the Ile-de-France is in the kingdom, what the kingdom is in Europe, and what Europe is in the world.”
This is a definition of universal history to which historians who do not share Bossuet’s philosophy of history could adopt as their own. Another way of expressing the idea is that universal history gives us a “big picture” conception of history, which may be deficient in some details, but which shows us relationships between disaparent parts, which, in a more detail history, would be lost — crowded out by detail.
We get some background on the circumstances of the book from Joseph Shrembs in The Catholic Philosophy of History:
“The Discourse on Universal History is one of four great works specially written by Bossuet for the son and heir of Louis XIV and the Infanta Maria Theresa, whose preceptor he became on September 5, 1670. It was written when Bossuet had reached the full maturity of his powers. Begun in 1677 or 1678 it was published for the first time in 1681; it appeared in two other editions in Bossuet’s lifetime. It was still being subjected to revision on the eve of its author’s death. Bossuet regarded it with great satisfaction. He had written it primarily the the instruction of the Dauphin.”
Bossuet’s work could be characterized as a theological philosophy of history, a providential philosophy of history, or a Catholic philosophy of history; all three overlap, but there are potential areas of divergence if we consider a Venn diagram, which schematically lays out the possibilities, but however one schematizes these possibilities in the philosophy of history, Bossuet seems to occupy the center and to exemplify all three traditions.
Karl Löwith devoted a chapter to Bossuet in his Meaning in History. Löwith writes, “The lesson which Bossuet draws from the fact that the Son of Man and of God died without any visible mark of divine protection is that ordinary man in his extremity should not claim what has not been granted to Christ.” And then he continues:
“It is this very absence of any visible mark of providence in the history of the world which proves the need of faith in things un- seen and which evokes it. Faith does not rest on objective certainty or fifty per cent probability but rather on the absence of them. It implies commitment and risk, courage and suspense. It is a belief in what is otherwise unbelievable. To make providence post festum intelligible and transparent in the political history of the world is the attempt of unbelievers, who say, like the devil to Jesus: ‘If you are God’s son, throw yourself down’ (Matt. 4:6).” (p. 143)
I am skeptical that Bossuet would have agreed to this interpretation of his work. In Bossuet’s providential history, the world wears its providential intervention into history on its face, hidden to none:
“God’s judgment on the greatest of the world’s empires, namely, the Roman Empire, is not hidden from us. You have just heard it from the mouth of St. John. Rome itself has felt God’s hand and, like the others, has been an example of his justice. But its fate has been more fortunate than that of other cities. Purged from any remaining idolatry by the disasters it suffered, Rome continues to exist only through Christianity, which it brings to the whole world. Thus all the great empires we have seen on this earth have contributed in various ways to the welfare of religion and to the glory of God, as God himself has told us through his prophets.” (Discourse on Universal History, Part Three, Chapter 1)
The providential conception of history seeks to understand history as a process in which the divine regularly, if not continuously, intervenes in history, so that history bears the evident imprint of the divine hand that has made it so. Near the end of the book Bossuet wrote this:
“Thus God reigns over every nation. Let us no longer speak of coincidence or fortune; or let us use these words only to cover our ignorance. What is coincidence to our uncertain foresight is concerted design to a higher foresight, that is, to the eternal foresight which encompasses all causes and all effects in a single plan. Thus all things concur to the same end; and it is only because we fail to understand the whole design that we see coincidence or strangeness in particular events.”
We could think of the providential conception of history as a narrative structure rooted in a teleological future that provides the ultimate anchor by which all events in the history of the world derive their meaning and significance. Danto has argued that the logic of narrative sentences is such that new events constitute a further context for past events, so that the past is always read in the light of the present. By moving this present into a future that is by definition the eternal Kingdom of God, any events that transpire in the present are understood to take their context from this coming divine social order, which will explain everything and justify everything that precedes it. Such a view implicitly entails the immanence of providence within history, thus the historicity of salvation history. Joseph Campbell has argued that the historicity of salvation history is a distinctive feature of western society and the Christian tradition in the west, and here we can see how this is driven by the providential conception of history.
Further Resources
_________________________________________________________________
