Chapter II: Part 2

XLII. I should be sorry if what I have just now said, should induce in my readers, a disesteem for two such respectable writers, as Paulus Emilius, and father Nicholas Causinus. I know the great merit of both the one and the other of them, and I venerate more in the second, the candour of his mind, and the integrity of his heart, than his great wisdom and learning. He, in a particular instance of his life, gave a striking proof of his virtue; which was, that, in order to guide in a right train the conscience of a monarch, who, by making him his confessor, had confided to him the direction of his religious conduct, he had voluntarily exposed himself to, and felt the effects of the resentment of a furious and vindictive minister, who governed every thing. But the greatest men, sometimes give tokens of their being no more than men; and I have purposely noted these defects in two authors, so celebrated as Paulus Emilius and father Causinus; in order to shew, how strong the temptation is in a writer, to ornament his history with something of his own invention, if authors of the especial credit of those I have just mentioned, are now and then liable to fall into this mistake.

XLIII. Our eloquent countryman, the illustrious Guevara, has been very much taken notice of for having used this licence, not only by foreign authors, but those of our own nation also; which freedom he has exercised to such a degree, that Nicholas Antonio says, he took the liberty of ascribing to antient authors his own fictions, and sported and made as free with all history, as a man would do with the fables of Esop, or the fictitious tales of Lucian. His life of Marcus Aurelius, with respect to the veracity of it, is not held in better estimation among the critics, than the Cyrus of Xenophon. It certainly cannot be denied, that he did not scruple to introduce circumstances of fancy and imagination into his writings, when he thought they would contribute strikingly to the entertainment of the reader: such for example (in order to point out the cause or origin of the extraordinary cruelty of Caligula) as that of attributing it to the conduct or disposition of the nurse that suckled him, who was a masculine fierce woman, and had for some slight offence killed another woman, whose blood she bathed her nipples with; and, while they were wet with it, applied the lips of the infant Caligula to them. He quotes Dion Cassius as his author for this tale, although in Dion Cassius there is no such relation to be found.

SECT. XIV.

XLIV. We have not as yet said any thing of the fictitious chronicles, and supposititious Histories imputed to various authors, such as Dictys of Crete, Abdias of Babylon, the many fabricated by Annias of Viterbo, Bervosus, Manethon, Megasthenes, and Fabius Pictor; the Cave of Magdeburgh, cited by Ruxnerus, the Encolpio inverted by Thomas Elliot; together with the Chronicles of Flavius Dexter, Marcus Maximus, Aubertus, and many others, of which in Spain there has been so much talk. These supposititious histories were the fountains, from whence were derived innumerable errors, for before the imposture of them was discovered, many writers, who were men of veracity, deduced accounts from them, which they afterwards came to be named as the authors of; nor was the circumstance of their having imbibed them at those vitiated fountains, ever adverted to. This species of writings, may be compared to the doblons, which they say are put into peoples hands by the Devil; they at first have the appearance of gold, but are afterwards found to be charcoal. How great was the transport of Wolfangus Lacy, a man in other respects very learned, when he fancied that in a corner of Corinthia, he had met with the manuscript of Abdias of Babylon. Great numbers of editions of this book were published in a short space of time, it being universally thought, that the world had found in it a most precious treasure. It may be easily conceived, that a work of an author of such eminence as one of the seventy-two disciples of our Lord Christ, and the Bishop of Babylon, established by the apostles themselves, would have been thought of inestimable value, provided it had been genuine. But the deception was afterwards discovered, by the very context of the relation; and Pope Paul the Fourth, condemned the book as apocryphal.

SECT. XV.

XLV. With all the principles and causes hitherto pointed out, of error in history, co-operates that of little reading. He who reads little, frequently mistakes the doubtful for the certain, and sometimes the false also. Generally speaking, in all the human theoretic faculties, much study produces an effect different from that produced by mathematical study. In this last science, the more a man studies, the more he knows; in the others, the more he reads, the more he doubts. In the mathematics, the study proceeds to remove doubts; in the others, it goes on to increase them. For instance, he who studies philosophy only under one master, all that master says, provided he is one of those who speak positively and decidedly, he takes for granted. If he afterwards extends his inquiries, and has recourse to others, although they should be of the same school, the Aristotelic for example, he will begin to entertain doubts, which will be occasioned by the nature of their disputes among themselves; but he will still retain a firm assent to the principles in which they are all agreed. If he afterwards reads with reflexion, and free from all prejudice or pre-occupation, the works of authors of other sects, he will begin to entertain doubts of even the principles themselves.

XLVI. The same thing happens with respect to history. He who reads a general history of the world, a kingdom, or a century, in one author only, takes for granted all that is advanced by that author; and when, in any future time, it occurs to him to speak or to write on the subject, he asserts with confidence all he has read in that author. If, afterwards, he applies himself to read books written by other authors on the same subject, he will begin to entertain doubts of what he read in the first, and the further he extends his reading, the more he will increase his doubts; it being infallible, that the new contradictions which he will ever find in authors, must beget in his mind a succession of fresh doubts, till at last he will perceive many relations to be either false or doubtful, which, in the beginning, he looked upon as absolutely certain.

XLVII. In order to give a palpable demonstration of this truth, and to point out some of the common errors of history, which is the principal object I always have in view; I will introduce in this place, a catalogue of many and various events of different ages; which already in the general run of books, and the opinion of the vulgar, pass for indisputable, and will, at the same time, state together with them, the reasons for placing them in a doubtful point of view, or the evidence which convicts them of falsehood.

SECT. XVI.

_The beautiful Helen._

XLVIII. Let us begin to clear up these mistakes and contradictions, where profane history begins. It is generally assented to, that the rape of Helen, executed by Paris the son of Priam, and the refusal of the Trojans to deliver her up to her husband Menelaus, was the cause of the Trojan war. The common opinion supposes, that, after this transaction, Helen lived in Troy with Paris during the whole time of the war.

XLIX. This fact, which is taken for granted, is not so certain as not to admit of serious doubts respecting the truth of it. Herodotus, although he allows of her having been carried away forcibly by Paris, denies that she ever was in Troy. He says, that from Greece Paris carried his beautiful prize to a port in Egypt, where king Protheus took her away from him; and says likewise, it is true the Greeks commenced the war against Troy, upon a supposition that Helen was confined there; and that although the Trojans, with great positiveness and truth, denied the fact, the Greeks could never be prevailed on to believe them; but that, after the war was concluded, and they were convinced of their mistake, Menelaus sailed to Egypt, and recovered his wife out of the hands of Protheus. I know very well, that Herodotus is not reputed an historian of the greatest veracity; but who of equal antiquity to Herodotus, favours the common opinion? I believe none but poets; and these deserve much less credit than Herodotus in the case of an historical event. Servius likewise, not only denies that Helen ever was in Troy, but asserts also, she was not the occasion of the war, for that it arose from the ill treatment of the Trojans to Hercules, in refusing him entrance into their city, when he went in search of his beloved Hylas.

SECT. XVII.

_Dido queen of Carthage._

L. The loves of Dido and Eneas, did not originate in the city of Carthage, but in the poem of Virgil, into which the author introduced the tale, with a view of ornamenting his work with this partly tragical, and partly festive fiction. The most learned chronologers, after exact enquiry into the matter, find, that the loss of Troy, and the voyage of Eneas, were two, some say three hundred years prior to the founding of Carthage by queen Dido.

SECT. XVIII.

_Penelope, the wife of Ulysses._

LI. As the beforenamed queen was so unhappy as to have imputed to her some gross amours, which she never was guilty of; Penelope, the wife of Ulysses, has been so fortunate as to have nobody at this time dispute her honesty, because of late days it has been much the fashion to celebrate it; but this was not the case formerly. Franciscus Floridus Sabinus says, “that Homer’s representing Penelope chaste was no less a fiction, than Virgil’s representing Dido lewd.” In opposition to the pretended virtue of Penelope, he quotes the poet Lycrophon, and the historian Duris of Samos: which second describes Penelope to have been a most vile prostitute; and Thomas Dempster adds, to corroborate this, the authority of an ancient historian, called Lysander, who says the same with Duris of Samos.

SECT. XIX.

_The labyrinth of Crete._

LII. Pliny gives an account of four famous labyrinths, that of Egypt, that of Crete, that of Lemnos, and that of Italy. The first was esteemed the most compleat as well as the most ancient and magnificent. That of Crete, although exceedingly inferior in grandeur to that of Egypt (for it was only so diminutive an imitation of the Egyptian one, that, according to the author before quoted, it was not a hundredth part so big), had the lot to make more noise in the world than the eminent original. This, without doubt, proceeded from the fanciful imaginations and loquacity of the Greeks, who, as it was nearer their neighbourhood, talked more of it than they did of the others; and, according to their genius and custom, transformed the truth of some immaterial facts into portentous fables: the amour of Pasiphaë with Taurus, for example, who according to some was general of Minos’s army, and according to others his secretary, they converted into a lascivious bestiality with a bull, and they metamorphosed the first of the two sons that were the offspring of this princess, who was begotten by the adulterer Taurus, into a monster, which was half man and half ox, which they called a minotaur; for whose confinement the labyrinth of Crete was destined, where, with the threads of Ariadne, he was enjoined to weave in tapestry the adventures of Theseus. I say, that these fictions, promulged to all the world by the loquacity of the Greeks, made that labyrinth so famous and so much talked of, that the name of it is familiar to people of the lowest class, although they never mention, nor have the least idea of any other.

LIII. Notwithstanding this, it is probable, that such a labyrinth never existed. The most learned prelate, Peter Daniel Huet, upon the faith of some authors he quotes, whose testimony he enforces with probable conjectures of his own, firmly denies that it ever was in being; and says, the fiction was derived from two great winding caverns at the foot of Mount Idas, which were made by king Minos in digging stones at that place, wherewith to build the city of Cnoso, and other large towns. He adds, that these caverns are still remaining, and that Peter Belonius, a famous traveller of the sixteenth century, testifies his having seen them. What Pliny says, is not unfavourable to this opinion, who declares, that although in his time there remained vestigies of the labyrinth of Egypt, which was the most antient, there were not the least traces to be found of that of Crete.

SECT. XX.

_Of Eneas, and his coming into Italy_.

LIV. The coming of Eneas into Italy, his wars, and marriages with the daughter of king Latinus, have, besides the relation of the facts being opposite and contradictory, some testimonies of antiquity to controvert them. Leseches, a very ancient poet of Lesbos, is quoted, who affirms, that Eneas was given up for a slave to Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles. Demetrius, of Scepsis, says, that Eneas, after the destruction of Troy, retired to the city of Scepsis, which was situated within the Trojan dominions, and that both he and his son Ascanius reigned there. According to Hegesippus, Eneas died in retirement at Thrace. Others relate, that after the departure of the Greeks, he rebuilt the city of Troy, and reigned there. These, and many other opinions respecting Eneas, may be found in the Dictionary of Moreri.

SECT. XXI.

_Romulus._

LV. The foundation of Rome by Romulus is contested also. Jacob Hugo, in his book entitled _Vera Historia Romana_, denies his having been the founder of it. Jacob Gronovius, in a dissertation on the origin of Romulus, which is quoted in the Republic of Letters, acknowledges that he founded Rome, but says, he was a stranger, and consequently considers as fabulous all that is said of his birth, parents, and ancestors. And although these opinions are founded in mere conjectures, the doubt that arises out of them is greatly fortified by the confession of Livy, who declares the antiquities of Rome are very doubtful and obscure.

SECT. XXII.

_The cruel Busiris._

LVI. The cruelty of Busiris, king of Egypt, who is said to have put to death all strangers that came, or rather were brought into his dominions, has been so trumpeted by the voice of fame, as to become a proverb. Apolodorus was the first broacher of the rumour of this barbarity; and the poets, whose votes in establishing the truth of events are of little weight, have concurred with him in propagating it. Diodorus Siculus condemns this story for fabulous, and declares the origin of it sprung from a barbarous custom which was practised in that country, of sacrificing to the manes of Osiris all the fair-haired people that came in their way; and, as almost all the Egyptians had black-hair, the lot most commonly fell upon strangers. He adds, that Busiris, in the Egyptian language, signifies the tomb of Osiris; and the name which was meant to express the place where the sacrifice was made, by equivocation, was brought to signify the author of the cruelty. Strabo, who cites Eratosthenes for his author, who was a person very famous for his knowledge of Egyptian antiquities, and who had the care of the great library at Alexandria in the reign of Ptolemy Evergetes, asserts, that there never was in Egypt either king or tyrant of the name of Busiris, and, with regard to the origin of the fable, says just as Diodorus does.

SECT. XXIII.

_The Two Artemisias._

LVII. We find the fame of Artemisia, queen of Caria, greatly celebrated in many histories, for her tenderness, constancy, and the conjugal affection she bore to her husband Mausoleus, for whom she erected that magnificient sepulchre, which is esteemed one of the seven wonders of the world; and we find her equally applauded for her prudent conduct and martial spirit in the war which Xerxes waged against the Greeks, and for her behaviour upon many other occasions. But in their descriptions they blended two different Artemisias in one, who were both queens of Caria, and are distinguished by antient writers. She, who, in their accounts of them, they place second, was much more antient than the other; for she was daughter of the first Lygdamis, who was the daughter of the last Hecatombe. From hence it should be observed, that she, who gave her name to the herb Artemisa, was not the wife of Mausoleus, whom Pliny has mistaken her for, but the daughter of Lygdamis; because in Hippocrates, who was anterior to the wife of Mausoleus, we find the herb called by the name of Artemisa.

SECT. XXIV.

_Dionysius the Elder._

LVIII. Dionysius the first, of Sicily, is stigmatized for one of the most merciless tyrants the world ever knew; insomuch that we never hear his name mentioned without the addition of the epithet Tyrant. Notwithstanding this, there is room to doubt whether he was deserving of this treatment. The historian Philistus, who applauds and defends him, is known to have wrote his history while he was in a state of banishment from Syracuse, his own country, into which he had been sent by this very Dionysius; which is a circumstance that ought to weigh with all those that don’t reason like Pausanias and Plutarch, who say he flattered Dionysius, in hopes of being recalled from his banishment. But this is pure conjecture, and cannot alter the fact; which is, that while he lived out of his dominions, and had cause to be dissatisfied with him, he praised him. The case of Thucydides with Pericles was similar to this; and no one scruples to regard as sincere the commendations which Thucydides gives of that leader, or doubts the justness of the applause the author bestows on his virtue at a time when he was banished from Athens, and persecuted by that same Pericles.

SECT. XXV.

_Apelles and Campaspe._

LIX. It is told, that when Apelles was painting the picture of Campaspe, the beautiful concubine of Alexander, naked, which he was ordered to do by that prince; he, while he was employed in executing the task, fell violently in love with the object of his pencil; of which Alexander being informed, manifested a piece of generosity and liberality, which had scarce ever been heard of before, in ceding Campaspe to be possessed by Apelles. Thus Pliny and Ælian relate the thing; but this seems improbable and incompatible with what Plutarch says, who tells us, that the first woman with whom Alexander began to be incontinent, was Barsene, the beautiful widow of Memnon; and, upon a critical examination of things, we shall find the account of Apelles with Campaspe prior to the amour of Alexander with Barsene.

SECT. XXVI.

_Sextus, Tarquin, and Lucretia._

LX. Whenever the adventure of Sextus the son of Tarquin, with the beautiful Lucretia, is talked of, people generally suppose that insult was perpetrated by means of immediate and rigorous violence; which is a circumstance that would greatly have aggravated the crime of the invader, and have apologized for the innocence and virtue of that generous Roman lady. But the thing, as Titus Livius and Dionysius Halicarnassus relate it, happened in the following manner. Sextus, in the dead of night, came to the bed-side of Lucretia, with a drawn sword in his hand, and after waking her intimated to her, first of all, that she should be quiet and not make a noise, for that, upon the first shriek she gave, he would plunge the sword into her bosom. To this intimation succeeded intreaties; and to the intreaties promises; which he carried so far, according to one of the before-named authors, as to assure her, that upon her condescending, he would make her his queen. When Sextus found that neither promises nor intreaties would avail, he proceeded to threatenings. He told her he would instantly put her to death, if she did not comply with his desires. This was not capable of vanquishing the constancy of Lucretia; and finally perceiving all other stratagems useless, the cunning youth had recourse to one of signal force and efficacy; which was, trying to overcome honour with honour; for this, like a diamond, resists the impression of all other entities, and can only be wrought or penetrated by those of its own species. He intimated to Lucretia, that, if she did not consent, he would not only murder her, but would put to death a slave also, whose dead body he would lay by the side of hers in her own bed; so that when day-light came, and they should be found thus lying together, she would be exposed to the public disgrace of having been an adultress with so vile a person. Lucretia had not fortitude to resist this last attack, but surrendered her honour to escape infamy; for which criminal condescension, she afterwards punished herself with excessive rigour, by taking away her own life.

SECT. XXVII.

_The Burning Glasses of Archimedes and Proclus._

LXI. The artifice, by which we are told Archimedes burnt the Roman ships, which, under the command of Marcellus, were employed in the siege of Syracuse, has been plausibly represented by historians; and has exercised the ingenuity of not a few _mathematicians_, to find out how this could have been effected. It is said, Archimedes did it by concentrating the rays of the sun in the focus of a large burning glass, and reflecting them on the ships. I judge, that this narration, although so much vulgarized in authors, is fabulous; and my reason for being of this opinion is, that none of the antients who treat of the siege of Syracuse relate any such circumstance; nor does there appear the least mention of the burning-glasses of Archimedes, either in Polybius, Livy, Plutarch, Florus, Pliny, or Valerius Maximus: and it is very remarkable, that the three first of these authors, treat very largely and particularly of the machinations and contrivances which Archimedes made use of to destroy the Roman ships. How then is it credible, that they should all have been silent about the effect of the burning-glasses, if there had been any such things used?

The first author in whom we meet with this information is Galen; to whose testimony, besides his not being a historian by profession, and having wrote four hundred years after the siege of Syracuse, may be made another objection; which is, that he does not assert the thing positively, but only speaks of it in the general terms of its being so said.

LXII. Thus much for the fact; but, with regard to the possibility of executing the deed, the mathematicians who have disputed on the subject are of various opinions, some denying the possibility, and others affirming it. All the difficulty in the execution seems to depend upon the distance of the ships from the walls, which some suppose to have been so great, that it was next to impossible to make a burning-glass of such a size that the focus of it would have been capable of reaching them. It is proper to observe here, that the distance to which the focus or burning point may be extended, bears a certain proportion to the diameter of the glass. Some have fancied that they had found out a contrivance, by which the burning-glass might be made to set fire to a thing at any given distance; but the best mathematicians consider as chimerical, the infinite extension of the line of the focus; which being excluded, and the supposed distance the moderns allow to have been between the ships and the walls established, which, according to Father Kircher, who extends it the furthest, was thirty geometrical paces; it will hardly be found possible to have made a glass that was large enough to set the ships on fire. To obviate this difficulty, some have imagined they had recourse to the invention of many concave or parabolical glasses, which reflected the rays from one to the other. But I can’t help remarking on the mathematicians, who have treated of this matter, a great mistake, which they have been led into with regard to the supposed distance: for Polybius, Livy, and Plutarch, place the ships so near the walls, that the people on board them were capable of annoying the besieged with darts and other missive weapons tipped with iron; and Polybius goes so far as to say, that with ladders resting on the ships, the Romans could pass from them to the walls; and if this was the fact, there was no necessity to have recourse to a burning-glass of so large a size, that it was next to impossible to have made, in order to set fire to the ships. Thus it appears to me, that we may safely deny the fact in opposition to the generality of the historians; and affirm the possibility, in opposition to the common opinion of the mathematicians. _Vid. Buffon._

LXIII. It is said of a celebrated mathematician named Proclus, who lived in the reign of the emperor Anastasius, that he did the same with Archimedes, that is, with burning glasses, set fire to the ships with which count Vitalianus besieged Constantinople. The silence of all the authors with respect to this matter, who were prior to Zonaras, and who gave accounts of the war between Anastasius and Vitalianus, is an argument against the probability of it; for neither Evagrius the scholiast, who lived in the same century that war happened, which was the sixth, nor count Marcelinus, who flourished in the seventh, nor Cedrenus, who wrote in the eleventh, speak a word of Proclus or his burning-glasses. Zonaras, who lived in the twelfth, is the first who gives any relation of them, though he does not positively affirm the truth of it, but only tells us the story with an _it is so said_, or reported. I add to this, that count Marcelinus informs us count Vitalianus did not raise the siege of Constantinople because his fleet was destroyed, but because the emperor Anastasius solicited and procured the raising the siege, by means of a large sum of money, and other magnificent presents which he sent to count Vitalianus.

LXIV. I recollect also, that in a work called The Theatre of Human Life, we find Evagrius, and Paul the Deacon, quoted in favour of the story of the burning-glasses of Proclus; but neither in one or other of these authors is there the least mention of such glasses; from whence we may infer that these great compilations are exposed to great mistakes.

SECT. XXVIII.

_Communication of the Red Seas with the Mediterranean._

LXV. We read in various histories, that some princes endeavoured to make a communication between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, by means of a cut from the Red Sea to the Nile; but that, in the execution of the work, they met with such difficulties that were next to insuperable; the principal of which was the apprehension that the Red Sea being much higher than the Nile, its waters would inundate Egypt. In the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris, in the year 1702, when they were examining the geographical map which Monsieur Boutier had made of Egypt, they examined this point also, and found that such an apprehension was chimerical: they push’d their enquiries further, and discovered, upon reading some antient historians, that there was great reason to conclude, that in the very remote ages there had been such a canal of communication.

SECT. XXIX.

_Pharamond, the Salique Law, and Twelve Peers of France._

LXVI. We have said before, that Charles Sorrel doubted the existence of Pharamond, whom the French consider as their first king. Mons. du Haillan does not go quite so great a length as this, but denies positively that that prince ever passed to the Gallic side of the Rhine. He denies likewise he instituted the Salique law; and holds as fabulous also the story of Charles the Great having been the institutor of the twelve peers of France.

SECT. XXX.

_The Sacred Oil of Rheims, and the French Fleurs de Lis._

LXVII. The fact of the singular glory resulting to the French monarchy and its kings on account at the coronation of Clodovicus, the oil with which he was consecrated, together with the fleurs de lis, having descended from Heaven, the first brought by a dove, and the second by an angel; I say the certainty of this fact is not so firmly established among the French themselves, as that some of their own authors do not entertain a doubt of it; because when they tell the story, they make use of the expressions, it is so said, it is so reported, and it is believed, &c. The silence of St. Gregory of Turene upon this head, who wrote so extensively upon miracles, and of whom some have remarked, that he was exceedingly credulous, is, with many people, a convincing proof that there never was such a prodigy. The silence of Paulus Emilius also on the matter, who was a noble and general historian of the affairs of France, is an argument, that he looked upon the story as fabulous; because if he had thought it probable, he would surely not have omitted to mention it.

SECT. XXXI.

_Origin of Salutation upon Sneezing._

LXVIII. Some fix the custom of saluting and praying for a blessing on those who sneeze, to have commenced in the reign of St. Gregory, in whose time Rome was visited with a melancholy pestilence, of which a sneeze was the fatal crisis, as immediately after that the patient died; and that the holy pontif ordained, that this salutation and blessing should be established as a remedy to avert the evil; and from thence this benediction and praying for the preservation of any one who sneezed came to be in use ever afterwards. This tradition, although generally received, is evidently fabulous. We are told by Aristotle, that in his time it was the common practice to bless people when they sneezed. In his Problems, sect. xxxiii. quæst. 7. and 9. he enquires into the cause of this custom, and accounts for it in the following manner: that sneezing is an indication that the head, which is the noblest and most sacred part of a man, is well disposed and in good order; on which account people reverence sneezing: _Perinde igitur, quasi bonæ indicium valetudinis partis optimæ, atque sacerimæ, sternutamentum adorant beneque augurantur._ This matter was treated of in the Academy Royal of Inscriptions, where they produced testimonies, that not only among the Greeks and Romans this was a common practice, but that the Spaniards upon their first discovery of the New World, found it established there also. Mons. Morin, a Member of that Academy, tells us, that the common tradition which at present prevails, with respect to the origin of these salutations, was produced by another fabulous tradition of much greater antiquity. This was that of the Rabbins, quoted in the Talmudic Lexicon of Buxtorf; which says, that God, at the beginning of the world, established it as a general law, that men should never sneeze more than once, and that immediately after it they should die; that things went uniformly on in this way, without varying in a single instance, till the days of the patriarch Jacob; who, in a second struggle he had with God, obtained the revocation of this law; and that all the princes of the world, upon being informed of this event, ordained, that their subjects in future, should accompany the act of sneezing with words of thanksgiving and prayers for health. Our tradition bears such an analogy to the rabbinical one, that although it is not quite so extravagant, it seems probable, that the first fable begat the second.

SECT. XXXII.

_Queen Brunequilda._

LXIX. Queen Brunequilda of France is execrated by nearly all sorts of authors as the worst woman the world ever knew. The wickednesses they attribute to her are innumerable and enormous; an unbridled lust, which attended her from her early youth till she attained the age of seventy-one; a furious ambition, to which she sacrificed all obligations, both human and divine; an outrageous cruelty, which sacrificed as victims to her resentment or ambition infinite numbers of innocent people, by poison or the dagger, and among them some of royal race. Who could imagine that any one would venture to stand up in defence of a woman, the relation of whose conduct has stained the page of all histories, which speak of her, with blood? Notwithstanding this, there appears an evidence on her behalf, whose testimony, if you give it the credit his merit and character intitle him to, will avert the force of the accusation, and cause it to vanish in smoke. This is the great Gregory, who, in two letters he wrote to that queen, covers her with eulogiums, and goes so far in one of them, as to congratulate the French nation upon the happiness of being governed by a queen, who was an illustrious pattern of all kinds of virtues: _Præ aliis gentibus gentem Francorum asserimus felicem, quæ sic bonis omnibus præditam meruit habere reginam._ (lib. 1. epist. 8.) It is proper to observe, that the date of these letters, is posterior some years to the perpetration of most of the iniquities with which Brunequilda is charged.

SECT. XXXIII.

_Mahomet._

LXX. It is so currently asserted by all our writers, that the false prophet Mahomet was of low extraction, that the truth of it has come to be believed in all Christian countries, as an historical dogma. But the Arabic authors unanimously agree, that he was descended from the Corasinan family, which was one of the most noble and ancient of Mecca. It is true, that these may be mistaken; but then they are the only people who could know any thing of the matter.

LXXI. On the other hand, Ludovicus Maraccius, an author of eminence, and one who was most learned in Mahometan affairs, in the Prologue to his Prodromus, or refutation of the Alcoran, sufficiently gives us to understand, that in our histories, there are many fables respecting that remarkable Imposture: he says, that the Mahometans laugh at the stories which some of our historians relate of Mahomet; and this judicious author adds, that this serves to confirm and make them stiff in their erroneous belief. I have no doubt but it has this effect, because it is natural to suppose it would beget an aversion in them towards Christians, and a distrust of all they affirm, even with regard to things appertaining to their own dogmas. Therefore those who think they do any service to religion, by relating all the ill things they can pick up of the enemies to it, without a sufficient examination into the truth of them, and especially of the chiefs or leaders of sects, are so far from accomplishing the end they wish to obtain, that thereby they do the cause they mean to serve a notable injury. What purpose, for example, would it answer, to tell a Lutheran, that the leader of his sect was the son of a devil incubate? it would answer no other, than that of irritating and persuading him of the truth of what his doctors had told him, viz. that we invent all kinds of fictions, which may conduce to serve the cause we defend. The same may be said of the sin of Sodomy imputed to John Calvin, if the accusation is not just, which is a point that I am sure I cannot determine; and likewise of all other imputations of this sort. I am very clear, that we should expose all the immoral practices of the founders of false religions, that would tend to render them infamous, provided we can maintain the truth of the allegations we bring against them; and many charges of this sort might be brought against some of them that could be supported, and especially against Luther. But in cases where nothing can be clearly made out, let us not mix the certain with the uncertain; and above all, let us avoid introducing the false.

LXXII. But to return to Mahomet, not only with regard to his birth, but even with respect to those circumstances of his life, which have no connection with, or tendency to clearing up the truth or falsehood of his doctrines, the European and Arabic authors are totally opposite in their accounts of him; and to such a degree do they differ, that Ludovicus Maraccius says, that both one and the other of them, when they are speaking of the same Mahomet, seem as if they were describing two distinct men. There is nothing more firmly established and more generally assented to among us, than that the monk Nestorianus Sergius was his tutor and principal counsellor; but, notwithstanding this, Maraccius thinks, that it was much more likely his master and director was some Jew: the probability of which conjecture, he founds in the many Talmudical and Rabbinical fables with which the Alcoran abounds. Neither is there any certainty in what is said of the tame dove, which was used to put its beak into his ear, and which he pretended was the archangel Gabriel. The history of Mahomet, as given us by Maraccius, the materials for writing which, he affirms, were extracted from the most chosen Arabian authors, sets forth, that the apparitions of the archangel Gabriel to Mahomet, were very frequent; but that he did not come in the shape of a dove, nor in any other form that was perceptible to other people; nor could the apparition be discerned by his wife Cadighe, although she had been often present with him, at the times in which he professed to have seen it. I also know, that Edward Pocock, a writer of great veracity, says, that he never met with the story of the dove in any Arabian author.

LXXIII. We have one, or rather two other fables to refute, with respect to Mahomet, that both relate to the place of his interment. The first says, that he was buried at Mecca; but this is an error, which is not accepted at present by any but the lowest of the vulgar; for it is generally known by other people, that he was interred at Medina, a city of Arabia Felix, distant from Mecca four days journey. The perigrinations of the Mahometans to Mecca, are made on account of their prophet having been born there, and also out of a regard they profess to have for a house in that city, which they say was built by Adam; and after the deluge, was rebuilt and inhabited by Abraham. The second fable, which may be termed a common error, is that of the body being suspended in the air in an iron chest, which is held up, and kept in equilibrio, by the magnetic power of some load-stones placed in the roof of the chapel where it remains. Edward Pocock says, the Mahometans are ready to burst their sides with laughter, when they hear any of us say these tales are firmly credited in the Mahometan countries. The truth is, that it is well known, from the testimony of many credible people who have been in those countries, that there is no such suspension of the body of Mahomet in the air; nor, according to good natural philosophy, is it possible that there should be any such thing; for the magnetic virtue being liable to alterations, the attractive power of the load-stones could not always continue to act with the same force, or in the same proportion; in consequence of which, the equilibrium could not be preserved. Father Cabeus tells us, that with a great deal of labour and difficulty, he accomplished the suspension of a needle between two load-stones, but that the suspension did not continue longer than the time in which you could repeat four hexameter verses, and that then it adhered to one of the load-stones. For this reason, we ought to esteem as fabulous, what some authors relate of an Image of the Sun, which was made of iron, and which remained suspended by load-stones in the Temple of Serapis at Alexandria.

SECT. XXXIV.

_Kings of France, of the Merovingian Line._

LXXV. The cause of the translation of the Crown of France, from the Merovingian to the Carlovingian line, was, for a long time, and without the least contradiction, believed to have proceeded from the incapacity of the princes of the first race to govern; and this was the motive assigned by various authors and chronologers for the transaction; but it having been afterwards found out, that they all copied this story from Eginardus, who was antecedent to these writers; and it having been also discovered that there was reason for suspecting the authority of Eginardus in this respect, and that it was probable he was warped by motives of favour and partiality; people began to doubt, and these doubts were succeeded by an absolute denial, in some of the most eminent modern French authors, of the truth of what he had asserted. Eginardus was secretary of state to, and a great favourite with Charles the Fifth; and it was the interest of this prince, that it should not seem as if the Crown, which devolved to him as heir to his father Pepin, was an usurpation, in which light the thing must have appeared, provided Childeric had been unjustly deposed; and, besides the disgrace of his father’s having committed an act of perfidy, he would have remained without a legitimate title to the crown; for there was no other mode of putting an honest face upon the coronation of Pepin, but that of declaring Childeric and all the princes of his race incapable of reigning.

LXVI. Eginardus then, as a minister in whom Charles placed the greatest confidence, could not divest himself of being partial to the interests of his master; nor could he avoid, on this account, drawing upon him the suspicion of his having been biased by motives of prejudice in his favour. We may add to this, that in his narrative of the transaction, he has mixed some false and incredible circumstances. He says, that Childeric was deposed, and Pepin crowned, by the authority and direction of Pope Estephanus the Third; which could not possibly be, for the election of this pope was either some days posterior to the coronation of Pepin, or happened within a day or two of that era. For this reason, others, in order to vindicate the coronation, without violating chronology, bring the authority of pope Zacharias to justify it, who was the immediate predecessor of Estephanus. What Eginardus tells us of the state of indolence and abasement in which the kings of the Merovingian line lived, is totally incredible. He relates, that they used to appear in public, and take their journies in a cart or waggon, drawn by oxen, which was driven by a person who was habited like, and had in all respects the appearance of a common carter; but who can believe such an extravagance? He says further, that they were allowed no other income to subsist on than the rent of a small farm; and that all the rest was disposed of according to the will and pleasure of the steward and other officers of the houshold. But how can this be reconciled, or rendered compatible with the building of various monasteries, which were erected and endowed by the kings of the Merovingian line, and with the grand donations which were made by them to many others?

SECT. XXXV.

_The Tragedy of Belisarius._

LXXVII. We find the tragedy of Belisarius set-forth in an infinite number of books, as one of the strongest instances that ever appeared on the theatre of the world, of the inconstancy and instability of fortune. It is asserted, that the emperor Justinian, after that great captain had been crowned with so many laurels, having discovered that he had been an accomplice in a conspiracy against him, caused his eyes to be put out, and reduced him to so low a state of misery, that he passed the remainder of his life by being obliged for subsistence to beg alms about the streets, and at the doors of churches.

LXXVIII. We find also this story is contradicted by Cedrenus, and other grave authors; but what most effectually makes against it, is the silence of Procopius upon the subject, who was the author of the Secret History, which is a virulent satyr upon the emperor Justinian, and the empress Theodora. This writer, who resided in Constantinople in the reign of Justinian, and who out-lived him, could not be a stranger to the tragedy of Belisarius, if there had been any truth in it; nor is it credible that, in his Secret History, he should conceal an event of such magnitude, and especially when he could have made it conducive to the principal object of his book, which was that of exposing and aggravating all the faults of Justinian; who could not be looked upon as excusable, for having behaved with cruelty to a man to whom he owed so many obligations, even if Belisarius had ever been culpable; for scarce any other prince, had ever been more indebted to a subject, than Justinian was to him; besides this, it might have been very easy for Procopius, by doubting or lessening the crime, to have made the punishment of Belisarius appear as an act of absolute cruelty in Justinian.

LXXIX. In support of the common opinion, it is said, there is still a tower at Constantinople, which is called the Tower of Belisarius, and is supposed to have taken the name from that great man having been confined in it. This is but a slender argument wherewith to support the probability of such a tragedy, for this name might have been given to it from some other particular respecting Belisarius; or it is not impossible, that he might have been imprisoned in it for a short space of time; for it is a fact, that before the second expedition of Belisarius into Italy, he had fallen off in the good graces of the emperor, through the intrigues of the empress Theodora: and he might then have been imprisoned in the tower for a few days; and Procopius, who informs us of this small disgrace of Belisarius, would not have concealed the great misfortune which is said to have befallen him, had the circumstances of it been true.

SECT. XXXVI.

_The Maid of Orleans._

LXXX. The famous Joan d’Arc, commonly called the Maid of Orleans, makes a great figure in the history of France as a celestial heroine, to whom that kingdom confessedly, in the reign of Henry the Sixth of England, owed its restoration, and being preserved from the total destruction, which was nearly brought on it by the success of the English arms.

LXXXI. The history of this wonderful damsel, reduced to a compendium, is as follows: The French nation, and above all their king, finding themselves dejected and dispirited by the repeated defeats they had suffered; and also without the necessary resolution, to concert and determine upon measures for opposing and averting the new dangers with which they were threatened by the siege of Orleans, that was pushed on by the English with great vigour: I say, at this crisis, a poor Shepherdess, that is, Joan d’Arc, at the age of about eighteen or twenty years, who was born in a little village on the Maze, felt in herself an occult inspiration, or express commission from God, to succour Orleans, and cause Charles the Fifth to be consecrated and anointed king at Rheims; and, in order to execute this commission, after having first opened herself to a nobleman of the kingdom, she was introduced to the king, whom she knew the instant she saw him, although she had never set eyes on him before, and he, to prevent her discovering him, had mixed with the croud in a common dress. They put many questions to her, to which she gave excellent and satisfactory answers; and informed them of some things, which they thought were impossible to be known to her but by revelation. Finally, upon the strength of these proofs, they confided to her conduct the relief of the city of Orleans, in which enterprize, the French, animated and led on by her, obliged the English to raise the siege, and, in consequence of her influence and example, gained afterwards many considerable advantages over them. She removed the obstructions that were in her way, and conducted the king to Rheims, where the ceremony of his consecration was performed and compleated: but being afterwards taken prisoner by the English, they carried her to Roan, where they iniquitously accused her of sorcery, tried her in the ordinary form, and condemned her to be burnt for a witch.

LXXXII. I gave some account of this extraordinary woman in the Sixteenth Discourse of my first volume, where I hinted it merely as a conjecture of my own, that, in all probability, the divine impulse the French attributed to her, and still persist in attributing, and the witchcraft imputed to her by the English, were both equally false. But now I find my conjecture is supported and confirmed by a celebrated historian, in consequence of which, what I advanced as a supposition, wears the face of an authentic information. This historian, is Monsieur Du Haillan, who affirms, that all the feats of Joan d’Arc, which have been so much admired, were the effects of political artifice; without the least intervention, either of divine inspiration or diabolical compact. According to this author, three French noblemen, whom he names, were the contrivers and managers of the whole business. These (after disclosing to her the most private secrets of the court, and instructing her largely in all she had to do and say, in order to make it appear as if she knew things by divine inspiration; and that all her actions were effected by divine impulse) made use of her, thus instructed, as the most effectual means to animate the dejected king and his dispirited troops. He adds, that some people affirmed, that although they called her a maid, she was no such thing, but the concubine of one of the three lords; but whether this was so or not, I presume, they pitched upon her preferable to any other woman, from having observed her to be endowed with an excellent capacity, a clear and penetrating head, and a heart proportioned to the dangers of so great an undertaking. Gabriel Naudé, in his book intitled _Strokes of Policy_, adopts the sentiment of Du Haillan, and quotes Justus Lipsius, and Monsieur Langei, as being of the same opinion; and adds, that other authors, both French and strangers, adopt it. By this development, the famous Joan d’Arc is divested of any pretensions to being miraculously inspired, but not degraded from the rank of a heroine.

SECT. XXXVII.

_Prester John._