Chapter IX: Part 9

LXXVIII. The benignity of Tamerlan towards Bajazet, was so much the more commendable, by so much the more the rigour the latter exercised with others, would have justified his treating him with greater severity; for Bajazet behaved to those he had conquered, with the utmost haughtiness and cruelty; and affected to despise all the other sovereigns upon earth. What excess of severity could have been imputed to Tamerlan, if after having in lawful war, taken such a man a prisoner, he had chastised rigorously, his usurpations, insolencies, and cruelties, among which, might be enumerated his ordering in cold blood, six hundred French cavaliers, whom he had taken prisoners of war, to be beheaded in his presence? What treatment could be better proportioned to the proud haughtiness of a man, who pretended to make slaves of all the world, than loading him with chains, and imprisoning him in an iron cage; and in order to humble his pride, using him like the most vile slave, and converting his superb shoulders to a block, for the conqueror to set his foot on when he mounted his horse? I say all this might be justified, upon the principle, of making him an example to deter others from the like practices. And besides what we have enumerated, the injuries he had done, and the provocations he had given to Tamerlan himself, would have justified his behaving to him with great severity; for example, his wantonly invading the possessions of his subjects, and the territories of his allies; his speaking of him in reproachful and ignominious terms, for instance, calling him thief, and a mean vile fellow, all which had been told to Tamerlan; and to sum up the whole, his treating with derision and contempt, a reasonable expostulatory letter, which Tamerlan had written to him on his behaviour. When all this is considered, we shall not find it wonderful, that Tamerlan, a conqueror, who was not instructed in, nor influenced by the mild precepts of the gospel, exercised on such a captive as Bajazet, the utmost rigour; and it being certain, that his treatment of him was as mild as we have represented it to have been, we ought rather to be surprized at his using him so gently, and to censure his clemency towards a man, whom the principles of justice, seem to dictate should have been punished with rigour.

LXXIX. Although it appears rather superfluous to add any thing more in favour of Tamerlan, we will just take notice of a circumstance respecting his usage of Bajazet, which the authors who relate it, mention with great confidence; and that is, that Bajazet, after he had fallen into his hands, afforded him a special provocation for treating him as he did. They say, that Tamerlan asked him, how he would have treated him if he had been the conqueror? To which Bajazet with an unbridled ferocity, and in a disgustful tone of voice answered, that he would have loaded him with chains, and have shut him into an iron cage, and would also have made him serve as a block to set his foot on when he mounted his horse. Upon this gross and barbarous answer, Tamerlan ordered, that he should be treated in the same manner himself; and I believe you will hardly find a prince of such tender feelings, that upon receiving so irrational a provocation, would not have taken the same kind of satisfaction.

LXXX. With regard to what is said of the gross manner in which he used the wife of Bajazet, although many authors affirm the fact, I make no doubt but the story is fabulous; for besides the silence of all the Oriental authors upon this head, Chalcondylas, who is the most ancient of the European ones who treat of the affairs of Tamerlan, as he wanted but little of being contemporary with that prince, takes no notice of it, which is a strong presumptive argument that the tale is fabulous; and indeed it is not only a presumptive, but in some degree a positive one, of its being so. It is true, that he speaks of Tamerlan’s treating her with indignity; and mentions the affront he put upon her, which was making her serve him with the cup at table in the presence of Bajazet: _Jussa est in conspectu mariti sui vinum infundere._ Would this Greek author have concealed the gross circumstance of his making her do it naked, which would have infinitely aggravated the injury, if the thing had been true? I might safely venture to answer, that he certainly would not. I therefore conclude, that the story of the nakedness, was the invention of some author, who was greatly posterior to Chalcondylas; who, having read of Tamerlan’s obliging the wife of Bajazet to serve him with the cup, in order to heighten the tragedy of that prince, and give a gloss to the relation, foisted it into his history. If Tamerlan really acted by the wife of Bajazet, as Chalcondylas has represented him to have done, I won’t pretend to justify his behaviour; but admitting all he says to be true, if we attend to the many instances of provocation which Bajazet had given to Tamerlan, by his barbarity, haughtiness, and ferocity, Tamerlan’s taking this method of humbling his pride, will not appear so highly reprehensible; and we might even add, that it was in some degree excusable.

LXXXI. From all that has been said, we may infer the opinion we ought to entertain of the character of Tamerlan; which is, that he was a prince, who, like all other conquerors that are without the light of the gospel, did much good, and much harm. He was an eminent warrior, a profound politician, and a zealous observer of justice to his own subjects; although he acted by strangers, sometimes justly, and at others unjustly; and also sometimes mercifully, and at others cruelly; but by his natural genius and disposition, he was more inclined to mercy than severity; and the enormous deluges of blood, which he caused to be shed upon some occasions, did not proceed from his ferocious and merciless disposition, but from starts of blind rage, and his thoughtless compliance with the maxims, which his ambition and his policy dictated to him, and which allowed of no intervals for the operations of humanity.

LXXXII. Upon the whole, I don’t pretend that the apology I have made for this prince, cannot be replied to. It is sufficient for my purpose, if what I have said in his favour, has the greatest probability of its side; as its being the most probable, ought to be effectual to exonerate him from the public infamy that has been thrown upon him; for no man should be deprived of his honour, without first establishing the certainty of his guilt.

AN ANSWER TO THE LETTER of a GENTLEMAN

Who made an Objection to the historical Account given by FEYJOÖ of My Lord BACON.

DEAR SIR,

I. Your reproving me for the Eulogiums bestowed on you in my letter, convinces me thoroughly that they were just and merited; as modesty and an aversion to being praised, are qualities that always accompany elevated worth. I shall therefore not dwell longer on this head, but proceed in the best manner I am able, to give you the satisfaction you desire, with respect to what I said in a former letter, that my Lord Bacon was the first who told the philosophers, that pursuing systems, was going on in a mistaken road to search for truth; and who in his writings, pointed out to them the path they should pursue in order to arrive at this object; but as he perceived that Aristotle was the leader and master of the literary world, that is, that his philosophical system was almost universally received and adopted, he found it necessary, in order to induce them to follow his advice, to attempt to discredit the authority of Aristotle, which he in a great measure accomplished, and brought many eminent men to concur with him in opinion.

II. You deny that Bacon was the first who engaged in the undertaking of discrediting Aristotle, and attacking his systems; for that Bernardinus Telesius, a celebrated philosopher, and native of Cosenza, attempted it before him; and although Bacon made great advances in this matter, he only improved an undertaking begun by another man, and worked upon his plan.

III. My good Sir, in investigating this point, we shall find there are two distinct things to be considered, and that the consequences to be deduced from them, are by no means reciprocal or the same. One of them is, whether Bacon was the first who formed the project of discrediting all systems; and the other is, whether he was the first who undertook to attack Aristotle. I affirm that he took the lead in attacking all systems in general; but not that he was the first who attacked the doctrines of Aristotle. Indeed I could not assert this last circumstance, without falling not only into a gross error, but into a manifest contradiction of myself; for in the fourth volume of the Theatrico Critico, I have said, that not only Bernardinus Telesius, preceded Bacon, in the attempt of combating Aristotle; but I also pointed out many others, who had preceded him in the same attempt; and instanced Gemistus, Plethon, Cardinal Bessarion, Franciscus Patricius, Theophrastus Paracelsus, together with Peter del Ramo.

IV. I also declared in the same place, after making mention of Paracelsus, that Bernardinus Telesius (nearly at the same time with him) who was a native of the city of Cosenza in the kingdom of Naples, and a man of subtle ingenuity, declared himself averse to the physics of Aristotle; and endeavoured to establish the system of his own, upon the principles, which, with a little variation, were afterwards adopted by Campænela.

V. I there also, in express words, declared, that Bacon was posterior to Telesius in his attack upon the doctrines of Aristotle, as may be seen by the order in which I ranged Aristotle’s impugners; for after mentioning the philosopher Cosentinus, and many others of them, I proceeded to speak of Bacon, which I did in the following words; _After these came that great and sublime genius Francis Bacon, earl of Verulam, &c._ and you will please to observe, that the words after these, as they stand in the context, clearly imply, that Bacon was not only posterior to Telesius, but to all the others; both with respect to the time in which he lived, and also in his attack upon Aristotle. By all this you may see clearly, that I can make no objection to your well-grounded assertion, that as Telesius was considerably anterior to Bacon, he could borrow no lights from Bacon’s works.

VI. But did Bacon borrow any from Telesius to assist him in his endeavours of demonstrating, that all philosophical systems are erroneous; and in pointing out to the philosophers, the track they should pursue in order to arrive at truth? This is the point in which we differ, and this is the only point of view in which I insist that Bacon stands single, or at least, that this is an undertaking in which he never was preceded, either by Telesius, or any other. Telesius, it is true, attacked the doctrines of Aristotle before Bacon; but did he declare himself averse to all systems, or systematic modes of philosophizing? Nothing like it, for he himself was a rigorous systematic philosopher, and a follower of the antient doctrine of Parmenides, who constituted heat and cold as the first principles of all things.

VII. If further proof in this matter was necessary, Bacon’s Treatise on the Philosophical Doctrines of Parmenides, Telesius, and Democritus, where he intentionally and expressly, attacks and reprobates all their philosophical tenets, seems decisive; for he there, so far from shewing himself a follower of Telesius, or a worker upon his plan, studiously and seriously applies himself, to taking to pieces and overturning the whole plan of Telesius; and in another part of his works, that is in his Treatise _de Auxiliis mentis, et accensione luminis naturalis_; he treats his system as a theatrical fable: _Quin etiam nudiustertius Bernardinus Telesius scenam conscendit, et novam fabulam egit, nec plausu celebrem, nec argumento elegantem_.

VIII. From these premises it must follow, that Bacon could borrow no lights from Telesius, to assist him in pointing out to the philosophers, the path they should pursue to arrive at truth; and this path which he pointed out to them, was that of experience, which never once occurred to Telesius. Or indeed, how can it be supposed that such a man as Telesius, should point out to others the road of experience, as the only one by which they could arrive at a knowledge of philosophical truths, when he was pre-occupied and pre-possessed, in favour of the system of Parmenides, which he recommended to every one, as the only mode, by which that knowledge could be attained? An author never directs his readers to follow any other road, than that which he pursues himself; nor does he lead them by any other, than that which he himself travels.

IX. I have not seen the Philosophical Works of Telesius, but I have in my possession all those of Campanela, who no one doubts was a faithful sectary of Telesius; but I can find nothing in them that is at all like Bacon; although it is by no means unlikely, that Bacon, when he was combating some particular propositions in Aristotle, might make use of some arguments that had before been urged by Telesius; but upon the whole, the plans and the objects of the two men, were very widely different. Telesius endeavoured to throw down the system of Aristotle, in order to build up that of Parmenides on the ruins of it. Bacon strove to demolish that of Aristotle, that of Parmenides, and the systems of all other philosophers whatever; and recommended to all those who employed themselves in philosophical speculations, to apply themselves solely to the study of experimental observations.

X. This is what has occurred to me on the subject of your objection, which I submit to your consideration and correction; and beg leave to return you my thanks for the honour you have done me in dedicating your little new book to me.

GOD keep you.

A LETTER On the Subject of the WANDERING JEW.

In Answer to one written to Feyjöö, asking his Opinion of that Matter.

DEAR SIR,

I. In return to your enquiries concerning the story of the Wandering Jew, and the question you ask me respecting it, which is, whether I have read an account of such a person in any author deserving of credit, or who is esteemed classical? I must answer, that I have read accounts of such a man in various authors, some of whom are reckoned classical, but their relations of him vary in particular circumstances.

II. The first, to the best of my remembrance, who made any mention of him in a regular history, was the celebrated English historian Matthew Paris; according to which author, there came to England in 1229, an Armenian bishop, who was recommended by the pope, to be shewn the relics of saints that were deposited in that kingdom; and the pope added in his recommendation of him, a request that he might have all the information he was desirous of respecting these matters, and every particular relating to them. As it was current among the vulgar at that time, that the Wandering Jew was then going about the Oriental Regions; some curious people asked the bishop, whose habitation and diocese was in that quarter, and who they on that account, thought must know whether those reports were true or not, many questions concerning them; and desired he would tell them, whether there really had been, or was then, such a person as the Wandering Jew in that country; and if he was living now, in what quarter he was travelling, what sort of man he was, and what account he gave of himself? To which the bishop answered, that the said Jew really now existed, and was at present strolling about Armenia. They put the same questions to several others, who came as attendants on, or companions to the bishop, who all gave the same answer; and one of them gave a particular account of him and his adventures, who was a person that could speak English, and express himself readily in Latin also.

III. This man told them, that the Wandering Jew, before his conversion, was named Cataphilus, and had been the porter or door-keeper of Pilate; and that, being at his station as such, when they brought our Saviour from before the prætor, in order to crucify him, he, to make him move on faster, at his going out of the door, gave him a blow with his fist on the shoulders; upon which our Redeemer turning his head, said to him, _The Son of Man is going, but you shall remain here till he returns_. The porter upon this immediately became a convert to Christianity, and was baptized by Ananias, who gave him the name of Joseph. This expression of our Saviour’s to him, was understood to imply a prediction, that this Jew should not die, till Christ’s return to judge the quick and the dead; which prophecy had been verified with respect to the Jew to that day, who was then more than twelve hundred and fifty years old, although at the end of every hundred years of his age, he had always experienced some threatenings of death, for at this period, he had been constantly visited with a severe disease, which so far debilitated him, that it might be said to have brought him to death’s door; but upon his recovery, his youth seemed to have been renewed, for he did not appear a man of more than thirty years old, which was the age of Christ, at the time of his crucifixion.

IV. This person added, that the Jew Joseph was very well known to the bishop, and had lived in his house but a little before he set out on his journey to England.

V. The said historian, upon the authority we have been mentioning, tells us further, that the Jew answered minutely, and in a grave, and composed manner, to all questions that were asked him concerning antient things, and gave a particular account of the opening of the graves, and the rising of the dead, when our Saviour gave up the ghost, and also of the lives and actions of the apostles; that he always seemed greatly afraid that the day of judgment was near at hand, because that would be the period of his life; and that he never failed to be seized with great horror, when he was reminded of the sacrilegious disrespect he had been guilty of to our Saviour; but he always expressed hopes of being pardoned, on account of his great ignorance of the sin he committed.

VI. Jacob Basnage, a Protestant author, in his history of the Jews, tells us of three wandering Jews. The first and most antient of whom, was named _Samer_, and was condemned to wander, as a punishment, for his having cast the first golden calf in the days of Moses. The other, was the Cataphilus we have been speaking of, who was the porter to Pilate; and the third was named Asuerus, and was a shoemaker at Jerusalem. He says this last appeared in 1547 at Hamburgh, and the account he gave of himself, was with only the variation of here and there a circumstance, the same, that the Armenians gave of the person, whom they said they knew in their own country. This man declared, that before his conversion, he was called Asuerus, was a shoemaker by trade, and kept a shoemaker’s shop near the gate of Jerusalem, at which our Saviour went out in his way to Mount Calvari; who when he approached the gate, finding himself much fatigued, was desirous of resting himself a little while in his shop; but that he gave him a shove, and would not suffer him to enter the door, and that then Christ said to him; _I shall soon be at rest, but you shall wander about without ceasing till my return_. He said, the prophecy began to take effect from that instant, and had continued in force till then; for that he had constantly, ever since that æra, been wandering without being able to settle himself in any province whatever. He was a man of large stature, and had the appearance of one of about fifty years of age; he was also apt to fetch frequent deep sighs, which the by-standers imputed to the sadness that was caused in him by the remembrance of his crime.

VII. Our great expositor Augustin Calmet, in his Dictionario Biblico, testifies to have had in his possession, a letter written at London by Lady Mazarine (who I suppose was she they called the Dutchess Hortensia Mancini, and who was as famous for her labours, as her beauty) to the Dutchess of Bullon, in which she relates, that at the time she wrote the letter, there arrived a stranger in England, who gave the same sort of account of himself, as that the Jew we mentioned before did. He asserted, says Lady Hortensia, that he knew all the apostles, and gave a particular description of their stature, their features, and the cloaths they wore; he said, he had gone over all the regions of the earth, and that he should not cease to wander till the end of the world. He boasted that he could heal the diseased with his touch, and understood many languages; and related with such exactness the events of all ages, that every one listened to him with admiration. A gentleman who was eminently learned addressed him in Arabic; and he answered him off hand in the same language; nor could you mention to him the name of any person who had been famous in former ages, that he did not affirm to have known. He said he was at Rome, when it was set fire to by Nero, and that he had conversed with Mahomet, and knew his father; that he had seen Saladine, Tamerlan, Bajazet, Soliman the great, &c. and she added in her letter, that simple people attributed many wonderful performances to him, but that the wise and prudent looked upon him as an impostor.

VIII. The author of the Turkish Spy, whoever he might have been, which is a fact that I don’t think has yet been ascertained, makes mention in many of his letters, of the wandering Jew. Epist. 39. of his second volume addressed to Ibrahim, and which was supposed to have been written about the year 1643, is all taken up with particulars and circumstances relating to the Wandering Jew, who he says he saw and conversed with at Paris, and asked him many questions respecting the things of antiquity. The Spy says, he told him his name was Michob Ader, and that he had been door-keeper to the Divan at Jerusalem, together with all the circumstances that Calmet says were related of him by the Dutchess of Mazarine; to which was added, that he had travelled through a variety of countries, had read much, and understood many languages. But notwithstanding all this, the Spy was of opinion, that he was either a madman, or an impostor.

IX. The same author in his fifth volume, epist. 50. addressed to his friend Nathan Ben Saddi, a Jew, and which was written about the year 1666; I say the same author in this letter, relates to Ben Saddi, many particulars and circumstances respecting the Wandering Jew, whom he tells him he had seen and conversed with at Paris; and acquaints him with a variety of things, that the said Jew had told him relating to the Jews in the northern parts of Asia, which he believed to be the relicks of the twelve dispersed tribes.

X. This author in his sixth volume, epist. 9. written in the year 1672, to Gulielmus, tells him, towards the latter part of it, that they talked in all places of a wandering Jew, who at that time was said to be at Astracan, and there preaching, that Christianity would be at an end in 1700. And in his seventh epistle addressed to Codabafrad Kheick, a Mahometan, written in the same year of 1672, he gives him an account, of all the Wandering Jew preached and prophesied at Astracan. The Spy says, that a relation of his, named Fousi, was living there at the same time, who had been a great traveller, and was a merchant; and adds, that he had received a letter from him but a little while before, which gave him the account of all these particulars respecting the wandering Jew.

XI. He prophesied, says the Spy, that in the year 1700 of the Hegira of the Christians, the Turks would over-run all the continent of Europe, and every part occupied by the Christians on the main land; that the Christians would fly to England as an asylum, and that there a great person would spring up, that would become their chief and leader, and that he would conquer Jerusalem. The Jews would then open their eyes, and acknowledge Jesus Christ for the true Messiah; but the Spy adds, that he only relates these things, and does not believe them.

XII. Notwithstanding the foregoing, he in his seventeenth epistle of the same volume, written in 1674, to the Turk Ali Bashaw, gives him to understand towards the conclusion of the said letter, that he believes the prophecy of the Wandering Jew, which perhaps he did to flatter the Mahometans, because the Jew says that they will over-run all Europe in the year 1700.

XIII. Finally, Father Louis Babenstuber, a German Benedictin, in a volume which he divided into three books, which was printed at Augsburgh in the year 1724, intitled _Prolusiones Academicæ_, where he institutes and treats of fifty-one questions, which he terms _Quodlibeticas curiosas_; and in the beginning of his 16th proposition of his third book, he proposes the question, whether, except Elias and Henoch, there ever was an older man in the world than Methusalem? and there after treating of Elias and Henoch, he speaks of the Wandering Jew; and after having related of him nearly the same that Jacob Basnage did; to Basnage’s account of him, he adds, that he was examined at Hamburgh, by Paulus Elizius, a Theologian, and then proceeds to say, _Visus est autem hic Judæus ab innumeris mortalibus in multis Europæ partibus, nempè anno Christi 1547. Hamburgi. anno 1575. Matrici in Hispania, anno 1599. Viennæ in Austria, anno 1610. Lubecæ, anno 1634. in Moscovia, alia plura loca sciens præterea._

XIV. These are all the informations we have of the Wandering Jew; by which you may see that this extraordinary person appeared in the year 1229 in England. In that of 1547 at Hamburgh. In that of 1575 at Madrid. In that of 1599 at Vienna. In that of 1610 at Lubec. In that of 1634 in Muscovy. In that of 1643 at Paris. In that of 1672 at Astracan; and a few years after at London; which was his second appearance in England. I say a few years afterwards, without pretending to determine in what year it was; because Calmet has omitted to give us the date of the Dutchess Hortensia’s letter. But this Lady, as appears from her life written by Monsieur St. Euvremont, and which is to be found in the fourth volume of his works, came to England in 1675, and died there in 1699, from whence it is plain, the second appearance of the Wandering Jew in that kingdom, must have been some time between those two æras.

XV. But can we give any credit to these accounts? I think none at all; and am inclined to disbelieve them; not so much because there is a great variation in the writers who speak of this person, in their relations of some circumstances concerning him, for this is not unfrequent in histories of established reputation, but because the most antient information we have of him, commences in the year 1229, which considering the antiquity of the fact, is without doubt a very recent date. How is it credible, that an event of such superlative magnitude, so extraordinary, and so singular in its kind, and so well calculated to enforce the truth of the Christian religion, and to defend it against the attacks of the Gentiles, should never have been known to, and never made mention of, by the fathers of the primitive ages? Even abstracted from its being a circumstance of such weight and importance in the case we have just mentioned, it would have reflected a very singular and brilliant lustre, on the glorious passion of our Saviour, and was on that account not only a worthy subject for the pens of the fathers to illustrate, but for those of the evangelists also.

XVI. But upon a supposition that this was a fable, it might be asked, what could have given rise to, or have been the origin of it? To this I should answer, that I never give myself much trouble about enquiring into the origin of fables, for that although they may have had their foundation in some true event, which fiction, or the want of rightly understanding, may have contributed so to disfigure, that no likeness of the real and true event may ever have been discernable in them; still fables have most commonly no other beginning, than in the invention of the deceiver who takes it into his head to fabricate them; and this is most frequent, when such an inventor has an interest in their passing for truth; which without doubt was the case, with respect to the instance we have been treating of. What pleasanter life, could an idle man of talents, who was cautious, and well versed in history, and who could speak eight or nine languages, lead, than that of wandering about the world, and pretending to be the Jew we have been speaking of? He might travel through all the kingdoms of Christendom, be well entertained, and might have a free access even to the thrones of princes, and be furnished at freecost, not only with every thing that was necessary for him, but even with the superfluities of life, by persons of all ranks and conditions, who might be induced to do all this, either from motives of curiosity, or piety. What greater stimulus than this was necessary, to excite the first man who practised this cheat, to feign such a story? and what other incentives did it require, to cause other vagrants, who were disposed to follow the same trade, to adopt the same pretence?

XVII. But if you are desirous of being informed of any thing more respecting this matter, than what may be deduced from the common origin of an infinite number of fables; I mean, if you are desirous of knowing any particular principle, from which it is probable this story of the Wandering Jew was derived; I will inform you, that it is not unlikely, it might have originated from a remote true fact, and from a modern fable, which was a disfiguration of that fact. The true fact, agreeable to scripture, tradition, and the authority of the holy fathers, is the preservation of the prophet Elias upon earth till the end of the world. Upon this true foundation, the Mahometans erected a fable, which Herbelot gives us a relation of, in his Bibliotheca Orientalis, page 932. See the word Zerib. and for which relation, he quotes the author of a book intitled Nighiaristan; under which title, there are many Persian books; and Herbelot informs us, that Nighiaristan in the Persian language, signifies a walk where people assemble to amuse themselves, or a place of public entertainment and diversion; but he does not tell us the particular book with this title, from whence he extracted the story, which is as follows.

XVIII. In the sixth year of the Hegira, just after the Arabs had taken the city of Holvan or Hulvan in Syria, three hundred cavaliers, who were returning together from that expedition, a little before night, encamped between two mountains. Their Chief, who was named Fadhilah, ordered, that they should conformable to the Mahometan rites, repeat the evening prayer, which begins with God is great; but they had no sooner pronounced these words with an audible voice, than they heard them repeated again from a quarter where no body appeared, nor could they devise how, or by whom they were repeated, and thought at first that the repetition was made by an echo; but upon finding that not only the words at the beginning of the prayer, but all the other sentences also, were repeated clearly and distinctly, they began to suspect, that this must be done by some person whom they could not perceive. Upon which, Fadhilah turning himself to the place from whence the repetition came, said in a loud voice, _You who repeat our words, if you are of the order of the angels, God be with you; but if you are one of the other sort of spirits, I conjure you to depart; but if you are a man like myself come forth and let me see you, that I may have the satisfaction of surveying your person, and of conversing with you_. When he had made an end of speaking these words, an old bald-headed man with a staff in his hand, who had much the air of a Dervis, came forth, and stood before him, and upon being asked his name by Fadhilah, said his name was Zerib. Bar. Elia. and that he had taken up his abode in that quarter by the order of Jesus Christ, who had appointed him to remain upon earth till the time of his second coming. Fadhilah then asked him, when that second coming would be? to which he replied, when men and women should mix together without shame or distinction, as if they were of one sex; when the abundance of provisions should not lower their price; when the poor, on account of the total extinction of charity, should find no body to administer to their distress; when the holy scriptures should be scoffed at and made a joke of, and the mysteries contained in them, be derided in ridiculous couplets; and when the temples dedicated to the true God, should be occupied by idols; then we might conclude, the final day of judgment was near at hand; and having said this, he disappeared.

XIX. There is involved in this story, a manifest inversion of that part of the sacred text, which speaks of the snatching away of Elias, in consequence of which, and its being corroborated by other parts of the holy scripture, many of both Christians and Jews think alike, with respect to the continuance of that prophet upon earth, until the end of the world. Elias was destined to this near nine hundred years before the coming of Christ; and this Mahometan account attributes this destination of him to have been made by our Saviour; which is a shocking anachronism. But we should not be surprized at this gross ignorance of the Mahometans; who, together with their false prophet, in their expositions of the scripture, confound times and persons, in the most extravagant manner that can be conceived. In the third sura or chapter of the alcoran, Mahomet identifies Mary the sister of Moses, and Mary the mother of Christ, as one and the same person; the first of whom was much more anterior to the last, than Elias was to Christ; and agreeable to the seventeenth sura or chapter, according to the exposition given of it by their famous commentator Gelaledin, the invasion of Palestine by the army in which Goliah was, was a punishment, for the Israelites having put to death Zacharias the father of John the Baptist, and the invasion of it by Nebuchadnezzar, was for their having killed the Baptist himself.

XX. At sight of these, and other monstrous inversions of both the old and new testament, which are very frequent in the alcoran, and the writings of the Mahometan commentators, I have been inclined to think, that it is probable some Mahometans, may have confounded John the Baptist with John the Evangelist, and may have made two distinct sayings of Christ, applicable to one and the same person, although one of them alludes to the Baptist, and the other to the Evangelist. Christ said of the Baptist (Matt. cap. ii.) _Ipse est Elias, qui venturus est_; and of the Evangelist (John cap. xxi.) _Sic eum volo manere, donec veniam_. Which words, the other disciples understood to amount to a decree of Christ’s, that he should continue alive to the final day of judgment. From this confounding different persons in one and the fame, might originate among the blind Mahometans, the fiction or belief, that Elias by the appointment of Christ, was to remain alive upon earth till the final day of judgment.

XXI. The persuasion then, that Elias was the person of whom our Saviour pronounced, _Sic eum volo manere, donec veniam_, might possibly give rise to the Mahometan Nighiaristan story, which upon being published, might put it into the head of some artful fellow, to assume the character of a Wandering Jew, and under that disguise, to apply this prediction delivered by Christ to himself.

XXII. But you will please to remember, that I observed before, there was no occasion to rummage disfigured histories to seek for the origin of numberless fables, as the imagination of man, is prodigiously fertile in bringing forth these productions, and is capable of creating the whole of a lie, without the auxiliary assistance of an atom of truth.

GOD keep you.

FINIS.

FOOTNOTES

[1] I apprehend this should not be understood in so extensive a sense as father Feyjoo represents it, for that the expression in Aulus Gellius is _a reviver of obsolete words_.

[2] It seems as if the power and extent of these empires was not well calculated, when it is asserted that either of them exceeded that of the Roman empire.

[3] Tamerlane’s extending his conquests further than ever Alexander did his, is very uncertain; and the enumeration the author immediately gives of them, differs from the account given us by Herbelot of this matter, who is a writer exceedingly well versed in Oriental history.

[4] The author in this place is very hyperbolical; for, it is certain, that so far from the power of the Turks exceeding that of the Roman empire when it was at its height, the court of Constantinople does not now command a third part of the countries which were formerly subject to Rome.

[5] There is no difficulty in supposing this heroic action was performed by different people, there having been innumerable instances of those who have found themselves in situations where it was laudable to exert it.

[6] This last declaration savours strongly of a heathenish fiction.

[7] There is no learned man at present who defends this chimera: Bayle, although a protestant, confutes it demonstratively in his Critical Dictionary.

[8] The author should not place among those, whose opinion ought to have weight in history, a man, who deals like a mountebank, in nostrums and secrets.

[9] We read in many authors, the various opinions that prevailed with respect to the death of Don Carlos; but in very few, that Queen Isabel of France was poisoned by her husband Philip the Second; and her being with child at the same time he was said to have done it, is a circumstance that gives the tragedy an air of incredibility. We ought to conclude, in order to give this transaction a face of probability, that Philip the Second was a very barbarous prince: but as I have my doubts with respect to his deserving that character, I conjecture this was a calumny invented by the malice of some strangers.

[10] The mistress of Francis the First, both before and after marriage, and whose behaviour, with regard to her, gave scandal to all Europe.

ERRATA.

Page 4, line 10, _for_ Cato, _read_ Cæno.

Page 72, line 9, _for_ was, _read_ were.

Page 83, line 3, _for_ Clildren, _read_ Children.

Page 181, line 7, _for_ those, _read_ the conversations.

Page 218, line 10, _for_ to print, _read_ to point out.

Page 226, line 1, _for_ compared to them, _read_ compared to the moderns.

Page 264, line 22, _for_ misfortunes, _read_ sensitive feelings.

=Transcriber’s Note:= The errata have been corrected, along with a few other minor printing errors.

If the Reader shall find any mistakes or inaccuracies, which are not pointed out in the foregoing Errata, the Translator will be much obliged to him for communicating them to the persons who sell this book; as the Critical Reviewers from such premises, without assigning any other reason for their opinion, have taken occasion to be very severe, and the Translator thinks very unfairly so, on the merit of the translation of the six Essays, made from the same author, and by the same hand these are, which were published about six months ago; and an editor of a monthly publication, intituled, The Town and Country Magazine, who is pretty well known to be the echo of the Critical Review in these matters, has, after their example, thought fit, in a very laconic dogmatical way, to pronounce that it is a very indifferent translation from a very excellent work. But notwithstanding the arbitrary manner in which these people have taken upon them to pronounce this damning sentence, the translator has been told, they understand very little, if any thing at all, of the language from whence the translation was made.

_N.B._ The above requisition having been annexed to this volume when it was published singly, immediately after six of the Essays in the foregoing volumes which were published by themselves had made their appearance; and which were the object of the above criticism; the Translator has thought it right to let it remain where it is; that the world may be apprized of the candour and impartiality of those Publications, the Critical Review, and Town and Country Magazine; and to judge how far they may be relied on as faithful reporters, and competent judges of the merit of works, on which, they take upon themselves to pronounce absolute and arbitrary sentences of condemnation.

END OF VOL. III.