LIV. But what man of any understanding, would conclude that Apuleius was guilty of witchcraft, upon the depositions of the Gentiles; who, seeing that the truth gained ground, were intent upon nothing, so much as inventing tales and lies to preserve their ancient superstition? They had before this, availed themselves of the history of the deceiver Philostratus, and in order to eclipse the miracles of Christ, had made use of the relations he gave of those of Apollonius; and as one crafty deception generally begets another, they afterwards brought Apuleius upon the theatre of the world as a rival of Christ; but with what foundation? Why, with less, if it was possible there could be less, than they had for introducing Apollonius; for, of the prodigies performed by this last, there had been a history composed, such a one as it was; but of Apuleius, they knew nothing more, than that he had been reputed a magician; and upon the strength of this rumour, they began to form stories of his portentous feats, for the truth of which says Saint Augustin, Nullo fideli auctore jactitant, which is sufficient, to discredit all that has been said of his magical operations.
LV. The arguments we have hitherto mentioned for supposing Apuleius to be a magician, are sufficiently contemptible; but the one we are about to recite, is much more so, because it is founded in gross ignorance; but notwithstanding this, I am inclined to think, that those who at this day believe in the sorceries of Apuleius, do it upon the credit of the story we are going to relate. We find in the works of Apuleius, an ingenious fable, intitled, The Golden Ass; in which, Apuleius recites of himself, that when he was upon his travels, he was entertained in the house of a woman of Thessaly, who was a famous witch, and who kept many ointments, which had the virtue of transforming those who rubbed themselves with them, into various shapes, and that he saw her one night, from a place where he had secreted himself, anoint with one of them, which transformed her into a screech owl, and that after this was done, she flew immediately out of the window in quest of her gallant, who lived a great way off. Apuleius, excited by a violent curiosity, was tempted to try the effect of the ointment on himself; so he advanced to the cupboard were the ointments were kept, and laying hold of one of the gallipots, began to anoint himself, which he did very plentifully; but as ill-luck would have it, instead of taking hold of the gallipot which would transform him into a screech-owl, he laid his hand upon one, whose contents converted him to a quite different species of bird; upon this he seized on another, the ointment of which, instantly turned him into an ass. The rest of the fable, consists in the recital of many pleasant adventures that happened to him under the form of an ass; and of his being sold and resold to many different masters, some of whom were better, and others worse; and of his undergoing a great variety of hardships; but at last, he was so happy as to meet with some roses, which were the only things capable of restoring him to his natural state, and upon eating a mouthful of them, he instantly recovered it. This is the substance of the fable of The Golden Ass; under which figure, Apuleius represents himself to have acted in propria persona, and gives an account of many humourous and odd things that befell him, while he was thus metamorphosed.
LVI. This fable then, either from having been read without proper attention, or from people’s not having had any account of it but by hearsay, but chiefly and principally for want of knowing from whence it originated, has been supposed by many, to have been a true history; and from a belief, that Apuleius had really practised magic arts, they went on to credit that he had been a magician by profession. But there was no mistake, which could have been more easily cleared up. The first sentence of the writing, undeceives us, for the author says, I am going to relate a Grecian fable: Fabulam Græcanicam incipimus; and in his preface to the book wherein it is contained, he says; Sermone isto milesio varias fabulas conferam; and in reality, the whole complex of accidents and incidents in the tale, clearly shew, that it was a fabrication of ingenious and pleasant fictions. But the strongest argument to acquit Apuleius of magic, in this case, is, that he was not the author of the fable; for the same tale, to which is prefixed the same title, is to be found in the works of Lucian, who long before had written it in Greek; and Apuleius only added to it, some new fictions and particular relations; and in a long digression, he introduced into it, the loves of Psyche and Cupid. Some learned men, have thought that Lucian was not the original author of the fable of The Golden Ass; but that he abridged it from the works of another Greek writer, called Lucius of Patras, which I have never seen, nor do I know whether the book of Metamorphoses of the person whose production they say this fable was, is now existing.
LVII. All we have recited being so clear and plain, is it not amazing, that Saint Augustin should believe, Apuleius wrote the History of the Golden Ass, and that he gave the relation, as of an event, that had really happened to himself? (vid. lib. 18. de Civit. cap. 18.) Louis Vives excuses him, by saying, the Saint being little versed in Greek authors, did not know that the same fable had been written before by Lucian. But this observation cannot suppress our astonishment, because from the words of Apuleius himself, without, to elucidate the matter, having recourse to any other author, it is plain and evident, that he related the story as a fiction, because he expressly says in the beginning of it, what I am about to write, is not a history, but a fable.
The great TAMERLAN.
SECT. VI.
LVIII. The proper name of this hero, is not Tamerlan, but Timurbec; for thus he was called by his own subjects; and this is the name by which the Persian writers call him. It is true, that some of the Oriental authors call him Timur-lenk; and so Monsieur Herbelot calls him; but others are of opinion, that this last name was affixed to him as a term of reproach by the Turks, who changed the termination bec, which signifies prince, into the word lenk, which signifies lame; which was done, either because the Turks really thought he was so, or because they feigned him to have been so; or else, the cause of his lameness, was a fiction of their raising, as we shall presently make appear probable. The describing him by the name of Timur-lenk, having been introduced into Europe, it soon became corrupted there into Tamerlan, or Tamorlan, and has been generally made use of by all the European writers, for it is but a few years ago, that we learned from the Oriental authors, his true name. But as calling him either by one name or another, is a matter of little importance, we shall make use of the name which has been most generally adopted, as by that he will be best known.
LIX. Tamerlan, without doubt, was one of the most famous conquerors the world ever knew, and deserving to be ranked among the catalogue of the greatest heroes, with the Alexanders and the Cæsars. It may be, that circumstances made the victories of Alexander and Cæsar more remarkable than his; but it is certain, that neither the one nor the other of them, obtained so many as Tamerlan. There is not a single author, who does not acknowledge the great number of his triumphs and victories, and they also unanimously confess, that he was possessed of all the endowments necessary for obtaining them; so that we should not look upon his conquering so many countries, and preserving them after he had acquired them, as owing to a lucky assemblage of fortunate events; or as a gratuitous bequest of fortune; but as a tribute due to his valour, and military and political conduct. But the virtues of the conqueror, have been so blackened with the savage actions of the barbarian, that we have lost the image of the man in the colouring of his picture; because we only find in his character, as it has been drawn by some historians, representations in the extreme, of the hero and the brute; and, in order that his origin should bear proportion with his behaviour, they have made him the son of a poor shepherd, who soon forsaking the occupation of his father, became the leader of a gang of thieves; and by increasing his infamous band to the size of an army, found himself in a condition to plunder kingdoms, and dethrone princes.
LX. As the account of all these particulars came to Europe immediately from Turkey, which is a country, where they detest every thing belonging to Persia, there is no doubt to be made, but all, or nearly all, the Turks have said to blacken the character of Tamerlan, was an invention of their own; who, besides the general hatred they bear to the Persians, view with a particular envious eye, the prince, who above all others, has humbled the Ottoman pride. To detect the imposture of these relations, I shall have recourse to those Persian authors, whom Monsieur Herbelot quotes in his Bibliotheca Orientalis, and the extract from it of the History of Tamerlan, which is inserted in the Memoirs of Trevoux, translated from the Persian by Monsieur Petit Lacroix.
LXI. In the first place, what is said of his mean extraction, is false; for the Oriental authors, which Messieurs Herbelot and Petit Lacroix quote, describe him as a person most nobly born, and of kingly descent. Cheref Eddin Ali, who is the author Monsieur Petit Lacroix translated, says, that his father was a sovereign prince in a part of Transoxana, and that his territories were in Scythia or Asiatic Tartary; also, that upon Tamerlan’s succeeding to the sovereignty, he married the sister of Hussein, king of Transoxana.
LXII. Proceeding from the birth of Tamerlan, to treat of his customs and manners, I must premise, that I don’t pretend to represent him as having all the accomplishments of a perfect hero; but those would swerve as far from the truth, who were to paint him as an infernal fury, and a barbarian, destitute of all humanity and good faith; and as one, whose whole behaviour proclaimed, that he was actuated by no other motives, than those of brutal pride, savage cruelty, and blind rage. Tamerlan, without doubt, was extremely ambitious; and this was his ruling vice. But how much more virtuous than him in this particular, were those, who have been celebrated as consummate heroes, by the unanimous consent of ages? And what is more, it was the vice of ambition which gained them the reputation of heroes. If Alexander had not been unboundedly ambitious, he would never have acquired more applause in the world, than many of the other kings of Macedonia. Cæsar, without ambition, might have been equally a great captain; but, divested of his ambition, would never have made so much eclat in the world.
LXIII. There was certainly a great difference, between the characters of these two heroes, and that of Tamerlan; for they never exercised any inhumanity on those they had vanquished; but it must be confessed, that Tamerlan sometimes did. It will be necessary however in this place, to obviate an objection that has been made to his conduct, and which has arisen principally, from those who have treated of the affairs of this prince, not having made proper allowances for his circumstances and situation, and from their imputing his actions to wrong motives. I admit, that he was sometimes inhuman, although he was not so from genius or inclination, but from policy only. In consequence of the vast design he had formed, of making himself master of all Asia, or, to speak more properly, of all the world, he conceived it necessary to adopt alternately, the two extremes of gentleness and severity; gentleness, with those who submitted upon the approach of his standards; and severity, with those who obstinately held out to the last extremity. He was violently passionate, which is a vice, that although it is different from that of cruelty, has much the appearance of it, and is frequently mistaken for it; for to determine whether a man is cruel, we should observe how he acts in cold blood; as the most merciful and mild disposed person, in the impetuous sallies of his anger, may be betrayed into executing a stroke of violence. Many of the bloody orders of Tamerlan, were given, not while he held the pen, but the sword in his hand; either in the hour of battle; or immediately after it; and it was before the warlike raging heat of his blood had time to cool, that he determined upon acts of vengeance; nor was it in the cabinet, but the field, that he manifested these dispositions of barbarity. It is certain on the other hand, that he never was known, neither with those who submitted themselves voluntarily to him, nor with any of his own subjects, to have practised an action, that might be termed a cruel one. Tamerlan then, was not what he has commonly been described to have been, a fierce savage brute, who, like a Nero, or a Caligula, from sallies of inhumanity and caprice, and his fondness for doing acts of barbarity, would shed human blood.
LXIV. Nor was his ambition so outrageous and unbridled, as to excite him to trample with contempt, on the opinion of the world. He was desirous of usurping absolute authority, but without incurring the stigma of being termed an usurper. To accomplish this, he, like other artful tyrants, disguised this vicious disposition, with the masque of virtue. He declared, that the world was over-run with corruption, and that justice and good faith were banished from among mankind, and that we saw nothing but perfidy and wickedness, practised by princes with princes, by princes with their subjects, and by the subjects themselves with one another. Therefore, as he had been vested with a special commission from the Almighty for the reformation of mankind, he gave out, that Divine Providence had chosen him as the instrument, to chastise evil-doers, and to restore all things to their proper state of order and decorum; but he was neither so vain nor so foolish, as to think the world would give him credit for being vested with such a commission, upon the bare testimony of his own word; and therefore, he endeavoured to gain credit for being so impowered, by putting on the appearances of a devout man, and by practising the actions of a just one. He esteemed men of letters, and took delight in their conversation; and always shewed a profound respect for his false prophet Mahomet. He treated with special attention, the Doctors of that mistaken sect, and with singular reverence, all those who had acquired the reputation of being eminently virtuous.
LXV. But above all, he was a strict observer of justice towards his subjects; and punished thefts and roguery, without remission, or distinction of persons. He caused governors of provinces to be hanged like common thieves, if they plundered, or exercised any acts of tyranny on his subjects. Thus through all his dominions, people’s persons and properties were so secure and well protected, and their confidence in the safety of both, was so thoroughly established, that no man seemed to take the least thought, or to be the least anxious about preserving either of them, for Tamerlan was the general guardian of all things; and so free were his territories from thefts, robberies, or outrages, that Cheref Eddin Ali declares, an unarmed man might travel any route, and from one end to the other of his dominions, with a bowl of silver on his head filled with gold, and not meet with the least molestation.
LXVI. It is true, that his severity in some instances, was carried to the extreme, as for example, when he ordered a soldier to be put to death for taking from a poor peasant, a little milk and cheese. But the proportion of bad contained in such actions, should be estimated, by taking into consideration the whole combination of circumstances accompanying them; for there are without doubt, various cases, where what seems excessive rigour, may be dictated by prudence. The sallies of military licentiousness, require many times, to be restrained by such violent strictures; for when either among troops, or the people in general, outrages are very frequent, it may become necessary, in order to suppress them, to exercise greater rigour, than by the true spirit of justice, is permitted to be exercised upon ordinary and common occasions.
LXVII. I cannot help in this place making a remark, which is very worthy of being attended to, and as I don’t remember it has been made by any other person, I mention it here, which is, that under governments who are very vigilant in detecting rogues, and very rigorous in punishing them, there are fewer executions, than where the government is more relaxed; so that what at first sight may appear extreme rigour, when all things are considered, is in truth and reality, lenity. It is not difficult to decypher this seeming paradox. Whenever it is universally known in a state, that there is great vigilance practised in detecting roguery, and that after people are convicted of crimes, there is no hope of pardon for them, the instances of outrages become very rare, and consequently, if capital punishments don’t become totally unnecessary, they are very unfrequent. The terror impressed by the first executions, is a curb, on vile and perverse geniuses; and by a king’s hanging fifty or an hundred without remission, in the first year of his reign, he may find it necessary for the rest of his life to execute but very few; on the other hand, when the pardons are very frequent, and there is but little pains taken, to apprehend and bring rogues to justice, notwithstanding that there are many offences concealed, and many pardoned, the number of executions will be much greater in the course of a reign of moderate length, where this policy is adopted, than they would in that of a prince, who was vigilant to detect, and inexorable to punish, when he first ascends the throne. Let then these pernicious, and mistaken feelings of lenity, be banished from every state, as what is generally stiled rigour, is both salutary and beneficial to a community, and to all the individuals who are members of it.
LXVIII. I must add to this, that the proportioning punishments to crimes, should not be adjusted by the same rules in all places indifferently. In the ratio, that some nations are more fierce and stubborn than others, the degree of punishment, should be increased in those nations; for what would be sufficient to restrain a mild and timid people, would be useless to curb a ferocious and hardened one. Tamerlan, who knew the genius and disposition of those who were under his dominion, knew also, how to proportion his punishments, to suit the nature and tempers of his various subjects, and knew likewise, that what would not be more than precisely necessary in one region, would be excessive in another.
LXIX. There is a particular instance, which demonstrates that he had great judgment in proportioning punishments, and that he never proceeded to excessive severities, without sufficient cause. An officer, who had served with reputation in former wars, was found tardy in a particular action. We might be apt to conclude from the martial temper of Tamerlan, that he would have ordered the man to be immediately beheaded; but he acted quite differently, and was satisfied with inflicting on him a much milder punishment, and one that was of such a nature, as did not affect the blood of the delinquent in the execution of it, except it was, by making it rise in his face from the shame and disgrace of the chastisement. He caused him to be affectedly ornamented and dressed out in womens cloaths, and in this habit, exposed him to the derision of the whole army. This in a European prince, would have been celebrated as a humourous, and a lenient punishment.
LXX. On the other hand, in his ordinary deportment as a man, he was mild, affable, and entertaining. What passed between him and the poet Ahmedi Kermani, shews evidently, that in conversation with his subjects, he abated his dignity even more, than it is common for the most pacific princes to do. The same poet tells us the story, in the history of Tamerlan, which he wrote in verse, and it was from thence Mons. Herbelot says it was taken.
LXXI. The story runs thus; the king, when he was one day bathing, attended by many of the nobles of his court, and also by the poet Ahmedi Kermani, with whose wit and humour he always used to be much pleased, proposed to him, that he should entertain the company with some pleasant relation. To which Ahmedi replied, that he begged his majesty would name the subject. Be it so, answered Tamerlan: I would have you then suppose, that we are all here in a fair to be sold, and that you are to have the disposal of us, and are to set a value upon each individual. Upon this, Ahmedi began to scrutinize all the noblemen who were present, and to determine with great pleasantry, what he should ask a head for them: he rated one at one price, and another at another; and for his estimates of them, assigned some humourous reason. Tamerlan, observing that he had set a value upon every body but him, reminded him, that he also was for sale. Ahmedi, without the least embarrassment, replied, Why truly, Sir, I think I may venture to estimate you at about thirty aspres, which is an eastern coin of very small value. How! says Tamerlan, you surely have underrated me; for the napkin round my waist is worth as much as that; why, answered Ahmedi, that’s the principal thing I regarded in making the estimate; for I should not have valued your person at above two oblos. Tamerlan, so far from being offended at this, was pleased with the joke, and rewarded the poet with a handsome present. I ask now, is this anecdote of his life, descriptive of a fierce tyrant, or a most affable prince? These domestic trifles, better display the natural tempers of princes, than great military, or political operations, because the last, are almost constantly attended with ostentation mixed with reserve, and the others, are generally the effects of the pure simple workings of nature unconstrained.
LXXII. Nor was he deficient in point of modesty, for he generally had an eye to preserving the appearance of it in his deportment; and if this was not the effect of virtue, it at least shewed his discretion; and may as fairly be urged as an argument, to disprove the allegation of his being a vain boaster, as if his behaviour had proceeded from the purest motives. Being once in conversation with a Mahometan Doctor, whom he had taken a prisoner, he said to him, Doctor, you see me here just what I am; which is properly no more than a miserable little man, or rather a half man; and notwithstanding I have conquered so many provinces and cities, in Iraca, in the Indies, and in Turquestan; I owe all my successes, to the divine Grace and Favour; nor has the spilling the blood of so many Mussulmen been my fault; for I swear and protest to you in the presence of God, that I have never undertaken any war, with a deliberate purpose of oppressing any one; but it has been my enemies, who have provoked the chastisement of my arms, and have brought on themselves their own ruin.
LXXIII. He was always consistent and uniform in his declarations of the motives for his conduct, and constantly insisted, that he never employed his troops in any enterprize, from mere views of ambition, but from necessity, and upon great provocation; and in truth, he was not so unjust as he has commonly been represented to have been. Hussein, King of Transoxana, whose dominions were the first he conquered, might more properly be called the invader of Tamerlan, than Tamerlan could be deemed the invader of him; for Hussein, to the injustice of entering the other’s territories hostilely, and without provocation, added ingratitude also, Tamerlan having in some of his military enterprizes, done him great service. The other princes, over whom he triumphed, were for the greatest part usurpers, and people who had acquired what they held, by more iniquitous means, than Tamerlan used to distress them; for they usurped what they seized from the legitimate owners, but he only took what he despoiled them of, from a set of thieves. Neither did he move against Bajazet unprovoked, for he, before experiencing the least hostility from Tamerlan, exercised some hostile acts, both upon Tamerlan’s subjects, and upon several princes who were in alliance with him; to which we may add, that various other princes whom Bajazet had despoiled, implored the assistance of Tamerlan against his oppressions, as against the common enemy of mankind. In consequence of all this, Tamerlan sent an ambassador to him, to remonstrate against the injustice of his conduct, and to try by fair means, to bring him to reason, but he treated his ambassador with scorn, and dismissed him contemptuously.
LXXIV. But the most material thing in Tamerlan’s favour is, that he left those princes who submitted to him voluntarily in the quiet possession of their dominions. This benefit, was obtained by the King of Kurt, by the Sovereigns of Mazanderan, Schirvan, and many others; but in order to obtain this, they found it necessary to submit to Tamerlan, before his triumphant troops invested their walls.
LXXV. Neither is there the least foundation, for the tales of the insolencies he exercised on the princes who became his prisoners. He not only granted Hussein his life, but permitted him to retire and live quiet wherever he liked best; but the imprudent distrust of this unhappy man, cost him his life; for doubting of his safety, he fled from his habitation, and hid himself in a cave, where a peasant finding him concealed, put him to death. We are assured, that Tamerlan shed tears, upon hearing of his catastrophe; but whether those tears were affected or sincere, will ever continue problematical, as it does, of which species those were, that Cæsar shed, upon hearing of the death of Pompey. But, admitting that this grief was feigned, it proves at least, that Tamerlan strove to preserve the appearance of his being a clement and compassionate man, which is incompatible with the vulgar accounts of his brutal and undisguised ferocity.
LXXVI. But after all, the most clamorous charge against Tamerlan remains still to be replied to, and which we find greatly aggravated in all the histories that have been written in Europe, where his conduct has been canvassed, and relates to the cruel imprisonment he inflicted on Bajazet. That unfortunate monarch, to whom, before he was defeated by Tamerlan, they, on account of the rapidity of his conquests, gave the surname of Gilderin, which signifies ray, or flash; after having for a long time been the terror of Europe and Asia, and after innumerable conquests gained over both the Christian and Mahometan princes whose territories were in the neighbourhood of his dominions, was at length, miserably defeated by Tamerlan, and made a prisoner in a great battle, where they counted the number of combatants on each side, by hundreds of thousands. Of this fact there is not the least doubt; the point in dispute, being only, what was the sequel of the tragedy. All the European authors agree unanimously, that Tamerlan, as soon as he had the Ottoman monarch in his power, caused him to be put into an iron cage, which cage, at his meal-times, he used to order to be placed at the bottom of his table, from whence he fed him with bones and scraps that he threw to him, in the same manner that you would feed a dog; and that he never had him taken out of the cage, but to serve him as a block to tread on whenever he mounted his horse; and for this purpose, he caused him to be laid prostrate on the ground, and was used to set his foot on his shoulders. They tell us further, that Bajazet lived some time in this miserable state of humiliation; but that at length, he in a fit of rage and despair, dashed his brains out against the bars of the cage. Some authors add to this, another very heavy charge against Tamerlan, although they don’t quote the antient authors from whom they took it, nor have I seen any author who mentions it. The accusation is this, that Tamerlan caused the wife of Bajazet to wait upon him naked, when he was sitting at table, Bajazet himself being present at the spectacle; and that the furious rage excited in him by the sight of such an object, the beholding of which, was worse to him than death itself, caused him to dispatch himself.
LXXVII. But with all this, the wonderful relation we have been just mentioning is fabulous, and deserving to be comprehended in the catalogue of injurious impostures, which should be blotted out from the history of Tamerlan; for it is not credible, that he would have treated so unworthily, so great a monarch as Bajazet; and notwithstanding there has been no tale circulated in a greater number of volumes, than the abasement and disgraceful death of Bajazet; for, besides the numerous histories in which we read accounts of them, there is scarce a book of ethic, or moral reflections, in which, to display the inconstancy of human affairs, and the great reverses of fortune, the instance of Bajazet, precipitated from the proudest throne in the world, to the bottom of the table, and the feet of the horse of Tamerlan, is not brought as an example; I say, notwithstanding all this, the story ought to be rejected as fabulous. The testimony of Monsieur Herbelot, should have great weight in this question, who says, that in none of the Oriental authors, even including those who were enemies to Tamerlan, is to be found the story of the iron cage, save and excepting in an Ottoman chronicle of very modern date, that has been translated by Leunclavius, and which takes notice of it. This evidence, should be esteemed of little weight; because, besides it’s standing single, and being but of small antiquity, the person who gives it, was an enemy to Tamerlan; and it is not improbable, but the Turk who wrote that chronicle, collected his materials from European authors. The authors of credit and reputation whom Monsieur Herbelot examined, relate the thing in a quite different manner, for they rather assure us, that Tamerlan’s treatment of the Ottoman Emperor, was of the most generous kind; that he invited him to his table, and caused a magnificent and royal tent to be erected for his habitation; that he most obligingly endeavoured to divert and amuse him, in various ways; and made several feasts, and contrived divers pastimes to entertain him: that in the conversations he had with him under his misfortunes, he discoursed much of the inconstancy of fortune, and the vicissitude of human affairs; and they say finally, that Bajazet died a natural death, and differ only, in their accounts of the distemper that carried him off; some asserting that it was a quinsey, and others that it was an apoplexy. They say further, that Tamerlan was much concerned for his death; and protested solemnly when they informed him of it, that it was his intention to restore him to the throne of his ancestors, after first reinstating in their dominions, the princes whose kingdoms he had taken from them.
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.