WeRead Powered by ReaderPub
Essays, or discourses, vol. 3 (of 4) cover

Essays, or discourses, vol. 3 (of 4)

Chapter 89: FOOTNOTES
Open in WeRead

Explore more books like this:

About This Book

A collection of learned discourses interrogates the theory and practice of writing history, arguing that historical talent requires judgment beyond memory, and that eminent geniuses and middling writers suffer different faults. It assesses classical historiography and criticism, considers the tension between eloquence, accuracy, and moralizing, and offers apologetic reflections that defend or reinterpret the reputations and actions of notable figures, while probing common prejudices and the limits of critical method.

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.