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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Prester John.
LXXXIII. It is wonderful, considering how slight our information is of Prester John of India, that even children and rustics are acquainted with his name, although it is not as yet known with any certainty, who this prince is, where he reigns, nor why he is called by this name. When the Portuguese received the first information that the king of the Abyssinians professed himself a Christian, and that his subjects called him Belul Gian, or as others have it, John Coi; they imagined this was Prester John, and their sentiment was adopted, and passed current in all Europe. When afterwards people came to know, that these words in the Abyssinian language, had a different signification from what had been put upon them, and meant the same as precious king, or my king; and reflecting also, that those who gave the first accounts of Prester John, placed him in Asia, and not in Africa, this opinion began to lose ground with men of letters, and to be considered as erroneous. But the doubts respecting who this Christian prince is, in what part of Asia he reigns, and why he is called Prester John, still remain: and with regard to this matter, there are so many opinions, that the enumeration of them would be tedious; but in one thing they all agree, which is, that this prince is of the Nestorian sect; although in other points relating to him they differ widely: some say his empire was extinguished by the Tartars; others, that the name of Prester John was given to the Great Mogul, on account of his assuming the title of Schah Gehan, which signifies king of the world; and that, by equivocal and forced interpretation, Schah Gehan was construed into Prester John. Such a variety of opinions, has raised in me some suspicion, whether all that has been related of this Christian king of Asia, is not entirely fabulous. If, upon inquiry, it shall appear that Paulus Venetus was the first who gave an account of him, and that all other authors have taken what they said upon the subject solely from him: I say, if this should appear to be the case, it will afford a new motive of distrust, and it would be laughable enough, to find that authors have been beating their brains, and scrutinizing all the corners of the globe in search of Prester John, when no such man exists, nor ever did exist in the world; at least, it is not probable, that he exists at present, because in all the modern voyages and travels that I have seen, I don’t meet with the least mention of him; and if there really was such a man, authors in that way, would not have thought him unworthy of their notice.
Pope Alexander the Sixth.
LXXXIV. The memory of our countryman, Pope Alexander the Sixth, is so blackened in story, that the characters in which his history is written, seem to be all contaminated with blots; nor do I undertake, or think any one else, with a probability of success can undertake, his justification or defence, or pretend to clear him of all the crimes which are imputed to him; but may we not suppose, that the hatred of his enemies augmented the catalogue of his faults? It is certain, that Alexander was much abhorred by the Romans, partly from his own misconduct, and partly from that of his son, the outrageous Cæsar Borgia. I firmly believe, that the vulgar rumour never charged any prince with more faults that he was not guilty of, than Alexander; and if the writers of the time were infected with the prejudices of the populace, they would not be scrupulous of inserting the rumours of the vulgar in their histories.
LXXXV. Let us pass from this reflection (which is equally applicable to all other princes who are abhorred by their subjects, as to Alexander) to a particular fact, which, without doubt, is one of the most conspicuous and notorious that is imputed to this prince. It is asserted, that he conspired with his son Cæsar Borgia, to take away by poison, the lives of several cardinals, one of whom was Adrian Cortus, a man who was entirely devoted to him; and that their motive for perpetrating this wickedness, was that of seizing on the riches of the devoted persons: that for the purpose of executing the scheme, the intended victims were invited to a grand entertainment, which was to be given by the pope, at the country-house of Cardinal Cornetus; where a portion of cool poisoned wine was provided, to be served to the persons devoted to death; but by mistake, it was given to the pope and his son; that the son, by the help of a robust constitution, and speedy remedies prescribed by the physicians, escaped; but the pope, who being advanced in years, was unable to resist the shock, resigned his life to the power of the poison.
LXXXVI. This cruel attempt, and the fatal result of it, may I believe, be disputed upon grounds of great probability. Some, who affirm the fact, doubt the pope’s having had any hand in the business, and lay the crime wholly at the door of Cæsar Borgia. Alexander Natalis, who is one of the most severe writers against that pontif, confesses, that there are some who maintain the whole relation to have been fabulous; and adds, that there are manuscript diaries existing, which testify he died upon the seventh day of a continual fever; which is a regular and ordinary disease: and let the truth prevail, why are we not to believe these diaries, which are written originally at the same place, and at the same time when the event happened? What writings can be more deserving of credit than these Diaries? or who, living in Rome at the time of Alexander’s death, would dare to assert in writing, that he died a natural death at the end of seven days after being attacked with a continual fever, if the fact had been otherwise, and especially if all Rome had it in their power to convict him of the falshood? It may be alledged, that the poison was of such a nature as might excite a fever to occasion his death: but experience shews us, that the operation of poisons, is always, or nearly always, attended with uncommon and extraordinary symptoms. Besides, the enemies of Alexander, who were very numerous, had a great propensity to invent and believe every thing that could tend to blacken him, or blast his fame. John Francisco Pico, in the life of a certain religious which he wrote, who was a friend of his, tells us, that there were two opinions which prevailed concerning the death of Alexander: one was, that he died by poison; and the other, that he was suffocated by the Devil, with whom he had made a compact to deliver his soul to him at a stated time, provided he would make him pope. May we not infer from this, that there is no extravagance or chimera which envy is not capable of inventing, in order to render a man infamous: and it is worthy of remark, that those two opinions, with regard to the certainty of them, destroy one another: I mean, that if you could suppose the Devil suffocated him, it would overturn the certainty of his having lost his life by poison. But how, when there is a failure in establishing the certainty of the fact, can you believe a man to have been guilty of so atrocious an action? Is it not doing a serious injury to your neighbour, to suppose him guilty of a heavy crime, upon the strength of uncertain assertions? what ought we to conclude in such a case, but that the crime was invented by the hatred of some, and that it gained credit from a principle of hatred in others?
Henry the Eighth and Anna Bolene.
LXXXVII. The fame that befel Alexander the Sixth, and just in the same way, happened to Henry the Eighth of England, and his wife, or rather concubine, Anna Bolene. Both these personages were guilty of great crimes, and the dishonesty of Anna Bolene, was as notorious as the incontinence of Henry. The king, hurried away by a criminal passion for that lady, in order to possess her, repudiated unjustly his virtuous queen Catherine; and Ann was not only an accomplice in the unjust divorce, but was afterwards proved guilty of adultery. This was sufficient with respect to their incontinence, to render their fame odious to posterity. But Nicholas Saunders, urged by his indiscreet zeal, being desirous of heightening to the utmost the turpitude of them both, confounded the certain with the incredible; from whence it followed, that many of the vulgar among the Catholics, believed the incredible as certain facts.
LXXXVIII. Saunders says, that the love of Henry for Ann was not only illicit, but most enormously incestuous; because, that long before he knew her, he had had criminal conversation, not only with her mother, but also with a sister of her’s, named Mary. He adds, that Anna Bolene, according to the testimony of her own mother, was the daughter of the said Henry. To strengthen the foregoing assertion, he says, this unhappy woman, was born two years after Thomas Bolene the husband of her mother, had been absent from his wife at the court of France, whither he had been sent on an embassy by Henry: that, upon his return to England, he was desirous of repudiating his wife, but the king interposed to prevent it; and the adultress confessed to her husband, that the child he found in his house was the daughter of the king. According to this relation, the correspondence between Henry the Eighth and Anna Bolene, was shocking and incestuous in three particulars.
LXXXIX. With regard to Anna Bolene herself, he represents her, from her tender youth, to have been an infamous prostitute; for, he says, that at fifteen years of age, she surrendered her person, to the embraces of two of the domestics in her father’s house; that soon afterwards she went to France, where her prostitution was so public and scandalous, that they called her by the opprobrious name of the English Mare: that, after a while, she introduced herself into the palace of Francis the First, who was then king of France, and that this prince, was universally known to have made use of the English prostitute, for the gratification of his lewd inclinations: that upon her return to England, she was admitted as a domestic into the houshold of Henry, where he fell violently enamoured with her; but his solicitations to obtain her as a mistress, proved abortive; for Anna, feigning herself to be a most virtuous person, made her pretensions to modesty subservient to her views of ambition; and always replied resolutely to the king’s intreaties, that no man but her husband should have the dominion of her virginity; and upon this, the unhappy Henry, blinded by his passion, solicited and obtained a divorce from his queen Catherine, to enable him to marry Ann.
XC. There is nothing in this whole relation, which does not appear either very difficult to be credited, or absolutely chimerical. The triple incest of Henry, is so much out of the common course, and so horrible, that nothing can excite our belief of it, but proofs which are clearer than the sun at noon-day. That the gallantries of the king of France with Anna Bolene, which were so public and notorious, should not have come to the knowledge of Henry, is by no means credible; for irregularities of this sort, committed by princes, are generally well known at their own courts, and are soon communicated to those of other countries, and especially, when they are so near together as those of London and Paris. Neither is it credible that Henry, after he came to know that Ann had deceived him with respect to her being a maid, and when he had gratified the first cravings of his appetite, should not take a disgust to, or, at least, put her away from him: Henry, I say, who was so delicate in these matters, that he repudiated his fourth wife Ann of Cleves, for no other reason than his coming to understand, that before she espoused him, she had been under an engagement to marry another person. According to the chronology of the English History, this relation is not only improbable, but even impossible; because this tells us, that Anna Bolene was born in 1507, and Henry the Eighth was crowned in 1509; that in 1514 Anna went to France in the suite of queen Claudia, who was the sister of Henry, and wife of Francis the First; that Thomas Bolene did not go ambassador to France till the year 1515; and that the return of Anna Bolene to London, is placed between the years 1525 and 1527. From this account, there results two manifest contradictions to Saunders’s relation: the first is, that Anna Bolene, could not at the age of fifteen, and before her going to France, have been guilty of the turpitudes which he charges her to have committed with her father’s domestics; because, before she was eight years old she went to France, and did not return till she had attained the age of eighteen or twenty: the second is, that Anna Bolene was born, not only before Thomas Bolene went ambassador to France, but before he could have possibly been the Ambassador of Henry the Eighth; for Henry was not crowned till the year 1509, and Anna Bolene was born two years before. Finally, not only the English chronology, but Alexander Natalis, in the eighth volume of his Ecclesiastical History, and Father Orleans, in the second volume of his Revolutions of England, together with various Catholic authors, dissent from the account given by Saunders.
Marechal d’Ancre.
XCI. It has so happened, that the tracts of history inserted in this discourse, are mostly favourable to, or in mitigation of the offences of some famous delinquents. There has scarce been a favourite since the days of Sejanus to our times, who was so universally detested, and, according to the process that was instituted against him, with so much reason, as the Marechal d’Ancre; who was a Florentine by birth, named Concino Concini, and who came to France with queen Mary of Medicis, by whose favour, during her regency, he was raised to the first offices in the state, and arrived at having the absolute controul of the whole monarchy. His insolence, his ambition, his cruelty, and his avarice, occasioned it to be resolved upon, as soon as Lewis the Thirteenth ascended the throne, to take away his life; but as on account of his creatures, and his great power, they did not dare attempt the thing by a regular process, they gave a commission to one Vitri, who was a captain in the guards, to put him to death in any manner that he should find most expedient; which he executed, by pistoling him upon the Pont Neuf, where he happened to meet him, unprepared or provided for his defence. The fury of the populace, manifested the implacable and inveterate hatred, which was entertained against the defunct favourite: they tumultuously dragged his body from the church, and hung it upon a gallows, which the Marechal had erected to hang those on who should murmur against him; they next beheaded him, and dragged the body through the streets and squares of the city; after this, they cut pieces off from it, with an intent to preserve them as precious mementos of the public vengeance. It is said, the ears were sold at a very high price. The grand provost, attended by his archers, attempted to restrain the populace, but was obliged to desist, as they threatened, if he did not remain quiet, to bury him alive. They threw the entrails into the river, and burnt part of the body before the statue of Henry the Fourth, which stands on the Pont Neuf; and some cut pieces of flesh, which they broiled at the fire they had made, and ate them: one manifested his rage, by tearing out and publicly eating the heart; and another, who by his dress appeared to be a man of condition, running his hand into the carcase, and drawing it out all besmeared with blood, lifted it to his mouth and sucked it; and scarce ever was the hatred of any people carried to such a pitch of fury. After he was dead, they instituted that prosecution against him which they did not dare to commence while he was living; and upon the depositions and evidence which were laid before his judges, they not only declared him guilty of high treason, but of having professed Judaism, and been in league with the Devil; and a little while afterwards, they beheaded and burnt his wife Leonora Gallagai, for the same crimes.
XCII. With all this, there has not been wanting a person, who has attempted to excuse and justify the Marechal d’Ancre, and not one who was a creature or countryman of his, or in any shape connected with him, but a Frenchman, a peer, and Marechal of France, Francis Annibal Duke d’Etré, a man famous for his military exploits and his embassies, and one who was very well informed with respect to the intrigues and secret management of those times. This nobleman, in his Memoirs of the Regency of Mary of Medicis, attributes the tragedy of the Marechal d’Ancre to mere misfortune; he celebrates his great talents, and says, that he was naturally disposed to do what was right, and that, therefore, very few people who knew him disliked him; but he acknowledges, that although he was a pleasing man in conversation, he entertained high and ambitious notions; but adds, that he concealed them profoundly; and he concludes with saying, that he had heard him declare many times, they murdered the king without his order or knowledge.
XC. These contradictions in history are truly astonishing. The Marechal d’Etré is an evidence superior to all exception; for if he could ever have had any obligations to d’Ancre, they must have been but trifling, because he obtained his most distinguished honours, and such as were very correspondent to his merit, in the reign of Lewis the Thirteenth. What then shall we say to all this? why, under such circumstances, good criticism will pursue a middle course; and conclude, that d’Ancre incurred the public hatred, partly on account of his being so great a favourite, which of itself is sufficient to make a man regarded with an evil eye; and partly on account of his being a stranger, which is a circumstance that nearly always produces, in those who are to obey, envy and indignation: and finally, the abuse of his power, in some instances of his conduct, may also have contributed to raise the flame. But the most atrocious crimes alledged against him in his prosecution, we may suppose, were the invention of his enemies; for, notwithstanding the evidence upon record seems to confirm the truth of them, we may conclude, that out of so great a number as these consisted of, and who were for the most part enraged witnesses, there would not be wanting some of them, who would give such testimony as their rage dictated to them, although it was contrary to truth, and against their consciences.
Urban Grenadier, and the Nuns of Loudun.
XCIII. Francis Urban Grenadier, canon of Loudun, in the province of Poictou, is the last person we shall enumerate in this catalogue; his tragedy has been, and still is, much animadverted upon, both within France and without it. This man, who was endued with talents above mediocrity, was genteel in his person, sufficiently learned, and an eloquent orator; but a lover of, and beloved by the other sex, to a degree bordering upon excess. Either his talents or his vices, or both together, raised him many enemies, but their animosity was most probably directed against the first; for the world is more apt to attack people out of envy to their good qualities, than from motives of morality, or from being disgusted at their vices. It happened, that all the nuns of a convent at Loudun seemed affected in a strange way, which was imputed by many to their being bewitched. What reason the enemies of Grenadier had, or pretended to have, for attributing this mischief to him, I can’t imagine; but they gave information of this matter to Cardinal Richlieu, who was at that time, under colour of being minister, the king de facto of France; to this man of power, they accused Grenadier of being the author of the possession of these nuns. The cardinal had more than one motive to wish the ruin of Grenadier; for when he was no more than Bishop of Louzon, there had been a sharp dispute between them; but what irritated him most against Grenadier, was an information which those who accused him of the crime of sorcery gave the cardinal, that Grenadier was the author of a satyr intitled Le Cordonier de Loudun, which was very severe upon his person, birth, and pedigree. The cardinal ordered that an enquiry should immediately be made respecting the possession of the nuns, and the sorcery of Grenadier; in which he directed, they should be careful to observe the colour and appearance of strict justice. Twelve ecclesiastics were appointed judges in the cause; who, after a formal and seemingly minute enquiry, condemned him to be burnt alive; which sentence was afterwards executed upon him, and he, at the terrible crisis of his suffering, shewed great Christian patience and fortitude.
XCIV. But notwithstanding all the judicial solemnity of the process, many people doubted of the justice of the sentence, and attributed the whole proceeding to political artifice, assisted by the delusion of some, and the credulity of others. The cardinal, who from aloft directed the movements of the machines, although he was allowed to be a man of great abilities, was generally known to be furiously vindictive. He neither wanted capacity nor power, to crush the most spotless innocence under the colour and shew of justice. The judges are said to have been good men, but very credulous, and people of little penetration, who were on this account pitched upon by the enemies of Grenadier. The rigour of the sentence shews, that some other motive intervened to produce it besides the love of justice; and what above all manifested such a motive, was the cruel oppression that was practised on him, in obliging him to make use of a particular confessor, notwithstanding he alledged that he disliked him, for that he was his enemy, and had been one of the principal instruments in working his ruin. He intreated, that for the expiation of his sins, they would permit him to have Father Guardian of the society of Franciscans at Loudun, who was a learned man, and a divine of the Sorbone; but it was not possible for him, either to obtain this grace, or a permission to have any other man but him whom he had objected to as his enemy. It is also said, that the witnesses who deposed against Grenadier, were the very Devils who tormented the nuns; and the testimony of such men, by all laws, divine and human, is unworthy to be admitted. Many observations were written and sent to the press upon the possession of the nuns, with a view of evincing, that it was all delusion and a made-up tale. The Devils at first, answered in French, to the questions that were asked them in Latin; afterwards, when they were desirous of speaking a little Latin, they made many false concords, which caused some wags in France to remark, that the Devils of Loudun were but novices in grammar, who had not yet advanced to the third form. There were two men of ability, who offered to demonstrate the delusion and imposture of the possession of the nuns; but they were so severely threatened by the cardinal, that one of them fled to Rome, and the other was obliged to conceal himself. The exorcists were sent from Paris by the cardinal; which circumstance, joined to the great pains that were taken to persuade the truth of the possession, sufficiently demonstrates the complexion of the business. Finally, in consideration of the circumstances we have recited, and others which we have omitted to mention, many authors within France itself, and among them Egidius Menagius, and the most learned Naudæus, have taken the part of Grenadier, and there is scarce any one, who when he touches upon this matter, does not express himself with some doubt.
XCV. We have laid before the reader all these historical accounts, to let him see, that even to contradict the best-attested relations, and such as have generally been accepted and admitted as true upon the credit of a multitude of writers, and upon the authority of judicial acts, there are so many strong arguments to be alledged, that they excite in the understanding a propensity to doubt them, which doubting sometimes leads to a discovery of their falshood; and from hence we may learn how difficult it is, not only to hit upon the certain, but even to point out what is most probable in history, although I do not, on this account, pretend to adopt absolute Pyrrhonism, or to claim a general suspension of assent to all that is related by historians. There is a large field for distrust, which, carried to a certain length, is discretion; and, to an extravagant one, folly. It is necessary to examine with great attention, the limits to which doubt may be extended, and to extricate yourself from the labyrinth of it, whenever it is in your power, either by the road of truth, or the path of probability.
XCVI. What I mean to illustrate, is the great difficulties that are to be encountered in exercising worthily the occupation of an historian: to do it well, requires immense reading, a most happy memory, and a criticism that is extremely delicate. How can a man by reading one or two authors, pretend to investigate the truth of what is related by an infinite number? I don’t pretend that it is absolutely necessary he should read them all; for this many times would be impossible; and with respect to those, who he knows did nothing more than copy from others, superfluous; but he should read all those who are of especial note, either on account of the time in which they lived, the diligence with which they applied themselves, or on account of some other circumstances, which might contribute to their acquiring the most punctual information. It is not sufficient to read modern authors only, but you ought rather to proceed by retrospection; and, by beginning at the bottom, trace things upwards through the series of time, till you arrive at the fountains where the original writers drank, and from whom the others derived their intelligence. Neither is the reading antient authors sufficient, as it sometimes happens, that modern ones meet with monuments that were concealed from the others, which often serve to explain old events; and, upon the strength of which, they sometimes exhibit such solid arguments, as render difficult, or totally obstruct our assent to the account given of them by the ancients.
XCVII. Neither is it sufficient to read those authors who, from motives of partiality, would strive to make their relations correspond with their wishes. The rectitude of historic decision, requires that we should hear every one, even our enemies, and pronounce sentence, not according to our inclinations, but the strength and quality of the proofs.
XCVIII. It conduces much, in order to investigate the truth of events related by authors, and is also in a manner necessary, to know the situation and circumstances of the authors themselves; because in these, we may find motives to give or deny them credit; such, as what country they were born in, what religion they professed, and what party they were attached to, whether they were under obligations to, or had cause to be dissatisfied with the persons they introduce in their histories, and whether they were the dependants or relations of any of them, &c.
XCIX. But, above all, it is necessary to find out the natural disposition of an author. There are some, who so strikingly display the character of men of truth and sincerity, that they command our belief of them, even when they speak in favour of the party they are attached to. In this elevated point of view, we may venture to place Philip de Comines, our Mariana, and Henry Catherinus. But to acquire this knowledge of authors, demands singular perspicuity; for, although it is generally said, that in the writings of authors we may read their genius and disposition, we should reflect, that these are much more easy to be disguised by the pen than with the tongue. It is well known, that Sallust was a man of debauched morals; but notwithstanding this, there is scarce any other author, in whom we find such frequent declamations against vice.
C. The degree of reading and extent of historical information that is required, either to write or make a just judgment of any history, is very great. It is not only necessary to know exactly the religion, laws, and customs of the nations to which the events relate, in order to be clear whether they are repugnant to or correspondent with them; but it is also frequently necessary to know those of other nations, because it often happens, that the circumstances of one kingdom are blended with those of another, either by commerce, wars, or a thousand other accidental contingencies.
CI. But what above all makes writing history a difficult task is, that, in order to be a historian, it is necessary for a man to be much more than a historian. This, which may appear a paradox, is not so, but a most true position: I mean, that a person can’t be a perfect historian, who has not studied other faculties besides history; because, in various instances, a knowledge of other faculties discovers the falsity of some historical relations. The understanding geography, for example, no one can deny to be exceedingly necessary. Polybius and Diodorus Siculus, were so diligent in this matter, that before they wrote their histories, they travelled over the kingdoms and countries to which they related. Now-a-days this labour is not necessary, because the numbers of geographical books and maps at present extant, although they are not minutely exact, are sufficiently correct to make this trouble needless.
CII. Besides, there is another circumstance, which perhaps as yet, has never been attended to, which is, that other faculties which are seemingly very foreign from history, often serve to throw lights on various occurrences. What faculty, for example, to appearance, can have less relation to history than astronomy? but Quintus Curtius, through his gross ignorance of this science, fell into an historical error. He says, that when Alexander was marching to India, his soldiers complained loudly, that he was leading them to a country where they should not be able to see the sun. They might have had reason for this complaint, if he had been marching them Northward, in consequence of which, they would have perceived the sun to get lower, and the days to shorten upon them; but by marching towards the South, as they then were marching, they must observe the sun to get higher, and consequently, that fear in the soldiers could not have been possible.
CIII. Who would think of supposing, that optics and catoptrics, and we may say the same of other mathematical subjects, could be of use in writing a history? But please to observe, that by understanding optics, you would know, what Valerius Maximus, and other authors, tell us of a man named Strabo, who, from the promontory of Lilibyum, saw and counted the ships that had just sailed out of the port of Carthage was impossible, because the image of every ship, which at such a distance, could be formed on the retina, must be so exceedingly minute as to have been imperceptible. Also by understanding catoptrics, would be known either the impossibility, or almost insurmountable difficulty of making the burning glasses, with which we are told Archimedes, at the siege of Syracuse, set fire to the ships of Marcellus; that is, if we suppose the ships to have been as far distant from the walls as some authors have placed them, which was more than thirty geometrical paces.
CIV. Finally, and to sum up the whole, as human events which are the object of history, may bear analogy to the objects of all sorts of faculties, there is not one of them, which by an historian’s being acquainted with may not afford assistance in the discovery of the truth of some facts.