Part 19

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.

AN ANSWER TO THE LETTER of a GENTLEMAN

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

DEAR SIR,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOD keep you.

A LETTER On the Subject of the WANDERING JEW.

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

DEAR SIR,

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

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

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

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

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

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