Part 9

LXIX. The punishment of queen Bruneguilda, who, it is said, Clodovicus the second condemned to be torn to pieces by wild horses, for having taken away the lives of ten Kings, is very doubtful and suspicious. Mariana, who treats this relation as a mere fable, says, the French historians had a great propensity to credit and write marvellous occurrences, which he is at a loss whether to impute to their simplicity or their assurance; and Pasquier refutes separately and distinctly, every accusation that has been charged on that queen.

LXX. Historians are much divided in their opinions, with respect to how the popes came to change their names upon their exaltation to the papal chair. Fr. Paul Sarpi attributes the origin of it to the Germans, whose names sounding harsh and dissonant in the ears of the Italians, they upon being elected popes changed them; which came afterwards to be a custom, says this author, that was followed by the other popes, and by which they meant to express, that they had changed their private and human affections for public and divine cares. Platina pretends, that Sergius the second was the first that changed his name, because that he before went by, had a harsh sound. Baronius treats this reason with contempt, and attributes the origin of the practice to Sergius the third, whose name happening to be Peter, he, from a motive of humility, divested himself of the name of the Prince of the Apostles. Onuphrius believes, that John the twenty-second first set this example, because he would not preserve as pope, the name of Octavianus, which had a heathenish sound. Many are of opinion, that this changing the name was done to imitate St. Peter, whose name of Simon was by our Redeemer changed to that of Cephas.

LXXI. Although the fable of Pope Joan has been refuted by even the Protestants themselves, among whom we may reckon David Blondel, who wrote with an express intention of doing it; there have not been wanting some, who had the reputation of men of learning, who have endeavoured to establish as true so fabulous a fact[7].

LXXII. The original institution of the Electors of Germany is a matter much contested. Some attribute it to Charles the great. Others, such as Blondo, Nauclerus, and Platina, to Gregory the fifth. Maimburgus, and Pasquier, to a celebrated council that was held in the time of this pope. Many again pretend, that Gregory the fifth, the emperor Otho the third, and the princes of Germany, concurred together in making this regulation. According to Machiavel, Gregory the fifth having been driven from Rome by the populace, and reinstated by the emperor Otho the third; he, to chastise the Romans, transferred their rights of chusing the Emperor, to the archbishops of Mentz, Treves, and Cologn, and to the three secular princes, the Count Palatine, the Duke of Saxony, and the Marquis of Brandenburgh.

LXXIII. The Germans themselves, and they only, enjoyed the right of electing an emperor. Albertus, Abbot of Stade, who was an author contemporary with the emperor Frederick the second, says in formal terms, that Gregory the ninth, who had excommunicated Frederick the second, wrote to the German princes, requiring them to elect another emperor; to which they answered, that it did not belong to the pope to concern himself with the election of an emperor, for that was a right appertaining solely to themselves; The same author immediately adds, that by virtue of an ordinance, which had been before made by these princes by common consent, the right of electing an emperor, was declared to be vested in the archbishops of Mentz, Treves, and Cologn, the Count Palatin, the Duke of Saxony, the Marquis of Brandenburgh, and the King of Bohemia. Paulus Vindelecius, in his treatise upon the electors, says, that long before this, it was the custom, to present to the seven great officers of the empire, him who had the most suffrages in the diet; and according to Aventinus in his Annals, and Onuphrius in his Treatise on the Imperial Diets, the right of electing an emperor was restrained by Pope Gregory the tenth to the seven electors.

LXXIV. All that can with certainty be deduced from this variety of opinions, is, that the institution of the electors was not antecedent to the thirteenth century, and that it did not take place till after the reign of Frederick the second; for before that time, all the contemporary authors testify, the princes, prelates, and German nobles, elected the emperor. Lampadius, a great German lawyer, places the institution of the electoral college in the reign of Frederick the second; and Otho Frisingensis says, that Frederick the first, called Red Beard, was elected by all the Princes of the empire. Trithemius, in his Chronicle, determines the beginning of the suffrages of the electors, to have commenced at the election of William Count of Holland, in the year 1247. According to Frederick Brockelman, the mode of electing by seven, began at the election of Adolphus Count of Nassau, who, he says, was chosen by the three archbishops, the three secular Princes, and a proxy on the part of the King of Bohemia. At another election, the Archbishops of Treves and Mentz, the King of Bohemia, and the Marquis of Brandenburgh by proxy, gave their votes for Louis of Bavaria; and the Archbishop of Cologn, the Count Palatin, and the Duke of Saxony, voted for Frederick of Austria. This division of the suffrages of the Electors, proves clearly, that they then consisted of no more than seven. The electoral order was not formally and permanently settled, till it was established by the Golden Bull of the emperor Charles the fourth.

LXXV. William du Bellai de Langey, and Monsieur Haillan, say, that the famous Maid of Orleans, Joan d’Arc, was not burnt; and Father Vignier adds, that after her imprisonment by the English, or rather after being released from that imprisonment, she married with Gil de Armuesa, and left children by him. The author of the Latin poem, which contains her history, says, that after she had suffered the punishment of being burnt alive, to which the English had condemned her, her memory was restored to credit by a decree.

LXXVI. The historians of the times in which the event happened, are not agreed upon the circumstances of the assassination of the Duke of Burgundy, at Montereau Faut-Yonne, in 1419; some say, that the Duke, upon approaching the Dauphin, fell on his knees to salute him, and that then, Tranquildo du Chatel gave him a blow with a hatchet, which he instantly repeated, and the duke fell dead. Others tell us, that the duke attempting to make the dauphin a prisoner, the attendants of the dauphin who were with him, fell upon the duke and killed him. Others again say, that three gentlemen of the defunct duke of Orleans, attended this interview, with an intention of revenging the death of their late master; which design they executed, by killing the duke so suddenly and unexpectedly, that it was impossible to prevent it.

LXXVII. Alexus Piamontes, speaking of an elixir calculated to restore blind people to their sight, says, that this remedy was contrived at a consultation of the most learned physicians of Italy, in 1438, for the purpose of recovering the sight of the emperor of Constantinople, who was then attending the council of Ferrara with the pope Eugenius the Fourth, and that in fact, it did restore his eye-sight perfectly. Father Le Brun, in his history of superstitious practices, gives us this passage of Alexus Piamontes, and says, that in order to find out the truth of the fact, he had examined all the contemporary authors who had spoke of the emperor John Palcologus, and what happened to him at Ferrara in 1438; and that upon this enquiry, he found that neither Blondo, Ducas, nor Calcondylas, had wrote a word concerning the loss or recovery of this emperor’s sight at Ferrara; and that Sylvester Scyropulus, so far from giving us to understand that this emperor had been blind at Ferrara, or had suffered the least disorder in his eyes during his abode there, says, that instead of attending the business of the council, he amused himself continually with hunting and shooting, which is a diversion, not well calculated for a man who has lost his eyes, or has even an impediment in his sight[8].

LXXVIII. Varillas, in his anecdotes of Florence, writes, that Peter de Medicis finding his father dead, after Leoni his physician had given assurances that he could cure him; in a fit of rage, fell upon Leoni and tumbled him headlong into a well, where he was suffocated. Angelo Politianus, who was present at his decease, and who, in one of his letters on the subject, writes all the circumstances of the death of Lorenzo the father of Peter de Medicis, says, that Leoni, in a fit of despair at not having been able to cure Lorenzo according to his promise, threw himself into a well, and was drowned there. Who shall we believe in this case, Angelo Politianus, or Varillas? It may be that the enemies of Peter de Medicis, with a view of tarnishing his fame, have attributed to him this brutal act of drowning the physician: and it might also happen, that Angelo Politianus, who was a partizan of the Medicis family, gave the relation he did, in order to defend the character of Peter from so black an imputation. We are often placed in this state of doubt and perplexity by history, and don’t know who or what to rely on; and are equally in danger of being deceived by authors, whether they mislead us from motives of flattery or of hatred.

LXXIX. Some historians have said that Philip the Second, caused his son Don Carlos to be strangled. Paul Piasechi, a bishop and senator of Poland, gives us to understand, that King Philip procured his son Don Carlos to be dispatched; but he speaks ambiguously, and does not explain whether this prince died of poison, or of grief at finding himself imprisoned. Saint Evremont writes, that the Spaniard who strangled Don Carlos, said to him at the time he was about it, _Have patience Sir, this is done for your good_. Nothing surely can have more the appearance of an invented falsehood than this cruel and barbarous irony. The Venetian senator, Andrew Morosini, says in his History of Venice, that Charles not having any instrument wherewith to kill himself, determined to starve himself to death; but not being suffered to do this by those who looked after him, he tried the expedient of swallowing the diamond of one of his rings; but this not having the desired effect, he was resolved to put an end to his life by one means or other; and betook himself to eating and drinking with excess, which brought on a dysentery that carried him off in a few days. Cabrera agrees with the Venetian senator; but the greatest part of historians insist, that his death was not voluntary, but directed by his father; to whom they attribute his saying, by way of justifying the act, that if he found he had any bad blood belonging to him, he had an undoubted right to let it out. It is much to be wondered at, that a circumstance of history which is of no greater antiquity, should be enveloped in such clouds and darkness. Charles ended his life on the 24th of July, 1568, at four in the morning, aged twenty-five years and fifteen days.

LXXX. Isabella of France, called the Princess of Peace, on account of that which accompanied her marriage with Philip the Second, died the third of October in the same year, and two months and ten days after Don Carlos. The Spanish historians attribute her death to a mistake of the physicians, who bled her when she was pregnant: ours, on the other hand, accuse her husband of being the author of it: and Mezeray speaks of the event in the following words: We are about to relate one of the most monstrous adventures imaginable; which is, that Philip the Second having come to understand that his only son Charles had held a correspondence with the confederated lords of the Low Countries, who were endeavouring to prevail upon him to come to Flanders, caused him to be imprisoned, and deprived of life, either by slow poison or strangling him; and that a little while afterwards, on account of some jealousy he entertained, he poisoned his wife, together with the infant in her womb; as was attested afterwards by her mother queen Catherine, upon the authority of secret informations given to her by her daughter, and by the depositions of the domestics of that princess, after their arrival in France[9].

LXXXI. Nothing can be blacker than the colours in which Buchanan paints the unfortunate Mary Queen of Scots, although other historians give her the character of a very perfect princess.

LXXXII. I shall insert here the judgment Montaigne makes, of a history written by William de Bellai, and of the memoirs of Martin de Bellai his brother. He says, “It can’t be denied that we perceive evidently in those authors, a great neglect for that frankness and sincerity of writing which is resplendent in our ancient historians; such as Monsieur Joinville, a domestic of Saint Louis; Eginard the chancellor to Charles the Great; and Philip of Comines, who is more modern. Their works are more properly a declamation in favour of king Francis, and against Charles the Fifth, than a history. I would not willingly believe they have altered any thing with respect to the material facts; but it looks as if they took pains to warp the judgment of the reader in favour of their own country, and as if they studiously omitted, to mention any thing that made against the reputation of their own monarch: and it is remarked by Montmorenci and Brion, that they never once mention Madame d’Estampes[10]. They might omit to speak of private transactions, but their being silent upon things that became of consequence on account of the effect they had on public concerns, was an inexcusable fault; and, believe me, he who would attain a thorough knowledge of the character of Francis, and the things which happened in his reign, should read other historians.”

_Of good Criticism on History._

LXXXIII. We think it is now time, to have done treating of so inscrutable a matter as the contradictions of historians. In order to form something like a consistent judgment of suspicious histories, criticism should ascend to the first fountains, and perhaps the only ones from whence they were derived; for instance, to Marianus Scotus, for the story of Pope Joan; and to Gaguin, for the pretended erection of the kingdom of Yvetot. It is next necessary, to attend carefully to the time, in which the first bringer to light of an uncertain fact wrote, what profession he was of, what party he followed, and, above all, what was his character with regard to his adherence to or indifference for the truth; and also, whether in all his works he has preserved exactness and uniformity; and we should likewise attend to the consistency of the testimonies in support of a relation, which ought always to be mentioned. These precautions, might tend to lead us on to a knowledge of the truth of historical facts.

_The Benefit to be derived from the Study of History._

LXXXIV. The principal object in the reading of history, ought to be that of studying men, their characters, and geniuses. He who reads, says Montaigne, should not attend so much to the era of time in which Carthage was destroyed, as to the customs and manners of Hannibal and Scipio; nor so much to the knowing where Marcellus died, as why he acted unworthy of his duty and obligations, by exposing and losing his life for a trifling object. To study history, is to study the opinions, the motives, and passions of men; and the fruit of that study, should be learning to know yourself by the knowledge you acquire of others; to correct your failings by their examples; and to learn experience at their expence.

LXXXV. The obligations of an historian are, to instruct men by making them acquainted with the exact truth of events; because, if nothing more was necessary than to display sentiments, geniuses, and customs, novels and theatrical pieces would be equally opportune to answer that purpose as historical volumes. The author of the novel of Sethos says justly in his preface, that feigned situations and circumstances are the best suited for exhibiting great examples; but observes likewise, that the display of characters and example, makes an incomparably greater impression, when it is blended, if not with an intire persuasion, with a probable opinion of the truth of the facts.

THE DIVORCE OF HISTORY from FABLE.

SECT. I.

I. The maxim, that a lie is always the child of something, has done great mischief in the world; because it authorizes fiction, attributing to it an illustrious birth, by supposing it to have been derived from, and nursed in the cradle of truth. Those who adopt this opinion, conjecture, that there is no error whatever which has not more or less mixture of reality in its composition, and that fable, is always built upon some solid historical fact.

II. Both reason and experience militate against this vulgar hypothesis; experience, because we every day see artful impositions, which owe their origin, solely to the malice of those who prefer them. What reason could the wife of Potipher have, for attributing an infamous attempt to the chaste Joseph? What mixture of truth was there in the premeditated accusation, which the two old lechers preferred against the innocent Susannah? but it is wasting time to repeat examples, which are daily presenting themselves to our eyes and ears.

III. If we consult reason, we shall be convinced, that he who can devise the one half of a fabulous tale, can easily invent the other half; for what more difficulty can there occur in the invention of the one, than the other part of it? or what necessity is there for his borrowing materials for a fable from a true event, who possesses a fertile mine of them in his own imagination? The logicians say, and they say right, that there are some entities of reason which have real foundations; and others, which have none. This maxim may be applied to fables; as there are many of them which are partly grounded on true facts; and many likewise, whose composition is all pure iron, in which, there is not the least mixture of either gold or silver.

SECT. II.

IV. The idea, that a lie is always mixed with some truth from whence it was derived, is not only prevalent among the vulgar, but has also taken place in the imaginations of many learned men; who have extended the opinion to those truths and lies, which are the most different in themselves, and the most widely distant from each other; that is, to revealed truths, and the errors which are diametrically opposite to them. These pretend, that all the fables of gentilism, took their rise from events that are related in the scripture; and that these fables, are nothing else but sacred history altered and corrupted.

V. The erudition that has been expended in this endeavour, is immense; and there is no doubt, but the arduousness of the undertaking, requires great learning and reading, as it demands a knowledge of almost all the profane authors, in order to extract from their works all those circumstances, in which they shall find any allusion between the fables and the histories; and also a profound knowledge of the Oriental languages, for the purpose of deducing, either by means of the signification or etymology of the words, the resemblance between the names of the heroes and deities of the Pagans, and those of the persons of the scripture. This is a task, that has been undertaken by men who were extremely learned and able; such as Bishop Huet, Father Tournemine, Samuel Bochart, Nicholas Butler, Heinsius, Vossius, and others. But their labours turned out to be all cultivating with great industry a soil, that was capable of producing nothing but flowers; I mean, that all the toils of these great men, served only to shew their ingenuity and erudition, but not to discover the truth.

VI. I well know this sentiment of mine stands in need of much support, on account of the great numbers of literary men who are votaries to the opinion, that in the fables of the Gentiles, are involved or disguised the truths of the scripture; finding then that I can have but little hopes of aid from authority, I must appeal to reason; but I consider myself to have so good a plea at this tribunal, that I have great expectations judgment will be pronounced in my favour by all such of my readers, as are divested of prejudice or preoccupation.

SECT. III.

VII. The first thing that seems to have weight against this system, is the great opposition between the authors themselves who are the advocates for it, with regard to their application of the cases instanced by them; for in the same fable, in which one fancies he sees traces of one part of sacred history, another imagines he perceives those of a very different one. For example, Monsieur Huet conceives, that in the fabulous story of Hercules, is involved or disguised the history of Joshua; and Nicholas Butler finds in the same fable, the adventures of Adam. Mons. Huet fancies, that Moses is described in the fable of Perseus; and Mr. Butler, in the same fable, discovers the history of Jonas. Is it not clearer than the sun at noon-day, that the adventures of Joshua and Adam, as likewise those of Moses and Jonas, which are so different in themselves, can only by the force of violent and strained allusions, be made in one fable, to be descriptive of Joshua and Adam, and in another, of Moses, and Jonas?

VIII. But the disagreement in what I am now about to mention, is much more enormous still. Mons. Huet, who, in the errors of paganism, fancies he discovers multiplied descriptions of Moses, imagines, he sees this hero painted to the life in the fable of Prometheus; and in the same fable, Father Tournemine finds depicted the crime and punishment of Lucifer. Such a striking contradiction, makes it manifest, that authors who employ themselves in such undertakings, are not guided by any firm or permanent lights which are thrown on the objects of their speculations, but by some false rays, which are furnished by their own imaginations.

SECT. IV.