XXXVII. Pliny makes but a poor figure, in the eye of the inferior class
of literary people, who look upon him as no better than an artful
impostor, that filled his natural history with improbable tales. This
has been occasioned principally, by some authors who are a kind of
secret-mongers, and who deal in the marvellous, and have, in order to
give a sanction to their writings, quoted the authority of Pliny, to
justify many of the wonderful tales they relate; but these have not only
quoted Pliny for what he never said, but have also had the effrontery to
make use of his name, to patronize stories which he point-blank contemns
and reprobates. Pliny frequently makes mention of the wonderful secrets,
or strange operations of magic, but he always does it with derision and
contempt; and treats the authors of them as mountebanks and impostors. I
have always said, and I won’t retract my assertion; that you will not
find in all Pliny, mention made of any secret of the portentous kind
(and he relates many of that sort) which he does not reprobate as a
ridiculous tale, and an absurd fiction, generally invented by those who
call themselves magicians. Now what is the practice of the dealers in
these kinds of secrets? Why they say, that they extracted the relations
they give of them from the works of Pliny, but fraudulently conceal
that Pliny, made a joke of them. How many silly people have been led
to imagine, that there are those that can make themselves invisible
whenever they please, and that the great secret of doing this, consists
in carrying about them, what they call the sun-flower-stone, together
with the plant that bears the same name. This wonderful receipt, may be
seen in Pliny (lib. 37. cap. 10.) but you will also find there annexed to
it, by Pliny, the strongest censure that can be expressed; for he says,
that an extravagance of this kind is a clear proof, of the assurance and
want of modesty in those who are called magicians, and shews plainly,
to what a degree they are capable of lying. _Magorum impudentiæ, vel
manifestissimum in hos quosque_, (that is the sun-flower-stone) _exemplum
est_. He expresses himself to the same effect, in every other part of
his writings where he speaks of magicians. In his thirtieth book, cap.
1. in one short sentence only, he condemns the whole farago of magical
operations, and calls magic the most deceitful and fallacious of all
arts, _fraudulentissima artium_.
XXXVIII. Even of the lesser sort of secrets, which do not border upon
the incredible, such as medicinal ones commonly are, he speaks with so
much circumspection, that he scarce ever says any thing affirmatively
respecting them. He always, or nearly always, speaks doubtfully of them,
and uses the terms, it is so said, or it is so believed; _dicunt_,
_tradunt_, &c. and very often, he names the author who makes mention of
them.
XXXIX. But as those are very few who know Pliny in his own works, and
only see the miserable extracts that are made from them by puffing crafty
people, they are led from thence to conclude, that Pliny was the author
of all the ridiculous fictions that are imputed to him, by which means,
this great writer has incurred the vulgar ignominious note, of being a
man of little veracity, and one who could not be depended on.
XL. The worst is, (and although I could wish to conceal it, the sacred
reverence due to truth obliges me to declare it) that not only
secret-mongers, and mountebank puffers, have brought Pliny into this
disesteem, but even authors of a very different character, have greatly
contributed to discredit him. In how many philosophical writings, in how
many printed sermons, and in how many moral and mystical essays, have
we seen Pliny quoted as the legitimate author, of this or that fabulous
tale? I am willing to believe, that the greatest part of them quote him,
without the least design of injuring his fame, and relate what they say,
from the quotations of others. But God defend us from a little preacher
of bagatelles, having it in his power to bring Pliny into contempt,
because some things which improperly go under his name, apply aptly as
similies, or allusions to his chimeras; I say God defend us in such
cases, that he, by quoting Pliny, should be enabled to shelter himself
under his authority, as if the things he mentions came immediately from
him!
XLI. Another cause of the discredit of Pliny, is the multitude of natural
prodigies, which are for the most part false, that we find related in
his history, especially those of monsters of a strange appearance, such
as pigmies, men without heads, and with their eyes in their shoulders;
others with canine or dogs heads; others again, who had only one eye,
that was placed in the middle of their foreheads; others, with their
feet turned backwards; others with two pupils to each eye; others, with
feet so large, that they were capable of shading their whole bodies;
others, who see better by night than by day; and of whole nations of
Hermaphrodites; of a people, who support themselves wholly by smelling to
perfumes; and of another people, where all the individuals are witches
and wizards, &c. But as the Europeans of late years, have penetrated
into, and explored nearly all the provinces of the world, but have found
none of these species of monsters, some have suspected that they were all
the children of Pliny’s brain, and others have been led to think, that
Pliny had been indiscreet enough to believe them, upon the relations of
lying travellers.
XLII. It is possible to refute, both the one and the other of these
calumnies, and to support the refutation by good evidence. In the
first place, Pliny subjoins to every one of these stories, the author
from whom he took it. Secondly, prior to his giving the account of the
multitude of prodigies he relates, he protests that he does not pledge
himself as a voucher for the truth of them; and immediately refers the
reader to the works of the authors from whence they were taken, that
by examining them, he may have an opportunity of informing himself more
fully, respecting any doubts he may entertain of them; _Nec tamen ego in
plerisque eorum obstringam fidem meam, potiusque ad auctores relegabo,
qui dubiis reddentur omnibus._
XLIII. By way of summing up the defence of Pliny, we shall here recite
the opinion, which some very learned men, and critics of the first
note, have entertained, both of him and his natural history. Celius
Rhodiginius, calls Pliny _a most learned man_, and adds, _that none but
unlearned ones, disrelish his writings_. Gerard John Vossius, calls his
history _a great work, and one that can never be sufficiently applauded_.
Joseph Scaliger, pronounces that the natural history of Pliny, _on
account of its being so great and excellent, is not relished by vulgar
understandings_; Lansius, gives it the title of the Library of Nature;
and Angelo Politianus, illustrates it with the epithet of a collection
of all memorable things, and calls the author, _the supreme judge of
ingenuity, and a most acute, discreet, and admirable censor_. The Jesuit
Drexelius, proclaims him _the most noble panegyrist of nature, and a man
of prodigious erudition_; and says in another place, _that he is a most
perspicuous scrutinizer, and delineator of nature_. Justus Lipsius says,
_that there was nothing which Pliny had not read, and which he did not
understand, and that his writings comprehended all the learning of the
Greeks and Romans put together_. The two eulogiums which remain for us
to mention, apply more directly and immediately to the subject of this
apology than any of the others. The first is that of Gulielmus Budeus,
who gives him the attribute, of a man of the _strictest veracity_, for
this is the true meaning of the expression Budeus makes use of, which is,
_veritatis antistes_. Thomas Dempster bestows on him the epithets, _of a
most diligent and eloquent writer, and a man of incomparable veracity_;
and finally pronounces, that his writings were of more value, than those
of all the other antient authors put together. _Unus omnium instar._ More
cannot be said.