LVIII. The proper name of this hero, is not Tamerlan, but Timurbec; for
thus he was called by his own subjects; and this is the name by which the
Persian writers call him. It is true, that some of the Oriental authors
call him Timur-lenk; and so Monsieur Herbelot calls him; but others are
of opinion, that this last name was affixed to him as a term of reproach
by the Turks, who changed the termination _bec_, which signifies prince,
into the word _lenk_, which signifies lame; which was done, either
because the Turks really thought he was so, or because they feigned him
to have been so; or else, the cause of his lameness, was a fiction of
their raising, as we shall presently make appear probable. The describing
him by the name of Timur-lenk, having been introduced into Europe, it
soon became corrupted there into Tamerlan, or Tamorlan, and has been
generally made use of by all the European writers, for it is but a few
years ago, that we learned from the Oriental authors, his true name. But
as calling him either by one name or another, is a matter of little
importance, we shall make use of the name which has been most generally
adopted, as by that he will be best known.
LIX. Tamerlan, without doubt, was one of the most famous conquerors the
world ever knew, and deserving to be ranked among the catalogue of the
greatest heroes, with the Alexanders and the Cæsars. It may be, that
circumstances made the victories of Alexander and Cæsar more remarkable
than his; but it is certain, that neither the one nor the other of
them, obtained so many as Tamerlan. There is not a single author, who
does not acknowledge the great number of his triumphs and victories,
and they also unanimously confess, that he was possessed of all the
endowments necessary for obtaining them; so that we should not look
upon his conquering so many countries, and preserving them after he had
acquired them, as owing to a lucky assemblage of fortunate events; or
as a gratuitous bequest of fortune; but as a tribute due to his valour,
and military and political conduct. But the virtues of the conqueror,
have been so blackened with the savage actions of the barbarian, that we
have lost the image of the man in the colouring of his picture; because
we only find in his character, as it has been drawn by some historians,
representations in the extreme, of the hero and the brute; and, in order
that his origin should bear proportion with his behaviour, they have made
him the son of a poor shepherd, who soon forsaking the occupation of his
father, became the leader of a gang of thieves; and by increasing his
infamous band to the size of an army, found himself in a condition to
plunder kingdoms, and dethrone princes.
LX. As the account of all these particulars came to Europe immediately
from Turkey, which is a country, where they detest every thing belonging
to Persia, there is no doubt to be made, but all, or nearly all, the
Turks have said to blacken the character of Tamerlan, was an invention
of their own; who, besides the general hatred they bear to the Persians,
view with a particular envious eye, the prince, who above all others, has
humbled the Ottoman pride. To detect the imposture of these relations,
I shall have recourse to those Persian authors, whom Monsieur Herbelot
quotes in his Bibliotheca Orientalis, and the extract from it of the
History of Tamerlan, which is inserted in the Memoirs of Trevoux,
translated from the Persian by Monsieur Petit Lacroix.
LXI. In the first place, what is said of his mean extraction, is false;
for the Oriental authors, which Messieurs Herbelot and Petit Lacroix
quote, describe him as a person most nobly born, and of kingly descent.
Cheref Eddin Ali, who is the author Monsieur Petit Lacroix translated,
says, that his father was a sovereign prince in a part of Transoxana,
and that his territories were in Scythia or Asiatic Tartary; also, that
upon Tamerlan’s succeeding to the sovereignty, he married the sister of
Hussein, king of Transoxana.
LXII. Proceeding from the birth of Tamerlan, to treat of his customs
and manners, I must premise, that I don’t pretend to represent him as
having all the accomplishments of a perfect hero; but those would swerve
as far from the truth, who were to paint him as an infernal fury, and a
barbarian, destitute of all humanity and good faith; and as one, whose
whole behaviour proclaimed, that he was actuated by no other motives,
than those of brutal pride, savage cruelty, and blind rage. Tamerlan,
without doubt, was extremely ambitious; and this was his ruling vice.
But how much more virtuous than him in this particular, were those, who
have been celebrated as consummate heroes, by the unanimous consent of
ages? And what is more, it was the vice of ambition which gained them the
reputation of heroes. If Alexander had not been unboundedly ambitious,
he would never have acquired more applause in the world, than many of
the other kings of Macedonia. Cæsar, without ambition, might have been
equally a great captain; but, divested of his ambition, would never have
made so much eclat in the world.
LXIII. There was certainly a great difference, between the characters
of these two heroes, and that of Tamerlan; for they never exercised any
inhumanity on those they had vanquished; but it must be confessed, that
Tamerlan sometimes did. It will be necessary however in this place,
to obviate an objection that has been made to his conduct, and which
has arisen principally, from those who have treated of the affairs of
this prince, not having made proper allowances for his circumstances
and situation, and from their imputing his actions to wrong motives.
I admit, that he was sometimes inhuman, although he was not so from
genius or inclination, but from policy only. In consequence of the vast
design he had formed, of making himself master of all Asia, or, to speak
more properly, of all the world, he conceived it necessary to adopt
alternately, the two extremes of gentleness and severity; gentleness,
with those who submitted upon the approach of his standards; and
severity, with those who obstinately held out to the last extremity. He
was violently passionate, which is a vice, that although it is different
from that of cruelty, has much the appearance of it, and is frequently
mistaken for it; for to determine whether a man is cruel, we should
observe how he acts in cold blood; as the most merciful and mild disposed
person, in the impetuous sallies of his anger, may be betrayed into
executing a stroke of violence. Many of the bloody orders of Tamerlan,
were given, not while he held the pen, but the sword in his hand; either
in the hour of battle; or immediately after it; and it was before the
warlike raging heat of his blood had time to cool, that he determined
upon acts of vengeance; nor was it in the cabinet, but the field, that
he manifested these dispositions of barbarity. It is certain on the
other hand, that he never was known, neither with those who submitted
themselves voluntarily to him, nor with any of his own subjects, to have
practised an action, that might be termed a cruel one. Tamerlan then, was
not what he has commonly been described to have been, a fierce savage
brute, who, like a Nero, or a Caligula, from sallies of inhumanity and
caprice, and his fondness for doing acts of barbarity, would shed human
blood.
LXIV. Nor was his ambition so outrageous and unbridled, as to excite him
to trample with contempt, on the opinion of the world. He was desirous
of usurping absolute authority, but without incurring the stigma of
being termed an usurper. To accomplish this, he, like other artful
tyrants, disguised this vicious disposition, with the masque of virtue.
He declared, that the world was over-run with corruption, and that
justice and good faith were banished from among mankind, and that we saw
nothing but perfidy and wickedness, practised by princes with princes,
by princes with their subjects, and by the subjects themselves with one
another. Therefore, as he had been vested with a special commission from
the Almighty for the reformation of mankind, he gave out, that Divine
Providence had chosen him as the instrument, to chastise evil-doers, and
to restore all things to their proper state of order and decorum; but he
was neither so vain nor so foolish, as to think the world would give him
credit for being vested with such a commission, upon the bare testimony
of his own word; and therefore, he endeavoured to gain credit for being
so impowered, by putting on the appearances of a devout man, and by
practising the actions of a just one. He esteemed men of letters, and
took delight in their conversation; and always shewed a profound respect
for his false prophet Mahomet. He treated with special attention, the
Doctors of that mistaken sect, and with singular reverence, all those who
had acquired the reputation of being eminently virtuous.
LXV. But above all, he was a strict observer of justice towards his
subjects; and punished thefts and roguery, without remission, or
distinction of persons. He caused governors of provinces to be hanged
like common thieves, if they plundered, or exercised any acts of tyranny
on his subjects. Thus through all his dominions, people’s persons and
properties were so secure and well protected, and their confidence in the
safety of both, was so thoroughly established, that no man seemed to take
the least thought, or to be the least anxious about preserving either of
them, for Tamerlan was the general guardian of all things; and so free
were his territories from thefts, robberies, or outrages, that Cheref
Eddin Ali declares, an unarmed man might travel any route, and from one
end to the other of his dominions, with a bowl of silver on his head
filled with gold, and not meet with the least molestation.
LXVI. It is true, that his severity in some instances, was carried to the
extreme, as for example, when he ordered a soldier to be put to death for
taking from a poor peasant, a little milk and cheese. But the proportion
of bad contained in such actions, should be estimated, by taking into
consideration the whole combination of circumstances accompanying
them; for there are without doubt, various cases, where what seems
excessive rigour, may be dictated by prudence. The sallies of military
licentiousness, require many times, to be restrained by such violent
strictures; for when either among troops, or the people in general,
outrages are very frequent, it may become necessary, in order to suppress
them, to exercise greater rigour, than by the true spirit of justice, is
permitted to be exercised upon ordinary and common occasions.
LXVII. I cannot help in this place making a remark, which is very worthy
of being attended to, and as I don’t remember it has been made by any
other person, I mention it here, which is, that under governments who are
very vigilant in detecting rogues, and very rigorous in punishing them,
there are fewer executions, than where the government is more relaxed;
so that what at first sight may appear extreme rigour, when all things
are considered, is in truth and reality, lenity. It is not difficult to
decypher this seeming paradox. Whenever it is universally known in a
state, that there is great vigilance practised in detecting roguery, and
that after people are convicted of crimes, there is no hope of pardon
for them, the instances of outrages become very rare, and consequently,
if capital punishments don’t become totally unnecessary, they are very
unfrequent. The terror impressed by the first executions, is a curb,
on vile and perverse geniuses; and by a king’s hanging fifty or an
hundred without remission, in the first year of his reign, he may find
it necessary for the rest of his life to execute but very few; on the
other hand, when the pardons are very frequent, and there is but little
pains taken, to apprehend and bring rogues to justice, notwithstanding
that there are many offences concealed, and many pardoned, the number
of executions will be much greater in the course of a reign of moderate
length, where this policy is adopted, than they would in that of a
prince, who was vigilant to detect, and inexorable to punish, when
he first ascends the throne. Let then these pernicious, and mistaken
feelings of lenity, be banished from every state, as what is generally
stiled rigour, is both salutary and beneficial to a community, and to all
the individuals who are members of it.
LXVIII. I must add to this, that the proportioning punishments to crimes,
should not be adjusted by the same rules in all places indifferently. In
the ratio, that some nations are more fierce and stubborn than others,
the degree of punishment, should be increased in those nations; for what
would be sufficient to restrain a mild and timid people, would be useless
to curb a ferocious and hardened one. Tamerlan, who knew the genius and
disposition of those who were under his dominion, knew also, how to
proportion his punishments, to suit the nature and tempers of his various
subjects, and knew likewise, that what would not be more than precisely
necessary in one region, would be excessive in another.
LXIX. There is a particular instance, which demonstrates that he had
great judgment in proportioning punishments, and that he never proceeded
to excessive severities, without sufficient cause. An officer, who had
served with reputation in former wars, was found tardy in a particular
action. We might be apt to conclude from the martial temper of Tamerlan,
that he would have ordered the man to be immediately beheaded; but he
acted quite differently, and was satisfied with inflicting on him a
much milder punishment, and one that was of such a nature, as did not
affect the blood of the delinquent in the execution of it, except it
was, by making it rise in his face from the shame and disgrace of the
chastisement. He caused him to be affectedly ornamented and dressed out
in womens cloaths, and in this habit, exposed him to the derision of the
whole army. This in a European prince, would have been celebrated as a
humourous, and a lenient punishment.
LXX. On the other hand, in his ordinary deportment as a man, he was
mild, affable, and entertaining. What passed between him and the poet
Ahmedi Kermani, shews evidently, that in conversation with his subjects,
he abated his dignity even more, than it is common for the most pacific
princes to do. The same poet tells us the story, in the history of
Tamerlan, which he wrote in verse, and it was from thence Mons. Herbelot
says it was taken.
LXXI. The story runs thus; the king, when he was one day bathing,
attended by many of the nobles of his court, and also by the poet Ahmedi
Kermani, with whose wit and humour he always used to be much pleased,
proposed to him, that he should entertain the company with some pleasant
relation. To which Ahmedi replied, that he begged his majesty would name
the subject. Be it so, answered Tamerlan: I would have you then suppose,
that we are all here in a fair to be sold, and that you are to have the
disposal of us, and are to set a value upon each individual. Upon this,
Ahmedi began to scrutinize all the noblemen who were present, and to
determine with great pleasantry, what he should ask a head for them: he
rated one at one price, and another at another; and for his estimates of
them, assigned some humourous reason. Tamerlan, observing that he had set
a value upon every body but him, reminded him, that he also was for sale.
Ahmedi, without the least embarrassment, replied, Why truly, Sir, I think
I may venture to estimate you at about thirty aspres, which is an eastern
coin of very small value. How! says Tamerlan, you surely have underrated
me; for the napkin round my waist is worth as much as that; why, answered
Ahmedi, that’s the principal thing I regarded in making the estimate;
for I should not have valued your person at above two oblos. Tamerlan,
so far from being offended at this, was pleased with the joke, and
rewarded the poet with a handsome present. I ask now, is this anecdote
of his life, descriptive of a fierce tyrant, or a most affable prince?
These domestic trifles, better display the natural tempers of princes,
than great military, or political operations, because the last, are
almost constantly attended with ostentation mixed with reserve, and the
others, are generally the effects of the pure simple workings of nature
unconstrained.
LXXII. Nor was he deficient in point of modesty, for he generally had an
eye to preserving the appearance of it in his deportment; and if this
was not the effect of virtue, it at least shewed his discretion; and may
as fairly be urged as an argument, to disprove the allegation of his
being a vain boaster, as if his behaviour had proceeded from the purest
motives. Being once in conversation with a Mahometan Doctor, whom he had
taken a prisoner, he said to him, Doctor, you see me here just what I am;
which is properly no more than a miserable little man, or rather a half
man; and notwithstanding I have conquered so many provinces and cities,
in Iraca, in the Indies, and in Turquestan; I owe all my successes, to
_the divine Grace and Favour_; nor has the spilling the blood of so many
Mussulmen been my fault; for I swear and protest to you in the presence
of God, that I have never undertaken any war, with a deliberate purpose
of oppressing any one; but it has been my enemies, who have provoked the
chastisement of my arms, and have brought on themselves their own ruin.
LXXIII. He was always consistent and uniform in his declarations of
the motives for his conduct, and constantly insisted, that he never
employed his troops in any enterprize, from mere views of ambition, but
from necessity, and upon great provocation; and in truth, he was not so
unjust as he has commonly been represented to have been. Hussein, King
of Transoxana, whose dominions were the first he conquered, might more
properly be called the invader of Tamerlan, than Tamerlan could be deemed
the invader of him; for Hussein, to the injustice of entering the other’s
territories hostilely, and without provocation, added ingratitude also,
Tamerlan having in some of his military enterprizes, done him great
service. The other princes, over whom he triumphed, were for the greatest
part usurpers, and people who had acquired what they held, by more
iniquitous means, than Tamerlan used to distress them; for they usurped
what they seized from the legitimate owners, but he only took what he
despoiled them of, from a set of thieves. Neither did he move against
Bajazet unprovoked, for he, before experiencing the least hostility from
Tamerlan, exercised some hostile acts, both upon Tamerlan’s subjects,
and upon several princes who were in alliance with him; to which we may
add, that various other princes whom Bajazet had despoiled, implored the
assistance of Tamerlan against his oppressions, as against the common
enemy of mankind. In consequence of all this, Tamerlan sent an ambassador
to him, to remonstrate against the injustice of his conduct, and to try
by fair means, to bring him to reason, but he treated his ambassador with
scorn, and dismissed him contemptuously.
LXXIV. But the most material thing in Tamerlan’s favour is, that he left
those princes who submitted to him voluntarily in the quiet possession
of their dominions. This benefit, was obtained by the King of Kurt, by
the Sovereigns of Mazanderan, Schirvan, and many others; but in order to
obtain this, they found it necessary to submit to Tamerlan, before his
triumphant troops invested their walls.
LXXV. Neither is there the least foundation, for the tales of the
insolencies he exercised on the princes who became his prisoners. He
not only granted Hussein his life, but permitted him to retire and
live quiet wherever he liked best; but the imprudent distrust of this
unhappy man, cost him his life; for doubting of his safety, he fled from
his habitation, and hid himself in a cave, where a peasant finding him
concealed, put him to death. We are assured, that Tamerlan shed tears,
upon hearing of his catastrophe; but whether those tears were affected
or sincere, will ever continue problematical, as it does, of which
species those were, that Cæsar shed, upon hearing of the death of Pompey.
But, admitting that this grief was feigned, it proves at least, that
Tamerlan strove to preserve the appearance of his being a clement and
compassionate man, which is incompatible with the vulgar accounts of his
brutal and undisguised ferocity.
LXXVI. But after all, the most clamorous charge against Tamerlan remains
still to be replied to, and which we find greatly aggravated in all the
histories that have been written in Europe, where his conduct has been
canvassed, and relates to the cruel imprisonment he inflicted on Bajazet.
That unfortunate monarch, to whom, before he was defeated by Tamerlan,
they, on account of the rapidity of his conquests, gave the surname of
Gilderin, which signifies ray, or flash; after having for a long time
been the terror of Europe and Asia, and after innumerable conquests
gained over both the Christian and Mahometan princes whose territories
were in the neighbourhood of his dominions, was at length, miserably
defeated by Tamerlan, and made a prisoner in a great battle, where they
counted the number of combatants on each side, by hundreds of thousands.
Of this fact there is not the least doubt; the point in dispute, being
only, what was the sequel of the tragedy. All the European authors agree
unanimously, that Tamerlan, as soon as he had the Ottoman monarch in
his power, caused him to be put into an iron cage, which cage, at his
meal-times, he used to order to be placed at the bottom of his table,
from whence he fed him with bones and scraps that he threw to him, in
the same manner that you would feed a dog; and that he never had him
taken out of the cage, but to serve him as a block to tread on whenever
he mounted his horse; and for this purpose, he caused him to be laid
prostrate on the ground, and was used to set his foot on his shoulders.
They tell us further, that Bajazet lived some time in this miserable
state of humiliation; but that at length, he in a fit of rage and
despair, dashed his brains out against the bars of the cage. Some authors
add to this, another very heavy charge against Tamerlan, although they
don’t quote the antient authors from whom they took it, nor have I seen
any author who mentions it. The accusation is this, that Tamerlan caused
the wife of Bajazet to wait upon him naked, when he was sitting at table,
Bajazet himself being present at the spectacle; and that the furious rage
excited in him by the sight of such an object, the beholding of which,
was worse to him than death itself, caused him to dispatch himself.
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.