FOOTNOTES

[1] I apprehend this should not be understood in so extensive a sense as

father Feyjoo represents it, for that the expression in Aulus Gellius is

_a reviver of obsolete words_.

[2] It seems as if the power and extent of these empires was not well

calculated, when it is asserted that either of them exceeded that of the

Roman empire.

[3] Tamerlane’s extending his conquests further than ever Alexander did

his, is very uncertain; and the enumeration the author immediately gives

of them, differs from the account given us by Herbelot of this matter,

who is a writer exceedingly well versed in Oriental history.

[4] The author in this place is very hyperbolical; for, it is certain,

that so far from the power of the Turks exceeding that of the Roman

empire when it was at its height, the court of Constantinople does not

now command a third part of the countries which were formerly subject to

Rome.

[5] There is no difficulty in supposing this heroic action was performed

by different people, there having been innumerable instances of those who

have found themselves in situations where it was laudable to exert it.

[6] This last declaration savours strongly of a heathenish fiction.

[7] There is no learned man at present who defends this chimera: Bayle,

although a protestant, confutes it demonstratively in his Critical

Dictionary.

[8] The author should not place among those, whose opinion ought to have

weight in history, a man, who deals like a mountebank, in nostrums and

secrets.

[9] We read in many authors, the various opinions that prevailed with

respect to the death of Don Carlos; but in very few, that Queen Isabel of

France was poisoned by her husband Philip the Second; and her being with

child at the same time he was said to have done it, is a circumstance

that gives the tragedy an air of incredibility. We ought to conclude, in

order to give this transaction a face of probability, that Philip the

Second was a very barbarous prince: but as I have my doubts with respect

to his deserving that character, I conjecture this was a calumny invented

by the malice of some strangers.

[10] The mistress of Francis the First, both before and after marriage,

and whose behaviour, with regard to her, gave scandal to all Europe.

Essays, or discourses, vol. 3 (of 4) · 第 84 / 86 题