ANSWER to the dissertation of M. de la Monnoye on the work entitled
"The Three Impostors."
COPY of Part 2d, Vol. 1., Article ix. of "Literary Memoirs," published
at the Hague by Henry du Sauzet, 1716.
DISQUISITIONS
ON THE BOOK ENTITLED
THE THREE IMPOSTORS.
It has long been a disputed point if there was at anytime a book
printed and bearing the title of "The Three Impostors."
M. de la Monnoye, having been informed that a learned German [1]
intended to publish a dissertation the object of which was to prove
that this work had really been printed, wrote a letter, in refutation,
to one of his friends; this letter was given by M. Bayle to M. Basnage
de Bauval, who in February 1694, gave an extract from it in his
"History of the works of celebrated and learned men." At a later
period M. de la Monnoye entered more fully into the subject, in a
letter dated at Paris 16th of June, 1712, and addressed to President
Bouhier, in which letter, he says, will be found an abridged but
complete account of this remarkable book.
He condemns at once the opinion of those who attribute the work
to the Emperor Frederick. The false charge, he says, took its rise
from a passage in the appendix to a discourse concerning Antichrist,
and published by Grotius, wherein he speaks as follows [2]: "Far
be it from me to attribute the book called 'The Three Impostors,'
either to the Pope, or to the opponents of the Pope; long ago the
enemies of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa set abroad the report
of such a book, as having been written by his command; but from that
period nobody has seen it; for which reason I consider it apocryphal."
Colomiez quotes this, page 28 of his "Historical Miscellanies;"
but he adds that there are some blunders--that it was not Frederick
I. (Barbarossa,) on whom they intended to fix the authorship,
but Frederick II. his grandson. This he says, is apparent from the
letters of Pierre des Vignes, the secretary and chancellor of the
second Frederick, and from Matthew Paris; inasmuch as they record,
that this monarch was blamed for having said that the world had been
led aside by "Three Impostors;" but by no means that he had written a
book having such a title. The Emperor denied in the strongest terms,
that he ever made use of any expression to that effect. He detested
the blasphemy with which they charged him, and declared that it was
an atrocious calumny; more shame to Lipsius and other writers who
have condemned him without sufficiently looking into the evidences.
Averroes, nearly a century previous, had jeered at the three religions,
saying [3]; that "the Jewish religion was a law for children; the
Christian religion a law which it was impossible to follow; and the
Mahometan religion a law in favor of swine." [4]
Since then, many people have written with great freedom on this
same subject.
We read in the works of Thomas de Catimpre, that M. Simon de Tournay
had said that "Three Seducers"--Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mahomet,
had "mystified mankind with their doctrines." This is evidently
the M. Simon de Churnay, of whom Matthew Paris relates some other
improprieties, and the same individual whom Polydore Virgil styles
de Turwai, the orthography in both instances having been mismanaged.
Amongst the manuscripts of the Abbe Colbert's library, obtained
possession of by our sovereign in 1732, there is one numbered 2071,
written by Alvaro Pelagius, a Spaniard of the Cordelian order,
bishop of Salves and Algarve, and well known on account of his work,
"The Lamentation of the Church." He states that an individual named
Scotus, of the same order as himself and a Jacobin, was at that time a
prisoner at Lisbon on a charge of blasphemy. Scotus, it would appear,
had said that he considered Moses, Jesus Christ and Mahomet as "Three
Impostors;" for that, the first had deceived the Jews; the second
the Christians; and the third the Saracens. [5]
Gabriel Barlette, in his sermon upon St. Andrew, alludes to Porphyry
in this way; "and therefore the notion of Porphyry is absurd, when
he says that there had existed three individuals who had turned
over the world to their own opinions; the first being Moses amongst
the Jewish people--the second Mahomet, and the third Christ." [6]
A strange chronologist to stamp the era of Christ and Porphyry after
that of Mahomet!
The Manuscripts of the Vatican, quoted by Odomir Rainoldo in the
nineteenth volume of his Ecclesiastical Annals, mention one Jeannin
de Solcia, a canon at Bergame, a doctor of civil and canon law,
known from a decree of Pope Pius II., as Javinus de Solcia. He
was condemned on the 14th November 1459 for having maintained this
impiety--that Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mahomet had ruled the world
at their pleasure. "Mundum pro suarem libito voluntatum rexisse."
John Louis Vivaldo de Mondovi, who wrote in 1506, and amongst whose
works there is a treatise on "The Twelve persecutions of the Church
of God," says, in his chapter upon the sixth persecution, that there
were people who dared to dispute, which of the three law-givers had
been most followed, Jesus Christ, Moses, or Mahomet. [7]
Herman Ristwyk, a Dutchman, burned at the Hague in 1512, sneered at
the Jewish and Christian religions. He does not speak of the Mahometan
creed; but a man who could regard Moses and Jesus Christ as impostors,
could entertain no better opinion of Mahomet.
Now we must turn to an author, name unknown, but accused of
blasphemy against Jesus Christ. The charge was founded upon some
papers discovered at Geneva in 1547, amongst the documents belonging
to M. Gruet. An Italian, named Fausto da Longiano, had begun a work
which he entitled "The Temple of Truth," in which he undertakes
no less than to overturn all religions. "I have," he says, "begun
another work entitled 'The Temple of Truth.' It is probable that I may
divide it into thirty books. In this work will be found the extinction
of all sects--Jews, Christian, Mahometan, and other superstitions;
and matters will be brought back to their first principles."
Now, amongst the letters of Aretino addressed to Fausto, there is
not one to be met with which alludes in any way whatever to this
work. Perhaps it had never been written, and although it had been
published, it must have been a very different book from the one in
question; of which, they pretend that there are some copies in the
libraries in Germany, printed in folio, and written in High Dutch.
Claude Beauregard, better known under his Latin appellation
Berigardus, a professor of philosophy, first at Paris, next at Pisa,
and latterly at Padua, quotes or forges a passage from the work,
"The Three Impostors," in which the miracles which Moses performed in
Egypt are attributed to the superiority of his demon [8] over that
of the Magicians of Pharoah. Giordano Bruno who was burned at Rome,
17th Feb. 1600, was accused of having advanced something much to the
same effect. But although Beauregard and Bruno have indulged in such
reveries, and have thought proper to assert that they quoted from
the work in question, is this a certain proof that they had read
the book? If so they would doubtless have stated whether it was in
manuscript, or in print, and referred to the size and the place where
they found it.
Tentzelius, trusting to one of his friends, a pretended ocular witness,
gives a description of the book, and specifies the number of leaves
and sheets; and attempting to prove in chap. III. of his work that
the ambition of legislators is the only source of all religions,
he gives as examples Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mahomet. Struvius,
after Tentzelius, enters into the same subject, but finding nothing
but what a clever fabulist might invent, he seems much inclined to
disbelieve in the existence of the book.
A journalist at Leipsic, in his "acta eruditarum," dated Jan. 1709,
pp. 36 and 37, gives the following extract from a letter addressed to
him: "Having occasion to be in Saxony I saw, in the Library of M...,
a book entitled "The Three Impostors." It is an 8vo volume, in Latin,
without the name of the printer or the date of its publication;
but to judge from the letter it appears to have been published in
Germany. It was to no purpose that I tried to obtain permission to
read the whole work. The proprietor of the book, a man of sensitive
piety, would not consent to it. I have since learned that a celebrated
professor at Stuttgard had offered a great sum of money for the
volume. Shortly afterwards I went to Nuremberg, and in talking of
this work to M. Andre Mylhdorf, a man respectable alike for his
age, and from his learning, he assured me he had read it, and that
M. Wolfer a clergyman had lent it to him. From the manner in which
he spoke, I thought it might be a copy of the one alluded to above,
and I concluded that it was unquestionably the book referred to;
but not that it was in octavo, nor of so old a date, nor perhaps so
accurate." The writer of the foregoing was able to throw more light
upon the subject and ought to have done so; for it is not enough to
say that he had seen the book--he must produce evidence that he had
seen it, otherwise he ought to be classed with those who promulgate
opinions founded on mere report; in which category we must include
all the authors to whom reference is made in this disquisition.
The first who makes mention of the book as it existed in 1543,
is William Postel, in his treatise on the agreement of the Alcoran
with the doctrines of the Lutherans or the Evangelists. He calls
the work "Anevangelistes," and attempts in it to bring the Lutheran
doctrines into utter disrepute by proving that they lead straightway
to Atheism. To support his argument he instances three or four
productions written, as he says, by Atheists, whom he declares to have
been the first disciples of this new Gospel. He adds, "my opinion
can be vindicated by reference to an infamous pamphlet written by
Villanovanus relative to three works respectively entitled 'The Cymbal
of the World,' 'Pantagruel,' and the 'New Islands;' the authors of
which works were the standard-bearers of the Atheistical party."
This Villanovanus, whom Postel asserts to be the author of the book
"The Three Impostors," was Michel Servetus the son of a notary,
born in 1509, at Villanueva in Aragon, who assumed the name of
Villanovanus, in a preface to a Bible which was printed for him
at Lyons, 1542, by Hugues de la Porte. In France his designation
was Villeneuve, under which title he was impeached, after he had
published at Vienna, in Dauphiny, 1553, (the year before his death)
the work entitled "Christianity restored;" a book extremely rare,
on account of the trouble which they took at Geneva to find out the
copies of the work and get them burned. In the authentic list of the
writings of Servetus, however, we do not find mention made of "The
Three Impostors." Neither Calvin nor Beza, nor Alexander Morus, nor
any other defender of the Huguenot party who wrote against Servetus,
and whose interest it was to justify his punishment, and to convict
him of having written this work, has laid it to his charge. Postel,
an ex-Jesuit, was the first to do so, without grounds.
Florimond de Remond, a councillor in the Senate at Bordeaux, writes
decidedly that he had seen this book in print. His words are;
"James Curio, in his Chronology 1556, asserts that the Palatinate
was filled with scoffers at religion, the Lievanistes, viz. a sect
who considered the Sacred Writings as fabulous, and more especially
those of Moses, the great Lawgiver of God. Is there not a book, 'The
Three Impostors,' defaming the three religions which alone acknowledge
the true God--the Jewish, the Christian, and the Mahometan?--a book
composed in Germany, but printed elsewhere at the exact moment when
these heretics are employing this individual to spread abroad their
doctrines? The very title shows the character of the age which has
dared to publish so impious a treatise. I would have referred to
it unless Osius and Genebrard had spoken to me on the subject. I
recollect that in my earlier days I saw a copy of this work at the
College of Presle. It belonged to Ramus, a man distinguished for his
extraordinary learning, and who was then employed in deep researches
into the mysteries connected with religious belief; which subject he
intended to treat in a philosophical manner. At this time they were
circulating this iniquitous work amongst the learned, who were very
desirous to see it." A curious inquirer into secrets!
Everybody knows Florimond de Remond as an insignificant
scribbler. There are three remarkable sayings in currency against him;
that "he built without money, that he was a judge without principle,
and an author without knowledge. [9]" We know also that he always lent
his name to P. Richeaume, a Jesuite much hated by the Protestants,
who cloaked his own name by assuming that of the councillor of
Bordeaux. Now, if Osius and Genebrard had spoken as decidedly as
Florimond de Remond, there might have been somewhat to rest upon;
but see what Genebrard says in the thirty-ninth page of his answer
to Lambert Danan, printed (octavo) at Paris 1581. [10] "They (his
own party) have not driven Blandratus, nor Alciatus, nor Ochinus
into Mahometanism; nor have they induced Valleus to profess himself
an Atheist; neither have they enticed any one whatever to circulate
the work called "The Three Impostors," wherein Christ the Lord is
alluded to as the second, the other two being Moses and Mahomet."
Is that the way to identify this impious book? and Genebrard, forsooth
had seen it! And can it be, that in the present day people will
attempt to get up regular proof to show that such a work exists? It
is a well known fact that, in all ages, many lies have been palmed
off in reference to books which could never be discovered, although
individuals declare that they had seen them and even went so far as
to mention the places where they had been favoured with their perusal.
It has been said that this work was in the library of M. Salvius, the
Swedish ambassador, at Munster, and that Queen Christina, unwilling
to ask it of him while he lived, immediately sent M. Bourdelet,
her chief physician, to entreat his widow to satisfy her curiosity,
when he was informed that M. Salvius, having been seized with remorse
of conscience on the night of his death, made them burn the work in
his presence. A short time afterwards Christiana enquired eagerly
after the "Colloquium Heptaplomers" by Bodin, a manuscript, at that
period extremely rare; after a long search it was found, but whatever
desire the Queen had to see the work in question, and although it was
sought after in all the libraries of Europe, she died without having
discovered it. Ought we not therefore to conclude that it was never
in existence? Without doubt the pains taken by Christina would have
led to the discovery of that book which Postel declares was printed
in 1543, and which Florimond de Remond says appeared in 1556. Since
then different individuals have assigned to it other dates.
In 1654, Jean Baptiste Morin, a celebrated doctor and mathematician,
wrote a letter under the name of Vincent Panurge, which he addressed
to himself in this way, "An epistle to that most eminent physician,
John Baptist Morin, concerning the 'Three Impostors'. [11]" The
three impostors to whom he refers were Gassendi, Neure, and Bernier,
whom he wished to satirize under this title. Christian Kortholt in
1680 employed the same terms in his work against Hebert, Hobbes,
and Spinoza. Such has been the use which the learned have made of
this work when they wrote against their opponents, and in this way
have they drawn upon the credulity of comparatively ignorant people,
who, caring little to examine the evidences, have been deceived at
once. Is it possible, that if such a work had really existed, it would
not have been refuted; just as they refuted the work concerning the
Pre-Adamites, [12] written by M. de la Peyrere,--the discourses of
Spinoza, and the publications of Bodin? The "Colloquium Heptaplomeres,"
although in manuscript, has been answered; would "The Three Impostors"
have met with more favour? How comes it that it has not been condemned,
and placed in the Index Expurgatorius, and how has it escaped cremation
by the hands of the common hangman? Books against morality have been
sometimes tolerated, but those which strongly attack Religion do not
escape with impunity. Florimond de Remond, who says that he had seen
the book, asserts that he was at that time a youth, old enough perhaps
to write fairy tales; he quotes Ramus who had been dead for thirty
years, and could not convict him of falsehood; he quotes Osius and
Genebrard, but in in vague terms, and without pointing out the passage
in their works. He says that they were circulating this work--a work
which if it existed, would unquestionably have been put under lock
and key. Our opponents may produce a passage from Sir Thomas Browne,
who, in the 19th sec. part I. of his work styled "Religio Medici,"
translated from English into Latin by a distinguished scholar, uses
the following words; "this impious man, the author of this blasphemous
work, 'The Three Impostors,' although a stranger to every religion,
inasmuch as he was neither a Jew, a Mahometan, nor a Christian, was
nevertheless evidently not an Atheist. [13]" From this they would
infer that he must have seen the book, when he speaks in such terms
of its author. Now, Sir Thomas only says that Bernard Ochinus, who
in his opinion was the author of the work, (as he hints in a foot
note,) was more of a Deist than an Atheist, and that any Deist of
ordinary average intellect and information, was capable of planning
and executing such a design. Molikius, in a note upon the passage,
denies and justly, that this work was written by Ochinus, for they
assert that it was written in Latin, and we know that Ochinus never
wrote but in Italian; moreover if he had been suspected of having
any connection with this work, his enemies, who made so much clamour
against his dialogues concerning the Trinity and Polygamy, would not
have spared him. But how can we reconcile Browne and Genebrard who
consider Ochinus as a Mahometan, and at the same time declare that he
was neither a disciple of Moses, nor of Jesus Christ, nor of Mahomet!
Naude, by a strange mistake attributes the work to Villeneuve,
a comparatively ignorant writer, and Ernstius declares that at
Rome he had learned from Campannelle, that Muret, a polished and
accomplished author, had written the work more than two centuries after
Villaneuve. Ernstius is mistaken. Campannelle also refutes himself,
for in the preface to his work, "Atheism overthrown," and still more
explicitly in his discourse, "Paganism indefensible," he affirms
that this work came from Germany, but that it was the composition of
Muret; a statement entirely opposite to that of Florimond de Remond
alluded to before, which holds that the work was written in Germany
but published elsewhere. Muret has therefore been falsely accused,
and stands in need of no apology. They have judged of his religion
from his life. The Huguenot party, vexed that after embracing their
doctrines he had abandoned them forever, did not spare him on this
occasion, and Beza, in his "Ecclesiastical History," reproaches
him with two crimes, the second being Atheism. Julius Scaliger,
nettled by a jeu d'esprit of Muret's against him, has been led to do
him injustice [14]. "Muret," he says maliciously, "would have been
a better Christian if he had believed in God; I am aware that he
tried to persuade others to do so." In this way have originated false
impressions against Muret. Instead of respecting his exemplary piety,
of which he gave striking evidence in the last years of his existence,
they set themselves half a century after his death, to blacken his
character by accusing him of crimes which were unknown to his most
avowed enemies, and with which, in his life-time, we are certain that
he never was charged. Some ignorant writers who possess no critical
acumen, have impeached without any reason whatever the first individual
who occurred to their memory. Stephen Dolet of Orleans, Frances Pucci
of Florence, John Milton of London, and Merula, a renegade Mahometan,
have done so; they have accused Peter Aretin, merely because he was
a fearless and licentious writer, without reflecting that he was an
uncultivated man, of no learning and scarcely master of his native
tongue. For similar reasons they have blamed Poggio and others, and
have even gone so far back as Boccaccio, most likely on account of
the third tale in his Decameron, where he recounts the fable of three
similar rings, of which he makes a dangerous application to the Jewish,
Christian, and Mahometan religions, as if insinuating that they might
be embraced indifferently, since it was impossible to decide which
of them ought to have the preference. Neither have these writers
forgot Machiavel; and Decker impeaches Rabelais. The Dutchman also
who translates into French the "Religio Medici" of Sir Thomas Browne,
in the notes to his 20th chap. accuses Erasmus as well as Machiavel.
With more apparent reason they attack both Pompanacius and Cardan. The
former, in his treatise on the immortality of the soul, where he
reasons as a philosopher and speaks abstractly of the Catholic
faith--in which (at the end of his work) he solemnly professes
himself a believer--is bold enough to add that the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul had been propounded by the originators of
every religious creed in order to keep their followers in thrall, and
that therefore the majority of the human race had been duped. "If
the Jewish, Christian, and Mahometan religions," he continues,
"are all three of them impostures, it follows that the half of
mankind are mistaken." This absurd reasoning, in spite of the
precautions of Pompanacius, reached Jacques Carpentier, and induced
him to exclaim, "Can any thing be conceived of more truly pernicious
than this scepticism, coming as it does from a Christian school of
theology. [15]"
Cardan goes still farther wrong in the eleventh of his discourses
"On Sophistry," where, after minutely comparing Paganism, Judaism,
Christianity, and Mahometanism, and setting the one to contradict
the other, without expressing belief in any of them, he finishes
rashly in this way; "his igitur arbitrio victoriæ relictes," that is,
he leaves it to chance to decide the victory; an expression however
which he himself corrected in the second edition of his work.--This
retraction did not save him from being most bitterly attacked three
years afterward by Joseph Scaliger, on account of the fearful import
of the language he had made use of, and of the indifference it showed
on the part of Cardan as to which of the four parties might gain
the victory, and as to whether that victory were gained by argument
or arms.
In the last article of the work "Naudiana," which is a rhapsodical
compound of blunders and falsehood, there are some confused references
to "The Three Impostors." The author asserts that Ramus had attributed
it to Postel; nothing whatever can be found in the writings of Ramus
to establish this. Postel was a singular visionary. Henry Stephanus
relates that he had been heard to say, that out of the three religions,
the Jewish, the Christian, and the Mahometan, a good one might be
made. However, in no part of his work does he call in question the
mission of Moses, or the divinity of Christ; neither does he venture
to maintain in exact terms that the devout Venetian Hospitaller,
whom he calls "his mother Jeanne," would be the Redeemer of women,
as Christ had been the Redeemer of men. After explaining that in
men there is a masculine part, the animus, and a feminine part, the
anima, he has the absurdity to add that both parts were corrupted
by sin and that "his mother Jeanne" might restore the feminine as
Christ had restored the masculine. The book in which he utters this
absurdity was printed at Paris in 1553, and is by no means so rare but
that copies may easily be found. From it we can gather that he would
have published the other works also, if it had been true that he had
reached this pitch of blasphemy. So far from this being the case,
he writes (1543) that the book was written by Michael Servetus;
and long afterwards he does not scruple to avenge himself on his
Huguenot calumniators, by accusing them, in a letter addressed to
Masius, (1563) of having themselves printed the work at Caen: "this
infamous commentary or discourse against Moses, Christ, and Mahomet,
was lately printed at Cæn, by those who profess themselves the keenest
supporters of the Calvinistic doctrines. [16]" In the same chapter of
"Naudiana," mention is made of one Barnaud, but in terms so perplexed
that little can be drawn from them except that he had seen an octavo
work of 98 pages, printed in 1613, entitled "The Geneva Booby." It
did not bear where it had been printed, neither was the author's
name given. Perhaps it might have been written by Henri de Sponde,
afterwards Bishop of Pamier; who says, that at that period there lived
a physician named Barnaud an Arian, who had composed this treatise. Now
this would make it of a comparatively recent date. The only sensible
article in "Naudiana" is towards its conclusion, where Naude, a man
of vast experience as a bibliologist, is made to declare that he had
never seen the work alluded to, that he did not believe such a work
had ever been printed, and that he considered every thing which had
been said on this subject as mere invention and fable.
To this list may be added that notable atheist Julius Cæsar Vanini,
burned at Toulouse under the name of Lucilius Vaninus, who was accused
of having circulated this vile work in France some years before he
was put to death.
If there are writers so credulous and devoid of common sense as to
believe in these incoherencies, asserting that the book was publicly
sold in many quarters of Europe, they ought to set the matter at rest
by producing a single copy; for it cannot be in the case supposed, that
the work is so rarely to be met with. But no person has seen a copy,
neither of the edition said to have been published by Christian Wechel
at Paris, about the middle of the 16th century, nor of that which they
attribute to Nachtegal, as printed at the Hague, 1614 or 1615. Father
Theophylus Reynaud states that the former had sunk into extreme poverty
from the visitations of heaven; and Muller relates of the latter that
he was banished from the Hague with infamy. Bayle in his dictionary
(article Wechell) clearly refutes the calumny against this printer;
and in regard to Nachtegal, Spizelius informs us that he was a native
of Alkmaer, and banished, not for having published this suppositious
work, but for having given utterance to other blasphemies. Now, when
we look over with attention and patience what Vincent Placcius says in
the folio edition of his immense work concerning "Anonymous writers,
and authors who write under false names," and what Christian Kertholt
says in his work revised by his son Sebastian regarding "The Three
Impostors," and finally what Struvius advances in his treatise (1706)
on "Learned Impostors," we can find nothing at all to prove that such
a work ever existed; and it is astonishing that Struvius, who in spite
of the most specious evidence which Tentzelius had offered him to
prove its existence, had always maintained the contrary, was at last
persuaded to believe that there really was such a work; and that too,
for the most frivolous reason which it is possible to conceive.
In the preface of "Atheism Overthrown," he discovers that the author
of this work, in order to vindicate himself from the crime laid to
his charge, declares that "The Three Impostors" had been published
thirty years before he was born. This is a strange discovery, but
it appeared so satisfactory to Struvius that he ceased to doubt
in the existence of such a book, because he knew the year in which
Campannelle was born (1568.) and knew also that the book was printed
thirty years before this, viz. in 1538. Afterwards in pushing their
researches farther, they resolved to consider Boccaccio as the author
of the work, from a misinterpreted passage in Chap. 2, No. 6, in the
"Atheism Overthrown" where the following words occur; "Hence Boccaccio
in his impious fables, contends that there is no distinction between
the law of Moses, of Christ and of Mahomet, because they are as like
each other as the three similar rings. [17]" But does Campannelle,
in this passage intend to say that Boccaccio was the author of "The
Three Impostors?" So far is this from being the case, that he answers
elsewhere the objections of the Atheists against Boccaccio and the
book in question; and Struvius himself, in the 9th paragraph of his
dissertation on "Learned Impostors" quotes a passage from Ernstius,
which states that Campannelle had told him that the book was written by
Muret; now Muret having been born in 1526, and the book been printed
in 1538, he could only have been 12 years of age; at which time of
life we cannot suppose it possible that he was able to write a work of
this description. It follows therefore that this book, said to have
been written in Latin and printed in Germany, never existed. At no
period has there been a printed work, however rarely to be met with,
in reference to which very authentic and circumstantial information
could not be found.
Although the works of Michael Servetus may never be met with, it has
always been well known that they were printed, and moreover where they
were printed. Before the publication of the two modern editions of the
"Cymbalum Mundi," composed by Bonnaventure de Perrieres, writing under
the assumed name of Thomas du Clevier, who says that he had translated
it from the Latin, and of which work only two ancient copies remain,
the one in the King's library and the other in that of M. Bigot at
Rouen;--before the publication of the the modern editions, it was an
ascertained fact that the work had been printed, and the date and
name of the bookseller were known. The case is exactly the same as
regards "The Blessings of Christianity, or the Scourge of the Faith,"
the author of which, Geoffrey Vallee a native of Orleans, was hanged
and burned at Greve, on the 9th February 1573, after having adjured
his errors. It is a small octavo work of thirty pages, without date,
or the name of the place where it was printed; a trifle, feebly
reasoned, and now become so rare that perhaps the copy belonging to
Monsieur the Abbe d'Estrees is the only one to be found. But although
all these works had absolutely perished, no one could doubt their
previous existence, the facts on record concerning them being as true,
as those concerning 'The Three Impostors' are apocryphal.
ANSWER
TO THE DISSERTATION OF MONSIEUR DE LA MONNOYE ON THE WORK ENTITLED
"THE THREE IMPOSTORS."
An attempt at discussion, which you will find at the end of the new
edition of "Menagiana," which has just been published in this country,
affords me the opportunity of giving some information to the public on
a subject which appears to call into exercise the ingenuity of almost
all the learned; and at the same time of vindicating the character
of many eminent men, and men of distinguished merit, who have been
attacked as the authors of the work which forms the subject of a
disquisition attributed to M. de la Monnoye. Without doubt this new
book is already in your possession; you will perceive that I allude
to "The Three Impostors." The author of the dissertation upholds the
non-existence of such a book, and attempts to establish his point by
bringing forward conjectures, without advancing any evidence capable
in the smallest degree of influencing the opinions of those who are
accustomed to examine before they decide. I will not undertake to
refute seriatim the articles contained in a dissertation, the substance
of which is to be found in a Latin discourse by M. Burkhard Gotthelf
Struve, on "Learned Impostors," printed for the second time at Geneva,
by Muller in 1706, and which M. de la Monnoye must have seen, because
he quotes from it. He will acknowledge that I am quite prepared
to overturn his arguments, when I inform him that I have read this
celebrated little work, and that I have it in my library. I will give
you and the public an account of the way in which I discovered it,
and as it is in my possession, I will subjoin a short but faithful
description of it.
Being at Frankfort on the Main in 1706, I called one day in company
with a Jew, and a friend named Frecht, at that time a student in
Theology, on an eminent bookseller in whose establishment almost
every work was to be met with. We were examining his catalogue
when there entered a German officer, who addressed himself to the
proprietor in German, and asked him if he was ready to agree to his
proposals, or if another merchant should be sought after. Frecht,
who formerly was acquainted with the officer, saluted him and was
recognised. This gave an opportunity to my friend of asking the
officer, whose name was Trawsendorff, what transaction he had with
the bookseller. Trawsendorff told him that he had two manuscripts and
a very old book in his possession, by the sale of which he expected
to raise a sum of money against the approaching campaign, and that
the bookseller higgled on 50 Rix-dollars, being unwilling to advance
more than 450 for the three works, which he, (the officer), valued
at 500. This great sum of money demanded for two manuscripts and a
little book excited the curiosity of Frecht, who asked of his friend
if he might see the productions which he wished to sell at so dear
a rate. Trawsendorff immediately drew from his pocket a parchment
envelope, tied with a silk thread, which he opened, and from which
he took the three books. We went into the parlour of the bookseller
to examine them at our leisure, and the first which Frecht looked
at had been printed, but had a title written in Italian instead of
its real title, which had been defaced. It ran thus; "Spaccio della
Bestia triumphante," and did not appear to be of an ancient date. It
struck me as being the same work which Toland translated into English,
and printed some years ago, and the copies of which sell very high.
The second we looked at was an old Latin manuscript written in a
character very difficult to decypher, without any title; but at the top
of the first page there were written these words, "Fredric the Emperor
wishes health to Otho, his most illustrious and dearest friend. [18]"
The work opens with a letter, the first lines of which are as follows;
"I will send you as soon as possible a copy of the work on the three
most celebrated deceivers of mankind, a work written at my request
by a very learned man, and transcribed by my order for my library;
and along with it another work written in the same pure and polished
style, for, &c." [19] The third was also a Latin manuscript without
a title, commencing with a quotation from Cicero.
Frecht having glanced over the books in a hurried way, fixed his
attention upon the second, of which he had often heard, and in respect
to which he had read many conflicting histories; and without looking
into the other two, he took Trawsendorff aside and told him that he
would easily find purchasers of the three works. He spoke little of
the Italian work, and by reading a few passages he showed him that
the other was a demonstration of Atheism. As the bookseller still
held to his terms, and would not come up to the officer's demand,
we went all three to the lodgings of Frecht, who having an object in
view called for wine, and while begging Trawsendorff to inform us how
he came by the works, he made him swallow so many bumpers that he
soon became half intoxicated, so that Frecht had little difficulty
in persuading him to leave with him the manuscript of "The Three
most celebrated Deceivers of Mankind;" but he made him take a solemn
oath that he would not copy it. On this condition, the work was to be
left with us from Wednesday till Sunday night, when Trawsendorff was
to call again and take his share of a few bottles of Frecht's wine,
which seemed to be much to his taste.
As I had quite as much desire as Frecht to be acquainted with the
book, we sat down immediately to read it over, determining to sleep
very little until Sunday night. It was not very large--an octavo
work of ten sections, exclusive of the prefatory letter, but in so
small a character, and so full of contractions, besides being without
points, that we had much difficulty in decyphering the first page
in two hours. After this however we read it more easily, which made
me suggest to my friend a plan (rather Jesuitical) whereby he might
obtain a copy of this celebrated work without breaking his oath which
he had taken on compulsion;--that it was likely that Trawsendorff,
when he insisted that it should not be copied, only meant that he
should not transcribe the words--in short that we were quite at liberty
to translate it. To which Frecht consented after some scruples, and
we set to work immediately. On Sunday we were in possession of the
work a little before midnight. Trawsendorff afterwards got his 500
rix-dollars for the work from a bookseller who had been commissioned
by a Prince of the House of Saxe to purchase it. The Prince knew that
it had been stolen from the Royal Library at Munich, when the Germans
obtained possession of the city after the defeat of the French and
Bavarians at Hochstet, and Trawsendorff acknowledged to us that, being
alone in the library of the Elector, the parchment envelope with its
yellow silk thread attracted his attention, and that he could not
resist the temptation to steal it: expecting that it contained some
rare production, in which he was not disappointed.
To complete the history of this treatise, I will give you the
conjectures which Frecht and I made as to its origin. We agreed at
once that the "Illustrissimo Otho" to whom it was sent, was "Otho
the Illustrious," Duke of Bavaria, son of Louis I. and grandson of
"Otho the Great," Count of Schiven and Witelspach, to whom the Emperor
Frederick Barbarossa had given Bavaria as a reward for his fidelity,
after he took it away from "Henry the Lion," as a punishment for his
ingratitude. "Otho the Illustrious" succeeded his father Louis I.,
in 1230, under the reign of Fredrick II., grandson of Frederick
Barbarossa, who had at that time quarrelled with the Count of
Rome on his return from Jerusalem. This led us to think that the
letters F. I. S. D. which followed the "Amico meo carissimo," denoted
Fredericus Imperator Salutem Dicit, and that the treatise was written
posterior to the year 1230, by the order of this Emperor, inflamed
as he was against all Religions in consequence of the bad treatment
he had met with from the head of his own, viz. Pope Gregory IX. by
whom he had been excommunicated before he set out, and who persecuted
him even in Syria by intriguing to such an extent, that the Emperor's
army refused to obey his orders. This Prince on his return besieged
the Pope at Rome, after having ravaged the neighboring territory,
and thereafter made a peace with him which was of no long duration,
and which was followed by an animosity so bitter between him and
the Holy Pontiff, that it only ceased at the death of the latter,
who died heart-broken that Frederick triumphed in spite of his
empty fulminations, and that he had unmasked the vices of the Papal
Chair in satirical verses which he circulated in every quarter,--in
Germany, Italy, and France. But we could not discover who was the
"doctissimus vir," with whom Otho appears to have held converse on
the subject in the library, and apparently in the company of the
Emperor; unless indeed it were the celebrated Pierre des Vignes, the
secretary, or as others maintain, the chancellor of Frederick II. His
discourse "On Sovereign Power," and his "Letters," give proof of his
learning, and the zeal which he had for the interests of his master,
and of his own hatred of Pope Gregory IX, and the Ecclesiastics and
established Churches of his day. It is true, that in one letter
he attempts to exculpate his master from the charges against him
as the author of this book: but this strengthens the supposition,
and inclines us to think he only pleaded for Frederick, to cloak his
own share in so scandalous a work. At all events we must believe that
he would have confessed the truth when Frederick, on suspicion that
he had conspired against his life, condemned him to lose his eyes,
and handed him over to the inhabitants of Pisa, his cruel enemies;
and where despair hurried on his death in an infamous dungeon where
he could hold intercourse with no one.
In this way we can repel the false charges brought against Averroes,
Boccaccio, Dolet, Aretino, Servetus, Ochinus, Postel, Pompanacius,
Campannelle, Poggio, Pulci, Muret, Vanini, Milton, and many others;
the book having been written by a learned man in high repute at the
court of this Emperor, and by his order. As to the printing of the
book they can bring forward no proof whatever; and it is impossible
to conceive that Frederick, surrounded as he was by enemies, would
have circulated a work which gave fair opportunity of proclaiming his
infidelity. It is probable therefore that there are only two copies,
the original one and that sent to Otho of Bavaria.
This will suffice as to the discovery of the book, and its date;
we come now to what it contains.
It is divided into six books or chapters, every one of which contains
several paragraphs. The first Chapter has for its title "Of God," and
contains six paragraphs in which the author, wishing to appear free
from party or educational prejudices, shows that although mankind
have a real interest in ascertaining the truth, nevertheless they
found upon opinions and imaginations alone; and meeting with people
whose interest it is to keep them in this state, they are made to
rest, contented in it, although they could easily shake off the yoke
by making the slightest use of their reason. He passes next to the
ideas which men entertain of the Divinity, and prove that they are
injurious, inasmuch as they have led to the creation of the most
fearful and imperfect being whom it is possible to conceive of; and
he then blames the ignorance of the people, or rather their foolish
credulity in putting faith in the visions of Prophets and Apostles,
of whom he draws a portrait suited to the ideas which he entertains
of them.
The second Chapter treats of the reasons which have led men to
believe in a divinity. It is divided into eleven paragraphs, where
he proves that the ignorance of physical causes has given birth to
a fear natural enough at the sight of a thousand terrible accidents,
and has led them to believe in the existence of some invisible Power;
a doubt, and a fear, of which subtle politicians have taken advantage,
for their own interest, and which have given rise to a belief in this
Existence, which has been confirmed by others who have found it for
their own benefit to maintain it; although it is merely grounded on
the folly of the common people, always admirers of the extraordinary,
the sublime, and the marvellous. He next inquires into the nature
of the Divinity, and overturns the vulgar belief in final causes, as
contrary to sound philosophy. In fine, he makes it appear that such
ideas of the Divinity are only formed after having decided what is
perfect, good, evil, virtue, vice, according to imagination, and often
as false as possible. In his tenth paragraph the author explains his
own opinion as to the Divinity, which is conformable to the system
of the Pantheists, saying that the word God represents an infinite
Being, one of whose attributes is that he is of unlimited extension,
and consequently that he is infinite and eternal. In the eleventh
paragraph he treats with ridicule the popular opinion which is given
to the Deity, a resemblance to the kings of the earth; and passing
to the sacred books, he speaks of them in a very unfavourable manner.
The third Chapter has for its title "The signification of the word
Theology, and how, and for what purpose so many religions have been
introduced into the world."--This chapter contains twenty-three
paragraphs. In the ninth he examines the origin of religions;
and brings forward examples and reasonings which, so far from
being divine, are altogether the work of politicians. In the tenth
paragraph he undertakes to expose the imposture of Moses, showing
what he was, and how he managed to establish the Jewish religion. In
the eleventh paragraph he inquires into the impostures of several
politicians such as Numa, and Alexander the Great. In the twelfth he
examines the birth of Jesus Christ; in the thirteenth and following
he considers his morality, which he does not think more pure than
that of a great number of ancient philosophers; in the nineteenth
he inquires whether his reputation after his death is sufficient to
warrant his believing in his divinity. Lastly, in the twenty-second
and twenty-third paragraphs, he considers the imposture of Mahomet,
of whom he does not say so much, because he has not to encounter so
many advocates of his doctrine as that of the two others.
The fourth Chapter treats of truth evident and obvious to the senses,
and consists only of six paragraphs, where he demonstrates what really
is the divinity, and what are his attributes: he rejects the belief
in a life to come, and the existence of spirits.
The fifth Chapter treats "Of the Soul." It consists of seven paragraphs
in which, after having exposed the vulgar opinions, he gives those
of the Philosophers of antiquity, and concludes by showing the nature
of the Soul according to his own system.
In the sixth and last Chapter of seven paragraphs, he discourses on the
Spirits called Demons, and shows the origin and falsity of the opinions
as to their existence.--Such is the anatomy of this celebrated work. I
might have given it in a manner more extended and more minute; but
besides that this letter is already too long, I think that enough has
been said to give insight into the nature of its contents. A thousand
other reasons which you will well enough understand, have prevented
me from entering upon it to so great a length as I could have done;
"Est modus in rebus. [20]"
Now although this book were ready to be printed with the preface
in which I have given its history, and its discovery, with some
conjectures as to its origin, and a few remarks which may be placed
at its conclusion, yet I do not believe that it will live to see the
day when men will be compelled all at once to quit their opinions and
their imaginations, as they have quited their syllogisms, their canons,
and their other antiquated modes. As for me I will not expose myself
to the Theological stylus [21], which I fear as much as Fra-Poulo
feared the Roman stylus, to afford to a few learned men the pleasure of
reading this little treatise; but neither will I be so superstitious,
on my death bed, as to make it be thrown into the flames, which we
are informed was done by Salvius, the Swedish ambassador at the
peace of Munster. Those who come after me may do what seems them
good--they cannot disturb me in the tomb. Before I descend to that,
I remain with much respect, your most obedient servant,