Part 5

LXXVII. We find the tragedy of Belisarius set-forth in an infinite number of books, as one of the strongest instances that ever appeared on the theatre of the world, of the inconstancy and instability of fortune. It is asserted, that the emperor Justinian, after that great captain had been crowned with so many laurels, having discovered that he had been an accomplice in a conspiracy against him, caused his eyes to be put out, and reduced him to so low a state of misery, that he passed the remainder of his life by being obliged for subsistence to beg alms about the streets, and at the doors of churches.

LXXVIII. We find also this story is contradicted by Cedrenus, and other grave authors; but what most effectually makes against it, is the silence of Procopius upon the subject, who was the author of the Secret History, which is a virulent satyr upon the emperor Justinian, and the empress Theodora. This writer, who resided in Constantinople in the reign of Justinian, and who out-lived him, could not be a stranger to the tragedy of Belisarius, if there had been any truth in it; nor is it credible that, in his Secret History, he should conceal an event of such magnitude, and especially when he could have made it conducive to the principal object of his book, which was that of exposing and aggravating all the faults of Justinian; who could not be looked upon as excusable, for having behaved with cruelty to a man to whom he owed so many obligations, even if Belisarius had ever been culpable; for scarce any other prince, had ever been more indebted to a subject, than Justinian was to him; besides this, it might have been very easy for Procopius, by doubting or lessening the crime, to have made the punishment of Belisarius appear as an act of absolute cruelty in Justinian.

LXXIX. In support of the common opinion, it is said, there is still a tower at Constantinople, which is called the Tower of Belisarius, and is supposed to have taken the name from that great man having been confined in it. This is but a slender argument wherewith to support the probability of such a tragedy, for this name might have been given to it from some other particular respecting Belisarius; or it is not impossible, that he might have been imprisoned in it for a short space of time; for it is a fact, that before the second expedition of Belisarius into Italy, he had fallen off in the good graces of the emperor, through the intrigues of the empress Theodora: and he might then have been imprisoned in the tower for a few days; and Procopius, who informs us of this small disgrace of Belisarius, would not have concealed the great misfortune which is said to have befallen him, had the circumstances of it been true.

SECT. XXXVI.

_The Maid of Orleans._

LXXX. The famous Joan d’Arc, commonly called the Maid of Orleans, makes a great figure in the history of France as a celestial heroine, to whom that kingdom confessedly, in the reign of Henry the Sixth of England, owed its restoration, and being preserved from the total destruction, which was nearly brought on it by the success of the English arms.

LXXXI. The history of this wonderful damsel, reduced to a compendium, is as follows: The French nation, and above all their king, finding themselves dejected and dispirited by the repeated defeats they had suffered; and also without the necessary resolution, to concert and determine upon measures for opposing and averting the new dangers with which they were threatened by the siege of Orleans, that was pushed on by the English with great vigour: I say, at this crisis, a poor Shepherdess, that is, Joan d’Arc, at the age of about eighteen or twenty years, who was born in a little village on the Maze, felt in herself an occult inspiration, or express commission from God, to succour Orleans, and cause Charles the Fifth to be consecrated and anointed king at Rheims; and, in order to execute this commission, after having first opened herself to a nobleman of the kingdom, she was introduced to the king, whom she knew the instant she saw him, although she had never set eyes on him before, and he, to prevent her discovering him, had mixed with the croud in a common dress. They put many questions to her, to which she gave excellent and satisfactory answers; and informed them of some things, which they thought were impossible to be known to her but by revelation. Finally, upon the strength of these proofs, they confided to her conduct the relief of the city of Orleans, in which enterprize, the French, animated and led on by her, obliged the English to raise the siege, and, in consequence of her influence and example, gained afterwards many considerable advantages over them. She removed the obstructions that were in her way, and conducted the king to Rheims, where the ceremony of his consecration was performed and compleated: but being afterwards taken prisoner by the English, they carried her to Roan, where they iniquitously accused her of sorcery, tried her in the ordinary form, and condemned her to be burnt for a witch.

LXXXII. I gave some account of this extraordinary woman in the Sixteenth Discourse of my first volume, where I hinted it merely as a conjecture of my own, that, in all probability, the divine impulse the French attributed to her, and still persist in attributing, and the witchcraft imputed to her by the English, were both equally false. But now I find my conjecture is supported and confirmed by a celebrated historian, in consequence of which, what I advanced as a supposition, wears the face of an authentic information. This historian, is Monsieur Du Haillan, who affirms, that all the feats of Joan d’Arc, which have been so much admired, were the effects of political artifice; without the least intervention, either of divine inspiration or diabolical compact. According to this author, three French noblemen, whom he names, were the contrivers and managers of the whole business. These (after disclosing to her the most private secrets of the court, and instructing her largely in all she had to do and say, in order to make it appear as if she knew things by divine inspiration; and that all her actions were effected by divine impulse) made use of her, thus instructed, as the most effectual means to animate the dejected king and his dispirited troops. He adds, that some people affirmed, that although they called her a maid, she was no such thing, but the concubine of one of the three lords; but whether this was so or not, I presume, they pitched upon her preferable to any other woman, from having observed her to be endowed with an excellent capacity, a clear and penetrating head, and a heart proportioned to the dangers of so great an undertaking. Gabriel Naudé, in his book intitled _Strokes of Policy_, adopts the sentiment of Du Haillan, and quotes Justus Lipsius, and Monsieur Langei, as being of the same opinion; and adds, that other authors, both French and strangers, adopt it. By this development, the famous Joan d’Arc is divested of any pretensions to being miraculously inspired, but not degraded from the rank of a heroine.

SECT. XXXVII.

_Prester John._

LXXXIII.It is wonderful, considering how slight our information is of Prester John of India, that even children and rustics are acquainted with his name, although it is not as yet known with any certainty, who this prince is, where he reigns, nor why he is called by this name. When the Portuguese received the first information that the king of the Abyssinians professed himself a Christian, and that his subjects called him Belul Gian, or as others have it, John Coi; they imagined this was Prester John, and their sentiment was adopted, and passed current in all Europe. When afterwards people came to know, that these words in the Abyssinian language, had a different signification from what had been put upon them, and meant the same as _precious king_, or _my king_; and reflecting also, that those who gave the first accounts of Prester John, placed him in Asia, and not in Africa, this opinion began to lose ground with men of letters, and to be considered as erroneous. But the doubts respecting who this Christian prince is, in what part of Asia he reigns, and why he is called Prester John, still remain: and with regard to this matter, there are so many opinions, that the enumeration of them would be tedious; but in one thing they all agree, which is, that this prince is of the Nestorian sect; although in other points relating to him they differ widely: some say his empire was extinguished by the Tartars; others, that the name of Prester John was given to the Great Mogul, on account of his assuming the title of _Schah Gehan_, which signifies _king of the world_; and that, by equivocal and forced interpretation, Schah Gehan was construed into Prester John. Such a variety of opinions, has raised in me some suspicion, whether all that has been related of this Christian king of Asia, is not entirely fabulous. If, upon inquiry, it shall appear that Paulus Venetus was the first who gave an account of him, and that all other authors have taken what they said upon the subject solely from him: I say, if this should appear to be the case, it will afford a new motive of distrust, and it would be laughable enough, to find that authors have been beating their brains, and scrutinizing all the corners of the globe in search of Prester John, when no such man exists, nor ever did exist in the world; at least, it is not probable, that he exists at present, because in all the modern voyages and travels that I have seen, I don’t meet with the least mention of him; and if there really was such a man, authors in that way, would not have thought him unworthy of their notice.

SECT. XXXVIII.

_Pope Alexander the Sixth._

LXXXIV. The memory of our countryman, Pope Alexander the Sixth, is so blackened in story, that the characters in which his history is written, seem to be all contaminated with blots; nor do I undertake, or think any one else, with a probability of success can undertake, his justification or defence, or pretend to clear him of all the crimes which are imputed to him; but may we not suppose, that the hatred of his enemies augmented the catalogue of his faults? It is certain, that Alexander was much abhorred by the Romans, partly from his own misconduct, and partly from that of his son, the outrageous Cæsar Borgia. I firmly believe, that the vulgar rumour never charged any prince with more faults that he was not guilty of, than Alexander; and if the writers of the time were infected with the prejudices of the populace, they would not be scrupulous of inserting the rumours of the vulgar in their histories.

LXXXV. Let us pass from this reflection (which is equally applicable to all other princes who are abhorred by their subjects, as to Alexander) to a particular fact, which, without doubt, is one of the most conspicuous and notorious that is imputed to this prince. It is asserted, that he conspired with his son Cæsar Borgia, to take away by poison, the lives of several cardinals, one of whom was Adrian Cortus, a man who was entirely devoted to him; and that their motive for perpetrating this wickedness, was that of seizing on the riches of the devoted persons: that for the purpose of executing the scheme, the intended victims were invited to a grand entertainment, which was to be given by the pope, at the country-house of Cardinal Cornetus; where a portion of cool poisoned wine was provided, to be served to the persons devoted to death; but by mistake, it was given to the pope and his son; that the son, by the help of a robust constitution, and speedy remedies prescribed by the physicians, escaped; but the pope, who being advanced in years, was unable to resist the shock, resigned his life to the power of the poison.

LXXXVI. This cruel attempt, and the fatal result of it, may I believe, be disputed upon grounds of great probability. Some, who affirm the fact, doubt the pope’s having had any hand in the business, and lay the crime wholly at the door of Cæsar Borgia. Alexander Natalis, who is one of the most severe writers against that pontif, confesses, that there are some who maintain the whole relation to have been fabulous; and adds, that there are manuscript diaries existing, which testify he died upon the seventh day of a continual fever; which is a regular and ordinary disease: and let the truth prevail, why are we not to believe these diaries, which are written originally at the same place, and at the same time when the event happened? What writings can be more deserving of credit than these Diaries? or who, living in Rome at the time of Alexander’s death, would dare to assert in writing, that he died a natural death at the end of seven days after being attacked with a continual fever, if the fact had been otherwise, and especially if all Rome had it in their power to convict him of the falshood? It may be alledged, that the poison was of such a nature as might excite a fever to occasion his death: but experience shews us, that the operation of poisons, is always, or nearly always, attended with uncommon and extraordinary symptoms. Besides, the enemies of Alexander, who were very numerous, had a great propensity to invent and believe every thing that could tend to blacken him, or blast his fame. John Francisco Pico, in the life of a certain religious which he wrote, who was a friend of his, tells us, that there were two opinions which prevailed concerning the death of Alexander: one was, that he died by poison; and the other, that he was suffocated by the Devil, with whom he had made a compact to deliver his soul to him at a stated time, provided he would make him pope. May we not infer from this, that there is no extravagance or chimera which envy is not capable of inventing, in order to render a man infamous: and it is worthy of remark, that those two opinions, with regard to the certainty of them, destroy one another: I mean, that if you could suppose the Devil suffocated him, it would overturn the certainty of his having lost his life by poison. But how, when there is a failure in establishing the certainty of the fact, can you believe a man to have been guilty of so atrocious an action? Is it not doing a serious injury to your neighbour, to suppose him guilty of a heavy crime, upon the strength of uncertain assertions? what ought we to conclude in such a case, but that the crime was invented by the hatred of some, and that it gained credit from a principle of hatred in others?

SECT. XXXIX.

_Henry the Eighth and Anna Bolene._

LXXXVII. The fame that befel Alexander the Sixth, and just in the same way, happened to Henry the Eighth of England, and his wife, or rather concubine, Anna Bolene. Both these personages were guilty of great crimes, and the dishonesty of Anna Bolene, was as notorious as the incontinence of Henry. The king, hurried away by a criminal passion for that lady, in order to possess her, repudiated unjustly his virtuous queen Catherine; and Ann was not only an accomplice in the unjust divorce, but was afterwards proved guilty of adultery. This was sufficient with respect to their incontinence, to render their fame odious to posterity. But Nicholas Saunders, urged by his indiscreet zeal, being desirous of heightening to the utmost the turpitude of them both, confounded the certain with the incredible; from whence it followed, that many of the vulgar among the Catholics, believed the incredible as certain facts.

LXXXVIII. Saunders says, that the love of Henry for Ann was not only illicit, but most enormously incestuous; because, that long before he knew her, he had had criminal conversation, not only with her mother, but also with a sister of her’s, named Mary. He adds, that Anna Bolene, according to the testimony of her own mother, was the daughter of the said Henry. To strengthen the foregoing assertion, he says, this unhappy woman, was born two years after Thomas Bolene the husband of her mother, had been absent from his wife at the court of France, whither he had been sent on an embassy by Henry: that, upon his return to England, he was desirous of repudiating his wife, but the king interposed to prevent it; and the adultress confessed to her husband, that the child he found in his house was the daughter of the king. According to this relation, the correspondence between Henry the Eighth and Anna Bolene, was shocking and incestuous in three particulars.

LXXXIX. With regard to Anna Bolene herself, he represents her, from her tender youth, to have been an infamous prostitute; for, he says, that at fifteen years of age, she surrendered her person, to the embraces of two of the domestics in her father’s house; that soon afterwards she went to France, where her prostitution was so public and scandalous, that they called her by the opprobrious name of the English Mare: that, after a while, she introduced herself into the palace of Francis the First, who was then king of France, and that this prince, was universally known to have made use of the English prostitute, for the gratification of his lewd inclinations: that upon her return to England, she was admitted as a domestic into the houshold of Henry, where he fell violently enamoured with her; but his solicitations to obtain her as a mistress, proved abortive; for Anna, feigning herself to be a most virtuous person, made her pretensions to modesty subservient to her views of ambition; and always replied resolutely to the king’s intreaties, that no man but her husband should have the dominion of her virginity; and upon this, the unhappy Henry, blinded by his passion, solicited and obtained a divorce from his queen Catherine, to enable him to marry Ann.

XC. There is nothing in this whole relation, which does not appear either very difficult to be credited, or absolutely chimerical. The triple incest of Henry, is so much out of the common course, and so horrible, that nothing can excite our belief of it, but proofs which are clearer than the sun at noon-day. That the gallantries of the king of France with Anna Bolene, which were so public and notorious, should not have come to the knowledge of Henry, is by no means credible; for irregularities of this sort, committed by princes, are generally well known at their own courts, and are soon communicated to those of other countries, and especially, when they are so near together as those of London and Paris. Neither is it credible that Henry, after he came to know that Ann had deceived him with respect to her being a maid, and when he had gratified the first cravings of his appetite, should not take a disgust to, or, at least, put her away from him: Henry, I say, who was so delicate in these matters, that he repudiated his fourth wife Ann of Cleves, for no other reason than his coming to understand, that before she espoused him, she had been under an engagement to marry another person. According to the chronology of the English History, this relation is not only improbable, but even impossible; because this tells us, that Anna Bolene was born in 1507, and Henry the Eighth was crowned in 1509; that in 1514 Anna went to France in the suite of queen Claudia, who was the sister of Henry, and wife of Francis the First; that Thomas Bolene did not go ambassador to France till the year 1515; and that the return of Anna Bolene to London, is placed between the years 1525 and 1527. From this account, there results two manifest contradictions to Saunders’s relation: the first is, that Anna Bolene, could not at the age of fifteen, and before her going to France, have been guilty of the turpitudes which he charges her to have committed with her father’s domestics; because, before she was eight years old she went to France, and did not return till she had attained the age of eighteen or twenty: the second is, that Anna Bolene was born, not only before Thomas Bolene went ambassador to France, but before he could have possibly been the Ambassador of Henry the Eighth; for Henry was not crowned till the year 1509, and Anna Bolene was born two years before. Finally, not only the English chronology, but Alexander Natalis, in the eighth volume of his Ecclesiastical History, and Father Orleans, in the second volume of his Revolutions of England, together with various Catholic authors, dissent from the account given by Saunders.

SECT. XL.

_Marechal d’Ancre._

XCI. It has so happened, that the tracts of history inserted in this discourse, are mostly favourable to, or in mitigation of the offences of some famous delinquents. There has scarce been a favourite since the days of Sejanus to our times, who was so universally detested, and, according to the process that was instituted against him, with so much reason, as the Marechal d’Ancre; who was a Florentine by birth, named Concino Concini, and who came to France with queen Mary of Medicis, by whose favour, during her regency, he was raised to the first offices in the state, and arrived at having the absolute controul of the whole monarchy. His insolence, his ambition, his cruelty, and his avarice, occasioned it to be resolved upon, as soon as Lewis the Thirteenth ascended the throne, to take away his life; but as on account of his creatures, and his great power, they did not dare attempt the thing by a regular process, they gave a commission to one Vitri, who was a captain in the guards, to put him to death in any manner that he should find most expedient; which he executed, by pistoling him upon the Pont Neuf, where he happened to meet him, unprepared or provided for his defence. The fury of the populace, manifested the implacable and inveterate hatred, which was entertained against the defunct favourite: they tumultuously dragged his body from the church, and hung it upon a gallows, which the Marechal had erected to hang those on who should murmur against him; they next beheaded him, and dragged the body through the streets and squares of the city; after this, they cut pieces off from it, with an intent to preserve them as precious mementos of the public vengeance. It is said, the ears were sold at a very high price. The grand provost, attended by his archers, attempted to restrain the populace, but was obliged to desist, as they threatened, if he did not remain quiet, to bury him alive. They threw the entrails into the river, and burnt part of the body before the statue of Henry the Fourth, which stands on the Pont Neuf; and some cut pieces of flesh, which they broiled at the fire they had made, and ate them: one manifested his rage, by tearing out and publicly eating the heart; and another, who by his dress appeared to be a man of condition, running his hand into the carcase, and drawing it out all besmeared with blood, lifted it to his mouth and sucked it; and scarce ever was the hatred of any people carried to such a pitch of fury. After he was dead, they instituted that prosecution against him which they did not dare to commence while he was living; and upon the depositions and evidence which were laid before his judges, they not only declared him guilty of high treason, but of having professed Judaism, and been in league with the Devil; and a little while afterwards, they beheaded and burnt his wife Leonora Gallagai, for the same crimes.