Part 6

XCII. With all this, there has not been wanting a person, who has attempted to excuse and justify the Marechal d’Ancre, and not one who was a creature or countryman of his, or in any shape connected with him, but a Frenchman, a peer, and Marechal of France, Francis Annibal Duke d’Etré, a man famous for his military exploits and his embassies, and one who was very well informed with respect to the intrigues and secret management of those times. This nobleman, in his Memoirs of the Regency of Mary of Medicis, attributes the tragedy of the Marechal d’Ancre to mere misfortune; he celebrates his great talents, and says, that he was naturally disposed to do what was right, and that, therefore, very few people who knew him disliked him; but he acknowledges, that although he was a pleasing man in conversation, he entertained high and ambitious notions; but adds, that he concealed them profoundly; and he concludes with saying, that he had heard him declare many times, they murdered the king without his order or knowledge.

XC. These contradictions in history are truly astonishing. The Marechal d’Etré is an evidence superior to all exception; for if he could ever have had any obligations to d’Ancre, they must have been but trifling, because he obtained his most distinguished honours, and such as were very correspondent to his merit, in the reign of Lewis the Thirteenth. What then shall we say to all this? why, under such circumstances, good criticism will pursue a middle course; and conclude, that d’Ancre incurred the public hatred, partly on account of his being so great a favourite, which of itself is sufficient to make a man regarded with an evil eye; and partly on account of his being a stranger, which is a circumstance that nearly always produces, in those who are to obey, envy and indignation: and finally, the abuse of his power, in some instances of his conduct, may also have contributed to raise the flame. But the most atrocious crimes alledged against him in his prosecution, we may suppose, were the invention of his enemies; for, notwithstanding the evidence upon record seems to confirm the truth of them, we may conclude, that out of so great a number as these consisted of, and who were for the most part enraged witnesses, there would not be wanting some of them, who would give such testimony as their rage dictated to them, although it was contrary to truth, and against their consciences.

SECT. XLI.

_Urban Grenadier, and the Nuns of Loudun._

XCIII. Francis Urban Grenadier, canon of Loudun, in the province of Poictou, is the last person we shall enumerate in this catalogue; his tragedy has been, and still is, much animadverted upon, both within France and without it. This man, who was endued with talents above mediocrity, was genteel in his person, sufficiently learned, and an eloquent orator; but a lover of, and beloved by the other sex, to a degree bordering upon excess. Either his talents or his vices, or both together, raised him many enemies, but their animosity was most probably directed against the first; for the world is more apt to attack people out of envy to their good qualities, than from motives of morality, or from being disgusted at their vices. It happened, that all the nuns of a convent at Loudun seemed affected in a strange way, which was imputed by many to their being bewitched. What reason the enemies of Grenadier had, or pretended to have, for attributing this mischief to him, I can’t imagine; but they gave information of this matter to Cardinal Richlieu, who was at that time, under colour of being minister, the king _de facto_ of France; to this man of power, they accused Grenadier of being the author of the possession of these nuns. The cardinal had more than one motive to wish the ruin of Grenadier; for when he was no more than Bishop of Louzon, there had been a sharp dispute between them; but what irritated him most against Grenadier, was an information which those who accused him of the crime of sorcery gave the cardinal, that Grenadier was the author of a satyr intitled _Le Cordonier de Loudun_, which was very severe upon his person, birth, and pedigree. The cardinal ordered that an enquiry should immediately be made respecting the possession of the nuns, and the sorcery of Grenadier; in which he directed, they should be careful to observe the colour and appearance of strict justice. Twelve ecclesiastics were appointed judges in the cause; who, after a formal and seemingly minute enquiry, condemned him to be burnt alive; which sentence was afterwards executed upon him, and he, at the terrible crisis of his suffering, shewed great Christian patience and fortitude.

XCIV. But notwithstanding all the judicial solemnity of the process, many people doubted of the justice of the sentence, and attributed the whole proceeding to political artifice, assisted by the delusion of some, and the credulity of others. The cardinal, who from aloft directed the movements of the machines, although he was allowed to be a man of great abilities, was generally known to be furiously vindictive. He neither wanted capacity nor power, to crush the most spotless innocence under the colour and shew of justice. The judges are said to have been good men, but very credulous, and people of little penetration, who were on this account pitched upon by the enemies of Grenadier. The rigour of the sentence shews, that some other motive intervened to produce it besides the love of justice; and what above all manifested such a motive, was the cruel oppression that was practised on him, in obliging him to make use of a particular confessor, notwithstanding he alledged that he disliked him, for that he was his enemy, and had been one of the principal instruments in working his ruin. He intreated, that for the expiation of his sins, they would permit him to have Father Guardian of the society of Franciscans at Loudun, who was a learned man, and a divine of the Sorbone; but it was not possible for him, either to obtain this grace, or a permission to have any other man but him whom he had objected to as his enemy. It is also said, that the witnesses who deposed against Grenadier, were the very Devils who tormented the nuns; and the testimony of such men, by all laws, divine and human, is unworthy to be admitted. Many observations were written and sent to the press upon the possession of the nuns, with a view of evincing, that it was all delusion and a made-up tale. The Devils at first, answered in French, to the questions that were asked them in Latin; afterwards, when they were desirous of speaking a little Latin, they made many false concords, which caused some wags in France to remark, that the Devils of Loudun were but novices in grammar, who had not yet advanced to the third form. There were two men of ability, who offered to demonstrate the delusion and imposture of the possession of the nuns; but they were so severely threatened by the cardinal, that one of them fled to Rome, and the other was obliged to conceal himself. The exorcists were sent from Paris by the cardinal; which circumstance, joined to the great pains that were taken to persuade the truth of the possession, sufficiently demonstrates the complexion of the business. Finally, in consideration of the circumstances we have recited, and others which we have omitted to mention, many authors within France itself, and among them Egidius Menagius, and the most learned Naudæus, have taken the part of Grenadier, and there is scarce any one, who when he touches upon this matter, does not express himself with some doubt.

SECT. XLII.

XCV. We have laid before the reader all these historical accounts, to let him see, that even to contradict the best-attested relations, and such as have generally been accepted and admitted as true upon the credit of a multitude of writers, and upon the authority of judicial acts, there are so many strong arguments to be alledged, that they excite in the understanding a propensity to doubt them, which doubting sometimes leads to a discovery of their falshood; and from hence we may learn how difficult it is, not only to hit upon the certain, but even to point out what is most probable in history, although I do not, on this account, pretend to adopt absolute Pyrrhonism, or to claim a general suspension of assent to all that is related by historians. There is a large field for distrust, which, carried to a certain length, is discretion; and, to an extravagant one, folly. It is necessary to examine with great attention, the limits to which doubt may be extended, and to extricate yourself from the labyrinth of it, whenever it is in your power, either by the road of truth, or the path of probability.

XCVI. What I mean to illustrate, is the great difficulties that are to be encountered in exercising worthily the occupation of an historian: to do it well, requires immense reading, a most happy memory, and a criticism that is extremely delicate. How can a man by reading one or two authors, pretend to investigate the truth of what is related by an infinite number? I don’t pretend that it is absolutely necessary he should read them all; for this many times would be impossible; and with respect to those, who he knows did nothing more than copy from others, superfluous; but he should read all those who are of especial note, either on account of the time in which they lived, the diligence with which they applied themselves, or on account of some other circumstances, which might contribute to their acquiring the most punctual information. It is not sufficient to read modern authors only, but you ought rather to proceed by retrospection; and, by beginning at the bottom, trace things upwards through the series of time, till you arrive at the fountains where the original writers drank, and from whom the others derived their intelligence. Neither is the reading antient authors sufficient, as it sometimes happens, that modern ones meet with monuments that were concealed from the others, which often serve to explain old events; and, upon the strength of which, they sometimes exhibit such solid arguments, as render difficult, or totally obstruct our assent to the account given of them by the ancients.

XCVII. Neither is it sufficient to read those authors who, from motives of partiality, would strive to make their relations correspond with their wishes. The rectitude of historic decision, requires that we should hear every one, even our enemies, and pronounce sentence, not according to our inclinations, but the strength and quality of the proofs.

XCVIII. It conduces much, in order to investigate the truth of events related by authors, and is also in a manner necessary, to know the situation and circumstances of the authors themselves; because in these, we may find motives to give or deny them credit; such, as what country they were born in, what religion they professed, and what party they were attached to, whether they were under obligations to, or had cause to be dissatisfied with the persons they introduce in their histories, and whether they were the dependants or relations of any of them, &c.

XCIX. But, above all, it is necessary to find out the natural disposition of an author. There are some, who so strikingly display the character of men of truth and sincerity, that they command our belief of them, even when they speak in favour of the party they are attached to. In this elevated point of view, we may venture to place Philip de Comines, our Mariana, and Henry Catherinus. But to acquire this knowledge of authors, demands singular perspicuity; for, although it is generally said, that in the writings of authors we may read their genius and disposition, we should reflect, that these are much more easy to be disguised by the pen than with the tongue. It is well known, that Sallust was a man of debauched morals; but notwithstanding this, there is scarce any other author, in whom we find such frequent declamations against vice.

C. The degree of reading and extent of historical information that is required, either to write or make a just judgment of any history, is very great. It is not only necessary to know exactly the religion, laws, and customs of the nations to which the events relate, in order to be clear whether they are repugnant to or correspondent with them; but it is also frequently necessary to know those of other nations, because it often happens, that the circumstances of one kingdom are blended with those of another, either by commerce, wars, or a thousand other accidental contingencies.

SECT. XLIII.

CI. But what above all makes writing history a difficult task is, that, in order to be a historian, it is necessary for a man to be much more than a historian. This, which may appear a paradox, is not so, but a most true position: I mean, that a person can’t be a perfect historian, who has not studied other faculties besides history; because, in various instances, a knowledge of other faculties discovers the falsity of some historical relations. The understanding geography, for example, no one can deny to be exceedingly necessary. Polybius and Diodorus Siculus, were so diligent in this matter, that before they wrote their histories, they travelled over the kingdoms and countries to which they related. Now-a-days this labour is not necessary, because the numbers of geographical books and maps at present extant, although they are not minutely exact, are sufficiently correct to make this trouble needless.

CII. Besides, there is another circumstance, which perhaps as yet, has never been attended to, which is, that other faculties which are seemingly very foreign from history, often serve to throw lights on various occurrences. What faculty, for example, to appearance, can have less relation to history than astronomy? but Quintus Curtius, through his gross ignorance of this science, fell into an historical error. He says, that when Alexander was marching to India, his soldiers complained loudly, that he was leading them to a country where they should not be able to see the sun. They might have had reason for this complaint, if he had been marching them Northward, in consequence of which, they would have perceived the sun to get lower, and the days to shorten upon them; but by marching towards the South, as they then were marching, they must observe the sun to get higher, and consequently, that fear in the soldiers could not have been possible.

CIII. Who would think of supposing, that optics and catoptrics, and we may say the same of other mathematical subjects, could be of use in writing a history? But please to observe, that by understanding optics, you would know, what Valerius Maximus, and other authors, tell us of a man named Strabo, who, from the promontory of Lilibyum, saw and counted the ships that had just sailed out of the port of Carthage was impossible, because the image of every ship, which at such a distance, could be formed on the retina, must be so exceedingly minute as to have been imperceptible. Also by understanding catoptrics, would be known either the impossibility, or almost insurmountable difficulty of making the burning glasses, with which we are told Archimedes, at the siege of Syracuse, set fire to the ships of Marcellus; that is, if we suppose the ships to have been as far distant from the walls as some authors have placed them, which was more than thirty geometrical paces.

CIV. Finally, and to sum up the whole, as human events which are the object of history, may bear analogy to the objects of all sorts of faculties, there is not one of them, which by an historian’s being acquainted with may not afford assistance in the discovery of the truth of some facts.

SECT. XLIV.

CV. From all that has been said, it is evident, that he, who sets about writing a history, engages in a most arduous undertaking; and that this is an occupation, fit only for those, in whom are combined so many excellent qualities, that the possession of them all in one subject approaches nearly to an impossibility; for, to the universal knowledge which we have just hinted to be necessary, should be added a love of truth, which nothing can intimidate; a comprehensive spirit, which the multitude of species can’t confound; a methodical genius to arrange them; a superior judgment, to class and estimate them according to their merit; a penetrating ingenuity, which, among a great number of confused and seemingly contradictory appearances, can discern the legitimate signs of the true from the adulterated; and, finally, he should be able to write in a clear and noble stile, such as we described in the beginning of this discourse as best suited to history, in order to illustrate and explain the whole. I say, find me a man possessed of all these requisites, _et eris mihi magnus Apollo_.

CVI. Although I consider all the before-named qualities, as absolutely necessary to form a compleat historian, I am well aware, that in many of the occurrences of life we should wish for the best, and content ourselves with the good or the middling; but this should be understood to relate to those faculties, in which a multitude of professors is absolutely necessary. Every town, for example, stands in need of many mechanical artificers; and as neither all, nor the half of them, can be excellent, we are obliged to be satisfied with those that are tolerable. But what necessity is there for multiplying Historians in this proportion, or for people to take upon them the occupation of such, who want the necessary talents to comply with the obligation? What have the multitude of historians ever done but multiply fables? It is commonly thought, that to compile a history, nothing more is necessary, than to be able to read, and write, and to possess or have access to books, from whence to extract the materials. Thus men engage in this undertaking who are full of passions, and poor in talents; whose study enables them to do nothing more, than without examination, without judgement, without stile, and without method, copy whatever flatters their imagination, or is favourable to their partiality.

CVII. Hence it is, that we meet with so many books filled with prodigies which never existed. All the marvellous, even abstracted from any particular motive for inserting it, is pleasing to him who writes, and him who reads it. This is inducement sufficient to cause the writer, if he does not invent, to copy and enforce a fable, and give it the appearance, if not of a true, at least of a probable relation. The tale is regaling to his imagination, and he is interested in inserting it, by the expectation, that it will make his history appear more attracting and pleasing to the reader. If, in the course of time, some writer of judgment, should with strong arguments, founded in reason and probability, attack the gossip’s tale, they throw in his teeth an infinite number of writers who have patronized it, and treat him as a rash man, for running counter to such a stream of authority; although upon a nice examination, you will find all these amount to no more than one only, who was the person that first invented, or adopted the fable, upon the credit of vain popular rumour; and that all the rest are mere copyists from this man; and that they made no inquiry into the premises, nor gave themselves any further trouble, than that of transcribing what they found written by him. But for the present, we will have done with History.

ADDITIONS TO THE FOREGOING DISCOURSE,

Extracted from the Ninth, or Supplemental Volume to the THEATRICO-CRITICO.

SECT. I.

I. The best method of beginning these additions, appears to me, to be by introducing some curious observations made by Plutarch, on the uncertainty of antient History, which we find inserted in his works, with the title of Parallels. The object of this treatise, is to shew, that many of the most illustrious and singular events which we find in the Greek history, are to be met with in the Roman one; all of them attended with exactly the same circumstances, and differ only with respect to the persons who were engaged in them, and the places where they happened; which affords a very probable conjecture, that the Roman authors, with a view of blazoning their country with this false and borrowed lustre, copied these events from the Greeks. Plutarch quotes the Greek authors who relate these things, and from whom, in all probability, the Romans copied them.

II. The Roman history says, that the vestal virgin Rhea Silva, having gone into a neighbouring wood to sacrifice, the god Mars took that opportunity of coming upon her by surprize, and ravishing her: the result of which rape was, the twin brothers, Romulus and Remus; who, soon after they were born, were left deserted on the banks of the Tiber, where a she wolf suckled and preserved them; but being afterwards found by the shepherd Faustulas; he took them up and delivered them to his wife Laurentia, to be nursed and reared. The same story, without the least variation in a single particular, is related by Zopirus Byzantinus, of the Grecian Philonomia, the daughter of Nictimus, who having gone into a wood, and been surprized and ravished there by the god Mars, was afterwards, in consequence of the rape, delivered of two sons, who were exposed on the banks of the river Erimanthus, and carried by the current into a plain, where they received their first nourishment from a wolf; and being taken up and preserved by the shepherd Telephus, came afterwards to be kings of Arcadia.

III. We are told that the senators, tired of the dominion of Romulus, killed him in the senate-house; and, in order to conceal his death, carried out each a piece of the defunct king, hid under their garments; in consequence of this contrivance, the body not appearing, they were able to impose upon the people, and persuade them that he had ascended to Heaven. The same story, tittle for tittle, is related by Theophilus of Pisistratus, the ancient king of Orchomena, in his Peloponnesian history. He says, the senators, fired with indignation against him, for favouring the populace more than the nobility, demolished and cut him into pieces in the senate-house, from whence each of them carried out a small portion of his body hid under their cloaths, which they deposited in their houses, and by that means concealed the assassination from the public; and, just afterwards Tlesymachus, one of the faction, pretended that he had seen Pisistratus upon the top of Mount Piseus in the shape of a deity.

IV. Macrobius and Plutarch tell us, that in a short time after the Romans had driven the Gauls from Rome, by whose invasion they were much weakened, the Latins entered into a league against them, and threatened their total ruin if they did not deliver up to them all the women of quality that were in the city. The senate were perplexed about what resolution to take in so critical a case: but while they were deliberating, all the slaves came, and offered to deceive the enemy, by going out to them dressed in the habits of their mistresses. The senate accepted the offer, and the slaves went forth, making a great parade, and dressed out like gay ladies. The Latins, who devoted the night to revel and debauchery, were surprized, and entirely routed by the Romans. The same story is told by Dasilus, in his history of Lydia; who says, the same demand was made by the Sardinians upon the Smyrnans, which was eluded by the same stratagem, and with the same success.