THE
THREE IMPOSTORS.
[Contents]
RE-PUBLISHED BY
G. VALE, “BEACON” OFFICE, 3 FRANKLIN-SQUARE,
NEW-YORK:
1846.
G. VALE, “BEACON” OFFICE, 3 FRANKLIN-SQUARE,
NEW-YORK:
1846.
[3]
[Contents]
NOTE BY THE AMERICAN PUBLISHER.
We publish this valuable work, for the reasons contained in the following Note, of which we approve:—
[Contents]
NOTE BY THE BRITISH PUBLISHER.
The following little book I present to the reader without any remarks on the different opinions relative to its antiquity; as the subject is amply discussed in the body of the work, and constitutes one of its most interesting and attractive features. The Edition from which the present is translated was brought me from Paris by a distinguished defender of Civil and Religious Liberty: and as my friend had an anxiety from a thorough conviction of its interest and value, to see it published in the English Language, I have from like feelings brought it before the public; and I am convinced that it is an excellent antidote to Superstition and Intolerance, and eminently calculated to promote the cause of Freedom, Justice, and Morality.
J. MYLES. [5]
[Contents]
PREFACE BY THE TRANSLATOR.
The Translator of the following little treatise deems it necessary to say a few words as to the object of its publication. It is given to the world, neither with a view to advocate Scepticism, nor to spread infidelity, but simply to vindicate the right of private judgment. No human being is in a position to look into the heart, or to decide correctly as to the creed or conduct of his fellow mortals; and the attributes of the Deity are so far beyond the grasp of limited reason, that man must become a God himself before he can comprehend them. Such being the case, surely all harsh censure of each other’s opinions and actions ought to be abandoned; and every one should so train himself as to be enabled to declare with the humane and manly philosopher
“Homo sum, nihil humania me alienum puto.”
Dundee, September 1844. [6]
[Contents]
CONTENTS OF THE PRELIMINARY DISSERTATION.
DISQUISITIONS on the book entitled “The Three Impostors.”
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. [7]
[Contents]
DISQUISITIONS
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 German1 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 follows2: “Far be it from me to attribute [8]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, saying3; 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. [9]
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 [10]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 demon8 over that of the Magicians of [11]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 [12]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 [13]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, [14]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. [15]
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 [16]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 [17]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 injustice14. “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 [18]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. [19]
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 [20]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 [21]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, [22]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. [23]
1 Daniel George Morof, who died suddenly on the 30th of June 1691. ↑
2 Librum de tribus impostoribus absit ut Papæ tribuam, aut Papæ oppugnatoribus; jam olim inimici Frederici Barbarossæ Imperatoris famam sparserant libri talis, quasi jussu ipsius scripti, sed ab eo tempore, nemo est qui viderit; quare fabulam esse arbitror. ↑
3 Apud Nevizanum 1. Sylvae nupt. 2. n. 121. ↑
4 Doubtless Averroes here alludes to that law of Mahomet which wisely prohibits the use of pork in a hot and pestilential climate.—Translator’s Note. ↑
5 Disseminavit iste impius haereticus in Hispania, [such is the language made use of by Alvaro Pelagius], quod tres deceptores fuerunt in mundo, scilicet, Moises, qui decepterat Judaeos, et Christus, qui decepterat Christianos, et Mahometus, qui decepit Sarrazenos. ↑
6 Et sic falsa est Porphirii sententia, qui dixit tres fuisse garrulatores qui totum mundum ad se converterunt; primus fuit Moises in populo Judaico, secundus Mahometus, tertius Christus. ↑
7 Qui in quæstionem vertere presumunt, dicentes; quis in hec mundo majorem gentium aut populorum sequelam habuit, an Christus, an Moises, an Mahometus? ↑
8 Every classical scholar must have heard of the demon of Socrates. The belief in the existence of such agencies was sufficiently prevalent in the East 2000 years ago, and the Jews were in this respect, as credulous as their neighbors. We read in Acts, c. iv. v. 7, that the leaders of the Sanhedrim enquired of the Apostle Peter, “By what power or by what name, have ye done this;” evidently acknowledging their belief that it was possible to work miracles by the invocation of some mysterious power. The Apostle, himself a Jew, seems to understand their creed; but he answers them in a way for which they were not altogether prepared.—Translator’s Note. ↑
9 Ædeficabat sine pecunia, judicabat sine conscientia, scribebat sine scientia. ↑
10 Non Blandratum, non Alciatum, non Ochinum ad Mahotnetismum impulerunt; non Valleum ad atheismi professionem induxerunt; non alium quemdam ad spargendum libellum de tribus impostoribus, quorum secundus esset Christus Dominus, duo alii Moises et Mahometes, pellexerunt. ↑
11 Vincentii Panurgii epistola tribus impostoribus, ad clarissimum virum Joannem—Baptistam Morinum Medicum. ↑
12 Isaac de Peyrere published his Pre-Adamite doctrine in 1655. This set of fanatics, who were persuaded by their lenders that the general race of mankind had lost nothing of their innocence by the fall of Adam, made their appearance, (both men and women) in the streets of Munster, and elsewhere, in the same robeless condition as our first parents were, when they wandered in the bowers of Paradise before the eating of that forbidden fruit, which
“Brought death into the world and all our woe.”
The magistrates of the city attempted to put them down but failed; and the military had some difficulty in extinguishing this absurdity.—Translator’s Note. ↑
13 Monstrum illud hominis, diis inferis a secretis scelus, nefarii illius tractatus de tribus impostoribus author quantumvis ab omni Religione alienus, adeo ut nec Judaeus, nec Turca, nec Christianus fuerit, plane tamen athœus non erat. ↑
14 Consult Bayle’s Dictionary on this subject, article, “Trabea.” ↑
15 Quid vel hac sola dubitatione in Christiana schola cogitara potest perniciosius? ↑
16 Nefarium tillud rium impostorum commentum sen liber contra Christum, Moisem et Mahometan Capomi nuper ab illis qui Evangelo Calvini so adductissimos profitentur typis excussus est. ↑
17 Hinc Boccaccius in fabellis probare contendit non posse discerni inter legem Christi, Moisis et Mahometis, quia eadem signa habent uti tres annuli consimiles. ↑
[Contents]
ANSWER
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 [24]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.1”
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, [25]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.”2 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 [26]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 [27]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. [28]
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 [29]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 [30]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.3”
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 stylus4, 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,
J. L. R. L.
Leyden, 1st January 1716.
[This letter was written by M. Pierre Frederick Arpe, of Kiel in Holstein; the author of an apology for Vanini, printed in octavo at Rotterdam, 1712] [31]
1 F. I. S. D. namely, Fredericus Imperator Salutem Dicit Othoni illustrissimo amico meo carrissimo. ↑
2 Quod de tribus famosissimis nationum deceptoribus in ordinem jussu meo digessit doctissimus ille vir quorum sermonem de illa re in museo meo habustiæ exscribi curavi; atque Codicem illum stylo aeque vero ac puro scriptum ad te quam primum mitto; etenum, &c. ↑
3 There is a measure in every thing. ↑
4 This phrase is frequently employed to express ecclesiastical criticism. Its first application however had a more pungent meaning.—The individual here alluded to having boldly assailed the errors of the Church was attacked one evening by an assassin. Fortunately the blow did not prove fatal; but the weapon (a stylus, or dagger, which is also the Latin name for a pen) having been left in the wound—on his recovery he wore it in his girdle labelled, “The Theological Stylus,” or Pen of the Church. The trenchant powers of this instrument have more frequently been employed to repress truth, than to refute argument. ↑
[Contents]
COPY OF THE SECOND PART, VOL. I, ARTICLE IX. OF, “LITERARY MEMOIRS.” PUBLISHED AT THE HAGUE BY HENRY DU SAUZET, 1716.
It is impossible in the present day to doubt the existence of “The Three Impostors,” since we find several manuscript copies of it. If M. de la Monnoye had observed the agreement of it with an extract published at Leyden, 1st. Jan. 1716,—the same division into six chapters—the same titles, and the same subjects of which they treat, he would have exclaimed against the forgery of this work, improperly attributed to Pierre des Vignes, the Secretary and Chancellor of Frederick II. This judicious critic long ago observed the difference between the Gothic style of Pierre des Vignes in his Epistles, and that of the letter pretended to be addressed to the Duke of Bavaria, “Otho the illustrious,” when they sent him the work. A more important point has not escaped the notice of the learned. This treatise is written and argued in the method and upon the principles of the New Philosophy, which was not introduced until about the middle of the seventeenth century, after Descartes, Gassendi, Bernier, and some others had explained its principles in a juster and clearer way than did the ancient philosophers, who wished to preserve their secrets, as they affected a mysterious obscurity in favor of the initiated. The author himself, in the fifteen chapter of his work, names Descartes, and combats the arguments of this great man on the subject of the soul. Neither Pierre des Vignes, nor any of those whom they have attempted to pass off as the author of this book, could have reasoned according to the principles of the new Philosophy, which was not introduced till after they had written. To whom then must the work be attributed? We must conclude that it cannot be of the same date as the short letter printed at Leyden, 1717. But another difficulty occurs. Tentzelius, who wrote in 1689, also gives an extract from this book upon the credit of a pretended ocular witness. But without attempting to fix the date of this book, which is said to have been composed in Latin and printed; the small French [32]manuscript treatise, whether it had ever been written in that language or whether it is translated from the Latin, (which is difficult to believe,) cannot be of a very ancient date.
This is not the only book composed under this title and upon the same subject. A man whose character and profession ought to have led him to engage in matters more decorous, composed a great work (in French) under the same title. In his preface he says that it is long since he had heard of “The Three Impostors,” but that he had never found any part of it, whether there had never existed such a work, or whether it be lost; therefore he attempts to restore it by writing on the same subject. His work is very long, very wearisome, and very badly written; with little principles and less argument. It is a confused jumble of all the invectives and calumnies circulated against the Three Legislators. The manuscript was in two volumes folio, thick, and legible enough, although in small characters—the book is divided into a great many chapters. Another similar manuscript was found after the death of a nobleman. This gave rise to an attempt to seize the author who having been informed of it took care that nothing should be found among his papers to convict him. Afterwards he lived in a monastery under penance. In 1733 he recovered his liberty and enjoyed a revenue of 250 livres from the Abbey of St. Liquarie, in addition to a reserved one of 350 livres from his benefice. His name was Guillaume, Cure of Fresne-sur-Berny, and the brother of a labourer in the Netherlands. He was at one time Regent of the College of Montaigu; in his youth he had been a dragoon, and then he became a Capuchin. [33]
[Contents]
CONTENTS OF TREATISE.
CHAP. I. Of God. The false ideas which men have formed of the Divinity. Instead of consulting reason and common sense, they have had the weakness to believe in the opinions, reveries, and visions of parties whose interest it was to deceive them, and to keep them in ignorance and superstition.
CHAP. II. On the reasons which have led men to believe in a Divinity. From the ignorance as to physical causes, and the terror produced by accidents, rational enough but extraordinary or fearful, has arisen the belief in some invisible power; a belief, of which Politicians and Impostors have not failed to take advantage. Enquiry into the nature of God. Belief in final causes refuted as contrary to sound Natural Philosophy.
CHAP. III. On the meaning of the word Theology. How, and for what purpose, so many Religions have been introduced into the world. All Religions the work of Politicians. Method which Moses took to establish the Jewish Religion. Enquiry into the Nativity of Jesus Christ. His Politics—his Morality—and his Reputation after his death. Artifices of Mahomet to established his Religion. Success of this impostor greater than that of Christ.
CHAP. IV. Truth evident and obvious to the senses. Idea of an universal Being. Attributes ascribed to him in all religious systems, generally incompatible with his essence, and unsuited to the nature of man. Notion of a life to come and of the existence of Spirits, combated and rejected.
CHAP. V. On the Soul. Different opinions of the Ancient Philosophers on the nature of the Soul. Arguments of Descartes refuted. Author’s exposition on the subject.
CHAP. VI. On the Spirits named Demons. Origin and falsity of the opinions as to their existence. [34]