Produced by Anne Soulard, Eric Eldred and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team








BOOKS FATAL TO THEIR AUTHORS

By P. H. Ditchfield




To The Memory Of John Walter, Esq., M.A., J.P., Of Bearwood, Berks, This
Volume Is Respectfully And Affectionately Dedicated.




PREFACE.

TO THE BOOK-LOVER.


_To record the woes of authors and to discourse_ de libris fatalibus
_seems deliberately to court the displeasure of that fickle mistress who
presides over the destinies of writers and their works. Fortune awaits
the aspiring scribe with many wiles, and oft treats him sorely. If she
enrich any, it is but to make them subject of her sport. If she raise
others, it is but to pleasure herself with their ruins. What she adorned
but yesterday is to-day her pastime, and if we now permit her to adorn
and crown us, we must to-morrow suffer her to crush and tear us to
pieces. To-day her sovereign power is limited: she can but let loose a
host of angry critics upon us; she can but scoff at us, take away our
literary reputation, and turn away the eyes of a public as fickle as
herself from our pages. Surely that were hard enough! Can Fortune pluck
a more galling dart from her quiver, and dip the point in more envenomed
bitterness? Yes, those whose hard lot is here recorded have suffered
more terrible wounds than these. They have lost liberty, and even life,
on account of their works. The cherished offspring of their brains have,
like unnatural children, turned against their parents, causing them to
be put to death._

_Fools many of them--nay, it is surprising how many of this illustrious
family have peopled the world, and they can boast of many authors' names
which figure on their genealogical tree--men who might have lived happy,
contented, and useful lives were it not for their insane _cacoethes
scribendi_. And hereby they show their folly. If only they had been
content to write plain and ordinary commonplaces which every one
believed, and which caused every honest fellow who had a grain of sense
in his head to exclaim, "How true that is!" all would have been well.
But they must needs write something original, something different from
other men's thoughts; and immediately the censors and critics began
to spy out heresy, or laxity of morals, and the fools were dealt with
according to their folly. There used to be special houses of correction
in those days, mad-houses built upon an approved system, for the special
treatment of cases of this kind; mediaeval dungeons, an occasional
application of the rack, and other gentle instruments of torture of
an inventive age, were wonderfully efficacious in curing a man of his
folly. Nor was there any special limit to the time during which the
treatment lasted. And in case of a dangerous fit of folly, there were
always a few faggots ready, or a sharpened axe, to put a finishing
stroke to other and more gentle remedies._

_One species of folly was especially effective in procuring the
attention of the critics of the day, and that was satirical writing.
They could not tolerate that style--no, not for a moment; and many an
author has had his cap and bells, aye, and the lining too, severed from
the rest of his motley, simply because he would go and play with Satyrs
instead of keeping company with plain and simple folk._

_Far separated from the crowd of fools, save only in their fate, were
those who amid the mists of error saw the light of Truth, and strove to
tell men of her graces and perfections. The vulgar crowd heeded not
the message, and despised the messengers. They could see no difference
between the philosopher's robe and the fool's motley, the Saint's glory
and Satan's hoof. But with eager eyes and beating hearts the toilers
after Truth worked on._

  _"How many with sad faith have sought her?
  How many with crossed hands have sighed for her?
  How many with brave hearts fought for her,
    At life's dear peril wrought for her,
    So loved her that they died for her,
    Tasting the raptured fleetness
    Of her Divine completeness?"_

_In honour of these scholars of an elder age, little understood by their
fellows, who caused them to suffer for the sake of the Truth they loved,
we doff our caps, whether they jingle or not, as you please; and if
thou thinkest, good reader, that 'twere folly to lose a life for such a
cause, the bells will match the rest of thy garb. The learning, too, of
the censors and critics was often indeed remarkable. They condemned a
recondite treatise on Trigonometry, because they imagined it contained
heretical opinions concerning the doctrine of the Trinity; and another
work which was devoted to the study of Insects was prohibited, because
they concluded that it was a secret attack upon the Jesuits. Well might
poor Galileo exclaim, "And are these then my judges?" Stossius, who
wrote a goodly book with the title "Concordia rationis et fidei,"
which was duly honoured by being burnt at Berlin, thus addresses his
slaughtered offspring, and speculates on the reason of its condemnation:
"Ad librum a ministerio damnatum._

_"Q. Parve liber, quid enim peccasti, dente sinistro. Quod te discerptum
turba sacrata velit?  R. Invisum dixi verum, propter quod et olim,
     Vel dominum letho turba sacrata dedit."_

_But think not, O Book-lover, that I am about to record all the race of
fools who have made themselves uncomfortable through their insane love
of writing, nor count all the books which have become instruments of
accusation against their authors. That library would be a large one
which contained all such volumes. I may only write to thee of some of
them now, and if thou shouldest require more, some other time I may tell
thee of them. Perhaps in a corner of thy book-shelves thou wilt collect
a store of Fatal Books, many of which are rare and hard to find. Know,
too, that I have derived some of the titles of works herein recorded
from a singular and rare work of M. John Christianus Klotz, published in
Latin at Leipsic, in the year 1751. To these I have added many others.
The Biographical Dictionary of Bayle is a mine from which I have often
quarried, and discovered there many rare treasures. Our own learned
literary historian, Mr. Isaac Disraeli, has recorded the woes of many of
our English writers in his book entitled "The Calamities of Authors" and
also in his "Curiosities of Literature." From these works I have derived
some information. There is a work by Menkenius, "Analecta de Calamitate
Literatorum"; another by Pierius Valerianus, "De Infelicitate
Literatorum"; another by Spizelius, "Infelix Literatus"; and last
but not least Peignot's "Dictionnaire Critique, Littéraire et
Bibliographique, des Livres condamnés au Feu" which will furnish thee
with further information concerning the woes of authors, if thine
appetite be not already sated._

_And if there be any of Folly's crowd who read this book--of those, I
mean, who work and toil by light of midnight lamp, weaving from their
brains page upon page of lore and learning, wearing their lives out,
all for the sake of an ungrateful public, which cares little for their
labour and scarcely stops to thank the toiler for his pains--if there be
any of you who read these pages, it will be as pleasant to you to feel
safe and free from the stern critics' modes of former days, as it is to
watch the storms and tempests of the sea from the secure retreat of your
study chair._

_And if at any time a cross-grained reviewer should treat thy cherished
book with scorn, and presume to ridicule thy sentiment and scoff at
thy style (which Heaven forfend!), console thyself that thou livest in
peaceable and enlightened times, and needest fear that no greater evil
can befall thee on account of thy folly in writing than the lash of his
satire and the bitterness of his caustic pen. After the manner of thy
race thou wilt tempt Fortune again. May'st thou proceed and prosper!_
Vale.

_I desire to express my many thanks to the Rev. Arthur Carr, M.A., late
Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, for his kind assistance in revising the
proofs of this work. It was my intention to dedicate this book to Mr.
John Walter, but alas! his death has deprived it of that distinction.
It is only possible now to inscribe to the memory of him whom England
mourns the results of some literary labour in which he was pleased to
take a kindly interest._

P. H. D.

BARKHAM RECTORY,

_November_, 1894.



CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

THEOLOGY.

Michael Molinos--Bartholomew Carranza--Jerome Wecchiettus--Samuel
Clarke--Francis David--Antonio de Dominis--Noël Bède--William
Tyndale--Arias Montanus--John Huss--Antonio Bruccioli--Enzinas--Louis
Le Maistre--Caspar Peucer--Grotius--Vorstius--Pasquier Quesnel--Le
Courayer--Savonarola--Michael Servetus--Sebastian Edzardt--William of
Ockham--Abélard.

CHAPTER II.

FANATICS AND FREE-THINKERS.

Quirinus Kuhlmann--John Tennhart--Jeremiah Felbinger--Simon
Morin--Liszinski--John Toland--Thomas Woolston--John Biddle--Johann
Lyser--Bernardino Ochino--Samuel Friedrich Willenberg.

CHAPTER III.

ASTROLOGY, ALCHEMY, AND MAGIC.

Henry Cornelius Agrippa--Joseph Francis Borri--Urban Grandier--Dr.
Dee--Edward Kelly--John Darrell.

CHAPTER IV.

SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY.

Bishop Virgil--Roger Bacon--Galileo--Jordano Bruno--Thomas
Campanella--De Lisle de Sales--Denis Diderot--Balthazar Bekker--Isaac de
la Peyrère--Abbé de Marolles--Lucilio Vanini--Jean Rousseau.

CHAPTER V.

HISTORY.

Antonius Palearius--Caesar Baronius--John Michael Bruto--Isaac Berruyer
Louis Elias Dupin--Noel Alexandre--Peter Giannone--Joseph Sanfelicius
(Eusebius Philopater)--Arlotto--Bonfadio--De Thou--Gilbert
Génébrard--Joseph Audra--Beaumelle--John Mariana--John B. Primi--John
Christopher Rüdiger--Rudbeck--François Haudicquer--François de
Rosières--Anthony Urseus.

CHAPTER VI.

POLITICS AND STATESMANSHIP.

John Fisher--Reginald Pole--"Martin
Marprelate"--Udal--Penry--Hacket--Coppinger--Arthington--Cartwright
--Cowell--Leighton--John Stubbs--Peter Wentworth--R. Doleman--J. Hales--
Reboul--William Prynne--BurtonBastwick--John Selden--John Tutchin--
Delaune--Samuel Johnson--Algernon Sidney--Edmund Richer--John de
Falkemberg--Jean Lenoir--Simon Linguet--Abbé Caveirac--Darigrand--Pietro
Sarpi--Jerome Maggi--Theodore Reinking.

CHAPTER VII.

SATIRE.

Roger Rabutin de Bussy--M. Dassy--Trajan Boccalini--Pierre
Billard--Pietro Aretino--Felix Hemmerlin--John Giovanni
Cinelli--Nicholas Francus--Lorenzo Valla--Ferrante Pallavicino--François
Gacon--Daniel Defoe--Du Rosoi--Caspar Scioppius.

CHAPTER VIII.

POETRY.

Adrian Beverland--Cecco d'Ascoli--George Buchanan--Nicodemus
Frischlin--Clement Marot--Gaspar Weiser--John
Williams--Deforges--Théophile--Hélot--Matteo Palmieri--La Grange--Pierre
Petit--Voltaire--Montgomery--Keats--Joseph Ritson.

CHAPTER IX.

DRAMA AND ROMANCE.

Sir John Yorke and Catholic Plays--Abraham Cowley--Antoine
Danchet--Claude Crébillon--Nogaret--François de Salignac Fénélon.

CHAPTER X.

BOOKSELLERS AND PUBLISHERS.

The Printers of Nicholas de Lyra and Caesar Baronius--John Fust--Richard
Grafton--Jacob van Liesvelt--John Lufftius--Robert Stephens
(Estienne)--Henry Stephens--Simon Ockley--Floyer Sydenham--Edmund
Castell--Page--John Lilburne--Etienne Dolet--John Morin--Christian
Wechel--Andrew Wechel--Jacques Froullé--Godonesche--William Anderton.

CHAPTER XI.

SOME LITERARY MARTYRS.

Leland--Strutt--Cotgrave--Henry Wharton--Robert Heron--Collins--William
Cole--Homeric victims--Joshua Barnes--An example of unrequited
toil--BorgarutiusPays.

INDEX




BOOKS FATAL TO THEIR AUTHORS.




CHAPTER I. THEOLOGY.

Michael Molinos--Bartholomew Carranza--Jerome Wecchiettus--Samuel
Clarke--Francis David--Antonio de Dominis--Noël Bède--William
Tyndale--Arias Montanus--John Huss--Antonio Bruccioli--Enzinas--Louis
Le Maistre--Gaspar Peucer--Grotius--Vorstius--Pasquier Quesnel--Le
Courayer--Savonarola--Michael Servetus--Sebastian Edzardt--William of
Ockham--Abélard.


Since the knowledge of Truth is the sovereign good of human nature, it
is natural that in every age she should have many seekers, and those who
ventured in quest of her in the dark days of ignorance and superstition
amidst the mists and tempests of the sixteenth century often ran counter
to the opinions of dominant parties, and fell into the hands of foes who
knew no pity. Inasmuch as Theology and Religion are the highest of all
studies--the _aroma scientiarum_--they have attracted the most powerful
minds and the subtlest intellects to their elucidation; no other
subjects have excited men's minds and aroused their passions as these
have done; on account of their unspeakable importance, no other subjects
have kindled such heat and strife, or proved themselves more fatal
to many of the authors who wrote concerning them. In an evil hour
persecutions were resorted to to force consciences, Roman Catholics
burning and torturing Protestants, and the latter retaliating and using
the same weapons; surely this was, as Bacon wrote, "to bring down the
Holy Ghost, instead of the likeness of a dove, in the shape of a vulture
or raven; and to set, out of the bark of a Christian Church, a flag of a
bark of pirates and assassins."

The historian then will not be surprised to find that by far the larger
number of Fatal Books deal with these subjects of Theology and Religion,
and many of them belong to the stormy period of the Reformation. They
met with severe critics in the merciless Inquisition, and sad was the
fate of a luckless author who found himself opposed to the opinions of
that dread tribunal. There was no appeal from its decisions, and if a
taint of heresy, or of what it was pleased to call heresy, was detected
in any book, the doom of its author was sealed, and the ingenuity of the
age was well-nigh exhausted in devising methods for administering the
largest amount of torture before death ended his woes.

 _Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum._

Liberty of conscience was a thing unknown in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries; and while we prize that liberty as a priceless
possession, we can but admire the constancy and courage of those who
lived in less happy days. We are not concerned now in condemning or
defending their opinions or their beliefs, but we may at least praise
their boldness and mourn their fate.

The first author we record whose works proved fatal to him was Michael
Molinos, a Spanish theologian born in 1627, a pious and devout man
who resided at Rome and acted as confessor. He published in 1675 _The
Spiritual Manual_, which was translated from Italian into Latin, and
together with a treatise on _The Daily Communion_ was printed with this
title: _A Spiritual Manual, releasing the soul and leading it along the
interior way to the acquiring the perfection of contemplation and
the rich treasure of internal peace_. In the preface Molinos writes:
"Mystical theology is not a science of the imagination, but of feelings;
we do not understand it by study, but we receive it from heaven.
Therefore in this little work I have received far greater assistance
from the infinite goodness of God, who has deigned to inspire me, than
from the thoughts which the reading of books has suggested to me." The
object of the work is to teach that the pious mind must possess quietude
in order to attain to any spiritual progress, and that for this purpose
it must be abstracted from visible objects and thus rendered susceptible
of heavenly influence. This work received the approval of the Archbishop
of the kingdom of Calabria, and many other theologians of the Church.
It won for its author the favour of Cardinal Estraeus and also of Pope
Innocent XI. It was examined by the Inquisition at the instigation
of the Jesuits, and passed that trying ordeal unscathed. But the book
raised up many powerful adversaries against its author, who did not
scruple to charge Molinos with Judaism, Mohammedanism, and many other
"isms," but without any avail, until at length they approached the
confessor of the King of Naples, and obtained an order addressed to
Cardinal Estraeus for the further examination of the book. The Cardinal
preferred the favour of the king to his private friendship. Molinos was
tried in 1685, and two years later was conducted in his priestly robes
to the temple of Minerva, where he was bound, and holding in his hand
a wax taper was compelled to renounce sixty-eight articles which the
Inquisition decreed were deduced from his book. He was afterwards doomed
to perpetual imprisonment. On his way to the prison he encountered one
of his opponents and exclaimed, "Farewell, my father; we shall meet
again on the day of judgment, and then it will be manifest on which
side, on yours or mine, the Truth shall stand." For eleven long years
Molinos languished in the dungeons of the Inquisition, where he died in
1696. His work was translated into French and appeared in a _Recueil de
pièces sur le Quiétisme_, published in Amsterdam 1688. Molinos has been
considered the leader and founder of the Quietism of the seventeenth
century. The monks of Mount Athos in the fourteenth, the Molinosists,
Madame Guyon, Fénélon, and others in the seventeenth century, all
belonged to that contemplative company of Christians who thought that
the highest state of perfection consisted in the repose and complete
inaction of the soul, that life ought to be one of entire passive
contemplation, and that good works and active industry were only fitting
for those who were toiling in a lower sphere and had not attained to the
higher regions of spiritual mysticism. Thus the '[Greek: Aesuchastai]'
on Mount Athos contemplated their nose or their navel, and called the
effect of their meditations "the divine light," and Molinos pined in his
dungeon, and left his works to be castigated by the renowned Bossuet.
The pious, devout, and learned Spanish divine was worthy of a better
fate, and perhaps a little more quietism and a little less restlessness
would not be amiss in our busy nineteenth century.

The noblest prey ever captured by those keen hunters, the Inquisitors,
was Bartholomew Carranza, Archbishop of Toledo, in 1558, one of the
richest and most powerful prelates in Christendom. He enjoyed the favour
of his sovereign Philip II. of Spain, whom he accompanied to England,
and helped to burn our English Protestants. Unfortunately in an evil
hour he turned to authorship, and published a catechism under this
title: _Commentarios sobre el Catequismo Cristiano divididos en
quatro partes las quales contienen fodo loque professamor en el sancto
baptismo, como se vera en la plana seguiente dirigidos al serenissimo
Roy de España_ (Antwerp). On account of this work he was accused of
Lutheranism, and his capture arranged by his enemies. At midnight, after
the Archbishop had retired to rest, a knock was heard at the door of
the chamber. "Who calls?" asked the attendant friar. "Open to the Holy
Office," was the answer. Immediately the door flew open, for none dared
resist that terrible summons, and Ramirez, the Inquisitor-General of
Toledo, entered. The Archbishop raised himself in his bed, and demanded
the reason of the intrusion. An order for his arrest was produced,
and he was speedily conveyed to the dungeons of the Inquisition at
Valladolid. For seven long years he lingered there, and was then
summoned to Rome in 1566 by Pius V. and imprisoned for six years in the
Castle of St. Angelo. The successor of Pope Pius V., Gregory XIII.,
at length pronounced him guilty of false doctrine. His catechism was
condemned; he was compelled to abjure sixteen propositions, and besides
other penances he was confined for five years in a monastery. Broken
down by his eighteen years' imprisonment and by the hardships he had
undergone, he died sixteen days after his cruel sentence had been
pronounced. [Footnote: Cf. _The Church of Spain_, by Canon Meyrick.
(National Churches Series.)] On his deathbed he solemnly declared that
he had never seriously offended with regard to the Faith. The people
were very indignant against his persecutors, and on the day of his
funeral all the shops were closed as on a great festival. His body was
honoured as that of a saint. His captors doubtless regretted his death,
inasmuch as the Pope is said to have received a thousand gold pieces
each month for sparing his life, and Philip appropriated the revenues of
his see for his own charitable purposes, which happened at that time to
be suppression of heresy in the Netherlands by the usual means of rack
and fire and burying alive helpless victims.

A very fatal book was one entitled _Opus de anno primitivo ab exordia
mundi, ad annum Julianum accommodato, et de sacrorum temporum ratione.
Augustae-Vindelicorum_, 1621, _in folio magno_. It is a work of Jerome
Wecchiettus, a Florentine doctor of theology. The Inquisition attacked
and condemned the book to the flames, and its author to perpetual
imprisonment. Being absent from Rome he was comparatively safe, but
surprised the whole world by voluntarily submitting himself to his
persecutors, and surrendering himself to prison. This extraordinary
humility disarmed his foes, but it did not soften much the hearts of the
Inquisitors, who permitted him to end his days in the cell. The causes
of the condemnation of the work are not very evident. One idea is that
in his work the author pretended to prove that Christ did not eat the
passover during the last year of His life; and another states that he
did not sufficiently honour the memory of Louis of Bavaria, and thus
aroused the anger of the strong supporters of that ancient house.

The first English author whose woes we record is Samuel Clarke, who was
born at Norwich in 1675, and was for some time chaplain to the bishop of
that see. He was very intimate with the scientific men of his time,
and especially with Newton. In 1704 he published his Boyle Lectures, _A
Treatise on the Being and Attributes of God, and on Natural and Revealed
Religion_, which found its way into other lands, a translation being
published in Amsterdam in 1721. Our author became chaplain to Queen
Anne and Rector of St. James's. He was a profoundly learned and devout
student, and obtained a European renown as a true Christian philosopher.
In controversy he encountered foemen worthy of his steel, such as
Spinosa, Hobbes, Dodwell, Collins, Leibnitz, and others. But in 1712 he
published _The Scriptural Doctrine of the Trinity_, which was declared
to be opposed to the Christian belief and tainted with Arianism. The
attention of Parliament was called to the book; the arguments were
disputed by Edward Wells, John Edwards, and William Sommer; and Clarke
was deprived of his offices. The charge of heterodoxy was certainly
never proved against him; he did good service in trying to stem the
flood of rationalism prevalent in his time, and his work was carried
on by Bishop Butler. His correspondence with Leibnitz on Time, Space,
Necessity, and Liberty was published in 1717, and his editions of
Caesar and Homer were no mean contributions to the study of classical
literature.

In the sixteenth century there lived in Hungary one Francis David, a man
learned in the arts and languages, but his inconstancy and fickleness of
mind led him into diverse errors, and brought about his destruction.
He left the Church, and first embraced Calvinism; then he fled into
the camp of the Semi-Judaising party, publishing a book _De Christo
non invocando_, which was answered by Faustus Socinus, the founder of
Socinianism. The Prince of Transylvania, Christopher Bathori, condemned
David as an impious innovator and preacher of strange doctrines, and
cast him into prison, where he died in 1579. There is extant a letter of
David to the Churches of Poland concerning the millennium of Christ.

Our next author was a victim to the same inconstancy of mind which
proved so fatal to Francis David, but sordid reasons and the love of
gain without doubt influenced his conduct and produced his fickleness of
faith. Antonio de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, was a shining light
of the Roman Church at the end of the sixteenth century. He was born
in 1566, and educated by the Jesuits. He was learned in history and in
science, and was the first to discover the cause of the rainbow, his
explanation being adopted and perfected by Descartes. The Jesuits
obtained for him the Professorship of Mathematics at Padua, and of
Logic and Rhetoric at Brescia. After his ordination he became a popular
preacher and was consecrated Bishop of Segni, and afterwards Archbishop
of Spalatro in Dalmatia. He took a leading part in the controversy
between the Republic of Venice and the Pope, and after the
reconciliation between the two parties was obliged by the Pope to pay an
annual pension of five hundred crowns out of the revenues of his see to
the Bishop of Segni. This highly incensed the avaricious prelate, who
immediately began to look out for himself a more lucrative piece of
preferment. He applied to Sir Dudley Carleton, the English Ambassador at
Venice, to know whether he would be received into the Church of England,
as the abuses and corruptions of the Church of Rome prevented him from
remaining any longer in her communion.

King James I. heartily approved of his proposal, and gave him a most
honourable reception, both in the Universities and at Court. All the
English bishops agreed to contribute towards his maintenance. Fuller
says: "It is incredible what flocking of people there was to behold this
old archbishop now a new convert; prelates and peers presented him with
gifts of high valuation." Other writers of the period describe him
as "old and corpulent," but of a "comely presence"; irascible and
pretentious, gifted with an unlimited assurance and plenty of ready wit
in writing and speaking; of a "jeering temper," and of a most grasping
avarice. He was ridiculed on the stage in Middleton's play, _The Game
of Chess_, as the "Fat Bishop." "He was well named De Dominis in the
plural," says Crakanthorp, "for he could serve two masters, or twenty,
if they paid him wages."

Our author now proceeded to finish his great work, which he published in
1617 in three large folios--_De Republicâ Ecclesiasticâ_, of which the
original still exists among the Tanner MSS. in the Bodleian Library
at Oxford. "He exclaims," says Fuller, "'in reading, meditation, and
writing, I am almost pined away,' but his fat cheeks did confute
his false tongue in that expression." In this book he shows that the
authority of the Bishop of Rome can easily be disproved from Holy
Scripture, that it receives no support from the judgment of history and
antiquity, that the early bishops of that see had no precedence over
other bishops, nor were in the least able to control those of other
countries. He declares that the inequality in power amongst the Apostles
is a human invention, not founded on the Gospels; that in the Holy
Eucharist the priest does not offer the sacrifice of Christ, but only
the commemoration of that sacrifice; that the Church has no coercive
power, that John Huss was wrongfully condemned at the Council of
Constance; that the Holy Spirit was promised to the whole Church, and
not only to bishops and priests; that the papacy is a fiction invented
by men; and he states many other propositions which must have been
somewhat distasteful to the Pope and his followers.

James rewarded De Dominis by conferring on him the Mastership of the
Savoy and the Deanery of Windsor, and he further increased his wealth by
presenting himself to the rich living of West Ilsley, in Berkshire.

In an unfortunate moment he insulted Count Gondomar, the Spanish
Ambassador, who determined to be revenged, and persuaded the Pope to
send the most flattering offers if he would return to his former faith.
Pope Gregory XV., a relative of De Dominis, had just ascended the Papal
throne. The bait took. De Dominis, discontented with the _non multum
supra quadringentas libras annuas_ which he received in England, and
pining after the _duodecim millia Coronatorum_ promised by the Pope,
resolved to leave our shores. James was indignant. Bishop Hall tried to
dissuade him from his purpose. "Tell me, by the Immortal God, what it is
that can snatch you from us so suddenly, after a delay of so many years,
and drive you to Rome? Has our race appeared to you inhospitable, or
have we shown favour to your virtues less than you hoped? You cannot
plead that this is the cause of your departure, upon whom a most
kind sovereign has bestowed such ample gifts and conferred such rich
offices." The Archbishop was questioned by the Bishops of London
and Durham, by order of the king, with regard to his intentions, and
commanded to leave the country within twenty days. He was known to have
amassed a large sum of money during his sojourn in England, and his
trunks were seized, and found to contain over £1,600. De Dominis fled
to Brussels, and there wrote his _Consilium Reditûs_, giving his
reasons for rejoining the Roman Church, and expecting daily his promised
reward--a cardinal's hat and a rich bishopric. His hopes were doomed
to be disappointed. For a short time he received a pension from Gregory
XV., but this was discontinued by Urban VIII., and our author became
dissatisfied and imprudently talked of again changing his faith. He
was heard to exclaim at supper on one occasion, "That no Catholic had
answered his book, _De Republicâ Ecclesiasticâ_, but that he himself was
able to deal with them." The Inquisition seized him, and he was conveyed
to the Castle of St. Angelo, where he soon died, as some writers assert,
by poison. His body and his books were burned by the executioner, and
the ashes thrown into the Tiber. Dr. Fitzgerald, Rector of the English
College at Rome, thus describes him: "He was a malcontent knave when
he fled from us, a railing knave when he lived with you, and a motley
particoloured knave now he is come again." He had undoubtedly great
learning and skill in controversy, [Footnote: His opinion with regard to
the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan over suffragan bishops was referred
to in the recent trial of the Bishop of Lincoln.] but avarice was his
master, and he was rewarded according to his deserts. [Footnote:
Cf. article by the Rev. C. W. Penny in the _Journal of the Berks
Archaeological Society_, on Antonio de Dominis.]

The lonely fortress of Mont-Saint-Michel saw the end of a bitter
controversialist, Noël Bède, who died there in 1587. He wrote _Natalis
Bedoe, doctoris Theol. Parisiensis annotationum in Erasmi paraphrases
Novi Testamenti, et Jacobi Fabri Stapulensis commentarios in
Evangelistas, Paulique Epistolas, Libri III., Parisiis_, 1526, _in-fol_.
This work abounds in vehement criticisms and violent declamations.
Erasmus did not fail to reply to his calumniator, and detected no
less than eighty-one falsehoods, two hundred and six calumnies, and
forty-seven blasphemies. Bède continued to denounce Erasmus as a
heretic, and in a sermon before the court reproached the king for not
punishing such unbelievers with sufficient rigour. The author was twice
banished, and finally was compelled to make a public retractation in the
Church of Notre Dame, for having spoken against the king and the truth,
and to be exiled to Mont-Saint-Michel.

Translators of the Bible fared not well at the hands of those who were
unwilling that the Scriptures should be studied in the vulgar tongue
by the lay-folk, and foremost among that brave band of self-sacrificing
scholars stands William Tyndale. His life is well known, and needs no
recapitulation; but it may be noted that his books, rather than his
work of translating the Scriptures, brought about his destruction.
His important work called _The Practice of Prelates_, which was mainly
directed against the corruptions of the hierarchy, unfortunately
contained a vehement condemnation of the divorce of Catherine of Arragon
by Henry VIII. This deeply offended the monarch at the very time that
negotiations were in progress for the return of Tyndale to his native
shores from Antwerp, and he declared that he was "very joyous to have
his realm destitute of such a person." The _Practice of Prelates_ was
partly written in answer to the _Dialogue_ of Sir Thomas More, who
was commissioned to combat the "pernicious and heretical" works of the
"impious enemies of the Church." Tyndale wrote also a bitter _Answer_ to
the _Dialogue_, and this drew forth from More his abusive and scurrilous
_Confutation_, which did little credit to the writer or to the cause for
which he contended Tyndale's longest controversial work, entitled _The
Obedience of a Christian Man, and how Christian Rulers ought to
govern_, although it stirred up much hostility against its author, very
favourably impressed King Henry, who delighted in it, and declared
that "the book was for him and for all kings to read." The story of the
burning of the translation of the New Testament at St. Paul's Cross by
Bishop Tunstall, of the same bishop's purchase of a "heap of the books"
for the same charitable purpose, thereby furnishing Tyndale with means
for providing another edition and for printing his translation of the
Pentateuch, all this is a thrice-told tale. Nor need we record the
account of the conspiracy which sealed his doom. For sixteen months he
was imprisoned in the Castle of Vilvoord, and we find him petitioning
for some warm clothing and "for a candle in the evening, for it is
wearisome to sit alone in the dark," and above all for his Hebrew Bible,
Grammar, and Dictionary, that he might spend his time in that study.
After a long dreary mockery of a trial on October 16th, 1536, he was
chained to a stake with faggots piled around him. "As he stood firmly
among the wood, with the executioner ready to strangle him, he lifted up
his eyes to heaven and cried with a fervent zeal and loud voice, 'Lord,
open the King of England's eyes!' and then, yielding himself to the
executioner, he was strangled, and his body immediately consumed." That
same year, by the King's command, the first edition of the Bible was
published in London. If Tyndale had confined himself to the great work
of translating the Scriptures, and had abandoned controversy and his
_Practice of Prelates_, his fate might have been different; but, as Mr.
Froude says, "he was a man whose history has been lost in his work, and
whose epitaph is the Reformation."

Another translator, whose fate was not so tragic, was the learned Arias
Montanus, a Spaniard, who produced at the command of King Philip II. the
famous Polyglot Bible printed at Antwerp in nine tomes. He possessed a
wonderful knowledge of several languages, and devoted immense labour to
his great work. But in spite of the royal approval of his work his book
met with much opposition on the part of the extreme Roman party, who
accused him to the Pope and made many false charges against him. The
Pope was enraged against Montanus, and he was obliged to go to Rome to
plead his cause. He at length obtained pardon from the Pope, and escaped
the "chariots of fire" which bore the souls of so many martyred saints
to heaven. It is a curious irony of fate that Montanus, who was one of
the chief compilers of the _Index Expurgatorius_, should live to see his
own work placed on the condemned list.

The story of the martyrdom of John Huss is well known, and need not be
here related, but perhaps the books which caused his death are not so
frequently studied or their titles remembered. His most important work
was his _De Ecclesiâ_, in which he maintained the rigid doctrine of
predestination, denied to the Pope the title of Head of the Church,
declaring that the Pope is the vicar of St. Peter, if he walk in his
steps; but if he give in to covetousness, he is the vicar of Judas
Iscariot. He reprobates the flattery which was commonly used towards the
Pope, and denounces the luxury and other corruptions of the cardinals.
Besides this treatise we have many others--_Adv. Indulgentias, De
Erectione Crucis_, etc. He wrote in Latin, Bohemian, and German, and
recently his Bohemian writings have been edited by K. J. Erben, Prague
(1865). His plain speaking aroused the fury of his adversaries, and he
knew his danger. On one occasion he made a strange challenge, offering
to maintain his opinions in disputation, and consenting to be burnt if
his conclusions were proved to be wrong, on condition that his opponents
should submit to the same fate in case of defeat. But as they would
only sacrifice one out of the company of his foes, he declared that the
conditions were unequal, and the challenge was abandoned. When at last
he was granted a safe conduct by the Emperor Sigismund, and trusted
himself to the Council of Constance, his fate was sealed. Even in his
noisome prison his pen (when he could procure one) was not idle,
and Huss composed during his confinement several tracts on religious
subjects. At length his degradation was completed; a tall paper cap
painted with hideous figures of devils was placed upon his head, and a
bishop said to him, "We commit thy body to the secular arm, and thy
soul to the devil." "And I," replied the martyr, "commit it to my most
merciful Lord, Jesus Christ." When on his way to execution he saw his
Fatal Books being burnt amidst an excited crowd, he smiled and remarked
on the folly of people burning what they could not read.

Another translator of the Bible was Antonio Bruccioli, who published in
Venice, in 1546, the following edition of the Holy Scriptures: _Biblia
en lengua toscana, cioë, i tutti i santi libri del vecchio y Novo
Testamento, in lengua toscana, dalla hebraica verita, e fonte greco, con
commento da Antonio Bruccioli_. Although a Roman Catholic, he favoured
Protestant views, and did not show much love for either the monks or
priests. His bold comments attracted the attention of the Inquisition,
who condemned his work and placed it on the Index. The author was
condemned to death by hanging, but happily for him powerful friends
interceded, and his punishment was modified to a two years' banishment.
He died in 1555, when Protestant burnings were in vogue in England.

Enzinas, the author of a Spanish translation of the New Testament
entitled _El Nuevo Testamento de N. Redemptor y Salvador J. C. traduzido
en lengua castellana (En Amberes, 1543, in-8)_, dedicated his work to
Charles V. But it caused him to be imprisoned fifteen months. Happily
he discovered a means of escape from his dungeon, and retired to safe
quarters at Geneva. In France he adopted the _nom-de-plume_ of Dryander,
and his _History of the Netherlands and of Religion in Spain_ forms
part of the Protestant martyrology published in Germany. The author's
brother, John Dryander, was burnt at Rome in 1545.

The Jansenist Louis Le Maistre, better known under the name of de Sacy,
was imprisoned in the Bastille on account of his opinions and also for
his French translation of the New Testament, published at Mons, in 1667,
and entitled _Le Nouveau Testament de N.S.J.C., traduit en français
selon l'édition Vulgate, avec les différences du grec_ (2 vols., in-12).
This famous work, known by the name of the New Testament of Mons, has
been condemned by many popes, bishops, and other authorities. Louis Le
Maistre was assisted in the work by his brother, and the translation was
improved by Arnaud and Nicole. Pope Clement IX. described the work
as "rash, pernicious, different from the Vulgate, and containing many
stumbling-blocks for the unlearned." When confined in the Bastille, Le
Maistre and his friend Nicolas Fontaine wrote _Les Figures de la Bible_,
which work is usually attributed to the latter author. According to the
Jesuits, the Port-Royalists are represented under the figure of David,
their antagonists as Saul. Louis XIV. appears as Rehoboam, Jezebel,
Ahasuerus, and Darius. But these fanciful interpretations are probably
due to the imagination of the critics.

The fate of Gaspar Peucer enforces the truth of the old adage that "a
shoemaker ought to stick to his last," and shows that those men court
adversity who meddle with matters outside their profession. Peucer was a
doctor of medicine of the academy of Würtemberg, and wrote several works
on astronomy, medicine, and history. He was a friend of Melanchthon,
and became imbued with Calvinistic notions, which he manifested in his
publication of the works of the Reformer. On account of this he was
imprisoned eleven years. By the favour of the Elector he was at length
released, and wrote a _History of his Captivity_ (Zurich, 1605). A
curious work, entitled _A Treatise on Divination_, was published by
Peucer at Würtemberg, written in Latin, in 1552. He ranks among the most
learned men of Germany of the sixteenth century.

There were many Fatal Books in Holland during the famous controversy
between the Arminians and the Gomarists, which ended in the famous Synod
of Dort, and for vehemence, bigotry, and intolerance is as remarkable as
any which can be found in ecclesiastical history. The learned
historian Grotius was imprisoned, but he wrote no book which caused his
misfortune. Indeed his books were instrumental in his escape, which was
effected by means of his large box containing books brought into the
prison by his wife. When removed from the prison it contained, not the
books, but the author. Vorstius, the successor of Arminius as Professor
of Theology at Leyden, was not so happy. His book, _Tractatus de Deo,
seu de naturâ et attributis Dei_ (Steinfurti, 1610, in-4), aroused
the vengeance of the Gomarists, and brought about the loss of his
professorship and his banishment from Holland; but any injustice might
have been expected from that extraordinary Synod, where theology was
mystified, religion disgraced, and Christianity outraged. [Footnote: Cf.
_Church in the Netherlands_, by P.H. Ditchfield, chap. xvii.]

Few books have created such a sensation in the world or aroused so
prolonged a controversy as _Les Réflexions Morales_ of Pasquier Quesnel,
published in 1671. The full title of the work is _Le Nouveau Testament
en Français, avec des réflexions morales sur chaque verset_ (Paris,
1671, i vol., in-12), _pour les quatre Evangiles seulement_. Praslard
was the publisher. In 1693 and 1694 appeared another edition, containing
his _réflexions morales_, not only on the Gospels, but also on the
Acts and the Epistles. Many subsequent editions have appeared. Not only
France, but the whole of the Western Church was agitated by it, and its
far-reaching effects have hardly yet passed away. It caused its author
a long period of incarceration; it became a weapon in the hands of the
Jesuits to hurl at the Jansenists, and the Papal Bull pronounced against
it was the cause of the separation of a large body of the faithful from
the communion of the Roman Church. Its author was born at Paris in 1634,
and was educated in the congregation of the Oratory. Appointed director
of its school in Paris, he wrote _Pensées Chrétiennes sur les quatre
Evangiles_, which was the germ of his later work. In 1684 he fled to
Brussels, because he felt himself unable to sign a formulary decreed by
the Oratorians on account of its acceptance of some of the principles
of Descartes to which Arnauld and the famous writers of the school of
Port-Royal always offered vehement opposition.

A second edition of _Réflexions Morales_ appeared in 1694 with the
approval of De Noailles, then Bishop of Châlons, afterwards Archbishop
of Paris. But a few years later, by the intrigues of the Jesuits, and
by the order of Philip V., Quesnel was imprisoned at Mechlin. In 1703 he
escaped and retired to Amsterdam, where he died in 1719. But the history
of the book did not close with the author's death. It was condemned by
Pope Clement XI. in 1708 as infected with Jansenism. Four years later an
assembly of five cardinals and eleven theologians sat in judgment upon
it; their deliberations lasted eighteen months, and the result of their
labours was the famous Bull _Unigenitus_, which condemned one hundred
and one propositions taken from the writings of Quesnel.

The unreasonableness and injustice of this condemnation may be
understood from the following extracts:--

Proposition 50.--"It is in vain that we cry to God, My _Father_, if it
is not the Spirit of love that cries."

This is described as "pernicious in practice, and offensive to pious
ears."

Proposition 54.--"It is love alone that speaks to God; it is love alone
that God hears."

This, according to the cardinals, "is scandalous, temerarious, impious,
and erroneous."

The acceptance of the Bull was a great stumbling-block to many
churchmen. Louis XIV. forced it upon the French bishops, who were
entertained at a sumptuous banquet given by the Archbishop of Strasbourg
and by a large majority decided against the Quesnelites. It is
unnecessary to follow the history of this controversy further.
France was long agitated by it, and the Church of Holland was and is
excommunicate from Rome mainly on account of its refusal to accept the
Bull _Unigenitus_, which was called forth by and so unjustly condemned
Quesnel's famous book.

In connection with the history of this Bull we may mention the work of
one of its most vehement opponents, Pierre François le Courayer, of the
order of the canons regular of St. Augustine, who wrote a book of great
interest to English churchmen, entitled _Dissertation sur la validité
des Ordinations Anglicanes_ (Bruxelles, 1723, 2 vols., in-12). This book
was condemned and its author excommunicated. He retired to the shelter
of the Church whose right of succession he so ably defended, and died in
London in 1776.

Few authors have received greater honour for their works, or endured
severer calamities on account of them, than the famous Florentine
preacher Savonarola. Endowed with a marvellous eloquence, imbued with
a spirit of enthusiastic patriotism and intense devotion, he inveighed
against the vices of the age, the worldliness of the clergy, the selfish
ease of the wealthy while the poor were crying for bread in want and
sickness. The good citizens of Florence believed that he was an angel
from heaven, that he had miraculous powers, could speak with God and
foretell the future; and while the women of Florence cast their jewels
and finery into the flames of the "bonfire of vanities," the men,
inspired by the preacher's dreams of freedom, were preparing to throw
off the yoke of the Medicis and proclaim a grand Florentine Republic.
The revolution was accomplished, and for three years Savonarola
was practically the ruler of the new state. His works were:
_Commentatiuncula de Mahumetanorum secta; Triumphus crucis, sive de
fidei Christianae veritate_ in four books (1497), de _Simplicitate vitae
Christianae_ in five books, and _Compendium Revelationis_ (1495), and
many volumes of his discourses, some of which are the rarest treasures
of incunabula.

[Footnote: At Venice in the library of Leo S. Olschki I have met with
some of these volumes, the rarest of which is entitled:--

  PREDICHE DEL REVERENDO
  PADRE FRATE HIERONYMO

  _Da Ferrara facie lanno del_. 1496
  _negiorni delle feste, finito che
  hebbe la quaresima: & prima
  riposatosi circa uno mese
  ricomincio eldi di Scõ
  Michele Adi. viii di
  Maggio. MCCCC
  LXXXXVI._

The text commences "CREDITE IN Dño Deo uestro & securi eritis." In
the cell of Savonarola at the Monastery of St. Mark is preserved a MS.
volume of the famous preacher. The writing is very small, and must have
taxed the skill of the printers in deciphering it.]

The austerity of his teaching excited some hostility against him,
especially on the part of the monks who did not belong to his
order--that of the Dominicans. He had poured such bitter invective both
in his books and in his sermons upon the vices of the Popes and the
Cardinals, that they too formed a powerful party in league against him.
In addition the friends of the Medicis resented the overthrow of their
power, and the populace, ever fickle in their affections, required fresh
wonders and signs to keep them faithful to their leader. The opportunity
of his enemies came when Charles VIII. of France retired from Florence.
They accused Savonarola of all kinds of wickedness. He was cast into
prison, tortured, and condemned to death as a heretic. In what his
heresy consisted it were hard to discover. It was true that when his
poor, shattered, sensitive frame was being torn and rent by the cruel
engines of torture, he assented to many things which his persecutors
strove to wring from him. The real cause of his destruction was not
so much the charges of heresy which were brought against his books and
sermons, as the fact that he was a person inconvenient to Pope Alexander
VI. On the 23rd of May, 1498, he met his doom in the great piazza at
Florence where in happier days he had held the multitude spell-bound by
his burning eloquence. There sentence was passed upon him. Stripped of
his black Dominican robe and long white tunic, he was bound to a gibbet,
strangled by a halter, and his dead body consumed by fire, his ashes
being thrown into the river Arno. Such was the miserable end of the
great Florentine preacher, whose strange and complex character has been
so often discussed, and whose remarkable career has furnished a theme
for poets and romance-writers, and forms the basis of one of the most
powerful novels of modern times.

Not only were the Inquisitors and the Cardinals guilty of intolerance
and the stern rigour of persecution, but the Reformers themselves, when
they had the power, refrained not from torturing and burning those who
did not accept their own particular belief. This they did not merely
out of a spirit of revenge conceived against those who had formerly
condemned their fathers and brethren to the stake, but sometimes we see
instances of Reformers slaughtering Reformers, because the victims did
not hold quite the same tenets as those who were in power. Poor Michael
Servetus shared as hard a fate at the hands of Calvin, as ever "heretic"
did at the hands of the Catholics; and this fate was entirely caused by
his writings. This author was born in Spain, at Villaneuva in Arragon,
in 1509. At an early age he went to Africa to learn Arabic, and on his
return settled in France, studying law at Toulouse, and medicine at
Lyons and Paris.

But the principles of the Reformed religion attracted him; he studied
the Scriptures in their original languages, and the writings of the
fathers and schoolmen. Unhappily his perverse and self-reliant spirit
led him into grievous errors with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity.
In vain the gentle Reformer Oecolampadius at Basle reasoned with him.
He must needs disseminate his opinions in a book entitled _De Trinitatis
Erroribus_, which has handed the name of Servetus down to posterity as
the author of errors opposed to the tenets of the Christian Faith. Bucer
declared that he deserved the most shameful death on account of the
ideas set forth in this work. In his next work, _Dialogues on the
Trinity_ and _A Treatise on the Kingdom of Christ_, Servetus somewhat
modified his views, and declared that his former reasonings were merely
"those of a boy speaking to boys"; but he blamed rather the arrangement
of his book, than retracted the opinions he had expressed.

He also annotated Pagnini's Latin version of the Sacred Scriptures,
entitled _Biblia sacra latina ex hebraeo, per Sanctum Pagninum, cum
praefatione et scholiis Michaelis Villanovani (Michel Servet). Lugduni,
a Porta_, 1542, _in-folio_. This edition was vigorously suppressed on
account of the notes of Servetus.

After sojourning some time in Italy, he returned to France in 1534, and
settled at Lyons, where he published a new and highly esteemed edition
of the Geography of Ptolemy, inscribing himself as Michael Villanovanus,
from the name of his birthplace. His former works had been published
under the name of Reves, formed by the transposition of the letters of
his family name. In Paris he studied medicine, and began to set forth
novel opinions which led him into conflict with other members of the
faculty. In one of his treatises he is said to have suggested the theory
of the circulation of the blood. In 1540 he went to Vienne and published
anonymously his well-known work _De Restitutione Christianismi_. This
book, when its authorship became known, brought upon him the charge of
heresy, and he was cast into prison. Powerful friends enabled him to
escape, and his enemies were obliged to content themselves with burning
his effigy and several copies of his books in the market-place at
Vienne. Servetus determined to fly to Naples, but was obliged to pass
through Geneva, where at the instigation of the great Reformer Calvin he
was seized and cast into prison. It is unnecessary to follow the course
of Servetus' ill-fated history, the bitter hostility of Calvin, the
delays, the trials and colloquies. At length he was condemned, and the
religious world shuddered at the thought of seeing the pile lighted by
a champion of the Reformation and religious freedom. Loud and awful
shrieks were heard in the prison when the tidings of his sentence were
conveyed to Servetus. Soon the fatal staff was broken over his head as a
sign of his condemnation, and on the Champel Hill, outside the gates of
Geneva, the last tragic scene took place. With his brow adorned with a
crown of straw sprinkled with brimstone, his Fatal Books at his side,
chained to a low seat, and surrounded by piles of blazing faggots, the
newness and moisture of which added greatly to his torture, in piteous
agony Servetus breathed his last, a sad spectacle of crime wrought in
religion's name, a fearful example of how great woes an author may
bring upon himself by his arrogance and self-sufficiency. The errors of
Servetus were deplorable, but the vindictive cruelty of his foes creates
sympathy for the victim of their rage, and Calvin's memory is ever
stained by his base conduct to his former friend.

The name of Sebastian Edzardt is not so well known. He was educated at
Würtemberg, and when Frederick I. of Prussia conceived the desire of
uniting the various reformed bodies with the Lutherans, he published
a work _De causis et natura unionis_, and a treatise _Ad Calvanianorum
Pelagianisinum_. In this book he charged the Calvinists with the
Pelagian heresy--a charge which they were accustomed to bring against
the Lutherans. It was written partly against a book of John Winckler,
_Arcanum Regium de conciliandis religionibus subditorum diffidentibus_,
published in 1703 in support of the King's designs. In the same year he
published _Impietas cohortis fanatica, expropriis Speneri, Rechenbergii,
Petersenii, Thomasii, Arnoldi, Schutzii, Boehmeri, aliorumque
fanaticorum scriptis, plusquam apodictis argumentis, ostensa. Hamburgi,
Koenig, 1703, in-4_. This work was suppressed by order of the senate
of Hamburg. Frederick was enraged at Edzardt's opposition to his plans,
ordered his first book to be burnt, and forbade any one to reply to it.
Nor was our author more successful in his other work, _Kurtzer Entwurff
der Einigkeit der Evangelisch-Lutherischen und Reformirten im Grunde des
Glaubens: von dieser Vereinigung eigentlicher Natur und Beschaffenheit_,
wherein he treated of various systems of theology. This too was publicly
burnt, but of the fate of its author I have no further particulars.

The last of the great schoolmen, William of Ockham, called the
"Invincible Doctor," suffered imprisonment and exile on account of his
works. He was born at Ockham in Surrey in 1280, and, after studying at
Oxford, went to the University of Paris. He lived in stirring times,
and took a prominent part in the great controversies which agitated
the fourteenth century. Pope John XXII. ruled at Avignon, a shameless
truckster in ecclesiastical merchandise, a violent oppressor of his
subjects, yet obliged by force of circumstances to be a mere subject of
the King of France. The Emperor Ludwig IV. ruled in Germany in spite of
the excommunication pronounced against him by the Pope. Many voices were
raised in support of Louis denouncing the assumptions of the occupant
of the Papal See. Marcilius of Padua wrote his famous _Defensor Pacis_
against Papal pretensions, and our author, William of Ockham, issued
his still more famous _Defence of Poverty_, which startled the whole of
Christendom by its vigorous onslaught on the vices of the Papacy and the
assumptions of Pope John. The latter ordered two bishops to examine the
work, and the "Invincible Doctor" was cast into prison at Avignon. He
would certainly have been slain, had he not contrived to effect his
escape, and taken refuge at the court of the German emperor, to whom he
addressed the words, "_Tu me defendas gladio, ego te defendam calamo_."
There he lived and wrote, condemned by the Pope, disowned by his order,
the Franciscans, threatened daily with sentences of heresy, deprivation,
and imprisonment; but for them he cared not, and fearlessly pursued his
course, becoming the acknowledged leader of the reforming tendencies
of the age, and preparing the material for that blaze of light which
astonished the world in the sixteenth century. His works have never been
collected, and are very scarce, being preserved with great care in
some of the chief libraries of Europe. The scholastic philosophy of
the fourteenth century, the disputes between the Nominalists and the
Realists, in which he took the part of the former, the principle
that "entities are not to be multiplied except by necessity," or the
"hypostatic existence of abstractions," have ceased to create any very
keen interest in the minds of readers. But how bitterly the war of words
was waged in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries! And it was not
only a war of words; one who witnessed the contests wrote that "when the
contending parties had exhausted their stock of verbal abuse, they
often came to blows; and it was not uncommon in their quarrels about
_universals_, to see the combatants engaged not only with their fists,
but with clubs and swords, so that many have been wounded and some
killed." These controversies have passed away, upon which, says John of
Salisbury, more time had been wasted than the Caesars had employed in
making themselves masters of the world; and it is unnecessary here to
revive them. Ockham's principal works are: _Quaestiones et decisiones
in quatuor libros sententiarum cum centilogio theologico_ (Lyons, 1495),
[Footnote: I have met with a copy of this work amongst the incunabula
in the possession of M. Olschki, of Venice. The printer's name is John
Trechsel, who is described as _vir hujus artis solertissimus_.] _Summa
logicae_ (Paris, 1483), _Quodlibeta_ (Paris, 1487), _Super potestate
summi pontifia_ (1496). He died at Munich in 1343.

The _Introductio ad Theologiam_ of the famous Abélard, another
schoolman, was fatal to him. Abélard's name is more generally known on
account of the golden haze of romance which surrounded him and the fair
Heloise; and their loving letters have been often read and mourned over
by thousands who have never heard of his theological writings. At
one time the famous Canon of Notre Dame at Paris had an enthusiastic
following; thousands flocked to his lectures from every country; his
popularity was enormous. He combated the abuses of the age and the
degeneracy of some of the clergy, and astonished and enraged many by the
boldness of his speech and the novelty of his opinions. His views with
regard to the doctrine of the Trinity expressed in his _Introductio_
(Traité de la Trinité) were made the subject of a charge against him,
and certainly they cannot be easily distinguished from Sabellianism. The
qualities or attributes of the Godhead, power, wisdom, goodness, were
stated to be the three Persons. The Son of God was not incarnate to
deliver us, but only to instruct us by His discourses and example. Jesus
Christ, God and Man, is not one of the Persons in the Trinity, and a man
is not properly called God. He did not descend into hell. Such were
some of the errors with which Abélard was reproached. Whether they were
actually contained in his writings, it is not so evident. We have only
fragments of Abélard's writings to judge from, which have been collected
by M. Cousin--_Ouvrages inédits d'Abélard_--and therefore cannot speak
with certain knowledge of his opinions. At least they were judged to
be blasphemous and heretical by the Council of Soissons, when he was
condemned to commit his books to the flames and to retire to the Convent
of St. Denys. Some years later, when he had recovered from the horrible
mutilation to which he had been subjected by the uncle of Heloise, and
his mind had acquired its usual strength, we find him at Paris, again
attracting crowds by his brilliant lectures, and pouring forth books,
and alas! another fatal one, _Sic et Non_, [Footnote: Petri Abelardi
_Sic et Non_ (Marburgi, Sumptibus Librariae; Academy Elwertianae, 1851).
The best edition of Abélard's letters is _P. Abaelardi et Heloisae
conjugis ejus Epistolae, ab erroribus purgatae et cum codd. MSS.
collatae cura Richardi Rawlinson, Londini, 1718, in-8_. There is also
an edition published in Paris in 1616, 4to, _Petri Abelardi et Heloisae
conjugis ejus, opera cum praefatione apologetica Franc. Antboësii, et
Censura doctorum parisiensium; ex editione Andreae Quercetani (André
Duchesne)_.] which asked one hundred and fifty-eight questions on
all kinds of subjects. The famous champion of orthodoxy, St. Bernard,
examined the book, and at the Council of Sens in 1140 obtained a verdict
against its author. He said that poor Abélard was an infernal dragon who
persecuted the Church, that Arius, Pelagius, and Nestorius were not more
dangerous, as Abélard united all these monsters in his own person, and
that he was a persecutor of the faith and the precursor of Antichrist.
These words of the celebrated Abbot of Clairvaux are more creditable
to his zeal than to his charity. Abélard's disciple Arnold of Brescia
attended him at the Council, and shared in the condemnations which
St. Bernard so freely bestowed. Arnold's stormy and eventful life as a
religious and political reformer was ended at Rome in 1155, where he was
strangled and burnt by order of the Emperor Frederick, his ashes being
cast into the Tiber lest they should be venerated as relics by his
followers. St. Bernard described him as a man having the head of a dove
and the tail of a scorpion. Abélard was condemned to perpetual silence,
and found a last refuge in the monastery of Cluny. Side by side in the
graveyard of the Paraclete Convent the bodies of Abélard and Heloise
lie, whose earthly lives, though lighted by love and cheered by
religion, were clouded with overmuch sorrow, and await the time when all
theological questions will be solved and doubts and difficulties raised
by earthly mists and human frailties will be swept away, and we shall
"know even as also we are known."




CHAPTER II. FANATICS AND FREE-THINKERS.

Quirinus Kuhlmann--John Tennhart--Jeremiah Felbinger--Simon
Morin--Liszinski--John Toland--Thomas Woolston--John Biddle--Johann
Lyser--Bernardino Ochino--Samuel Friedrich Willenberg.


The nympholepts of old were curious and unhappy beings who, while
carelessly strolling amidst sylvan shades, caught a hasty glimpse of
some spirit of the woods, and were doomed ever afterwards to spend
their lives in fruitlessly searching after it. The race of Fanatics
are somewhat akin to these restless seekers. There is a wildness and
excessive extravagance in their notions and actions which separates them
from the calm followers of Truth, and leads them into strange courses
and curious beliefs. How far the sacred fire of enthusiasm may be
separated from the fierce heat of fanaticism we need not now inquire,
nor whether a spark of the latter has not shone brilliantly in many
a noble soul and produced brave deeds and acts of piety and
self-sacrifice. Those whose fate is here recorded were far removed from
such noble characters; their fanaticism was akin to madness, and many
of them were fitter for an asylum rather than a gaol, which was usually
their destination.

Foremost among them was Quirinus Kulmanus (Kuhlmann), who has been
called the Prince of Fanatics, and wandered through many lands making
many disciples. He was born at Breslau in Silesia in 1651, and at
an early age saw strange visions, at one time the devils in hell, at
another the Beatific Glory of God. His native country did not appreciate
him, and he left it to wander on from university to university,
publishing his ravings. At Leyden he met with the works of Boehme,
another fanatic, who wrote a strange book, entitled _Aurora_, which
was suppressed by the magistrates. The reading of this author was like
casting oil into the fire. Poor Kuhlmann became wilder still in his
strange fanaticism, and joined himself to a pretended prophet, John
Rothe, whom the authorities at Amsterdam incarcerated, in order that he
might be able to foretell with greater certainty than he had done other
things when and after what manner he should be released. Kuhlmann then
wrote a book, entitled _Prodromus Quinquennii Mirabilis_, and published
at Leyden in 1674, in which he set forth his peculiar views. He stated
that in that same year the Fifth Monarchy or the Christian Kingdom was
about to commence, that he himself would bring forth a son from his own
wife, that this son by many miracles would found the kingdom, and that
he himself was the Son of God. On account of these mad ravings he was
exiled by the Chief of the United Provinces of the Netherlands, and
expelled with infamy from the University of Leyden. But his strange
mission did not cease. He wandered for some time in France and England,
where he printed at his own expense several small books in 1681 and
1682, amongst others one piece addressed to Mahomet IV., _De Conversione
Turcarum_. The following passage occurs in this fantastic production:
"You saw, some months ago, O great Eastern Leader, a comet of unusual
magnitude, a true prognostic of the Kingdom of the Jesuelites, that is,
of the restoration of all people to the one-three God. O well is thee,
that thou hast turned thy mind before God, and by proclaiming a general
fast throughout thy empire, hast begun to fulfil the words of the Lord
to the prophet Drabicius." He declares that if the Christians refuse to
perform his will in destroying the kingdom of Antichrist, the Turks and
Tartars shall do it, to the disgrace of the Christians, which will be a
horror to angels and to men.

He then proceeded to Turkey on his mission, and presented himself to the
Sultan. Although ignorant of the language of the country, he persuaded
himself that he could speak in any tongue; but when they led him into
the presence of the Sultan he waited in vain for the burning words of
eloquence to flow. The Turks dealt with him according to his folly, and
bestowed on him a sound thrashing. Thence he proceeded to Russia, and
when he was about to marry a second wife, his former spouse being left
in England, the Patriarch of the Russian Church condemned him to be
burnt at Moscow in 1689. A follower of Kuhlmann's, named Nordermann,
who also wrote a book on the Second Advent of Christ, shared his
fate. Kuhlmann also wrote a volume of verses, entitled _The Berlin and
Amsterdam "Kuhl-festival" at the Gathering of Lutherans and Calvinists_,
which sufficiently attests his insanity. The following is a specimen of
the lucidity of his works: "The more I continued my doctrines, the more
opposition I received, so that also the higher world of light with which
I am illuminated, in their light I was enlightened, or shadowed, when I
proceeded, and in their light lit I up brighter lights."

A fitting companion to Kuhlmann was John Tennhart, a barber of
Nuremberg, born in 1662, who used to speak continually of the visions,
dreams, and colloquies which he had with God, and boasted that
the office of a scribe was entrusted to him by the Divine Will. He
endeavoured to persuade all men that the words he wrote were verily and
indeed the words of God. The world was not disposed to interfere with
the poor barber who imagined himself inspired, but in an evil hour
he published a book against the priests, entitled _Worte Gottes, oder
Tractätlein an den so genannten geistlichen Stand_, which caused its
author great calamities. He was cast into prison by order of the senate
of the Nuremberg State. On his release he again published his former
work, with others which he also believed to be inspired, and again in
1714 was imprisoned at Nuremberg. His incarceration did not, however,
last long, and Tennhart died while he was journeying from the city
which so little appreciated his ravings to find in Cassel a more secure
resting-place.

Amongst the fanatics of the seventeenth century may be classed Jeremiah
Felbinger, a native of Brega, a town in the Prussian State of Silesia,
who was an early advocate of the heresy of the Unitarians. For some
years he was a soldier, and then became a schoolmaster. He wrote
_Prodromus demonstrationis_, published in 1654, in which he attempted
to prove his Unitarian ideas. Shortly before this, in 1653, he
wrote _Demonstrationes Christianae_, and finally his _Epistola ad
Christianos_, published at Amsterdam in 1672. His strange views and
perverted opinions first caused his dismissal from the army, and his
works upon the Unitarian doctrines necessitated his removal from
the office of teacher. He then journeyed to Helmstadt, but there the
wanderer found no rest; for when he tried to circulate his obnoxious
books, he was ordered to leave the city before sunset. Finally he
settled in Amsterdam, the home of free-thinkers, where men were allowed
a large amount of religious liberty; there printers produced without
let or hindrance books which were condemned elsewhere and could only be
printed in secret presses and obscure corners of cities governed by more
orthodox rulers. Here Felbinger passed the rest of his miserable life
in great poverty, earning a scanty pittance by instructing youths and
correcting typographical errors. He died in 1689, aged seventy-three
years.

The seventeenth century was fruitful in fanatics, and not the least mad
was Simon Morin, who was burnt at Paris in 1663. His fatal book was his
_Pensées de Simon Morin_ (Paris, 1647, in-8), which contains a curious
mixture of visions and nonsense, including the principal errors of the
Quietists and adding many of his own. Amongst other mad ravings, he
declared that there would be very shortly a general reformation of the
Church, and that all nations should be converted to the true faith, and
that this reformation was to be accomplished by the Second Advent of our
Lord in His state of glory, incorporated in Morin himself; and that
for the execution of the things to which he was destined, he was to be
attended by a great number of perfect souls, and such as participated
in the glorious state of Jesus Christ, whom he therefore called the
champions of God. He was condemned by the Parliament of Paris, and after
having done penance, dressed in his shirt, with a rope round his neck
and a torch in his hand, before the entrance of Notre Dame, he was burnt
with his book and writings, his ashes being subsequently cast into the
air. Morin had several followers who shared his fantastic views, and
these poor "champions of God" were condemned to witness the execution
of their leader, to be publicly whipped and branded with the mark of
fleur-de-lys, and to spend the rest of their lives as galley-slaves.

Poland witnessed the burning of Cazimir Liszinski in 1689, whose ashes
were placed in a cannon and shot into the air. This Polish gentleman was
accused of atheism by the Bishop of Potsdam. His condemnation was based
upon certain atheistical manuscripts found in his possession, containing
several novel doctrines, such as "God is not the creator of man; but man
is the creator of a God gathered together from nothing." His writings
contain many other extravagant notions of the same kind.

A few years later the religious world of both England and Ireland was
excited and disturbed by the famous book of John Toland, a sceptical
Irishman, entitled _Christianity not Mysterious_ (London, 1696). Its
author was born in Londonderry in 1670, and was endowed with much
natural ability, but this did not avail to avert the calamities which
pursue indiscreet and reckless writers. He wrote his book at the early
age of twenty-five years, for the purpose of defending Holy Scripture
from the attacks of infidels and atheists; he essayed to prove that
there was nothing in religion contrary to sound reason, and to show
that the mysteries of religion were not opposed to reason. But his work
aroused much opposition both in England and Ireland, as there were
many statements in the book which were capable of a rationalistic
interpretation. A second edition was published in London with an apology
by Toland in 1702. In Dublin he raised against himself a storm of
opposition, not only on account of his book, but also by his vain and
foolish manner of propagating his views. He began openly to deride
Christianity, to scoff at the clergy, to despise the worship of God, and
so passed his life that whoever associated with him was judged to be
an impious and infamous person. He proposed to form a society which he
called Socratia; the hymns to be sung by the members were the Odes
of Horace, and the prayers were blasphemous productions, composed by
Toland, in derision of those used in the Roman Church. The Council
of Religion of the Irish House of Parliament condemned his book to be
burnt, and some of the members wished to imprison its author, who after
enduring many privations wisely sought safety in flight. A host of
writers arrayed themselves in opposition to Toland and refuted his book,
amongst whom were John Norris, Stillingfleet, Payne, Beverley, Clarke,
Leibnitz, and others. Toland wrote also _The Life of Milton_ (London,
1698), which was directed against the authenticity of the New Testament;
_The Nazarene, or Christianity, Judaic, Pagan, and Mahometan_ (1718);
and _Pantheisticon_ (1720). The outcry raised by the orthodox party
against the "poor gentleman" who had "to beg for half-crowns," and "ran
into debt for his wigs, clothes, and lodging," together with his own
vanity and conceit, changed him from being a somewhat free-thinking
Christian into an infidel and atheist or Pantheist. He died in extreme
poverty at Putney in 1722.

A fitting companion to Toland was Thomas Woolston, who lived about the
same time; he was born at Northampton in 1669, and died at London in
1733. He was a free-thinker, and a man of many attainments, whose works
became widely known and furnished weapons for the use of Voltaire and
other atheistical writers. In 1705 he wrote a book entitled _The Old
Apology_, in which he endeavoured to show that in the interpretation of
the Holy Scriptures the literal meaning ought to be abandoned, and that
the events recorded therein were merely allegories. In his book
_Free Gifts to the Clergy_ he denounced all who favoured the literal
interpretation as apostates and ministers of Antichrist. Finally, in his
_Discourses on the Miracles_ (1726) he denied entirely the authenticity
of miracles, and stated that they were merely stories and allegories.
He thought that the literal account of the miracles is improbable and
untrustworthy, that they were parables and prophetical recitations.
These and many other such-like doctrines are found in his works.
Woolston held at that time the post of tutor at Sidney Sussex College at
Cambridge; but on account of his works he was expelled from the College
and cast into prison. According to one account of his life, he died in
prison in 1731. Another record states that he was released on paying a
fine of £100 after enduring one year's incarceration, and that he bore
his troubles bravely, passing an honest life and enduring reproaches
with an equal mind. Not a few able theologians set themselves the
task of refuting the errors of Woolston, amongst whom were John Ray,
Stebbins, Bishop of St. Davids, and Sherlock, whose book was translated
into French. A _Life of Woolston_ has been written anonymously by some
one who somewhat favoured his views and supported his tenets. He may
certainly be classed among the leaders of Free Thought in the eighteenth
century.

John Biddle was a vehement advocate of Socinian and Unitarian opinions,
attacking the belief in the Trinity and in the Divinity of our Lord. The
Holy Spirit was accounted by him as the first of the angels. His fatal
book was entitled _The Faith of one God, who is only the Father, and of
one Mediator between God and man, who is only the man Christ Jesus; and
of one Holy Spirit, the gift, and sent of God, asserted and defended in
several tracts contained in this volume_ (London, 1691, in-4). This
work was publicly burnt and its author imprisoned. Biddle was born at
Wotton-under-Edge in 1615; he went to Oxford, and became a teacher at a
grammar-school at Gloucester. He underwent several terms of imprisonment
on account of the opinions expressed in his writings, and died in gaol
in 1662.

Amongst the fanatics whose works were fatal to them must be enrolled
the famous advocates of polygamy, Johann Lyser, Bernardino Ochino, and
Samuel Friedrich Willenberg. Lyser was born at Leipsic in 1631,
and although he ever remained a bachelor and abhorred womankind,
nevertheless tried to demonstrate that not only was polygamy lawful, but
that it was a blessed estate commanded by God. He first brought out a
dialogue written in the vernacular entitled _Sinceri Wahrenbergs kurzes
Gespraech von der Polygamie_; and this little work was followed by a
second book, _Das Koenigliche Marck aller Laender_ (Freyburg, 1676,
in-4). Then he produced another work, entitled _Theophili Aletaei
discursus politicus de Polygamia_. A second edition of this work
followed, which bore the title _Polygamia triumphatrix, id est,
discursus politicus de Polygamia, auctore Theoph. Aletoeo, cum notis
Athanasii Vincentii, omnibus Anti-polygamis, ubique locorum, terrarum,
insularum, pagorum, urbium modeste et pie opposita (Londini Scanorum_,
1682, in-4). On account of the strange views expressed in this work
he was deprived of his office of Inspector, and was obliged to seek
protection from a powerful Count, by whose advice it is said that Lyser
first undertook the advocacy of polygamy. On the death of his friend
Lyser was compelled frequently to change his abode, and wandered through
most of the provinces of Germany. He was imprisoned by the Count of
Hanover, and then expelled. In Denmark his book was burned by the public
executioner. At another place he was imprisoned and beaten and his books
burned. At length, travelling from Italy to Holland, he endured every
kind of calamity, and after all his misfortunes he died miserably in
a garret at Amsterdam, in 1684. It is curious that Lyser, who never
married nor desired wedlock, should have advocated polygamy; but it is
said that he was led on by a desire for providing for the public safety
by increasing the population of the country, though probably the love of
notoriety, which has added many authors' names to the category of fools,
contributed much to his madness.

Infected with the same notions was Bernardino Ochino, a Franciscan, and
afterwards a Capuchin, whose dialogue _De Polygamiâ_ was fatal to him.
Although he was an old man, the authorities at Basle ordered him to
leave the city in the depth of a severe winter. He wandered into Poland,
but through the opposition of the Papal Nuncio, Commendone, he was
again obliged to fly. He had to mourn over the death of two sons and a
daughter, who died of the plague in Poland, and finally Ochino ended his
woes in Moravia. Such was the miserable fate of Ochino, who was at one
time the most famous preacher in the whole of Italy. He had a wonderful
eloquence, which seized upon the minds of his hearers and carried them
whither he would. No church was large enough to contain the multitudes
which flocked to hear him. Ochino was a skilled linguist, and, after
leaving the Roman Church, he wrote a book against the Papacy in English,
which was printed in London, and also a sermon on predestination. He
visited England in company with Peter Martyr, but on the death of Edward
VI., on account of the changes introduced in Mary's reign these two
doctors again crossed the seas, and retired to a safer retreat. His
brilliant career was entirely ruined by his fatal frenzy and foolish
fanaticism for polygamy.

The third of this strange triumvirate was Samuel Friedrich Willenberg,
a doctor of law of the famous University of Cracow, who wrote a book
_De finibus polygamiae licitae_ and aroused the hatred of the Poles. In
1715, by command of the High Court of the King of Poland, his book was
condemned to be burnt, and its author nearly shared the same fate.
He escaped, however, this terrible penalty, and was fined one hundred
thousand gold pieces.

With these unhappy advocates of a system which violates the sacredness
of marriage, we must close our list of fanatics whose works have proved
fatal to them. Many of them deserve our pity rather than our scorn; for
they suffered from that species of insanity which, according to Holmes,
is often the logic of an accurate mind overtasked. At any rate, they
furnish an example of that

  "Faith, fanatic faith, which, wedded fast
  To some dear falsehood, hugs it to the last."




CHAPTER III. ASTROLOGY, ALCHEMY, AND MAGIC.

Henry Cornelius Agrippa--Joseph Francis Borri--Urban Grandier--Dr.
Dee--Edward Kelly--John Darrell.


Superstition is a deformed monster who dies hard; and like Loki of the
Sagas when the snake dropped poison on his forehead, his writhings
shook the world and caused earthquakes. Now its power is well-nigh dead.
"Superstition! that horrible incubus which dwelt in darkness,
shunning the light, with all its racks and poison-chalices, and foul
sleeping-draughts, is passing away without return." [Footnote: Carlyle.]
But society was once leavened with it. Alchemy, astrology, and magic
were a fashionable cult, and so long as its professors pleased their
patrons, proclaimed "smooth things and prophesied deceits," all went
well with them; but it is an easy thing to offend fickle-minded folk,
and when the philosopher's stone and the secret of perpetual youth after
much research were not producible, the cry of "impostor" was readily
raised, and the trade of magic had its uncertainties, as well as its
charms.

Our first author who suffered as an astrologer, though it is extremely
doubtful whether he was ever guilty of the charges brought against him,
was Henry Cornelius Agrippa, who was born at Cologne in 1486, a man of
noble birth and learned in Medicine, Law, and Theology. His supposed
devotion to necromancy and his adventurous career have made his story a
favourite one for romance-writers. We find him in early life fighting in
the Italian war under the Emperor Maximilian, whose private secretary
he was. The honour of knighthood conferred upon him did not satisfy
his ambition, and he betook himself to the fields of learning. At the
request of Margaret of Austria, he wrote a treatise on the Excellence of
Wisdom, which he had not the courage to publish, fearing to arouse the
hostility of the theologians of the day, as his views were strongly
opposed to the scholasticism of the monks. He lived the roving life of a
mediaeval scholar, now in London illustrating the Epistles of St. Paul,
now at Cologne or Pavia or Turin lecturing on Divinity, and at another
time at Metz, where he resided some time and took part in the government
of the city. There, in 1521, he was bereaved of his beautiful and noble
wife. There too we read of his charitable act of saving from death a
poor woman who was accused of witchcraft. Then he became involved in
controversy, combating the idea that St. Anne, the mother of the Blessed
Virgin, had three husbands, and in consequence of the hostility raised
by his opinions he was compelled to leave the city. The people used to
avoid him, as if he carried about with him some dread infection, and
fled from him whenever he appeared in the streets. At length we see
him established at Lyons as physician to the Queen Mother, the Princess
Louise of Savoy, and enjoying a pension from Francis I. This lady seems
to have been of a superstitious turn of mind, and requested the learned
Agrippa, whose fame for astrology had doubtless reached her, to consult
the stars concerning the destinies of France. This Agrippa refused, and
complained of being employed in such follies. His refusal aroused the
ire of the Queen; her courtiers eagerly took up the cry, and "conjurer,"
"necromancer," etc., were the complimentary terms which were freely
applied to the former favourite. Agrippa fled to the court of Margaret
of Austria, the governor of the Netherlands under Charles V., and was
appointed the Emperor's historiographer. He wrote a history of the
reign of that monarch, and during the life of Margaret he continued his
prosperous career, and at her death he delivered an eloquent funeral
oration.

But troubles were in store for the illustrious author. In 1530 he
published a work, _De Incertitudine et Vanitate Scientiarum et Artium,
atque Excellentiâ Verbi Dei Dedamatio_ (Antwerp). His severe satire upon
scholasticism and its professors roused the anger of those whom with
scathing words he castigated. The Professors of the University of
Louvain declared that they detected forty-three errors in the book; and
Agrippa was forced to defend himself against their attacks in a
little book published at Leyden, entitled _Apologia pro defencione
Declamationis de Vanitate Scientiarum contra Theologistes Lovanienses_.
In spite of such powerful friends as the Papal Legate, Cardinal
Campeggio, and Cardinal de la Marck, Prince Bishop of Liège, Agrippa was
vilified by his opponents, and imprisoned at Brussels in 1531. The
fury against his book continued to rage, and its author declares in
his Epistles: "When I brought out my book for the purpose of exciting
sluggish minds to the study of sound learning, and to provide some new
arguments for these monks to discuss in their assemblies, they repaid
this kindness by rousing common hostility against me; and now by
suggestions, from their pulpits, in public meetings, before mixed
multitudes, with great clamourings they declaim against me; they rage
with passion, and there is no impiety, no heresy, no disgrace which
they do not charge me with, with wonderful gesticulations--namely, with
clapping of fingers, with hands outstretched and then suddenly drawn
back, with gnashing of teeth, by raging, by spitting, by scratching
their heads, by gnawing their nails, by stamping with their feet, they
rage like madmen, and omit no kind of lunatic behaviour by means of
which they may arouse the hatred and anger of both prince and people
against me."

The book was examined by the Inquisition and placed by the Council of
Trent on the list of prohibited works, amongst the heretical books of
the first class. Erasmus, however, spoke very highly of it, and declared
it to be "the work of a man of sparkling intellect, of varied reading
and good memory, who always blames bad things, and praises the good."
Schelhorn declares that the book is remarkable for the brilliant
learning displayed in it, and for the very weighty testimony which it
bears against the errors and faults of the time.

Our author was released from his prison at Brussels, and wrote another
book, _De occulta Philosophia_ (3 vols., Antwerp, 1533), which enabled
his enemies to bring against him the charge of magic. Stories were told
of the money which Agrippa paid at inns turning into pieces of horn and
shell, and of the mysterious dog which ate and slept with him, which was
indeed a demon in disguise and vanished at his death. They declared he
had a wonderful wand, and a mirror which reflected the images of persons
absent or dead.

The reputed wizard at length returned to France, where he was imprisoned
on a charge of speaking evil of the Queen Mother, who had evidently
not forgotten his refusal to consult the stars for her benefit. He was,
however, soon released, and after his strange wandering life our author
ended his labours in a hospital at Grenoble, where he died in 1535.
In addition to the works we have mentioned, he wrote _De Nobilitate et
Proecellentia Faeminei Sexus_ (Antwerp, 1529), in order to flatter his
patroness Margaret of Austria, and an early work, _De Triplici Ratione
Cognoscendi Deum_ (1515). The monkish epigram, unjust though it be, is
perhaps worth recording:--

"Among the gods there is Momus who reviles all men; among the heroes
there is Hercules who slays monsters; among the demons there is Pluto,
the king of Erebus, who is in a rage with all the shades; among the
philosophers there is Democritus who laughs at all things, Heraclitus
who bewails all things, Pyrrhon who is ignorant of all things, Aristotle
who thinks that he knows all things, Diogenes who despises all things.
But this Agrippa spares none, despises all things, knows all things, is
ignorant of all things, bewails all things, laughs at all things, rages
against all things, reviles all things, being himself a philosopher, a
demon, a hero, a god, everything."

The impostor Joseph Francis Borri was a very different character. He was
a famous chemist and charlatan, born at Milan in 1627, and educated by
the Jesuits at Rome, being a student of medicine and chemistry. He lived
a wild and depraved life, and was compelled to retire into a seminary.
Then he suddenly changed his conduct, and pretended to be inspired by
God, advocating in a book which he published certain strange notions
with regard to the existence of the Trinity, and expressing certain
ridiculous opinions, such as that the mother of God was a certain
goddess, that the Holy Spirit became incarnate in the womb of Anna, and
that not only Christ but the Virgin also are adored and contained in the
Holy Eucharist. In spite of the folly of his teaching he attracted many
followers, and also the attention of the Inquisition. Perceiving his
danger, he fled to Milan, and thence to a more safe retreat in Amsterdam
and Hamburg. In his absence the Inquisition examined his book and passed
its dread sentence upon its author, declaring that "Borri ought to be
punished as a heretic for his errors, that he had incurred both the
'general' and 'particular' censures, that he was deprived of all honour
and prerogative in the Church, of whose mercy he had proved himself
unworthy, that he was expelled from her communion, and that his effigy
should be handed over to the Cardinal Legate for the execution of the
punishment he had deserved." All his heretical writings were condemned
to the flames, and all his goods confiscated. On the 3rd of January,
1661, Borri's effigy and his books were burned by the public
executioner, and Borri declared that he never felt so cold, when he knew
that he was being burned by proxy. He then fled to a more secure asylum
in Denmark. He imposed upon Frederick III., saying that he had found
the philosopher's stone. After the death of this credulous monarch Borri
journeyed to Vienna, where he was delivered up to the representative of
the Pope, and cast into prison. He was then sent to Rome, and condemned
to perpetual imprisonment in the Castle of St. Angelo, where he died
in 1685. His principal work was entitled _La Chiave del gabineito del
cavagliere G. F. Borri_ (The key of the cabinet of Borri). Certainly the
Church showed him no mercy, but perhaps his hard fate was not entirely
undeserved.

The tragic death of Urban Grandier shows how dangerous it was in the
days of superstition to incur the displeasure of powerful men, and
how easily the charge of necromancy could be used for the purpose of
"removing" an obnoxious person. Grandier was curé of the Church of St.
Peter at Loudun and canon of the Church of the Holy Cross. He was a
pleasant companion, agreeable in conversation, and much admired by the
fair sex. Indeed he wrote a book, _Contra Caelibatum Clericorum_, in
which he strongly advocated the marriage of the clergy, and showed that
he was not himself indifferent to the charms of the ladies. In an evil
hour he wrote a little book entitled _La cordonnière de Loudun_, in
which he attacked Richelieu, and aroused the undying hatred of the great
Cardinal. Richelieu was at that time in the zenith of his power, and
when offended he was not very scrupulous as to the means he employed to
carry out his vengeance, as the fate of our author abundantly testifies.

In the town of Loudun was a famous convent of Ursuline nuns, and
Grandier solicited the office of director of the nunnery, but happily he
was prevented by circumstances from undertaking that duty. A short time
afterwards the nuns were attacked with a curious and contagious frenzy,
imagining themselves tormented by evil spirits, of whom the chief was
Asmodeus. [Footnote: This was the demon mentioned in Tobit iii. 8,
17, who attacked Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, and killed her seven
husbands. Rabbinical writers consider him as the chief of evil spirits,
and recount his marvellous deeds. He is regarded as the fire of impure
love.] They pretended that they were possessed by the demon, and accused
the unhappy Grandier of casting the spells of witchcraft upon them.
He indignantly refuted the calumny, and appealed to the Archbishop of
Bordeaux, Charles de Sourdis. This wise prelate succeeded in calming the
troubled minds of the nuns, and settled the affair.

In the meantime the vengeful eye of Richelieu was watching for an
opportunity. He sent his emissary, Councillor Laubardemont, to Loudun,
who renewed the accusation against Grandier. The amiable cleric, who
had led a pious and regular life, was declared guilty of adultery,
sacrilege, magic, witchcraft, demoniacal possession, and condemned to
be burned alive after receiving an application of the torture. In the
market-place of Loudun in 1643 this terrible sentence was carried into
execution, and together with his book, _Contra Caelibatum Clericorum_,
poor Grandier was committed to the flames. When he ascended his funeral
pile, a fly was observed to buzz around his head. A monk who was
standing near declared that, as Beelzebub was the god of flies, the
devil was present with Grandier in his dying hour and wished to bear
away his soul to the infernal regions. An account of this strange and
tragic history was published by Aubin in his _Histoire des diables
de Loudun, ou cruels effets de la vengeance de Richelieu_ (Amsterdam,
1693).

Our own country has produced a noted alchemist and astrologer, Dr.
Dee, whose fame extended to many lands. He was a very learned man and
prolific writer, and obtained the office of warden of the collegiate
church of Manchester through the favour of Queen Elizabeth, who was
a firm believer in his astrological powers. His age was the age of
witchcraft, and in no county was the belief in the magic power of
the "evil eye" more prevalent than in Lancashire. Dr. Dee, however,
disclaimed all dealings with "the black art" in his petition to the
great "Solomon of the North," James I., which was couched in these
words: "It has been affirmed that your majesty's suppliant was the
conjurer belonging to the most honourable privy council of your
majesty's predecessor, of famous memory, Queen Elizabeth; and that he
is, or hath been, a caller or invocater of devils, or damned spirits;
these slanders, which have tended to his utter undoing, can no longer
be endured; and if on trial he is found guilty of the offence imputed to
him, he offers himself willingly to the punishment of death; yea,
either to be stoned to death, or to be buried quick, or to be burned
unmercifully." In spite of his assertions to the contrary, the learned
doctor must have had an intimate acquaintance with "the black art," and
was the companion and friend of Edward Kelly, a notorious necromancer,
who for his follies had his ears cut off at Lancaster. This Kelly used
to exhume and consult the dead; in the darkness of night he and his
companions entered churchyards, dug up the bodies of men recently
buried, and caused them to utter predictions concerning the fate of the
living. Dr. Dee's friendship with Kelly was certainly suspicious. On the
coronation of Queen Elizabeth, he foretold the future by consulting
the stars. When a waxen image of the queen was found in
Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, which was a sure sign that some one was
endeavouring to cast spells upon her majesty, Dr. Dee pretended that
he was able to defeat the designs of such evil-disposed persons, and
prevent his royal mistress feeling any of the pains which might be
inflicted on her effigy. In addition his books, of which there were
many, witness against him. These were collected by Casaubon, who
published in London in 1659 a _résumé_ of the learned doctor's works.

Manchester was made too hot, even for the alchemist, through the
opposition of his clerical brethren, and he was compelled to resign his
office of warden of the college. Then, accompanied by Kelly, he wandered
abroad, and was received as an honoured guest at the courts of many
sovereigns. The Emperor Rodolphe, Stephen, King of Poland, and other
royal personages welcomed the renowned astrologers, who could read the
stars, had discovered the elixir of life, which rendered men immortal,
the philosopher's stone in the form of a powder which changed the bottom
of a warming-pan into pure silver, simply by warming it at the fire,
and made the precious metals so plentiful that children played at quoits
with golden rings. No wonder they were so welcome! They were acquainted
with the Rosicrucian philosophy, could hold correspondence with the
spirits of the elements, imprison a spirit in a mirror, ring, or stone,
and compel it to answer questions. Dr. Dee's mirror, which worked such
wonders, and was found in his study at his death in 1608, is now in
the British Museum. In spite of all these marvels, the favour which
the great man for a time enjoyed was fleet and transient. He fell into
poverty and died in great misery, his downfall being brought about
partly by his works but mainly by his practices.

Associated with Lancashire demonology is the name of John Darrell, a
cleric, afterwards preacher at St. Mary's, Nottingham, who published
a narrative of the strange and grievous vexation of the devil of seven
persons in Lancashire. This remarkable case occurred at Clayworth in the
parish of Leigh, in the family of one Nicholas Starkie, whose house was
turned into a perfect bedlam. It is vain to follow the account of the
vagaries of the possessed, the howlings and barkings, the scratchings of
holes for the familiars to get to them, the charms and magic circles of
the impostor and exorcist Hartley, and the godly ministrations of the
accomplished author, who with two other preachers overcame the evil
spirits.

Unfortunately for him, Harsnett, Bishop of Chichester, and afterwards
Archbishop of York, doubted the marvellous powers of the pious author,
Dr. Darrell, and had the audacity to suggest that he made a trade of
casting out devils, and even went so far as to declare that Darrell and
the possessed had arranged the matter between them, and that Darrell had
instructed them how they were to act in order to appear possessed.
The author was subsequently condemned as an impostor by the Queen's
commissioners, deposed from his ministry, and condemned to a long term
of imprisonment with further punishment to follow. The base conduct
and pretences of Darrell and others obliged the clergy to enact the
following canon (No. 73): "That no minister or ministers, without
license and direction of the bishop, under his hand and seal obtained,
attempt, upon any pretence whatsoever, either of possession or
obsession, by fasting and prayer, to cast 'out any devil or devils,
under pain of the imputation of imposture, or cozenage, and deposition
from the ministry." This penalty at the present day not many of the
clergy are in danger of incurring.




CHAPTER IV. SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY.

Bishop Virgil--Roger Bacon--Galileo--Jordano Bruno--Thomas
Campanella--De Lisle de Sales--Denis Diderot--Balthazar Bekker--Isaac de
la Peyrère--Abbé de Marolles--Lucilio Vanini--Jean Rousseau.


Science in its infancy found many powerful opponents, who, not
understanding the nature of the newly-born babe, strove to strangle
it. But the infant grew into a healthy child in spite of its cruel
stepmother, and cried so loudly and talked so strangely that the
world was forced to listen to its utterances. These were regarded with
distrust and aversion by the theologians of the day, for they were
supposed to be in opposition to Revelation, and contrary to the received
opinions of all learned and pious people. Therefore Science met with
very severe treatment; its followers were persecuted with relentless
vehemence, and "blasphemous fables" and "dangerous deceits" were the
only epithets which could characterise its doctrines.

The controversy between Religion and Science still rages, in spite of
the declaration of Professor Huxley that in his opinion the conflict
between the two is entirely factitious. But theologians are wiser now
than they were in the days of Galileo; they are waiting to see what the
scientists can prove, and then, when the various hypotheses are shown to
be true, it will be time enough to reconcile the verities of the Faith
with the facts of Science.

To those who believed that the earth was flat it was somewhat startling
to be told that there were antipodes. This elementary truth of cosmology
Bishop Virgil of Salzbourg was courageous enough to assert as early as
A.D. 764. He wrote a book in which he stated that men of another race,
not sprung from Adam, lived in the world beneath our feet. This work
aroused the anger of Pope Zacharias II, who wrote to the King of Bavaria
that Virgil should be expelled from the temple of God and the Church,
and deprived of God and the Church, and deprived of his office, unless
he confessed his perverse errors. In spite of the censure and sentence
of excommunication pronounced upon him, Bishop Virgil was canonised by
Pope Gregory XI.; thus, in spite of his misfortunes brought about by his
book, his memory was revered and honoured by the Western Church.

If the account of his imprisonment be true (of which there is no
contemporary evidence) our own celebrated English philosopher, Roger
Bacon, is one of the earliest scientific authors whose works proved
fatal to them. In 1267 he sent his book, _Opus Majus_, together with
his _Opus Minus_, an abridgement of his former work, to Pope Clement
IV. After the death of that Pope Bacon was cited by the General of the
Franciscan order, to which he belonged, to appear before his judges
at Paris, where he was condemned to imprisonment. He is said to
have languished in the dungeon fourteen years, and, worn out by his
sufferings, to have died in his beloved Oxford during the year of his
release, 1292. The charge of magic was freely brought against him. His
great work, which has been termed "the _Encyclopaedia_ and the _Novum
Organum_ of the thirteenth century," discloses an unfettered mind and
judgment far in advance of the spirit of the age in which he lived.
In addition to this he wrote _Compendium Philosophiae_, _De mirabili
Potestate artis et naturae, Specula mathematica, Speculum alchemicum_,
and other works.

The treatment which Galileo received at the hands of the ecclesiastics
of his day is well known. This father of experimental philosophy was
born at Pisa in 1564, and at the age of twenty-four years, through
the favour of the Medicis, was elected Professor of Mathematics at the
University of the same town. Resigning his chair in 1592, he became
professor at Padua, and then at Florence. He startled the world by the
publication of his first book, _Sidereus Nuntius_, in which he disclosed
his important astronomical discoveries, amongst others the satellites
of Jupiter and the spots on the sun. This directed the attention of the
Inquisition to his labours, but in 1632 he published his immortal
work _Dialogo sopra i due Massimi Sistemi del monda, Tolemaico et
Copernicano_ (Florence), which was the cause of his undoing. In this
book he defended the opinion of Copernicus concerning the motion of the
earth round the sun, which was supposed by the theologians of the day to
be an opinion opposed to the teaching of Holy Scripture and subversive
of all truth. The work was brought before the Inquisition at Rome, and
condemned by the order of Pope Urban VIII. Galileo was commanded to
renounce his theory, but this he refused to do, and was cast into
prison. "Are these then my judges?" he exclaimed when he was returning
from the presence of the Inquisitors, whose ignorance astonished him.
There he remained for five long years; until at length, wearied by his
confinement, the squalor of the prison, and by his increasing years, he
consented to recant his "heresy," and regained his liberty. The old man
lost his sight at seventy-four years of age, and died four years later
in 1642. In addition to the work which caused him so great misfortunes
he published _Discorso e Demonstr. interna alle due nuove Scienze,
Delia Scienza Meccanica (1649), Tractato della Sfera (1655)_; and
the telescope, the isochronism of the vibrations of the pendulum, the
hydrostatic balance, the thermometer, were all invented by this
great leader of astronomical and scientific discoverers. Many other
discoveries might have been added to these, had not his widow submitted
the sage's MSS. to her confessor, who ruthlessly destroyed all that he
considered unfit for publication. Possibly he was not the best judge of
such matters!

Italy also produced another unhappy philosophic writer, Jordano Bruno,
who lived about the same time as Galileo, and was born at Nole in 1550,
being fourteen years his senior. At an early age he acquired a great
love of study and a thirst for knowledge. The Renaissance and the
revival of learning had opened wide the gates of knowledge, and there
were many eager faces crowding around the doors, many longing to enter
the fair Paradise and explore the far-extending vistas which met their
gaze. It was an age of anxious and eager inquiry; the torpor of the
last centuries had passed away; and a new world of discovery, with
spring-like freshness, dawned upon the sight. Jordano Bruno was one of
these zealous students of the sixteenth century. We see him first in
a Dominican convent, but the old-world scholasticism had no charms for
him. The narrow groove of the cloister was irksome to his freedom-loving
soul. He cast off his monkish garb, and wandered through Europe as a
knight-errant of philosophy, _multum ille et terris jactatus et alto_,
teaching letters. In 1580 we find him at Geneva conferring with Calvin
and Beza, but Calvinism did not commend itself to his philosophic mind.
Thence he journeyed to Paris, where in 1582 he produced one of his more
important works, _De umbris idearum_. Soon afterwards he came to London,
where he became the intimate friend of Sir Philip Sidney. Here he wrote
the work which proved fatal to him, entitled _Spaccio della bestia
triomphante_ (The expulsion of the triumphing beast) (London, 1584).
[Footnote: The full title of the work is: _Spaccio della bestia
triomphante da giove, effetuato dal conseglo, revelato da Mercurio,
recitato da sofia, udito da saulino, registrato dal nolano, divisa in
tre dialogi, subdivisi in tre parti. In Parigi, 1584, in-8_.] This was
an allegory in which he combated superstition and satirised the errors
of Rome. But in this work Bruno fell into grievous errors and dangerous
atheistic deceits. He scoffed at the worship of God, declared that the
books of the sacred canon were merely dreams, that Moses worked his
wonders by magical art, and blasphemed the Saviour. Bruno furnished
another example of those whose faith, having been at one time forced
to accept dogmas bred of superstition, has been weakened and altogether
destroyed when they have perceived the falseness and fallibility of that
which before they deemed infallible.

But in spite of these errors Bruno's learning was remarkable. He had an
extensive knowledge of all sciences. From England he went to Germany,
and lectured at Wittenberg, Prague, and Frankfort. His philosophy
resembled that of Spinosa. He taught that God is the substance and life
of all things, and that the universe is an immense animal, of which God
is the soul.

At length he had the imprudence to return to Italy, and became a teacher
at Padua. At Venice he was arrested by order of the Inquisition in 1595,
and conducted to Rome, where, after an imprisonment of two years,
in order that he might be punished as gently as possible without the
shedding of blood, he was sentenced to be burned alive. With a courage
worthy of a philosopher, he exclaimed to his merciless judges, "You
pronounce sentence upon me with greater fear than I receive it." Bruno's
other great works were _Della causa, principio e uno_ (1584), _De
infinito universo et mundis_ (1584), _De monade numero et figura_
(Francfort, 1591).

The Inquisition at Rome at this period was particularly active in its
endeavours to reform errant philosophers, and Bruno was by no means the
only victim who felt its power. Thomas Campanella, born in Calabria, in
Italy, A.D. 1568, conceived the design of reforming philosophy about the
same time as our more celebrated Bacon. This was a task too great for
his strength, nor did he receive much encouragement from the existing
powers. He attacked scholasticism with much vigour, and censured the
philosophy of Aristotle, the admired of the schoolmen. He wrote a work
entitled _Philosophia sensibus demonstrata_, in which he defended the
ideas of Telesio, who explained the laws of nature as founded upon
two principles, the heat of the sun and the coldness of the earth. He
declared that all our knowledge was derived from sensation, and that
all parts of the earth were endowed with feeling. Campanella also wrote
_Prodromus philosophiae instaurandae_ (1617); _Philosophia rationalis_,
embracing grammar, dialectics, rhetoric, poetry, and history;
_Universalis Philosophatus_, a treatise on metaphysics; _Civitas
solis_, a description of a kind of Utopia, after the fashion of Plato's
_Republic_. But the fatal book which caused his woes was his _Atheismus
triumphatus_. On account of this work he was cast into prison, and
endured so much misery that we can scarcely bear to think of his
tortures and sufferings. For twenty-five years he endured all the
squalor and horrors of a mediaeval dungeon; through thirty-five hours
he was "questioned" with such exceeding cruelty that all his veins and
arteries were so drawn and stretched by the rack that the blood could
not flow. Yet he bore all this terrible agony with a brave spirit, and
did not utter a cry. Various causes have been assigned for the severity
of this torture inflicted on poor Campanella. Some attribute it to
the malice of the scholastic philosophers, whom he had offended by his
works. Others say that he was engaged in some treasonable conspiracy to
betray the kingdom of Naples to the Spaniards; but it is probable that
his _Atheismus triumphatus_ was the chief cause of his woes. Sorbière
has thus passed judgment upon this fatal book: "Though nothing is dearer
to me than time, the loss of which grieves me sorely, I confess that
I have lost both oil and labour in reading the empty book of an empty
monk, Thomas Campanella. It is a farrago of vanities, has no order,
many obscurities, and perpetual barbarisms. One thing I have learned in
wandering through this book, that I will never read another book of this
author, even if I could spare the time."

Authorities differ with regard to the ultimate fate of this author. Some
say that he was killed in prison in 1599; others declare that he was
released and fled to France, where he enjoyed a pension granted to
him by Richelieu. However, during his incarceration he continued his
studies, and wrote a work concerning the Spanish monarchy which was
translated from Italian into German and Latin. In spite of his learning
he made many enemies by his arrogance; and his restless and ambitious
spirit carried him into enterprises which were outside the proper
sphere of his philosophy. In this he followed the example of many other
luckless authors, to whom the advice of the homely proverb would have
been valuable which states that "a shoemaker should stick to his last."

The book entitled _De la Philosophie de la Nature, ou Traité de morale
pour l'espèce humaine, tiré de la philosophie et fondé sur la nature_
(Paris, _Saillant et Nyon_, 1769, 6 vols., in-12), has a curious
history. It inflicted punishment not only on its author, De Lisle
de Sales, but also on two learned censors of books who approved its
contents, the Abbé Chrétien and M. Lebas, the bookseller Saillant, and
two of its printers. De Lisle was sent to prison, but the severity of
the punishment aroused popular indignation, and his journey to
gaol resembled a triumph. All the learned *men of Paris visited
the imprisoned philosopher. All the sentences were reversed by the
Parliament of Paris in 1777. This book has often been reproduced and
translated in other languages. De Lisle was exposed to the persecutions
of the Reign of Terror, and another work of his, entitled _Eponine_,
caused him a second term of imprisonment, from which he was released
when the terrible reign of anarchy, lasting eighteen months, ended.

The industrious philosopher Denis Diderot wrote _Lettres sur les
Aveugles à l'usage de ceux qui voient_ (1749, in-12). There were "those
who saw" and were not blind to its defects, and proceeded to incarcerate
Diderot in the Castle of Vincennes, where he remained six months, and
where he perceived that this little correction was necessary to cure
him of his philosophical folly. He was a very prolific writer, and
subsequently with D'Alembert edited the first French Encyclopaedia
(1751-1772, 17 vols.). This was supposed to contain statements
antagonistic to the Government and to Religion, and its authors
and booksellers and their assistants were all sent to the Bastille.
_Chambers' Cyclopaedia_ had existed in England some years before a
similar work was attempted in France, and the idea was first started
by an Englishman, John Mills. This man was ingeniously defrauded of the
work, which owed its conception and execution entirely to him. Perhaps
on the whole he might have been congratulated, as he escaped the
Bastille, to which the appropriators of his work were consigned.

An author who dares to combat the popular superstitious beliefs current
in his time often suffers in consequence of his courage, as Balthazar
Bekker discovered to his cost. This writer was born in West Friezland
in 1634, and died at Amsterdam in 1698. He was a pastor of the Reformed
Church of Holland, and resided during the greater part of his life
at Amsterdam, where he produced his earlier work _Recherches sur les
Comètes_ (1683), in which he combated the popular belief in the malign
influence of comets. This work was followed a few years later by his
more famous book _De Betoverde Weereld_, or _The Enchanted World_,
[Footnote: _Le Monde enchanté, ou Examen des sentimens touchant les
esprits, traduit du flamand en français_ (Amsterdam, 1694, 4 vols.,
in-l2). One Benjamin Binet wrote a refutation, entitled _Traité
historique des Dieux et des Démons du paganisme, avec des remarques
sur le système de Balthazar Bekker_ (Delft, 1696, in-l2).] in which he
refuted the vulgar notions with regard to demoniacal possession. This
work created a great excitement amongst the Hollanders, and in two
months no less than four thousand copies were sold. But, unfortunately
for the author, it aroused the indignation of the theologians of the
Reformed Church, who condemned it, deprived Bekker of his office,
and expelled him from their communion. Bekker died shortly after his
sentence had been pronounced. A great variety of opinions have been
expressed concerning this book. Bekker was a follower of Descartes,
and this was sufficient to condemn him in the eyes of many of the
theologians of the day. The Jansenists of Port-Royal and the divines
of the old National Church of Holland were vehement opponents of
Cartesianism; consequently we find M.S. de Vries of Utrecht declaring
that this fatal book caused more evil in the space of two months than
all the priests could prevent in twenty years. Another writer states
that it is an illustrious work, and full of wisdom and learning. When
Bekker was deposed from his office, his adversaries caused a medal to be
struck representing the devil clad in a priestly robe, riding on an ass,
and carrying a trophy in his right hand; which was intended to signify
that Bekker had been overcome in his attempt to disprove demoniacal
possession, and that the devil had conquered in the assembly of divines
who pronounced sentence on Bekker's book. The author was supposed to
resemble Satan in the ugliness of his appearance. Another coin was
struck in honour of our author: on one side is shown the figure of
Bekker clad in his priestly robe; and on the other is seen Hercules with
his club, with this inscription, _Opus virtutis veritatisque triumphat_.
Bekker also wrote a catechism, entitled _La Nourriture des Parfaits_
(1670), which so offended the authorities of the Reformed Church that
its use was publicly prohibited by the sound of bells.

The science of ethnology has also had its victims, and one Isaac de
la Peyrère suffered for its sake. His fatal book was one entitled
_Praeadamitae, sive exercitatio super versibus xii., xiii., xiv.,
capitis v., epistolae divi Pauli ad romanos. Quibus inducuntur primi
homines ante Adamum conditi_ (1655, in-12), in which he advocated a
theory that the earth had been peopled by a race which existed before
Adam. The author was born at Bordeaux in 1592, and served with the
Prince of Condé; but, in spite of his protector, he was imprisoned at
Brussels, and his book was burnt at Paris, in 1655. This work had a
salutary effect on the indefatigable translator Abbé de Marolles, who
with extraordinary energy, but with little skill, was in the habit of
translating the classical works, and almost anything that he could lay
his hands upon. He published no less than seventy volumes, and at last
turned his attention to the sacred Scriptures, translating them with
notes. In the latter he inserted extracts and reflections from the
above-mentioned book by Peyrère, which caused a sudden cessation of
his labours. By the authority of the Pope the printing of his works was
suddenly stopped, but probably the loss which the world incurred was not
very great. Peyrère seems to have foretold the fate of his book and his
own escape in the following line:--

  _Parve, nec invideo, sine me, liber, ibis in ignem_.

Lucilio Vanini, born in 1585, was an Italian philosopher, learned in
medicine, astronomy, theology, and philosophy, who, after the fashion
of the scholars of the age, roamed from country to country, like the
knight-errants of the days of chivalry, seeking for glory and honours,
not by the sword, but by learning. This Vanini was a somewhat vain
and ridiculous person. Not content with his Christian name Lucilio, he
assumed the grandiloquent and high-sounding cognomen of Julius Caesar,
wishing to attach to himself some of the glory of the illustrious
founder of the Roman empire. As the proud Roman declared _Veni, Vidi,
Vici_, so would he carry on the same victorious career, subduing all
rival philosophers by the power of his eloquence and learning. He
visited Naples, wandered through France, Germany, the Netherlands,
Switzerland, and England, and finally stationed himself in France, first
at Lyons, and then in a convent at Toulouse. At Lyons he produced
his famous and fatal book, _Amphitheatrum aeternae providentiae
divino-magicum Christiano-Physicum, nec non Astrologo-Catholicum_
(Lugduni, 1616). It was published with the royal assent, but afterwards
brought upon its author the charge of Atheism. He concealed the poison
most carefully; for apparently he defended the belief in the Divine
Providence and in the immortality of the soul, but with consummate skill
and subtilty he taught that which he pretended to refute, and led his
readers to see the force of the arguments against the Faith of which he
posed as a champion. By a weak and feeble defence, by foolish arguments
and ridiculous reasoning, he secretly exposed the whole Christian
religion to ridicule. But if any doubts were left whether this was done
designedly or unintentionally, they were dispelled by his second work,
_De admirandis naturae reginae deaeque mortalium arcanis_ (Paris, 1616),
which, published in the form of sixty dialogues, contained many profane
statements. In this work also he adopted his previous plan of pretending
to demolish the arguments against the Faith, while he secretly sought
to establish them. He says that he had wandered through Europe fighting
against the Atheists wherever he met with them. He describes his
disputations with them, carefully recording all their arguments; he
concludes each dialogue by saying that he reduced the Atheists to
silence, but with strange modesty he does not inform his readers what
reasonings he used, and practically leaves the carefully drawn up
atheistical arguments unanswered. The Inquisition did not approve of
this subtle method of teaching Atheism, and ordered him to be confined
in prison, and then to be burned alive. This sentence was carried out
at Toulouse in 1619, in spite of his protestations of innocence, and
the arguments which he brought forward before his judges to prove the
existence of God. Some have tried to free Vanini from the charge of
Atheism, but there is abundant evidence of his guilt apart from his
books. The tender mercies of the Inquisition were cruel, and could not
allow so notable a victim to escape their vengeance. Whether to burn a
man is the surest way to convert him, is a question open to argument.
Vanini disguised his insidious teaching carefully, but it required a
thick veil to deceive the eyes of Inquisitors, who were wonderfully
clever in spying out heresy, and sometimes thought they had discovered
it even when it was not there. Vanini and many other authors would
have been wiser if they had not committed their ideas to writing,
and contented themselves with words only. _Litera scripta manet_; and
disguise it, twist it, explain it, as you will, there it stands, a
witness for your acquittal or your condemnation. This thought stays
the course of the most restless pen, though the racks and fires of the
Inquisition no longer threaten the incautious scribe.

We must not omit a French philosopher who died just before the outbreak
of the First French Revolution, Jean Jacques Rousseau. It is well known
that his work _Emile, ou de l'Education, par J.J. Rousseau, Citoyen de
Genève_ (_à Amsterdam_, 1762, 4 vols., in-12), obliged him to fly from
France and Switzerland, in both of which countries he was adjudged
to prison. For many years he passed a wandering, anxious life, ever
imagining that his best friends wished to betray him. Of his virtues and
failings as an author, or of the vast influence he exercised over the
minds of his countrymen, it is needless to write. This has already been
done by many authors in many works.




CHAPTER V. HISTORY.

Antonius Palearius--Caesar Baronius--John Michael Bruto--Isaac
Berruyer--Louis Elias Dupin--Noel Alexandre--Peter Giannone--Joseph
Sanfelicius (Eusebius Philopater)--Arlotto--Bonfadio--De Thou--Gilbert
Génébrard--Joseph Audra--Beaumelle--John Mariana--John B. Primi--John
Christopher Rüdiger--Rudbeck--François Haudicquer--François de
Rosières--Anthony Urseus.


Braver far than the heroes of Horace was he who first dared to attack
the terrible Inquisition, and voluntarily to incur the wrath of
that dread tribunal. Such did Antonius Palearius, who was styled
_Inquisitionis Detractator_, and in consequence was either beheaded (as
some say) in 1570, or hanged, strangled, and burnt at Rome in 1566. This
author was Professor of Greek and Latin at Sienna and Milan, where he
was arrested by order of Pope Pius V. and conducted to Rome. He stated
the truth very plainly when he said that the Inquisition was a
dagger pointed at the throats of literary men. As an instance of the
foolishness of the method of discovering the guilt of the accused, we
may observe that Palearius was adjudged a heretic because he preferred
to sign his name _Aonius_, instead of _Antonius_, his accuser alleging
that he abhorred the sign of the cross in the letter T, and therefore
abridged his name. By such absurd arguments were men doomed to death.

The _Annales Ecclesiastici_ of Caesar Baronius, published in twelve
folio volumes at Rome (1588-93), is a stupendous work, which testifies
to the marvellous industry and varied learning of its author, although
it contains several chronological errors, and perverts history in order
to establish the claims of the Papacy to temporal power. The author of
this work was born of noble family at Sora, in the kingdom of Naples,
A.D. 1538, and was a pupil of St. Philip de Neri, the founder of the
Congregation of the Oratory, whom he succeeded as General of that
order. In 1596 Pope Clement VIII. chose him as his confessor, made him a
cardinal and librarian of the Vatican. On the death of Clement, Baronius
was nominated for election to the Papal throne, and was on the point
of attaining that high dignity when the crown was snatched from him by
reason of his immortal work. In Tome IX. our author had written a long
history of the monarchy of Sicily, and endeavoured to prove that the
island rightfully belonged to the Pope, and not to the King of Spain,
who was then its ruler. This so enraged Philip III. of Spain that he
published an edict forbidding the tome to be bought or read by any of
his subjects. Two booksellers who were rash enough to have some copies
of the book on their shelves were condemned to row in the galleys. When
the election for the Papal throne took place, thirty-three cardinals
voted for Baronius, and he would have been made Pope had not the Spanish
ambassador, by order of the King, who was practically master of Italy at
that time, excluded the author of the _Annals_ from the election. This
disappointment and his ill-health, brought on by hard study, terminated
his life, and he died A.D. 1607. The _Annales Ecclesiastici_ occupied
Baronius thirty years, and contain the history of the Church from the
earliest times to A.D. 1198. Various editions were printed at Venice,
Cologne, Antwerp, Metz, Amsterdam, and Lucca. It was continued by
Rainaldi and Laderchi, and the whole work was published in forty-two
volumes at Lucca 1738-57. It is a monument of the industry and patience
of its authors.

Another luckless Italian historian flourished in the sixteenth century,
John Michael Bruto, who was born A.D. 1515, and was the author of a very
illustrious work, _Historia Florentina_ (Lyons, 1562). The full title of
the work is: _Joh. Michaelis Bruti Historiae Florentinae, Libri VIII.,
priores ad obitum Laurentii de Medicis_ (Lugduni, 1561, in-4). He wrote
with considerable elegance, judgment, and force, contradicting the
assertions of the historian Paolo Giovio, who was a strong partisan of
the Medicis, and displaying much animosity towards them.

This book aroused the ire of the powerful family of the Medicis, and was
suppressed by public authority. Bruto encouraged the brave citizens of
Florence to preserve inviolate the liberties of their republic, and
to withstand all the attempts of the Medicis to deprive them of their
rights. On account of its prohibition the work is very rare, for the
chiefs of the Florentines took care to buy all the copies which they
could procure. In order to avoid the snares which the Medicis and other
powerful Italian factions knew so well how to weave around those who
were obnoxious to them--an assassin's dagger or a poisoned cup was not
then difficult to procure--Bruto was compelled to seek safety in flight,
and wandered through various European countries, enduring great poverty
and privations. His exile continued until his death, which took place in
Transylvania, A.D. 1593.

The Jesuit Isaac Joseph Berruyer was condemned by the Parliament of
Paris in 1756 to be deposed from his office and to publicly retract his
opinions expressed in his _Histoire du Peuple de Dieu_. The first part,
consisting of seven volumes, 4to, appeared in Paris in 1728, the second
in 1755, and the third in 1758. The work was censured by two Popes,
Benedict XIV. and Clement XIII., as well as by the Sorbonne and the
Parliament of Paris. Berruyer seems to have had few admirers. He
delighted to revel in the details of the loves of the patriarchs,
the unbridled passion of Potiphar's wife, the costume of Judith, her
intercourse with Holophernes, and other subjects, the accounts of which
his prurient fancy did not improve. His imaginative productions caused
him many troubles. The Jesuits disavowed the work, and, as we have said,
its author was deposed from his office.

The French ecclesiastical historian Louis Elias Dupin, born in 1657
and descended from a noble family in Normandy, was the author of
the illustrious work _La Bibliothèque Universelle des auteurs
ecclésiastiques_. Dupin was a learned doctor of the Sorbonne, and
professor of the College of France; and he devoted most of his life
to his immense work, which is a proof of his marvellous energy and
industry. He gives an account of the lives of the writers, a catalogue
of their works, with the dates when they were issued, and a criticism
of their style and of the doctrines set forth therein. But the learned
historian involved himself in controversy with the advocates of Papal
supremacy by publishing a book, _De Antiqua Ecclesiae disciplina_, in
which he defended with much zeal the liberty of the Gallican Church. He
lived at the time when that Church was much agitated by the assumptions
of Pope Clement XI., aided by the worthless Louis XIV., and by
the resistance of the brave-hearted Jansenists to the famous Bull
_Unigenitus_. For three years France was torn by these disputes. A large
number of the bishops were opposed to the enforcing of this bull, and
the first theological school in Europe, the Sorbonne, joined with them
in resisting the tyranny of the Pope and the machinations of Madame de
Maintenon.

Dupin took an active part with the other theologians of his school in
opposing this _Unigenitus_, and wrote his book _De Antiqua Ecclesiae
disciplina_ in order to defend the Gallican Church from the tyranny
of the Bishop of Rome. In this work he carefully distinguishes the
universal Catholic Church from the Roman Church, and shows that the
power of the Papacy was not founded on any warrant of Holy Scripture,
nor on the judgments of the Fathers. He allows that the power of keys
was given to St. Peter, but not to one man individually, but to the
whole Church represented by him. The authority of the Pope extends
not beyond certain fixed boundaries, and the temporal and civil power
claimed by the Papacy is not conjoined to the spiritual power, and ought
to be separated from it. This plain speaking did not commend itself
to the occupier of the Papal throne, nor to his tool Louis XIV., who
deprived Dupin of his professorship and banished him to Châtelleraut.
Dupin's last years were occupied with a correspondence with Archbishop
Wake of Canterbury, who was endeavouring to devise a plan for the
reunion of the Churches of France and England. Unhappily the supporters
of the National Church of France were overpowered by the Ultramontane
party; otherwise it might have been possible to carry out this project
dear to the hearts of all who long for the unity of Christendom. Dupin
died A.D. 1719.

A companion in misfortune was Noel Alexandre, a French ecclesiastical
historian who lived at the same period and shared Dupin's views with
regard to the supremacy of the Pope. His work is entitled _Natalis
Alexandri Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris et Novi Testamenti, cum
Dissertationibus historico-chronologicis et criticis (Parisiis,
Dezallier, 1669, seu 1714, 8 tom en 7 vol. in-fol.)_. The results of
his researches were not very favourable to the Court of Rome.
The Inquisition examined and condemned the work. Its author was
excommunicated by Innocent XI. in 1684. This sentence was subsequently
removed, as we find our author Provincial of the Dominican Order
in 1706; but having subscribed his name to the celebrated _Cas de
Conscience_, together with forty other doctors of the Sorbonne, he was
banished to Châtelleraut and deprived of his pension. He died in 1724.

Italian historians seem to have fared ill, and our next author, Peter
Giannone, was no exception to the rule. He was born in 1676, and resided
some time at Naples, following the profession of a lawyer. There he
published in 1723 four volumes of his illustrious work entitled _Dell'
Historia civile del Regno di Napoli, dopo l'origine sino ad re Carlo
VI., da Messer P. Giannone (Napoli, Nicolo Naro_, 1723, in-4), which, on
account of certain strictures upon the temporal authority of the Pope,
involved him in many troubles.

This remarkable work occupied the writer twenty years, and contains
the result of much study and research, exposing with great boldness
the usurpations of the Pope and his cardinals, and other ecclesiastical
enormities, and revealing many obscure points with regard to the
constitution, laws, and customs of the kingdom of Naples. He was aware
of the great dangers which would threaten him, if he dared to publish
this immortal work; but he bravely faced the cruel fate which awaited
him, and verified the prophetic utterance of a friend, "You have placed
on your head a crown of thorns, and of very sharp ones."

This book created many difficulties between the King of Naples and
the occupant of the Papal See, and its author was excommunicated and
compelled to leave Naples, while his work was placed on the index of
prohibited books. Giannone then led a wandering life for some time, and
at length imagined that he had found a safe asylum at Venice. But his
powerful enemies contrived that he should be expelled from the territory
of the Venetian republic. Milan, Padua, Modena afforded him only
temporary resting-places, and at last he betook himself to Geneva. There
he began to write Vol. V. of his history. He was accosted one day by a
certain nobleman, who professed great admiration of his writings,
and was much interested in all that Giannone told him. His new friend
invited him to dinner at a farmstead which was situated not far from
Geneva, but just within the borders of the kingdom of Savoy. Fearing no
treachery, Giannone accepted the invitation of his new friend, but the
repast was not concluded before he was arrested by order of the King of
Sardinia, conveyed to a prison, and then transferred to Rome. The fates
of the poor captives in St. Angelo were very similar. In spite of a
useless retractation of his "errors," he was never released, and died in
prison in 1758. His history was translated into French, and published
in four volumes in 1742 at the Hague. Giannone's work has furnished
with weapons many of the adversaries of Papal dominion, and one Vernet
collected all the passages in this book, so fatal to its author, which
were hostile to the Pope, and many of his scathing criticisms and
denunciations of abuses, and published the extracts under the title
_Anecdotes ecclésiastiques_ (The Hague, 1738).

The work of Giannone on the civil history of the kingdom of Naples
excited Joseph Sanfelicius, of the order of the Jesuits, to reply to the
arguments of the former relating to the temporal power of the Pope.
This man, assuming the name of Eusebius Philopater, wrote in A.D. 1728 a
fatal book upon the civil history of the kingdom of Naples, in which he
attacked Giannone with the utmost vehemence, and heaped upon him
every kind of disgraceful accusation and calumny. This work was first
published secretly, and then sold openly by two booksellers, by whom it
was disseminated into every part of Italy. It fell into the hands of
the Regent, who summoned his council and inquired what action should be
taken with regard to it. With one voice they decided against the book;
its sale was prohibited, and its author banished.

A book entitled _Histoire de la tyrannie et des excès dont se rendirent
coupables les Habitans de Padoue dans la guerre qu'ils eurent avec ceux
de Vicence, par Arlotto, notaire à Vicence_, carries us back to the
stormy period of the fourteenth century, when Italy was distracted by
war, the great republics ever striving for the supremacy. Arlotto wrote
an account of the cruelties of the people of Padua when they conquered
Vicenza, who, in revenge, banished the author, confiscated his goods,
and pronounced sentence of death on any one who presumed to read his
work. Happily Vicenza succeeded in throwing off the yoke of Padua, and
Arlotto recovered his possessions. This book was so severely suppressed
that its author searched in vain for a copy in order that he might
republish it, and only the title of his work is known.

Genoa too has its literary martyrs, amongst whom was Jacopo Bonfadio,
a professor of philosophy at that city in 1545. He wrote _Annales
Genuendis, ab anno_ 1528 _recuperatae libertatis usque ad annum_ 1550,
_libri quinque (Papiae_, 1585, in-4). His truthful records aroused the
animosity of the powerful Genoese families. The Dorias and the Adornos,
the Spinolas and Fieschi, were not inclined to treat tenderly so daring
a scribe, who presumed to censure their misdeeds. They proceeded to
accuse the author of a crime which merited the punishment of death by
burning. His friends procured for him the special favour that he should
be beheaded before his body was burnt. The execution took place in 1561.
The annals have been translated into Italian by Paschetti, and a new
Latin edition was published at Brescia in 1747.

Books have sometimes been fatal, not only to authors, but to their
posterity also; so it happened to the famous French historian De Thou,
who wrote a valuable history of his own times (1553--1601), _Historia
sui temporis_. [Footnote: The title of the edition of 1604 is _Jacobi
Augusti Thuani in suprema regni Gallici curia praesidis insulati,
historiarum sui temporis (Parisiis Sonnius, Patisson, Drouart,
in-fol._).] This great work was written in Latin in one hundred and
thirty-eight books, and afterwards translated into French and published
in sixteen volumes. The important offices which De Thou held, his
intimate acquaintance with the purposes of the King and the intrigues of
the French Court, the special embassies on which he was engaged, as well
as his judicial mind and historical aptitude, his love of truth, his
tolerance and respect for justice, his keen penetration and critical
faculty, render his memoirs extremely valuable. In 1572 he accompanied
the Italian ambassador to Italy; then he was engaged on a special
mission to the Netherlands; for twenty-four years he was a member of
the Parliament of Paris. Henry III. employed him on various missions to
Germany, Italy, and to different provinces of his own country, and on
the accession of Henry IV. he followed the fortunes of that monarch,
and was one of the signatories of the Edict of Nantes. But his writings
created enemies, and amongst them the most formidable was the mighty
Richelieu, who disliked him because our author had not praised one
of the ancestors of the powerful minister, and had been guilty of the
unpardonable offence of not bestowing sufficient honour upon Richelieu
himself. Such a slight was not to be forgiven, and when De Thou applied
for the post of President of the Parliament of Paris from Louis XIII.,
the favourite took care that the post should be given to some one else,
although it had been promised to our author by the late monarch. This
disappointment and the continued opposition of Richelieu killed De Thou,
who died in 1617. But the revenge of the minister was unsated. Frederick
Augustus de Thou, the son of the historian, and formerly a _protégé_ of
Richelieu, was condemned to death and executed. Enraged by the treatment
which his father had received from the minister, he had turned against
his former patron, and some imprudent letters to the Countess of
Chevreuse, which fell into Richelieu's hands, caused the undying
animosity of the minister, and furnished a pretext for the punishment of
his former friend, and the completion of his vengeance upon the author
of _Historia sui temporis_. Casaubon declares that this history is the
greatest work of its kind which had been published since the Annals of
Livy. Chancellor Hardwicke is said to have been so fond of it as to have
resigned his office and seals on purpose to read it. The book
contains some matter which was written by Camden, and destined for his
_Elizabeth_, but erased by order of the royal censor. Sir Robert Filmer,
Camden's friend, states that the English historian sent all that he was
not suffered to print to his correspondent Thuanus, who printed it all
faithfully in his annals without altering a word.

On the tomb of our next author stands the epitaph _Urna capit cineres,
nomen non orbe tenetur_. This writer was Gilbert Génébrard, a French
author of considerable learning, who maintained that the bishops should
be elected by the clergy and people and not nominated by the king. His
book, written at Avignon, is entitled _De sacrarum electionum jure
et necessitate ad Ecclesiae Gallicanae, redintegrationem, auctore G.
Genebrardo_ (_Parisiis, Nivellius_, 1593, in-8). The Parliament of Aix
ordered the book to be burned, and its author banished from the kingdom
and to suffer death if he attempted to return. He survived his sentence
only one year, and died in the Burgundian monastery of Semur. He loved
to declaim against princes and great men, and obscured his literary
glory by his bitter invectives. One of his works is entitled
_Excommunication des Ecclésiastiques qui ont assisté au service divin
avec Henri de Valois après l'assassinat du Cardinal de Guise_ (1589,
in-8). Certainly the judgment of posterity has not fulfilled the proud
boast of his epitaph.

Joseph Audra, Professor of History at the College of Toulouse, composed
a work for the benefit of his pupils entitled _Abrégé d'Histoire
générale, par l'Abbé Audra_ (Toulouse, 1770), which was condemned, and
deprived Audra of his professorship, and also of his life. He died from
the chagrin and disappointment which his misfortunes caused.

The author of _Mémoires et Lettres de Madame de Maintenon_ (Amsterdam,
1755, 15 vols., in-12) found his subject a dangerous one, inasmuch as
it conducted him to the Bastille, a very excellent reformatory for
audacious scribes. Laurence Anglivielle de la Beaumelle, born in 1727,
had previously visited that same house of correction on account of his
political views expressed in _Mes Pensées_, published at Copenhagen in
1751. In his _Mémoires_ he attributed to the mistress-queen of Louis
XIV. sayings which she never uttered, and his style lacks the dignity
and decency of true historical writings. Voltaire advised that La
Beaumelle should be fettered together with a band of other literary
opponents and sent to the galleys.

Among Spanish historians the name of John Mariana is illustrious. He
was born at Talavera in 1537, and, in spite of certain misfortunes which
befell him on account of his works, lived to the age of eighty-seven
years. He was of the order of the Jesuits, studied at Rome and Paris,
and then retired to the house of the Jesuits at Toledo, where he devoted
himself to his writings. His most important work was his _Historiae de
rebus Hispaniae libri xxx_., published at Toledo 1592-95. But the work
which brought him into trouble was one entitled _De Mutatione Monetae_,
which exposed the frauds of the ministers of the King of Spain with
regard to the adulteration of the public money, and censured the
negligence and laziness of Philip III., declaring that Spain had
incurred great loss by the depreciation in the value of the current coin
of the realm. This book aroused the indignation of the King, who ordered
Mariana to be cast into prison. The Spanish historian certainly deserved
this fate, not on account of the book which brought this punishment
upon him, but on account of another work, entitled _De Rege ac Regis
institutione Libri iii. ad Philippum III., Hispaniae regem catholicum_.
Toleti, apud Petrum Rodericum, 1599, in-4. In this book Mariana
propounded the hateful doctrine, generally ascribed to the Jesuits, that
a king who was a tyrant and a heretic ought to be slain either by open
violence or by secret plots. It is said that the reading of this book
caused Ravaillac to commit his crime of assassinating Henry IV. of
France, and that in consequence of this the book was burned at Paris in
1610 by order of the Parliament.

The historian of the Dutch war of 1672 endured much distress by reason
of his truthfulness. This was John Baptist Primi, Count of Saint-Majole.
His book was first published in Italian, and entitled _Historia della
guerra d'Olanda nell' anno 1672_ (_In Parigi, 1682_), and in the
same year a French translation was issued. The author alludes to the
discreditable Treaty of Dover, whereby Charles II., the Sovereign of
England, became a pensioner of France, and basely agreed to desert his
Dutch allies, whom he had promised to aid with all his resources. The
exposure of this base business was not pleasing to the royal ears. Lord
Preston, the English ambassador, applied to the Court for the censure of
the author, who was immediately sent to the Bastille. His book was very
vigorously suppressed, so that few copies exist of either the Italian or
French versions.

Amongst historians we include one writer of biography, John Christopher
Rüdiger, who, under the name of Clarmundus, wrote a book _De Vitis
Clarissimorum in re Litteraria Vivorum_. He discoursed pleasantly
upon the fates of authors and their works, but unhappily incurred the
displeasure of the powerful German family of Carpzov, which produced
many learned theologians, lawyers, and philologists. The chief of this
family was one Samuel Benedict Carpzov, who lived at Wittenberg, wrote
several dissertations, and was accounted the Chrysostom of his age
(1565-1624). Rüdiger in Part IX. of his work wrote the biography of this
learned man, suppressing his good qualities and ascribing to him many
bad ones, and did scant justice to the memory of so able a theologian.
This so enraged the sons and other relations of the great man that they
accused Rüdiger of slander before the ecclesiastical court, and the
luckless author was ordered to be beaten with rods, and to withdraw all
the calumnies he had uttered against the renowned Carpzov. On account of
his books Rüdiger was imprisoned at Dresden, where he died.

Haudicquer, the unfortunate compiler of genealogies, was doomed to the
galleys on account of the complaints of certain noble families who
felt themselves aggrieved by his writings. His work was entitled _La
Nobiliaire de Picardie, contenant les Généralités d'Amiens, de Soissons,
des pays reconquis, et partie de l'Election de Beauvais, le tout
justifié conformément aux Jugemens rendus en faveur de la Province. Par
François Haudicquer de Blancourt_ (Paris, 1693, in-4). Bearing ill-will
to several illustrious families, he took the opportunity of vilifying
and dishonouring them in his work by many false statements and patents,
which so enraged them that they accomplished the destruction of the
calumniating compiler. The book, in spite of his untrustworthiness, is
sought after by curious book-lovers, as the copies of it are extremely
rare, and few perfect.

It is usually hazardous to endeavour to alter one's facts in order to
support historical theories. This M. François de Rosières, Archdeacon
of Toul, discovered, who endeavoured to show in his history of Lorraine
that the crown of France rightly belonged to that house. His book is
entitled _Stemmatum Lotharingiae et Barri ducum, Tomi VII., ab Antenore
Trojano, ad Caroli III., ducis tempora_, etc. (_Parisiis_, 1580,
in-folio). The heroes of the Trojan war had a vast number of descendants
all over Western Europe, if early genealogies are to be credited. But De
Rosières altered and transposed many ancient charters and royal patents,
in order to support his theory with regard to the sovereignty of the
House of Lorraine. His false documents were proved to have been forged
by the author. The anger of the French was aroused. He was compelled to
sue for pardon before Henry III.; his book was proscribed and burnt; but
for the protection of the House of Guise, he would have shared the fate
of his book, and was condemned to imprisonment in the Bastille.

The learned Swedish historian Rudbeck may perhaps be included in our
list of ill-fated authors, although his death was not brought about
by the machinations of his foes. He wrote a great work on the origin,
antiquities, and history of Sweden, but soon after its completion he
witnessed the destruction of his book in the great fire of Upsal in
1702. The disappointment caused by the loss of his work was so great
that he died the same year.

Rudbeck is not the only author who so loved his work that he died
broken-hearted when deprived of his treasure. A great scholar of the
fifteenth century, one Anthony Urseus, who lived at Forli, had just
finished a great work, when unhappily he left a lighted lamp in his
study during his absence. The fatal flame soon enveloped his books and
papers, and the poor author on his return went mad, beating his head
against the door of his palace, and raving blasphemous words. In vain
his friends tried to comfort him, and the poor man wandered away into
the woods, his mind utterly distraught by the enormity of his loss.

Few authors have the bravery, the energy, and amazing perseverance
of Carlyle, who, when his _French Revolution_ had been burned by the
thoughtlessness of his friend's servant, could calmly return to fight
his battle over again, and reproduce the MS. of that immortal work of
which hard fate had cruelly deprived him.




CHAPTER VI. POLITICS AND STATESMANSHIP.

John Fisher--Reginald Pole--"Martin Marprelate"--Udal--Penry--Hacket--
Coppinger--Arthington--Cartwright--Cowell--Leighton--John Stubbs--Peter
Wentworth--R. Doleman--J. Hales--Reboul--William Prynne--
BurtonBastwick--John Selden--John Tutchin--Delaune--Samuel Johnson--
Algernon Sidney--Edmund Richer--John de Falkemberg--Jean Lenoir--Simon
Linguet--Abbé Caveirac--Darigrand--Pietro Sarpi--Jerome Maggi--Theodore
Reinking.


The thorny subject of Politics has had many victims, and not a few
English authors who have dealt in State-craft have suffered on account
of their works. The stormy period of the Reformation, with its ebbs and
flows, its action and reaction, was not a very safe time for writers of
pronounced views. The way to the block was worn hard by the feet of
many pilgrims, and the fires of Smithfield shed a lurid glare over this
melancholy page of English history.

One of the earliest victims was John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, a
prelate renowned for his learning, his pious life, and for the royal
favour which he enjoyed both from Henry VII. and Henry VIII. The
Margaret Professorship at Cambridge and the Colleges of St. John's and
Christ's owe their origin to Fisher, who induced Margaret, the Countess
of Richmond and mother of Henry VII., to found them. Fisher became
Chancellor of the University, and acted as tutor to Henry VIII. High
dignities and royal favours were bestowed upon the man whom kings
delighted to honour. But Bishop Fisher was no time-serving prelate nor
respecter of persons, and did not hesitate to declare his convictions,
whatever consequences might result. When the much-married monarch
wearied of his first wife, the ill-fated Catherine, and desired to wed
Anne Boleyn, the bishops were consulted, and Fisher alone declared that
in his opinion the divorce would be unlawful. He wrote a fatal book
against the divorce, and thus roused the hatred of the headstrong
monarch. He was cast into prison on account of his refusing the oath
with regard to the succession, and his supposed connection with the
treason of Elizabeth Barton, whose mad ravings caused many troubles;
he was deprived, not only of his revenues, but also of his clothes,
in spite of his extreme age and the severity of a hard winter, and for
twelve long dreary months languished in the Tower. The Pope added to the
resentment which Henry bore to his old tutor by making him a Cardinal;
and the Red Hat sealed his doom. "The Pope may send him a hat," said
the ferocious monarch; "but, Mother of God, he shall wear it on his
shoulders, for I will leave him never a head to set it on." He was
charged with having "falsely, maliciously, and traitorously wished,
willed, and desired, and by craft imagined, invented, practised, and
attempted, to deprive the King of the dignity, title, and name of his
royal estate, that is, of his title and name of supreme head of the
Church of England, in the Tower, on the seventh day of May last, when,
contrary to his allegiance, he said and pronounced in the presence of
different true subjects, falsely, maliciously, and traitorously, these
words: the King oure soveraign lord is not supreme hedd yn erthe of the
Cherche of Englande." These words, drawn from him by Rich, were found
sufficient to effect the King's pleasure.

The aged prelate was pronounced guilty, and beheaded on July 22nd, 1535.
On his way to the scaffold he exclaimed, "Feet, do your duty; you have
only a short journey," and then, singing the _Te Deum laudamus_, he
placed his head upon the block, and the executioner's axe fell. Although
Bishop Fisher was condemned for denying the King's supremacy, he
incurred the wrath of Henry by his book against the divorce, and that
practically sealed his fate. His head was placed on a spike on London
Bridge as a warning to others who might be rash enough to incur the
displeasure of the ruthless King.

Another fatal book which belongs to this period is _Pro unitate
ecclesiae ad Henricum VIII_., written by Reginald Pole in the secure
retreat of Padua, in which the author compares Henry to Nebuchadnezzar,
and prays the Emperor of Germany to direct his arms against so heretical
a Christian, rather than against the Turks. Secure in his retreat at the
Papal Court, Pole did not himself suffer on account of his book, but the
vengeance of Henry fell heavily upon his relations in England, in whose
veins ran the royal blood of the Plantagenets who had swayed the English
sceptre through so many generations. Sir Geoffrey Pole, a brother of the
cardinal, was seized; this arrest was followed by that of Lord Montague,
another brother, and the Countess of Salisbury, their mother, who was
the daughter of the Duke of Clarence, brother of Edward IV. They were
accused of having devised to maintain, promote, and advance one Reginald
Pole, late Dean of Exeter, the King's enemy beyond seas, and to deprive
the King of his royal state and dignity. Sir Geoffrey Pole contrived to
escape the vengeance of Henry by betraying his companions, but the rest
were executed. For some time Pole's mother was kept a prisoner in the
Tower, as a hostage for her son's conduct. She was more than seventy
years of age, and after two years' imprisonment was condemned to be
beheaded. When ordered to lay her head upon the block she replied, "No,
my head never committed treason; if you will have it, you must take it
as you can." She was held down by force, and died exclaiming, "Blessed
are they who suffer persecution for righteousness' sake." Henry
endeavoured to tempt the cardinal to England, but "in vain was the
net spread in sight of any bird." In his absence he was condemned for
treason. The King of France and the Emperor were asked to deliver him up
to justice. Spies and emissaries of Henry were sent to watch him, and
he believed that ruffians were hired to assassinate him. But he survived
all these perils, being employed by the Pope on various missions and
passing his leisure in literary labours. He presided at the Council of
Trent, and lived to return to England during the reign of Mary, became
Archbishop of Canterbury, and strived to appease the sanguinary rage of
that dreadful persecution which is a lasting disgrace to humanity and to
the unhappy Queen, its chief instigator.

The rise of the Puritan faction and all the troubles of the Rebellion
caused many woes to reckless authors. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth
the Puritan party opened a vehement attack upon the Episcopalians,
and published books reviling the whole body, as well as the individual
members. The most noted of these works were put forth under the
fictitious name of Martin Marprelate. They were base, scurrilous
productions, very coarse, breathing forth terrible hate against
"bouncing priests and bishops." Here is an example: _A Dialogue wherein
is laid open the tyrannical dealing of L. Bishopps against God's
children_. It is full of scandalous stories of the prelates, who lived
irreproachable lives, and were quite innocent of the gross charges which
"Martin Senior" and "Martin Junior" brought against them. The Bishop
of Lincoln, named Cooper, was a favourite object of attack, and the
pamphleteers were always striving to make "the Cooper's hoops to flye
off and his tubs to leake out." In the _Pistle to the Terrible Priests_
they tell us of "a parson, well-known, who, being in the pulpit, and
hearing his dog cry, he out with the text, 'Why, how now, hoe! can you
not let my dog alone there? Come, Springe! come, Springe!' and whistled
the dog to the pulpit." Martin Marprelate was treated by some according
to his folly, and was scoffed in many pamphlets by the wits of the age
in language similar to that which he was so fond of using. Thus we have
_Pasquill of England to Martin Junior, in a countercuffe given to Martin
Junior; A sound boxe on the eare for the father and sonnes, Huffe,
Ruffe, and Snuffe, the three tame ruffians of the Church, who take
pepper in their nose because they cannot marre Prelates grating_; and
similar publications.

Archbishop Whitgift proceeded against these authors with much severity.
In 1589 a proclamation was issued against them; several were taken and
punished. Udal and Penry, who were the chief authors of these outrageous
works, were executed. Hacket, Coppinger, and Arthington, who seem to
have been a trio of insane libellers, and Greenwood and Barrow, whose
seditious books and pamphlets were leading the way to all the horrors of
anarchy introduced by the Anabaptists into Germany and the Netherlands,
all felt the vengeance of the Star Chamber, and were severely punished
for their revilings. The innocent often suffer with the guilty, and
Cartwright was imprisoned for eighteen months, although he denied all
connection with the "Marprelate" books, and declared that he had never
written or published anything which could be offensive to her Majesty or
detrimental to the state.

The Solomon of the North and the Parliament of England dealt hard
justice to the _Interpreter_ (1607), which nearly caused its author's
death. He published also _Institutiones Juris Anglicani ad seriem
Institutionum imperialium_ (Cambridge, 1605, 8vo), which involved him
in a charge of wishing to confound the English with the Roman law. Dr.
Cowell, in the former work, sounded the battle-cry which was heard a
few years later on many a field when the strength of the Crown and
Parliament met in deadly combat. He contended for the absolute monarchy
of the King of England. His writings are especially valuable as
illustrating our national customs. The author says: "My true end is the
advancement of knowledge, and therefore I have published this poor work,
not only to impart the good thereof to those young ones who want it, but
also to draw from the learned the supply of my defects.... What a man
saith well is not however to be rejected because he hath many errors;
reprehend who will, in God's name, that is with sweetness and without
reproach. So shall he reap hearty thanks at my hands, and thus more
soundly help in a few months, than I, by tossing and tumbling my books
at home, could possibly have done in many years." The Attorney-General,
Sir Edward Coke, was the determined foe of the unhappy doctor,
endeavouring to ridicule him by calling him Dr. Cowheel; then,
telling the King that the book limited the supreme power of the
royal prerogative; and when that failed, he accused our author to the
Parliament of the opposite charge of betraying the liberties of the
people. At length Cowell was condemned by the House to imprisonment;
James issued a proclamation against the book, but saved its author
from the hangman. However, Fuller states that Dr. Cowell's death, which
occurred soon after the condemnation of his book, was hastened by the
troubles in which it involved him.

A Scottish divine, Dr. Leighton, the father of the illustrious
Archbishop, incurred the vengeance of the Star Chamber in 1630 on
account of his treatise entitled _Syon's Plea against Prelacy_ (1628),
and received the following punishment: "To be committed to the Fleet
Prison for life, and to pay a fine of ten thousand pounds to the king's
use; to be degraded from the ministry; to be brought to the pillory at
Westminster, while the court was sitting, and be whipped, and after the
whipping to have one of his ears cut, one side of his nose slit, and be
branded in the face with the letters S.S., signifying Sower of Sedition:
after a few days to be carried to the pillory in Cheapside on a
market-day, and be there likewise whipped, and have the other ear cut
off, and the other side of his nose slit, and then to be shut up in
prison for the remainder of his life, unless his Majesty be graciously
pleased to enlarge him." A sentence quite sufficiently severe to deter
any rash scribe from venturing upon authorship! Maiming an author,
cutting off his hands, or ears, or nose, seems to have been a favourite
method of criticism in the sixteenth century. One John Stubbs had his
right hand cut off for protesting against the proposed marriage of Queen
Elizabeth with the Duke of Anjou, which bold act he committed in his
work entitled _Discoverie of a Gaping Gulf whereinto England is like
to be swallowed by another French marriage, if the Lord forbid not
the banes by letting her Majestie see the sin and punishment thereof_
(1579). Hallam states that the book was far from being a libel on the
Virgin Queen, but that it was written with great affection. However,
it was pronounced to be "a fardell of false reports, suggestions, and
manifest lies." Its author and Page, the bookseller, were brought into
the open market at Westminster, and their right hands were cut off with
a butcher's knife and mallet. With amazing loyalty, Stubbs took off his
cap with his left hand and shouted, "Long live Queen Elizabeth!"

The autocratic Queen had a ready method of dealing with obnoxious
authors, as poor Peter Wentworth discovered, who wrote _A Pithy
Exhortation to Her Majesty for establishing her Successor to the Crown_,
and for his pains was committed to the Tower, where he pined and died.
This work advocated the claims of James VI. of Scotland, and was written
in answer to a pamphlet entitled _A Conference about the Next Succession
to the Crown of England_, published by R. Doleman (1594). The Jesuit R.
Parsons, Cardinal Allen, and Sir Francis Englefield were the authors,
who advocated the claims of Lord Hertford's second son, or the children
of the Countess of Derby, or the Infanta of Spain. The authors were safe
beyond seas, but the printer was hung, drawn, and quartered.

John Hales wrote _A Declaration of Succession of the Crown of England_,
in support of Lord Hertford's children by Lady Catherine Grey, and was
sent to the Tower.

James I., by his craft and guile, accomplished several notable and
surprising matters, and nothing more remarkable than actually to
persuade the Pope to punish an Italian writer, named Reboul, for
publishing an apology for the English Roman Catholics who refused to
take the oath of allegiance required by the English monarch in 1606,
after the discovery of the gunpowder plot. This certainly was a singular
and remarkable performance, and must have required much tact and
diplomacy. It is conjectured that the artful King so flattered the Pope
as to induce him to protect the English sovereign from the attacks of
his foes. Reboul's production was very virulent, exhorting all Catholics
to go constantly to England to excite a rising against the King, and
to strangle the tyrant with their hands. The Pope ordered the furious
writer to be hanged, and an account of his execution, written by a
Venetian senator, is found among Casaubon's collection of letters.

The most famous victim of the Star Chamber was William Prynne, whose
work _Histriomastix, or the Player's Scourge_, directed against the
sinfulness of play-acting, masques, and revels, aroused the indignation
of the Court. This volume of more than a thousand closely printed
quarto pages contains almost all that was ever written against plays and
players; not even the Queen was spared, who specially delighted in such
pastimes, and occasionally took part in the performances at Court.

Prynne was ejected from his profession, condemned to stand in the
pillory at Westminster and Cheapside, to lose both his ears, one in
each place, to pay a fine of £5,000, and to be kept in perpetual
imprisonment. A few years later, on account of his _News from Ipswich_,
he was again fined £5,000, deprived of the rest of his ears, which a
merciful executioner had partially spared, branded on both cheeks with
S.L. (Schismatical Libeller), and condemned to imprisonment for life
in Carnarvon Castle. He was subsequently removed to the Castle of Mont
Orgueil, in Jersey, where he received kind treatment from his jailor,
Sir Philip de Carteret. Prynne was conducted in triumph to London after
the victory of the Parliamentarian party, and became a member of the
Commons. His pen was ever active, and he left behind him forty volumes
of his works, a grand monument of literary activity.

Associated with Prynne was Burton, the author of two sermons _For God
and King_, who wrote against Laud and his party, and endeavoured to
uphold the authority of Charles, upon which he imagined the bishops
were encroaching. Burton suffered the same punishment as Prynne; and
Bastwick, a physician, incurred a like sentence on account of his
_Letany_, and another work entitled _Apologeticus ad Praesules
Anglicanos_, which were written while the author was a prisoner in the
Gatehouse of Westminster, and contained a severe attack upon the Laudian
party, the High Commission, and the Church of England. He had previously
been imprisoned and fined 1,000 pounds for his former works _Elenchus
Papisticae Religionis_ and _Flagellum Pontificis_.

During this period of severe literary criticism lived John Selden, an
author of much industry and varied learning. He was a just, upright, and
fearless man, who spoke his mind, upheld what he deemed to be right
in the conduct of either King or Parliament, and was one of the best
characters in that strange drama of the Great Rebellion. He was the
friend and companion of Littleton, the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal,
and together they studied the Records, and were expert in the Books
of Law, being the greatest antiquaries in the profession. Selden had
a great affection for Charles; but the latter was exceedingly enraged
because Selden in an able speech in the House of Commons declared the
unlawfulness of the Commission of Array, for calling out the Militia in
the King's name, founded upon an ancient Act of Parliament in the reign
of Henry IV., which Selden said had been repealed. When Lord Falkland
wrote a friendly letter to remonstrate with him, he replied courteously
and frankly, recapitulating his arguments, and expressing himself
equally opposed to the ordinance of the Parliamentarians, who wished
to summon the Militia without the authority of the King. With equal
impartiality and vigour Selden declared the illegality of this measure,
and expected that the Commons would have rejected it, but he found that
"they who suffered themselves to be entirely governed by his Reason
when those conclusions resulted from it which contributed to their own
designs, would not be at all guided by it, or submit to it, when it
persuaded that which contradicted and would disappoint those designs."
[Footnote: Clarendon's _History of the Rebellion_, vol. i., p. 667.] His
work _De Decimis_, in which he tried to prove that the giving of tithes
was not ordered by any Divine command, excited much contention, and
aroused the animosity of the clergy. In consequence of this in 1621
he was imprisoned, and remained in custody for five years. On the
dissolution of Parliament in 1629, being obnoxious to the royal party,
he was sent to the Tower, and then confined in a house of correction
for pirates. But as a compensation for his injuries in 1647 he received
£5,000 from the public purse and became a member of the Long Parliament.
He was by no means a strong partisan of the Puritan party, and when
asked by Cromwell to reply to the published works in favour of the
martyred King he refused. He lived until 1654 and wrote several works,
amongst which are _Mare clausum_, which was opposed to the _Mare
liberum_ of the learned Dutch historian Grotius, _Commentaries on
the Arundel Marbles_ (1629), and _Researches into the History of the
Legislation of the Hebrews_.

John Tutchin, afterwards editor of the _Observator_, was punished by the
merciless Jeffreys in his Bloody Assize for writing seditious verses,
and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and to be flogged every year
through a town in Dorsetshire. The court was filled with indignation
at this cruel sentence, and Tutchin prayed rather to be hanged at once.
This privilege was refused, but as the poor prisoner, a mere youth, was
taken ill with smallpox, his sentence was remitted. Tutchin became one
of the most pertinacious and vehement enemies of the House of Stuart.

Delaune's _Plea for the Nonconformists_ was very fatal to its author,
and landed him in Newgate, where the poor man died. Some account of this
book and its author is given in a previous volume of the Book-Lover's
Library (_Books Condemned to be Burnt_), and the writer founds upon it
an attack upon the Church of England, whereas the Church had about
as much to do with the persecution of poor Delaune as the writer of
_Condemned Books_! There are other conclusions and statements also
propounded by the writer of that book, which to one less intolerant than
himself would appear entirely unwarrantable. But this is not the place
for controversy.

A book entitled _Julian the Apostate_ was very fatal to that turbulent
divine Samuel Johnson, who in the reign of Charles II. made himself
famous for his advocacy of the cause of civil liberty and "no popery."
He lived in very turbulent times, when the question of the rights of
the Duke of York, an avowed Roman Catholic, to the English throne was
vehemently disputed, and allied himself with the party headed by the
Earl of Essex and Lord William Russell. He preached with great force
against the advocates of popery, and (in his own words) threw away
his liberty with both hands, and with his eyes open, for his country's
service. Then he wrote his book in reply to a sermon by Dr. Hickes, who
was in favour of passive obedience, and compared the future King to the
Roman Emperor surnamed the Apostate. This made a great sensation, which
was not lessened by the report that he had indited a pamphlet entitled
_Julian's Arts to undermine and extirpate Christianity_. Johnson was
subsequently condemned to a fine of one hundred marks, and imprisoned.
On his release his efforts did not flag. He wrote _An Humble and Hearty
Address to all the Protestants in the Present Army_ at the time when the
Stuart monarch had assembled a large number of troops at Hounslow Heath
in order to overawe London. This was the cause of further misfortunes;
he was condemned to stand in the pillory, to pay another five hundred
marks, to be degraded from the ministry, and publicly whipped from
Newgate to Tyburn. When the Revolution came he expected a bishopric
as the reward of his sufferings; but he was scarcely the man for the
episcopal bench. He refused the Deanery of Durham, and had to content
himself with a pension and a gift of £1,000.

All men mourn the fate of Algernon Sidney, who perished on account
of his political opinions; and his _Discourse on the Government_,
a manuscript which was discovered by the authorities at his house,
furnished his enemies with a good pretext. A corrupt jury, presided
over by the notorious Jeffreys, soon condemned poor headstrong Sidney
to death. He was beheaded in 1683. His early life, his hatred of all in
authority, whether Charles I. or Cromwell, his revolutionary instincts,
are well known. A few extracts from his fatal MS. will show the author's
ideas:--"The supreme authority of kings is that of the laws, and the
people are in a state of dependence upon the laws." "Liberty is the
mother of virtues, and slavery the mother of vices." "All free peoples
have the right to assemble whenever and wherever they please." "A
general rising of a nation does not deserve the name of a revolt. It is
the people for whom and by whom the Sovereign is established, who have
the sole power of judging whether he does, or does not, fulfil his
duties." In the days of "the Divine Right of Kings" such sentiments
could easily be charged with treason.

Political authors in other lands have often shared the fate of our own
countrymen, and foremost among these was Edmund Richer, a learned doctor
of the Sorbonne, Grand Master of the College of Cardinal Le Moine, and
Syndic of the University of Paris. He ranks among unfortunate authors on
account of his work entitled _De Ecclesiastica et Politica, potestate_
(1611), which aroused the anger of the Pope and his Cardinals, and
involved him in many difficulties. This remarkable work, extracted
chiefly from the writings of Gerson, was directed against the universal
temporal power of the Pope, advocated the liberties of the Gallican
Church, and furnished Protestant theologians with weapons in order to
defend themselves against the champions of the Ultramontane party. He
argues that ecclesiastical authority belongs essentially to the whole
Church. The Pope and the bishops are its ministers, and form the
executive power instituted by God. The Pope is the ministerial head
of the Church; our Lord Jesus Christ is the Absolute Chief and Supreme
Pastor. The Pope has no power of making canons; that authority belongs
to the universal Church, and to general councils. Richer was seized by
certain emissaries of a Catholic leader as he entered the college of
the Cardinal, and carried off to prison, from which he was ultimately
released on the intercession of his friends and of the University. But
Richer's troubles did not end when he regained his freedom. Having been
invited to supper by Father Joseph, a Capuchin monk, he went to the
house, not suspecting any evil intentions on the part of his host. But
when he entered the room where the feast was prepared he found a large
company of his enemies. The door was closed behind him, daggers were
drawn by the assembled guests, and they demanded from him an immediate
retractation of all the opinions he had advanced in his work. The drawn
daggers were arguments which our unhappy author was unable to resist. As
a reward for all his labour and hard study he was obliged to live as an
exile, as he mournfully complained, in the midst of a kingdom whose laws
he strenuously obeyed, nor dared to set foot in the college of which he
had been so great an ornament. In his latter days Richer's studies were
his only comfort. His mind was not fretted by any ambition, but he died
in the year 1633, overcome by his grief on account of his unjust fate,
and fearful of the powerful enemies his book had raised. The age of
Richelieu was not a very safe period for any one who had unhappily
excited the displeasure of powerful foes.

A strange work of a wild fanatic, John de Falkemberg, entitled _Diatribe
contre Ladislas, Roi de Pologne_, was produced at the beginning of the
fifteenth century, and condemned by the Council of Constance in 1414.
Falkemberg addressed himself to all kings, princes, prelates, and all
Christian people, promising them eternal life, if they would unite
for the purpose of exterminating the Poles and slaying their king. The
author was condemned to imprisonment at Constance on account of his
insane book. As there were no asylums for lunatics in those days,
perhaps that was the wisest course his judges could adopt.

The hostility of the Pope to authors who did not agree with his
political views has been excited by many others, amongst whom we may
mention the learned Pietro Sarpi, born at Venice in 1552. He joined the
order of the Servites, who paid particular veneration to the Blessed
Virgin, and of that order Sarpi and a satirical writer named Doni were
the most distinguished members. Sarpi adopted the name of Paul, and is
better known by his title _Fra Paolo_. He studied history, and wrote
several works in defence of the rights and liberties of the Venetian
Republic against the arrogant assumptions of Pope Paul V. The Venetians
were proud of their defender, and made him their consultant theologian
and a member of the famous Council of Ten. But the spiritual weapons of
the Pope were levied against the bold upholder of Venetian liberties,
and he was excommunicated. His _Histoire de l'Interdit_ (Venice, 1606)
exasperated the Papal party. One evening in the following year, as Sarpi
was returning to his monastery, he was attacked by five assassins, and,
pierced with many wounds, fell dead at their feet. The authorship
of this crime it was not hard to discover, as the murderers betook
themselves to the house of the Papal Nuncio, and thence fled to Rome. In
this book Sarpi vigorously exposed the unlawfulness and injustice of the
power of excommunication claimed by the Pope, and showed he had no right
or authority to proscribe others for the sake of his own advantage.
Sarpi wrote also a history of the Council of Trent, published in
London, 1619. His complete works were published in Naples in 1790, in
twenty-four volumes.

Another Venetian statesman, Jerome Maggi, very learned in archaeology,
history, mathematics, and other sciences, hastened his death by his
writings. He was appointed by the Venetians a judge of the town of
Famagousta, in the island of Cyprus, which was held by the powerful
Republic from the year 1489 to 1571. After one of the most bloody sieges
recorded in history, the Turks captured the stronghold, losing 50,000
men. Maggi was taken captive and conducted in chains to Constantinople.
Unfortunately he whiled away the tedious hours of his captivity by
writing two books, _De equuleo_ and _De tintinnabulis_, remarkable for
their learning, composed entirely without any reference to other works
in the squalor of a Turkish prison. He dedicated the books to the
Italian and French ambassadors to the Sublime Porte, who were much
pleased with them and endeavoured to obtain the release of the captive.
Their efforts unhappily brought about the fate which they were trying to
avert. For when the affair became known, as Maggi was being conducted
to the Italian ambassador, the captain of the prison ordered him to be
brought back and immediately strangled in the prison.

The unhappy Jean Lenoir, Canon of Séez, was doomed in 1684 to a
life-long servitude in the galleys, after making a public retractation
of his errors in the Church of Notre-Dame, at Paris. His impetuous
and impassioned eloquence is displayed in all his writings, which were
collected and published under the title _Recueil de Requêtes et de
Factums_. The titles of some of his treatises will show how obnoxious
they were to the ruling powers--e.g., _Hérésie de la domination
épiscopale que l'on établit en France, Protestation contre les
assemblées du clergé de 1681_, etc. These were the causes of the severe
persecutions of which he was the unhappy victim. He was fortunate enough
to obtain a slight alleviation of his terrible punishment by writing
a _Complainte latine_, in which he showed that the author, although
_black_ in name (_le noir_), was _white_ in his virtues and his
character. He was released from the galleys, and sent to prison instead,
being confined at Saint Malo, Brest, and Nantes, where he died in 1692.

In times less remote, Simon Linguet, a French political writer (born in
1736), found himself immured in the Bastille on account of his works,
which gave great offence to the ruling powers. His chief books were
his _Histoire Impartiale des Jésuites_ (1768, 2 vols., in-l2) and his
_Annales Politiques_. After his release he wrote an account of his
imprisonment, which created a great sensation, and aroused the popular
indignation against the Bastille which was only appeased with its
destruction. Linguet's _Annales Politiques_ was subsequently published
in Brussels in 1787, for which he was rewarded by the Emperor Joseph II.
with a present of 1,000 ducats. Linguet's experiences in the Bastille
rendered him a _persona grata_ to the revolutionary party, in which he
was an active agent; but, alas for the fickleness of the mob! he himself
perished at the hands of the wretches whose madness he had inspired, and
was guillotined at Paris in 1794. The pretext of his condemnation was
that he had incensed by his writings the despots of Vienna and London.

The Jesuit controversy involved many authors in ruin, amongst others
Abbé Caveirac, who wrote _Appel à la Raison des Ecrits et Libelles
publiés contre les Jésuites, par Jean Novi de Caveirac_ (_Bruxelles_,
1762, 2 vols., in-12). This book was at once suppressed, and its author
was condemned to imprisonment in 1764, and then sent to the pillory, and
afterwards doomed to perpetual exile. He was accused of having written
an apology for the slaughter of the Protestants on the eve of St.
Bartholomew's Day, but our last mentioned author, Linguet, endeavours to
clear his memory from that charge.

A friend of Linguet, Darigrand, wrote a book entitled _L'Antifinancier,
ou Relevé de quelques-unes des malversations dont se rendent
journellement les Fermiers-Généraux, et des vexations qu'ils commettent
dans les provinces_ (_Paris, Lambert_, 1764, 2 vols., in-12). It was
directed against the abominable system of taxation in vogue in France,
which was mainly instrumental in producing the Revolution. Darigrand was
a lawyer, and had been employed in _la ferme générale_. He knew all the
iniquities of that curious institution; he knew the crushing taxes which
were levied, and the tender mercies of the "cellar-rats," the gnawing
bailiffs, who knew no pity. Indignant and disgusted by the whole
business, he wrote his vehement exposure _L'Antifinancier_. The
government wished to close his mouth by giving him a lucrative post
under the same profitable system. This our author indignantly refused;
and that method of enforcing silence having failed, another more
forcible one was immediately adopted. Darigrand was sent to the Bastille
in January 1763. His book is a most forcible and complete exposure of
that horrible system of extortion, torture, and ruination which made a
reformation or a revolution inevitable.

Authors have often been compelled to eat their words, but the operation
has seldom been performed literally. In the seventeenth century, owing
to the disastrous part which Christian IV. of Denmark took in the
Thirty Years' War, his kingdom was shorn of its ancient power and was
overshadowed by the might of Sweden. One Theodore Reinking, lamenting
the diminished glory of his race, wrote a book entitled _Dania ad
exteros de perfidia Suecorum_ (1644). It was not a very excellent work,
neither was its author a learned or accurate historian, but it aroused
the anger of the Swedes, who cast Reinking into prison. There he
remained many years, when at length he was offered his freedom on the
condition that he should either lose his head or eat his book. Our
author preferred the latter alternative, and with admirable cleverness
devoured his book when he had converted it into a sauce. For his own
sake we trust his work was not a ponderous or bulky volume.




CHAPTER VII. SATIRE.


Roger Rabutin de Bussy--M. Dassy--Trajan Boccalini--Pierre
Billard--Pietro Aretino--Felix Hemmerlin--John Giovanni
Cinelli--Nicholas Francus--Lorenzo Valla--Ferrante Pallavicino--François
Gacon--Daniel Defoe--Du Rosoi--Caspar Scioppius.


To "sit in the seat of the scorner" has often proved a dangerous
position, as the writers of satires and lampoons have found to their
cost, although their sharp weapons have often done good service in
checking the onward progress of Vice and Folly. All authors have not
shown the poet's wisdom who declared:--

  "Satire's my weapon, but I'm too discreet
  To run amuck, and tilt at all I meet."

Nor have all the victims of satire the calmness and self-possession
of the philosopher who said: "If evil be said of thee, and it be true,
correct thyself; if it be a lie, laugh at it." It would have been well
for those who indulged in this style of writing, if all the victims of
their pens had been of the same mind as Frederick the Great, who said
that time and experience had taught him to be a good post-horse, going
through his appointed daily stage, and caring nothing for the curs that
barked at him along the road.

Foremost among the writers of satire stands Count Roger Rabutin de
Bussy, whose mind was jocose, his wit keen, and his sarcasm severe.
He was born in 1618, and educated at a college of Jesuits, where he
manifested an extraordinary avidity for letters and precocious talents.
The glory of war fired his early zeal, and for sixteen years he followed
the pursuit of arms. Then literature claimed him as her slave. His first
book, _Les amours du Palais Royal_, excited the displeasure of King
Louis XIV., and prepared the way for his downfall. In his _Histoire
amoureuse des Gaules_ (Paris, 1665, 1 vol., in-12) he satirised the lax
manners of the French Court during the minority of the King, and had the
courage to narrate the intrigue which Louis carried on with La Vallière.
He spares few of the ladies of the Court, and lashes them all with his
satire, amongst others Mesdames d'Olonne and de Chatillon. Unhappily
for the Count, he showed the book, when it was yet in MS., to the
Marchioness de Beaume, his intimate friend. But the best of friends
sometimes quarrel, and unfortunately the Count and the good lady
quarrelled while yet the MS. was in her possession. A grand opportunity
for revenge thus presented itself. She showed to the ladies of the Court
the severe verses which the Count had written; and his victims were so
enraged that they carried their complaints to the King, who had already
felt the weight of the author's blows in some verses beginning:--

  "Que Deodatus est heureux
  De baiser ce bec amoureux,
  Qui, d'une oreille à l'autre va.
      Alléluia," etc.

This aroused the anger of the self-willed monarch, who ordered the
author to be sent to the Bastille, and then to be banished from the
kingdom for ever. Bussy passed sixteen years in exile, and occupied
his enforced leisure by writing his memoirs, _Les mémoires de Roger
de Rabutin, Comte de Bussi_ (Paris, 1697), in which he lauded himself
amazingly, and a history of the reign of Louis XIV., which abounded
in base flattery of the "Great Monarch." Bussy earned the title of the
French Petronius, by lashing with his satirical pen the debaucheries of
Louis and his Court after the same manner in which the Roman philosopher
ridiculed the depravity of Nero and his satellites. His style was always
elegant, and his satire, seemingly so playful and facetious, stung his
victims and cut them to the quick. This was a somewhat dangerous gift
to the man who wielded the whip when the Grand Monarch felt the lash
twisting around his royal person. Therefore poor Bussy was compelled to
end his days in exile.

A book fatal to its author, M. Dassy, a Parisian lawyer, was one which
bore the title _Consultation pour le Baron et la Baronne de Bagge_
(Paris, 1777, in-4). It attacked M. Titon de Villotran, counsellor
of the Grand Chamber, who caused its author to be arrested. The book
created some excitement, and contained some severe criticisms on
the magistrates and the ecclesiastical authorities as well as on the
aggrieved Villotran. Parliament confirmed the order for Dassy's arrest,
but he contrived to effect his escape to Holland. He was a rich man, who
did much to relieve and assist the poor, while he delighted to attack
and satirise the prosperous and the great.

The Italian satirist Trajan Boccalini, born at Loretto in 1556, was also
one upon whom Court favour shone. He was surrounded by a host of friends
and admirers, and was appointed Governor of the States of the Church.
He was one of the wittiest and most versatile of authors, and would have
risen to positions of greater dignity, if only his pen had been a
little less active and his satire less severe. He wrote a book entitled
_Ragguagli di Parnasso_ (1612), which was most successful. In this work
he represents Apollo as judge of Parnassus, who cites before him kings,
authors, warriors, statesmen, and other mighty personages, minutely
examines their faults and crimes, and passes judgment upon them.
Inasmuch as these people whom Apollo condemned were his contemporaries,
it may be imagined that the book created no small stir, and aroused the
wrath of the victims of his satire. Boccalini was compelled to leave
Rome and seek safety in Venice. He also wrote a bitter satire upon
the Spanish misrule in Italy, entitled _Pietra del paragone politico_
(1615). In this book he showed that the power of the King of Spain in
Italy was not so great as men imagined, and that it would be easy to
remove the Spanish yoke from their necks. In Venice he imagined himself
safe; but his powerful foes hired assassins to "remove" the obnoxious
author. He was seized one day by four strong men, cast upon a couch, and
beaten to death with bags filled with sand. The elegance of his style,
his witticisms and fine Satire, have earned for Boccalini the title of
the Italian Lucian.

To scoff at the powerful Jesuits was not always a safe pastime, as
Pierre Billard discovered, who, on account of his work entitled _La Bête
à sept têtes_, was sent to the Bastille, and subsequently to the prisons
of Saint-Lazare and Saint-Victor. The Society objected to be compared
to the Seven-headed Beast, and were powerful enough to ruin their bold
assailant, who died at Charenton in 1726.

Another Italian satirist, Pietro Aretino, acquired great fame, but not
of a creditable kind. Born at Arezzo in 1492, he followed the trade of
a bookbinder; but not confining his labour to the external adornment
of books, he acquired some knowledge of letters. He began his career by
writing a satirical sonnet against indulgences, and was compelled to
fly from his native place and wander through Italy. At Rome he found
a temporary resting-place, where he was employed by Popes Leo X. and
Clement VII. Then he wrote sixteen gross sonnets on the sixteen obscene
pictures of Giulio Romano [Footnote: These were published under the
title of _La corona de i cazzi, cioë, sonetti lussuriosi del Pietro
Aretino. Stamp. senza Luogo ne anno, in-16_. The engravings in this
edition, the work of Marc Antonio of Bolgna, were no less scandalous
than the sonnets, and the engraver was ordered to be arrested by Pope
Clement VII., and only escaped punishment by flight.], which were so
intolerable that he was again forced to fly and seek an asylum at Milan
under the protection of the "black band" led by the famous Captain
Giovanni de Medici. On the death of this leader he repaired to Venice,
where he lived by his pen. He began a series of satires on princes and
leading men, and earned the title of _flagellum principum_. Aretino
adopted the iniquitous plan of demanding gifts from those he proposed
to attack, in order that by these bribes they might appease the libeller
and avert his onslaught. Others employed him to libel their enemies.
Thus the satirist throve and waxed rich and prosperous. His book
entitled _Capricium_ was a rude and obscene collection of satires on
great men. His prolific pen poured forth _Dialogues, Sonnets, Comedies_,
and mingled with a mass of discreditable and licentious works we find
several books on morality and theology. These he wrote, not from any
sense of piety and devotion, but simply for gain, while his immoral life
was a strange contrast to his teaching. He published a Paraphrase on
the seven Penitential Psalms (Venice, 1534), and a work entitled _De
humanitate sive incarnatione Christi_ (Venice, 1535), calling himself
Aretino the divine, and by favour of Pope Julius III. he nearly obtained
a Cardinal's hat. Concerning his Paraphrase a French poet wrote:--

  "Si ce livre unit le destin
  De David et de l'Arétin,
  Dans leur merveilleuse science,
  Lecteur n'en sois pas empêché
  Qui paraphrase le péché
  Paraphrase la pénitence."

Utterly venal and unscrupulous, we find him at one time enjoying the
patronage of Francis I. of France, and then abusing that monarch and
basking in the favour of the Emperor Charles V., who paid him more
lavishly. His death took place at Venice in 1557. Some say that he, the
_flagellum_ of princes, was beaten to death by command of the princes
of Italy; others narrate that he who laughed at others all his life
died through laughter. His risible faculties being on one occasion so
violently excited by certain obscene jests, he fell from his seat, and
struck his head with such violence against the ground that he died.

The town of Zürich was startled in the fifteenth century by finding
itself the object of the keen satire of one of its canons, Felix
Hemmerlin, who wrote a book entitled _Clarissimi viri jurumque Doctoris
Felicis Malleoli Hemmerlini variae oblectationis Opuscula et Tractatus
(Basileae_, 1494, folio). The clergy, both regular and secular, were
also subjected to his criticism. The book is divided into two parts; the
first is a dialogue _de Nobilitate et Rusticitate_, and the second is
a treatise against the mendicant friars, monks, Beghards, and Béguines.
The town of Zürich was very indignant at this bold attack, and deprived
the poor author of his benefices and of his liberty.

Italian air seems to have favoured satire, but Italian susceptibility
was somewhat fatal to the satirists. Giovanni Cinelli, born in 1625,
taught medicine at Florence and was illustrious for his literary
productions. He allied himself with Antonio Magliabecchi, who afforded
him opportunities of research in the library of the Grand Duke. He began
the great work entitled _Bibliotheca volans_, the fourth section of
which brought grievous trouble upon its author. It was all caused by
an unfortunate note which attacked the doctor of the Grand Duke. This
doctor was highly indignant, and reported Cinelli to the Tribunal. The
book was publicly burnt by the hangman, and Cinelli was confined in
prison ninety-*three days and then driven into exile. His misfortunes
roused his anger, and he published at his retreat at Venice a bitter
satire on men of all ranks entitled _Giusticazione di Giovanni Cinelli_
(1683), exciting much hostility against him. He died at the age
of seventy years in the Castle of San Lorenzo, A.D. 1705, and his
_Bibliotheca volans_ was continued and completed by Sancassani under the
fictitious name of Philoponis.

Nicholas Francus, an Italian poet of the sixteenth century, was a
graceful writer and very skilled in the Latin, Greek, and Etruscan
languages, but incurred a grievous fate on account of his severe
satire on Pope Pius IV. The stern persecutor of Carranza, the powerful
Archbishop of Toledo, was not a person to be attacked with impunity. The
cause of the poet's resentment against the Pope was the prohibition of
a certain work, entitled _Priapeia_, which Francus had commenced,
describing the feasts of Priapus. Pius IV. refused to allow the poet to
complete his book, and ordered that which he had already written to be
burned. This was too much for the equanimity of the poet, whose eye
was with fine frenzy rolling, and he began to assail the Pope with all
manner of abuse. For some time the punishment for his rash writing was
postponed, on account of the protection of a powerful Cardinal; but
on the death of Pius IV. Francus sharpened his pen afresh, and sorely
wounded the memory of his deceased foe. In one of his satires the words
of St. John's Gospel, _verbum caro factum est_, were inserted; and the
charge of profanity was brought against him. At length Pius V. condemned
him to death. Some historians narrate that the poor poet was hung on
a beam attached to the famous statue of the Gladiator in front of the
Palace of the Orsini, called the Pasquin, to which the deriders
and enemies of the Pope were accustomed to affix their epigrams and
pamphlets. These were called _Pasquinades_, from the curious method
adopted for their publication. Others declare that he suffered
punishment in a funereal chamber draped with black; while another
authority declares that the poet, the victim of his own satires, was
hung on a fork-shaped gibbet, not on account of his abuse of Pius IV.,
but through the hatred of Pius V., which some personal quarrel had
excited. This conjecture is, however, probably false.

Francus was a true poet, endowed with a vivid imagination and with a
delicate and subtle wit. He scorned the coarse invective in which the
satirists of his day used to delight. He had many enemies on account of
his plain-spoken words and keen criticisms. The problem which perplexed
the Patriarch Job--the happiness of prosperous vice, the misery of
persecuted virtue--tormented his mind and called forth his embittered
words. He inveighed against the reprobates and fools, the crowds of
monsignors who were as vain of their effeminacy as the Scipios of their
deeds of valour; he combated abuses, and with indignant pen heaped scorn
upon the fashionable vices of the age. The Pope and his Cardinals, stung
by his shafts of satire, cruelly avenged themselves upon the unhappy
poet, and, as we have said, doomed him to death in the year 1569. His
Dialogues were printed in Venice by Zuliani in 1593, under the title
_Dialoghi piacevolissimi di Nicolo Franco da Benevento_; and there is a
French translation, made by Gabriel Chapins, published at Lyons in 1579,
entitled _Dix plaisans Dialogues du sieur Nicolo Franco_.

Lorenzo Valla, born at Rome in 1406, was one of the greatest scholars of
his age, and contributed more than any other man to the revival of
the love of Latin literature in the fifteenth century. His works
are voluminous. He translated into Latin _Herodotus_ (Paris, 1510),
_Thucydides_ (Lyons, 1543), _The Iliad_ (Venice, 1502), _Fables of
Aesop_ (Venice, 1519); and wrote _Elegantiae Sermonis Latini_, a history
of Ferdinand Aragon (Paris, 1521), and many other works, which are the
monuments of his learning and industry. But Valla raised against him
many enemies by the severity of his satire on almost all the learned men
of his time. He spared no one, and least of all the clerics, who sought
his destruction. A friend advised him that, unless he was weary of life,
he ought to avoid heaping his satirical abuse on the Roman priests and
bishops. He published a work on the pretended Donation of Constantine to
the Papal See, and for this and other writings pronounced heretical by
the Inquisition he was cast into prison, and would have suffered death
by fire had not his powerful friend Alphonso V., King of Aragon, rescued
him from the merciless Holy Office. Valla was compelled publicly
to renounce his heretical opinions, and then, within the walls of a
monastery, his hands having been bound, he was beaten with rods. It is
unnecessary to follow the fortunes of Valla further. He was engaged in
a long controversy with the learned men of his time, especially with the
facetious Poggio, whose wit was keener though his language was not so
forcible. Erasmus in his Second Epistle defends Valla in his attacks
upon the clergy, and asks, "Did he speak falsely, because he spoke the
truth too severely?" Valla died at Naples in 1465. The following epigram
testifies to the correctness of his Latinity and the severity of his
criticisms:--

  _Nunc postquam manes defunctus Valla petivit,
    Non audet Pluto verba latina loqui.
  Jupiter hunc coeli dignatus honore fuisset,
    Censorem lingua sed timet esse suae._

Raphael Maffei, surnamed Volaterranus, the compiler of the _Commentarii
urbani_ (1506), a huge encyclopaedia published in thirty-eight books,
composed the following witty stanza on the death of Valla:--

  _Tandem Valla silet solitus qui parcere nulli est
  Si quaeris quid agat? nunc quoque mordet humum._

Our list of Italian satirists closes with Ferrante Pallavicino, a witty
Canon, born at Plaisance in 1618, who ventured to write satirical
poems on the famous nepotist, Pope Urban VIII., and all his family, the
Barberini. Some of his poems were entitled _Il corriero sualigiato, Il
divortio celeste, La baccinata_, which were published in a collection of
his complete works at Venice in 1655. His selected works were published
at Geneva in 1660. He made a playful allusion to the Barberini on the
title-page of his work, where there appeared a crucifix surrounded by
burning thorns and bees, with the verse of the Psalmist _Circumdederunt
me sicut apes, et exarserunt sicut ignis in spinis_, alluding to the
bees which that family bear on their arms. Pallavicino lived in safety
for some time at Venice, braving the anger of his enemies. Unfortunately
he wished to retire to France, and during his journey passed through the
territory of the Pope. He was accompanied by a Frenchman, one Charles
Morfu, who pretended great friendship for him, admired his works, and
scoffed at the Barberini with jests as keen as the Canon's own satires.
But the Frenchman betrayed him to his foes, and poor Pallavicino paid
the penalty of his rashness by a cruel death in the Papal Palace at
Avignon at the early age of twenty-nine years. His strictures on Urban
and his family were well deserved. The Pope heaped riches and favours
on his relations. He made three of his nephews cardinals, and the fourth
was appointed General of the Papal troops. So odious did the family
make themselves by their exactions that on the death of Urban they
were forced to leave Rome and take refuge in France. Pallavicino had
certainly fitting subjects for his satirical verses.

François Gacon, a French poet and satirist of the eighteenth century,
suffered imprisonment on account of his poems, entitled _Le Poëte sans
fard, ou Discours satyriques sur toutes sortes de sujets_ (Paris, 2
vols., in-12). His satire was very biting and not a little scurrilous,
and was famous for the quantity rather than the quality of his poetical
effusions. We give the following example of his skill, in which he
discourses upon the different effects which age produces on wine and
women:--

  "Une beauté, quand elle avance en âge,
  A ses amans inspire du dégoût;
  Mais, pour le vin, il a cet avantage,
  Plus il vieillit, plus il flatte le goût."

The literary world of Paris in 1708 was very much disturbed by certain
satirical verses which seemed to come from an unknown hand and empty
cafés as if with the magic of a bomb. The Café de la Laurent was the
famous resort of the writers of the time, where Rousseau and Lamothe
reigned as chiefs of the literary Parnassus amid a throng of poets,
politicians, and wits. Some malcontent poet thought fit to disturb the
harmony of this brilliant company by publishing some very satirical
couplets directed against the frequenters of the café. This so enraged
the company that they deserted the unfortunate café, and selected
another for their rendezvous. But other verses, still more severe,
followed them. Jean Baptist Rousseau was suspected as their author; he
denied the supposition and accused Saurin; but Rousseau was found to
be guilty and was banished from the kingdom for ever, as the author and
distributer of "certain impure and satirical verses."

Amongst satirical writers who have suffered hard fates we must mention
the illustrious author of _Robinson Crusoe_, Daniel Defoe. A strong
partisan of the Nonconformist cause during the controversial struggle
between Church and Dissent in the reign of Queen Anne, he published
a pamphlet entitled _The Shortest Way with the Dissenters_ (1702), in
which he ironically advised their entire extermination. This pleased
certain of the Church Party who had not learned the duty of charity
towards the opinions of others, nor the advantages of Religious Liberty.
Nor were they singular in this respect, as the Dissenting Party had
plainly shown when the power was in their hands. Happily wiser counsels
prevail now. When Defoe's jest was discovered, and his opponents found
that the book was "writ sarcastic," they caused the unhappy author to be
severely punished. Parliament condemned his book to the flames, and
its author to the pillory and to prison. On his release he wrote other
political pamphlets, which involved him in new troubles; and, disgusted
with politics, he turned his versatile talents to other literary
work, and produced his immortal book _Robinson Crusoe_, which has been
translated into all languages, and is known and read by every one.

Young's _Night Thoughts_ might not be considered a suitable form of poem
for parody, but this M. Durosoi, or Du Rosoi, accomplished in his _Les
Jours d'Ariste_ (1770), and was sent to the Bastille for his pains. The
cause of his condemnation was that he had published this work without
permission, and also perhaps on account of certain political allusions
contained in his second work, _Le Nouvel Ami des Hommes_, published
in the same year. But a worse fate awaited Du Rosoi on account of his
writings. In the dangerous years of 1791 and 1792 he edited _La Gazette
de Paris_, which procured greater celebrity for him, and brought about
his death. When the fatal tenth of August came, the Editor was not to
be found in Paris. However, ultimately he was secured and condemned
to death by the tribunal extraordinary appointed by the Legislative
Assembly to judge the enemies of the new government. He died with great
bravery at the hands of the revolutionary assassins, after telling his
judges that as a friend of the King he was accounted worthy to die on
that day, the Feast of Saint Louis.

All the venom of satirical writers seems to have been collected by
that strange author Gaspar Scioppius, who had such a singular lust for
powerful invective that he cared not whom he attacked, and made himself
abhorred by all. This Attila of authors was born in Germany in 1576,
went to Rome, abjured Protestantism, and was raised to high honours
by Pope Clement VIII. In return for these favours he wrote
several treatises in support of the Papal claims, amongst others
_Ecclesiasticus_, which was directed against James I. of England.
Concerning this book Casaubon wrote in his Epistle CLV.: "Know
concerning Scioppius that some of his works have been burned not only
here at London by the command of our most wise King, but also at Paris
by the hand of the hangsman. I have written a letter, which I will send
to you, if I am able, against that beast." He poured the vials of his
wrath upon the Jesuits, declaring in his _Relatio ad reges et principes
de stratagematibus Societatis Jesu_ (1635) that there was no truth to
be found in Italy, and that this was owing entirely to the Jesuits, who
"keep back the truth in injustice, who, rejecting the cup of Christ,
drink the cup of devils full of all abominations." This roused their
wrath, and by their designs our author was imprisoned at Venice. There
he would have been slain, if he had not enjoyed the protection of a
powerful Venetian. He boasted that his writings had had such an effect
on two of his literary opponents, Casaubon and Scaliger, as to cause
them to die from vexation and disappointment. He made himself so many
powerful enemies that towards the end of his life he knew not where to
find a secure retreat. This "public pest of letters and society," as the
Jesuits delighted to call him, died at Padua in 1649 hated by all, both
Catholics and Protestants. He wrote one hundred and four works, of
which the most admired is his _Elementa philosophiae moralis stoicae_
(Mayence, 1606).




CHAPTER VIII. POETRY.

Adrian Beverland--Cecco d'Ascoli--George Buchanan--Nicodemus
Frischlin--Clement Marot--Caspar Weiser--John
Williams--Deforges--Théophile--Helot--Matteo Palmieri--La Grange--Pierre
Petit--Voltaire--Montgomery--Keats--Joseph Ritson.


The haunters of Parnassus and the wearers of the laurel crown have
usually been loved by their fellows, save only when satire has mingled
with their song and filled their victims' minds with thoughts of
vengeance. In the last chapter we have noticed some examples of
satirical writers who have clothed their libellous thoughts in verse,
and suffered in consequence. But the woes of poets, caused by those
who listened to their song, have not been numerous. Shakespeare classes
together "the lunatic, the lover, and the poet" as being "of imagination
all compact"; and perchance the poet has shared with the madman the
reverence which in some countries is bestowed on the latter.

However, all have not so escaped the destinies of fate. Some think that
Ovid incurred the wrath of Augustus Caesar through his verses on the art
of loving, and was on that account driven into exile, which he mourned
so melodiously and complained of so querulously. In a period less remote
we find Adrian Beverland wandering away from the true realm of poetry
and taking up his abode in the pesthouse of immorality. He was born at
Middlebourg in 1653, and studied letters at the University of Leyden.
He began his career by publishing indecent poems. He wrote a very
iniquitous book, _De Peccato originali_, in which he gave a very base
explanation of the sin of our first parents; and although considerable
licence was allowed to authors in the Netherlands at that time,
nevertheless the magistrates and professors of Leyden condemned the book
to be burned and its author to banishment. The full title of the work
is _Hadriani Beverlandi peccatum originale philogicé elucubratum, à
Themidis alumno. Eleutheropoli, in horto Hesperidum, typis Adami, Evae,
Terrae filii_ (1678, in-8). He seems to have followed Henri Cornelius
Agrippa in his idea that the sin of our first parents arose from sexual
desire. Leonard Ryssenius refuted the work in his _Justa detestatio
libelli sceleratissimi Hadriani Beverlandi, de Peccato originali_
(1680). He would doubtless have incurred a harder fate on account of
another immoral work, entitled _De prostibulis veterum_, if one of his
relations had not charitably committed it to the flames. Before
the sentence of banishment had been pronounced he wrote an apology,
professed penitence, and was allowed to remain at Utrecht, where he
composed several pamphlets. Being exiled on account of the indecency
of his writings, he came to England, where he affected decorum, and
his friend and countryman Isaac Vossius, who enjoyed the patronage of
Charles II. and was Canon of Windsor, obtained for him a pension charged
upon some ecclesiastical fund. Never were ecclesiastical funds applied
to a baser use; for although Beverland wrote another book [Footnote: _De
fornicatione cavendâ admonitio (Londini, Bateman_, 1697, in-8).] with
the apparent intention of warning against vice, the argument seemed to
inculcate the lusts which he condemned. Having become insane he died, in
extreme poverty, in 1712. He imagined that he was pursued by a hundred
men who had sworn to kill him.

An early poet who suffered death on account of his writings was Cecco
d'Ascoli, Professor of Astrology at the famous University of Bologna in
1322. His poems have been collected and published under the title _Opere
Poetiche del' illustro poeta Cecco d'Ascoli, cioë, l'acerba. In Venetia,
per Philippum Petri et Socios, anno 1478_, in-4. The printer of this
work, Philippus Condam Petri (Philippo de Piero Veneto) is one of the
earliest and most famous of Venetian printers, and produced several of
the incunabula which we now prize so highly. The absurdities of Cecco
contained in his poems merited for their author a place in a lunatic
asylum, rather than on a funeral pile. He was, however, burnt alive
at Bologna in 1327. He believed in the influence of evil spirits, who,
under certain constellations, had power over the affairs of men; that
our Saviour, Jesus Christ, was born under a certain constellation which
obliged Him to poverty; whereas Antichrist would come into the world
under a certain planet which would make him enormously wealthy. He
continued to proclaim these amazing delusions at Bologna, and was
condemned by the Inquisition. The poet escaped punishment by submission
and repentance. But two years later he announced to the Duke of
Calabria, who asked him to cast the horoscope of his wife and daughter,
that they would betake themselves to an infamous course of life. This
prophecy was too much for the Duke. Cecco was again summoned to appear
before the Inquisitors, who condemned him to the stake. At his execution
a large crowd assembled to see whether his familiar genii would arrest
the progress of the flames. The poet's real name was François de
Stabili, Cecco being a diminutive form of Francesco. There are many
editions of his work. The "lunatic" and the "poet" were certainly in his
case not far removed.

A very different man was the illustrious author and historian of
Scotland, George Buchanan, who was born in 1506. After studying in
Paris, he returned to Scotland, and became tutor of the Earl of Murray,
the natural son of James V. The Franciscan monks were not very popular
at this period, and at the suggestion of the King Buchanan wrote a
satirical poem entitled _Silva Franciscanorum_, in which he censured
the degenerate followers of St. Francis, and harassed them in many ways.
This poem so enraged the monks that they seized him and imprisoned
him in one of their monasteries. One night, while his guards slept,
he contrived to escape by a window, and underwent great perils. He
published two other severe satirical poems on the Franciscans, entitled
_Fratres Fraterrimi_ and _Franciscanus_. It is scarcely necessary to
follow his fortunes further, as Buchanan's history is well known. After
teaching at Paris, Bordeaux, and at Coimbre in Portugal, he returned to
Scotland, and was entrusted by Mary, Queen of Scots, with the education
of her son. Buchanan then embraced Protestantism, opposed the Queen in
the troubles which followed, and received from Parliament the charge
of the future Solomon of the North, James VI. of Scotland and I. of
England. He devoted his later life to historical studies, and produced
his famous _History of Scotland_ in twelve books, _De Maria Regina
ejusque conspiratione_, in which he attacked the reputation of the
Queen, and _De jure regni apud Scotos_, a book remarkable for the
liberalism of the ideas which were therein expressed. His royal pupil
did not treat Buchanan's History with due respect; he caused it to be
proclaimed at the Merkat Cross, and ordered every one to bring his copy
"to be perused and purged of the offensive and extraordinary matters."
In the reign of Charles II. the University of Oxford ordered Buchanan's
_De jure regni_, together with certain other works, to be publicly burnt
on account of certain obnoxious propositions deducible from them; such
as "Wicked kings and tyrants ought to be put to death." He published a
paraphrase of the Psalms of David in verse, which has been much praised.
The Jesuits were not very friendly critics of our author, for they
asserted that Buchanan showed in his life little of the piety of David,
and stated that during thirty years he did not deliver a single sermon,
even on Sundays. "But who is ignorant," observes M. Klotz, "of the lust
of these men for calumny?"

Another poet had occasion to adopt the same mode of escape which
Buchanan successfully accomplished, but with less happy results. This
was Nicodemus Frischlin, a German poet and philosopher, born in the
duchy of Würtemberg in 1547. At an early age he showed great talents;
honours clustered thickly on his brow. At the age of twenty years he
was made Professor of Belles-Lettres at Tubingen; he received from the
Emperor Rudolph the poetic crown with the title of _chevalier_, and
was made Count Palatin as a reward for his three panegyrics composed in
honour of the emperors of the House of Austria. Certainly Fortune smiled
upon her favourite, but Envy raised up many enemies, who were eager to
find occasion against the successful poet. He afforded them a pretext in
his work _De laudibus vitae rusticae_, which, in spite of its innocent
title, grievously offended the nobles, who were already embittered
against him on account of his arrogance and turbulence, and his keen
and unsparing satire. So bitter was their hostility that the poet
was compelled to leave Tubingen, and became a wandering philosopher,
sometimes teaching in schools, always pouring forth poems, elegies,
satires, tragedies, comedies, and epics. Being eager to publish some
of his works and not having sufficient means, he applied to the Duke of
Würtemberg for a subsidy, at the same time furiously attacking his old
opponents. This so exasperated the chief men of the Court, that they
persuaded the Duke to recall Frischlin; but instead of finding a welcome
from his old patron, he was cast into prison, in order that he might
unlearn his presumption, and acquire the useful knowledge that modesty
is the chief ornament of a learned man. But Frischlin did not agree with
another poet's assertion:--

  "Stone walls do not a prison make,
   Nor iron bars a cage."

Having raged and stormed, and tried in vain to obtain release, he
resolved to escape. From his prison window he let himself down by a rope
made out of his bed-clothes, but unfortunately the rope broke and the
poor poet fell upon the hard rocks beneath his chamber window and was
injured fatally. Frischlin was considered one of the best Latin poets
of post-classical times; but his genius was marred by his immoderate and
bitter temper, which caused him to imagine that the gentle banter and
jocular remarks of his acquaintances were insults to be repaid by angry
invective and bitter sarcasm, with which his writings abound.

Clement Marot was one of the most famous of early French poets, and the
creator of the school of naïve poetry in which La Fontaine afterwards
so remarkably excelled. His poetical version of the Psalms was read
and sung in many lands; and in spite of prohibition copies could not be
printed so fast as they were eagerly bought. They were at one time as
popular in the Court of Henry II. of France as they were amongst the
Calvinists of Geneva and Holland. In 1521 we find him fighting in the
Duke of Alençon's army, when he was wounded at the battle of Pavia. Then
his verses caused their author suffering, and he was imprisoned on the
charge of holding heretical opinions. His epistles in poetry written
to the King contain a record of his life, his fear of imprisonment, his
flight, his arrest by his enemies of the Sorbonne, his release by order
of the King, and his protestations of orthodoxy. But he seems to have
adopted the principles of the Reformation, and France was no safe place
for him. In Geneva and Piedmont he found resting-places, and died in
1544. His translation of the Psalms into harmonious verse, which
was sung both by the peasants and the learned, was the cause of his
persecution by the doctors of the Sorbonne. He complains bitterly to the
Lyons printer, Dolet, that many obscene and unworthy poems were ascribed
to him and printed amongst his works of which he was not the author. As
an example of his verse I quote the beginning of Psalm cxli.:--

  "Vers l'Eternel des oppressez le pere
  Je m'en iray, luy monstrant l'impropere
  Que l'on me faict, luy ferai ma priere
  A haulte voix, qu'il ne jette en arriere
  Mes piteux cris, car en lui seul j'espere."

It is not often that a poet loses his head for a single couplet, but
this seems to have been the fate of Caspar Weiser, Professor of Lund
in Sweden. At first he showed great loyalty to his country, and wrote a
panegyric on the coronation of Charles XI., King of Sweden. But a short
time afterwards he appears to have changed his political opinions,
for when the city was captured by the Danes in 1676, Weiser met the
conqueror, and greeted him with the words:--

  _Perge Triumphator reliquas submittere terras,
  Sic redit ad Dominum, quod fuit ante, suum_.

This verse was fatal to him. The Swedish monarch recovered his lost
territory; the Danes were expelled, and the poor poet was accused of
treason and beheaded.

The same hard fate befell John Williams in 1619, who was hanged, drawn,
and quartered, on account of two poems, _Balaam's Ass_ and _Speculum
Regis_, the MSS. of which he foolishly sent secretly in a box to King
James. The monarch was always fearful of assassination, and as one of
the poems foretold his speedy decease, the prophet incurred the King's
wrath and suffered death for his pains.

A single poem was fatal to Deforges, entitled _Vers sur l'arrestation
du Prétendant d'Angleterre, en 1749_. It commences with the following
lines:--

  "Peuple, jadis si fier, aujourd'hui si servile,
  Des princes malheureux, tu n'es donc plus l'asyle?"

He happened to be present at the Opera House in Paris when the
young Pretender was arrested, and being indignant at this breach of
hospitality, and believing that the honour of the nation had been
compromised, he wrote these bitter verses. His punishment was severe. He
was arrested and conducted to the gloomy fortress of Mont-Saint-Michel,
where he remained for three long years shut up in the cage. The floor
of this terrible prison, which was enveloped in perpetual darkness, was
only eight square feet. The poor poet bore his sufferings patiently,
and was befriended by M. de Broglie, Abbé of Saint-Michel, who obtained
permission for him to leave his cage and be imprisoned in the Abbey;
nor did he fail to take precautions lest the poor poet should lose his
eyesight on passing from the darkness of the dungeon to the light of
day. The good Abbé finally procured liberty for his captive, who became
secretary to M. de Broglie's brother, and subsequently, on the death of
Madame de Pompadour, commissioner of war. Terrible were the sufferings
which the unhappy Deforges endured on account of his luckless poem.

Théophile was condemned to be burned at Paris on account of his book _Le
Parnasse des Poètes Satyriques, ou Recueil de vers piquans et gaillards
de notre temps_ (1625, in-8), but he contrived to effect his escape.
He was ultimately captured in Picardy, and put in a dungeon. He was
banished from the kingdom by order of the Parliament. In his old age he
found an asylum in the house of the Duke of Montmorency. The poet's real
surname was Viaud. The following impromptu is attributed to Théophile,
who was asked by a foolish person whether all poets were fools:--

  "Oui, je l'avoue avec vous,
  Que tous les poètes sont fous;
  Mais sachant ce que vous êtes,
  Tous les fous ne sont pas poètes."

His poems are a mere collection of impieties and obscenities, published
with the greatest impudence, and well deserved their destruction. On one
occasion he travelled to Holland with Balzac, and used this opportunity
for bringing out an infamous charge against him, which he had most
probably invented. His book, the cause of all his woes, was burnt with
the poet's effigy in 1623.

Many authors have ruined themselves by writing scandalous works,
offensive to the moral feelings of not very scrupulous ages. Several
chapters might be written on this not very savoury subject. We may
mention Hélot's _L'Escole des Filles, par dialogues_ (Paris, 1672,
in-12). Hélot was the son of a lieutenant in the King's Swiss Guard. As
he succeeded in making his escape from prison, he was hung in effigy,
and his books were burnt. Chauveau, the celebrated engraver, who
designed a beautiful engraving for Hélot, not knowing for what purpose
it was intended, also incurred great risks, but fortunately he escaped
with no greater penalty than the breaking of the plate on which he had
engraved the design. The printer suffered with the author. Some think
that Hélot was burnt at Paris with his books.

The Muses have often lured men from other and safer delights, and
tempted them to wander in dangerous paths. Matteo Palmieri was a
celebrated Italian historian, born at Florence in 1405; he was a man of
much learning, endowed with great powers of energy and perseverance; he
was entrusted with several important embassies, and achieved fame as an
historian by his vast work _Chronicon Générale_, in which he set himself
the appalling task of writing the history of the world from the creation
to his own time. The first part of this work, consisting of extracts
from the writings of Eusebius and Prosper, remains unpublished. The rest
first saw the light in 1475, and subsequent editions appeared at Venice
in 1483, and at Basle in 1529 and 1536. He wrote also four books on
the Pisan War. Would that he had confined himself to his histories!
Unfortunately he wrote a poem, which was never published, entitled
_Citta Divina_, representing the soul released from the chains of the
body, and freed from earthly stain, wandering through various places,
and at last resting amid the company of the blessed in heaven. Our
souls are angels who in the revolt of Lucifer were unwilling to attach
themselves either to God or to the rebel hosts of heaven. So, as
a punishment, God made them dwell in mortal bodies in a state of
probation. This work was considered tainted with the Manichaean heresy,
and was condemned to the flames, and some assert that Palmieri shared
the fate of his book. This, however, is doubtful.

Very fatal to himself were the odes and philippics of M. La Grange,
written in 1720, and published in Paris in 1795, in-12, with the
title _Les Philippiques, Odes, par M. de la Grange-Chancel, Seigneur
d'Antoniat en Périgord, avec notes historiques, critiques, et
littéraires_. In these poems he attacked with malignant fury the Duke of
Orleans, Regent of France, and was obliged to fly for safety to Avignon.
There he was betrayed by a false friend, who persuaded him to walk into
French territory, and delivered him into the hands of a band of soldiers
prepared for his capture. The poet was conducted to the Isle of Ste.
Marguerite, and confined in a dungeon. The governor of the castle was
enchanted by his talents and gaiety, and gave him great liberty. But
Le Grange's pen was still restless. He must needs make a bitter epigram
upon his kind benefactor, which so aroused the governor's ire that the
poet was sent back to his dungeon cell. A piteous ode addressed to the
Regent imploring pardon secured for him a less rigorous confinement. He
succeeded in effecting his escape; then wandered through many lands;
and at last, on the death of the Regent in 1723, ventured to return
to France, where he lived many years and wrote much poetry and several
plays, dying in 1758. It has never been ascertained what was the cause
of his animosity to the Regent; certainly his verses glow with fiery
invective and abuse. He speaks of him as _un monstre farouche_. The
following example will perhaps be sufficient to be quoted:--

  "Il ouvrit à peine les paupières,
  Que, tel qu'il se montre aujourd'hui,
  Il fut indigné des barrières
  Qu'il vit entre le trône et lui.
  Dans ses détestables idées
  De l'art des Circés, des Médées,
  Il fit ses uniques plaisirs;
  Il crut cette voie infernale
  Digne de remplir l'intervalle
  Qui s'opposait à ses désirs."

Voltaire suffered one year's imprisonment in the Bastille on account of
a satirical poem on Louis XIV., and in confinement wrote an epic poem,
_La Henriade_. Some other storms raised by his works, such as his
_Lettres Philosophiques_ and his _Epître à Uranie_, he weathered by
flight, or by unscrupulously denying their authorship. The rest of his
works, contained in seventy volumes, do not concern our present purpose.

Our English poet James Montgomery began life as a poor shop-boy. At an
early age he began to write verses, and became editor of a Sheffield
newspaper. The troubles of the French Revolution then broke out, and
fired the extreme Radical spirit of the poetical editor. His writings
attracted the attention of the Government, and he was sent to prison,
where he wrote several poems--_Ode to the Evening Star, Pleasures of
Imprisonment_, and _Verses to a Robin Redbreast_.

As late as the middle of the seventeenth century a young unfortunate
poet, in spite of the interest of powerful friends, was hung and burnt
at Paris. This was young Pierre Petit, the author of _La B---- céleste,
chansons et autres Poésies libres_. His productions were certainly
infamous and scandalous, but that was no reason why the poet should have
been hanged. Moreover the poems existed only in MS.; subsequently they
were published in a _Recueil de Poésies_. The manner of the discovery
of the poems is curious, and serves as a warning to incautious bards.
Leaving his chamber one day, he opened the window, and unfortunately a
strong gust of wind carried several pages of MS. which were lying on
his table into the street. A priest who happened to be passing the house
examined one or two of the drifting poems, and, discovering that they
were impious, denounced Petit to the authorities. His rooms furnished
a large supply of similar work, and, as we have said, the poet paid the
penalty for his rashness at the gallows.

Although the methods of later critics are less severe than their
inquisitorial predecessors, they have not been without their victims,
and books maltreated by them have sometimes "done to death" their
authors.

A century ago furious invective was the fashion, and the tender mercies
of the reviewers were cruel. Poor Keats died of criticism, if Shelley's
story be true. On the appearance of _Endymion_ the review in _Blackwood_
told the young poet "to go back to his gallipots," and that it was a
wiser and better thing to be a starved apothecary than a starved poet.
Such vulgar abuse was certainly not criticism. Shelley wrote that "the
savage criticism on Keats' _Endymion_ which appeared in the _Quarterly
Review_ produced the most violent effects on his susceptible mind; the
agitation thus originated ended in the rupture of a blood-vessel in the
lungs; a rapid consumption ensued, and the succeeding acknowledgments
from more candid critics of the true greatness of his powers were
ineffectual to heal the wound thus wantonly inflicted. It may be well
said, that these wretched men know not what they do. They scatter their
insults and their slanders without heed as to whether the poisonous
shafts light on a heart made callous by many blows, or one like Keats',
composed of more penetrable stuff." And then addressing the reviewer he
says: "Miserable man! you, one of the meanest, have wantonly defaced one
of the noblest specimens of the workmanship of God. Nor shall it be
your excuse that, murderer as you are, you have spoken daggers, but used
none."

Joseph Ritson, the antiquary, who, though not a poet, was a great writer
on poetry and our early English songs and ballads, complained bitterly
of the ignorant reviewers, and described himself as brought to an end
in ill-health and low spirits--certain to be insulted by a base and
prostitute gang of lurking assassins who stab in the dark, and whose
poisoned daggers he had already experienced. Ritson himself was a
fairly venomous critic, and the "Ritsonian" style has become proverbial.
Nowadays authors do not usually die of criticism, not even susceptible
poets. Critics can still be severe enough, but they are just and
generous, and never descend to that scurrilous personal abuse of authors
which inflicted such severe wounds a century ago, and sometimes caused
to flow the very heart's blood of their victims.




CHAPTER IX. DRAMA AND ROMANCE.

Sir John Yorke and Catholic Plays--Abraham Cowley--Antoine
Danchet--Claude Crébillon--Nogaret--François de Salignac Fénélon.


Of the misfortunes of dramatists and romance-writers I have little to
record, but it would not be safe to conclude that this subject always
furnished a secure field for literary activity. However, the successes
of the writers of fiction and plays in our own times might console the
Muse for any indignities which her followers have suffered in the past.

In our own country the early inventors of dramatic
performances--Mysteries, Moralities, and Interludes--lived securely,
their names being unknown. When penal laws were in force against Roman
Catholics, plays inculcating their doctrines and worship were often
secretly performed in the houses of Catholic gentry. The anonymous
author was indeed safe, but Sir John Yorke and his lady were fined one
thousand pounds apiece and imprisoned in the Tower on account of a
play performed in their house at Christmas, 1614, containing "many foul
passages to the vilifying of our religion and exacting of popery."

Abraham Cowley was driven into retirement by his unfortunate play
_Cutter of Coleman Street_, which was an improved edition of his
unfinished comedy entitled _The Guardian_, acted at Cambridge before
the Court at the beginning of the Civil War. After the Restoration
he produced the revised version under the name of _Cutter of Coleman
Street_, the principal character being a merry person who bore that
cognomen. Some of the aspirants to royal favour persuaded the King that
the play was a satire directed against him and his Court, and the poor
poet, condemned by the enemies of the Muses, calumniated and deprived of
all hopes of preferment, retired in disgust to a country retreat among
the hills of Surrey. The disfavour of the Court was also increased by
his _Ode to Brutus_, wherein he had extolled the genius of his hero, and
praised liberty in language too enthusiastic for the Court of Charles
II. The spirit of melancholy claimed Cowley for her own. Disappointment
and disgust clouded his heart; ill-health followed, and soon the poor
poet breathed his last. As is not unusual, the learned and the great
mourned over and praised the dead poet whom when alive they had so
cruelly neglected.

Antoine Danchet was one of the most famous of French dramatic writers,
although his poetry was not of a very high order and lacked energy and
colour. He was born at Riom, in Auvergne, in 1671; he distinguished
himself at the college of the Oratorian fathers, and soon came to Paris
to become a teacher of youths and to finish his studies at the Jesuit
College. At a very early age he manifested a great love of poetry, and
when he used to recite the whole of Horace he was rewarded by a wealthy
patron with a present of thirty _louis d'ors_. He bore so noble a
character and had such a reputation for learning that a certain noble
lady on her death-bed entrusted him with the charge of her two sons,
giving him a pension of two hundred livres, on the condition that he
should never leave them. Soon after her death he was ordered to write
some verses for a ballet produced at Court; this led him to acquire
a taste for the theatre, and he produced in 1700 an opera entitled
_Hésione_, which met with a great success. The relations of his pupils
were aroused. It was scandalous that a teacher of youths should write
plays. All the arguments that superstition could suggest were used
against him. He must relinquish his charge; he must refund the pension
which he had received from the mistaken mother. But Danchet saw no
reason why he should conform to their demands, and refused to relinquish
his charge. They urged him still more vehemently, but met with the same
response. They at length refused to pay him the pension, and withdrew
his pupils from his care. A troublesome law-suit followed, but at length
the poet emerged triumphant from the troubles in which his love of
the drama had involved him. He produced also the tragedies of _Cyrus,
Tyndarides, Héraclides_, and _Nitétis_, but these did not meet with
the success of his earlier work. He was a devoted son to his mother,
depriving himself of even the necessaries of life in order to support
her. He showed himself a kind and generous friend to all, and always
took a keen interest in young men. One of these brought him an elegy
written to his mistress and bewailing her misfortunes. The verses began
with _Maison qui renfermes l'objet de mon amour_. "Is not that word
_maison_ rather feeble?" observed Danchet; "would not _palais, beau
lieu_ ... be better?" "Yes," replied the poet, "but it is a _maison de
force_, a prison!" A complete edition of his works was published after
his death in 1751.

The younger Crébillon (Claude Prosper Jolyot) was confined in the
Bastille on account of his satirical romance _Tanzai et Néadarné_ (1734,
2 vols., in-12). His father, Prosper Crébillon, was a very famous French
dramatic poet, and discarded the profession of the law for the sake
of the Muses. _Idomeneus, Atreus Electra, Rhadamistus_, and the
_Triumvirate_ were some of his works. The son possessed much of
his father's genius, and his wit and gaiety rendered him a pleasant
companion. At one time he was a great favourite amongst the _élite_ of
Parisian society. But his satirical and licentious romances brought
him into trouble, and the above-mentioned work conducted him to the
Bastille, wherein so many authors have been incarcerated. He died in
1777.

The name is not known of a young man who came to Paris with a marvellous
play which he felt sure would electrify the world and cover its author
with glory. Unhappily, he met with a cold reception by a stern critic,
who, with merciless severity, pointed out the glaring errors in his
beloved work. The poor author, overcome with vexation, returned home
with a broken heart, burnt his tragedy, and died of grief.

M. Nogaret is not the only author who has been unfortunate in the
selection of a subject for a romance. He wrote a book entitled _La
Capucinade_ (1765), and the heroes of his story are the Capuchin monks,
whom he treated somewhat severely. This work and his _Mémoires de
Bachaumont_ conducted the author to the Bastille.

Few are ignorant of that most charming, graceful, and immortal
work _Télémache_. Not only has it been studied and admired by every
Frenchman, but it has been translated into German, English, Spanish,
Flemish, and Italian. But in spite of the great popularity which the
work has enjoyed, perhaps few are acquainted with the troubles which
this poetic drama and romance brought upon its honoured author. François
de Salignac de la Mothe Fénélon, born in the castle of his ancestors
at Fénélon in 1651, was a man of rare piety, virtue, and learning,
who deservedly attained to the highest ecclesiastical honours, and was
consecrated Archbishop of Cambray. He had previously been appointed by
Louis XIV. tutor to the Dauphin, and his wit and grace made him a great
favourite at the Court, and even Madame de Maintenon for a time
smiled upon the noble churchman, whose face was so remarkable for its
expressiveness that, according to the Court chronicler Saint Simon, "it
required an effort to cease looking at him." His _Fables_ and _Dialogues
of the Dead_ were written for his royal pupil. It is well known that
the Archbishop sympathised strongly with Madame Guyon and the French
mystics, that he did not approve of some of the extravagant expressions
of that ardent enthusiast, but vindicated the pure mysticism in his
famous work _Maximes des Saints_. This work involved him in controversy
with Bossuet, and through the influence of Louis XIV. a bull was
wrung from Pope Innocent XII. condemning the book, and declaring that
twenty-three propositions extracted from it were "rash, scandalous, and
offensive to pious ears, pernicious and erroneous." The Pope was very
reluctant to pass this sentence of condemnation, and was induced to do
so through fear of Louis, and not because he considered the book to be
false. With his usual gentleness, Fénélon accepted the sentence without
a word of protest; he read the brief in his own cathedral, declaring
that the decision of his superiors was to him an echo of the Divine
Will. Fénélon had aroused the hatred of Madame de Maintenon by opposing
her marriage with the King, which took place privately in 1685, and she
did not allow any opportunity to escape of injuring and persecuting
the Archbishop. At this juncture, through the treachery of a servant,
_Télémache_ was published. At first it was received with high favour at
Court. It inculcated the truth that virtue is the glory of princes and
the happiness of nations, and while describing the adventures of the
son of Ulysses its author strove to establish the true system of
state-craft, and his work is imbued with a sense of beauty and
refinement which renders it a most pleasurable book to read. But Madame
de Maintenon was grievously offended by its success, and by the praise
which even Louis bestowed upon it. She easily persuaded him that the
work was a carefully executed satire directed against the ministers
of the Court, and that even the King himself was not spared. Malignant
tongues asserted that Madame de Montespan, the King's former mistress,
might be recognised under the guise of Calypso, Mademoiselle de
Fontanges in Eucharis, the Duchess of Bourgogne in Antiope, Louvois in
Prothésilas, King James in Idoménée, and Louis himself in Sésostris.
This aroused that monarch's indignation. Fénélon was banished from
Court, and retired to Cambray, where he spent the remaining years of his
life, honoured by all, and beloved by his many friends. Strangers came
to listen to his words of piety and wisdom. He performed his episcopal
duties with a care and diligence worthy of the earliest and purest ages
of the Church, and in this quiet seclusion contented himself in doing
good to his fellow-creatures, in spite of the opposition of the King,
the censures of the Pope, and the vehement attacks of his controversial
foes Bossuet and the Jansenists. In addition to his fatal book he
wrote _Démonstration de l'existence de Dieu, Réfutation du Système de
Malebranche_, and several other works.

The Jansenist Abbé Barral, in his _Dictionnaire Historique, Littéraire,
et Critique, des Hommes Célèbres_, thus speaks of our author and his
work: "He composed for the instruction of the Dukes of Burgundy, Anjou,
and Berri several works; amongst others, the Telemachus--a singular
book, which partakes at once of the character of a romance and of a
poem, and which substitutes a prosaic cadence for versification. But
several luscious pictures would not lead us to suspect that this book
issued from the pen of a sacred minister for the education of a prince;
and what we are told by a famous poet is not improbable, that Fénélon
did not compose it at Court, but that it is the fruits of his retreat in
his diocese. And indeed the amours of Calypso and Eucharis should not
be the first lessons that a minister ought to give to his scholars; and,
besides, the fine moral maxims which the author attributes to the Pagan
divinities are not well placed in their mouth. Is not this rendering
homage to the demons of the great truths which we receive from
the Gospel, and to despoil Jesus Christ to render respectable the
annihilated gods of paganism? This prelate was a wretched divine,
more familiar with the light of profane authors, than with that of the
fathers of the Church." The Jansenists were most worthy men, but in
their opinion of their adversary Fénélon they were doubtless mistaken.




CHAPTER X. BOOKSELLERS AND PUBLISHERS.

The Printers of Nicholas de Lyra and Caesar Baronius--John Fust--Richard
Grafton--Jacob van Liesvelt--John Lufftius--Robert Stephens
(Estienne)--Henry Stephens--Simon Ockley--Floyer Sydenham--Edmund
Castell--Page--John Lilburne--Etienne Dolet--John Morin--Christian
Wechel--Andrew Wechel--Jacques Froullé--Godonesche--William Anderton.


Authors have not been the only beings who have suffered by their
writings, but frequently they have involved the printers and sellers
of their works in their unfortunate ruin. The risks which adventurous
publishers run in our own enlightened age are not so great as those
incurred a few centuries ago. Indeed Mr. Walter Besant assures us that
now our publishers have no risks, not even financial! They are not
required to produce the huge folios and heavy quartos which our
ancestors delighted in, and poured forth with such amazing rapidity,
unless there is a good subscribers' list and all the copies are taken.

The misfortunes of booksellers caused by voluminous authors might form a
special subject of inquiry, and we commend it to the attentions of some
other Book-lover. We should hear the groans of two eminent printers who
were ruined by the amazing industry of one author, Nicholas de Lyra. He
himself died long before printing was invented, in the year 1340, but he
left behind him his great work, _Biblia sacra cum interpretationibus
et postillis_, which became the source of trouble to the printers,
Schweynheym and Pannartz, of Subiaco and Rome. They were persuaded or
ordered by the Pope or his cardinals to print his prodigious commentary
on the Bible; when a few volumes had been printed they desired most
earnestly to be relieved of their burden, and petitioned the Pope to be
saved from the bankruptcy which this mighty undertaking entailed.
They possessed a lasting memento of this author in the shape of eleven
hundred ponderous tomes, which were destined to remain upon their
shelves till fire or moths or other enemies of books had done their
work. These volumes began to be printed in 1471, and contain the
earliest specimens of Greek type.

The printers of the works of Prynne, Barthius, Reynaud, and other
voluminous writers must have had a sorry experience with their authors;
but "once bitten twice shy." Hence some of these worthies found it
rather difficult to publish their works, and there were no authors'
agents or Societies of Authors to aid their negotiations. Indeed we are
told that a printer who was saddled with a large number of unsaleable
copies of a heavy piece of literary production adopted the novel
expedient of bringing out several editions of the work! This he
accomplished by merely adding a new title-page to his old copies,
whereby he readily deceived the unwary.

Catherino, in his book entitled _L'Art d'Imprimer_, quotes the saying
of De Fourcey, a Jesuit of Paris, that "one might make a pretty
large volume of the catalogue of those who have entirely ruined their
booksellers by their books."

But the booksellers and printers whose hard fate I wish principally to
record are those who shared with the authors the penalties inflicted on
account of their condemned books. Unhappily there have been many such
whose fate has been recorded, and probably there are many more who have
suffered in obscurity the terrible punishments which the stern censors
of former days knew so well how to inflict.

One of the reputed discoverers of the art of printing, John Fust, is
said to have been persecuted; he was accused at Paris of multiplying the
Scriptures by the aid of the Devil, and was compelled to seek safety in
flight.

The booksellers of the historian Caesar Baronius, [Footnote: Cf. page
97.] whose account of the Spanish rule in Sicily so enraged Philip III.
of Spain, were condemned to perpetual servitude, and were forced to
endure the terrible tortures inflicted on galley slaves.

The early printers of the Bible incurred great risks. Richard Grafton
and Edward Whitchurch, together with Miles Coverdale, were entrusted to
arrange for the printing of Thomas Mathew's translation. The work was
given to the printers in Paris, as the English printers were not very
highly esteemed. The book was nearly completed when the Inquisition
effectually stopped the further progress of the work by seizing the
sheets, and Grafton with his companions were forced to fly. Then
Francis Regnault, whose brother's colophon is the admiration of all
bibliophiles, undertook the printing of the New Testament, made by Miles
Coverdale, which was finished at Paris in 1538. Richard Grafton and
Whitchurch contrived to obtain their types from Paris, and the Bible was
completed in 1539. Thus they became printers themselves, and as a reward
for his labour, when the Roman Catholics again became rulers in high
places, Richard Grafton was imprisoned. His printer's mark was a
_graft_, or young tree, growing out of a _tun_.

The title of the Bible which was begun in Paris and finished in London
is as follows:--

    _The Byble in Englyshe. 1539. Folio_.

    "The Byble in Englyshe, that is to saye the content of all the Holy
    Scrypture, bothe of the Olde, and Newe Testament, truly translated
    after the veryte of the Hebrue and Greke textes, by the dylygent
    studye of dyuerse excellent learned men, expert in the forsayde
    tongues. Printed by Rychard Grafton and Edward Whitchurche. Cum
    priuilegio--solum. 1539."

This Grafton was also a voluminous author, and wrote part of Hall's
Chronicles, an abridgment of the Chronicles of England, and a manual of
the same.

Whether by accident or intention, a printer of the Bible in the reign of
Charles I. omitted the important negative in the Seventh Commandment. He
was summoned to appear before the High Commission Court, and fined three
thousand pounds. The story is also told of the widow of a German printer
who strongly objected to the supremacy of husbands, and desired to
revise the text of the passage in the Sacred Scriptures which speaks
of the subjection of wives (Genesis iii. 16). The original text is
"He shall be thy _lord_." For _Herr_ (lord) in the German version she
substituted _Narr_, and made the reading, "He shall be thy _fool_." It
is said that she paid the penalty of death for this strange assertion of
"woman's rights."

We must not omit the name of another martyr amongst the honourable rank
of printers of the Scriptures, Jacob van Liesvelt, who was beheaded
on account of his edition of the Bible, entitled _Bible en langue
hollandaise_ (_Antwerpen_, 1542, in-fol.).

John Lufftius, a bookseller and printer of Würtemburg, incurred many
perils when he printed Luther's German edition of the Sacred Scriptures.
It is said that the Pope used to write Lufftius' name on paper once
every year, and cast it into the fire, uttering terrible imprecations
and dire threatenings. But the thunders of Roman pontiffs did not
trouble the worthy bookseller, who laughed at their threats, and
exclaimed, "I perspired so freely at Rome in the flame, that I must take
a larger draught, as it is necessary to extinguish that flame."

The same fatality befell Robert Stephanus, the Parisian printer. His
family name was Estienne, but, according to the fashion of the time, he
used the Latin form of the word. He edited and published a version of
the Sacred Scriptures, showing the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts, and
adding certain notes which were founded upon the writings of François
Vatable, Abbot of Bellozane, but also contained some of the scholarly
reflections of the learned bookseller. On the title-page the name of
the Abbot appears first, before that of Stephanus. But considerable
hostility was raised against him by this and other works on the part of
the doctors of the Sorbonne. He was compelled to seek safety in flight,
and found a secure resting-place in Geneva. His enemies were obliged
to content themselves with burning his effigy. This troubled Stephanus
quite as little as the Papal censures distressed Lufftius. At the time
when his effigy was being burnt, the Parisian printer was in the snowy
mountains of the Auvergne, and declared that he never felt so cold in
his life.

The printers seem ever to have been on the side of the Protestants.
In Germany they produced all the works of the Reformation authors with
great accuracy and skill, and often at their own expense; whereas the
Roman Catholics could only get their books printed at great cost, and
even then the printing was done carelessly and in a slovenly manner, so
as to seem the production of illiterate men. And if any printer, more
conscientious than the rest, did them more justice, he was jeered at in
the market-places and at the fairs of Frankfort for a Papist and a slave
of the priests.

This Robert Stephanus (Estienne or Stephens, as the name is usually
called) was a member of one of the most illustrious families of learned
printers the world has ever seen. The founder of the family was Henry
Stephens, born at Paris in 1470, and the last of the race died there
in 1674. Thus for nearly two centuries did they confer the greatest
advantages on literature, which they enriched quite as much by their
learning as by their skill. Their biographies have frequently been
written; so there is no occasion to record them. This Robert Stephens,
who was exiled on account of his books, was one of the most illustrious
scholars of his age. He printed, edited, and published an immense number
of works in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, amongst others the _Biblia
Latina_ (1528), _Latinae linguae Thesaurus_ (1531), _Dictionarium
latino-gallicum_ (1543), _Ecclesiastica Historia Eusebii, Socrates,
Theodoreti_ (1544), _Biblia Hebraica_ (1544 and 1546), and many others.
In the Bible of 1555 he introduced the divisions of chapter and verse,
which are still used. With regard to the accuracy of his proofs we are
told that he was so careful as to hang them up in some place of public
resort, and to invite the corrections of the learned scholars who
collected there. At Geneva his printing-press continued to pour forth
a large number of learned works, and after his death, one of his sons,
named Charles, carried on the business.

Another son of Robert Stephens, named Henry, was one of those scholars
who have ruined themselves by their love of literature, devoting their
lives and their fortunes to the production of volumes on some special
branch of study in which only a few learned readers are interested.
Hence, while they earn the gratitude of scholars and enrich the world of
literature by their knowledge, the sale of their books is limited, and
they fail to enrich themselves. The _Thesaurus Linguae Graecae_ cost
poor Henry Stephens ten years of labour and nearly all his fortune. This
is a very valuable work, and has proved of immense service to subsequent
generations of scholars. A second edition was published in London in
1815 in seven folio volumes, and recently another edition has appeared
in Paris.

One of his works aroused the indignation of the Parisian authorities. It
was entitled _Introduction au Traité des Merveilles anciennes avec les
modernes, ou Traité préparatif à l'Apologie pour Hérodote, par Henri
Estienne_ (1566, in-8). This work was supposed to contain insidious
attacks upon the monks and priests and Roman Catholic faith, comparing
the fables of Herodotus with the teaching of Catholicism, and holding
up the latter to ridicule. At any rate, the book was condemned and
its author burnt in effigy. M. Peignot asserts in his _Dictionnaire
Critique, Littéraire, et Bibliographique_ that it was this Henry
Stephens who uttered the _bon mot_ with regard to his never feeling so
cold as when his effigy was being burnt and he himself was in the snowy
mountains of the Auvergne. Other authorities attribute the saying to his
father, as we have already narrated.

Noble martyrs Literature has had, men who have sacrificed ease, comfort,
and every earthly advantage for her sake, and who have shared with Henry
Stephens the direst straits of poverty brought about by the ardour of
their love. Such an one was a learned divine, Simon Ockley, Vicar of
Swavesey in 1705, and Professor of Arabic at Cambridge in 1711, who
devoted his life to Asiatic researches. This study did not prove
remunerative; having been seized for debt, he was confined in Cambridge
Castle, and there finished his great work, _The History of the
Saracens_. His martyrdom was lifelong, as he died in destitution,
having always (to use his own words) given the possession of wisdom the
preference to that of riches. Floyer Sydenham, who died in a debtors'
prison in 1788, and incurred his hard fate through devoting his life
to a translation of the _Dialogues_ of Plato, was another martyr; from
whose ashes arose the Royal Literary Fund, which has prevented many
struggling authors from sharing his fate. Seventeen long years of
labour, besides a handsome fortune, did Edmund Castell spend on his
_Lexicon Heptaglotton_; but a thankless and ungrateful public refused to
relieve him of the copies of this learned work, which ruined his health
while it dissipated his fortune. These are only a few names which might
be mentioned out of the many. What a noble army of martyrs Literature
could boast, if a roll-call were sounded!

Amongst our booksellers we must not omit the name of Page, who suffered
with John Stubbs in the market-place at Westminster on account of
the latter's work entitled _The Discoverie of a Gaping Gulf whereinto
England is like to be swallowed by another French marriage, if the Lord
forbid not the banes by letting her Majestie see the sin and punishment
thereof_ (1579). Both author and publisher were condemned to the
barbarous penalty of having their right hands cut off, as we have
already recorded. [Footnote: Cf. page 129.]

"Sturdy John," as the people called John Lilburne of Commonwealth fame,
was another purveyor of books who suffered severely at the hands of
both Royalists and Roundheads. At the early age of eighteen he began the
circulation of the books of Prynne and Bastwick, and for this enormity
he was whipped from the Fleet to Westminster, set in the pillory,
gagged, fined, and imprisoned. At a later stage in his career we find
him imprisoned in the Tower by Cromwell, for his _Just Reproof to
Haberdashers' Hall_, and fined £1,000; and his bitter attack on the
Protector, entitled _England's New Chains Discovered_, caused him to pay
another visit to the Tower and to be tried for high treason, of which he
was subsequently acquitted. To assail the "powers that be" seemed ever
to be the constant occupation of "Sturdy John" Lilburne. From the above
example, and from many others which might be mentioned, it is quite
evident that Roundheads, when they held the power, could be quite as
severe critics of publications obnoxious to them as the Royalists, and
troublesome authors fared little better under Puritan regime than they
did under the Stuart monarchs.

Another learned French printer was Etienne Dolet, who was burned to
death at Paris on account of his books in 1546. He lived and worked at
Lyons, and, after the manner of the Stephens, published many of his own
writings as well as those of other learned men. He applied his energies
to reform the Latin style, and in addition to his theological and
linguistical works cultivated the art of poetry. Bayle says that his
Latin and French verses "are not amiss." In the opinion of Gruterus
they are worthy of a place in the _Deliciae Poetarum Gallorum_; but
the impassioned and scurrilous Scaliger, who hated Dolet, declares that
"Dolet may be called the Muse's Canker, or Imposthume; he wildly
affects to be absolute in Poetry without the least pretence to wit, and
endeavours to make his own base copper pass by mixing with it Virgil's
gold. A driveller, who with some scraps of Cicero has tagged together
something, which he calls Orations, but which men of learning rather
judge to be Latrations. Whilst he sung the fate of that great and good
King Francis, his name found its own evil fate, and the Atheist suffered
the punishment of the flames, which both he and his verses so richly
merited. But the flames could not purify him, but were by him rather
made impure. Why should I mention his Epigrams, which are but a common
sink or shore of dull, cold, unmeaning trash, full of that thoughtless
arrogance that braves the Almighty, and that denies His Being?" The
conclusion of this scathing criticism is hardly meet for polite ears. A
private wrong had made the censorious Scaliger more bitter than usual.
In spite of the protection of Castellan, a learned prelate, Dolet at
length suffered in the flames, but whether the charge of Atheism was
well grounded has never been clearly ascertained.

Certainly the pious prayer which he uttered, when the faggots were piled
around him, would seem to exonerate him from such a charge: "My God,
whom I have so often offended, be merciful to me; and I beseech you, O
Virgin Mother, and you, divine Stephen, to intercede with God for me
a sinner." The Parliament of Paris condemned his works as containing
"damnable, pernicious, and heretical doctrines." The Faculty of Theology
censured very severely Dolet's translation of one of the _Dialogues_ of
Plato, entitled _Axiochus_, and especially the passage "Après la mort,
tu ne seras rien," which Dolet rendered, "Après la mort, tu ne seras
_plus_ rien _du tout_." The additional words were supposed to convict
Dolet of heresy. He certainly disliked the monks, as the following
epigram plainly declares:--

_Ad Nicolaum Fabricium Valesium De cucullatis._

  "Incurvicervicum cucullatorum habet
  Grex id subinde in ore, se esse mortuum
  Mundo: tamen edit eximie pecus, bibit
  Non pessime, stertit sepultum crapula,
  Operam veneri dat, et voluptatum assecla
  Est omnium. Idne est mortuum esse mundo?
  Aliter interpretare. Mortui sunt Hercule
  Mundo cucullati, quod inors tense sunt onus,
  Ad rem utiles nullam, nisi ad scelus et vitium."

Amongst the works published and written by Dolet may be mentioned:--

    _Summaire des faits et gestes de François I., tant contre l'Empereur
    que ses sujets, et autres nations étrangères, composés d'abord en
    latin par Dolet, puis translatés en français par lui-même. Lyon,
    Etienne Dolet, 1540, in-4_.

    _Stephani Doleti Carminum, Libri IV. Lugduni, 1538, in-4_.

    _Brief Discours de la république françoyse, désirant la lecture des
    livres de l'Ecriture saincte luy estre loisable en sa langue vulgaire.
    Etienne Dolet, 1544, in-16_.

    _La fontaine de vie, in-16_.

Several translations into French of the writings of Erasmus and
Melanchthon may also be remembered, and the Geneva Bible, which was
printed by Dolet.

One of the few remaining copies of _Cymbalum mundi, en français,
contenant quatre Dialogues poétiques, antiques, joyeux, et facétieux,
par Thomas Duclevier (Bonaventure Despériers, Valet de chambre de la
Reyne de Navarre_) (Paris, Jehan Morin, 1537, in-8) reveals the fact
that the printer, Jean Morin, was imprisoned on account of this work.
Therein it is recorded that he presented the copy to the Chancellor with
the request that he might be released from prison, where he had been
placed on account of this work. The reasons given for its condemnation
are various. Some state that the author, a friend of Clement Marot,
intended to preach by the use of allegories the Reformed religion.
Others say that it was directed against the manners and conduct of some
members of the Court. Whether Morin's request was granted I know not,
nor whether Despériers shared his imprisonment. At any rate, the author
died in 1544 from an attack of frenzy.

Another famous printer at Paris in the sixteenth century was Christian
Wechel, who published a large number of works. He was persecuted for
publishing a book of Erasmus entitled _De esu interdicto carnium_, and
some declare that he fell into grievous poverty, being cursed by God for
printing an impious book. Thus one writer says that "in the year 1530
arose this abortive child of hell, who wrote a book against the Divine
Justice in favour of infants dying without baptism, and several have
wisely observed that the ruin of Christian Wechel and his labours fell
out as a punishment for his presses and characters being employed in
such an infamous work." However, there is reason to believe that the
book was not so "impious," expressing only the pious hope that the souls
of such infants might not be lost, and also that no great "curse" fell
upon the printer, and that his poverty was apocryphal. At any rate, his
son Andrew was a very flourishing printer; but he too was persecuted for
his religious opinions, and narrowly escaped destruction in the Massacre
of St. Bartholomew. He ran in great danger on that eventful night,
and states that he would have been slaughtered but for the kindness
of Hubert Languet, who lodged in his house. Andrew Wechel fled to
Frankfort, where he continued to ply his trade in safety; and when more
favourable times came re-established his presses at Paris. He had the
reputation of being one of the most able printers and booksellers of his
time.

The Revolutionary period in France was not a safe time for either
authors or booksellers. Jacques Froullé was condemned to death in 1793
for publishing the lists of names of those who passed sentence on their
King, Louis XVI., and doomed him to death. This work was entitled _Liste
comparative des cinq appels nominaux sur le procès et jugement de Louis
XVI., avec les déclarations que les Députes ont faites à chacune
des séances_ (Paris, Froullé, 1793, in-8). He gives the names of the
deputies who voted on each of the five appeals, until at length the
terrible sentence was pronounced, 310 voting for the reprieve and 380
for the execution of their monarch. The deputies were so ashamed of
their work that they doomed the recorder of their infamous deed to share
the punishment of their sovereign.

We have few instances of the illustrators of books sharing the
misfortunes of authors and publishers, but we have met with one such
example. Nicolas Godonesche made the engravings for a work by Jean
Laurent Boursier, a doctor of the Sorbonne, entitled _Explication
abrégée des principales questions qui ont rapport aux affaires
présentes_ (1731, in-12), and found that work fatal to him. This book
was one of many published by Boursier concerning the unhappy contentions
which for a long time agitated the Church of France. Godonesche, who
engraved pictures for the work, was sent to the Bastille, and the author
banished.

In all ages complaints are heard of the prolific writers who have been
seized by the scribbling demon, and made to pour forth page after page
which the public decline to read, and bring grief to the publishers.
Pasquier's _Letters_ contains the following passage, which applies
perhaps quite as forcibly to the present age as to his own time: "I
cannot forbear complaining at this time of the calamity of this age
which has produced such a plenty of reputed or untimely authors. Any
pitiful scribbler will have his first thoughts to come to light; lest,
being too long shut up, they should grow musty. Good God! how apposite
are these verses of Jodelle:--

  "'Et tant ceux d'aujourd'huy me fashent,
  Qui dès lors que leurs plumes laschent
  Quelque-trait soit mauvais ou bon,
  En lumière le vont produire,
  Pour souvent avec leur renom,
  Les pauvres Imprimeurs destruire.'"

This has been translated as follows:--

  "The scribbling crew would make one's vitals bleed,
   They write such trash, no mortal e'er will read;
   Yet they will publish, they must have a name;
   So Printers starve, to get their authors fame."

One would be curious to see the form of agreement between such prolific
authors and their deluded publishers, and to learn by what arts, other
than magical, the former ever induced the latter to undertake the
publication of such fatal books.

The story of the establishment of the liberty of the Press in England is
full of interest, and tells the history of several books which involved
their authors and publishers in many difficulties. The censors of books
did not always occupy an enviable post, and were the objects of many
attacks. "Catalogue" Fraser lost his office for daring to license
Walker's book on the _Eikon Basilike_, which asserted that Gauden and
not Charles I. was the author. His successor Bohun was deprived of his
orffice as licenser and sent to prison for allowing a pamphlet to be
printed entitled _King William and Queen Mary, Conquerors_. The Jacobite
printers suffered severely when they were caught, which was not very
frequent. In obscure lanes and garrets they plied their secret trade,
and deluged the land with seditious books and papers. One William
Anderton was tracked to a house near St. James's Street, where he was
known as a jeweller. Behind the bed in his room was discovered a door
which led to a dark closet, and there were the types and a press, and
heaps of Jacobite literature. Anderton was found guilty of treason,
and paid the penalty of death for his crime. In 1695 the Press was
emancipated from its thraldom, and the office of licenser ceased to
exist. Henceforward popular judgment and the general good sense and
right feeling of the community constituted the only licensing authority
of the Press of England. Occasionally, when a publisher or author makes
too free with the good name of an English citizen, the restraint of a
prison cell is imposed upon the audacious libeller. Sometimes when a
book offends against the public morals, and contains the outpourings
of a voluptuous imagination, its author is condemned to lament in
confinement over his indecorous pages. The world knows that Vizetelly,
the publisher, was imprisoned for translating and publishing some of
Zola's novels. _Nana_ and _L'Assommoir_ were indeed fatal books to him,
as his imprisonment and the anxiety caused by the prosecution are said
to have hastened his death. The right feeling and sound sense of the
nation has guided the Press of this country into safe channels, and few
books are fatal now on account of their unseemly contents or immoral
tendencies.




CHAPTER XI. SOME LITERARY MARTYRS.

Leland--Strutt--Cotgrave--Henry Wharton--Robert Heron--Collins--William
Cole--Homeric victims--Joshua Barnes--An example of unrequited
toil--Borgarutius--Pays.


We have still a list far too long of literary martyrs whose works have
proved fatal to them, and yet whose names have not appeared in the
foregoing chapters. These are they who have sacrificed their lives,
their health and fortunes, for the sake of their works, and who had
no sympathy with the saying of a professional hack writer, "Till fame
appears to be worth more than money, I shall always prefer money to
fame." For the labours of their lives they have received no compensation
at all. Health, eyesight, and even life itself have been devoted to
the service of mankind, who have shown themselves somewhat ungrateful
recipients of their bounty.

Some of the more illustrious scholars indeed enjoy a posthumous
fame,--their names are still honoured; their works are still read and
studied by the learned,--but what countless multitudes are those who
have sacrificed their all, and yet slumber in nameless graves, the ocean
of oblivion having long since washed out the footprints they hoped to
leave upon the shifting sands of Time! Of these we have no record; let
us enumerate a few of the scholars of an elder age whose books proved
fatal to them, and whose sorrows and early deaths were brought on by
their devotion to literature.

What antiquary has not been grateful to Leland, the father of English
archaeology! He possessed that ardent love for the records of the past
which must inspire the heart and the pen of every true antiquary; that
accurate learning and indefatigable spirit of research without which
the historian, however zealous, must inevitably err; and that sturdy
patriotism which led him to prefer the study of the past glories of his
own to those of any other people or land. His _Cygnea Cantio_ will live
as long as the silvery Thames, whose glories he loved to sing, pursues
its beauteous way through the loveliest vales of England. While his
royal patron, Henry VIII., lived, all went well; after the death of that
monarch his anxieties and troubles began. His pension became smaller,
and at length ceased. No one seemed to appreciate his toil. He became
melancholy and morose, and the effect of nightly vigils and years of
toil began to tell upon his constitution. At length his mind gave way,
ere yet the middle stage of life was passed; and although many other
famous antiquaries have followed his steps and profited by his writings
and his example, English scholars will ever mourn the sad and painful
end of unhappy Leland.

Another antiquary was scarcely more fortunate. Strutt, the author of
_English Sports and Pastimes_, whose works every student of the manners
and customs of our forefathers has read and delighted in, passed his
days in poverty and obscurity, and often received no recompense for
the works which are now so valuable. At least he had his early wish
gratified,--"I will strive to leave my name behind me in the world,
if not in the splendour that some have, at least with some marks of
assiduity and study which shall never be wanting in me."

Randle Cotgrave, the compiler of one of the most valuable dictionaries
of early English words, lost his eyesight through laboriously studying
ancient MSS. in his pursuit of knowledge. The sixteen volumes of MS.
preserved in the Lambeth Library of English literature killed their
author, Henry Wharton, before he reached his thirtieth year. By the
indiscreet exertion of his mind, in protracted and incessant literary
labours, poor Robert Heron destroyed his health, and after years of toil
spent in producing volumes so numerous and so varied as to stagger one
to contemplate, ended his days in Newgate. In his pathetic appeal for
help to the Literary Fund, wherein he enumerates the labours of his
life, he wrote, "I shudder at the thought of perishing in gaol." And yet
that was the fate of Heron, a man of amazing industry and vast learning
and ability, a martyr to literature.

He has unhappily many companions, whose names appear upon that mournful
roll of luckless authors. There is the unfortunate poet Collins, who was
driven insane by the disappointment attending his unremunerative toil,
and the want of public appreciation of his verses. William Cole, the
writer of fifty volumes in MS. of the _Athenae Cantabrigienses_, founded
upon the same principle as the _Athenae Oxonienses_ of Anthony Wood,
lived to see his hopes of fame die, and yet to feel that he could not
abandon his self-imposed task, as that would be death to him. Homer,
too, has had some victims; and if he has suffered from translation,
he has revenged himself on his translators. A learned writer, Joshua
Barnes, Professor of Greek at Cambridge, devoted his whole energy to the
task, and ended his days in abject poverty, disgusted with the scanty
rewards his great industry and scholarship had attained. A more humble
translator, a chemist of Reading, published an English version of the
_Iliad_. The fascination of the work drew him away from his business,
and caused his ruin. A clergyman died a few years ago who had devoted
many years to a learned Biblical Commentary; it was the work of his
life, and contained the results of much original research. After his
death his effects were sold, and with them the precious MS., the result
of so many hours of patient labour; this MS. realised three shillings
and sixpence!

Fatal indeed have their works and love of literature proved to be to
many a luckless author. No wonder that many of them have vowed, like
Borgarutius, that they would write no more nor spend their life-blood
for the sake of so fickle a mistress, or so thankless a public. This
author was so troubled by the difficulties he encountered in printing
his book on Anatomy, that he made the rash vow that he would never
publish anything more; but, like many other authors, he broke his word.
Poets are especially liable to this change of intention, as La Fontaine
observes:--

  "O! combien l'homme est inconstant, divers,
  Foible, léger, tenant mal sa parole,
  J'avois juré, même en assez beaux vers,
  De renouncer à tout Conte frivole.
  Depuis deux jours j'ai fait cette promesse
  Puis fiez-vous à Rimeur qui répond
  D'un seul moment. Dieu ne fit la sagesse
  Pour les cerveaux qui hantent les neuf Soeurs."

In these days of omnivorous readers, the position of authors has
decidedly improved. We no longer see the half-starved poets bartering
their sonnets for a meal; learned scholars pining in Newgate; nor is
"half the pay of a scavenger" [Footnote: A remark of Granger--vide
_Calamities of Authors_, p. 85.] considered sufficient remuneration for
recondite treatises. It has been the fashion of authors of all ages
to complain bitterly of their own times. Bayle calls it an epidemical
disease in the republic of letters, and poets seem especially liable to
this complaint. Usually those who are most favoured by fortune bewail
their fate with vehemence; while poor and unfortunate authors write
cheerfully. To judge from his writings one would imagine that Balzac
pined in poverty; whereas he was living in the greatest luxury,
surrounded by friends who enjoyed his hospitality. Oftentimes this
language of complaint is a sign of the ingratitude of authors towards
their age, rather than a testimony of the ingratitude of the age towards
authors. Thus did the French poet Pays abuse his fate: "I was born
under a certain star, whose malignity cannot be overcome; and I am so
persuaded of the power of this malevolent star, that I accuse it of all
misfortunes, and I never lay the fault upon anybody." He has courted
Fortune in vain. She will have nought to do with his addresses, and it
would be just as foolish to afflict oneself because of an eclipse of the
sun or moon, as to be grieved on account of the changes which Fortune is
pleased to cause. Many other writers speak in the same fretful strain.
There is now work in the vast field of literature for all who have the
taste, ability, and requisite knowledge; and few authors now find their
books fatal to them--except perhaps to their reputation, when they
deserve the critics' censures. The writers of novels certainly have
no cause to complain of the unkindness of the public and their lack of
appreciation, and the vast numbers of novels which are produced every
year would have certainly astonished the readers of thirty or forty
years ago.

For the production of learned works which appeal only to a few
scholars, modern authors have the aid of the Clarendon Press and other
institutions which are subsidised by the Universities for the purpose of
publishing such works. But in spite of all the advantages which modern
authors enjoy, the great demand for literature of all kinds, the justice
and fair dealing of publishers, the adequate remuneration which is
usually received for their works, the favourable laws of copyright--in
spite of all these and other advantages, the lamentable woes of authors
have not yet ceased. The leaders of literature can hold their own, and
prosper well; but the men who stand in the second, third, or fourth rank
in the great literary army, have still cause to bewail the unkindness of
the blind goddess who contrives to see sufficiently to avoid all their
approaches to her.

For these brave, but often disheartened, toilers that noble institution,
the Royal Literary Fund, has accomplished great things. During a period
of more than a century it has carried on its beneficent work, relieving
poor struggling authors when poverty and sickness have laid them low;
and it has proved itself to be a "nursing mother" to the wives and
children of literary martyrs who have been quite unable to provide for
the wants of their distressed families. We have already alluded to the
foundation of the Royal Literary Fund, which arose from the feelings of
pity and regret excited by the death of Floyer Sydenham in a debtors'
prison. It is unnecessary to record its history, its noble career of
unobtrusive usefulness in saving from ruin and ministering consolation
to those unhappy authors who have been wounded in the world's warfare,
and who, but for the Literary Fund, would have been left to perish on
the hard battlefield of life. Since its foundation £115,677 has been
spent in 4,332 grants to distressed authors. All book-lovers will, we
doubt not, seek to help forward this noble work, and will endeavour
to prevent, as far as possible, any more distressing cases of literary
martyrdom, which have so often stained the sad pages of our literary
history.

In order to diminish the woes of authors and to help the maimed and
wounded warriors in the service of Literature, we should like to rear a
large Literary College, where those who have borne the burden and heat
of the day may rest secure from all anxieties and worldly worries when
the evening shadows of life fall around. Possibly the authorities of the
Royal Literary Fund might be able to accomplish this grand enterprise.
In imagination we seem to see a noble building like an Oxford College,
or the Charterhouse, wherein the veterans of Literature can live and
work and end their days, free from the perplexities and difficulties
to which poverty and distress have so long accustomed them. There is
a Library, rich with the choicest works. The Historian, the Poet, the
Divine, the Scientist, can here pursue their studies, and breathe forth
inspired thoughts which the _res angusta domi_ have so long stifled. In
society congenial to their tastes, far from "the madding crowd's ignoble
strife," they may succeed in accomplishing their life's work, and their
happiness would be the happiness of the community.

If this be but a dream, it is a pleasant one. But if all book-lovers
would unite for the purpose of founding such a Literary College, it
might be possible for the dream to be realised. Then the woes of future
generations of authors might be effectually diminished, and Fatal Books
have less unhappy victims.




INDEX.
  Abélard, Canon of Notre Dame.
  Agrippa, Henry Cornelius, astrologer.
  Alexandre, Noel, Church historian.
  Anderton, William, Jacobite printer.
  Aretino, Pietro, satirist.
  Arlotto of Padua, historian.
  Arnold of Brescia, disciple of Abélard.
  Arthington, pamphleteer.
  Ascoli, Cecco d', poet.
  Athos, Monks of Mount, Quietists.
  Audra, Joseph, historian.

  Bacon, Roger, philosopher.
  Balzac, pretended poverty of.
  Barnes, Joshua, translator.
  Baronius, Caesar, Church historian.
  Barrai, L'Abbé, his opinion of Fénélon.
  Barrow, pamphleteer.
  Bastwick, pamphleteer, attacked Laud.
  Bède, Noël, controversialist.
  Bekker, Balthazar, opponent of demoniacal possession.
  Berruyer, Isaac Joseph, Jesuit historian.
  Beverland, Adrian, poet.
  Biddle, John, Socinian and Unitarian.
  Billard, Pierre, satirised Jesuits.
  Boccalini, Trajan, Italian satirist.
  Bogarutius, anatomist.
  Bohun, censor.
  Bonfadio, Jacopo, Genoese historian.
  Borri, Joseph Francis, charlatan.
  Boursier, Jean Laurent, controversialist.
  Bruccioli, Antonio, translator.
  Bruno, Jordano, philosopher and atheist.
  Bruto, John Michael, Florentine historian.
  Buchanan, George, poet.
  Burton, attacked Laud.
  Bussy, Roger Rabutin de, satirist.

  Campanella, Thomas, philosopher and atheist.
  Carlyle, Thomas, an example of energy.
  Carpzov, Samuel Benedict, libelled Rüdiger.
  Carranza, Bartholomew, Archbishop of Toledo.
  Cartwright, pamphleteer.
  Castell, Edmund, polyglot.
  Caveirac, L'Abbé, Jesuit defender.
  Cinelli, John Giovanni, satirist.
  Clarke, Samuel, philosopher and theologian.
  Cole, William, author of _Athenae Cantabrigienses_.
  Collins, poet.
  Coppinger, pamphleteer.
  Cotgrave, Randle, lexicographer.
  Cowell, Dr., supporter of absolute monarchy.
  Cowley, Abraham, dramatist.
  Crébillon, the younger, dramatist.

  Danchet, Antoine, dramatist.
  Darigrand, author of _L'Anti-Financier_.
  Darrell, John, cleric and demonologist.
  Dassy, satirist.
  David, Francis, theologian.
  Dee, Dr., alchemist.
  Defoe, Daniel, satirical writer.
  Deforges, poet.
  Delaune, author of _A Plea for the Nonconformists_.
  Diderot, Denis, collaborateur of D'Alembert.
  Doleman, printer.
  Dolet, Etienne, printer and author.
  Dominis, Antonio de, Archbishop of Spalatro.
  Dort, Synod of, some of its proceedings.
  Dryander, _nom-de-plume_ of Enzinas.
  Dryander, John, brother of Enzinas.
  Dupin, Louis Elias, Church historian.
  Durosoi, editor.

  Edzardt, Sebastian, theologian.
  Enzinas, Spanish translator, 23.
  Estienne, _see_ Stephanus.

  Falkemberg, John de, fanatic.
  Felbinger, Jeremiah, Unitarian.
  Fénélon, François de la Mothe, Archbishop of Cambrai.
  Fisher, John, Bishop of Rochester, opponent of royal divorce.
  Fontaine, Nicolas, collaborateur of Le Maistre.
  Francus, Nicholas, poet.
  Fraser, "Catalogue," censor.
  Frischlin, Nicodemus, poet.
  Froullé, Jacques, bookseller.
  Fust, John, printer.

  Gacon, François, poet and satirist.
  Galileo, "father of experimental philosophy."
  Génébrard, Gilbert, controversialist.
  Giannone, Peter, Italian historian.
  Godonesche, Nicolas, engraver.
  Grafton, Richard, printer of Coverdale's Bible.
  Grandier, Urban, curé of London, opponent of celibacy of clergy.
  Greenwood, pamphleteer.
  Grotius, historian.

  Hacket, pamphleteer.
  Hales, John, pamphleteer.
  Harsnett, Bishop, the exposer of Darrell.
  Hartley, exorcist, friend of Darrell.
  Haudicquer, genealogist.
  Hélot, poet.
  Hemmerlin, Felix, satirist.
  Heron, Robert, voluminous author.
  _Histriomastix_.
  Homeric victims.
  Huss, John, reformer and martyr, his writings.

  Johnson, Samuel, divine, author of _Julian the Apostate_.

  Keats, poet, _Endymion_ cruelly reviewed.
  Kelly, Edward, necromancer, friend of Dr. Dee.
  Kuhlmann, Quirinus, "Prince of Fanatics".

  La Beaumelle, Laurence de, _Memoirs of Madame de Maintenon_.
  La Grange, poet.
  La Peyrère, Isaac de, ethnologist.
  Le Courayer, Pierre François Canon of St. Augustine.
  Leighton, Dr., author of _Syon's Plea against Prelacy_.
  Leland, archaeologist.
  Le Maistre, Louis, Jansenist and translator.
  Lenoir, Jean, Canon of Séez, political writer.
  Liesvelt, Jacob van, Dutch printer.
  Lilburne, "Honest John," bookseller and author.
  Linguet, Simon, political writer, de Lisle de Sales, philosopher.
  Liszinski Cazimir, Polish atheist.
  Literary College, ideal.
  Literary Fund, Royal.
  Lufftius, John, printer of Würtemburg.
  Lyra, Nicholas de, commentator, ruins his printers.
  Lyser, John, advocate of polygamy.

  Maffei, Raphael, his epigram on Valla.
  Maggi, Jerome, Venetian statesman.
  Maintenon, Madame de, Memoirs.
  Mariana, John, Spanish historian.
  Marolles, L'Abbé de, translator.
  Marot, Clement, poet, versifier of Psalms.
  Marprelate, Martin, _nom-de-plume_ of various Puritan authors.
  Melanchthon, reformer, works published by Peucer.
  Molinos, Michael, Spanish theologian.
  Montague, Lord, victim of Reginald Pole's book.
  Montanus, Arius, translator of Polyglot Bible.
  Montgomery, James, poet.
  Morin, Jean, printer.
  Morin, Simon, fanatic.

  Nogaret, novelist.
  Nordemann, follower of Kuhlmann.

  Ochino, Bernardino, a Franciscan, advocate of polygamy.
  Ockham, William of, "The Invincible Doctor".
  Ockley, Simon, Vicar of Swavesey.
  Ovid, poet, exiled by Caesar.

  Page, printer of Stubbs' pamphlet.
  Palearius, Antonius, "Inquisitionis Detractator."
  Pallavicino, Ferrante, Italian satirist.
  Palmieri, Matteo, Italian historian.
  Pannartz, printer.
  Paolo, Fra, _see_ Sarpi.
  Pasquier, his Letters quoted.
  Pasquinades, origin of term.
  Pays, French poet, quoted.
  Penry, pamphleteer.
  Petit, Pierre, poet.
  Peucer, Caspar, doctor of medicine and Calvinist.
  Pole, Sir Geoffrey, arrested by Henry VIII., escapes.
  Pole, Reginald, denounced Henry VIII.
  Primi, John Baptist, Count of St. Majole, historian.
  Prynne, William, author of _Histriomastix_.

  Quesnal, Pasquier, translator and theologian.
  Quietism.

  Reboul, Italian pamphleteer.
  Reinking, Theodore, historian, condemned to eat his book.
  Richer, Edmund, political essayist.
  Ritson, Joseph, antiquary.
  Rosières, François de, Archdeacon of Toul, historian.
  Rothe, John, pretended prophet.
  Rousseau, Jean Baptiste, satirist.
  Rousseau, Jean Jacques, philosopher.
  Rudbeck, Swedish historian.
  Rudiger. John Christopher, biographer.

  Sacy, de, _see_ Le Maistre.
  Salisbury, Countess of, victim of Pole's book.
  Sarpi, Pietro, Venetian historian.
  Savonarola, Florentine preacher.
  Scaliger, his criticism of Dolet.
  Schweynheym, printer.
  Scioppius, Caspar, satirist.
  Selden, John, author of _De Decimis_.
  Servetus, Michael, scientist and theologian, persecuted by Calvin.
  Sidney, Algernon, his manuscript a witness against him.
  Starkie, Nicholas, household possessed by devils, _see_ Darrell.
  Stephanus or Stephens, Robert, Parisian printer.
  Stephens, Henry, son of above, printer.
  Strutt, author of _English Sports and Pastimes_.
  Stubbs, John, opponent of Elizabeth's marriage.
  Sydenham, Floyer, translator.

  Théophile, poet.
  Thou, de, French historian.
  Thou, Frederick Augustus de, son of above.
  Toland, John, freethinker.
  Tutchin, John, editor of _Observator_, persecuted by Jeffreys.
  Tyndale, William, translator of Bible and controversialist.

  Udal, Nicholas, part author of Marprelate pamphlets.
  _Unigenitus_, Papal Bull.
  Urseus, Anthony, becomes insane through loss of book.

  Valla, Lorenzo, Roman satirist.
  Vanini, Lucilio, philosopher and atheist.
  Villanovanus, _nom-de-plume_ of Servetus.
  Virgil, Bishop of Salisbury, cosmologist.
  Vizetelly, publisher.
  Volaterranus, _see_ Maffei.
  Voltaire, François Arouet de, satirical poem.

  Wecchiettus, Jerome, theologian.
  Wechel, Christian, Parisian printer.
  Wechel, Andrew, son of above.
  Weiser, Caspar, Swedish poet.
  Wentworth, Peter, pamphleteer.
  Wharton, Henry, died of overwork.
  Whitchurch, Edward, printer.
  Willenberg, Samuel Friedrich, advocate of polygamy.
  Williams, John, poet.
  Woolston, Thomas, freethinker.

  Yorke, Sir John, imprisoned for Roman Catholic play performed in his
  house.










End of Project Gutenberg's Books Fatal to Their Authors, by P. H. Ditchfield