Chapter IV: Part 4

“As we were crossing the court-yard of the asylum, I more dead than alive from fright, a hideous face appeared behind the large grating and began to call out in a crazy voice. ‘I am not mad; I have made a great discovery that will enrich any country that will carry it out.’ ‘What is this discovery?’ said I to the person who was shewing us over the asylum. ‘Ah!’ said he, shrugging his shoulders, ‘it is something very simple, but you would never guess it. It is the employment of the steam of boiling water.’ At this I burst out laughing. ‘This man,’ resumed the warder, ‘is called Salomon de Caus. He came from Normandy four years ago to present a memoir to the king upon the marvellous effects that might be produced from his invention. To listen to him, you might make use of steam to move a theatre, to propel carriages, and in fact to perform endless miracles.’ The Cardinal dismissed this fool without giving him a hearing. Salomon de Caus, not at all discouraged, took upon himself to follow my lord cardinal everywhere, who, tired of finding him incessantly at his heels, and importuned by his follies, ordered him to Bicêtre, where he has been confined for three years and a half, and where, as you have just heard, he cries out to every visitor, that he is not mad, and that he has made a wonderful discovery. He has even written a book on this subject which is in my possession.’

“My Lord Worcester, who all this time appeared to be in deep thought, asked to see the book, and after having read a few pages, said, ‘This man is not mad, and in my country, instead of being shut up in a lunatic asylum he would be laden with wealth. Take me to him, I wish to question him. He was conducted to his cell, but came back looking grave and sad. ‘Now he is quite mad,’ said he, ‘it is you who have made him so; misfortune and confinement have completely destroyed his reason; but when you put him into that cell you enclosed in it the greatest genius of your epoch.’ Thereupon we took our leave, and since then he speaks of no one but Salomon de Caus.[37] Adieu my dear and loyal Henry; return soon, and do not be so happy where you are, as to forget that a little love must be left for me. Marion Delorme.”

The success obtained by this fictitious letter was immense and lasting. The anecdote became very popular, and was copied into standard works, represented in engravings, chased on silver goblets, &c. At length some incredulous critics examined more closely into the matter, and found that not only had Salomon de Caus never been confined in a lunatic asylum, but that he had held the appointment of engineer and architect to Louis XIII. up to the time of his death, in 1630, while Marion Delorme is asserted to have visited Bicêtre in 1641!!

On tracing this hoax to its source, we find that M. Henri Berthoud, a literary man of some repute and a constant contributor to the _Musée des Familles_, confesses that the letter imputed to Marion, was in fact written by himself. The editor of this journal had requested _Gavarni_ to furnish him with a drawing for a tale in which a madman was introduced looking through the bars of his cell. The drawing was executed and engraved, but arrived too late; and the tale, which could not wait, appeared without the illustration. However, as the wood-engraving was effective, and moreover was paid for, the editor was unwilling that it should be useless. Berthoud was therefore commissioned to look for a subject and to invent a story to which the engraving might be applied.

Strangely enough, the world refused to believe in M. Berthoud’s confession, so great a hold had the anecdote taken on the public mind; and a Paris newspaper went so far even as to declare that the original autograph of this letter was to be seen in a library in Normandy! M. Berthoud wrote again denying its existence, and offered a million of francs to any one who would produce the said letter.

From that time the affair was no more spoken of, and Salomon de Caus was allowed to remain in undisputed possession of his fame as having been the first to point out the use of steam in his work _Les raisons des forces mouvantes_. He had previously been employed as engineer to Henry Prince of Wales,[38] son of James I., and he published in London a folio volume, “_La perspective, avec les raisons des ombres et miroirs_.”

In his dedication of another work to the queen of England in 1614, we find some allusion made to the construction of hydraulic machines. On his return to France he, as we said before, was appointed engineer to Louis XIII., and was doubtless encouraged by Cardinal Richelieu, that great patron of arts and letters.

In the castle of Heidelberg we find another instance of the difficulty that exists in uprooting an historical error. There is in the _Galerie des Antiquités_ of this castle a portrait on wood of Salomon de Caus. Above this portrait is exhibited a folio volume of this author, the _Hortus Palatinus, Francofurti_ 1620, apud Joh. Theod. de Bry, with plates. A manuscript note that accompanies this volume, mentions that the letter of Marion Delorme describing the madman of Bicêtre was extracted from the _Gazette de France_ of 3rd March 1834.

Is it not singular that Heidelberg still remains in ignorance of the truth respecting this absurd story, and that the extract from the _Gazette de France_ is still permitted to mislead the public?

As recently also as the 30th September 1865, at a banquet given at Limoges, M. le Vicomte de la Guéronnière, a senator and a man of letters, who presided, made a speech which was reproduced in the _Moniteur_ and in which he repeats the anecdote of Salomon de Caus and Bicêtre. The newspaper _L’Intermédiaire_, in its 45th number, of the 10th November 1865, designates this persistence in error as inept and stupid.

The works of de Caus were held in high estimation among learned men during the whole of the 17th century. He had however been anticipated in the discovery of the application of the power of steam for propelling large bodies.

On the 17th of April 1543, the Spaniard Don Blasco de Garay, launched a steam-vessel at Barcelona in the presence of the Emperor Charles V. It was an old ship of 200 tons called _La sanctissima Trinidada_, which had been fitted up for the experiment, and which moved at the rate of ten miles an hour. The inventor of this first steam-vessel was looked upon as a mere enthusiast whose imagination had run wild, and his only encouragement was a donation of 200,000 marevedis from his sovereign. The Emperor Charles no more dreamt of using a discovery which at that time would have placed the whole of Europe at his feet, than did Napoleon I., three centuries later, when the ingenious Fulton suggested to him the application of steam to navigation. It is well known that Fulton was not even permitted to make an essay of this new propelling force in presence of the French Emperor.

So then we must date the fact of the introduction of steam navigation as far back as 1543; anterior to Salomon de Caus in 1615, to the Marquis of Worcester in 1663, to captain Savary in 1693, to Dr. Papin in 1696, and to Fulton and others, who all lay claim to the original idea.

But we may be wrong after all in denying originality to these men, for we have no proof that either of them had any knowledge of the discoveries of his predecessors.

It was not until the 18th of March 1816, that the first steam-vessel appeared in France, making her entrance into the seaport of Havre. She was the Eliza, which had left Newhaven in England on the previous day.

GALILEO GALILEI.

A. D. 1630.

There are few celebrated men about whom more has been written than Galileo.

The mere enumeration of the works of which he is the subject would fill many pages: nevertheless an important mistake relative to one of the principal events of his life has been so generally accepted and believed, that it may be said to have passed almost into a proverb, and many historians and scientific writers have carelessly adopted and propagated the error.

Between the years 1570 and 1670 Italy had fallen into a state of torpor. The Italians, including even the magnates of the land, had lost all dignity and self-respect, and lay cringing and prostrate at the feet of papal authority. During this period of mental depression Galileo came into the world. Although endowed with a capacious and liberal mind, he was wanting in strength of character, the great failing of his countrymen and of the age in which he lived. Never was he known to exclaim “_E pur si muove!_” Never did he display the heroic firmness that is falsely attributed to him. Greatly in advance of his epoch in science, he still belonged to it in all its shortcomings and defects. He yielded, he hesitated, he drew back before opposition, and was sometimes induced to deny his own doctrines through timidity or in the hope of disarming his enemies, and of escaping from the storm and the whirlwind he had raised around him.

The whole of his correspondence proves the weakness of his character. In Italy, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the most dangerous accusations that could be brought against any man were deism and infidelity. To doubt was punished with death. Galileo was so imprudent as to address a long letter to Castelli, in which he sought to reconcile the words of scripture with the rotation of the earth as discovered by Copernicus. Copernicus had proved the fact previous to Galileo, but he had used the wise precaution to give his opinion only as an hypothesis, and in his work on the motion of the heavenly bodies, dedicated to Pope Paul III., he avoided wounding any susceptibilities, taking especial care to separate theology from science.

Galileo went even further in a second letter, in which he not only attempted to reconcile his principles of astronomy with scripture, but he endeavoured to make the words of scripture subservient to the axioms he laid down. Some powerful friends tried to bring him to a sense of his indiscretion. Cardinal Bellarmini sent him a written remonstrance, urging him to confine himself to mathematics and astronomy, and to avoid the field of theology.

Monsignor Dini, the friend of Galileo, wrote to him thus, 2nd May 1615: “Theologians allow mathematical discussion, but only when the subject is treated as a simple hypothesis, which is alleged to have been the case with Copernicus. The same liberty will be accorded to you if you keep clear of theology.” Cardinal Barberini, also on terms of friendship with Galileo, sent word to him by Ciampoli on the 28th February of the same year, “that he was not to pass the physical and mathematical limits of the question, because the theologians maintain that it appertains to them alone to elucidate scripture.” They all advised him openly and explicitly to refrain from quoting the bible, and his pertinacity might have excited admiration had it been based on firmness of character, but his timidity and innumerable self-contradictions when directly accused of heresy gave the lie to his apparent determination and adhesion to his principles. When Cardinal Maffeo Barberini was elected pope, under the name of Urbanus, Galileo, who had long been on terms of friendship with him, went to Rome to offer his congratulations, and soon after published his celebrated work: _Dialogo intorno ai due massimi sistemi del mondo_.

Unfortunately, instead of limiting himself to astronomy in this work, he enters again upon questions of theology utterly irrelevant to the main subject; but, strangely enough, in the preface to the _Dialogo_ he has the weakness to disguise his real opinions. “I come,” says he, “to defend the system of Ptolemy. As the friend of the cardinals who have condemned the doctrines of Copernicus, I highly approve their decision; a most excellent decision; a most salutary decision. They who have murmured against it, have been to blame. If I take up my pen it is out of excess of catholic zeal; this it is that moves me to reappear before the public after many years of silence.”

The reader cannot but feel compassion in observing so much feeble-mindedness, unworthy of so great a genius. It may be said in his excuse that the counsels of his best friends forced him to play the miserable part with which he has been reproached, that of servile submission and the abandonment of his convictions. While expressing the liveliest interest in his works, his principal patron, the ambassador of Tuscany, thus advises him in letters of the 16th February and 9th April 1633: “Submit yourself to whatever may be demanded of you, as the only means of appeasing the rancour of him who in the excess of his anger has made this persecution a personal affair. Never mind your convictions, do not defend them, but conform to all that your enemies may assert on the question of the earth’s movement.”

Galileo was ordered to Rome to explain himself before the tribunal of the Inquisition. After remaining a month in the palace of the ambassador of Tuscany, he was removed to the palace of the Inquisition, but so far from being imprisoned there, he himself informs one of his friends that he has the use of three spacious apartments, and the services of his own servant, and that he can roam at pleasure through the whole building. On the 12th April 1633 Galileo underwent his first examination. He declares that in his dialogue upon the systems of the world, he neither maintains nor defends the opinion of the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun; that he even demonstrates the contrary opinion, shewing that the arguments of Copernicus are without weight, and are inconclusive. On his second examination, on the 30th April, he says plainly: “I do not actually entertain the opinion of the movement of the earth and the immobility of the sun; I will add to my _Dialogo_ two or three colloquies, and I promise to take up one by one the arguments in favour of the assertions which you condemn, and to refute them unanswerably.”

Certainly the humiliation this great man underwent was profound. He had carried submission so far as to renounce the strongest convictions of the man of science. His persecutors were culpable and cruel, but our business here is only to examine carefully and truthfully the two following propositions: Was Galileo thrown into the dungeons of the Inquisition? and Was he subjected to torture?

A valuable opportunity has been lost of clearing up the doubts which surround the trial of Galileo. In 1809 all the original documents relating to this suit were transmitted from Rome to Paris with the papal archives, and it was intended to publish the whole in the form of a volume consisting of seven or eight hundred pages. Delambre, the historian of modern astronomy, while sending several extracts from these deeds to Venturi, one of Galileo’s biographers, attributes the oblivion into which this intention was suffered to fall, entirely to political motives. Delambre informs us, moreover, that in 1820 the original deeds were no longer forthcoming. Monsignor Morrini, who had been commissioned to claim from the French government whatever appertained to the Holy See, endeavoured in vain to obtain the papers relating to the trial of Galileo. At length the manuscript was restored to Gregory XVI., it was not known how, or by whom, and it was deposited by Pius IX., in 1848, in the archives of the Vatican; since which date no full details have been published. It is now, however, positively affirmed that Galileo was never thrown into the dungeons of the Inquisition.

After the second examination to which Galileo was subjected, Cardinal Barberini suffered him to return to his apartments at the embassy of the grand Duke of Tuscany, where the ambassador Nicolini, his family and household, continued to treat him with much affectionate consideration.

He was again summoned before the Inquisition on the 10th May and on the 21st June, when he repeated that he held as true and indisputable the opinion of Ptolemy, that is to say the immobility of the earth and the mobility of the sun. This was the close of the trial. The next day, Wednesday, 22nd June, 1633, he was brought before the cardinals and prelates of the congregation to hear his sentence and to make his recantation.

It was in the church of the convent of St. Minerva that Galileo Galilei, aged seventy years, pronounced on his knees a form of recantation. It has been said that Galileo, on rising from his knees, murmured these words: “_E pure si muove!_” No doubt this protestation of truth against falsehood may at this cruel crisis have rushed from his heart to his lips, but it must be remembered that if these words had actually been heard, his relapse would have infallibly led him to the stake.

Monsieur Biot, in a learned and conscientious biographical notice, has clearly pointed out, that Galileo was not subjected to torture during any part of his trial anterior to the 22nd June 1633. M. Libri, in his _Histoire des sciences mathématiques en Italie_, is of opinion that as Galileo was subjected to _a rigorous examination_, according to the wording of the sentence, it might be logically inferred that torture had really been inflicted on him.

But Monsignor Marini has fully proved that the _rigorous examination_ was an enquiry which did not necessarily include torture. M. Philarète Chasles, in his _Essay on Galileo_ (the best compendium that we have on the life, labours, and persecutions of the learned Italian astronomer), shews that the popular story, or rather fable, of the persecution of Galileo, accepted by the vulgar, is based upon a false document, a letter forged by the Duc Caetani and his librarian, and addressed to Reineri, and which Tiraboschi, a dupe to the fraud, inserted in his _Histoire littéraire d’Italie_. This letter was taken as an authority, and M. Libri, in his remarkable work “_Histoire des sciences mathématiques en Italie_,” cites it in support of his opinion. But this apocryphal letter is rejected by Nelli, Reumont, and all accurate critics. If Galileo was really subjected to torture, how can we account for the circumstance that during his life-time no rumour of it was current?--that his pupils, his partisans, his numerous defenders, knew nothing of it in France, in Holland, or in Germany?

A few days after his recantation, Galileo Galilei returned to Sienna to his friend the Archbishop Piccolomini, in whose palace the Pope desired him to remain. The following letter was written soon after his arrival at Sienna: “At the entreaty of the ambassador Nicolini, the Pope has granted me permission to reside in the palace and the garden of the Medici on the Trinità, and instead of a prison the archiepiscopal palace has been assigned to me as a home, in which I have already spent fifteen days, congratulating myself on the ineffable kindness of the Archbishop.”

On the 1st December the Pope issued a decree by which Galileo received permission to occupy his villa d’Arcetri, which had been in his possession since 1631. This villa, where Milton visited him, and where Galileo died, on the 8th January 1642, at nearly seventy-eight years of age, is situated on a declivity of one of the hills that overlook Florence. An inscription still perpetuates the memory of its illustrious proprietor. It was here, under arrest, and pending the good will and pleasure of the Pope, that Galileo expiated his imaginary crime. On the 28th July 1640 he wrote to Deodati: “My definitive prison is this little villa, situated a mile from Florence. I am forbidden to receive the visits of my friends, or to invite them to come and converse with me. My life is very tranquil. I often go to the neighbouring convent of _San Matteo_, where two of my daughters are nuns. I love them both dearly, especially the elder, who unites extraordinary intellectual powers to much goodness of heart.”

The growing infirmities of age now began to tell upon Galileo. His weary eyes refused to serve him, and he became completely blind. He was tended in his solitude by his two daughters from the convent. One of them was taken from him by death, but she was replaced by other affectionate relatives, who endeavoured to amuse and console the lonely captive. His letters breathe a poetical melancholy, a quiet irony, an overwhelming humility and an overpowering sense of weariness.

Those who wish to form a just idea of this great and persecuted man, of his true character, his labours, his foibles, and his lack of moral courage, should read the _Beiträge zur italienischen Geschichte_, by Alfred von Reumont, envoy of his Majesty the King of Prussia at Florence. He has classified the correspondence of Galileo and that of his friends, and has completed the labours and researches of Fabroni, Nelli, Venturi, Libri, Marini, Biot, &c. Dr. Max Parchoppe has also very recently sifted and weighed in a remarkable manner, all the evidence relating to the life of Galileo.

We will conclude by mentioning a circumstance very little known and with which the public have only recently become acquainted through an unpublished letter of Galileo dated in the second year of his retreat. It exhibits this illustrious scholar in a new light, as an amateur of good wine and good cheer. “I desire,” he says, “that you should take the advice of the most experienced judges, and procure for me with all diligence and with all imaginable care, a provision of forty bottles, or two cases of liqueurs of various kinds and of the most exquisite quality. You need not consider the expense: I am so moderate in all other sensual indulgences that I may allow myself some scope in favour of Bacchus without fear of giving offence to Venus or to Ceres. You will, I think, easily find wines of Scillo and of Carini (Scylla and Charybdis if you prefer to call them so)--Greek wines from the country of my master, Archimedes the Syracusian; Claret wines, &c. When you send me the cases, be so good as to enclose the account, which I will pay scrupulously and quickly, &c. From my prison of Arcetri, 4th March.” “_Con ogni diligenza e col consiglio et intervento dei piu purgati gusti, voglio restar serviti di farmi provisione di 40 fiaschi, cioè di due casse di liquori varii esquisiti che costi si ritrovino, non curando punto di rispiarme dispesa, perche rispiarmo tanto in tutti gl’altri gusti corporali che posso lasciarmi andare a qualche cosa a richiesta di Bacco, senza offesa delle sue compagne Venere e Cerere. Costi non debbon mancare Scillo e Carini (onde voglio dire Scilla e Caribdi) nè meno la patria del mio maestro Archimede Siracusano, i Grecchi, e Claretti, &c. Havranno, come spero, comodo di farmegli capitare col ritorno delle casse della dispensa, ed io prontamente sodisfaro tutta la spesa, &c._

_Dalla mia carcere d’Arcetri, 4 di Marzo._

_Galileo Galiᵉⁱ._”

It is worthy of remark that he designates his pretty villa at Arcetri as his prison; probably because he was forbidden to extend his walks beyond the convent of San Matteo.

APPENDIX

TO THE NOTICE ON WILLIAM TELL.

The following _Tellenlied_ is the most ancient known, and has been printed in the collection of M. ROCHHOLZ: _Eidgenössische Liederchronik_, p. 206.

In the course of time, this ballad has been often altered in its details; but we give here one of the old forms in which it was written.

To complete the picture of William Tell’s legend, we have added the celebrated ballad on the death of Tell, by the great poet UHLAND who, by this poem, say the Germans:

_Exegit monumentum ære perennius._

1.

Von einer Eidgenossenschaft
Und ihrer unerhörten Kraft
Ist mir ein Lied gelungen,
Drum will ich diesen ew’gen Bund
Besingen und den ganzen Grund,
Aus welchem er entsprungen.

In einem Land, das wie ein Kern
Verschlossen liegt in Bergen fern,
Die man als Mauern preiset,
Fing dieser Bund zum ersten an,
Es ward die Sache frei gethan
Im Land, das Uri heisset.

Nun schaut ihr lieben Herren an,
Wie dieser Schimpf zuerst begann,
Und lasst’s euch nicht verdriessen,
Wie einer seinem liebsten Sohn
Wohl einen Apfel gar aus Hohn
Vom Scheitel musste schiessen.

Der Landvogt sprach zu Wilhelm Tell:
Nun lug zu deiner Kunst, Gesell,
Und nun vernimm mich eben:
Trifft nicht dein allererster Schuss,
Fürwahr, so ist es dir nichts nutz
Und kostet dich dein Leben!

Er hatte Glück durch Gottes Kraft,
Da ist mit rechter Meisterschaft
Der Hauptschuss ihm gelungen;
Er irrte nicht und fehlte nit
Auf hundert und auf dreissig Schritt
Das Ziel am Haupt des Jungen.

Als er den Ersten Gott befahl,
Begriff er einen zweiten Strahl,
In’s Goller ihn zu legen;
Da sprach derselbe Landvogt gut,
Was treibst du da in deinem Muth,
Was hast du dich verwegen?

Der Telle war ein zornig Mann,
Er schnauzt den Landvogt übel an:
Hätt’ ich mein Kind erschossen,
Ich hätte dich, mein Landvogt gut,
Wie ich beschloss in meinem Muth,
Wohl auch geschwind erschossen!

Und solchem Spann und solchem Stoss
Entsprang der erste Eidgenoss!
Und also steht geschrieben:
Der übermüth’gen Vögte Schaar
Ward drauf der Herrschaft blos und bar
Und ans dem Land getrieben.

Wie fest wir schwuren einen Bund
Das bleibt in allen Zeiten kund
Den Jungen wie den Alten,
Und dass in Ehre wir bestehn
Und die geraden Wege gehn,
Das lassen Gott wir walten, etc.

2.

TELL’S TOD.

Grün wird die Alpe werden,
Stürzt die Lawin’ einmal;
Zu Berge ziehn die Heerden,
Fuhr erst der Schnee zu Thal.
Euch stellt, ihr Alpensöhne,
Mit jedem neuen Jahr
Des Eises Bruch vom Föhne
Den Kampf der Freiheit dar.

Da braust der wilde Schächen
Hervor aus seiner Schlucht,
Und Fels und Tanne brechen
Von seiner jähen Flucht,
Er hat den Steg begraben,
Der ob der Stäube hing,
Hat weggespült den Knaben,
Der auf dem Stege ging.

Und eben schritt ein Andrer
Zur Brücke, da sie brach;
Nicht stutzt der greise Wandrer,
Wirft sich dem Knaben nach,
Fasst ihn mit Adlerschnelle,
Trägt ihn zum sichern Ort;
Das Kind entspringt der Welle,
Den Alten reisst sie fort.

Doch als nun ausgestossen
Die Flut den todten Leib,
Da stehn um ihn, ergossen
In Jammer, Mann und Weib;
Als kracht in seinem Grunde
Des Rothstocks Felsgestell,
Erschallt’s aus einem Munde:
Der Tell ist todt, der Tell!

Wär’ ich ein Sohn der Berge,
Ein Hirt am ew’gen Schnee,
Wär’ ich ein kecker Ferge
Auf Uris grünem See,
Und trät’ in meinem Harme
Zum Tell, wo er verschied,
Des Todten Haupt im Arme,
Spräch’ ich mein Klagelied:

“Da liegst du, eine Leiche,
Der Aller Leben war;
Dir trieft noch um das bleiche
Gesicht das greise Haar.
Hier steht, den du gerettet,
Ein Kind, wie Milch und Blut,
Das Land, das du entkettet,
Steht rings in Alpenglut.

“Die Kraft derselben Liebe,
Die du dem Knaben trugst,
Ward einst in dir zum Triebe,
Dass du den Zwingherrn schlugst.
Nie schlummernd, nie erschrocken,
War retten stets dein Brauch,
Wie in den braunen Locken,
So in den grauen auch.

“Wärst du noch jung gewesen,
Als du den Knaben fingst,
Und wärst du dann genesen,
Wie du nun untergingst,
Wir hätten d’raus geschlossen
Auf künft’ger Thaten Ruhm:
Doch schön ist nach dem grossen
Das schlichte Heldenthum.

“Dir hat dein Ohr geklungen
Vom Lob, das man dir bot,
Doch ist zu ihm gedrungen
Ein schwacher Ruf der Noth.
Der ist ein Held der freien,
Der, wann der Sieg ihn kränzt,
Noch glüht, sich dem zu weihen,
Was frommet und nicht glänzt.

“Gesund bist du gekommen
Vom Werk des Zorns zurück,
Im hülfereichen, frommen,
Verliess dich erst dein Glück.
Der Himmel hat dein Leben
Nicht für ein Volk begehrt;
Für dieses Kind gegeben,
War ihm dein Opfer werth.

“Wo du den Vogt getroffen,
Mit deinem sichern Strahl
Dort steht ein Bethaus offen,
Dem Strafgericht ein Mal;
Doch hier, wo du gestorben,
Dem Kind ein Heil zu sein,
Hast du dir nur erworben
Ein schmucklos Kreuz von Stein.

“Weithin wird lobgesungen,
Wie du dein Land befreit,
Von grosser Dichter Zungen
Vernimmt’s noch späte Zeit;
Doch steigt am Schächen nieder
Ein Hirt im Abendroth,
Dann hallt im Felsthal wieder
Das Lied von deinem Tod.”

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX.

In a book like the present, it is advisable to place every possible authority at the disposition of the reader, in order that he may ascertain for himself the truth of the alleged facts, and verify the accuracy of the author.

With this view, I subjoin a bibliographical Index of some of the works ancient or modern that bear upon each of the subjects which I have examined, so that the original sources may be collected by all desirous of so doing.

THE COLOSSUS OF RHODES.

1. COMTE CAYLUS, _Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions_, Vol. XXIV, p. 360.

2. O. DAPPER, _Description des Isles de l’Archipel._ Amsterd. 1703.

3. CHOISEUL-GOUFFIER, _Voyage pittoresque de la Grèce_. Paris 1782, Vol. I, p. 108.

4. W. J. HAMILTON, _Researches in Asia Minor_. London 1842, Vol. II, p. 65.

5. DROYSEN, _Geschichte des Hellenismus_, Vol. II, p. 574.

6. PLINIUS, _Historia naturalis_, lib. 34.

7. DIODORUS SICULUS, lib. 20.

8. STRABO, lib. 14.

9. J. J. WINCKELMANN, _Geschichte der alten Kunst_, lib. 7, cap. 2.

10. COL. ROTTIERS, _Description des monuments de Rhodes_. Bruxelles 1830, p. 81.

11. GUILL. CAVURSIN, _De obsidione Rhodiorum_, anno 1480.

12. NAPOLÉON III, _Histoire de Jules César_, Vol. I, p. 137.

BELISARIUS

1. SCHELWIG (SAMUEL), _Dissertatio Historica de Belisario_. Witteb. 1665. 4ᵗᵒ.

2. EKERMAN (PETER), _Dissertatio de Belisario, duce Justiniani invictissimo_. Upsal. 1761. 4ᵗᵒ.

3. ZELLER (CH. F.), _Belisarius, römischer Feldherr, eine Biographie_. Tübing. 1809. 8ᵛᵒ.

4. MAHON (PH. H.), _Life of Belisarius_. Lond. 1829. 8ᵛᵒ.

5. ROTH (C. L.), _Ueber Belisar’s Ungnade; nach den Quellen_. Basel 1846. 8ᵛᵒ.

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY.

1. _Abdollatiphi Compendium memorabilium Ægypti._ Tubing. 1789.

2. _Hist. Dynast._ _translated_ by POCOCKE.

3. _Histoire de l’École d’Alexandrie_, par M. MATTER. Paris 1840. II Vol. 8ᵛᵒ.

This work supplies all the authorities for and against the fact of the burning of the Alexandrian Library.

POPE JOAN.

1. VERGERIO, _Istoria di Papa Giovanni VIII. che fu femina_. I Vol. _S. l._ 1556. 8ᵛᵒ.

2. SCHERER, _Gründlicher Bericht &c._ Wien 1584. 4ᵗᵒ.

3. H. WITEKIND, _Jesuitas Pontificis Maximi emissarios falso et frustra negare Papam Johannem VIII., fuisse meretricem_. 1588. 4ᵗᵒ.

4. _Erreur populaire de la Papesse Jeanne_, par FLORIMOND DE RAYMOND. Bordeaux 1588, in 8ᵛᵒ. Paris 1599, Cambrai 1603.

5. J. MAYS, _The Pope’s Parliament_. London 1591 and 1594.

6. _Papa mulier_ (auctore N. FABRO). Witebergæ 1609. 8ᵛᵒ.

7. G. WHITAKER, _De Papa romano et Papissa romana_. 1612. 8ᵛᵒ.

8. SERRARIUS, _Tractatus de Johanna Papissa_. Coloniæ Agripp. 1614.

9. _Anatomy of Pope Joan._ London 1626. 12ᵐᵒ.

10. LEO ALLACIUS, _Fabulæ de Johanna Papissa confutatio ex monumentis græcis_. Romæ 1630, 4ᵗᵒ, and 1645, 8ᵛᵒ.

11. J. DE LA SALLE, _Confutatio Joannæ Papissæ_. Lovanii 1633. 8ᵛᵒ.

12. J. DE LA MONTAGNE, _La Papesse Jeanne_. Sedan 1633. 8ᵛᵒ.

It is a translation of the work of A. Cooke, inserted in the 4th Vol. of the _Harleyan Miscellany_.

13. EHINGER, _Dissertatio de Papa Muliere_. 1641. 4ᵗᵒ.

14. DAVID BLONDEL, _Familier esclaircissement de la question si une femme a été assise au siège papal_. Amsterdam 1649. 8ᵛᵒ.

15. N. COGNARD, _Traité contre l’éclaircissement donné par David Blondel_. Saumur 1655. 8ᵛᵒ.

16. R. CAPELLUS, _Discursus Historicus de Johanna VIII._ 1655. 4ᵗᵒ.

17. S. MARESIUS, _Johanna Papissa restituta_. Groningæ 1658. 8ᵛᵒ.

18. _Historia Johannis VIII., Romani Pontificis, sexum suum partu in publica viâ edito prodentia._ Helmstad. 1662. 4ᵗᵒ.

19. CHIFFLET, _Judicium de fabulæ Joannæ papissæ_. Antwerp. 1666. 4ᵗᵒ.

20. G. VOELIUS, _Spicilegium ad disceptationem historicam de Papissâ Johannâ_. Ultrajecti 1669. 4ᵗᵒ.

21. J. LEHMANN, _In felix puerpera Johanna VIII., pontifex dissertatione historica exhibita_. Witteberg 1669. 4ᵗᵒ.

22. S. D. ARTOPÄUS, _Dissertatio de Johanna Papissa_. Lipsiæ 1673. 4ᵗᵒ.

23. _Present for a Papist, or the life and death of Pope Joan._ London 1675. 8ᵛᵒ.

24. FRED. SPANHEIM, _Disquisitio historica de Papâ fœminâ, &c._ Lugd. Batav. 1691. 8ᵛᵒ.

25. JACQUES LENFANT, _Histoire de la Papesse Jeanne_. Cologne 1694. 8ᵛᵒ.

26. M. RYDELIUS, _Dissertatio de Pontifice Johanne VIII._ London 1723. 8ᵛᵒ.

27. C. A. HEUMANN, _Dissertatio de origine verâ traditionis falsæ de Johanna Papissa_. Gœttingæ 1739. 4ᵗᵒ.

28. _Surprising history of Pope Joan._ London 1744. 8ᵛᵒ.

29. J. Z. GLEICHMANN, _Wahrheit der Geschichte, &c._ Francfort 1744. 4ᵗᵒ.

30. P. P. WOLF, _Ueber die Wahrscheinlichkeit, &c._ Ratisb. 1809. 8ᵛᵒ.

31. _Die Päpstin Joanna, &c._ Mayence 1821. 8ᵛᵒ.

32. S. CIAMPI, _Discussione sull’ opinione, &c._ Firenze 1828. 8ᵛᵒ.

33. W. SMET, _Das Mährchen, &c._ Cologne 1829. 12ᵐᵒ.

34. BIANCHI-GIOVINI, _Esame critico, &c._ Turin 1839.

35. N. C. KIST, _De Pausin Joanna, &c._ Leyde 1844. 8ᵛᵒ.

36. J. H. WENSING, _De Verhandeling, &c._ The Hague 1845. 8ᵛᵒ.

This is an answer to the work of KIST.

37. PHILOMNESTE JUNIOR, _La Papesse Jeanne, étude historique et littéraire_. Paris 1862. 12ᵐᵒ.

38. MISSON, _Voyage d’Italie_. La Haye 1702.

39. SHELHORN, _Amœnitates litterariæ_, t. III, and IX.

40. BAYLE, _Dictionnaire historique_.

Very remarkable article.

ABELARD AND ELOISA.

1. GERVAISE, _Vie de P. Abelard et celle d’Heloisa_. Paris 1720, II Vol. 12ᵐᵒ.

2. HUGHES, _History of Abelard and Héloïse_. Glasg. 1751. 8ᵛᵒ.

Not mentioned by Lowndes.

3. MÜCHLER, _Geschichte und Briefe des Abailard und der Heloïse_. Berlin 1755. 8ᵛᵒ.

4. BERINGTON, _History of the lives of Abailard and Heloïsa_. London 1784. 4ᵗᵒ. and Birmingh. 1787. 4ᵗᵒ.

5. METRA, _Vita, amore e lettere di Abelardo e di Eloïsa_. Triest 1794, II Vol. 8ᵛᵒ. and Milan 1835.

6. MILLS (HENRY), _Letters of Abelard and Eloïsa with an account of their lives_. London 1807. 8ᵛᵒ.

7. FESSLER, _Abaelard und Heloise_. Berlin 1807. II Vol. 8ᵛᵒ.

8. SCHLOSSER, _Abaelard und Dulcin, Leben und Meinungen eines Schwärmers und Philosophen_. Gotha 1807. 8ᵛᵒ.

9. FOLLIN, _Dissertatio de vita et scriptis P. Abælardi,_ _auctoris philosophiæ scholasticæ vulgo habiti_. Lund. 1809. 8ᵛᵒ.

10. TURLOT, _Abailard et Heloïse, avec un aperçu du XIIᵉ siècle_. Paris 1822. 8ᵛᵒ.

11. FEUERBACH, _Abaelard und Heloïse, oder der Schriftsteller und der Mensch_. Ansb. 1833. 8ᵛᵒ.

12. VILLENAVE, _Abelard et Héloïse, leurs amours, leurs malheurs, leurs ouvrages_. Paris 1834. 8ᵛᵒ.

13. GUIZOT (MELANIE), _Essai sur la vie et les écrits d’Abailard et d’Héloïse, jusqu’au Concile de Sens, continuée jusqu’à la mort d’Abailard et d’Héloïse, par François Guizot_. Paris 1839. 8ᵛᵒ. _Suivie des lettres d’Abailard et d’Héloïse._ Paris 1853. 8ᵛᵒ.

14. WEYLAND, _Tableau Historique de la vie d’Abailard et d’Héloïse_. Metz 1840. 8ᵛᵒ.

15. RÉMUSAT (CHARLES), _Abelard_. Paris 1845, II Vol. 8ᵛᵒ.

16. JACOBI (J. LUDWIG), _Abelard und Heloïse_; Vortrag am 23. Febr. 1850 im wissenschaftlichen Vereine gehalten. Berlin 1850. 8ᵛᵒ.

17. TOSTI, _Storia di Abelardo e di suo tempo, Napoli_.

18. _Nouveau recueil contenant la vie, les amours, les infortunes et les lettres d’Abelard et d’Héloïse._ Anvers 1722. 12ᵐᵒ.

19. LENOIR (ALEXANDRE), _Notice historique sur les sépultures d’Héloïse et d’Abelard, &c._ Paris 1814. 8ᵛᵒ.

20. _Lettres d’Héloise et d’Abelard._ Traduction nouvelle par le bibliophile JACOB; précédée d’un travail historique et littéraire, par M. VILLENAVE. 1864. Charpentier. 12ᵐᵒ.

WILLIAM TELL.

1. Chronicle of STUMPFF, published in 1606.

2. PETERMAN ETTERLIN, Chronicle printed at Basle in 1507.

3. FRANCIS GUILLIMAN, _De rebus Helveticis sive Antiquitatum libri V_, Friburg 1598. 4ᵗᵒ.

4. GRÄSSER, _Schweizerisch Heldenbuch_. Basle 1626. 4ᵗᵒ.

He is the first who showed the resemblance between the legend of Tell and that of Toko.

5. J. MÜLLER, _Geschichte der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft_.

The best edition is that of Leipzig 1825.

6. G. E. HALLER, _Bibliothek der schweizerischen Geschichte_, V, Vol. 4ᵗᵒ.

7. J. CH. ISELIN, _Historisches und geographisches allgemeines Lexicon_. Basel 1727. Fol.

This author is not to be confounded with J. R. ISELIN who edited the old chronicle of TSCHUDI, and who also examined the legend of Tell.

8. URIEL FREUDENBERGER, _Die Fabel von Wilhelm Tell_. A manuscript in the Library of Berne, 1752.

To be also consulted a letter of the same to Haller, dated 25th June 1759.

9. L. HÄUSSER, _Die Sage vom Tell_. Heidelberg 1840. 8ᵛᵒ.

Of all the works on our subject, HÄUSSER’S is by far the most complete and the most important.

10. J. J. HISELY, _Guillaume Tell et la Révolution de 1307_, Delft 1826. 8ᵛᵒ.

11. By the same: _Recherches critiques sur l’histoire de Guillaume Tell_. Lausanne 1843.

Very interesting and impartial.

12. _Mémoire sur l’authenticité du trait d’héroisme attribué à Guillaume Tell_, par BOURGON. Inserted in a volume of the Academy of Besançon, published in 1830.

13. J. L. IDELER, _Die Sage von dem Schuss des Tell_. Berlin 1836. 8ᵛᵒ.

14. J. E. KOPP, _Urkunden zur Geschichte der eidgenössischen Bünde_. Luzern 1835.

15. Professor ASCHBACH, In the _Heidelberger Jahrb. der Litter._ 1836.

16. FRED. SCHIERN, _Wanderung einer nordischen Sage, &c._ Copenhagen 1840.

In the first volume of: _Mémoires de la Société d’histoire de Danemarc_.

PETRARCH.

1. A. MARSAND, _Bibliotheca Petrachesa, &c._ Milan 1826. 4ᵗᵒ.

This bibliography contains more than 800 works, which are collected in the Library of the Louvre.

2. J. F. P. A. DE SADE, _Mémoires sur la vie de F. Pétrarque_. Amsterd. 1764, III Vol. 4ᵗᵒ.

3. _Vie de F. Pétrarque, dont les actions et les écrits font une des plus singulières époques de l’histoire et de la littérature moderne._ Vaucluse 1786. 8ᵛᵒ.

4. UGO FOSCOLO, _Essay on the love, the poetry, and the character of Petrach_. London 1822. 8ᵛᵒ.

5. MAZZUCHELLI, _Vita del Petrarca, scritta da lui medesimo_. Brescia 1822. 8ᵛᵒ.

6. S. WESTON, _Petrarchiana, or additions to the visit of Vaucluse_. London 1822. 8ᵛᵒ.

7. RASTOUL DE MONGEOT, _Pétrarque_. Paris 1836. 8ᵛᵒ.

8. CAMPBELL, _Life of Petrarch_. London 1841, II Vol. 12ᵐᵒ.

9. OLIVIER VITALIS, _L’illustre Châtelaine des environs de Vaucluse, la Laure de Pétrarque. Dissertation et examen critique des diverses opinions des écrivains qui se sont occupés de cette belle Laure_. Paris 1842. 8ᵛᵒ.

10. CARLO LEONI, _Vita di Petrarca_. Padov. 1843. 8ᵛᵒ.

11. (GIULIO NONÈ), _Lettera intorno ad una biografia di F. Petrarca_. Padov. 1845. 8ᵛᵒ. Critique de la vie de Pétrarque par G. M. BOZOLI, Ferrar. 1845. 8ᵛᵒ.

12. RASTOUL DE MONGEOT, _Pétrarque et son siècle_. Brux. 1836, II Vol.

13. HENAUX, _Pétrarque à Liège_. Liège 1853.

14. M. et Mᵐᵉ GUIZOT, _Vie de Pétrarque avec ses lettres et celles de Laure_. Paris 1854. 8ᵛᵒ.

JEANNE D’ARC.

1. CL. CH. FR. DE L’AVEDY, _Notices sur la vie de la Pucelle d’Orléans_. Paris 1790. 4ᵗᵒ.

Ce recueil contient des extraits de 38 manuscrits relatifs à la condamnation et à la réhabilitation de la Pucelle d’Orléans.

2. J. B. P. CHANSSARD, _Jeanne d’Arc, recueil historique et complet_. Orléans 1806, II Vol. 8ᵛᵒ.

A la fin de ce recueil se trouve une liste de 400 ouvrages concernant la vie de Jeanne d’Arc.

3. LENGLET DU FRESNOY, _Histoire de Jeanne d’Arc_. Paris 1753, III Vol. 12ᵐᵒ.

4. DANIEL POLLUCHE, _Problème historique sur la Pucelle d’Orléans_. Orléans 1749. 8ᵛᵒ.

5. J. P. DE LUCHET, _Dissertation sur Jeanne d’Arc, vulgairement nommée la Pucelle d’Orléans_. Paris 1776, 12ᵐᵒ.

6. P. A. LEBRUN DE CHARMETTES, _Histoire de Jeanne d’Arc, &c._ Paris 1817, IV Vol. 8ᵛᵒ.

7. J. H. BUCHON, _Chronique et procès de la Pucelle d’Orléans_. Paris 1828. 8ᵛᵒ.

8. GÖRRES, _Die Jungfrau von Orleans_. Regensb. 1834. 8ᵛᵒ.

9. MICHAUD et POUJOULAT, _Notice sur Jeanne d’Arc_. Paris 1837. 8ᵛᵒ.

10. JULES QUICHERAT, _Procès de condamnation et de réhabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc_. Paris 1841-42, II Vol. 8ᵛᵒ.

11. BARTHÉLEMY DE BEAUREGARD, _Histoire de Jeanne d’Arc, d’après les chroniques contemporaines, les recherches des modernes, et plusieurs documents nouveaux_. Paris 1847, II Vol. 8ᵛᵒ.

Ouvrage suivi d’une liste de près de 1200 articles indiquant tout ce qui a été publié sur la Pucelle d’Orléans.

12. EVANS, _Story of Joan of Arc_. London 1847. 8ᵛᵒ.

13. G. POUJOULAT, _Mémoires concernant la Pucelle d’Orléans_. Paris 1847. 8ᵛᵒ.

14. C. N. N. DE HALDAT, _Examen critique de l’histoire de Jeanne d’Arc_. Paris 1850. 8ᵛᵒ.

15. JULES QUICHERAT, _Aperçus nouveaux sur l’histoire de Jeanne d’Arc_. Paris 1850. 8ᵛᵒ.

16. J. MICHELET, _Jeanne d’Arc_. Paris 1853. 8ᵛᵒ.

COUNTESS OF CHATEAUBRIAND.

1. LESCONVEL (PIERRE DE), _Histoire amoureuse de François I. &c._ Amsterd. 1695. 12ᵐᵒ. Paris 1700. Ibid. 1724. 12ᵐᵒ.

2. GOTTIS (AUGUSTINE), _François I. et Madame de Chateaubriand_. Paris 1816. II Vol. 12ᵐᵒ. Ibid. 1822.

3. _Curiosités de l’histoire de France_, par le bibliophile JACOB. 2ᵐᵉ série. Procès célèbres. Paris 1858. 12ᵐᵒ.

4. _Les amours de François I._, par M. DE LESCURE. Paris 1865. 8ᵛᵒ.

CHARLES V.[39]

1. STAPHYLUS, _Historia de vita, morte et gestis Caroli V._ Aug. Vind. 1559. 4ᵗᵒ.

2. P. DE SANDOVAL, _Historia de la vida y hechos del emperador Carlos V._ 1634. Fol.

3. GR. LETI, _Vita dell’ invitissimo imperatore Carolo V._ Amsterd. 1700. 8ᵛᵒ.

4. J. NOMSZ, _Leven van Karel V._ Amsterd. 1787. 12ᵐᵒ.

5. GACHARD, _Particularités et documents inédits sur Charles Quint_. Brux. 1842. 8ᵛᵒ.

This author has since this date published two or three important works on Charles V.

6. W. VAN MALE, _Lettres sur la vie intérieure de l’Empereur Charles Quint_. Brux. 1843. 8ᵛᵒ.

7. TH. PAUR, _Johann Sleidan’s Commentar über die Regierungszeit Karl’s V._ Leipzig 1843. 8ᵛᵒ.

8. _Mémoires sur Charles V et sa cour, adressés en 1516 par l’évêque de Badajoz au cardinal Ximenez de Cisneros._ Brux. 1845.

Extraits des bulletins de la Commission Royale d’histoire.

9. E. GACHET, _Documents inédits, &c._ Brux. 1844. 8ᵛᵒ.

10. BAKHUIZEN VAN DEN BRINK, _La retraite de Charles V, analyse d’un manuscrit espagnol contemporain_. Brux. 1850. 8ᵛᵒ.

11. WILLIAM STIRLING, _The cloister life of the emperor Charles V._ London 1852. 8ᵛᵒ.

Translated into German by M. B. LINDAU. Dresd. 1853. 8ᵛᵒ., and by AUGUST KAISER, Leipzig 1853. 8ᵛᵒ. Also into French by AMÉDÉE PICHOT.

12. A. PICHOT, _Chronique de l’abdication, de la retraite et de la mort de Charles V._ Paris 1853. 8ᵛᵒ.

13. _Charles V, son abdication, son séjour et sa mort au Monastère de Yuste, par_ M. MIGNET. _Paris_ 1863. 8ᵛᵒ.

14. KARL LANZ, _Correspondenz des Kaisers Karl V., aus dem königlichen Archiv und der Bibliothèque de Bourgogne zu Brüssel mitgetheilt_. Leipzig 1846, III Vol. 8ᵛᵒ.

15. P. EKERMAN, _Dissertatio de favore Imperatoris Caroli V. in literas et literatos_. Upsala 1743. 4ᵗᵒ.

16. L. BACMEISTER, _Epistola inedita de morte Caroli V._ Hamb. 1719. 4ᵗᵒ.

17. PH. DEBRUYNE, _Précis de l’histoire de Charles Quint, &c._ Namur 1851. 8ᵛᵒ.

18. REIFFENBERG (FRED. AUG.), _Charles V considéré comme renommée populaire_. Brux. 1838. 8ᵛᵒ.

19. DE MERSSEMAN (J. OLIV. M.), _La cour et la vie intérieure de Charles Quint_. Bruges 1847. 8ᵛᵒ.

20. JUSTE (THÉODORE), _L’abdication de Charles Quint_. Liège 1851.

21. _Histoire de Charles Quint_, par M. MIGNET. Paris 1854. 8ᵛᵒ.

GALILEO GALILEI.

1. CAMPANELLA (TOMASO), _Apologia pro Galileo &c._, Francof. 1622. 4ᵗᵒ.

2. FRISI (PAOLO), _Elogio del Galileo_. Livorno 1775. 8ᵛᵒ.

Translated into French: _Essai sur la vie et les découvertes de G. Galilei_, par ALBERT JÉRÔME FLONCEL. Paris 1776. 12ᵐᵒ.

3. JAGEMANN (CHRIST. JOS.), _Geschichte des Lebens und der Schriften des G. Galilei_. Weim. 1784. 8ᵛᵒ.

4. NELLI (CLAUDIO DE), _Vita e commercio litterario de G. Galilei_. Losanna 1793. II Vol. 4ᵗᵒ.

5. VENTURI (G. B.), _Memorie e letter e inedite finora e dispersi di G. Galilei_. Moden. 1818-21. II Vol. 4ᵗᵒ.

6. LIBRI (GUGLIEMO), _Histoire de la vie et des œuvres de G. Galilei_. Paris 1841.

Translated into German by FRIED. WILH. CAROVÉ. 1842. And also into Italian. Milan. 1841.

7. BREWSTER (DAVID), _Lives of G. Galilei, Tycho Brahe and Kepler, the martyrs of science_. London 1841.

8. CATTANEO (ANTONIO), _Cenni su la vita di G. Galilei_. Milan 1843. 4ᵗᵒ.

9. _Galileo Galilei, sa vie, son procès et ses contemporains, d’après les documents originaux_, par PHILARÈTE CHASLES. Paris 1862. 8ᵛᵒ.

10. _Galilée, sa vie, ses découvertes et ses travaux_, par le Dr. MAX. PARCHAPPE. Paris 1866. 8ᵛᵒ.

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

1. OLD FLANDERS, OR LEGENDS AND TRADITIONS OF BELGIUM. 8ᵛᵒ. London, Newby.

2. HISTORY OF FLEMISH LITERATURE. 8ᵛᵒ London, Murray.

3. LE LIVRE DES VISIONS, OU LE CIEL ET L’ENFER DÉCRITS PAR CEUX QUI LES ONT VUS. 8ᵛᵒ. London, Trübner & Co.

4. HISTOIRE LITTÉRAIRE DES FOUS. 8ᵛᵒ. London, Trübner & Co.

5. MACARONEANA, OU HISTOIRE DE LA LITTÉRATURE MACARONIQUE. 8ᵛᵒ. Paris, Gancia.

6. BIOGRAPHIE DES ARTISTES BRUGEOIS. Avec portraits. 8ᵛᵒ. Bruges, Van de Castele.

7. VIE DE MARIE DE BOURGOGNE. 4ᵗᵒ. Bruxelles, Wahlen.

8. MÉLANGES HISTORIQUES ET LITTÉRAIRES. 8ᵛᵒ. Bruges, Van de Castele.

9. HISTOIRE DE LA VILLE DE BRUGES, DEPUIS LES TEMPS LES PLUS RECULÉS. 8ᵛᵒ. Bruges.

10. REVUE ANALYTIQUE DES OUVRAGES ÉCRITS EN CENTONS, DEPUIS LES TEMPS ANCIENS, JUSQU’AU XIXᵐᵉ SIÈCLE. 8ᵛᵒ. London, Trübner & Co.

PRINTED BY P. A. BROCKHAUS, LEIPZIG.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See a curious work by M. Boissonnade, _Notice des Manuscrits_, Vol. X, p. 157.

[2] See _Magasin Pittoresque_, June 1844, p. 190.

[3] _Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires_, Vol. XII. p. 104-152.

[4] _Revue des Deux Mondes_, 1. November 1843. p. 480. _Journal des Débats._ 1. December 1815.

[5] Navarette, _Les quatres Voyages de Colomb_, in 8ᵛᵒ. t. I. p. 116; and Berger de Xivrey, _Revue de Paris_, Nov. 25 1838, p. 269.

[6] Gentleman’s Magazine, May 1825, p. 350. Henry Halford, _Essays and Orations_.

[7] Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions, Vol. XXIV.

[8] Histoire du Monde, Vol. IV. p. 319.

[9] Religion des Anciens, p. 211.

[10] Researches in Asia Minor. 8ᵛᵒ. London. 1842.

[11] It was reprinted with a Latin translation by J. C. Orelli, at Leipzig in 1816. Strabo also mentions the Colossus as one of the seven wonders of the world.

[12] This Greek word signifies, according to Cicero, a secret book, set apart to contain the doings and tricks of contemporaries which it is not desirable to reveal to the public.

[13] Lucan’s _Pharsalia_, Book X. p. 230, 231, translated by N. Rowe.

[14] _Dissertation historique sur la Bibliothèque d’Alexandrie_, by Bonamy, in the _Histoire de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres_, Vol. IX. year 1736.

[15] In a report of the meeting of the Academy of Sciences in Paris, May 1857, M. le Baron Dupin, the spokesman of the Academy, informed the public “that Omar, Mahomet’s general, having conquered the valley of the Nile, his lieutenant Amrou suggested to him the formation of a canal direct from Suez to Pelusium; but,” continues Monsieur Dupin, “was it likely that the man (Amrou) who was guilty of burning the Alexandrian library, should possess sufficient capacity to carry out so grand an idea.”

Now there are here almost as many errors as words. First, the Emir Omar never did conquer the valley of the Nile. Secondly, he could not have rejected the idea of the construction of a canal from Suez to Pelusium, for the very good reason that the canal already existed; and lastly, he did not burn the Ptolomean library of Alexandria, as it had been destroyed two centuries and a half previously.

[16] This literal translation from the passage in Arabic is due to Silvestre de Sacy. G. Heyne, in his _Opuscula Academica_, explains concisely all the vicissitudes the Alexandrian Library underwent.

[17] Mémoire de C. Langlès, _Magasin Encyclopédique_, 1799, Vol. III.

[18] Martinus Polonus died about the year 1270, that is to say 184 years after Marianus. His remarks on Pope Joan are not fit for transcription.

[19] _Familier éclaircissement de la question si une femme a été assise au siège Papal de Rome_: Amsterdam 1747, in 8ᵛᵒ.

[20] In his dissertation _De nummo argenteo_, Benedicti III.: Rome 1749, in 4ᵗᵒ.

[21] Inserted in vol. II. part 1. of the _Rerum Italicarum Scriptores_.

[22] _Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne: Février 1863._

[23] This decree of the council is delivered in terms sufficiently damaging to the reputation of the convent of which Eloisa was prioress: “_In communi audientiâ conclamatum est super enormitate et infamiâ cujusdam monasterii sanctimonialium quod dicitur Argentolium in quo paucæ moniales multiplici infamiâ ad ignominiam sui ordinis degentes, multo tempore spurcâ et infami conversatione omnem ejusdem loci affinitatem fœdaverant_.” (_Gallia Christiana_, Vol. VII. p. 52.)

[24] _Dulcius mihi semper exstitit amicæ vocabulum aut si non indigneris, concubinæ vel scorti. Charius mihi et dignius videretur tua dici meretrix quam Augusti imperatrix._

[25] The rest is better left in Latin: “_Concupiscentia te mihi potius quam amicitia sociavit, libidinis ardor potius quam amor. Ubi igitur quod desiderabas cessavit, quicquid propter hoc exhibebas pariter evanuit._”

[26] _Frustra utrumque geritur quod amore Dei non agitur. In omni autem Deus scit, vitæ meæ statu, te magis adhuc offendere quam Deum vereor. Tibi placere amplius quam ipsi appeto. Tua me ad religionis habitum jussio, non divina traxit dilectio. Vide quam infelicem et omnibus miserabiliorem ducam vitam, si tanta hic frustra substineo: nihil habitura remunerations in futuro!!_

[27] M. Lenoir, at the time of the publication of his work, was the keeper of the _Musée des petits Augustins_, in Paris.

[28] _Annales archéologiques de Didron_, 1846. _p._ 12.

[29] _Lettres d’Abailard et d’Héloïse traduite sur les manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Royale par E. Oddoul, avec une préface par Monsieur Guizot Paris 1839, gr. in 8ᵒ, gravures._

[30] It was taken down 1861 and a plaister statue of Tell erected in its place.

[31] _L’illustre Châtelaine des environs de Vaucluse; dissertation et examen critique de la Laure de Pétrarque._ Paris 1842, in 8ᵛᵒ.

[32] As already stated, a large tablet was carried before her on which her alleged crimes were inscribed.

[33] Namely: _Mémoire tiré des archives de Chateaubriand par feu le Président Ferrand_.

[34] Mignet, Amédée Pichot, and W. Stirling.

M. Gachard has rather given the rein, we believe, to his imagination, and adopts the legend of the funeral obsequies. We shall see how triumphantly M. Mignet rebuts it.

[35] It was the Venetian, Frederic Badouaro, who conceived the comical idea of representing Giovanni Torriano as a simple clockmaker. Cardanus, in book XVII. of his work _De Artibus_, mentions a wonderful piece of mechanism constructed by Torriano.

[36] Henry Coiffier de Ruzé d’Effiat, Marquis de Cinq-Mars, beheaded at Lyons in 1642 by order of Richelieu. He was secretly married to Marion Delorme.

[37] The author of this letter adds in a note: “The Marquis of Worcester, who is considered by the English to be the inventor of the steam-engine, appropriated to himself the discovery of Salomon de Caus and inserted it in a book entitled _Century of Inventions_, published in 1663.”

[38] Some very interesting details on Salomon de Caus and on the honourable appointments he held until his death may be found in a work of M. L. Dussieux: _Les Artistes Français à l’Étranger_, Paris 1856.

[39] Only a very few of the innumerable Histories and Biographies of Charles V. will be mentioned here.

Transcriber's Notes:

Italics are shown thus: _sloping_.

Variations in spelling and hyphenation are retained.

Perceived typographical errors have been changed.