Meric Casaubon’s preface, part 2 of 9

First, We said, The world was full of Imposture. It is granted, of Impostors and Impostures. But what then shall the conclusion be, That […] there is no truth in the world, or at least not to be attained unto by mortal man? Truly, many books of old have been written to that effect. Sextus […] is yet extant, a very learned book it cannot be denied, and of excellent use for the understanding of ancient Authors, Phylosophers especially. I could name some Christians also, by profession, men of great learning that have gone very far that way. But this will not be granted by some I am sure that are or have been thought great oppugners of the common opinion about Witches and Spirits; some Physicians I mean, and Naturalists by their profession. But may not we argue as plausibly against that which they professe, as they have done or can do against Spirits and Apparitions? We would be loath to make so long a digression; we have had occasion elsewhere to say somewhat to this purpose: and they that will be so curious may see what hath been written by Cornel. Agrippa (who is very large upon this subject) about it, not to name any others. It is not yet a full twelve-moneth, that a friend of mine, a Gentleman of quality, brought his Lady to London (some 60 miles and upwards from his ordinary dwelling) to have the advice of Physicians about his wife (a very Virtuous and Religious Lady) troubled with a weak stomack and ill digestion, which caused […] symptoms. I think he had the advice of no lesse then a dozen first and last: I am sure he named unto me five or six of the chiefest in Credit and practice that the Town affordeth. Not one of them did agree in their opinions, either concerning the Cause, or the means to be used for a Cure. So that the Gentleman went away more unsatisfied then he came. What he did I knovv not: I knovv vvhat some men vvould have inferred upon this. Yet I, for my part, for the benefit that I have received by it, and the effects that I have seen of it, both upon my self, and others in my life-time, upon several occasions (where learned Artists, not Empiricks have been employed) though all the world should be of another opinion, I think my self bound to honour, as the profession, so all Learned, Ingenious Professors of it: and I make no question but the worst of Agrippa's objections, by any man of competent judgment and experience, may easily be answered. I say therefore that as in other things of the world, so in matters of Spirits and Apparitions, though lyable to much error and imposture, yet it doth not follow but there may be reality of truth and certainty discernable unto them that will take the pains to search things unto the bottom, where truth commonly is to be found, and are naturally endowed with competent judgments to discern between specious arguments and solidity of truth.

But this proveth nothing. No: but the removing of this common objection may dispose the Reader, I hope, to consider of what we have to say with lesse prejudice. And that shall be our next task, what we have to say for Spirits, &c. before we come to particular Objections. Wherein neverthelesse I will be no longcr then I must at this time, because I shall have a more proper place in two several Tractates, the one whereof hath been a long time in loose notes and papers, not yet digested, to wit, my Second Part of Enthusiasme: the other, in my head yet wholly, but in better readinesse to be brought to light, because of later conception; to wit, A Discourse of Credulity and Incredulity, in things Natural, Civil and Divine, or Theological. We shall meet there with many cases not so necessary here to be spoken of, which will help very much to clear this business.

¶ But here I say, first of all, It is a Maxim of Aristotle's the great Oracle of Nature, which many have taken notice of, and applyed to their several purposes: [non-Latin script] That which is generally believed, is most likely to be true. Who also in another place of the same book doth approve the saying of Hesiod, [non-Latin script] Now if any opinion whereof question is made can justly pretend to a general assent and consent of all people, places, ages of the world, I think, nay, I know, and it will be proved that this of Witches, Spirits, and Apparitions may. I do not know scarce any ancient book extant of Philosopher or Historian (the Writings of professed Epicureans excepted, of Aristotle we shall give an account by and by) but doth afford some pregnant relation, testimony or passage to the confirmation of this truth. I dare say, should a man collect the relations and testimonies out of several Authors and books (that are come to our knowledge) within the compasse of two thousand years, of Authors well accounted of, generally, and vvhose testimonies (Historians especially) vve receive in other things; a man might make a book of the biggest size and form that ordinary books (vvhich vve call Folioes) are. It is true, many Authors may vvrite one thing vvhich may prove false, as the famous history of the Phenix, perchance, or some such; but upon examination it vvill appear that those many take all from one or tvvo at the most, vvho first delivered it. They add nothing in confirmation of their ovvn knovvledg or experience. But here it is quite othervvise; those many Authors that I speak of (Historians especially of several ages) they tell us different things that hapned in their own times, in divers places of the world: and of many of them we may say they were such as knew little of former books, or stories of other Nations but their own. Within these 200 years the world, we know, by the benefit of Navigation hath been more open and known then before; yea, a great part of the world discovered that was not known before. I have read many books, the best I could meet with, in several Languages, of divers Voyages into all parts of the world: I have conversed with many Travellers, whom I judged sober and discreet. I never read any book of that argument, nor yet met with man, that I have had the opportunity to confer with, but was able of his own knowledg to say somewhat whereby my belief of these things might be confirmed.

Now for the Epicureans (of all Philosophers the most inconsiderable in matters of knowledg, as former ages have described them) no man need to wonder if they denyed those things which by the solemn engagement of their Sect they were bound and resolved, notwithstanding any sight or sense, experience or evidence to the contrary, not to believe, at least not to acknowledg. This doth clearly appear by one that may be believed (though I have met with it in more) in such things. Lucian (himself a profest Epicurean Atheist) who doth commend Democritus, Epicurus and Met rodorus (the most famous of that Sect) for their [non-Latin script] as he calls it, their fixed, irrevokeable, unconquerable resolution, when they saw any strange thing that by others vvas admired as miraculous, if they could find the cause or give a probable guesse, vvell and good, if not, yet not to depart from their first resolution, and still to believe and to maintain that it vvas false and impossible: It is a notable passage, and vvhich excellent use may be made of. I vvill therefore set dovvn his ovvn vvords for their sake that understand the Language: — [non-Latin script] (speaking of some of Alexander the false Prophet his devices) [non-Latin script] Who doubts that this is the resolution of many also in these dayes, not of them only vvho are Epicureans, vvhose manner of living (as vve have said before) doth engage them to this opinion, but of others also, vvho think it not for their credit (the vanity of vvhich belief nevertheless might easily appear, there being nothing so mean and ordinary in the vvorld vvherein the Wisdom of the vvisest, in the consideration of the causes, by the confession of best Naturalists, may not be posed) to believe any thing that they cannot give a probable reason of. Not to be wondred then if we see many, notwithstanding daily experience to the contrary, to stick so close to those tenets which they have wedded themselves unto with so firm a resolution from the beginning, never to leave them, be they right or wrong.

As for Aristotle, I confesse his authority is very great with me; not because I am superstitiously addicted to any of his opinions, which I shall ever be ready to forsake when better shall be shewed unto me. but because (besides the judgment of all accounted wise and learned in former ages) I am convicted in my judgment, that so much solid reason in all Arts and Sciences never issued from mortal man (known unto us by his writings) without supernatural illumination. Well: Aristotle doth not acknowledg Spirits, he mentions them not in any place. Let it be granted: And why should it be a wonder to any man that knows the […] and purpose of Aristotle's Phylosophy? He lived when Plato lived; he had been his fellow Scholer under Socrates, and for some time his Scholer; but afterwards he became his aemulus, and pleased himself very much to oppose his Doctrine, insomuch as he is censured by some Ancients for his ingratitude. The truth is, Plato's writings are full of Prodigies, Apparitions of Souls, pains of Hell and Purgatory, Revelations of the gods, and the like. Wherein he is so bold that he is fain to excuse himself sometimes, and doth not desire that any man should believe him, according to the letter of his relations, but in grosse only, that somewhat was true to that effect. Indeed he hath many divine passages, yea, whole Treatises, that can never be sufficiently admired in their kind; but too full of tales, for a Phylosopher, it cannot be denyed. Aristotle therefore resolved upon a quite contrary way: He would meddle with nothing but what had some apparent ground in Nature. Not that he precisely denyed all other things, but because he did not think that it was the part of a Phylosopher to meddle with those things that no probable reason could be given of. This doth clearly appear by a Divine passage of his, De part. […]. l. 1. c. 5. where he divides Substances in [non-Latin script] Eternal and Incorruptible, that is, in effect, Spiritual (for even Spirits that were created might be termed [non-Latin script] that is, properly, That have not their beginning by […]; but we will easily grant, that the creation of Angels, good or bad, was not known to Aristotle: (we may understand God, and Intelligences) and those, that [non-Latin script] that is, are […]. He goes on, As for Divine Substances, which we honour, we can say but little of them though we […] it, because so little of them is exposed to sense [and Reason.] Mortal things that we are familiarly acquainted and daily converse with, we may know if we take pains. But much more should we rejoice in the knowledg (yea though we know but a very little part) of things Divine for their excellency, then in the knowledg of these worldly things though never so perfect and general But the comfort that we have of them (which doth make some […]) is the certainty, and that they come within the compasse of Sciences. What could be said more Divinely by a man that had nothing by revelation? Truly, there appeareth unto me (if I may speak without offence and misconstruction) more Divinity in those words, then in some books that pretend to nothing else. Add to this another place of his in his Metaphysicks, where he saith, That though things supernatural be of themselves clear and certain, yet to us they are not so, who see them only with Owles eyes. Can we say then that Aristotle denyed those things that he forbore to write of, because they were (their natures and their qualities) above the knowledg of man? Neither is it absolutely true that Aristotle never wrote of Spirits and […]. Cicero in his first book De Divinatione, hath a long story out of him of a shape or Spirit that appeared in a dream to one Eudemus (his familiar friend and quaintance) and foretold him strange things that came to passe. Clemens exandrinus hath a strange story out of him, of a Magical Ring, one or two, hich Excestus, King of the Phocenses did use, and foresaw things future them. It is to be found and seen among the fragments of Aristotles […] that he did not deny Witches, may appear by that mention he makes of them in more then one place. How much he ascribed to common report and experience, though no reason could be given, doth appear by his 'reface to his Treatise De Divinatione per insomnia: where he proposeth the case, how hard it is for a rational man to believe any thing upon report which he can see no reason for; nay, which seemeth contrary to reason: as, for a man to foretel by dream what shall happen in another Kingdome far off without any apparent cause. But on the other side, saith he, not less hard to deny that which all men, or most men, do believe, to wit, that there be such predictions. For to say (his own words) that such dreams come from God, besides what else might be objected (which might easily be understood by them that understand his Doctrine) it is most unreasonable to believe that God would send them to men either vitious in their lives, or idiots and fools, of all men the most vile and contemptible, who have been observed to have such dreams oftner then better and wiser men. So leaving the businesse undetermined, he doth proceed to the consideration of those Prophetick dreams, for which some probable reason may be given. Yet in the second Chapter he saith directly, That though dreams be not [non-Latin script] yet they may be perchance [non-Latin script] for such he acknowledges Nature to be, not [non-Latin script] but [non-Latin script] only. I will not enquire further into the meaning of these words; it is not to be done in few words. It plainly appears that nothing troubled him so much (for he repeats the objection twice or thrice) as that God should be thought to favour either wicked men or fools. I wish no worse Doctrine had ever been Printed or Preached concerning God. But still let it be remembred that he knew of no Divine Word or Revelation. Yet Jul. Scaliger in his Commentaries upon Hypocrates De Insomniis, doth wonder that Aristotle should stick so much at this, and seems himself to give a reason grounded in Nature. Indeed he saith somewhat as to the case of fools and idiots, but nothing (that I remember) that reacheth to wicked men also. Let these things be considered, and let the Reader judge of how different temper Aristotle was from that of ancient or later Epicures. This mention of Aristotle and Plato puts me in mind of Socrates their Master, his Familiar Spirit; no Shape but a Voice only, by which his life and actions were much directed. The thing is attested by so many, so grave Authors whereof some lived at the very time, others not long after, or in times not very remote, that I know not how it can be questioned by any man. Neither indeed is it, that I remember, by any Heathens or Christians of ancient times, and there have been books written of it, divers, in Greek and Latine, whereof some are yet extant. But whether it were a good Spirit or an evil, some men have doubted, and it is free for any man to think what he pleaseth of it. For my part I ever had a Reverend opinion of Socrates, and do believe (if there be no impiety in it, as I hope not) that he was, as among Heathens in some respect, a fore-runner of Christ, to dispose them the better when the time should come to imbrace (and it did it effectually) the Gospel. Many other Phylosophers, that have been of greatest fame, were certainly great Magicians, as Orpheus, Pythagoras, Empedocles, and the like, as by those things that have been written of them by several ancient authors may be collected. But above all I give the pre-eminence to Apollonius Thianeus, a man of later times, and of whom we may speak with more confidence and certainty. This was the man whom ancient Heathens very tenacious of their former worship and superstitions, did pitch upon to oppose unto Christ. His Life hath been written by divers, four of them were joyned together and opposed to the four Gospels: and Hierocles, a famous Phylosopher of those times, made a Collation of his Miracles with those of Christs, who was answered by Eusebius, yet extant. Sure it is, they prevailed so much, that he was for a long time worshipped by many, and in sundry places as a very God; yea, by some Roman Emperors, as we find in History. Philostratus hath written his Life in very Elegant stile (as Photius judged) in 8 books, which are extant. And though they contain many fabulous things, as any man may expect by the undertaking, yet have they so much truth and variety of ancient learning, that I think they deserve to be better known then commonly they are; but cannot be understood, I am sure, as they should be, by any translation either Latine or French that ever I saw: For the Paris Edition, though it boast of great things (as the manner is) yet how Tittle was performed may easily appear unto any that will take the pains to compare it with the former edition of Aldus: Which I speak not to find fault, but because I wish that some able man would undertake the work; there is not any book, by the Translations yet extant, that more needeth it. What use Scaliger made of him, may appear by his frequent quotations in his Notes upon Eusebius, in the History of those times. As for Appollonius his Miracles or wonderful Acts (which is our businesse here) though many things have been added, some, probably, done by Imposture, yet I do not see how it can be doubted but he did many strange things by the help of Spirits, which things may be judged by due observation of circumstances; as for example, That being convented before Domitian the Emperor in the presence of many, he presently vanished and was seen a great way off (at Puteoli I think) about the same time. That at the very time when Domitian was killed at Rome, he spake of it publickly and of the manner of it at Ephesus: and so of many others, which seem to me (as unto most) almost unquestionable. The greatest wonder to me is, that such was his port and outward appearance of Sanctity aud Simplicity, that even Christians have thought reverently of him, and believed that he did his wonders by the power of God, or by secret Philosophy and knowledg of Nature not revealed unto other men. So Justine Martyr, one of the ancient Fathers of the Church judged of him, as is well known. Most later Phylosophers that lived about Julians time, and before that, as also the Emperors themselves, many of them, were great Magicians and Necromancers, as may easily appear, partly by their own writings, and partly by the History of those times.

The Latine Interpreter translates it Domoria; & I know not how it can be better expressed, though lyable to ambiguity.