[228] “Alex. Sed in qua nam Religione verè et piè Deum coli vetusti Philosophi existimarunt? Vanini. In unica Naturæ lege, quam ipsa Natura, quæ Deus est (est enim principium motus)....” De Arcanis, as cited, p. 366. Lib. iv, Dial. 50. See Rousselot’s French tr. 1842, p. 227. This passage is cited by Hallam (Lit. Hist. ii, 461) as avowing “disbelief of all religion except such as Nature ... has planted in the minds of men”—a heedless perversion. [↑]
[229] De Arcanis, pp. 354–60, 420–22 (Dial. 50, 56); Rousselot, pp. 219–23, 271–73. [↑]
[230] The special reference (lib. iv, dial. 56, p. 428) is to a story of an infant prophesying when only twenty-four hours old. (Amphitheatrum, Ex. vi, p. 38; cp. Owen, p. 368, note.) On this and on other points Cousin (cited by Owen, pp. 368, 371, 377) and Hallam (Lit. Hist. ii, 461) make highly prejudiced statements. Quoting the final pages on which the dialoguist passes from serious debate to a profession of levity, and ends by calling for the play-table, the English historian dismisses him as “the wretched man.” [↑]
[231] Cp. Carriere’s analysis of the Dialogues, pp. 505–59; and the Apologia pro Jul. Cæsare Vanino (by Arpe), 1712. [↑]
[232] See Owen’s vindication, pp. 371–74. Renan’s criticism (Averroès, pp. 420–23) is not quite judicial. See many others cited by Carriere, p. 516. [↑]
[233] It is difficult to understand how the censor could let pass the description of Nature in the title; but this may have been added after the authorization. The book is dedicated by Vanini to Marshal Bassompierre, and the epistle dedicatory makes mention of the Serenissima Regina aeterni nominis Maria Medicæa, which would disarm suspicion. In any case the permit was revoked, and the book condemned to be burned. [↑]
[235] Mercure Français, 1619, tom. v, p. 64. [↑]
[236] Gramond (Barthélemi de Grammont), Historia Galliæ ab excessu Henrici IV, 1643, p. 209. Carriere translates the passage in full, pp. 500–12, 515; as does David Durand in his hostile Vie et Sentimens de Lucilio Vanini, 1717. As to Gramond see the Lettres de Gui Patin, who (Lett. 428, ed. Reveillé-Parise) calls him âme foible et bigote, and guilty of falsehood and flattery. [↑]
[237] Gramond, p. 210. Of Vanini, as of Bruno, it is recorded that at the stake he repelled the proffered crucifix. Owen and other writers, who justly remark that he well might, overlook the once received belief that it was the official practice, with obstinate heretics, to proffer a red-hot crucifix, so that the victim should be sure to spurn it with open anger. [↑]