Morhof (Polyhistor., vol. i. p. 74.), who inserts this work among the libri damnati, and dwells upon its deistical character, refers to the French version; and though he knew that the book had originally appeared in English, he probably was not aware of the difference between the two versions. A note added by his first editor, Moller, states that Morhof often told his friends that he believed Isaac Vossius to have been the author of the work. Isaac Vossius was in England from 1670 until his death, which took place at Windsor, February 21, 1689. His residence in England, combined with the known laxity of his religious opinions, doubtless suggested to Morhof the conjecture that he wrote this freethinking Utopia. There is, however, no external evidence to support this conjecture, or to show that it had any better foundation than the conjecture that Bishop Berkeley wrote Gaudentio di Lucca. The University of Leyden purchased the library of Isaac Vossius for 36,000 florins. If it is still preserved at Leyden, a search among his books might ascertain whether there is among them any copy of the English or French editions of this work, and whether they contain any written remark by their former possessor. Moreover, it is to be observed that the system of natural religion is for the first time developed in the French edition; and this was the part which chiefly gave the book its celebrity: whereas, the supposition of Morhof implies that the English and French versions are identical.
Heumann, in his Schediasma de Libris Anonymis et Pseudonymis (Jena, 1711), p. 161. (reprinted in Mylius, Bibliotheca Anon. et Pseudon., Hamburg, 1740, vol. i. pp. 170-6.) has an article on the Histoire des Sévarambes. It is there stated that "Messieurs de Portroyal" superintended the French translation of the work; but no authority is given for the statement. Christian Thomasius,
in his Monthly Review of November 1689, attributed the work to D'Allais (or Vairasse). He alleged three reasons for this belief: 1. The rumour current in France; 2. The fact that Allais sold the book, as well as his French grammar; 3. That a comparison of the two works, in respect of style and character of mind, renders it most probable that both are by the same author. The testimony of Thomasius is important, as the date of its publication is only ten years posterior to the publication of the last part of the French version.
Leclerc, in a review of the Schediasma of Heumann, in the Bibliothèque Choisie, published in 1712 (tom. xxv. p. 402., with an addendum, tom. xxvi. p. 460.), attests positively that Vairasse was the author of the work in question. He says that Vairasse (or, as he spells the name, Veiras) took the name of D'Allais in order to sell his book. He had this fact from persons well acquainted with Vairasse. He likewise mentions that Vairasse was well known to Locke, who gave Leclerc an account of his birthplace. Leclerc adds that he was acquainted with a person to whom Vairasse wished to dedicate his book (viz. the Histoire des Sévarambes), and who possessed a copy of it, with a species of dedication, written in his hand.
This testimony is so distinct and circumstantial, as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the connexion of Vairasse with the French version. The difficulty as to the authorship of the English version still, however, remains considerable. The extensive alterations introduced in the French edition certainly render it probable that two different writers were concerned in the work. The words of Leclerc respecting the information received from Locke are somewhat ambiguous; but they do not necessarily imply that Locke knew anything as to the connexion of Vairasse with the book, though they are not inconsistent with this meaning. Locke had doubtless become acquainted with Vairasse during his residence in England. Considering the length of time which Vairasse passed in England, and the eminence of the persons with whom he is said to have had relations (viz. the Duke of York, Lord Clarendon, and Locke), it is singular that no mention of him should be discoverable in any English book.
The error, that the work in question was written by Algernon Sidney, appears to have arisen from a confusion with the name of Captain Siden, the imaginary traveller. Fabricius (Bibliograph. Antiq., c. xiv. §16. p. 491.) mentions Sidney and Vairasse as the two most probable claimants to the authorship.
Hume, in his Essay on Polygamy and Divorces, refers to the History of the Sevarambians, and calls it an "agreeable romance."
L.