« ElőzőTovább »
The capitoul David, who, without emotion, saw and caused the innocent Calas to die on the wheel, would have shed tears at seeing his own crime in a wellwritten and well-acted tragedy.
Pope has elegantly said this in the prologue to Addison's Cato:
Tyrants no more their savage nature kept,
TERELAS, Pterelas, or Pterelaus, just which you please, was the son of Taphus, or Taphius. What signifies which you say? Gently, I will tell you.
This Terelas had a golden lock, to which was attached the destiny of the town of Taphia, and what is more this lock rendered Terelas immortal, as he would not die while this lock remained upon his head; for which reason he never combed it, lest he should comb it off. An immortality, however, which depends upon a lock of hair, is not the most certain of all things. · Amphitryon, general of the republic of Thebes, besieged Taphia, and the daughter of king Terelas became desperately in love with him on seeing him pass the ramparts. Thus excited, she stole to her father in the dead of the night, cut off his golden lock, and sent it to the general, in consequence of which the town was taken, and Terelas killed.
Some learned men assure us, that it was the wife of Terelas who played him this ill turn; and as they ground their opinions upon great authorities, it might be rendered the subject of a useful dissertation. I confess that I am somewhat inclined to be of the opinion of those learned persons, as it appears to me that a wife is usually less timorous than a daughter.
The same thing happened to Nisus, king of Megara, which town was besieged by Minos. Scylla, the daughter of Nisus, became madly in love with him; and although in point of fact, her father did not possess a lock of gold, he had one of purple, and it is known that on this lock depended equally his life and the fate of the
Megarian empire. To oblige Minos, the dutiful Scylla cut it off, and presented it to her lover.
“ All the history of Minos is true,” writes the profound Bannier;* " and is attested by all antiquity.' I believe it precisely as I do that of Terelas, but I am embarrassed between the profound Calmet and the profound Huet. Calmet is of opinion, that the adventure of the lock of Nisus presented to Minos, and that of Terelas given to Amphitryon, are obviously taken from the genuine history of Sampson. Huet the demonstrator on the contrary demonstrates, that Minos is evidently Moses, as cutting out the letters n and e, one of these names is the anagram of the other.
But, notwithstanding the demonstration of Huet, I am entirely on the side of the refined Dom Calmet, and for those who are of the opinion that all which relates to the locks of Terelas and of Nisus is connected with the hair of Sampson. The most convincing of my triumphant reasons is, that without reference to the family of Terelas, with the metamorphoses of which I am unacquainted, it is certain that Sylla was changed into a lark, and her father Nisus into a sparrow-hawk. Now, Bochart being of opinion that a sparrow-hawk is called “neïs' in Hebrew, I thence conclude, that the history of Terelas, Amphitryon, Nisus, and Minos, is copied from the history of Sampson.
I am aware, that a dreadful sect has arisen in our days, equally detested by God and man, who pretend that the Greek fables are more ancient than the Jewish history; that the Greeks never heard a word of Sampson any more than of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, &c. which names are not cited by any Greek author. They assert, as we have modestly intimated in the articles Bacchus and Jew), that the Greeks could not possibly take anything from the Jews, but that the Jews might derive something from the Greeks.
I answer with the doctor Hayet, the doctor Gau, chat, the ex-jesuit Patouillet, and the ex-jesuit Paulian,
* Mythologie de Bannier, lib. ii. page 151. tom. iii. edition in 4to. Commentaires Litteraires sur Sampson, ch. xvi.
that this is the most damnable heresy which ever issued from hell; that it was formally anathematised in full parliament, on petition, and condemned in the report of the Sieur P.; and finally, that if indulgence be extended to those who support such frightful systems, there will be no more certainty in the world; but that Antichrist will quickly arrive, if he has not come already
This word is scientific and a little obscure, signifying small witnesses. Sixtus V., a cordelier become pope, declared, by his letter of the 25th June 1587, to his nuncio in Spain, that he must unmarry all those who were not possessed of testicles. It seems by this order, which was executed by Philip II. that there were many husbands in Spain deprived of these two organs, But how could a man, who had been a cordelier, be ignorant that the testicles of men are often hidden in the abdomen, and that they are equally if not more effective in that situation? We have beheld in France three brothers of the highest rank, one of whom possessed three, the other only one, while the third possessed no appearance of any, and yet was the most vigorous of the three.
The angelic doctor, who was simply a jacobin, decides* that two testicles are de essentia matrimonii," of the essence of marriage ; in which opinion he is fol. lowed by Ricardus, Scotus, Durandus, and Sylvius.
If you are not able to obtain a sight of the pleadings of the advocate Sebastian Rouillard, in 1600, in favour of the testicles of his client, concealed in his abdomen, at least consult the dictionary of Bayle, at the article
Quellence. You will there discoyer, that the wicked wife of the client of Sebastian Rouillard wished to render her marriage void, on the plea that her husband could
not exhibit testicles. The defendant replied, that he had perfectly fulfilled his matrimonial duties, and offered the usual proof of a re-performance of them in full assembly. The jilt replied, that this trial was too offensive to her modesty, and was moreover super fluous, since the defendant was visibly deprived of testicles, and that messieurs of the assembly were fully aware, that testicles are necessary to perfect consummation.
I am unacquainted with the result of this process, but I suspect that her husband lost his cause. What induces me to think so is, that the same parliament of Paris, on the 8th Jan. 1665, issued a decree, asserting the necessity of two visible testicles, without which marriage was not to be contracted. Had there been any member of the assembly in the situation described, and reduced to the necessity of being a witness, he might have convinced the assembly that it decided without a due knowledge of circumstances.
Pontas may be profitably consulted upon testicles, as well as upon any other subject. He was a sub. penitentiary, who decided every sort of case, and who sometimes comes near to Sanchez,
SECTION II. A word or two on hermaphrodites. A prejudice has for a long time crept into the Romish church, that it is not lawful to say mass without testicles; or, at least, they must be hid in the officiator's pocket. This ancient idea was founded in the council of Nice, who forbade the admission into orders of those who mutilated themselves. The example of Origen, and of certain enthusiasts, was the cause of this order, which was confirmed a second time in the council of Arles.
The Greek church did not exclude from the altar those who had endured the operation of Origen against their own consent.
The patriarchs of Constantinople, Nicetas, Ignatius, Photius, and Methodius, were eunuchs. At present this point of discipline seems undecided in the catholic church. The most general opinion however is, that in
order to be ordained a priest, an eunuch will require a dispensation.
The banishment of eunuchs from the service of the altar appears contrary to the purity and chastity which the service exacts; and certainly such of the priests as confess handsome women and girls would be exposed to less temptation. Opposing reasons of convenience and decorum have determined those who make these laws.
In Leviticus, all corporeal defects are excluded from the service of the altar—the blind, the crooked, the maimed, the lame, the one-eyed, the leper, the scabby, long noses, and short noses. Eunuchs are not spoken of, as there were none among the Jews. Those who acted as eunuchs in the service of their kings, were foreigners.
It has been demanded whether an animal, a man for example, can possess at once testicles and ovaria, or the glands which are taken for ovaria; in a word, the distinctive organs of both sexes? Can nature form veritable hermaphrodites, and can an hermaphrodite be rendered pregnant? I answer, that I know nothing about it, nor the ten-thousandth part of what is within the operation of nature. I believe however, that Europe has never witnessed a genuine hermaphrodite, nor has it indeed produced elephants, zebras, giraffes, ostriches, and many more of the animals which inhabit Asia, Africa, and America. It is hazardous to assert, that because we never beheld a thing, it does not exist.
Examine Cheselden, page 34, and you will behold there a very good delineation of an animal man and woman-a negro and negress of Angola, which was brought to London in its infancy, and carefully examined by this celebrated surgeon, as much distinguished for his probity as his information. The plate is entitled, "Members of an Hermaphrodite Negro, of the Age of Twenty-six Years, of both Sexes.” They are not absolutely perfect, but they exhibit a strange mixture of the one and the other. Cheselden has frequently attested the truth of this