But -- wasn't he always aware that Remusberg was a story he liked to tell but that it wasn't anywhere near actual history? That's how it came across to me in his letters at least.
Huh. Maybe I'm just an unironic reader, as cahn is always saying of herself and which definitely applies to me, but I took Fritz's comments at face value. So did Hamilton in his Rheinsberg volume:
Voltaire having once let fall the word 'chimerical' with reference to the accounts of early Roman history, Frederick, greatly surprised—it seems he had held these as gospel, whilst scorning the modern impostures of the Christian annals—took him to task.
Though he's far from reliable, I have to say, in this case, my reading is the same as his. Here are my sources (Google translated):
je veux croire Des vieux Romains la chimérique histoire.
I want to believe the chimerical story of the old Romans
Fritz reads it and comments:
Can we give the epithet of chimera to Roman history, history proven by the testimony of so many authors, so many respectable monuments of antiquity, and an infinity of medals, of which it would only be necessary a part to establish the truths of religion? The standards of hay of the Romans are unknown to me; my ignorance cannot be used as an excuse, but, as far as I can remember, their first standards were hands adjusted at the top of a pole.
Voltaire's defense:
With regard to the earliest times in their [the Romans'] history, I report to your Royal Highness as in all the earliest times. What do you think of Remus and Romulus, son of the god Mars? of the wolf? the woodpecker? the cool head of a man who built the Capitol? gods of Lavinium who returned on foot from Alba to Lavinium? of Castor and Pollux fighting at Lake Régille? of Attius Naevius who cut stones with a razor? of the vestal that pulled a vessel with her belt? the palladium? shields fallen from the sky? finally Mucius Scaevola, Lucretia, Horaces, Curtius, stories no less chimerical than the miracles of which I have just spoken? Monseigneur, we must put all of this in Odin's room, with our holy bulb, the Virgin's shirt, the sacred foreskin, and the books of our monks.
Fritz on Remus:
As for the early days of Roman history, I saw myself committed to supporting its truth, and that, for a reason that will surprise you. To explain it to you, I am obliged to enter into a detail which I will try to shorten as much as possible.
A few years ago we found in a Vatican manuscript the story of Romulus and Remus, reported in a completely different way from that of which it is known to us. This manuscript is proof that Rémus escaped from the pursuit of his brother, and that, to hide from his jealous fury, he took refuge in the northern provinces of Germania, towards the banks of the Elbe; that he built there a town situated near a large lake, to which he gave his name; and that, after his death, he was buried on an island which, rising from the bosom of the waters, forms a kind of mountain in the middle of the lake.
Two monks came here, four years ago, from the pope, to discover the place that Rémus founded, according to the description I have just given. They judged that it must be Remusberg, or as that which would say Mont Rémus. These good fathers made dig in the island, from all sides, to discover the ashes of Rémus. Either they have not been preserved carefully enough, or the time, which destroys everything, has confused them with the earth, what is certain is that they have found nothing.
One thing that is no more proven than that is that, about a hundred years ago, laying the foundations of this castle, we found two stones on which was engraved the story of the flight of vultures. Although the figures were very erased, we could recognize something. Our ancestor Goths, unfortunately very ignorant, and little curious about antiquities, neglected to preserve these precious monuments of history for us, and consequently left us in obscure uncertainty as to the truth of such an important fact.
We found, not three months ago, by stirring the soil in the garden, an urn and Roman coins, but which were so old, that the corner was almost erased. I sent them to M. de La Croze. He judged that their antiquity could be from seventeen to eighteen centuries.
I hope, sir, that you will be grateful to me for the anecdote that I have just taught you, and that, in its favor, you will excuse the interest that I take in everything that can look at the history of one of the founders of Rome, of which I believe to keep the ashes. Besides, I am not accused of too much gullibility. If I sin, it is not by superstition.
Re: Montesquieu III: In which Fritz comments on tyrants, their successors and women in Politics
Huh. Maybe I'm just an unironic reader, as
Voltaire having once let fall the word 'chimerical' with reference to the accounts of early Roman history, Frederick, greatly surprised—it seems he had held these as gospel, whilst scorning the modern impostures of the Christian annals—took him to task.
Though he's far from reliable, I have to say, in this case, my reading is the same as his. Here are my sources (Google translated):
Voltaire, in Le Mondain, writes:
je veux croire
Des vieux Romains la chimérique histoire.
I want to believe
the chimerical story of the old Romans
Fritz reads it and comments:
Can we give the epithet of chimera to Roman history, history proven by the testimony of so many authors, so many respectable monuments of antiquity, and an infinity of medals, of which it would only be necessary a part to establish the truths of religion? The standards of hay of the Romans are unknown to me; my ignorance cannot be used as an excuse, but, as far as I can remember, their first standards were hands adjusted at the top of a pole.
Voltaire's defense:
With regard to the earliest times in their [the Romans'] history, I report to your Royal Highness as in all the earliest times. What do you think of Remus and Romulus, son of the god Mars? of the wolf? the woodpecker? the cool head of a man who built the Capitol? gods of Lavinium who returned on foot from Alba to Lavinium? of Castor and Pollux fighting at Lake Régille? of Attius Naevius who cut stones with a razor? of the vestal that pulled a vessel with her belt? the palladium? shields fallen from the sky? finally Mucius Scaevola, Lucretia, Horaces, Curtius, stories no less chimerical than the miracles of which I have just spoken? Monseigneur, we must put all of this in Odin's room, with our holy bulb, the Virgin's shirt, the sacred foreskin, and the books of our monks.
Fritz on Remus:
As for the early days of Roman history, I saw myself committed to supporting its truth, and that, for a reason that will surprise you. To explain it to you, I am obliged to enter into a detail which I will try to shorten as much as possible.
A few years ago we found in a Vatican manuscript the story of Romulus and Remus, reported in a completely different way from that of which it is known to us. This manuscript is proof that Rémus escaped from the pursuit of his brother, and that, to hide from his jealous fury, he took refuge in the northern provinces of Germania, towards the banks of the Elbe; that he built there a town situated near a large lake, to which he gave his name; and that, after his death, he was buried on an island which, rising from the bosom of the waters, forms a kind of mountain in the middle of the lake.
Two monks came here, four years ago, from the pope, to discover the place that Rémus founded, according to the description I have just given. They judged that it must be Remusberg, or as that which would say Mont Rémus. These good fathers made dig in the island, from all sides, to discover the ashes of Rémus. Either they have not been preserved carefully enough, or the time, which destroys everything, has confused them with the earth, what is certain is that they have found nothing.
One thing that is no more proven than that is that, about a hundred years ago, laying the foundations of this castle, we found two stones on which was engraved the story of the flight of vultures. Although the figures were very erased, we could recognize something. Our ancestor Goths, unfortunately very ignorant, and little curious about antiquities, neglected to preserve these precious monuments of history for us, and consequently left us in obscure uncertainty as to the truth of such an important fact.
We found, not three months ago, by stirring the soil in the garden, an urn and Roman coins, but which were so old, that the corner was almost erased. I sent them to M. de La Croze. He judged that their antiquity could be from seventeen to eighteen centuries.
I hope, sir, that you will be grateful to me for the anecdote that I have just taught you, and that, in its favor, you will excuse the interest that I take in everything that can look at the history of one of the founders of Rome, of which I believe to keep the ashes. Besides, I am not accused of too much gullibility. If I sin, it is not by superstition.
He seems pretty sincere to me; what do you think?