CYMBALUM MUNDI.

Bonavanture des Periers, born at Bar upon the river Aube in Burgundy, was valet-de-chambre to

Margaret de Valois, queen of Navarre, and sister of Francis I. He wrote several pieces of French poetry, which were printed after his death at Lyons, by John de Tournes, in the year 1544, in 8vo.; translated the Andria of Terence, and composed several tales in prose, intitled “ New Recreations.” I never saw his Cymbalum Mundi, which is said to be a most impious book; he wrote it first in Latin, and then he translated it into French under the name of Thomas du Clevier, printed at Paris in the year 1537. La Croix du Maine says that it is a detestable book, and full of impieties; and Stephen Pasquier had the same opinion of it. I have found a kind of analysis of the Cymbalum Mundi in the French Bibliothèque of Du Verdier Vauprivas, and because most of my readers cannot conveniently have recourse to that Bibliothèque, I thought they would be glad to find an abstract of it here. “Thomas du Clevier translated out of Latin into French a treatise, intituled, Cymbalum Mundi, containing four poetical dialogues, very antique, merry, and pleasant, printed at Lyons, in 16mo, by Benoit Bonnyn, 1538. I have found nothing in that book that deserves a greater censure than Ovid’s Metamorphosis, the Dialogues of Lucian, and the books of wanton subjects and fabulous fictions. In the first dialogue the author introduces Mercury, Bryphanes, and Curtalius, who being at an inn at Athens, at the sign of the White Coal, whither Mercury happened to come, being descended from heaven by Jupiter’s order, who sent him to get a book bound. These two rogues, whilst he went to divert himself, took this book out of a packet he had left upon the bed, stole it, and put another in the room of it, containing all the amorous tricks and follies of Jupiter, as when he turned himself into a bull to ravish Europa; when he put on the shape of a swan to go to Leda; when he took the form of Amphytrion, &c. In the second dialogue he brings in some philosophers, looking for pieces of the philosopher’s stone in the sand of the theatre, where, as they were formally disputing about it, Mercury showed it to them, and those fools importuned him so much with their entreaties, that not knowing to whom he should give it entire, he reduced it to powder, and threw it into the sand, that every one might have something of it, bidding them look well for it, and that if they could find a little piece of it, they would do wonders, transmute metals, break the bars of doors that are open, cure people that are not sick, and obtain any thing from the gods that was lawful, and would necessarily happen, as rain after fair weather, flowers in the spring, dust and heat in the summer, fruits in autumn, cold and dirt in winter: whereby the author laughs at the vain labours of alchymists..........In the third dialogue he resumes the discourse of the first dialogue, about the book stolen from the author of all thefts, intitled, “ Quæ in hoc libro continentur: Chronica rerum memorabilium quas Jupiter gessit antequam esset ipse. Fatorum præscriptum; sive, eorum quæ futura sunt, certæ dispositiones. Catalogus Heroum immortalium, qui cum Jove vitam victuri sunt sempiternam... .The contents of this book are; Chronicles of the memorable things which Jupiter performed before he existed. The Decree of Fate, or certain Dispositions of those things that are to happen, A catalogue of immortal Heroes, who are to live eternally with Jupiter.” Wherein the author ridicules first the idolatrous heathens, and their false god, Jupiter, meaning that he never existed; or that if he did ever exist, he was a man, and never did any wonderful actions, nor such as have been fabulously written of him. By the second head of the title of the book, he laughs at destiny and fatalism, and tacitly at judicial astrology. And by the third, he derides those who look upon themselves as gods, by reason of their grandeur. Afterwards he brings in Mercury, discoursing of the several commissions which the gods and goddesses have intrusted him with; and the same Mercury, by virtue of some words which he mutters, makes a horse, called Phlegon, speak and reason with his groom. In the fourth and last dialogue, two dogs discourse together of several pleasant things.” It does not appear that Du Verdier Vau-Privas found any thing dangerous in that book, but only the ridiculousness of the Pagan religion, &c. Most other readers are of opinion, that Bonaventure des Periers wrote against the true religion, under pretence of ridiculing Paganism. It was the opinion of father Mersenne. “ That man, (says he) brings in the fables of Jupiter and Mercury, &c. and designs by such means to open the way to ridicule the Catholic faith,and reject the greatest truths that we teach and believe concerning God. Per quas (fabulas) fidem Catholicam irridere, et ea quæ de Deo verissima esse dicimus et credimus, rejicere velle videtur.” He says that Bonaventure des Periers was only the translator of the Cymbalum Mundi, and that he was a most impious knave, impissimum nebulonem, and looked upon as an Atheist by a great many people. Voëtius, who had not seen that book, does not say that the author was an Atheist, nay, he acquits him of Atheism, supposing the Cymbalum Mundi to be only a satire against purgatory, and many other inventions of Christians. He adds, that a man may insinuate Atheism, or Epicurism, in a trifling and fabulous book, and make use of that artifice to come off, if he be prosecuted for it. He adds also, that in a stage play, intituled Iphigenia, we may laugh at Hecate, who had three several shapes, and ridicule the gods who will have human victims, and run down the priests who advise such sacrifices. A man may thereby not only design to ridicule the trinity, and the passion of the Son of God, and to open a door to Deism and Turkish Socinianism; but to maintain it, if attacked.

The reflexions of Voëtius on this subject are very judicious: there are two ways of ridiculing superstition, the one very good, the other very bad. The fathers of the church, who have exposed the ridiculousness of false deities, are very much to be praised, for they proposed thereby to open the eyes of the Pagans, and to confirm the faithful. They knew that by inspiring the Christians with contempt and aversion for Paganism, they strengthened their faith, and gave them some arms to resist persecution. But Lucian, who did so much ridicule the false gods of the heathens, and made a most lively and agreeable description of the follies and impostures of the religion of the Grecians, deserves notwithstanding to be condemned, since, instead of doing it out of a good motive, he had no other design than to satisfy his scoffing satirical humour, and was no less indifferent or averse to truth than to lies. Those two models, that of the fathers of the church, and that of Lucian, may serve to make one judge rightly of several satires, which have been made in these latter times, against abuses in matters of religion. Rabelais ought to be looked upon as a copyer of Lucian, and I think the same ought to be said of Bonaventure des Periers; for I find that the Protestants are not less angry with the Cymbalum Mundi than the Catholics. Only we must observe that a great many abuses have crept into Christianity, which are so like those of the Heathens, that one cannot write against the Pagans, without affording many devout men a pretence to say that the Christian religion is wounded through the sides of the Pagan religion. It is the duty of those, who give occasion for such reproaches, to examine seriously what was their intention, and whether they did actually design that their descriptions of the faults of the Heathens should be looked upon as a picture of modern abuses. Some dissenting Protestants in England are accused of having made a lively description of the corruption of the

ancient Romish clergy, only to draw a picture which might cast an odium upon the present state of the episcopalians. We find, in Milton’s life, that his History of England, as far as William the Conqueror, was printed in the year 1670, but not such as he wrote it, for the licenser struck out several passages, which contained a description of the superstition, luxury, and craft of the ecclesiastics, who lived under the Saxon kings. The revisors of the manuscript fancied that it was a reflection upon the clergy under the reign of Charles II. The author of that life adds, that sir Robert Howard, having heard that he was accused of having whipped, in a certain book, the clergy of England, upon the back of the Pagan and Popish priests, answered ironically and subtilly, “ what had they to do there?”—Art,Periers.