The Peglar Papers:
An Addition

After a posting I did concerning the disastrous Franklin Expedition and the Victory Point document, which is the only document found that gives much if any detail concerning the actions and fate of the members of the Franklin Expedition after they lost contact with Europeans in 1845, I had the good luck to carry on a brief and informative correspondence with Russell Potter an expert on the Franklin Expedition and whose blog Visions of the North, contains much interesting information concerning said expedition.

In one of his postings Russell Potter discusses a collection of papers found by McClintock on a skeleton he found on the south coast of King William island in 1859.1

Location on King William Island of place where Peglar’s body and papers were found

I have little to add to the posting regarding Harry Peglar and his papers except that to give some more particulars concerning the content of said letters. In an article published in 1954 R. J. Cyriax and A. G. E. Jones published some but not all of what could be made out of the documents found, which not surprisingly were in poor condition.2

One of the documents was a summary of Harry Peglar’s navy service and it goes as follows:

November 1825
This is to Se( ) H Peglar Has served On board of his M S Clio 1825 Joined H M Ship Magnificent at Spit Head Sail For Jamaker Under Command Lev( )tenent Mundel tern Over to H M Hulk Serreapes Commander Ellott Tran( ) H M Ship Rattelsnake Captain J. Leath Searved Under him two years Joined H M tender Pearsis Captain C….t late Chief Press Master tower Hill London joined H M Ship Prince Regent discharged for ( )g apprentice Sail under Command of Tommy larking to China left Gor Tallis and his lady and douthers at ( )aint Helena Struck with lighting on the Passadge …ut tow Men Struck Dead a Seargent and Private Retern to England 182( ) entered for H M Ship Ramelis tern over at Chatham Reentered for The Tallavarer Cap Coalby Supper Seaed by Cap Brown Rit for my discharge and got … China in the Marquis Camden lost our Chief Mate Shot going in to Bombay Mr …en Retern to England 1833 …… H M Ship Gannett C M Maxfeild ( )ntered for H M Spih Temmarare 1838 ( )n over to H M Ship ocean Cp Sir John Hill Shearness Paid of 38 Joined H M S Wander…. C M Denman alas Seamour now in the Terror.3

Another document was a sea song, dated April 21 1847, which was a modified version of an older poem of which Cyriax and Jones only quote the first and then last few lines, unfortunately:

The C The C the open C it grew so fresh the Ever free.

….
When I wos On Old England Shore I like the/young C more and more and ofte times flewe/to a Sheetering Plase like a bird thar Seek it/mother’s Case and a H She wos and Oft to me/for I love I love a young and Hopen C.4

On the above document is written the words “Sentemental or Comic” and the following Address, “In care of Mr. Heaithfield, a Squier, no 10 Pelmell West London”. Also Written is the following which Cyriax and Jones suggests might be some sort of will, “Mr Father all to Miss down fall no 6 Old free street and a Clear Couarse”.5

Remnants of tent foundation erected by members of the Franklin Expedition

Another document is the following address, “Mr. John Cowper, No 47 John St., Commercial Road, London. Paid.”6

Another document simply bears the words “ Sentemental Song”.7

Another document is largely indecipherable; it has a date “September … 1840” or “1846”. According to Cyriax and Jones it appears to be a story about a dog. There is a heading on this document saying “Lines writ on the north” and a drawing of a eye with the words “lid Bay” below it.8

Relics found by McClintock of the Franklin Expedition

Another document which seems to be about sea animals as part of it is as follows:

Late on one summers night/ … the month of june/ … sent a way/… a spoon/ Imaid my bark a thort the tide/ and my crew they went to sleep/ while…keep a lookout/ for fish alli n the deep/ Has my little bark was drifting down/ I wos shot a … and ggit one of O”Connell/ Tertill came swimming sloley by/ my crew got up and grapple him/ and lug him in my boat/ off one pull quite marely/ to that gallnt bark a float/ sir the wait … that little marter/ bird w…67 pounds/ the … made a splened/ hot dinner off … prime little fellow wot …/ a tertill.9

A little below that is written “Lines upon Trinadad laying in Asham Bay”.10

On another piece of paper is written “Lines writ … party wot happened at Trinadad”, and the word “September”, with some other words that could not be made out.11

Another document seems to be a sort of a poem. Cyriax and Jones give only the opening line stating that much is unintelligible. The line is:

O death whare is thy sting, the grave at Comfort Cove for who has any doubt how … the dyer sad and whare traffalger, etc.12

Considering what happened to the crews of the Erebus and Terror just a little to appropriate.

On the other side of this paper, written in a circle, are the following lines. “He I … ave wonder … mony a night gl … a bouat the harmonic”. Within that circle is written “ … rode … tell the w … you peglar bord onn hay the terror camp clear”.13

A further document seems to a description of gathering in Cumana Venezuela. Cyriax and Jones do not give a transcription of the text but it does include the following passage:

Has we have got some very hard ground to heave … we shall want some grog to wet houer … issel … all my art Tom for I do think … time … I cloze should lay and … the 21st night a gread.14

Cyriax and Jones wonder if the 21st mentioned is the 21st of April 1848 the day before the Terror and Erebus where abandoned by the surviving crew members.

On the back of the paper is the following address “IME…P Evarglleb Raauqs, Ocilmip, West”.15

Another paper as the following address, “O. J. Rezzoe, a Squier, R.N. … Sandile Harber … Belvue Couart … eth”16

Finally another piece of paper with another address, “To Mr. Heather, sen … Citty…ation, Abberdeen, Lond…”

There was also a parchment certificate of the seaman service of Harry Peglar. Cyriax and Jones do not provide a transcription and the writing appears to be largely illegible anyway.17

Infuriatingly the documents tell us next to nothing about what happened to the Franklin Expedition and from their fragmentary condition it appears that a good deal was lost of them during the attempted escape. It appears that the papers we have are documents by Peglar and one or more other men. Thus what we seem to have is a collection of what amounts to fragments written for the most part, for unknown reasons, backwards.

Still they are glimpse into the minds of those doomed men and it would seem that in fairness to their memory perhaps a full transcription of what can be gleaned from the papers, using modern methods of analyzing old documents to see if we can find more writing in the papers, should be published. So we can have a glimpse, however, fleeting of those lost lives.

Skull of one of Franklin’s men

1. Visions of the North, Here the posting about the Peglar papers Here

2. Cyriax, R. J., & Jones, A. G. E., The Papers in the Possession of Harry Peglar, Captain of the Foretop, H.M.S. Terror, 1845, The Mariner’s Mirror, v. 40, pp. 186-195, 1954.

3. IBID. p. 189.

4. IBID. p. 190.

5. IBID. p. 191.

6. IBID. p. 191.

7. IBID. p. 192.

8. IBID.

9. IBID.

10. IBID.

11. IBID.

12. IBID.

13. IBID. p. 192-193.

14. IBID. p. 193.

15. IBID. p. 193.

16. IBID. p. 193.

17. IBID. p. 188.

Pierre Cloutier

Voltaire’s Letters on England

Voltaire

Francois-Marie Arouet better known as Voltaire (1694-1778), was during his life time a well known poet, dramatist, essayist, short story, writer, historian and Philosopher and a tireless champion of many causes.1

In 1726 Voltaire in trouble with the French authorities fled to England where he lived for almost three years.

During that time he learned English and got to know many of the luminaries of the English literary scene, he also got to know the English political system rather well. After he return from England he wrote a short book about England and various philosophical issues called Lettres Philosophiques translated into English as Letters on England.2 Because Voltaire used England as a foil to criticize French social and political practice this work got him into trouble again and he had to go again into exile.3

In this work Voltaire uses the technique of writing in the form of expository letters to the reader on various issues and subjects and he starts with four letters on the Quakers, which he regards as a harmless if slightly cracked religious sect.

For example Voltaire states in Letter 1 that a particular Quaker does the following:

That is how our saintly man rather speciously manipulated three or four passages of Holy Writ which seemed to favour his sect, but with the best faith in the world he forgot a hundred that destroyed it.4

Thus giving a strong indication of Voltaire’s already strong dislike of religious fanaticism of all kinds. Voltaire then proceeds to talk about in subsequent letters about the origins of the Quakers and discusses in fair detail the life of William Penn the founder of Pennsylvania.5

Voltaire then discusses religious toleration in England, making an implied contrast with the significantly less tolerant attitude in France.

This is the land of sects. An Englishman, as a free man, goes to Heaven by whatever route he likes.6

Voltaire then very bluntly criticises French clergymen in contrast to the Anglican clergy of England.

When they hear that in France young men notorious for their debauches and appointed to bishoprics through the intrigues of women, make love in public, find fun in composing tender love-songs, give long and exquisite suppers every night, and then go straight to pray for the light of the holy Ghost and brazenly call themselves the successors of the Apostles, they thank God they are Protestants. But, of course, they are wicked heretics fit to be burned with all the devils, as Master Francois Rabelais says, and that is why I don’t get mixed up in their affairs.7

As Voltaire says regarding religion in England.

If there were only one religion in England there would be danger of despotism, if there were two they would cut each other’s throats, but there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness.8

Voltaire also discusses the English Parliament and what he regards as English liberty:

No doubt liberty has only been established in England at a heavy cost, and the idol of despotic power has been drowned in seas of blood, but the English do not feel they have paid too high a price for good laws. The other nations have had no fewer troubles and have shed no less blood, but the blood they have poured out in the cause of their liberty has only cemented their servitude.9

In a subsequent section Voltaire compares the civil tumults in England with those in France and concludes that English ones at least had a point whereas the French ones were either farces or sordid struggles fro power. For example:

In the detestable times of Charles IX and Henri III the only question was whether one should be a slave of the Guises.10

Voltaire then discusses how the English Parliament works and indicates that he strongly approves of it.11

Voltaire contrasts the attitude of the English nobility with the French nobility’s attitude:

Yet I wonder which is the more useful to a nation, a well-powdered nobleman who knows exactly at what minute the King gets up and goes to bed, and who gives himself grand airs while playing the part of a slave in some Minister’s antechamber, or a business man who enriches his country, issues orders from his office to Surat or Cairo, and contributes to the well-being of the world.12

The rest of the letters talk about various aspects of life and literature in England, with Voltaire basically presenting to a French audience aspects English culture that most of his readers would know little or nothing about. After a brief letter about inoculation with smallpox,13 which Voltaire thinks is a good idea the rest of the letters are concerned, with one exception, with English, literary and Scientific figures, which Voltaire is introducing to his French audience.

Thus we have letters on Comedy and Tragedy.14 Other Letters on Francis Bacon, John Locke, Several letters on Isaac Newton.15 Some letters on the poets like the Earl of Rochester, Waller, and Pope.16 and a letter on English educational institutions.17

Even in the latter sections of this work Voltaire critiques French society as in this passage:

The English have even been reproached for going too far in the honours they award to mere merit. They have been criticized for burying in Westminster Abby the famous actress Mrs Oldfield with nearly the same honours that were paid to Newton. It has been suggested by some that they had effected to honour the memory of an actress to this extent in order to make us appreciate still more the barbarous injustice they reproach us with, namely of having thrown the body of Mlle Lecouvreur on to the garbage heap.18

At the time, in France, actresses with regarded as little better than street walkers, no matter how accomplished, and frequently even denied burial in cemeteries. Voltaire regarded such treatment and attitudes as simply scandalous.

The book ends with a letter, standing out like a sore thumb, on the French, Mystic, Theologian and Philosopher Pascal.19 It seems as if it was put in to pad up the book. It is also basically a polemic. Perhaps I will discus it another time.

In this rather engaging book Voltaire critiques his own society by describing another society. That being his purpose he largely ignores the failings of English society and government.

1, A complete listing of his output would be tiresome here are some samples, his plays Oepius, Irene, History of Charles XII, his stories Zadig, Candide, his Philosophical Dictionary, his poems The Maid (La Pucelle), Henriade. For good translations of his stories and novellas see Voltaire, Voltaire: Candide, Zadig and Selected Stories, New American Library, New York, 1961. For a short introduction to Voltaire’s philosophy see Durant, Will, The Story of Philosophy, Washington Square Press Inc., New York, 1952, Chapter 5, Voltaire and the French Enlightenment, pp. 199-252.

2, Voltaire, Letters on England, Penguin books, London, 1980, pp. 7-19, Voltaire, 1961, pp. vii-xiv.

3, IBID.

4, Voltaire, 1980, p. 29.

5, IBID. Letter 4, pp. 32-36.

6, IBID. p. 37.

7, IBID. 39.

8, IBID. p. 41.

9, IBID. p. 45.

10, IBID. p. 46.

11, IBID. pp. 47-50.

12, IBID. p. 52.

13, IBID. Letter 11, pp. 53-56.

14, IBID. Letters 18-19, pp. 92-100.

15, IBID. Francis Bacon Letter 12, pp. 57-61, John Locke Letter 13, pp. 62-67, Isaac Newton Letters 14-17, pp. 68-91.

16. IBID. Letters 21-22, pp. 103-114.

17, IBID. Letter 24, pp. 115-119.

18. IBID. p. 112.

19. IBID. Letter 25, pp. 120-145.

Pierre Cloutier

X-Lies

The show the The X-Files, (1993-2002)1 gives more than the usual feelings of ambivalence about something that is excellent in execution but at its core is fundamentally rotten.

I was never a great fan of the show although I watched many episodes of the show I never got hooked and was frankly non-plussed by the show.

For reasons that I will go into later I wanted to dismiss the show as garbage and leave it at that but I am unable to do so simply because of the overall excellence of the program. Before I go into my critique I would like to go through the excellent features of the program.

The acting on the show was almost uniformly very good. Both of the leads David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson play their roles with accomplished skill and the acting of the supporting players and guest stars is quite good also. Although the acting did slip when David Duchovny left a regular character, (only to return intermittently until the final episode), it remained at a ,( certainly for a T.V. show) high level through out its run.

The writing varied through out the show. Not surprisingly it is very hard to maintain a high level of skill and craftsmanship for scripts through out at 9 season run of a T.V. show but the writers did over all a very superior job in maintaining a very creative and standard high level. If only all T.V. shows were written this well. Of course there were the occasional clunkers but they remained occasional right to the end.

Finally the aspect of the show that certainly for its time and even today elevates the show to a high standard is its almost uniformly excellent filming and cinematography. The show looked and still looks quite good. The editing, occasional multiple camera shots and some multi screen images are high quality T.V. filming. The various directors and producers did a sterling job in making the show look very good indeed.

It was also a very nice even brilliant decision to make the sceptical, rational investigator Scully a women and go against the stereotype of women being emotional, intuitive and irrational. Mulder the intuitive, irrational investigator was a man and that too was a nice change of pace.

The show had the occasional episode which poked fun at its own premises and sometimes did not take itself seriously, (or at least appeared to not take itself seriously). That does however lead itself into the problems with the show.

The main reason I never became a fan was because the show although it sometimes made fun of the “New Age” paranoia it portrayed in the end pandered to it quite outrageously. Like the character Mulder it validated over and over again his mindless whine “I want to believe!” It validated again and again Mulder’s paranoia and “New Age” stupidities. It stated over and over again that rationality, reason and logic where bad that feelings and imagination and fantasy were valid ways of knowing that reality was a construction to large extent in our heads. The show the great majority of the time said ‘Mulder was right!’. So that doubting Mulder’s fantasies was akin to doubting the revealed truth. Mulder was cast as a later day Galileo persecuted for his courageous advancement of truth.

Scully meanwhile being a woman is of course wrong. Virtually all the time she was wrong. She was the doubting Thomas to Mulder’s Christ, who dared doubt the revealed truth. She dared to use such things as reason, logic and gasp! demand evidence. What is all that against the real truth as revealed by feelings! Scully dared to doubt and doubt is well bad; it hides the truth. A truth revealed as said above by feelings and of course intuition and fantasy. So again and again it is rubbed in that Scully was wrong, way wrong, totally wrong!

So in this way the show pandered to irrational fantasies of all kinds. Alien abductions, cattle mutilations, perfect governmental conspiracies, crop circles and so on and so forth ad infinitum.2 Why was this so? Quite simply the viewers were pandered to because one would not want upset the fans by calling their delusions and fantasies just that delusions and fantasies. After all if you do that the fans might get upset and watch other shows instead of this one. Those people cannot accept that the world is not populated by fairies and goblins and want, no demand, that the fantasy world of T.V. validate their 5 year old perceptions of the world.

Thus grown-up Scully is the party pooper who demands the unacceptable, that children grow up and face reality. Mulder is the wide-eyed 5 year old his mind full of engaging fantasies who knows that Santa Claus exists and who clings to his fantasy by hook or by crook. The world is a much more exciting place if it is full of childish fantasies of UFO’s, alien abductions, crop circles, alien / human hybrids, vast perfect conspiracies etc., etc. Much of the audience like Mulder has the same plaintive cry ‘I want to believe!’

The result was quite absurd. The web became full of websites taking The X-Files seriously. Many people took it with complete seriousness. It was referred to in student essays as a source!3

The numbers of people who took The X-Files seriously was disheartening in the extreme what was further disheartening was that the creator, Chris Carter, of The X-Files, didn’t care. As to why the show was so relentlessly pandering to paranormal, paranoid, conspiracy clap trap he quite candidly said:

My intention, when I first set out to do the show, was to do a more balanced kind of storytelling. I wanted to expose hoaxes. I wanted Agent Scully to be right as much as Agent Mulder. Lo and behold, those stories were really boring. The suggestion that there was a rather plausible and rational and ultimately mundane answer for those things turned out to be a disappointing kind of story telling, to be honest. And I think that’s maybe where people have the most problems with my show…But it’s just the kind of storytelling we do, and because we have to entertain… That’s really the job they pay me for, and that’s the thing I’m supposed to do.4

Those stories are of course boring to those who live in the fantasy world of a 5 year old and don’t want their fantasy disturbed by, oh so “mundane” reality. It is especially boring to those who do not want to see anything even on a fictional T.V. show that says ‘you believe fantasies and delusions!’ What they want is validation of their fantasies and delusions even on a fictional T.V. show. What Mr. Carter does not say is that stories that provided “mundane” explanations upset many of the fans of the show who wanted validation of their delusional nonsense. So rather than alienate this fan base Mr. Carter and his associates decided to quite deliberately pander to it in the interests of prolonging the T.V. life of the show and their pocket books.

As Richard Dawkin’s said:

Each week The X-Files poses a mystery and offers two rival kinds of explanation, the rational theory and the paranormal theory. And, week after week, the rational explanation loses. But it is only fiction, a bit of fun, why get so hot under the collar?

Imagine a crime series in which, every week, there is a white suspect and a black suspect. And every week, lo and behold, the black one turns out to have done it. Unpardonable, of course. And my point is that you could not defend it by saying: “But it’s only fiction, only entertainment.”5

In the end as the title of this post indicates The X-Files lies.

1. See Wikipedia, The X-Files Here

2. For a review of those and other bits of pseudoscience see The Skeptic Encyclopaedia of Pseudoscience, (two volumes), ABC-CLIO Inc., Santa Barbara Ca., 2002.

3. Wheen, Francis, How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World, Public Affairs, New York, 2004, p. 133-134.

4. IBID. p. 135.

5. IBID. p. 135.

Pierre Cloutier

A Note on Zero
Part I

Zero

One of the most important intellectual feats of all time was the invention of the Zero. Now “0” is what enabled the creation of a place system of writing numbers and in fact seems to absolutely necessary for higher mathematics aside allowing the use of numbers in a significantly less cumbersome way.

Now the “0” is a symbol meaning “nothing” and indicating non existence and as such the idea of something representing “nothing” can be a bit of a stretch especially if you figure out that this “nothing” is in fact a real number and not simply “nothing”.

Now the concept of Zero, as a number, since it is not obvious seems to have been invented only three times. In Ancient Babylonia, Mesoamerica and India.1 In each case the invention seems to be independent. So called uses of Zero like symbols in Egypt etcetera do not count in that they seem to have been used to indicate that nothing of X remained and not to have been used as a true number to count with. A dash in list by an item is also today commonly used to indicate nothing.2

Babylonian Zero

Now I mentioned above although a Zero represents “nothing” this nothing is still in mathematical terms a real number so that thinking of Zero as simply being nothing misunderstands what it is.3 This being the case any symbol representing nothing is not necessarily a Zero. In order for a Zero to be a true Zero it must be used in a numerical system and must be understood to be a number like other numbers.

Now to get to the point of what do I mean about a Zero being a “true number” perhaps one can look at the following problem:

6789 divided by 0 = ?

If you don’t treat Zero like a real number you get the answer “0”. If you treat Zero like a real number you get the answer infinity. In other words zero goes into 6789 an infinite number of times.4

Now the other use of Zero indicating that it is viewed as a “true number” and not simply an indication of nothing is if you use it in ordinary ways to number things. For example the Maya had Zero days, and years indicating that they understood Zero as a true number.5

Mayan Zero

It is strange that the Greeks and the Romans had a hard time with the idea of both infinity and the void and that this led them to avoid using a Zero. To put it simply the idea that there could exist “nothing” was thought impossible by most Greeks and Romans and further the idea that something could be infinite further bothered them has being both absurd and horrible.6

The Mathematicians of India however had no problem at all with either the idea of a void “nothing” or the idea of infinity. The result was that they devised a Zero and place system of writing numerals.7

Indian Zero

The Zero is one of these inventions that only seems obvious in retrospect. In fact it seems that the idea of using something to represent nothing and that that “nothing” is in fact something is simply counter intuitive.

Later I might write some more about the Zero but this is it for the time being.

1. Seife, Charles, Zero, Penguin Books, London, 2000, p. 12-19, 63-71, Ifrah, Georges, The Universal History of Numbers, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000, pp. 148-156, 308-311, 438-439.

2. See web page on Egyptian Zero. Lumpkin, Beatrice, The Ancient Egyptian Concept of Zero and the Egyptian Symbol for Zero, Here Page provides some interesting material but fails to prove that the “Zero” is a Zero at all.

3. Seife, pp. 19-23, 131-156.

4. See Seife p. 71, Ifrah, p. 440, and Wikipedia, Division by Zero, Here. I should note that this answer does not solve all division by Zero problems and that this result can lead to mathematical paradoxes etc., if your not careful. See Wikipedia article for more info.

5. Ifrah, pp. 312-316.

6. Seife, pp. 19-62.

7. Ifrah, pp. 356-440, Seife, pp. 63-82.

Pierre Cloutier

Erasmus and Julius II

Erasmus (Left) Julius II (Right)

A work attributed to the great Renaissance Humanist and Theologian Erasmus of Rotterdam is a rather funny and quite acidic little piece called Dialogus Julius exclusus e coelis, or Julius Excluded from Heaven, which satirizes the reign of Pope Julius II, (1503-1513 C.E.).

Now Julius II was a formidable statesman and even led troops into battle he was also a great builder and a patron of Michelangelo, (the Sistine Chapel and other projects, including the rebuilding of St. Peters). However he was also a relentlessly earthly man obsessed with money and power who put off and fatally undermined any effort to reform the Church.1

Erasmus was a reformer keenly interested in reforming the Church of abuses and eliminating corruption and Julius was an outstanding example of corruption within the Church.2 So that a few years later, (1517/18), after Julius’ death this work appeared.

Erasmus never stated bluntly that he wrote this work although he also never denied authorship. It is in fact rather revealing that he in fact said that those who made this piece public were more to blame than the actual author. Which is rather significant. Other people were given credit for this piece but the opinion of most of Erasmus’ contemporaries and later scholarship is that Erasmus wrote it.3

The piece states with Julius banging on to heaven’s gate accompanied by his Genius or guiding spirit. St. Peter comes to see what is the commotion is all about.

Peter is not too impressed with Julius:

…I see that all your equipment, key, crown, and robe, bears the marks of that villainous huckster and impostor, who had my name but not my nature, Simon, whom I humbled long ago with the aid of Christ.
Julius Stop this nonsense, if you know what’s good for you; for your information, I am Julius, the famous Ligurian; and unless you’ve completely forgotten your alphabet, I’m sure you recognize those two letters, P.M.
Peter I suppose they stand for Pestis Maxima.
Genius Ha ha ha! Our soothsayer has hit the nail on the head!
Julius Of course not! Pontifex Maximus.4

Later Peter describes Julius II as:

…you’re all belches and that you stink of boozing and hangovers and you look as if you’ve just thrown up. Your whole body is in such a state that I should guess that it’s been wasted, withered and rotted less by old age and illness than by drink.
Genius A fine portrait: Julius to the life!5

Peter asks Julius a few simple questions what he did during his life.

Peter Well. Did you win many souls for Christ by the saintliness of your life?
Genius He sent a good many to Tartarus.
Peter Were you famous for your miracles?
Julius This is old-fashioned stuff.
Peter Did you pray simply and regularly?
Julius What’s he jabbering about? Lot of nonsense!6

Julius then boasts of his achievements such as:

…today there is not one Christian king whom I have not incited to battle, after breaking, tearing, and shattering all the treaties by which they had painstakingly come to agreement among themselves;…7

Julius outlines why he overthrew a ruler of Bologna:

Julius Simply that, under his administration, our treasury got only a miserable few thousand out of the enormous sums he collected from his citizens. But in any case, his deposition fitted in well with the plans I was making at the time. So the French, and some others who were intimidated by my thunderbolt, set to work with a will; Bentivoglio was overthrown, and I installed cardinals and bishops to run the city so that the whole of its revenue would be at the service of the Roman church.8

Peter asks Julius concerning accusations against Julius:

Peter Were they true or false?
Julius What’s the difference? It’s sacrilege even to whisper anything about the Roman pontiff, except in praise of him.9

Julius states about certain critics of his Papacy:

They said that all our doings were tainted by a shameful obsession with money, by monstrous and unspeakable vices, sorcery, sacrilege, murder, and graft and simony. They said that I myself was a simoniac, a drunkard, and a lecher, obsessed with the things of this world, an absolute disaster for the Christian commonwealth, and in every way unworthy to occupy my position.10

St. Peter asks:

Was what they said true?
Julius Indeed it was.11

Peter also asks:

But were you as bad as they claimed?
Julius Does it matter? I was supreme pontiff. Suppose I were more vicious than the Cercopes, stupider than Morychus, more ignorant than a log, fouler than Lerna: any holder of this key of power must be venerated as the vicar of Christ and looked on as most holy.12

Julius then explains that the Pope cannot be removed for crimes:

In fact, he cannot be deprived of his jurisdiction for any crime at all.
Peter Not for murder?
Julius Not for parricide.
Peter Not for fornication?
Julius Such language! No, not even for incest.
Peter Not for unholy simony?
Julius Not even for hundreds of simoniacal acts.
Peter Not for sorcery?
Julius Not even for sacrilege.
Peter Not for blasphemy?
Julius No, I tell you.
Peter Not for all these combined in one monstrous creature?
Julius Look, you can run through a thousand other crimes if you like, all more hideous than these: the Roman pontiff still cannot be deposed for them.13

Julius states after Peter mentions that Christ would accept all men that:

I’d be quite willing to welcome Indians, Africans, Ethiopians, Greeks, so long as they paid up and acknowledged our supremacy by sending in their taxes.14

Peter then asks Julius how one enlarges the Church:

Julius Ah, now you’re coming to it: listen. The church, once poor and staving, is now enriched with every possible ornament.
Peter What ornaments? Warm faith?
Julius You’re talking nonsense again.
Peter Sacred learning?
Julius You don’t give up, do you?
Peter Contempt for the world?
Julius Allow me to explain. I’m talking about real ornaments, not mere words like those.
Peter What then?
Julius Royal palaces, the most handsome horses and mules, hordes servants, well trained troops, dainty courtiers…15

Julius then describes his triumphs and asks Peter what he thinks about a man who accomplished those things. Peter says regarding Julius:

That I was looking at a tyrant worse than any in the world, the enemy of Christ, the bane of the church.16

Peter further says regarding Julius:

O worthy vicar of Christ who gave himself to save all men, while you have engineered the ruin of the whole world to save your own pestilent head!
Julius You’re only saying that because you begrudge us our glory, realizing how insignificant your pontificate was compared to ours.17

After Peter talks about the glory of Christ and Apostles consisting of saving souls and enduring much for Christ and saving the souls of others Julius says:

I’ve never heard such things.18

Peter then unburdens himself about what he thinks of Julius:

But now I see the opposite of this: the man who wishes to be thought the closest Christ, even his equal, is involved with all the most sordid things, money, power, armies, wars, treaties, not to mention vices. And yet, although you are furthest from Christ, you use the name of Christ to bolster your pride; you act like an earthy tyrant in the name of him who despised the kingdoms of earth, and you claim the honour due Christ although you are truly Christ’s enemy.19

Finally Peter utterly rejects Julius entering heaven:

The last person I’d let in is a pestilent fellow like you. In any case, we’re excommunicated, according to you. But would you like some friendly advice? You have a band of energetic followers, an enormous fortune, and you, yourself are a great architect; build some new paradise for yourself, but fortify it well to prevent evil demons capturing it.20

Julius true to form rejects the advice and tells Peter that he will wait a few months and storm heaven.

Peter as a few words with Julius' Genius who tells him the Julius leads and he merely follows. The dialogue then ends.

This vicious, but funny dialogue illustrates quite well the problems with the Papacy that helped lead to the Protestant Reformation and in also the Counter Reformation. It is also a fun read.

1. MacCulloch, Diarmaid, Reformation, Penguin Books, London, 2003, pp. 41-42, 87-88, Tuchman, Barbara W., The March of Folly, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1984, pp. 91-103.

2. IBID.

3. Erasmus, The Erasmus Reader, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1990, p. 216. Julius Excluded from Heaven is on pp. 216-238.

4. IBID. p. 217.

5. IBID. pp. 218-219.

6. IBID. p. 230.

7. IBID. p. 232.

8. IBID. p. 226.

9. IBID. p. 227.

10. IBID. p. 228.

11. IBID.

12. IBID.

13. IBID. pp. 229-230.

14. IBID. p. 231.

15. IBID. p. 232.

16. IBID. p. 233.

17. IBID. p. 234.

18. IBID. p. 235.

19. IBID. p. 237.

20. IBID. p. 238.

Pierre Cloutier