Page:A budget of paradoxes (IA cu31924103990507).pdf/51



Falco's verses are pretty, if the ˘ ˉ mysteries be correct; but of these things I have forgotten—what I knew. [One mistake has been pointed out to me: it is Archȳtas].

As a specimen of the way in which history is written, I copy the account which Montucla—who is accurate when he writes about what he has seen—gives of these verses. He gives the date 1587; he places the verses at the beginning instead of the end; he says the circle thanks its quadrator affectionately; and he says the good and modest chevalier gives all the glory to the patron saint of his order. All of little consequence, as it happens; but writing at second-hand makes as complete mistakes about more important matters.

The first edition is said to be of 1585; the third, Paris, 1618. Bungus is not for my purpose on his own score, but those who gave the numbers their mysterious characters: he is but a collector. He quotes or uses 402 authors, as we are informed by his list: this just beats Warburton, whom some eulogist or satirist, I forget which, holds up as having used 400 authors in some one work. Bungus goes through 1, 2, 3, &c., and gives the account of everything remarkable in which each number occurs his accounts not being always mysterious. The numbers which have nothing to say for themselves are omitted: thus there is a gap between 50 and 60. In treating 666, Bungus, a good Catholic, could not compliment the Pope with it, but he fixes it on Martin Luther with a little forcing. If from A to I represent 1–10, from K to S 10–90, and from T to Z 100–500, we see—

which gives 666. Again, in Hebrew, Lulter does the same:—

And thus two can play at any game. The second is better than the first: to Latinise the surname and not the Christian name is very unscholarlike. The last number mentioned is a