An Answer to a scurrilous pamphlet, lately printed, intituled, A letter from Monsieur de Cros, to the Lord ----

In Short

This book is a vigorous, line-by-line rebuttal of a pamphlet written by one Monsieur de Cros, who sought to discredit the published memoirs of Sir William Temple. Temple’s defender examines de Cros’s accusations—ranging from claims of personal vanity to allegations of diplomatic incompetence—and methodically dismantles them as either contradictory, malicious, or simply dull. It has survived not for its political specifics, but as a masterclass in the art of the literary "takedown," capturing the intense, often petty, intellectual skirmishes that defined the aristocratic discourse of the late seventeenth century.

The Story

The conflict begins when Monsieur de Cros, a self-appointed critic, publishes a letter addressed to an unnamed nobleman, aiming to dismantle the credibility of Sir William Temple’s widely read memoirs. De Cros accuses Temple of arrogance, vanity, and a lack of authentic insight into the secret intrigues of King Charles II’s court. He further asserts that he himself possesses superior knowledge of these events, having been a confidant to a powerful French minister, and suggests that he could write a far more "solid" account of history, if only he had the inclination.

The author of this response takes up the challenge on Temple’s behalf, framing the task as a "severe penance" forced upon him by friends who were tired of de Cros’s "trifling invective." The narrative arc of the response is a systematic demolition of de Cros’s character and logic. The defender highlights the absurdity of de Cros’s contradictions—such as his claim to be a humble man while simultaneously boasting of his own importance, or his assertion that he avoids "petticoat" scandals while filling his own writing with heavy-handed, prurient insinuations.

As the argument progresses, the author addresses specific grievances, such as de Cros’s distorted citations of Temple’s role in the preservation of Flanders and the Triple League. The defender argues that de Cros deliberately manipulates Temple’s words to create a false impression of unearned glory. The response also tackles de Cros’s status as a former monk, mocking his attempts to justify his secular career and his shifting loyalties. Throughout the text, the defender portrays de Cros as a man who hides behind the reputations of kings, cardinals, and foreign ministers to shield his own lack of substance.

The argument culminates in a dismissal of de Cros’s threats to publish his own "dreadful volume" of memoirs. The author posits that, given de Cros’s track record of inconsistency and his tendency to contradict himself within the span of a few pages, any such publication would likely be as ineffective as the current pamphlet. The book concludes by characterizing de Cros as an adversary unworthy of a serious confrontation, noting that Temple never intended to engage in a war where no reputation could be gained by victory. The final note is one of weary superiority: de Cros is dismissed as a "feeble" writer whose malice is mitigated by his own fundamental dullness, leaving the integrity of Temple’s memoirs intact.

How It Unfolds

The call to battle The author establishes the premise of the response, framing de Cros’s pamphlet as a "wretched" and "scurrilous" effort that necessitates a firm correction. He defines the tone of the book: intellectual disdain for a lackluster opponent who forces a debate where no real honor can be won.

The anatomy of a contradiction The critique pivots to de Cros’s erratic logic, specifically how he claims to despise vanity while constantly praising his own connections to power. The author points out that de Cros manages to argue he is both superior to Temple and yet somehow incapable of writing a better book.

The diplomatic defense This section addresses the substantive claims regarding the peace negotiations and the Triple League. The author provides a fair reading of the original text to prove that Temple never claimed solitary credit, but rather acted as one part of a larger, necessary diplomatic effort.

The character assassination The focus shifts to de Cros’s personal history, including his time as a monk and his vague, malicious hints about Temple’s family. The author uses these moments to characterize de Cros as a man whose primary tools are innuendo and "fourberie," or trickery, rather than honest debate.

The closing dismissal The book concludes by reflecting on the futility of de Cros’s threats to publish further works. The author suggests that the public will view any future output with the same indifference it has shown this pamphlet, finally relegating the critic to the status of a harmless, if persistent, irritant.

The People

Sir William Temple serves as the central figure around whom the controversy orbits. He is depicted as a man of public service who views his past with a detached, honest perspective, valuing his own integrity above the need for self-promotion. He stands as the target of de Cros’s envy, a man who has "not made his Fortunes at the expence of either" his King or his country.

Monsieur de Cros is the antagonist, cast as a man of "phlegm and dulness" whose vanity is only matched by his tendency to flip-flop on his own stated principles. Whether he is boasting of his influence with foreign ambassadors or attempting to frame his desertion of the monastic life as a noble evolution, he is presented as a shallow, inconsistent, and ultimately pathetic figure. He desires the prestige of a statesman but lacks the intellectual weight to sustain his own arguments, frequently hiding behind the names of kings to validate his own perceived importance.

The author of the response acts as a proxy for Temple, possessing a sharp, biting wit and a deep knowledge of classical rhetoric. This voice is not merely a defense of a friend, but a surgical instrument designed to expose the hypocrisy of the critic. By the end, the author stands as a clear-eyed observer who finds no satisfaction in the victory because the quality of the opponent was so poor.

In Its Own Voice

The Author of the Memoirs had so little to apprehend in his Reputation either at home or abroad from the feeble Efforts of Monsieur de Cross in his late trifling Invective, that had it not been for the repeated Instances of some Friends, who were unwilling to have such a wretched Scribler escape unpunished, he had never condescended to the severe penance of sitting an hour upon him.

This opening establishes the author’s stance, characterizing the entire endeavor as a reluctant, burdensome task performed only to satisfy the demands of concerned friends.

There is a certain Figure in Rhetorick (I have forgot the Name of it) which the Grammarians tell us we are guilty of committing, when we pretend to pass over those very things which we design to enumerate; and this I find has been very serviceable all along to Monsieur de Cros.

This passage serves as a critique of de Cros’s manipulative writing style, where he claims to be above petty attacks while engaging in them extensively.

What It's Really About

The book is fundamentally an inquiry into the nature of historical truth and the ethics of polemical writing. It questions whether a critic has the right to rewrite the narrative of a public figure’s life to suit a personal agenda. Beneath the petty insults lies a serious concern about the "secret intrigues" of the seventeenth-century court and whether history is better served by the memoirs of those who participated in it or by the retrospective distortions of those who merely observed from the fringes. It explores the tension between honest self-reflection and malicious gossip, arguing that when reputation is attacked by "dullness," the only appropriate response is a precise, unflinching defense of the truth.

Why Read It Today

Readers who appreciate the sharp, often aggressive prose of the Restoration period will find this a fascinating case study in literary combat. It is a rare look at how public figures managed their reputations before the age of mass media, using pamphlets as their primary weapons. The book feels remarkably modern in its critique of "spin" and the manipulation of facts—the way de Cros selectively quotes Temple to make him look arrogant is a tactic that remains instantly recognizable.

However, the reader must be prepared for the dense, polemical style of the late 1600s. The language, while precise, is thick with classical allusions, untranslated Latin and French phrases, and the convoluted syntax of the era. The text requires patience, as the author spends significant time unpicking arguments that might seem trivial today. Yet, there is a distinct pleasure in watching a master of language methodically dismantle an opponent. It stays with you not because of the political events it describes—which have long since lost their urgency—but because of the sheer skill with which the author exposes human vanity. It is a testament to the fact that while technology changes, the impulse to defend one's name against bad-faith actors is an enduring feature of the human experience.