Reflections upon Two Pamphlets Lately Published: One called, A Letter from Monsieur de Cros, concerning the Memoirs of Christendom, and the Other, An Answer to that Letter

In Short

This book presents a series of critical essays written in 1693 that serve as a defense of Sir William Temple and his Memoirs of Christendom. The anonymous author, identifying as a "Lover of Truth," dissects two hostile pamphlets: one by Monsieur de Cros, who felt maligned by Temple’s account of European diplomacy, and another that falsely claimed to be written by Temple himself. By exposing the bitterness of the former and the forgery of the latter, the book offers a sharp, contemporary look at the intersection of historical record, personal honor, and literary integrity during the Dutch War era.

The Story

The narrative begins with the author’s anticipation of a serious response to the Memoirs by Monsieur de Cros. Expecting a clash of intellects that might force Sir William Temple to return to the public eye to defend his work, the writer is instead disappointed by the nature of de Cros's response. It is, in the author's estimation, a "fulsome Libel," devoid of substance and driven by personal spite rather than legitimate historical correction. The core of the conflict lies in de Cros's offense at being described in the Memoirs as a mere courier. He portrays himself as a figure of great diplomatic importance, and his inability to reconcile this self-image with Temple’s portrayal leads him to launch a barrage of attacks against Temple’s character, his service to the King, and his retirement.

The author meticulously dismantles de Cros’s complaints. He points out that de Cros, a former French monk who traded his "frock for a petticoat," relies on venomous rhetoric rather than facts. The author systematically addresses de Cros’s claims regarding the late King of England and other diplomats, arguing that de Cros’s own words reveal him to be a man of little wit and even less sincerity. Throughout this process, the author establishes that Temple’s Memoirs were not written to target de Cros, but were rather a chronicle of state affairs; de Cros’s intense reaction is compared to a fly on a chariot wheel, imagining that the vehicle exists solely to carry him.

The arc takes an unexpected turn when a second pamphlet appears, purporting to be an official response from Temple himself. Initially surprised, the author quickly identifies this as a "supposititious piece"—a forgery. He notes that the writing style lacks Temple's characteristic clarity and that the tone is inconsistent with the statesman's known dignity. The author spends the latter half of the text exposing the dangers of such intellectual theft, likening the act of attributing a "child of the brain" to an unwilling parent as a form of literary Cuckooing. The book concludes with a firm rejection of both the original libeler and the later, deceitful imitator. The author reaffirms his commitment to the "Lover of Truth" persona, ultimately dismissing the entire affair as a squalid display of vanity, leaving the reader to reflect on how history is often muddied by those who seek to distort the past to serve their own fragile reputations.

How It Unfolds

The anticipation of conflict The author explains his initial excitement at the arrival of de Cros’s pamphlet, hoping for a substantive debate on the Memoirs of Christendom. He quickly realizes that the document is not an intellectual critique, but a shallow, angry attack against Temple.

The anatomy of a libeler The author provides a character study of de Cros, highlighting his transition from a monk to a secular agent. He points out how de Cros’s extreme sensitivity to being called a "messenger" reveals a deep-seated insecurity that drives his entire polemical effort.

The defense of the record The author analyzes specific passages of the Memoirs to demonstrate that Temple’s writing was objective and focused on statecraft. He argues that de Cros’s distortions are attempts to "raise up the spirits of the dead" to join a quarrel that has no basis in the actual historical account.

The discovery of the forgery The author shifts his attention to a second pamphlet that falsely claims to be written by Temple. He uses internal evidence, such as the clumsy use of the third person and a lack of authentic stylistic grace, to prove the work is a counterfeit.

The final judgment The author concludes by condemning the practice of circulating anonymous, dishonest pamphlets. He reaffirms his own motivation—a love for truth—and dismisses the entire controversy as a low-minded affair unworthy of serious historical consideration.

The People

The text centers on three figures. Sir William Temple is portrayed as the aggrieved party, a statesman of established honor and intellect whose work is being misrepresented by others. He remains largely silent throughout the ordeal, a reflection of his stature; the author argues that a "strong man well-armed" does not engage in a duel with a "poor, wretched cripple."

Monsieur de Cros stands as the antagonist, an insecure and vitriolic figure who insists on his own self-importance. His transition from a monastic life to the world of secular intrigue provides the author with ample material to question his credibility. He is a man who mistakes his own anger for a legitimate grievance, ultimately damaging his own reputation through his "scurrilous reproaches."

Finally, there is the anonymous author, the "Lover of Truth." He acts as a mediator who wants to restore the integrity of the historical record. His primary obstacle is the fog of misinformation created by the other two pamphlets. By the end, he transforms from an expectant reader into a cynical, yet firm, defender of objective history, having successfully distinguished between the genuine work of a statesman and the opportunistic "shams and cheats" of his era’s pamphlet wars.

In Its Own Voice

The author highlights the absurdity of the original attack by noting the strange tone of its opening:

I know very well that Sir W. T. is of great worth, and deserves well, and that he hath been a long time imployed, and that too upon important Occasions.

(The author notes that this is a bizarre, sycophantic prologue to an otherwise vicious and nonsensical attack.)

He also captures the indignation of the libeler regarding his own status:

This passage has so fiercely gall'd him, that he is set a railing for six pages together; and the affront is, that he should be taken for an ordinary Courier, or Messenger.

(The author describes de Cros’s extreme, disproportionate reaction to being identified as a mere messenger in the Memoirs.)

What It's Really About

The book explores the tension between objective history and the subjective, often vengeful, interpretation of events. It asks how the written word can be manipulated by those with "craving kidneys" for status. Central to the text is the theme of intellectual ownership; the author treats books as "children of the brain" and views the forgery of an author’s voice as a grave violation. Ultimately, it is a defense of the value of history itself. The author argues that without "freedom and little ceremony" in documenting the past, the public is left with nothing but "nauseous panegyrics" and "shams" that prevent citizens from understanding the true nature of the actors on the world stage.

Why Read It Today

Readers with an interest in the history of journalism, early modern politics, or the art of the literary takedown will find this book fascinating. It captures the specific, acidic atmosphere of the seventeenth-century "coffee-house" debate, where pamphlets were the social media of the day—fast, often anonymous, and frequently vicious. The experience of reading it is much like eavesdropping on an intense, long-forgotten argument.

The prose is vigorous, sharp, and occasionally biting, but it does require patience. The reader must navigate the archaic punctuation, erratic spelling, and the heavy reliance on period-specific cultural references, such as the etiquette of diplomacy and the nuances of religious orders of the time. You will find that the author’s disdain for "twelve-penny writers" who gull the public feels remarkably modern. What stays with you is the author’s principled defense of the truth; even in an age of rampant disinformation and forgery, he insists that facts matter and that the integrity of a writer’s voice is worth protecting. It is a rewarding study for anyone who values clarity of thought in the face of manufactured outrage.