Pseudonymis_ (Jena,
1711), p. 161. (reprinted in Mylius, _Bibliotheca Anon. et Pseudon._,
Hamburg, 1740, vol. i. pp. 170-6.) has an article on the _Histoire des
Sevarambes_. It is there stated that "Messieurs de Portroyal" superintended
the French translation of the work; but no authority is given for the
statement. Christian Thomasius, {375} in his _Monthly Review_ of November
1689, attributed the work to D'Allais (or Vairasse). He alleged three
reasons for this belief: 1. The rumour current in France; 2. The fact that
Allais sold the book, as well as his French grammar; 3. That a comparison
of the two works, in respect of style and character of mind, renders it
most probable that both are by the same author. The testimony of Thomasius
is important, as the date of its publication is only ten years posterior to
the publication of the last part of the French version.

Leclerc, in a review of the _Schediasma_ of Heumann, in the _Bibliotheque
Choisie_, published in 1712 (tom. xxv. p. 402., with an addendum, tom.
xxvi. p. 460.), attests positively that Vairasse was the author of the work
in question. He says that Vairasse (or, as he spells the name, Veiras) took
the name of D'Allais in order to sell his book. He had this fact from
persons well acquainted with Vairasse. He likewise mentions that Vairasse
was well known to Locke, who gave Leclerc an account of his birthplace.
Leclerc adds that he was acquainted with a person to whom Vairasse wished
to dedicate his book (viz. the _Histoire des Sevarambes_), _and who
possessed a copy of it, with a species of dedication, written in his hand_.

This testimony is so distinct and circumstantial, as to leave no reasonable
doubt as to the connexion of Vairasse with the French version. The
difficulty as to the authorship of the English version still, however,
remains considerable. The extensive alterations introduced in the French
edition certainly render it probable that _two_ different writers were
concerned in the work. The words of Leclerc respecting the information
received from Locke are somewhat ambiguous; but they do not necessarily
imply that Locke knew anything as to the connexion of Vairasse with the
book, though they are not inconsistent with this meaning. Locke had
doubtless become acquainted with Vairasse during his residence in England.
Considering the length of time which Vairasse passed in England, and the
eminence of the persons with whom he is said to have had relat