lies out of the sphere of immediate knowledge; the seeing of
that which, to the natural sense of the seer, is invisible.

The foreteller asserts that, at some future time, a properly
situated observer will witness certain events; the clairvoyant
declares that, at this present time, certain things are to be
witnessed a thousand miles away; the retrospective prophet
(would that there were such a word as "backteller!") affirms
that, so many hours or years ago, such and such things were to
be seen. In all these cases, it is only the relation to time
which alters--the process of divination beyond the limits of
possible direct knowledge remains the same.

No doubt it was their instinctive recognition of the analogy
between Zadig's results and those obtained by authorised
inspiration which inspired the Babylonian magi with the desire
to burn the philosopher. Zadig admitted that he had never either
seen or heard of the horse of the king or of the spaniel of the
queen; and yet he ventured to assert in the most positive
manner that animals answering to their description did actually
exist and ran about the plains of Babylon. If his method was
good for the divination of the course of events ten hours old,
why should it not be good for those of ten years or ten
centuries past; nay, might it not extend ten thousand years and
justify the impious in meddling with the traditions of Oannes
and the fish, and all the sacred foundations of
Babylonian cosmogony?

But this was not the worst. There was another consideration
which obviously dictated to the more thoughtful of the magi the