January 17

[Writing from my retirement at Monticello on January 17, 1825, I address General Alexander Smyth, a military officer and congressman who sent me proof sheets of his commentary on the biblical Book of Revelation. During this late period of my life, I dedicated my remaining years to establishing the University of Virginia while constantly defending my private philosophical and religious beliefs from public scrutiny. While maintaining the firm policy of my retirement to never publicly review new publications, I candidly advise Smyth against wasting his formidable intellect on the Apocalypse, a text I had dismissed decades prior as the incoherent ravings of a maniac. I consider the book completely devoid of rational ideas, viewing it as an insult to the Supreme Being to suggest he would deliver a divine revelation couched in terms that he knew could never be understood by mankind.]

I have duly received four proof sheets of your explanation of the Apocalypse, with your letters of December 29th and January 8th; in the last of which you request that, so soon as I shall be of opinion that the explanation you have given is correct, I would express it in a letter to you. From this you must be so good as to excuse me, because I make it an invariable rule to decline ever giving opinions on new publications in any case whatever. No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself, and least and last of all should I undertake to criticize works on the Apocalypse. It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. I was, therefore, well pleased to see, in your first proof sheet, that it was said to be not the production of St. John, but of Cerinthus, a century after the death of that apostle. Yet the change of the author's name does not lessen the extravagances of the composition; and come they from whomsoever they may, I cannot so far respect them as to consider them as an allegorical narrative of events, past or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas. You will judge, therefore, from this how impossible I think it that either your explanation, or that of any man in "the heavens above, or on the earth beneath," can be a correct one. What has no meaning admits no explanation; and pardon me if I say, with the candor of friendship, that I think your time too valuable, and your understanding of too high an order, to be wasted on these paralogisms. You will perceive, I hope, also, that I do not consider them as revelations of the Supreme Being, whom I would not so far blaspheme as to impute to him a pretension of revelation, couched at the same time in terms which, he would know, were never to be understood by those to whom they were addressed. In the candor of these observations, I hope you will see proofs of the confidence, esteem and respect which I truly entertain for you.