Here then we have a respectable historian, the author of a learned work on the antiquities of Switzerland, confessing himself obliged to admit an error because it is popular! Perhaps also, in his own interest, it was safer to do so, for a few years later (in 1760) Uriel Freudenberger created a terrible disturbance in Bern by publishing a small volume in Latin entitled _William Tell, a Danish Fable_, which was by many attributed to Emmanuel Haller. The canton of Uri condemned the author to be burned with his book, and on the 14th of June in the same year it addressed a very urgent letter to the other cantons, advising them to pass a like sentence. The work of Freudenberger having been burnt, the copies became extremely scarce, but it was reprinted in Breyer’s _Historical Magazine_, Vol. I. p. 325. The same text was also reproduced--but only in order to be partially refuted--in the work of Hisely, published at Delft in 1826 under the title: “_Of William Tell and the Swiss Revolution of 1307; or the history of the early cantons up to the treaty of Brunnen in 1315_.” In the latter half of the 17th century, a writer as eminent as Guilliman, J. H. Rahn, after recording in his chronicle the history of Tell according to the tradition, explains his reasons for regarding it as fabulous, or at least as open to suspicion. Later still, another writer, Isaac Christ. Iselin, in his large historical dictionary (_Historisches und geographisches allgemeines Lexicon_, Basel 1727, in folio) says, that although several authors cite this story, it is nevertheless open to doubt, because 1) the ancient annalists are silent on the subject, and 2) because Olaus Magnus has related the same adventure of a certain Toko, in the reign of Harold king of Denmark. There is so great a similarity between the two stories that it is impossible to avoid supposing that one has been copied from the other.