Part 3

INTRODUCTION.

The individuals in society, who present to the view of their cotemporaries, and transmit to posterity, Memorials of illustrious men,—more especially those of their own country,—discharge thereby a debt of gratitude: because every man is, directly or indirectly, interested in the benefits conferred on his species, by those who enlarge the sphere of human knowledge, or otherwise promote the happiness of mankind.

But the biographer of an highly meritorious character aims at more than the mere performance of that duty, which a grateful sense of obligation exacts from him, in common with every member of the community, in commemorating the beneficence of the wise and the good: he endeavours to excite in great and liberal minds, by the example of such, an ambition to emulate their talents and their virtues;—and it is these, that, by their union, constitute true greatness of character.

The meed of applause which may be sometimes, and too often is, bestowed on meretricious worth, is ever unsteady and fleeting. The pseudo-patriot may happen to enjoy a transient popularity; false philosophy may, for a while, delude, if not corrupt, the minds of an unthinking multitude; and specious theories in every department of science,—unsupported by experience and untenable on principles of sound reason,—may give to their projectors a short-lived reputation: But the celebrity which is coveted by the man of a noble and generous spirit,—that estimable species of fame, which alone can survive such ephemera of error as are often engendered by the vanity of the individual and nurtured by the follies or vices of the many,—must ever rest on the permanent foundation of truth, knowledge and beneficence.

Virtue is essentially necessary to the constitution of a truly great character. For, although brilliant talents are sometimes found combined with vicious propensities,—the impulse given to men of this description, often renders their great abilities baneful to society: they can seldom, if ever, be productive of real public good. Should eminent talents, possessed by a man destitute of virtue, even take a right direction in their operation, by reason of some extraordinary circumstance,—such an event ought never to be calculated on: It is not the part of common sense,—much less of a cautious prudence, acquired by a knowledge of mankind,—to expect praise-worthy conduct from any one, whose predominating passions are bad, however great may be his capability of doing good.

-----

Footnote 1:

Hence, in conformity to this sentiment, Mr. Pope says, when animadverting on the insufficiency of talents, alone, for acquiring an honourable fame and meriting a character truly great,—

“If parts allure thee, think how Bacon shin’d, The wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind; Or, ravish’d with the whistling of a name, See Cromwell damn’d to everlasting fame.” [ESSAY ON MAN.]

-----

While, therefore, the mind may view, with a sort of admiration, the achievements of a magnanimous soldier, it turns with indignation from the atrocities of a military tyrant: and at the same time that it may be induced to contemplate even with complacency, at the first view, the plausible, yet groundless speculations of ingenious theorists, in matters of science,—still the fallacy of their systems, when developed by experience, strips them of all their tinseled glare of merit. Thus, too, the applause which the world justly attaches to the character of a patriot-hero, deserts the unprincipled ruffian-warrior, however valiant and successful he may prove: In like manner, reason and experience expose to the censure of the good and the derision of the wise, the deleterious doctrines of metaphysical statesmen and philosophers. Such estimable qualities as they may possess, in either character, are merged in the mischievous or base ones, with which they are combined: thus, infamy or contempt eventually become the merited portion of crime or of folly, as either one or the other may prevail. A Cæsar, a Cromwell and a Robespierre, with other scourges of mankind, of like character, will therefore be viewed as objects of execration by posterity, while the memories of an Alfred, a Nassau, and a Washington—a Chatham, a Burke, and an Ames,—will be venerated, to the latest posterity.

-----

Footnote 2:

The miserable consequences which have resulted to the civilized world, from the mode of reasoning abstractly, and from the mere synthetical plan of philosophising, are too apparent to need much comment. Even some geometricians of great name have been seduced, by such means, into monstrous absurdities in physics; and into the maintenance of doctrines, alike subversive of religion and morals, as destructive of the foundations of civil society. Such were Descartes, Leibnitz and Spinoza, of the seventeenth century: and such have been, and even now are, too many of that class of modern philosophers, as well in this country as on the continent of Europe,—whose metaphysical notions of religion and government, (although some of them may, perhaps, be pretty correct on the subject of physics, alone,) have been the means of inundating the world with scepticism; and, after overturning regular, orderly, and peaceable states, of establishing despotism and misery on the ruins of rational government, in many of the fairest portions of the old world.

Even Voltaire, who had, himself, been instrumental in corrupting the mind of the great Frederick of Prussia, and, thus, of furnishing the means for the subsequent overthrow of that once powerful monarchy; even this infidel could not help exclaiming, in a moment of sober reflection, “Who could have believed, that geometricians have been wild enough to imagine, that, in the exaltation of the soul, we may possess the gift of divination; yet more than one philosopher took it into their heads, by the example of Descartes, to put themselves into God’s place, and create a world with a word! But now, all these philosophical follies are reproved by the wise; and even their fantastical edifices, overthrown by reason, have left in their ruins, materials, of which reason has made some use.—A like extravagance has infected the moral world: there have been some understandings so blind as to undermine the very foundation of society, at the time they thought to reform it. They have been mad enough to maintain that the distinctions of meum & tuum are criminal, and that one ought not to enjoy the fruits of one’s own labour; that not only all mankind are upon a level, but that they have perverted the order of nature, in forming societies; that men are born to be separated from each other, like wild beasts; and that amphibious animals, with bees and ants, confound the eternal laws, by living in common! These impertinences, worthy of an hospital of madmen,” continues Mr. de Voltaire, sarcastically, “have been for some time in fashion, just as it is customary to lead apes to dance, at fairs.” [See THE AGE OF LOUIS XV. ch. 39.]

But although it cannot be doubted; that the society of Voltaire contributed to support, if not to generate, the deistical principles of Frederick II. other foreigners, whom he had patronized and cherished in his own capital, and with whom he associated, most of them Frenchmen, did much towards debauching his mind, in regard to religion. The Prince de Ligne, a distinguished Austrian field-marshal, has verified this remark. In a letter written to the king of Poland, in the year 1785, the prince narrates some particulars of a conversation which took place between the Prussian monarch and himself, in the year 1770; and observes, that the king expressed his libertine sentiments too freely, even making a boast of his irreligion. The prince de Ligne, on this occasion, charges freethinkers with a want of candour, in promulgating opinions fraught with infidelity, while many of them heartily dread the consequences of what they affect to renounce. But this, he remarks, is not their only fault: “they are also apt,” says he, “to make a parade of free-thinking; which betrays, at least, a want of taste. It was,” continues the prince, “from having been surrounded by men of bad taste, such as D’Argens, Maupertuis, La Beaumelle, La Mettrie, the Abbé de Brades, and some clumsy infidels of his academy, that the king had contracted the habit of abusing religion, and talking of dogmas, Spinozism, the court of Rome, &c.”

LETTERS AND REFLEXIONS OF THE PRINCE DE LIGNE.

Footnote 3:

However Cæsar may be admired as an accomplished gentleman and scholar,—or even as a great and gallant soldier,—he ought ever to be reprobated as an usurper and a tyrant.—Dr. Adam Ferguson remarks, that “Julius Cæsar possessed the talent of influencing, of gaining, and employing men to his purpose, beyond any other person that is known in the history of the world: but it is surely not for the good of mankind,” continues this able writer, “that he should be admired in other respects. To admire even his clemency, is to mistake for it policy and cunning.” [See Ferguson’s Hist. of the Progress and Termination of the Roman Republic, vol. 5. ch. 36.]

Indeed our admiration of the great military talents of such a man as Cæsar, may carry us too far. Mr. Hume, in his History of England (ch. 47.) very justly observes—that “The unhappy prepossession which men commonly entertain in favour of ambition, courage, enterprise, and other warlike virtues, engages generous natures,—who always love fame,—into such pursuits as destroy their own peace, and that of the rest of mankind.”

-----

Much of the glory of a nation results from the renown of illustrious men, among its citizens: a country which has produced many great men, may justly pride itself on the fame which those individuals had acquired. The community to which we belong is entitled to such services as we can render to it: these the patriot will cheerfully bestow; and, in promoting the honour and prosperity of his country, a large portion of the lustre which the exertion of his talents shall have shed upon it, are again reflected on himself.

-----

Footnote 4:

Mr. Fontenelle in his Eloge on Sir Isaac Newton (published by the Royal Academy of Sciences, at Paris,) mentions particularly the great honours that were paid him, by his countrymen, as well during his life as after his decease. “The English,” says he, “are not apt to pay the less regard to great abilities, for being of their native growth; but instead of endeavouring to lessen them by injurious reflexions, or approving the envy which attacks them, they all join together in striving to advocate them,”—“They are sensible that a great genius must reflect honour upon the state; and whoever is able to procure it to their country, is upon that account infinitely dear to them.”—“Tacitus,” says he, “who has reproached the Romans with their extreme indifference towards the great men of their own nation, would have given the English quite a different character.”—And, after describing the almost princely magnificence, in the manner of Newton’s interment in Westminster Abbey, Mr. Fontenelle remarks, that we must almost go back to the ancient Greeks, if we would find a like instance of so great a veneration paid to learning.

The following epitaph, in classical Latin, is inscribed on the noble monument erected to the memory of Newton, in the Abbey Church of Westminster:

H. S. E. Isaacus Newton, Eques Auratus, Qui vi animi prope divinâ Planetarum motus, figuras, Cometarum semitas, Oceanique æstus, Sua mathesi facem præferente, Primus demonstravit. Radiorum lucis dissimilitudines, Colorumque inde nascentium proprietates Quas nemo antea vel suspicatus erat, prevestigavit, Naturæ, Antiquitatis, S. Scripturæ, Sedulus, sagax, fidus interpres, Dei Opt. Max. majestatem philosophiâ asseruit, Evangelii simplicitatem moribus expressit, Sibi gratulentur mortales, tale tantumque exstitisse, Humani Generis Decus. Natus XXV. Decemb. MDCXLII. Obiit XX. Mart. MDCCXXVI.

-----