VIII. The vulgar opinion has represented this philosopher, as a poor
madman, and an extravagant buffoon, who passed his whole life in
continual bursts of laughter, and who by laughing at every thing, had
made himself the laughing-stock and derision of all mankind; and the
conclusion drawn from thence has been, that he was not less ignorant
than ridiculous. But notwithstanding this opinion has been so generally
adopted, it is easy to demonstrate, that Democritus in reality, was one
of the most thinking and enlightened men of antiquity. A proof of which,
was his application to study, his manner of living, the estimation he
was held in by his countrymen, and his vast learning and wisdom. All that
we are about to urge in his defence, is taken from the authorities of
Diogenes Laertius, Athenæus, Valerius Maximus, Cicero, and other writers
of eminence.
IX. His application to study was such, that he lived in an almost
continued state of seclusion from the world. He hardly ever stirred out
of his house; nor within it, did he scarce allow himself any respite from
his labours, but remained almost always shut up in his study, reading,
meditating, and writing. His ardent desire for acquiring more and more
lights and information, induced him to leave for a long time, not only
his retirement, but his country also, and to travel into distant nations,
in order to consult the learned men of Egypt, Persia, and Chaldea; and as
some say, even went to consult those of Ethiopia, and India likewise. He
expended in these peregrinations, all that he inherited from his father,
which amounted to a hundred talents. At his return to his own country,
he was accused before the magistrates, as a dissipater of his paternal
inheritance; which in that country, was looked upon as a serious offence,
and was punished, by depriving the spendthrift of being buried with his
ancestors, as an unworthy descendant of his family. The method Democritus
took to justify himself, was very singular. He produced to his judges,
the best book he had written, which was intitled, _The Great Diacosmus_,
and read to them a large portion of it, and pleaded, that the knowledge
contained in that book, was the fruit of his travels, and that he had
expended his paternal inheritance in acquiring it. The magistrates were
astonished at the profundity of the learning contained in the book,
and determined, that his money had been well expended in making the
acquisition; and not only acquitted Democritus of the charge that had
been brought against him, but adjudged that he should be rewarded with
five hundred talents, to be paid out of the public treasury, and adjudged
further, that statues should be erected to him as a most excellent man.
Let any one now consider, whether it is probable, that his country should
pay such honourable attention to a person, who was a ridiculous fellow,
and a buffoon? to say nothing of his being looked upon as a half madman,
who every moment of his life, was scoffing at his judges, his country,
and all mankind.
X. The great application of Democritus, accompanied with his vast and
subtil genius, begot such a high opinion of the extent of his learning,
that no man was considered as his equal in that respect in the age in
which he lived; for at the same time that the philosophers of those
days, extended their studies and enquiries, no further than to the
contemplation of physics, ethics, and metaphysics; Democritus added to
these three faculties, medicine, botany, geometry, arithmetic, music,
astronomy, poetry, painting, and the knowledge of languages. All which,
may be inferred from the catalogues of his works, to be found in Diogenes
Laertius.
XI. I ask now, whether the circumstances we have enumerated with respect
to Democritus, bespeak him to be a ridiculous buffoon? or whether they
may not rather be termed descriptive of a grave, serious, contemplative
man, of much superior lights to the generality of mankind?
XII. I confess, that the laughter of Democritus has been a proverb in
the world, which has been commonly used to express laughter to excess;
although the proverb took its rise from the accounts some ancient authors
have given of this philosopher. But notwithstanding this, I will venture
to assert, the laughter of Democritus, which has been so much talked
of, did not exceed the bounds, which should circumscribe the gravity of
philosophy.
XIII. In order to demonstrate this, we should premise, that all the ills
to which man is exposed, may be said to spring from three sources, which
are those of malice, misfortune, and ignorance, or want of information.
These three evils, to those who rationally contemplate them, will appear
to excite naturally, three distinct affections. That is to say, malice,
to be productive of indignation; misfortune, grief; and ignorance,
laughter. According then to whichever of these causes we consider the
evil to spring, we should suppose it to excite an affection correspondent
to that cause; and from hence, arises the great characteristic difference
of affections, which has been remarked to predominate between the two
antagonist philosophers, Heraclitus, and Democritus. Heraclitus, is
described to have been weeping and sad, and to the same excess, that
Democritus is said to have been laughing and cheerful. That is, these
tokens of the characters of the two men, were supposed to be produced, in
the first by his sensitive feelings, and in the second by his follies.
This is the common opinion; but I for myself believe, that the fault of
Heraclitus, was rather the offspring of indignation than compassion; and
that he did not consider the evils of mankind, to proceed so much from
their misfortunes, as from their malice. This is apparent, from his three
letters to his friend Hermodorus, which are the only fragments that have
been handed down to us of his writings: what he says there, when he is
speaking of the bad government and depraved manners of Ephesus, which
was his own country; does not favour the least of compassion; for the
whole context, breathes nothing but indignation and resentment. By the
same letters we may perceive, that he was presumptuous in extreme, and
also arrogant, proud, and a contemner of the rest of mankind. How does
this correspond with the soft, and compassionate disposition, that is
attributed to him? Finally, it is a fact well established, that from his
disgust to, and loathing of mankind, he retired from the world, to lead a
solitary life in the mountains. All this, bespeaks a man of a perverse,
unsociable, and gloomy genius, and proves, that Heraclitus deserved the
character that had been given of him by Timon of Athens, which was that
of _a Misanthrope_; and means, _that he was an enemy to, or an abhorrer
of mankind_.
XIV. But whether Heraclitus was generally crying or lamenting, as is
commonly thought; or agreeable to my opinion of him, was continually
growling and snarling, it amounts to the same thing, for the use I
propose to make of the premises, which is to manifest, that Heraclitus
and Democritus, were excited by distinct affections, because their
attentions, were confined to distinct objects; and without entering into,
whether the lamentation, or indignation, whichever it shall be thought
fit to call it, of Heraclitus, whose apology I am not writing, was
justifiable, I maintain, that the laughter of Democritus was reasonable,
and not extravagant. Democritus viewed men on their ridiculous side,
and contemplated their absurdities, their follies, their ill-grounded
presumptions, their vain desires, and their useless occupations, all of
them, as objects worthy to be laughed at; for as Aristotle says, all
turpitude that does not occasion sadness, is laughable and ridiculous,
_turpitudo sine dolore_. The follies and vanities of man being then a
sort of turpitudes, which do not produce grief in him, but rather tend to
make him contented and happy in himself; are objects worthy to be laughed
at.
XV. Yes. But laughter, although it may be directed to a proper object,
may be carried to excess; and perhaps this was the fault that was
reprehended in Democritus. To this I answer, that the accusation, even
considered in this sense, is founded on a mere equivocation. The laughter
of Democritus, which has been so largely cried out against, did not
favour so much of a habit, as of a dogma; and ought more properly to be
considered as applying to an object, than looked upon as a distinct act.
This philosopher was distinguished from the rest, not because he laughed
more than all the others, but for placing his especial attention on the
absurdities of mankind; and the singular maxim, that human things tended
more to excite laughter, than indignation or compassion, made a principal
part of his moral doctrine. It was easy to imagine, that a philosopher
must be much addicted to laugh, who philosophized in this way; and from
conceiving him much inclined to laugh, it was easy also for them to
proceed to supposing that he was laughing every minute; but his solitary
disposition, and retired life, afford an efficacious proof to the
contrary. Who ever knew a man that was much inclined to retirement, who
was of a very laughable disposition? These two things, seem absolutely
incompatible with each other. He who has a great propensity to laughing,
seeks occasions to gratify that inclination, and these are to be found in
the company of other men, and not in solitude.
XVI. From a story that is related of him by Lucian, I am persuaded, that
Democritus was more disposed to be serious than jolly. He was used to
say, that all the stories of spectres, phantoms, and apparitions, were
fabulous and ridiculous; and certain young fellows, to try whether these
were his real sentiments, or else with a view of making him alter them,
entered his room in the dead of night, with frightful masks on their
faces, and habited in the garb of devils, to which terrible appearances,
they added horrible shrieks and cries, accompanied by terrifying
gestures. Democritus, who was writing when they entered his room, far
from seeming surprized, without lifting the pen from his paper, and
without even deigning to pay any attention to them, in a severe tone
bid them hold their noise, or else go and make it in some other place,
and without articulating another word, he betook himself again to his
writing. What, if Democritus had been of a risible disposition, could
have been more likely than such a scene to have excited him to laughter;
for he well knew the appearances were all feigned, and a jocose derision
would have been the best rebuke he could have given them for such an
attempt. Finally, that spectacle afforded abundant matter proper to
excite laughter, for it might truly be called turpitude, _unattended by
sadness_. Why then did not Democritus laugh? Why did he not scoff at, and
treat them with jocose contempt? Why without doubt, because he was not
of a bantering, or laughable disposition.
XVII. I will not dispute, that Democritus might sometimes affect
to laugh, in order to open a door, for the introduction of his
animadversions on the absurdities of mankind; but affected laughter is
not incompatible with, nor does it tend to annihilate serious truth.
I will also admit, that at sometimes when he laughed in earnest, his
laughter might border on the extravagant. Democritus considered many of
the actions of men as ridiculous, which others regarded as reasonable,
and considered as foolish, many, which others looked upon as discreet:
Democritus would laugh at such, and other men who did not discern like
him the absurdity of the things he laughed at, might look upon him as a
ridiculous man for so doing.
XVIII. In the first discourse of our first volume, we made mention of
three letters of Hippocrates, which gave a relation of his having been
sent for by the Abdarites, to cure their country-man Democritus, who, on
account of his bursting into fits of impertinent and unmeaning laughter,
they concluded was mad. In those letters, there is also a relation given
of Hippocrates’s visit to him, and of the conversation that passed
between Hippocrates and Democritus at that visit, and the result of
the interview between them; which was, that Hippocrates esteemed him
ever afterwards, as a man supremely wise and learned. This might serve
as a confirmation of all we have said respecting Democritus; but as I
am a lover of truth, I will not scruple to acknowledge, that since my
writing of that discourse, I have come to understand, that there are many
critics, who are inclined to think those letters are supposititious; and
therefore I will not pretend to avail myself of them further, than as of
a testimony, whose authenticity may be disputed.
XIX. But I must beg leave to remark one thing; which is, that in the
beforementioned discourse, there is an expression of mine, which may
be construed to imply, that I thought the laughter of Democritus
inclining to the excessive; but to avoid being accused of falling into
contradictions, I thought it necessary to repeat here, an observation I
have made upon other occasions; which is, that I am not accustomed to
express my particular opinion upon any matter, respecting which I think
differently from the vulgar, unless it is when I treat expressly of
that matter; but when I touch upon a thing incidentally, it is a rule
with me, to fall in with the common opinion concerning that thing. This
is a method I found absolutely necessary to adopt, in order to avoid
interrupting the thread of my discourse, and incumbering it with foreign
matter and new questions.
XX. They have set up another story against Democritus, which, if there
was any foundation for, would more effectually prove his want of
understanding, than all the bursts of laughter that have been imputed to
him. Many authors, and among them Aulus Gellius, relate, that Democritus
having considered, that the sight of many sensible objects diverts the
understanding from contemplating natural things with proper attention,
put out both his eyes, to qualify himself for reflecting upon them with
greater profundity, and more intensely. I will readily acknowledge,
that such a resolution, could only be taken by a man of a depraved
understanding. _Illud quidem falso jactatum est de Democrito, quod sponte
sibi ademerit oculos, &c._ (Lib. de Curiosit.) What necessity was there,
in order to remove the impediment arising from sensible objects, for his
putting out both his eyes? Would not shutting himself in a dark room,
whenever he was disposed to study, have answered the same purpose. The
poet Laberius, who takes the thing for granted, assigns another reason
for his blinding himself. He says, that Democritus put out both his
eyes, to avoid seeing the prosperity of bad men; as if he could not
as well have enjoyed this satisfaction, by retiring from all commerce
or intercourse with the world; besides, a man’s blinding himself for
such a reason, argues a sour, morose, and furious disposition, instead
of a pleasant and chearful one, which Democritus was said to possess.
Nor is what Tertullian advances more probable, who says, he blinded
himself because he could not bear to look at women without emotions
of incontinence, nor without being vexed if it happened he could not
enjoy them. Nothing could be more foreign than this to the genius of
Democritus, of whom it is an established fact, that he was always averse
to matrimony. Such fables can be but feebly supported, when the truth is
enquired into and sought after with attention.