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.[4]
-----
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.
-----
The cultivator of those branches of natural science which constitute
practical and experimental philosophy;—equally with the teacher of
religion and morals,—extends the beneficial effects of his researches
and knowledge beyond the bounds of his particular country. Truth is
every where the same; and the promulgation of it tends, at all times and
in all places, to elevate to its proper station the dignity of man. The
more extensively, then, true science can be diffused, the greater will
be the means—the fairer will be the rational prospect, of enlarging the
sphere of human happiness. The philosopher may, pre-eminently, be
considered as a citizen of the world; yet without detracting in any
degree from that spirit of patriotism, which ever stimulates a good man
to contribute his primary and most important services to his own
country. There are, indeed, some species of aids, which are exclusively
due to a community, by all its citizens; and, consequently, such as they
are bound to withhold from other national communities, in certain
contingencies and under peculiar circumstances. But a knowledge of those
truths which lead to the acquisition of wisdom and practice of virtue,
serves to meliorate the condition of mankind generally, at all times,
and under all circumstances;—inasmuch as they greatly assist in
banishing error, with its frequent concomitant, vice, not only from the
more civilized portions of the world, but also by their inherent
influence, from among nations less cultivated and refined.
The truths promulgated by means of a natural and sublime
philosophy—corresponding, as this does, with the dignity of an
enlightened spirit—must ever emanate from a virtuous heart as well as an
expanded intellect. Hence, the real philosopher,—he whose principles are
unpolluted by the sophisticated tenets of some modern pretenders to the
appellation,—can scarcely fail to be a _good man_. Such was the immortal
Newton; such were a Boyle, a Hale and a Barrow,—a Boerhaave, a Stephen
Hales and a Bradley; with many worthies equally illustrious,—whose
glories will, for ever, retain their primitive splendour.
Even the most celebrated sages of antiquity, extremely imperfect as we
know the philosophy of the early ages to have been, elucidated, by the
purity of their lives and the morality of their doctrines, the truth of
the position,—that the cultivation of natural wisdom, unaided as it then
was by the lights of revelation, encreased every propensity to moral
virtue. Such were Socrates, Plato his disciple, and Anaxagoras; who
flourished between four and five centuries before the Christian era.
The life of Socrates, who is styled by Cicero _the Father of
Philosophers_, afforded a laudable example of moderation, patience, and
other virtues; and his doctrines abound with wisdom. Anaxagoras and
Plato united with some of the nobler branches of natural science, very
rational conceptions of moral truth. Both of them had much higher claims
to the title of philosophers, than Aristotle, who appeared about a
century afterwards. This philosopher, however,—for, as such, he
continued for many ages to be distinguished in the schools,—was, like
Socrates, more a metaphysician than an observer of the natural world.
His morality is the most estimable part of his works; though his
conceptions of moral truths were much less just than those of Anaxagoras
and Plato:[5] for his physics are replete with notions and terms alike
vague, unmeaning and obscure.[6] The intimate connexion that subsists
between the physical and moral fitness of things, in relation to their
respective objects, was more evidently known to Anaxagoras and Plato,
than to either Socrates or Aristotle: and the reason is obvious;—both of
the former cultivated the sublime science of _Astronomy_.
-----
Footnote 5:
Aristotle is supposed, by some, to have imbibed the best and most
rational of his notions from his master Plato; to whom,
notwithstanding, he seems to have been greatly inferior as a moral
philosopher.
His opinions respecting government, abound in good sense. As a
general outline of his sentiments on this subject, it may serve to
mention, that he distinguished civil government into two kinds; one,
in which the general welfare is the great object; the other, in
which this is not at all considered.[5a] In the first class, he
places the limited monarchy—the aristocratical form of
government—and the republic, properly so called. In the second, he
comprehends tyranny—oligarchy—and democracy; considering these as
corruptions of the three first. Limited monarchy, he alleges,
degenerates into despotism, when the sovereign assumes to himself
the exercise of the entire authority of the state, refusing to
submit his power to any controul;[5b] the aristocracy sinks into an
oligarchy, when the supreme power is no longer possessed by a
reasonable proportion of virtuous men,—but by a small number of
rulers, whose wealth alone constitutes their claim to authority; and
the republican government is debased into a democracy, when the
poorest class of the people have too great an influence in the
public deliberations.[5c]
In Physics, Aristotle scarcely deserves the name of a Philosopher.—As
to his metaphysical opinions, in the common acceptation of the
term,—it is impossible to ascertain, with certainty, what they really
were. It was not until eighteen centuries after his death, that his
philosophy—such as it was then promulgated, anew—began to be generally
known and studied. After the sacking of Constantinople by the Turks,
in the year 1453, some fugitive Greeks, who had escaped the fury of
the Ottoman arms, brought from that city into the west of Europe many
of the writings of the Stagyritish philosopher: But, although some of
his treatises were previously known, they were such as had passed
through the hands of the Arabs, in translations into their tongue;
done by men who, it may be fairly presumed, very imperfectly
understood the author’s language; consequently not capable, even if
they were disposed, to do justice to the sense of the original.
Subsequent translations of those writings, from the Arabic, probably
occasioned, in the same way, further departures from the meaning of
the original Greek. Thus varying, as may be supposed, from the
opinions taught by Aristotle himself,—the philosophy of the schoolmen,
engrafted upon his systems, was neither entirely that of the
Stagyrite, nor altogether different. His writings, nevertheless, gave
birth to what is termed the Scholastic Philosophy,—“that motley
offspring of error and ingenuity,” as it is called by Mr. Mallet.[5d]
“To trace at length,” says this writer, “the rise, progress, and
variations of _this philosophy_, would be an undertaking not only
curious, but instructive; as it would unfold to us all the mazes in
which the force, the subtlety, the extravagance of human wit, can lose
themselves: till not only profane learning, but Divinity itself, was
at last, by the refined frenzy of those who taught both, subtilized
into mere notion and air.”[5e]
Footnote 5a:
Aristot. de Rep.—lib, 3. cap. 6.
Footnote 5b:
Id. Rhet.—lib. 1. cap. 8.
Footnote 5c:
Id. de Rep.—lib. 3. cap. 7.
Footnote 5d:
In his _Life of Lord Chancellor Bacon_.
Footnote 5e:
Ibid.
Footnote 6:
Baron Bielfeld (in his _Elements of Universal Erudition_) observes,
that the fondness for Aristotle’s reveries began about the twelfth
century. It was then, that the _scholastic_ philosophy was formed.
This was partly borrowed from the writings of the Arabs, who were
always attached to the theories of Aristotle: they were initiated into
a subtile, ambiguous, abstract and capricious mode of reasoning; by
which they never hit the truth, but constantly went on the one side,
or beyond the truth. Toward the end of the fourteenth century,
continues the learned Baron, this absurd system arrived to a great
height. It became a mere jargon, a confused heap of unintelligible
ideas.
The celebrated Mr. Boyle, the great successor of Lord Verulam (St.
Albans) in experimental philosophy, is said to have declared against
the Philosophy of Aristotle, as having in it more of words than
things; promising much and performing little; and giving the
Inventions of Men for indubitable proofs, instead of building upon
observation and experiment. He was so zealous for, and so scrupulous
about, this true method of learning by experiment, that, though the
_Cartesian_ philosophy then made a great noise in the world, yet he
would never be persuaded to read the works of _Descartes_; for fear he
should be amused, and led away, by plausible accounts of things
founded on conjecture, and merely hypothetical. (See Art. _Boyle_, in
the New and General Biography.)—This great and excellent man was born
the same year in which Bacon, Viscount St. Albans, died.
Epicurus, the disciple of Democritus, and follower of the Philosophy
of Aristotle, was engaged, although unsuccessfully enough, in the
labyrinth of Metaphysics, as well as in Physics. He adopted the system
of _Atoms_, which Democritus first propagated; and hence appears to be
derived Descartes’s equally preposterous doctrine of the _Plenum_ and
of _Vortices_.
-----
To this cause, then, may be fairly attributed the half-enlightened
notions of the Deity,[7] and of a future state, entertained by these
pagan searchers after truth. To the same cause may be traced the
sentiment that dictated the reply made by Anaxagoras,—when, in
consequence of his incessant contemplation of the stars, he was asked,
“_if he had no concern for his country?_”—“_I incessantly regard my
country_,” said he, pointing to Heaven.
-----
Footnote 7:
“Nulla gens tam fera, quæ non sciat Deum habendum esse, quamvis
ignoret qualem habere deceat.”