In the article MILTON, I had occasion to give some strictures on the
asperity of literary controversy, drawn from his own and Salmasius's
writings. If to some the subject has appeared exceptionable, to me, I
confess, it seems useful, and I shall therefore add some other
particulars; for this topic has many branches. Of the following
specimens the grossness and malignity are extreme; yet they were
employed by the first scholars in Europe.
Martin Luther was not destitute of genius, of learning, or of eloquence;
but his violence disfigured his works with singularities of abuse. The
great reformer of superstition had himself all the vulgar ones of his
day; he believed that flies were devils; and that he had had a buffeting
with Satan, when his left ear felt the prodigious beating. Hear him
express himself on the Catholic divines: "The Papists are all asses, and
will always remain asses. Put them in whatever sauce you choose, boiled,
roasted, baked, fried, skinned, beat, hashed, they are always the same
asses."
Gentle and moderate, compared with a salute to his holiness:--"The Pope
was born out of the Devil's posteriors. He is full of devils, lies,
blasphemies, and idolatries; he is anti-Christ; the robber of churches;
the ravisher of virgins; the greatest of pimps; the governor of Sodom,
&c. If the Turks lay hold of us, then we shall be in the hands of the
Devil; but if we remain with the Pope, we shall be in hell.--What a
pleasing sight would it be to see the Pope and the Cardinals hanging on
one gallows in exact order, like the seals which dangle from the bulls
of the Pope! What an excellent council would they hold under the
gallows!"[88]
Sometimes, desirous of catching the attention of the vulgar, Luther
attempts to enliven his style by the grossest buffooneries: "Take care,
my little Popa! my little ass! Go on slowly: the times are slippery:
this year is dangerous: if them fallest, they will exclaim, See! how
our little Pope is spoilt!" It was fortunate for the cause of the
Reformation that the violence of Luther was softened in a considerable
degree by the meek Melancthon, who often poured honey on the sting
inflicted by the angry wasp. Luther was no respecter of kings; he was so
fortunate, indeed, as to find among his antagonists a crowned head; a
great good fortune for an obscure controversialist, and the very
_punctum saliens_ of controversy. Our Henry VIII. wrote his book against
the new doctrine: then warm from scholastic studies, Henry presented Leo
X. with a work highly creditable to his abilities, according to the
genius of the age. Collier, in his Ecclesiastical History, has analysed
the book, and does not ill describe its spirit: "Henry seems superior to
his adversary in the vigour and propriety of his style, in the force of
his reasoning, and the learning of his citations. It is true he leans
_too much_ upon his character, argues in his _garter-robes_, and writes
as 'twere with his _sceptre_." But Luther in reply abandons his pen to
all kinds of railing and abuse. He addresses Henry VIII. in the
following style: "It is hard to say if folly can be more foolish, or
stupidity more stupid, than is the head of Henry. He has not attacked me
with the heart of a king, but with the impudence of a knave. This rotten
worm of the earth having blasphemed the majesty of my king, I have a
just right to bespatter his English majesty with his own dirt and
ordure. This Henry has lied." Some of his original expressions to our
Henry VIII. are these: "Stulta, ridicula, et verissimè _Henricicana_ et
_Thomastica_ sunt hæc--Regem Angliæ Henricum istum planè mentiri,
&c.--Hoc agit inquietus Satan, ut nos a Scripturis avocet per
_sceleratos Henricos_," &c.--He was repaid with capital and interest by
an anonymous reply, said to have been written by Sir Thomas More, who
concludes his arguments by leaving Luther in language not necessary to
translate: "cum suis furiis et furoribus, cum suis merdis et stercoribus
cacantem cacatumque." Such were the vigorous elegancies of a controversy
on the Seven Sacraments! Long after, the court of Rome had not lost the
taste of these "bitter herbs:" for in the bull of the canonization of
Ignatius Loyola in August, 1623, Luther is called _monstrum teterrimum
et detestabilis pestis_.
Calvin was less tolerant, for he had no Melancthon! His adversaries are
never others than knaves, lunatics, drunkards and assassins! Sometimes
they are characterised by the familiar appellatives of bulls, asses,
cats, and hogs! By him Catholic and Lutheran are alike hated. Yet, after
having given vent to this virulent humour, he frequently boasts of his
mildness. When he reads over his writings, he tells us, that he is
astonished at his forbearance; but this, he adds, is the duty of every
Christian! at the same time, he generally finishes a period with--"Do
you hear, you dog?" "Do you hear, madman?"
Beza, the disciple of Calvin, sometimes imitates the luxuriant abuse of
his master. When he writes against Tillemont, a Lutheran minister, he
bestows on him the following titles of honour:--"Polyphemus; an ape; a
great ass, who is distinguished from other asses by wearing a hat; an
ass on two feet; a monster composed of part of an ape and wild ass; a
villain who merits hanging on the first tree we find." And Beza was, no
doubt, desirous of the office of executioner!
The Catholic party is by no means inferior in the felicities of their
style. The Jesuit Raynaud calls Erasmus the "Batavian buffoon," and
accuses him of nourishing the egg which Luther hatched. These men were
alike supposed by their friends to be the inspired regulators of
religion![89]
Bishop Bedell, a great and good man, respected even by his adversaries,
in an address to his clergy, observes, "Our calling is to deal with
errors, not to disgrace the man with scolding words. It is said of
Alexander, I think, when he overheard one of his soldiers railing
lustily against Darius his enemy, that he reproved him, and added,
"Friend, I entertain thee to fight against Darius, not to revile him;"
and my sentiments of treating the Catholics," concludes Bedell, "are
not conformable to the practice of Luther and Calvin; but they were but
men, and perhaps we must confess they suffered themselves to yield to
the violence of passion."
The Fathers of the Church were proficients in the art of abuse, and very
ingeniously defended it. St. Austin affirms that the most caustic
personality may produce a wonderful effect, in opening a man's eyes to
his own follies. He illustrates his position with a story, given with
great simplicity, of his mother Saint Monica with her maid. Saint Monica
certainly would have been a confirmed drunkard, had not her maid
timelily and outrageously abused her. The story will amuse.--"My mother
had by little and little accustomed herself to relish wine. They used to
send her to the cellar, as being one of the soberest in the family: she
first sipped from the jug and tasted a few drops, for she abhorred wine,
and did not care to drink. However, she gradually accustomed herself,
and from sipping it on her lips she swallowed a draught. As people from
the smallest faults insensibly increase, she at length liked wine, and
drank bumpers. But one day being alone with the maid who usually
attended her to the cellar, they quarrelled, and the maid bitterly
reproached her with being a _drunkard_! That _single word_ struck her so
poignantly that it opened her understanding; and reflecting on the
deformity of the vice, she desisted for ever from its use."
To jeer and play the droll, or, in his own words, _de bouffonner_, was a
mode of controversy the great Arnauld defended, as permitted by the
writings of the holy fathers. It is still more singular, when he not
only brings forward as an example of this ribaldry, Elijah _mocking_ at
the false divinities, but _God_ himself _bantering_ the first man after
his fall. He justifies the injurious epithets which he has so liberally
bestowed on his adversaries by the example of Jesus Christ and the
apostles! It was on these grounds also that the celebrated Pascal
apologised for the invectives with which he has occasionally disfigured
his Provincial Letters. A Jesuit has collected "An Alphabetical
Catalogue of the Names of _Beasts_ by which the Fathers characterised
the Heretics!" It may be found in _Erotemata de malis ac bonis Libris_,
p. 93, 4to. 1653, of Father Kaynaud. This list of brutes and insects,
among which are a vast variety of serpents, is accompanied by the names
of the heretics designated!
Henry Fitzsermon, an Irish Jesuit, was imprisoned for his papistical
designs and seditious preaching. During his confinement he proved
himself to be a great amateur of controversy. He said, "he felt like a
_bear_ tied to a stake, and wanted somebody to _bait_ him." A kind
office, zealously undertaken by the learned _Usher_, then a young man.
He _engaged to dispute_ with him _once a week_ on the subject of
_antichrist_! They met several times. It appears that _our bear_ was
out-worried, and declined any further _dog-baiting_. This spread an
universal joy through the Protestants in Dublin. At the early period of
the Reformation, Dr. Smith of Oxford abjured papistry, with the hope of
retaining his professorship, but it was given to Peter Martyr. On this
our Doctor recants, and writes several controversial works against Peter
Martyr; the most curious part of which is the singular mode adopted of
attacking others, as well as Peter Martyr. In his margin he frequently
breaks out thus: "Let Hooper read this!"--"Here, Ponet, open your eyes
and see your errors!"--"Ergo, Cox, thou art damned!" In this manner,
without expressly writing against these persons, the stirring polemic
contrived to keep up a sharp bush-fighting in his margins. Such was the
spirit of those times, very different from our own. When a modern bishop
was just advanced to a mitre, his bookseller begged to re-publish a
popular theological tract of his against another bishop, because he
might now meet him on equal terms. My lord answered--"Mr.----, no more
controversy now!" Our good bishop resembled Baldwin, who from a simple
monk, arrived to the honour of the see of Canterbury. The successive
honours successively changed his manners. Urban the Second inscribed his
brief to him in this concise description--_Balduino Monastico
ferventissimo, Abbati calido, Episcopo tepido, Archiepiscopo remisso_!
On the subject of literary controversies, we cannot pass over the
various sects of the scholastics: a volume might be compiled of their
ferocious wars, which in more than one instance were accompanied by
stones and daggers. The most memorable, on account of the extent, the
violence, and duration of their contests, are those of the NOMINALISTS
and the REALISTS.
It was a most subtle question assuredly, and the world thought for a
long while that their happiness depended on deciding, whether
universals, that is _genera_, have a real essence, and exist
independent of particulars, that is _species_:--whether, for instance,
we could form an idea of asses, prior to individual asses? Roscelinus,
in the eleventh century, adopted the opinion that universals have no
real existence, either before or in individuals, but are mere names and
words by which the kind of individuals is expressed; a tenet propagated
by Abelard, which produced the sect of _Nominalists_. But the _Realists_
asserted that universals existed independent of individuals,--though
they were somewhat divided between the various opinions of Plato and
Aristotle. Of the Realists the most famous were Thomas Aquinas and Duns
Scotus. The cause of the Nominalists was almost desperate, till Occam in
the fourteenth century revived the dying embers. Louis XI. adopted the
Nominalists, and the Nominalists flourished at large in France and
Germany; but unfortunately Pope John XXIII. patronised the Realists, and
throughout Italy it was dangerous for a Nominalist to open his lips. The
French King wavered, and the Pope triumphed; his majesty published an
edict in 1474, in which he silenced for ever the Nominalists, and
ordered their books to be fastened up in their libraries with iron
chains, that they might not be read by young students! The leaders of
that sect fled into England and Germany, where they united their forces
with Luther and the first Reformers.
Nothing could exceed the violence with which these disputes were
conducted. Vives himself, who witnessed the contests, says that, "when
the contending parties had exhausted their stock of verbal abuse, they
often came to blows; and it was not uncommon in these quarrels about
_universals_, to see the combatants engaging not only with their fists,
but with clubs and swords, so that many have been wounded and some
killed."
On this war of words, and all this terrifying nonsense John of Salisbury
observes, "that there had been more time consumed than the Cæsars had
employed in making themselves masters of the world; that the riches of
Croesus were inferior to the treasures that had been exhausted in this
controversy; and that the contending parties, after having spent their
whole lives in this single point, had neither been so happy as to
determine it to their satisfaction, nor to find in the labyrinths of
science where they had been groping any discovery that was worth the
pains they had taken." It may be added that Ramus having attacked
Aristotle, for "teaching us chimeras," all his scholars revolted; the
parliament put a stop to his lectures, and at length having brought the
matter into a law court, he was declared "to be insolent and
daring"--the king proscribed his works, he was ridiculed on the stage,
and hissed at by his scholars. When at length, during the plague, he
opened again his schools, he drew on himself a fresh storm by reforming
the pronunciation of the letter Q, which they then pronounced like
K--Kiskis for Quisquis, and Kamkam for Quamquam. This innovation Was
once more laid to his charge: a new rebellion! and a new ejection of the
Anti-Aristotelian! The brother of that Gabriel Harvey who was the friend
of Spenser, and with Gabriel had been the whetstone of the town-wits of
his time, distinguished himself by his wrath against the Stagyrite.
After having with Gabriel predicted an earthquake, and alarmed the
kingdom, which never took place (that is the earthquake, not the alarm),
the wits buffeted him. Nash says of him, that "Tarlton at the theatre
made jests of him, and Elderton consumed his ale-crammed nose to
nothing, in bear-baiting him with whole bundles of ballads." Marlow
declared him to be "an ass fit only to preach of the iron age." Stung to
madness by this lively nest of hornets, he avenged himself in a very
cowardly manner--he attacked Aristotle himself! for he set _Aristotle_
with his _heels upwards_ on the school gates at Cambridge, and with
_asses' ears_ on his head!
But this controversy concerning Aristotle and the school divinity was
even prolonged. A professor in the College at Naples published in 1688
four volumes of peripatetic philosophy, to establish the principles of
Aristotle. The work was exploded, and he wrote an abusive treatise under
the _nom de guerre_ of Benedetto Aletino. A man of letters, Constantino
Grimaldi, replied. Aletino rejoined; he wrote letters, an apology for
the letters, and would have written more for Aristotle than Aristotle
himself perhaps would have done. However, Grimaldi was no ordinary
antagonist, and not to be outwearied. He had not only the best of the
argument, but he was resolved to tell the world so, as long as the world
would listen. Whether he killed off Father Benedictus, the first author,
is not affirmed; but the latter died during the controversy. Grimaldi,
however, afterwards pursued his ghost, and buffeted the father in his
grave. This enraged the University of Naples; and the Jesuits, to a man,
denounced Grimaldi to Pope Benedict XIII. and to the Viceroy of Naples.
On this the Pope issued a bull prohibiting the reading of Grimaldi's
works, or keeping them, under pain of excommunication; and the viceroy,
more active than the bull, caused all the copies which were found in the
author's house to be thrown _into the sea_! The author with tears in his
eyes beheld his expatriated volumes, hopeless that their voyage would
have been successful. However, all the little family of the Grimaldis
were not drowned--for a storm arose, and happily drove ashore many of
the floating copies, and these falling into charitable hands, the
heretical opinions of poor Grimaldi against Aristotle and school
divinity were still read by those who were not out-terrified by the
Pope's bulls. The _salted_ passages were still at hand, and quoted with
a double zest against the Jesuits!
We now turn to writers whose controversy was kindled only by subjects of
polite literature. The particulars form a curious picture of the taste
of the age.
"There is," says Joseph Scaliger, that great critic and reviler, "an art
of abuse or slandering, of which those that are ignorant may be said to
defame others much less than they show a willingness to defame."
"Literary wars," says Bayle, "are sometimes as lasting as they are
terrible." A disputation between two great scholars was so interminably
violent, that it lasted thirty years! He humorously compares its
duration to the German war which lasted as long.
Baillet, when he refuted the sentiments of a certain author always did
it without naming him; but when he found any observation which, he
deemed commendable, he quoted his name. Bayle observes, that "this is an
excess of politeness, prejudicial to that freedom which should ever
exist in the republic of letters; that it should be allowed always to
name those whom we refute; and that it is sufficient for this purpose
that we banish asperity, malice, and indecency."
After these preliminary observations, I shall bring forward various
examples where this excellent advice is by no means regarded.
Erasmus produced a dialogue, in which he ridiculed those scholars who
were servile imitators of Cicero; so servile, that they would employ no
expression but what was found in the works of that writer; everything
with them was Ciceronianised. This dialogue is written with great
humour. Julius Cæsar Scaliger, the father, who was then unknown to the
world, had been long looking for some occasion to distinguish himself;
he now wrote a defence of Cicero, but which in fact was one continued
invective against Erasmus: he there treats the latter as illiterate, a
drunkard, an impostor, an apostate, a hangman, a demon hot from hell!
The same Scaliger, acting on the same principle of distinguishing
himself at the cost of others, attacked Cardan's best work _De
Subtilitate_: his criticism did not appear till seven years after the
first edition of the work, and then he obstinately stuck to that
edition, though Cardan had corrected it in subsequent ones; but this
Scaliger chose, that he might have a wider field for his attack. After
this, a rumour spread that Cardan had died of vexation from Julius
Cæsar's invincible pen; then Scaliger pretended to feel all the regret
possible for a man he had killed, and whom he now praised: however, his
regret had as little foundation as his triumph; for Cardan outlived
Scaliger many years, and valued his criticisms too cheaply to have
suffered them to have disturbed his quiet. All this does not exceed the
_Invectives_ of Poggius, who has thus entitled several literary libels
composed against some of his adversaries, Laurentius Valla, Philelphus,
&c., who returned the poisoned chalice to his own lips; declamations of
scurrility, obscenity, and calumny!
Scioppius was a worthy successor of the Scaligers: his favourite
expression was, that he had trodden down his adversary.
Scioppius was a critic, as skilful as Salmasius or Scaliger, but still
more learned in the language of abuse. This cynic was the Attila of
authors. He boasted that he had occasioned the deaths of Casaubon and
Scaliger. Detested and dreaded as the public scourge, Scioppius, at the
close of his life, was fearful he should find no retreat in which he
might be secure.
The great Casaubon employs the dialect of St. Giles's in his furious
attacks on the learned Dalechamps, the Latin translator of Athenæus. To
this great physician he stood more deeply indebted than he chose to
confess; and to conceal the claims of this literary creditor, he called
out _Vesanum!_ _Insanum!_ _Tiresiam!_ &c. It was the fashion of that day
with the ferocious heroes of the literary republic, to overwhelm each
other with invectives, and to consider that their own grandeur
consisted in the magnitude of their volumes; and their triumphs in
reducing their brother giants into puny dwarfs. In science, Linnæus had
a dread of controversy--conqueror or conquered we cannot escape without
disgrace! Mathiolus would have been the great man of his day, had he not
meddled with such matters. Who is gratified by "the mad Cornarus," or
"the flayed Fox?" titles which Fuchsius and Cornarus, two eminent
botanists, have bestowed on each other. Some who were too fond of
controversy, as they grew wiser, have refused to take up the gauntlet.
The heat and acrimony of verbal critics have exceeded description. Their
stigmas and anathemas have been long known to bear no proportion to the
offences against which they have been directed. "God confound you,"
cried one grammarian to another, "for your theory of impersonal verbs!"
There was a long and terrible controversy formerly, whether the
Florentine dialect was to prevail over the others. The academy was put
to great trouble, and the Anti-Cruscans were often on the point of
annulling this supremacy; _una mordace scritura_ was applied to one of
these literary canons; and in a letter of those times the following
paragraph appears:--"Pescetti is preparing to give a second answer to
Beni, which will not please him; I now believe the prophecy of Cavalier
Tedeschi will be verified, and that this controversy, begun with pens,
will end with poniards!"
Fabretti, an Italian, wrote furiously against Gronovius, whom he calls
_Grunnovius_: he compared him to all those animals whose voice was
expressed by the word _Grunnire, to grunt_. Gronovius was so malevolent
a critic, that he was distinguished by the title of the "Grammatical
Cur."
When critics venture to attack the person as well as the performance of
an author, I recommend the salutary proceedings of Huberus, the writer
of an esteemed Universal History. He had been so roughly handled by
Perizonius, that he obliged him to make the _amende honorable_ in a
court of justice; where, however, I fear an English jury would give the
smallest damages.
Certain authors may be distinguished by the title of LITERARY BOBADILS,
or fighting authors. One of our own celebrated writers drew his sword on
a reviewer; and another, when his farce was condemned, offered to fight
any one of the audience who hissed. Scudery, brother of the celebrated
Mademoiselle Scudery, was a true Parnassian bully. The first
publication which brought him into notice was his edition of the works
of his friend Theophile. He concludes the preface with these singular
expressions--"I do not hesitate to declare, that, amongst all the dead,
and all the living, there is no person who has anything to show that
approaches the force of this vigorous genius; but if amongst the latter,
any one were so extravagant as to consider that I detract from his
imaginary glory, to show him that I fear as little as I esteem him, this
is to inform him that my name is
"DE SCUDERY."
A similar rhodomontade is that of Claude Trellon, a poetical soldier,
who begins his poems by challenging the critics, assuring them that if
any one attempts to censure him, he will only condescend to answer sword
in hand. Father Macedo, a Portuguese Jesuit, having written against
Cardinal Noris, on the monkery of St. Austin, it was deemed necessary to
silence both parties. Macedo, compelled to relinquish the pen, sent his
adversary a challenge, and according to the laws of chivalry, appointed
a place for meeting in the wood of Boulogne. Another edict forbad the
duel! Macedo then murmured at his hard fate, which would not suffer him,
for the sake of St. Austin, for whom he had a particular regard, to
spill either his _ink_ or his _blood_.
ANTI, prefixed to the name of the person attacked, was once a favourite
title to books of literary controversy. With a critical review of such
books Baillet has filled a quarto volume; yet such was the abundant
harvest, that he left considerable gleanings for posterior industry.
Anti-Gronovius was a book published against Gronovius, by Kuster.
Perizonius, another pugilist of literature, entered into this dispute on
the subject of the Æs grave of the ancients, to which Kuster had just
adverted at the close of his volume. What was the consequence?
Dreadful!--Answers and rejoinders from both, in which they bespattered
each other with the foulest abuse. A journalist pleasantly blames this
acrimonious controversy. He says, "To read the pamphlets of a Perizonius
and a Kuster on the Æs grave of the ancients, who would not renounce all
commerce with antiquity? It seems as if an Agamemnon and an Achilles
were railing at each other. Who can refrain from laughter, when one of
these commentators even points his attacks at the very name of his
adversary? According to Kuster, the name of Perizonius signifies a
_certain part_ of the human body. How is it possible, that with such a
name he could be right concerning the Æs grave? But does that of Kuster
promise a better thing, since it signifies a beadle; a man who drives
dogs out of churches?--What madness is this!"
Corneille, like our Dryden, felt the acrimony of literary irritation. To
the critical strictures of D'Aubignac it is acknowledged he paid the
greatest attention, for, after this critic's _Pratique du Théâtre_
appeared, his tragedies were more artfully conducted. But instead of
mentioning the critic with due praise, he preserved an ungrateful
silence. This occasioned a quarrel between the poet and the critic, in
which the former exhaled his bile in several abusive epigrams, which
have, fortunately for his credit, not been preserved in his works.
The lively Voltaire could not resist the charm of abusing his
adversaries. We may smile when he calls a blockhead, a blockhead; a
dotard, a dotard; but when he attacks, for a difference of opinion, the
_morals_ of another man, our sensibility is alarmed. A higher tribunal
than that of criticism is to decide on the _actions_ of men.
There is a certain disguised malice, which some writers have most
unfairly employed in characterising a contemporary. Burnet called Prior,
_one Prior_. In Bishop Parker's History of his Own Times, an innocent
reader may start at seeing the celebrated Marvell described as an
outcast of society; an infamous libeller; and one whose talents were
even more despicable than his person. To such lengths did the hatred of
party, united with personal rancour, carry this bishop, who was himself
the worst of time-servers. He was, however, amply paid by the keen wit
of Marvell in "The Rehearsal Transposed," which may still be read with
delight, as an admirable effusion of banter, wit, and satire. Le Clerc,
a cool ponderous Greek critic, quarrelled with Boileau about a passage
in Longinus, and several years afterwards, in revising Moreri's
Dictionary, gave a short sarcastic notice of the poet's brother; in
which he calls him the elder brother of _him who has written the book
entitled, "Satires of Mr. Boileau Despréaux_!"--the works of the modern
Horace, which were then delighting Europe, he calls, with simple
impudence, "a book entitled Satires!"
The works of Homer produced a controversy, both long and virulent,
amongst the wits of France. This literary quarrel is of some note in
the annals of literature, since it has produced two valuable books; La
Motte's "Réflexions sur la Critique," and Madame Dacier's "Des Causes de
la Corruption du Goût." La Motte wrote with feminine delicacy, and
Madame Dacier like a University pedant. "At length, by the efforts of
Valincour, the friend of art, of artists, and of peace, the contest was
terminated." Both parties were formidable in number, and to each he made
remonstrances, and applied reproaches. La Motte and Madame Dacier, the
opposite leaders, were convinced by his arguments, made reciprocal
concessions, and concluded a peace. The treaty was formally ratified at
a dinner, given on the occasion by a Madame De Staël, who represented
"Neutrality." Libations were poured to the memory of old Homer, and the
parties were reconciled.