{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_54524/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_54524","id":"gutenberg_54524","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54524","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - British","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Church of England -- Sermons","Dialogues, English","Great Britain -- Civilization -- 17th century","Poetry -- History and criticism","Romances -- History and criticism"],"text":"[Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nCharacters preceded by a caret(^) are in superscript, and are enclosed\nin curly brackets, i. e. {th}.\n\nItalicized text delimited by underscores.\n\nThis project uses utf-8 encoded characters. If some characters are not\nreadable, check your settings of your browser to ensure you have a\ndefault font installed that can display utf-8 characters.]\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n\n  WORKS\n\n  OF\n\n  RICHARD HURD, D. D.\n\n  LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.\n\n  VOL. IV.\n\n  Printed by J. Nichols and Son,\n  Red Lion Passage, Fleet-Street, London.\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n\n  WORKS\n\n  OF\n\n  RICHARD HURD, D. D.\n\n  LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.\n\n  IN EIGHT VOLUMES.\n\n  VOL. IV.\n\n  [Illustration]\n\n  LONDON:\n  PRINTED FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, STRAND.\n  1811.\n\n\n\n\n  MORAL AND POLITICAL\n  DIALOGUES.\n\n  VOL. II.\n\n\n\n\n  MORAL AND POLITICAL\n\n  DIALOGUES,\n\n  WITH\n\n  LETTERS\n\n  ON\n\n  CHIVALRY AND ROMANCE.\n\n\n\n\n  CONTENTS\n\n  OF\n\n  THE FOURTH VOLUME.\n\n\n                                                            Page\n\n  DIALOGUE VI.\n  _On the Constitution of the\n  English Government._\n  SIR J. MAYNARD, MR. SOMERS, BP. BURNET.                      9\n\n  DIALOGUES VII, VIII.\n  _On the Uses of Foreign Travel._\n  LORD SHAFTESBURY, MR. LOCKE.                                85\n\n  XII LETTERS\n  _On Chivalry and Romance._                                 231\n\n\n\n\nDIALOGUE VI.\n\nON THE\n\nCONSTITUTION\n\nOF THE\n\nENGLISH GOVERNMENT.\n\nBETWEEN\n\nSIR JOHN MAYNARD, MR. SOMERS,\n\nAND\n\nBISHOP BURNET.\n\n\n\n\nDIALOGUE VI.\n\nON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT.\n\n\nSIR JOHN MAYNARD, MR. SOMERS, BISHOP BURNET.\n\n\nTO DR. TILLOTSON.\n\nOur next meeting at Sir JOHN MAYNARD\u2019S was on the evening of that\nday, when the war was proclaimed against _France_[1]. What the event\nof it will be, is a secret in the counsels of Providence. But if the\ngoodness of our cause, his Majesty\u2019s known wisdom and ability, and,\nabove all, the apparent zeal and firmness of all orders amongst us in\nsupport of this great undertaking, may give a prospect of success, we\ncannot, I persuade myself, but indulge in the most reasonable hopes and\nexpectations.\n\nPerhaps, the time is approaching, my dear friend, which the divine\ngoodness hath decreed for putting a stop to that outrageous power,\nwhich hath been permitted for so long a course of years to afflict\nthe neighbouring nations. It may be, the season is now at hand, when\nGod will vouchsafe to plead the cause of his servants, and let this\nmighty persecutor of the faithful know that he may not be suffered any\nlonger to trample on the sacred rights of conscience. He may be taught\nto feel, that the ravages he hath committed in the fairest provinces,\nand the cruelties he hath exercised on the best subjects, of his own\nkingdom, have at length awakened the divine displeasure against him.\nAnd he may live to find in our great prince (raised up, as I verily\nbelieve, to this eminence of place and power to be the scourge of\ntyrants, and the vindicator of oppressed nations) an insurmountable\nbulwark against that encroaching dominion, which threatens to deform\nand lay waste the rest of _Europe_.\n\nI have already lived to see those providences, which may encourage a\nserious and good mind to believe that some great work is preparing in\nour days. I was very early in my life a witness to the high measures\nwhich were taken and carried on by an intolerant hierarchy, acting in\nsubserviency to an arbitrary court, in mine own country of _Scotland_.\nAnd I have lamented the oppression in which good men were held for\nconscience sake in all the three kingdoms. How far this tyranny was\ncarried, and how near we were brought to the destruction of all our\ncivil and religious rights, need not be told, and the occurrences of\nthe two last reigns will not suffer to be forgotten. It is sufficient\nto observe, that when the danger was now brought to a crisis, and the\nminds of all men were filled with the most alarming apprehensions,\nit pleased God to rescue us, in a moment and by the most astonishing\ndisplay of his goodness, from the impending ruin. Our chains fell off\nat once, as by a miracle of mercy. Our civil rights have been restored.\nAnd the legal toleration[2], we have just now obtained in consequence\nof the new settlement, hath put us into possession of that religious\nliberty, which, as men, as Christians, and as Protestants, we cannot\nbut esteem the first of all public blessings.\n\nAnd who knows but that, in the gracious designs of Heaven, the same\nhand which hath redeemed these nations from the yoke of slavery and\nof _Rome_, may be now employed to shake it off from the necks of our\nProtestant brethren on the continent[3]? The world hath seen how long\nand how severely they have groaned under that intolerant power, with\nwhich we are now at war. When the violences of the late reign had\ndriven me into a sort of voluntary exile, and in the course of it I\ntraversed some of those unhappy provinces of _France_, which were most\nexposed to the rigours of persecution[4], how have these eyes wept\nover the distresses of the poor sufferers, and how hath my heart bled\nfor the merciless cruelties which I every where saw exercised upon\nthem! The fury which appeared on that occasion, was so general and so\ncontagious, that not only priests and court sycophants, but men of\nvirtuous minds and generous tempers, were transported, as it were, out\nof their proper nature, and seemed to divest themselves of the common\nnotices and principles of humanity.\n\nIn this fiery trial it hath pleased God to exercise the faith and\nvirtues, and, as we may charitably hope, to correct the failings and\nvices, of his poor servants. His mercy may now, in due time, be opening\na way for them to escape. And from the prosperous beginning of this\ngreat work, what comfortable presages may we not, in all humility, form\nto ourselves of still further successes?\n\nWe have a prince on the throne exactly qualified for the execution\nof this noble enterprise; of the clearest courage and magnanimity,\nand a wisdom tried and perfected in that best school, of Adversity;\nof dispositions the most enlarged to the service of mankind; and\neven quickened by his own personal resentment of former injuries to\nretaliate against their common oppressor.\n\nNor can we doubt of the concurrence of his faithful subjects, who, with\none voice, have demanded the commencement of this war; and whose late\ndeliverance, from like circumstances of distress, may be expected to\nanimate their zeal in the support of it.\n\nAnd oh! that I might see the day, when our deliverer shall become,\nwhat a bold usurper nobly figured to himself in the middle of this\ncentury[5], the soul and conductor of the Protestant cause through all\n_Europe_! and, that, as _Rome_ hath hitherto been the centre of slavish\nimpositions and anti-christian politics, the court of _England_ may\nhenceforth be the constant refuge and asylum of fainting liberty and\nreligion!\n\nBut to turn from these flattering views, my good friend, to the recital\nof our late conversation; which I proceed to lay before you with the\nsame exactness and punctuality that I did the former. You will see the\nreason why I cannot promise you the same entertainment from it.\n\nWe had no sooner come together, than Sir JOHN MAYNARD began with his\nusual vivacity.\n\nI have been thinking, my lord, how dexterous a game I have played\nwith you, in this inquiry of ours into the _English_ government. What\nwas obvious enough in itself, and had indeed been undertaken by many\npersons, I mean the vindication of our common liberties as founded in\nthe ancient feudal constitution, is the part I assumed to myself in\nthis debate; and have left it to your lordship to reconcile the FACT\nto the RIGHT: which is not only the most material point of inquiry,\nbut the most difficult, and that which the patrons of liberty have\neither less meddled with, or have less succeeded in explaining. For,\nto own an unwelcome truth, however specious our claim may be to civil\nliberty, the administration of government from the time of HENRY VII\u2019s\naccession to the crown, that is, for two entire centuries, has very\nlittle agreed to this system. The regal power, throughout this period,\nhas been uniformly exercised in so high and arbitrary a manner, that\nwe can hardly believe there could be any certain foundation for the\npeople\u2019s claim to a limited monarchy. Add to this, that the language of\nparliaments, the decrees of lawyers, and the doctrines of divines, have\ngenerally run in favour of the highest exertions of prerogative. So\nthat I cannot but be in some pain for the success of your undertaking,\nand am at a loss to conjecture in what way your lordship will go about\nto extricate yourself from these difficulties.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nI understand, Sir John, that your intention in setting forth the\ndifficulties of this attempt is only, in your polite way, to enhance\nthe merit of it. I must not however assume too much to myself. The way\nis clear and easy before me. You have conducted us very agreeably\nthrough the rough and thorny part of our journey. You have opened the\ngenius of our ancient constitution. You have explained the principles\non which it was raised. All that remains for me is, only to solve\ndoubts, and rectify appearances; a matter of no great difficulty, when,\ninstead of groping in the dark, we are now got into open daylight, and\nare treading in the paths of known and authentic history.\n\n\nMR. SOMERS.\n\nAnd yet, my lord, I shall very readily acknowledge, with my Lord\nCommissioner, the importance of the service. For, unless appearances be\nstrangely deceitful indeed, there is but too great reason to conclude,\nfrom the recent parts of our history, either that there never was a\nrightful claim in the people to civil liberty, or that they, as well\nas their princes, had lost all sense of it. I doubt, the most your\nlordship can make appear, is, that as our kings, from the coming of\nthe Tudor line, had usurped on the ancient privileges of the subject;\nso the subject, at length, in our days, has, in its turn, usurped on\nthe undisputed and long-acknowledged prerogative of the sovereign.\nIn short, I doubt there is no forming a connected system on these\nsubjects; but that in our country, as well as in others, liberty and\nprerogative have prevailed and taken the ascendant at different times,\naccording as either was checked or favoured by contingent circumstances.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nStill Mr. Somers, I see, is on the desponding side: and with better\nreason than before; since, if the difficulty be half so great as is\npretended, this change of the speaker is little favourable to the\nremoval of it. However, I do not despair, whether these surmises of\ndifficulty be real or dissembled, to clear up the whole matter to\nboth your satisfactions. The stress of it lies here: That, whereas\na mixed and limited government is supposed to have been the ancient\nconstitution in this country, the appearances, in fact, for a couple\nof centuries, have been so repugnant to this notion, that either the\nsupposition must be given up as too hastily formed, or sufficient\nreasons must be assigned for these contradictory appearances. I embrace\nthe latter part of this alternative without hesitation or reserve; and\npretend to lay before you such unanswerable arguments for the cause\nI have undertaken, as, in better hands, might amount to a perfect\nvindication of ENGLISH LIBERTY.\n\nI take my rise from the period which my Lord Commissioner has\nprescribed to me; that is, from the accession of the TUDOR family.\n\nWe have henceforth, indeed, a succession of high despotic princes, who\nwere politic and daring enough to improve every advantage against the\npeople\u2019s liberties. And their peculiar characters were well suited to\nthe places in which we find them. HENRY VII. was wise and provident;\njealous of his authority as well as title; and fruitful in expedients\nto secure both. His son and successor, who had a spirit of the largest\nsize, and, as one says[6], _feared nothing but the falling of the\nheavens_, was admirably formed to sustain and establish that power,\nwhich the other had assumed. And after two short reigns, which afforded\nthe people no opportunity of recovering their lost ground, the crown\nsettled on the head of a princess, who, with the united qualifications\nof her father and grandfather, surpassed them both in the arts of\na winning and gracious popularity. And thus, in the compass of a\ncentury, the prerogative was now wound up to a height, that was very\nflattering to the views and inclinations of the STUART family.\n\nIt may be further observed, that the condition of the times was such\nas wonderfully conspired with the designs and dispositions of these\nprinces.\n\nA long and bloody war, that had well nigh exhausted the strength and\nvitals of this country, was, at length, composed by the fortunate\nsuccesses of _Bosworth-field_. All men were desirous to breathe a\nlittle from the rage of civil wars. And the enormous tyranny of the\nprince, whose death had made way for the exaltation of the earl of\nRICHMOND, was a sort of foil to the new government, and made the\nrigours of it appear but moderate when set against the cruelties of the\npreceding reign.\n\nThe great change that followed, in the deliverance of the nation from\npapal tyranny, and the suppression of religious houses, was a new\npretence for the extension of the royal prerogative; and the people\nsubmitted to it with pleasure, as they saw no other way to support and\naccomplish that important enterprise.\n\nAnd, lastly, the regal power, which had gained so immensely by the\nrejection of the papal dominion, was carried still higher by the great\nwork of reformation; which being conducted by a wise and able princess,\nwas easily improved, on every occasion, to the advantage of the crown.\n\nAnd thus, whether we consider the characters of the persons, or the\ncircumstances of the times, every thing concurred to exalt the princes\nof the house of TUDOR to a height of power and prerogative, which\nhad hitherto been unknown in _England_, and became, in the end, so\ndangerous to the constitution itself.\n\nBut you expect me, I suppose, to point to the very examples of\nusurpation, I have in view, and the means by which it took effect in\nthe hands of these and the succeeding princes.\n\n\nSIR J. MAYNARD.\n\nWe do indeed expect that from your lordship. For otherwise it\nwill be thought that what you treat as an usurpation, was but the\ngenuine exercise of the regal authority; only favoured by fortunate\nconjunctures, and, as you say, by great ability in the princes\nthemselves.\n\n\nMR. SOMERS.\n\nPerhaps, still more will be expected. For it may not be enough to tell\nus, what usurpations there were, or even by what means they became\nsuccessful. It should further appear, methinks, that these usurpations,\nthough they suspended the exercise of the people\u2019s liberties, did not\ndestroy them; did not, at least, annihilate the Constitution from which\nthose liberties were derived.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nAll this will naturally come in our way, as we go along. And, since you\nwill have me usurp the chair on this occasion, and, like the princes I\nam speaking of, take to myself an authority to which I have no right,\nlet me presume a little on my new dignity; and, in what follows,\ndiscourse to you, as our manner is, without interruption or reply.\n\n\nSIR J. MAYNARD.\n\nThis, it must be owned, is carrying the prerogative of the chair to\nits utmost height. But, if we submit to it in other places, is it\nreasonable you should require us to do so here? Besides, your lordship\nforgets that I am too old to be a patient hearer. And Mr. SOMERS too\u2014\n\n\nMR. SOMERS.\n\nI can engage, in this instance, for passive obedience. And my lord,\nperhaps, does not insist on the full extent of his prerogative. It\nis fit, however, we attend with reverence, while such an advocate is\npleading in such a cause.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nI was saying, that all your demands would be satisfied, as I went along\nin this discourse. It is true, an attentive reader of our history, who\nconsiders what is said of the mixed frame of our government, and the\nstruggles that were occasioned by it, is surprised to find that these\ncontentions at once subsided on the accession of the house of TUDOR;\nand that the tenour of the government thenceforth for many successions\nis as calm, and the popular influence as small, as in the most absolute\nand despotic forms. This appearance tempts him to conclude, that the\ncrown had at length redeemed itself from a forced, unconstitutional\nservitude; and that, far from usurping on the people, it only returned\nto the exercise of its old and acknowledged rights. For otherwise it\nwill be said, how could the people at once become so insensible, and\ntheir representatives in parliament so tame, as to bear with the most\nimperious of their princes without reluctance; they, who had resented\nmuch smaller matters from the gentlest and the best?\n\nBut those, who talk in this strain, have not considered, that there\nwere some circumstances in the state of things, from the time we are\nspeaking of, that DISABLED the nation from insisting, and many more\nthat INDISPOSED them to insist, on their ancient and undoubted rights.\n\nI took notice, that the ruinous contentions of the two houses of YORK\nand LANCASTER, from which the nation was at last delivered by the\naccession of HENRY VII. disposed all men to submit with satisfaction\nto the new government. Such a conjuncture was favourable, of itself,\nto the increase of the regal power. But the truth is, there was little\ndanger of any successful opposition to the crown, if the nation had\nbeen ever so ill inclined towards it. The great lords or barons were,\nin former days, both by the feudal constitution, and by the vast\nproperty they had in their hands, the proper and only check on the\nsovereign. These had been either cut off, or so far weakened at least\nby the preceding civil wars, that the danger seemed entirely over from\nthat quarter. The politic king was aware of his advantage, and improved\nit to admiration. One may even affirm, that this was the sole object of\nhis government.\n\nFor the greater security, and majesty of his person, he began with the\ninstitution of his LIFEGUARD. And having thus set out with enlarging\nhis own train, his next care was to diminish that of his nobles.\nHence the law, or rather laws (for, as Lord BACON observes, there was\nscarcely a parliament through his whole reign which passed without\nan act to that purpose) against RETAINERS. And with how jealous a\nseverity he put those laws into execution, is sufficiently known from\nhis treatment of one of his principal friends and servants, the earl of\nOXFORD[7].\n\nIt was also with a view to this depression of the nobility, that the\ncourt Of STAR-CHAMBER was considered so much, and confirmed by act\nof parliament in his reign: \u201cThat which was principally aimed at by\nit being, as his historian frankly owns, FORCE, and the two chief\nsupports of Force, COMBINATION OF MULTITUDES, and maintenance of\nHEADSHIP OF GREAT PERSONS.\u201d\n\nTo put them still lower in the public estimation, he affected to fill\nthe great offices with churchmen only. And it was perhaps, as much to\nawe the nation by the terror of his prerogative as to fill his coffers,\nthat he executed the penal laws with so merciless a rigour on the very\ngreatest of his subjects.\n\nStill further to prevent the possibility of a return, in any future\nperiod, of the patrician power, this politic prince provided with great\ncare for the encouragement of trade, and the distribution of property.\nBoth which ends were effected at once by that famous act, which was\nmade to secure and facilitate the alienation of estates by fine and\nproclamation.\n\nAll these measures, we see, were evidently taken by the king to\ndiminish the credit and suppress the influence of his nobles; and of\nconsequence, as he thought, to exalt the power of the crown above\ncontrol, if not in his own, yet in succeeding ages. And his policy had\nthis effect for some time; though in the end it served, beside his\nexpectation, to advance another and more formidable power, at that\ntime little suspected or even thought of, the POWER OF THE PEOPLE[8].\n\nThe truth is, HENRY\u2019s policy was every way much assisted by the genius\nof the time. Trade was getting up: and Lollardism had secretly made its\nway into the hearts of the people. And, though _liberty_ was in the end\nto reap the benefit of each, _prerogative_ was the immediate gainer.\nCommerce, in proportion to its growth, brought on the decline of the\nfeudal, that is, aristocratic power of the barons: and the authority of\nthe church, that other check on the sovereign, was gradually weakened\nby the prevailing spirit of reformation.\n\nUnder these circumstances, HENRY found it no difficulty to depress his\ngreat lords; and he did it so effectually, that his son had little\nelse left him to do, but to keep them down in that weak and disabled\nstate, to which his father had reduced them. \u2018Tis true, both he and\nhis successors went further. They never thought themselves secure\nenough from the resistance of their old enemies, the barons[9]; and\nso continued, by every method of artifice and rapine, to sink them\nmuch lower than even the safety of their own state required. But the\neffects of this management did not appear till long afterwards. For the\npresent, the crown received a manifest advantage by this conduct.\n\nThere was, besides, another circumstance of great moment attending the\ngovernment of the younger HENRY. He was the first heir of the white and\nred roses: so that there was now an end of all dispute and disaffection\nin the people. And they had so long and so violently contended about\nthe title to the crown, that, when that mighty point was once settled,\nthey did not readily apprehend that any other consideration deserved,\nor could justify, resistance to their sovereign.\n\nWith these advantages of situation, HENRY VIII. brought with him to the\nthrone a spirit of that firm and steady temper as was exactly fitted\nto break the edge of any rising opposition. Besides the confidence of\nyouth, he was of a nature so elate and imperious, so resolved and\nfearless[10], that no resistance could succeed, hardly any thought of\nit could be entertained against him. The commons, who had hitherto been\nunused to treat with their kings but by the mediation of the great\nlords, being now pushed into the presence, were half discountenanced in\nthe eye of majesty; and durst scarcely look up to the throne, much less\ndispute the prerogatives with which so awful a prince was thought to be\ninvested.\n\nAnd when the glaring abuse of his power, as in the exaltation of\nthat great instrument of his tyranny, WOLSEY, seemed afterwards to\nprovoke the people to some more vigorous resolutions, a singular event\nhappened, which not only preserved his greatness, but brought a further\nincrease to it. This was the famous rupture with the court of _Rome_:\nin consequence of which, the yoke of papal usurpations, that yoke under\nwhich our kings had groaned for so many ages, was in a moment broken\noff, and the crown restored to its full and perfect independency.\n\nNor was this all. The throne did not only stand by itself, as having no\nlonger a dependence on the papal chair. It rose still higher, and was,\nin effect, erected upon it. For the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not\nannihilated, but transferred; and all the powers of the _Roman_ pontiff\nnow centered in the king\u2019s person. Henceforth then we are to regard him\nin a more awful point of view; as armed with both swords at once; and,\nas NAT. BACON expresses it in his way, as a strange kind of monster, \u201cA\nking with a pope in his belly[11].\u201d\n\nThe remainder of his reign shews that he was politic enough to make\nthe best use of what his passions had brought on, and thus far\naccomplished. For though the nation wished, and, without doubt, hoped\nto go much further, the king\u2019s quarrel was rather with the court, than\nthe church of _Rome_. And the high authority in spirituals, which he\nhad gained, enabled him to hold all men, who either feared or desired a\nfurther reformation, in the most entire dependence.\n\nIn the mean time, the nation rejoiced with great reason at its\ndeliverance from a foreign tyranny: and the lavish distribution of\nthat wealth, which flowed into the king\u2019s coffers from the suppressed\nmonasteries, procured a ready submission, from the great and powerful,\nto the king\u2019s domestic tyranny.\n\nIn a word, every thing contributed to the advancement of the regal\npower; and, in that, to the completion of the great designs of\nProvidence. The amazing revolution, which had just happened, was, at\nall events, to be supported: and thus, partly by fear, and partly by\ninterest, the parliament went along with the king, in all his projects;\nand, beyond the example of former times, was constantly obsequious\nto him, even in the most capricious and inconsistent measures of his\ngovernment.\n\nAnd thus matters, in a good degree, continued till the accession of\nQueen ELIZABETH. It is true, the weak administration of a minor king,\nand a disputed title at his death, occasioned some disorders. But the\nmajesty of the crown itself was little impaired by these bustles; and\nit even acquired fresh glory on the head of our renowned Protestant\nprincess.\n\nFor that astonishing work of reformation, so happily entered upon by\nHENRY, and carried on by his son, was after a short interruption\n(which only served to prove and animate the zeal of good men) brought\nat length by her to its final establishment. The intolerable abuses\nand shameless corruptions of popery were now so notorious to all the\nworld, and the spirit of reformation, which had been secretly working\nsince the days of WICKLIFF, had now spread itself so generally through\nthe nation, that nothing but an entire renunciation of the doctrine\nand discipline of the church of _Rome_ could be expected. And, by the\nhappiest providence, the queen was as much obliged by the interest of\nher government and the security of her title, as by her own unshaken\nprinciples, to concur with the dispositions of her subjects.\n\nThus, in the end, Protestantism prevailed, and obtained a legal and\nfixed settlement. But to maintain it, when made, against the combined\npowers that threatened its destruction, the crown on which so much\ndepended, was to be held up in all its splendor to the eyes of our own\nand foreign nations. Hence the height of prerogative in ELIZABETH\u2019s\ndays, the submission of parliaments, and, I may almost say, the\nprostration of the people.\n\nAnd when this magnanimous princess, as well by her vast spirit and\npersonal virtues, as the constant successes of her long reign, had\nderived the highest dignity and authority on the _English_ sceptre, it\npassed into the hands of the elder JAMES; who brought something more\nwith him than a good will, the accession of a great kingdom, and the\nopinion of deep wisdom, to enable him to wield it.\n\nWhat followed in his and the succeeding reigns, I need not be at\nthe pains to recount to you. These things are too recent for me to\ndwell upon: and you, my Lord Commissioner, do not only remember them\nperfectly, but have yourself acted a great part in most of them. Allow\nme only to say, that from this brief history of the regal authority,\nand the means by which it arrived at so unusual a greatness, it is no\nwonder that the STUART family were somewhat dazzled by the height to\nwhich they were raised, and that more than half a century was required\nto correct, if it ever did correct, the high but false notions they had\nentertained of the imperial dignity.\n\n\nSIR J. MAYNARD.\n\nIf you permit me, at last, to break in at the opening which this\nconclusion of your discourse seems to give me; I would say, That, on\nyour principles, the house of STUART had great reason for the high\nnotions you ascribe to them. For what other conclusion could they make,\nbut that a power, which had domineered for so long a time, and that\nby the full allowance of parliament and people, was, both in fact and\nright, absolute and uncontrolable?\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nIt is certain, the STUART family did draw that conclusion. But a great\ndeal too hastily; as may appear from your own observation, that the\nexercise of this extraordinary power was committed, or more properly\nindulged to them, by the people. This is so strictly true, that from\nthe first to the last of the TUDOR line, imperious and despotic as\nthey were of their own nature, no extraordinary stretch of power was\nventured upon by any of them, but under the countenance and protection\nof an act of parliament. Hence it was, that the STAR-CHAMBER, though\nthe jurisdiction of this court had the authority of the common law, was\nconfirmed by statute; that the proceedings of EMPSON and DUDLEY had the\nsanction of parliament; that HENRY the VIIIth\u2019s supremacy, and all acts\nof power dependent upon it, had the same foundation: in a word, that\nevery thing, which wore the face of an absolute authority in the king,\nwas not in virtue of any supposed inherent prerogative in the crown,\nbut the special grant of the subject. No doubt, this compliance, and\nparticularly if we consider the lengths to which it was carried, may\nbe brought to prove the obsequious and even abject dispositions of the\ntimes; though we allow a great deal, as I think we should, to prudence\nand good policy. But then the parliaments, by taking care to make\nevery addition to the crown their OWN PROPER ACT, left their kings no\npretence to consider themselves as absolute and independent.\n\n\nMR. SOMERS.\n\nI doubt, considering the slavish disposition of the times, that, if\nthe people still possessed a shew of liberty, this advantage was owing\nto the pure condescension of the crown, and not to their own policy. A\nking that could obtain of his parliament to have his proclamations pass\nfor laws[12], might have ventured on this step without the concurrence\nof parliament.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nI acknowledge the act you glance at was of an extraordinary kind;\nand might seem, by implication at least, to deliver up the entire\nlegislative authority into the hands of the sovereign. But there is a\nwide difference between the crown\u2019s usurping this strange power, and\nthe parliament\u2019s bestowing it. The case was (and nothing could be more\nfortunate for the nation) that at the time when the people were least\nable to controul their prince, their prince\u2019s affairs constrained him\nto court his people. For the rejection of the papal power and the\nreformation of religion were things of that high nature, and so full\nof hazard, that no expedient was to be overlooked, which tended to\nmake the execution of these projects safe or easy. Hence it was, that\nno steps were taken by the crown but with the consent and approbation\nof the two houses. And if these were compelled by the circumstances\nof their situation to favour their prince\u2019s interest or caprice by\nabsurd and inconsistent compliances, this benefit at least they\ndrew to themselves, that their power by that means would appear the\ngreater and more unquestionable. For what indeed could display the\nomnipotency of parliaments more than their being called in to make and\nunmake the measures of government, and give a sanction, as it were, to\ncontradictions? Of which there cannot be a stronger instance than the\nchanges they made from time to time, as HENRY VIII\u2019s passions swayed\nhim, in the rule of succession.\n\nThus we see that, through the entire reigns of the house of TUDOR,\nthat is, the most despotic and arbitrary of our princes, the forms\nof liberty were still kept up, and the constitution maintained, even\namidst the advantages of all sorts which offered for the destruction of\nboth. The parliament indeed was obsequious, was servile, was directed,\nif you will; but every proceeding was authorised and confirmed by\nparliament. The king in the mean time found himself at his ease;\nperhaps believed himself absolute, and considered his application to\nparliaments as an act of mere grace and popular condescension. At\nleast, after so long experience of their submission, the elder JAMES\ncertainly thought himself at liberty to entertain this belief of them.\nBut he was the first of our princes that durst avow this belief plainly\nand openly. He was stimulated, no doubt, to this usurpation of power\nin _England_, by the memory of his former subjection, of servitude\nrather, to the imperious church of _Scotland_. But this was not all.\nSucceeding to so fair a patrimony as that of a mighty kingdom, where\nlittle or no opposition had been made for some reigns to the will of\nthe sovereign; to a kingdom too, securely settled in the possession\nof its favoured religion, which had occasioned all the dangers, and\nproduced all the condescension, of the preceding princes; bringing,\nbesides, with him to the succession, an undisputed title and the\nadditional splendor of another crown; all these advantages meeting\nin his person at that point of time, he ventured to give way to his\nnatural love of dominion, and told the people to their face, that the\npretended rights of their parliaments were but the free gifts and\ngraces of their kings: that every high point of government, that is,\nevery point which he chose to call by that name, was wrapt up in the\nawful mystery of his prerogative: and, in a word, that \u201cit was sedition\nfor them to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power[13].\u201d\n\nSuch, you know, was the language, the public language to his\nparliaments, of JAMES THE FIRST. But these pretences, which might have\nbeen suffered perhaps, or could not have been opposed, under the TUDOR\nline, were unluckily out of season, and would not pass on a people who\nknew their own rights, had saved to themselves the exercise of them,\nand came now at length to feel and understand their importance. For,\nas I before observed, the principal cause that had lifted the crown so\nhigh, was the depression of the barons. The great property which had\nmade them so formidable, was dispersed into other hands. The nobility\nwere therefore too low to give any umbrage to the crown. But the\ncommons were rising apace; and in a century had grown to that height,\nthat on the accession of the _Scotch_ family, the point of time when\nthe new king dreamed of nothing but absolute sovereignty[14], they were\nnow in a condition to assert the public liberty, and, as the event\nshewed but too soon, to snatch the sceptre itself out of their king\u2019s\nhands.\n\nHowever, in that interval of the dormant power of the commons it\nwas, that the prerogative made the largest shoots, till in the end\nit threatened to overshadow law and liberty. And, though the general\nreason is to be sought in the humiliation of the church, the low estate\nof the barons, and the unexerted, because as yet unfelt, greatness of\nthe commons, the solution will be defective if we stop here. For the\nregal authority, so limited by the ancient constitution, and by the\ncontinued use of parliaments, could never in this short space have\nadvanced itself beyond all bounds, if other reasons had not co-operated\nwith the state of the people; if some more powerful and special causes\nhad not conspired to throw round the person of the sovereign those rays\nof sacred opinion, which are the real strength as well as gilding of a\ncrown.\n\nOf these I have occasionally mentioned several; such as \u201cthe personal\ncharacter and virtues of the princes themselves; the high adventurous\ndesigns in which they were engaged; the interest, the people found\nor promised to themselves in supporting their power; the constant\nsuccesses of their administration; and the unremitting spirit and\nvigour with which it was carried on and maintained.\u201d All these\nconsiderations could not but dispose the people to look up with\nreverence to a crown, which presented nothing to their view but what\nwas fitted to take their admiration, or imprint esteem. Yet all these\nhad failed of procuring to majesty that profound submission which\nwas paid to it, or of elevating the prince to that high conceit of\nindependency which so thoroughly possessed the imagination of King\nJAMES, if an event of a very singular nature, and big with important\nconsequences, had not given the proper occasion to both.\n\n\nSIR J. MAYNARD.\n\nI understand you to mean the overthrow of the papal dominion, which\nhad so long eclipsed the majesty of our kings; and held them in a\nstate of vassalage, not only to the triple crown, but, which was more\ndisgraceful, to the mitre of their own subjects.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nRather understand me to mean, what was indeed the consequence of that\nevent, THE TRANSLATION OF THE POPE\u2019S SUPREMACY TO THE KING. This, as\nI take it, was the circumstance of all others which most favoured\nthe sudden growth of the imperial power in this nation. And because\nI do not remember to have seen it enlarged upon as it deserves,\ngive me leave to open to you, somewhat copiously, the nature of\nthis newly-acquired headship, and the numerous advantages which the\nprerogative received from it.\n\nThe PAPAL SUPREMACY, as it had been claimed and exercised in this\nkingdom, was a power of the highest nature. It controlled every rank\nand order in the state, and, in effect, laid the prince and people\ntogether at the mercy of the _Roman_ pontiff. There is no need to\nrecount the several branches of this usurped authority. It is enough to\nsay, that it was transcendant in all respects that could in any sense\nbe taken to concern religion. And who, that has looked into the papal\nstory, needs be told that, by a latitude of interpretation, every thing\nwas construed to be a religious concern, by which the pope\u2019s power or\ninterest could be affected?\n\nUnder the acknowledgment then of this super-eminent dominion, no steps\ncould possibly be taken towards the reformation of religion, or even\nthe assertion of the just rights and privileges of the crown. But the\npeople were grown to have as great a zeal for the former of these\nconsiderations, as the king for the latter. And in this juncture it\nwas, that HENRY, in a sudden heat, threw off the supremacy; which the\nparliament, to prevent its return to the pope, very readily invested in\nthe king.\n\nThere was something so daring, and, according to the prejudices of that\ntime, so presumptuous and even prophane, in this attempt to transfer\nthe spiritual headship to a secular power, that the pope himself\nlittle apprehended, and nothing but the king\u2019s dauntless temper could\nhave assured, the success of it. The repugnancy which the parliament\nthemselves found in their own notions betwixt the exercise of the\nspiritual and temporal power, was the reason perhaps for inserting in\nthe act of supremacy those qualifying clauses, we find in it[15].\n\n\nMR. SOMERS.\n\nIt is possible, as you say, that the parliament might be at a loss\nto adjust in their own minds the precise bounds of the spiritual\njurisdiction, as united to the civil, in the king\u2019s person. Yet, in\nvirtue of these clauses, the regal supremacy was, in fact, restrained\nand limited by act of parliament: and the import of them was clearly to\nassert the independency of the crown on any foreign judicature, and not\nto confer it in the extent in which it was claimed and exercised by the\nsee of _Rome_.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nIt is true, that no more was expressed, or perhaps intended, in this\nact. But the question is, how the matter was understood by the people\nat large, and in particular by the king himself and his flatterers.\nNow it seems to me that this transfer of the supremacy would be taken\nfor a solemn acknowledgment, not only of the ancient encroachments and\nusurpations of the papacy, but of the king\u2019s right to succeed to all\nthe powers of it. And I conclude this from the nature of the thing\nitself, from the current notions of the time, and from the sequel of\nthe king\u2019s government.\n\nIf we attend to the nature of the complaints which the kingdom was\nperpetually making, in the days of popery, of the _Roman_ usurpations,\nwe shall find that they did not so much respect these usurpations\nthemselves, as the person claiming and enjoying them. The grievance\nwas, that appeals should be made to _Rome_; that provisions should come\nfrom thence; in a word, that all causes should be carried to a foreign\ntribunal, and that such powers should be exercised over the subjects\nof this realm by a foreign jurisdiction. The complaint was, that the\npope exercised these powers; and not that the powers themselves were\nexercised. So, on the abolition of this supremacy, the act that placed\nit in the person of the king, would naturally be taken to transfer\nupon him all the privileges and pre-eminencies, which had formerly\nbelonged to it. And thus, though the act was so properly drawn as to\nmake a difference in the two cases, yet the people at large, and much\nmore the king himself, would infer from the concession, \u201cthat the pope\nhad usurped his powers on the crown;\u201d that therefore the crown had now\na right to those powers. And the circumstance of this translation\u2019s\npassing by act of parliament, does not alter the matter much, with\nregard to the king\u2019s notion of it. For in that time of danger, and for\nthe greater security of his new power, he would chuse to have that\nratified and confirmed by statute, which he firmly believed inherent in\nhis person and dignity.\n\nThen, to see how far the current opinions of that time were favourable\nto the extension of the regal authority, on this alliance with the\npapal, we are to reflect, that, however odious the administration of\nthe pope\u2019s supremacy was become, most men had very high notions of the\nplenitude of his power, and the sacredness of his person. \u201cCHRIST\u2019S\nvicar upon earth\u201d was an awful title, and had sunk deep into the\nastonished minds of the people. And though HENRY\u2019s pretensions went no\nfurther than to assume that vicarial authority within his own kingdom,\nyet this limitation would not hinder them from conceiving of him,\nmuch in the same way as of the pope himself. They, perhaps, had seen\nno difference, but for his want of the pope\u2019s _sacerdotal_ capacity.\nYet even this defect was, in some measure[16], made up to him by his\n_regal_. So that between the majesty of the kingly character, and\nthe consecration of his person by this mysterious endowment of the\nspiritual, it is easy to see how well prepared the minds of men were,\nto allow him the exercise of any authority to which he pretended.\n\nAnd to what degree this spiritual character of head of the church\noperated in the minds of the people, we may understand from the\nlanguage of men in still later times, and even from the articles of our\nchurch, where the prerogative of the crown is said to be that which\nGODLY KINGS have always exercised: intimating that this plenitude\nof power was inherent in the king, on account of that _spiritual\nand religious_ character, with which, as head of the church, he was\nnecessarily invested. The illusion, as gross as we may now think it,\nwas but the same as that which blinded the eyes of the greatest and\nwisest people in the old world. For was it not just in the same manner,\nthat by the policy of the _Roman_ emperors in assuming the office of\n_pontifex maximus_, that is, incorporating the religious with their\ncivil character, not only their authority became the more awful, but\ntheir _persons_ sacred?\n\nWe see then, as I said, how conveniently the minds of men were prepared\nto acquiesce in HENRY\u2019s usurped prerogative. And it is well known that\nthis prince was not of a temper to balk their expectations. The sequel\nof his reign shews that he took himself to be invested with the whole\necclesiastical power, legislative as well as executive; nay, that he\nwas willing to extend his acknowledged right of supremacy even to the\nancient papal infallibility, as appears from his sovereign decisions in\nall matters of faith and doctrine. It is true the parliament was ready\nenough to go before, or at least to follow, the head of the church in\nall these decisions. But the reason is obvious. And I need not repeat\nto you in what light the king regarded their compliance with him.\n\n\nMR. SOMERS.\n\nIt is very likely, for these reasons, that the king would draw to\nhimself much authority and reverence, at least, from his new title of\nsupremacy. But it does not, I think, appear that the supremacy had all\nthat effect on the people\u2019s rights and the ancient constitution, which\nyour lordship\u2019s argument requires you to ascribe to it.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nI brought these general considerations only to shew the reverend\nopinion which of course would be entertained of this mixt person, THE\nSUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH, compounded of a king and a pope; and how\nnatural a foundation it was for the superstructure of despotic power in\nall its branches. But I now hasten to the particulars which demonstrate\nthat this use was actually made of that title.\n\nAnd, first, let me observe, that it gave birth to that great and\nformidable court of the HIGH-COMMISSION; which brought so mighty an\naccession of power to the crown, that, as experience afterwards shewed,\nno security could be had for the people\u2019s liberties, till it was\ntotally abolished. The necessity of the times was a good plea for the\nfirst institution of so dangerous a tribunal. The restless endeavours\nof papists and puritans against the ecclesiastical establishment gave\na colour for the continuance of it. But, as all matters that regarded\nreligion or conscience were subjected to its sole cognizance and\ninspection, it was presently seen how wide an entrance it gave to the\nmost tyrannical usurpations.\n\nIt was, further, natural that the king\u2019s power in civil causes should\nkeep pace with his authority in spiritual. And, fortunately for the\nadvancement of his prerogative, there was already erected within the\nkingdom another court of the like dangerous nature, of ancient date,\nand venerable estimation, under the name of the court of STAR-CHAMBER;\nwhich brought every thing under the direction of the crown that could\nnot so properly be determined in the high-commission. These were the\ntwo arms of absolute dominion; which, at different times, and under\ndifferent pretences, were stretched forth to the oppression of every\nman that presumed to oppose himself to the royal will or pleasure. The\nstar-chamber had been kept, in former times, within some tolerable\nbounds; but the high and arbitrary proceedings of the other court,\nwhich were found convenient for the further purpose of reformation, and\nwere therefore constantly exercised, and as constantly connived at by\nthe parliament, gave an easy pretence for advancing the star-chamber\u2019s\njurisdiction so far, that in the end its tyranny was equally\nintolerable as that of the high-commission.\n\nThus the king\u2019s authority in all cases, spiritual and temporal, was\nfully established, and in the highest sense of which the words are\ncapable. Our kings themselves so understood it; and when afterwards\ntheir parliaments shewed a disposition to interfere in any thing\nrelating either to church or state, they were presently reprimanded;\nand sternly required not to meddle with what concerned their\nprerogative royal and their high points of government. Instances of\nthis sort were very frequent in ELIZABETH\u2019S reign, when the commons\nwere getting up, and the spirit of liberty began to exert itself in\nthat assembly. The meaning of all this mysterious language was, that\nthe royal pleasure was subject to no control, but was to be left to\ntake its free course under the sanction of these two supreme courts, to\nwhich the cognizance of all great matters was committed.\n\nThis, one would think, were sufficient to satisfy the ambition of our\nkings. But they went further, and still under the wing of their beloved\nsupremacy.\n\nThe parliament were not so tame, or the king\u2019s grace did not require\nit of them, to divest themselves entirely, though it was much checked\nand restrained by these courts, of their legislative capacity. But\nthe crown found a way to ease itself of this curb, if at any time it\nshould prove troublesome to it. This was by means of the DISPENSING\nPOWER; which, in effect, vacated all laws at once, further than it\npleased the king to countenance and allow them. And for so enormous a\nstretch of power (which, being rarely exercised, was the less minded)\nthere was a ready pretence from the papal privileges and pre-eminencies\nto which the crown had succeeded. For this most invidious of all the\nclaims of prerogative had been indisputable in the church; and it\nhad been nibbled at by some of our kings, in former times, from the\ncontagious authority of the pope\u2019s example, even without the pretence\nwhich the supremacy in spirituals now gave for it.\n\nThe exercise of this power, in the popes themselves, was thought so\nmonstrous, that MATTHEW PARIS honestly complains of it in his time,\nas _extinguishing all justice_\u2014EXTINGUIT OMNEM JUSTICIAM[17]. And on\nanother occasion, I remember, he goes so far, in a spirit of prophecy,\nalmost, as to tell us the ill use that hereafter kings themselves might\nbe tempted to make of it[18]. His prediction was verified very soon:\nfor HENRY III. learned this lesson of tyranny, and put it in practice.\nOn which occasion one of his upright judges could not help exclaiming,\nCIVILIS CURIA EXEMPLO ECCLESIASTIC\u00c6 CONQUINATUR[19]. And afterwards,\nwe know, HENRY VII. claimed and exercised this dispensing power in\nthe case of sheriffs, contrary to act of parliament[20]. It was early\nindeed in his reign, and when the state of his affairs was thought to\ngive a colour to it.\n\nI mention these things to shew, that since the pope\u2019s example had\nbeen so infectious in former times, it would now be followed very\nresolutely, when the translation of the very supremacy, from which it\nhad sprung, seemed to justify it. And we have a remarkable instance\nin ELIZABETH\u2019S reign, by which it may appear that this prerogative\nwas publickly and solemnly avowed. For upon some scandal taken by the\npopish party upon pretence that the book of consecration of bishops was\nnot established by law, the queen made no scruple to declare by her\nletters-patent, that she had, by her supreme authority, dispensed with\nall causes or doubts of any imperfection or disability in the persons\nof the bishops. My learned friend, Dr. STILLINGFLEET, in commenting\nthis case, acknowledges the very truth. \u201cIt was customary,\u201d says he,\n\u201cin the pope\u2019s bulls, to put in such kind of clauses; and therefore she\nwould omit no power in that case to which the pope had pretended[21].\u201d\n\nAnd it is in this dispensing spirit that JAMES I, having delivered it\nfor a maxim of state, \u201cthat the king is above law,\u201d goes on to affirm,\nin one of his favourite works, that general laws, made publickly in\nparliament, may, upon known respects to the king, by his authority be\nmitigated and SUSPENDED upon causes only known to him[22].\n\nWe perceive the ground of that claim, which was carried so high by the\nprinces of the house of STUART, and, as we have just seen, brought\non the ruin of the last of them. And to how great a degree this\nprerogative of the dispensing power had at length possessed the minds\neven of the common lawyers, (partly from some scattered examples of\nit in former times, and partly from reasons of expediency in certain\njunctures, but principally from the inveteracy of this notion of the\npapal supremacy) we had an alarming proof in HALE\u2019S case, when eleven\nout of the twelve judges declared for it.\n\n\nSIR J. MAYNARD.\n\nYour lordship has indeed shewn that the poison of the papal supremacy\nbegan to work very fatally. If this blessed revolution had not\nhappened, what could have been expected but that the next step would\nbe, to set the crown above all divine as well as human law? And\nmethinks, after such a judgment in _Westminster-Hall_, it could not be\nsurprising if another set of men had served the king, in the office of\nthe pope\u2019s janissaries, and maintained his right of dispensing with\nthe gospel itself[23], as well as the statute-book.\n\n\nMR. SOMERS.\n\nI must needs think, Sir JOHN, you are a little severe, not to say\nunjust, in this insinuation; for which the churchmen of our days have\nsurely given you no reason. And as for the reverend judges, methinks my\nlord of _Salisbury_ might be allowed to expose their determination, at\nthe same time that he so candidly accounts for it.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nI perceive, my Lord Commissioner, with all his goodness and moderation,\nis a little apt to surmise the worst of our order. But I will try to\nreconcile him to it; and it shall be in the way he most likes, by\nmaking a frank confession of our infirmities.\n\nFor another source of the regal dominion in latter times, and still\nspringing from out of the rock of supremacy (which followed and\nsuccoured the court-prerogative, wherever it went, just as the rock\nof MOSES, the _Rabbins_ say, journeyed with the _Jewish_ camp, and\nrefreshed it in all its stations) was the opinion taken up and\npropagated by churchmen, from the earliest \u00e6ra of the Reformation,\nconcerning the irresistible power of kings, and the PASSIVE OBEDIENCE\nthat is due to it.\n\n\nSIR. J. MAYNARD.\n\nAye, there it is, I am afraid, that we are principally to look for the\norigin of the high pretences of our kings to absolute government.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nI shall dissemble no part of the clergy\u2019s blame on this occasion; and\nthere is the less need, if I were ever so tender of their reputation,\nas their inducements to preach up this doctrine were neither slight in\nthemselves, nor unfriendly to the public interest.\n\nIt cannot be doubted that the churchmen especially, both by interest\nand principle, would be closely connected with the new head of the\nchurch. Their former subjection in spirituals to the papal authority\nwould of itself create a prejudice in favour of it, as now residing\nin the king\u2019s person. And the disposal of bishopricks and other great\npreferments being now entirely in the crown, they would of course, you\nwill say, be much addicted to his service.\n\nBut these were not the sole, or even the principal, reasons that\ninduced so wise and so disinterested persons, as our first reformers,\nto exalt the royal prerogative. They were led into this pernicious\npractice by the most excusable of all motives, in their situation, an\nimmoderate zeal against popery.\n\nIt is true, a very natural prejudice mixed itself with their other\nreasonings. \u201cThe crown had been declared supreme, and to have chief\ngovernment of all estates of this realm, and in all causes.\u201d And,\nthough this declaration was levelled only against the pretensions of\nevery foreign, and particularly the papal power, yet, the clergy were\ngiven to conceive of it as a general proposition. The reason was, that\nthe people, from whom the just right of supremacy is derived, having,\nat this juncture, not yet attained the consideration, which the nobles\nhad lost, they forwardly concluded, that if the royal estate were\nindependent of the pope, it was unquestionably so of every other power.\nThey could not, on the sudden, be brought to think so reverendly of the\npoor people, even in their representatives, as to allow that they had\nany pretension to restrain their sovereign.\n\n\nSIR J. MAYNARD.\n\nI could swear to the truth of this account. One of the popes, I forget\nwhich, is said to have called the deputies of the third estate in\n_France_, on a certain occasion, NEBULONES EX F\u00c6CE PLEBIS[24]. And\nthough that might not be the language of churchmen in England, at this\ntime, it was not far, perhaps, from expressing their sentiments. It is\ncertain, they soon taught their princes, who put themselves to school\nto the hierarchy[25], to talk in this strain; as appears from many of\nELIZABETH\u2019S and JAMES\u2019S speeches to the commons.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nSomething of this sort, I grant you, but not in the degree you put it,\nmight have an influence on the political reasonings of the clergy.\nBut their zeal for reformation was what prevailed with them most, and\ncarried them furthest into these notions. It is something curious to\nsee how this happened.\n\nHENRY\u2019S usurpation of the supremacy, as it was called at _Rome_,\nappeared so prodigious a crime to all good Catholics, that no\nseverities were great enough to inflict upon him for it. Their writers\nproceeded to strange lengths. Even our cardinal POLE so far forgot the\ngreatness of his quality, and the natural mildness of his temper, as to\nexceed the bounds of decency, in his invectives against him. And when\nafterwards, in right of this assumed headship, the crown went so far as\nto reject the authority of the church as well as court of Rome, all\nthe thunders of the Vatican were employed against this invader of the\nchurch\u2019s prerogative. The pope, in his extreme indignation, threatened\nto depose EDWARD. He did put his threat in execution against ELIZABETH.\nYet, in spite of religious prejudices, this was esteemed so monstrous\na stretch of power, and so odious to all Christian princes, that the\njesuits thought it expedient, by all means, to soften the appearance\nof it. One of their contrivances was, by searching into the origin\nof civil power; which they brought rightly, though for this wicked\npurpose, from the people. For they concluded, that, if the regal power\ncould be shewn to have no divine right, but to be of human and even\npopular institution, the liberty, which the pope took in deposing\nkings, would be less invidious. Thus the jesuits reasoned on the\nmatter. The argument was pushed with great vigour by HARDING and his\nbrethren in ELIZABETH\u2019S reign, but afterwards with more learning and\naddress by BELLARMINE, MARIANA, and others[26].\n\nTo combat this dangerous position, so prejudicial to the power of\nkings, and which was meant to justify all attempts of violence on the\nlives of heretical princes, the Protestant divines went into the other\nextreme; and, to save the person of their sovereign, preached up the\ndoctrine of DIVINE RIGHT. HOOKER, superior to every prejudice, followed\nthe truth. But the rest of our reforming and reformed divines stuck to\nthe other opinion; which, as appears from the HOMILIES, the INSTITUTION\nOF A CHRISTIAN MAN, and the general stream of writings in those\ndays, became the opinion of the church, and was indeed the received\nProtestant doctrine.\n\nAnd thus unhappily arose in the church of England that pernicious\nsystem of divine indefeasible right of kings: broached indeed by the\nclergy, but not from those corrupt and temporizing views to which it\nhas been imputed. The authority of those venerable men, from whom\nit was derived, gave it a firm and lasting hold on the minds of the\nclergy: And being thought to receive a countenance from the general\nterms, in which obedience to the civil magistrate is ordained in\nscripture, it has continued to our days, and may, it is feared, still\ncontinue, to perplex and mislead the judgments of too many amongst us.\n\nYet it could hardly have kept its ground against so much light and\nevidence as has been thrown at different times on this subject[27],\nbut for an unlucky circumstance attending the days of reformation.\nThis was, the growth of puritanism and the republican spirit; which,\nin order to justify its attack on the legal constitutional rights of\nthe crown, adopted the very same principles with the jesuited party.\nAnd under these circumstances it is not to be thought strange that\na principle, however true, which was disgraced by coming through\nsuch hands, should be generally condemned and execrated. The crown\nand mitre had reason to look upon both these sorts of men as their\nmortal enemies. What wonder then they should unite in reprobating\nthe political tenets, on which their common enmity was justified and\nsupported?\n\nThis I take to be the true account of what the friends of liberty so\noften object to us, \u201cThat the despotism of our later princes has been\nowing to the slavish doctrines of the clergy.\u201d The charge, so far as\nthere is any colour for it, is not denied: and yet I should hope to\nsee it urged against us with less acrimony, if it were once understood\non what grounds these doctrines were taken up, and for what purposes\nthey were maintained by the clergy.\n\n\nMR. SOMERS.\n\nBesides the candour of this acknowledgment, the part, which our clergy\nhave lately acted, is, methinks, enough to abate and correct those hard\nsentiments, which, as you say, have been entertained against them.\n\n\nSIR J. MAYNARD.\n\nThis apology seems indeed the best that can be made for them. But\nwhen one considers the baleful tendency of those doctrines, which\nwere calculated to enslave the very souls and consciences of men,\nand by advancing princes into the rank of gods, to abet and justify\ntheir tyranny, one cannot help feeling a strong resentment against the\nteachers of them, however they might themselves be imposed upon by\nseveral colourable pretences. Your lordship knows, I might proceed to\nfurther and still harder reflexions. But I have no pretence to indulge\nin them at this time, when a bishop is pleading so warmly in the cause\nof liberty.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nThis tenderness to your friends, Sir JOHN, is very obliging. But I\nwould willingly engage your candour, in behalf of our order. Let me\npresume, for such a purpose, to second Mr. SOMERS\u2019S observation, \u201cThat\nthe English clergy have at length atoned, in some measure, for former\nmiscarriages.\u201d\n\n\nSIR J. MAYNARD.\n\nBy their behaviour in a late critical conjuncture: and yet, to speak my\nmind frankly, the merit of their services, even on that occasion, is a\nlittle equivocal, when one reflects how unwilling they seemed to take\nthe alarm, till they were roused, at length, by their own immediate\nobject, the church\u2019s danger!\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nAnd can you wonder that what concerned them most, what they best\nunderstood, and was their proper and peculiar charge, should engage\ntheir principal attention? Besides, they went on principle, and with\nreason too, in supposing that no slight or partial breaches of law\nwere sufficient to authorise resistance to the magistrate[28]. But\nwhen a general attack was made upon it, and the dispensing power was\nset up in defiance of all law, and to manifest the subversion of\nthe constitution, the clergy were then as forward as any others to\nsignalize themselves in the common cause of liberty.\n\n\nSIR J. MAYNARD.\n\nTheir old favourite doctrine of _non-resistance_ was, I doubt, at\nthe bottom of this cautious proceeding. But it was high time for\nthem to lay it aside, when they saw it employed as the ready way for\nthe introduction of that popery, which, as you say, it was its first\nintention to keep out.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nIt certainly was.\u2014But, not to pursue this argument any further, let\nme return to the main point I had in view, which was, \u201cto account for\nthe growth of the regal power from the influence of the transferred\nsupremacy.\u201d There is still another instance behind, which shews how\nwell our princes understood the advantage they had gained, and how\ndextrously they improved it.\n\nIt seems prodigious, at first sight, that when the yoke of _Rome_ was\nthrown off, the new church, erected in opposition to it, should still\ncontinue to be governed by the laws of the old. The pretence was, that\nthis was only by way of interim, till a body of ecclesiastical laws\ncould be formed; and, to cover this pretence the better, some steps\nwere, in fact, taken towards the execution of such a design. But the\nmeaning of the crown certainly was, to uphold its darling supremacy,\neven on the old footing of the CANON LAWS.\n\nThis conclusion seems probable, if one considers that those canons\nproceeded from an absolute spiritual monarch, and had a perpetual\nreference to his dominion; that they were formed upon the very genius,\nand did acknowledge the authority of the civil laws, the proper issue,\nas my Lord Commissioner has shewn us, of civil despotism. Whoever, I\nsay, considers all this, will be inclined to think that the crown\ncontrived this interim from the use the canon law was of to the\nextension of the prerogative. Accordingly it is certain, that the\nsucceeding monarchs, ELIZABETH, JAMES, and CHARLES, would never suffer\nus to have a body of ecclesiastical laws, from a sense of this utility\nin the old ones; and a consciousness, if ever they should submit a body\nof new laws to the legislature, that the parliament would form them\naltogether in the genius of a free church and state[29]; and perhaps\nwould be for assuming a share in their darling supremacy itself.\n\nWith those canon laws, and for the same purpose, as was observed to us,\nthese princes retained a great affection for the interpreters of them,\nthe canon and civil lawyers; till the genius of liberty rising and\nprevailing in the end, over all the attempts of civil despotism, both\nthe one and the other fell into gradual desuetude and contempt: and\nas the canonists were little regarded, so their law is now considered\nno further than as it is countenanced and supported by the law of\n_England_.\n\nBut to see how convenient the doctrine of the canon law was for the\nmaintenance of an absolute supremacy, it needs only be observed to\nyou, that one of these canons is, \u201cThat it is not lawful for any man\nto dispute of the pope\u2019s power.\u201d And to see how exactly our kings\nwere disposed to act upon it, one needs only recollect that immortal\napophthegm of the elder JAMES, already taken notice of, \u201cThat it is\nsedition for the subject to dispute what a king may do in the height of\nhis power.\u201d\n\nAnd as the canon laws are the pope\u2019s laws, so we are told, on the same\nsupreme authority, that the _English_ laws are the king\u2019s. For thus\non another occasion his majesty expresses himself.\u2014\u201cAlthough a just\nprince\u201d (I believe I repeat his very words) \u201cwill not take the life of\nany of his subjects without a clear law: yet the same laws, whereby\nhe taketh them, are made by himself, or his predecessors; and so the\npower flows always from himself.\u201d\u2014And again, \u201cAlthough a good king\nwill frame all his actions to be according to the law, yet is he not\nbound thereto but of his good will, and for good example giving to his\nsubjects[30].\u201d\n\nThus decreed that _great school-master of the whole land_ (to give his\nmajesty no harder a title than he was pleased to give himself); and it\nis difficult to say whence his supremacy extracted this golden rule of\n_free monarchies_, if not from the pope\u2019s own code of imperial canons.\n\nThus it appears what misconceptions arose, and what strange conclusions\nwere drawn, from the king\u2019s supremacy in spirituals. One might proceed\nfurther in contemplation of this subject; but I have wearied you too\nmuch already. You will see from these several particulars how it came\nto pass that the REFORMATION, which was founded on the principles\nof liberty and supported by them, was yet for some time the cause\nof strengthening the power of the crown. For though the exercise of\nprivate judgment, which was essential to Protestantism, could not but\ntend to produce right notions of civil liberty, as well as of religious\nfaith and discipline, and so in the end was fated to bring about a\njust form of free government (as after some struggles and commotions,\nwe see, it has happened), yet the translation of supremacy from the\npope to the civil magistrate brought with it a mighty accession\nof authority, which had very sensible effects for several reigns\nafterwards. The mysterious sacredness and almost divinity which had\nlodged in the pope\u2019s person, was now inshrined in the king\u2019s; and it is\nnot wonderful that the people should find their imaginations strongly\naffected by this notion. And with this general preparation, it followed\nvery naturally, that, in the several ways here recounted, the crown\nshould be disposed and enabled to extend its prerogative, till another\nchange in the government was required to limit and circumscribe it,\nalmost as great as that of the Reformation.\n\n\nMR. SOMERS.\n\nI have listened with much pleasure to this deduction which your\nlordship has made from that important circumstance of the crown\u2019s\nsupremacy in spirituals. I think it throws great light on the subject\nunder consideration, and accounts in a clear manner for that appearance\nof despotism which the _English_ government has worn from the times of\nreformation. I have only one difficulty remaining with me: but it is\nsuch an one as seems to bear hard on the great hypothesis itself, so\nlearnedly maintained by my Lord Commissioner in our late conversation,\nof the original free constitution of the _English_ government. For,\nallowing all you say to be true, does not the very translation of the\npope\u2019s supremacy to the king, considered in itself, demonstrate that we\nhad then, at least, no free constitution at all, to be invaded by the\nhigh claims of that prerogative? If we admit the existence of any such,\nthe supremacy of the church should, naturally, I think, have devolved\nupon the supreme civil power; which with us, according to the present\nsupposition, is in the three estates of the legislature. But this\ndevolution, it seems, was on the king alone; a public acknowledgment,\nas I take it, that the constitution of the government was at that\ntime conceived to be, in the highest sense of the word, absolutely\nMONARCHICAL.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nI was not, I confess, aware of this objection to our theory, which is\nvery specious. Yet it may be sufficient, as I suppose, to reply to it,\nthat the work of reformation was carried on and established by the\nwhole legislature; and that the supremacy, in particular, though it of\nright belonged to the three estates, was by free consent surrendered\nand given up into the hands of the king. It is certain this power,\nthough talked of as the ancient right of the crown, was solemnly\ninvested in it by act of parliament.\n\n\nSIR J. MAYNARD.\n\nThere may be something in this. Yet your lordship, I think, does\nnot carry the matter quite far enough; and, with your leave, I will\npresume to give another, and perhaps the truer, answer to Mr. SOMERS\u2019S\ndifficulty. The subject is a little nice, but I have not those scruples\nwhich may reasonably be conceived to restrain your lordship from\nenlarging upon it.\n\nI reply then directly, and without softening matters, that this\nirregular translation of the supremacy is no proof that there was not\nthen a FREE CONSTITUTION, with a legitimate power in it, to which\nthe supremacy belonged. And my reason, without offence to my lord of\n_Salisbury_, is this. When the papal authority was abolished, and\nthe question came into parliament, \u201cwho now became the head of the\nchurch;\u201d the search after him was not carried, where it should have\nbeen, into the constitution of the kingdom; but, as it was a matter\nof religion, they mistook that, which was only an affair of church\ndiscipline, to be a doctrine of theology; and so searched, for a\nsolution of the question, in the New Testament, and Ecclesiastical\nHistory. In the New Testament, obedience is pressed to the person of\nC\u00e6sar, because an absolute monarchy was the only government in being:\nand, for the same reason, when afterwards the empire became Christian,\nthe supremacy, as we know from _ecclesiastical story_, was assumed\nby the emperor: just as it would have been by the consul and senate,\nhad the republic existed. Hence our Reformers, going altogether by\nspiritual and ecclesiastical example, and hoping thereby to preserve\ntheir credit against the reproaches of _Rome_, which, as your lordship\nknows, was perpetually charging them with novelties and innovations in\nboth respects, recurred to early antiquity for that rule.\n\nThis attention to ecclesiastical example was, I suppose, a\nconsideration of convenience with the wise fathers of our church: the\nother appeal to the Gospel, might be a matter of conscience with them.\nAnd thus by force of one text, ill-understood, _render unto_ C\u00c6SAR\n_the things which are_ C\u00c6SAR\u2019S, they put the spiritual sword into the\nking\u2019s hands; just as by another, _he beareth not the sword in vain_\n(for I know of no better authority), the temporal sword had also been\ncommitted to his care.\n\n\nMR. SOMERS.\n\nThis last intimation, I am apprehensive, would bear a further\ndebate[31]. But I acquiesce in your answer to my particular question; I\nmean, unless the bishop of _Salisbury_ warns me against submitting to\nso heretical a doctor.\n\n\nBP. BURNET.\n\nMy Lord Commissioner chuses to let slip no opportunity of exposing\nwhat he takes to be an error in ecclesiastical management. Either way,\nhowever, I am not displeased to find that his main thesis keeps its\nground; and that, even according to his own account of the matter, the\nnation, when it gave up the supremacy to the king, was in possession of\na free and legal constitution.\n\nOn the whole, you give me leave then to presume that the\nconsiderations, now offered to you, afford a reasonable account of that\ndespotic form under which the _English_ government has appeared, from\nthe union of the two roses down to the subversion of the constitution\nin CHARLES the First\u2019s time.\n\nOther causes concurred; but the Reformation was the chief prop and\npillar of the imperial dignity, while the constitution itself remained\nthe same, or rather was continually gaining strength even by the\nnecessary operation of those principles on which the Reformation was\nfounded. Religious liberty made way for the entertainment of civil, in\nall its branches. It could not be otherwise. It disposed the minds of\nmen to throw off that sluggishness, in which they had slumbered for\nmany ages. A spirit of inquiry prevailed. Inveterate errors were seen\nthrough; and prejudices of all sorts fell off, in proportion to the\ngrowth of letters, and the progress of reason.\n\nThe increasing trade and wealth of the nation concurred with the\ntemper of the times. The circulation of property brought on a natural\nrelaxation of the feudal system. The plan of liberty was extended and\nenlarged; and the balance of power soon fell into the hands of the\npeople. This appeared very plainly from the influence of parliaments,\nand the daring attacks of many particular members on the highest and\nmost favoured claims of prerogative. Our kings were sensible of the\nalteration: but, instead of prudently giving way to it, they flew into\nthe opposite extreme, and provoked the spirit of the times by the\nvery reluctance they shewed on all occasions to comply with it. Every\ndormant privilege of the crown, every phantom of prerogative, which had\nkept the simpler ages in awe, was now very unseasonably conjured up,\nto terrify all that durst oppose themselves to encroaching royalty.\nLawyers and church-men were employed in this service. And in their\nfierce endeavour to uphold a tottering throne by false supports, they\nentirely overthrew it. The nation was out of all patience to hear the\none decree the empire of the kings of _England_ to be absolute and\nuncontrolable by human law: and the other gave more offence, than they\nfound credit, by pretending that the right of kings to such empire\nwas divine[32]. Every artifice indeed of chicane and sophistry was\ncalled in to the support of these maxims of law and theology. But the\nseason for religious and civil liberty to prevail over the impotent\nattempts of each, was at hand. The near approach of the _divine form_\ncreated an enthusiasm, which nothing could resist. It frustrated the\ngenerous views even of her first and sincerest worshipers. In the\ncareer of those ecstatic orgies, the unhappy king could not prevent his\nministers, first, and afterwards the constitution itself, from falling\na victim to that fury, which, in the end, forced off his own head.\n\nSuch was the issue of this desperate conflict between prerogative\nand liberty. The wonder was, that this fatal experience should not\nhave rectified all mistakes, and have settled the government on a\nsure and lasting basis at the Restoration. The people were convinced,\nthat nothing more was requisite to their happiness, than the secure\npossession of their ancient legal constitution. The re-called family\nwere not so wise. And in their attempts to revive those old exploded\nclaims, which had succeeded so ill with their predecessors, they once\nmore fell from the throne, and left it to the possession of that\nglorious prince whom the greatly-injured nation has now called to it.\n\nThis then will be considered by grateful posterity as the true \u00e6ra of\n_English_ liberty. It was interwoven indeed with the very principles of\nthe constitution. It was inclosed in the ancient trunk of the feudal\nlaw, and was propagated from it[33]. But its operation was weak and\npartial in that state of its infancy. It acquired fresh force and\nvigour with age, and has now at length extended its influence to every\npart of the political system.\n\nHenceforward, may we not indulge in the expectation that both prince\nand people will be too wise to violate this glorious constitution:\nthe only one in the records of time, which hath ever attained to the\nperfection of civil government? All the blessings of freedom which\ncan consist with kingly rule, the people have: all the prerogatives\nof royalty, which can consist with civil freedom, are indulged\nto the king. From this just intermixture of the popular and regal\nforms, planted together in the earliest days, but grown up at length\nto full maturity, there arises a reasonable hope that the _English_\nconstitution will flourish to the latest ages; and continue, through\nthem all, the boast and glory of our country, and the envy and\nadmiration of the rest of the world.\n\n\nMR. SOMERS.\n\nHow generous in your lordship is this patriot augury of immortality\nto the _English_ constitution! Yet I dare not be so sanguine in my\nexpectations[35]. And Sir JOHN MAYNARD, I suspect, who has seen the\nmadness of kings and people, in their turns, will hardly expect it\nfrom me. It may be sufficient that we put up our ardent vows to Heaven,\nfor the long continuance of it. Less than this cannot be dispensed with\nin an honest man. Every blessing of civil policy is secured to us by\nthis new but constitutional settlement. And may our happy country enjoy\nit, at least as long as they have the sense to value, and the virtue to\ndeserve it!\n\n\nSIR J. MAYNARD.\n\nWhen these fail, our wishes, and even prayers themselves, will hardly\npreserve us. Vice and folly, as you say, may do much towards defeating\nthe purposes of the best government. What effect these may have, in\ntime, on the _English_ liberty, I would not, for the omen\u2019s sake,\nundertake to say. You, my lord, and Mr. SOMERS (who are so much younger\nmen) may be able, hereafter, to conjecture with more certainty of its\nduration. It is enough for me that I have lived to see my country in\npossession of it.\n\n\n\n\nDIALOGUES VII. AND VIII.\n\nON THE\n\nUSES OF FOREIGN TRAVEL.\n\nBETWEEN\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY\n\nAND\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\n\n\n\nDIALOGUE VII.\n\nON THE USES OF FOREIGN TRAVEL.\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY\u2014MR. LOCKE;\n\n\nTO ROBERT MOLESWORTH, ESQ.\n\nI could not but be much surprised, my dear friend, to receive your\ncommands on a subject, of which You, of all men, are the greatest\nmaster. For who could so well advise the party, you speak of, or\nresolve the general question concerning _The Uses of Foreign Travel_,\nconsidered as a part of modern breeding and education, as HE, who has\nhimself profited so much by this practice, and, in a late excellent\ntreatise[36], has given so convincing a proof of its utility?\n\nBesides, your application to me is a little suspicious; and looks as\nif you wanted to draw from me a confirmation of your own sentiments,\nrather than a candid examination of them. For how was it possible\nfor you not to foresee the difficulty I must be under, in debating\nthis point with you? When have I been able to dissent from you in any\nquestion of morals or policy? and especially what chance for my doing\nit in this instance, when you know the bias which my own education,\nconducted in this way, must have left upon me?\n\nI am therefore at a loss, as I said, to account for your fancy in\nmaking me of your council on this occasion. But, whatever your purpose\nmight be, since you have thought fit to honour me so far, I must own\nyour Letter of Inquiry could not possibly have found me in a fitter\nseason.\n\nI happened just then to amuse myself with recollecting a conversation,\nwhich, not many days before, had passed between me and a certain\nPhilosopher of great note, on that very subject.\n\nYou know the esteem I have of this Philosopher; I mean, for such of\nhis writings, as are most popular, and deserve to be so; such as his\npieces on _Government_, _Trade_, _Liberty_, and _Education_. No\nman understands the world better; or reasons more clearly on those\nsubjects, in which that world takes itself to be most of all, and is,\nin truth, very nearly concerned.\n\nHis Philosophy, properly so called, is not, I doubt, of so good a\ntaste; at least, his notion of morals is too modern for my relish: I\nhad put myself to school to other masters, and had learnt, you know,\nfrom his betters what to think of _Life and Manners_; which they\ntreat in a style quite out of the way of these subverters of ideal\nworlds[37], and architects on material principles[38].\n\nBut on this head, my dear Sir, you have heard me speak often, and may\nhear from me more at large on some other occasion. With exception to\nthis one article (an important one, however), no man is more able,\nthan Mr. LOCKE, or more privileged by his long experience, to give us\nLectures on the good old chapter of _Education_; which many others\nindeed have discussed; but none with so much good sense and with so\nconstant an eye to the use and business of the world as this writer.\n\nThe purpose of your inquiry, then, cannot, as I suppose, be any other\nway so well answered, as by putting into your hands a faithful account\nof his sentiments on the conduct and use of _Travelling_: especially,\nas you will perceive at the same time what my notions are (if that be\nof any importance to you) on the same subject.\n\nIf I were composing a Dialogue in the old mimetical, or poetic form,\nI should tell you, perhaps, the occasion that led us into this track\nof conversation. Nay, I should tell you what accident had brought us\ntogether; and should even omit no circumstance of _time_ or _place_,\nwhich might be proper to let you into the scene, and make you, as it\nwere, one of us.\n\nBut these punctilios of decorum are thought too constraining, and, as\nsuch, are wisely laid aside, by the easy moderns. Nay the very notion\nof Dialogue, such as it was in the politest ages of antiquity, is\nso little comprehended in our days, that I question much, if these\npapers were to fall into other hands than your own, whether they would\nnot appear in a high degree fantastic and visionary. It would never\nbe imagined that a point of morals or philosophy could be regularly\ntreated in what is called a _conversation-piece_; or that any thing so\nunlike the commerce of our world could have taken place between men,\nthat had any use or knowledge of it.\n\nThis, I say, might be the opinion of men of better breeding; of those,\nwho are acquainted with the fashion, and are themselves practised in\nthe conversations, of the polite world. The _formalists_, on the other\nhand, would be out of patience, I can suppose, at this sceptical manner\nof debate, which ends in nothing; and after the waste of much breath,\nleaves the matter at last undecided, and just as it was taken up.\n\nAll this, it must be owned, is very true. But as it is not my intention\nto submit the following draught to such critics, you, who know me,\nwill accept this recital, made in my own way, and pretty much as it\npassed. You may well be trusted to make your own conclusions from what\nis offered on either side of the argument, and will need no officious\nmonitor to instruct you on which side the truth lies.\n\nNot to detain you, by further preliminaries, from the entertainment\n(such as it is) which I have promised you; you may suppose, if you\nplease, Mr. LOCKE and me, in company with some other of our common\nfriends, sitting together in my library, and entering on the subject in\nthe following manner.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nAnd is not TRAVELLING then, in your opinion, one of the best of those\nmethods, which can be taken to polish and form the manners of our\nliberal youth, and to fit them for the business and conversation of the\nworld?\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nI think not. I see but little good, in proportion to the time it takes\nup, that can be drawn from it, under any management; but, in the way\nin which it commonly is and must be conducted, so long as _travel_ is\nconsidered as a part of early education, I see nothing but mischiefs\nspring from it.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nWhat! necessarily spring from it? And is there no way to stop their\ngrowth; or at least prevent their choking the good plants, which that\nsoil is capable of producing?\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nThis indeed I must not absolutely affirm: your Lordship\u2019s example,\nI confess, stands in my way. But if your own education, which was\nconducted in this form, and creates a prejudice for it, be pleaded\nagainst me, I may still say, that the argument extends no further than\nto qualify the assertion; and that, as in other cases, the rule is\ngeneral, though with some exceptions.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nIt was not my meaning to put your politeness to this proof. I would\neven take no advantage of the exception which you might consent to\nmake in the case of many other travellers, who have, doubtless, a\nbetter claim, than myself, to this indulgence. What I would gladly know\nof you, is, Whether, in general, _Travel_ be not an excellent school\nfor our ingenuous and noble youth; and whether it may not, on the\nwhole, deserve the countenance of a philosopher, who understands the\nworld, and has himself been formed by it?\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nYour Lordship, I think, will do well to put _philosophy_ out of the\nquestion. There is so much to be said against _Travel_ in that view,\nthat the matter would clearly be determined against you. It is by\nother rules, and what are called the _maxims of the world_ (which your\nLordship understands too well, to join them with philosophy), that the\nadvocate for travelling must demand to have his cause tried, if he\nwould hope to come off, in the dispute, with any advantage.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nYet philosophy was not always of this mind. You know, when the best\nproficients in that science gave a countenance to this practice, by\ntheir own example: a good part of their life was spent in foreign\ncountries; and they did not presume to set up for masters of wisdom,\ntill experience and much insight into the manners of men had qualified\nthem for that great office. Hence they became the ablest and wisest men\nof the whole world; and their wisdom was not in those days of the less\naccount for the politeness, that was mixed with it.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nThose wise men might have their reasons for this different practice.\nThey most of them, I think, set up for Politicians and Legislators, as\nwell as Philosophers; and in that infancy of arts and commerce, when\ndistant nations had small intercourse with each other, it might be of\nreal advantage to them, at least it might serve their reputation with\nthe people, to spend some years in voyages to such countries as were in\nthe highest fame for their wisdom or good government.\n\nBesides, the Sages of those times made a wondrous mystery of their\nwisdom: a sure sign, perhaps, that they were not over-stocked with\nit. It was confined to certain schools and fraternities; or was locked\nup still more closely in the breasts of particular persons. Knowledge\nwas not then diffused in books and general conversation, as amongst\nus; but was to be obtained by frequenting the academies or houses of\nthose privileged men, who, by a thousand ambitious arts, had drawn to\nthemselves the applause and veneration of the rest of the world.\n\nAll this might be said in favour of your Lordship\u2019s old Sages. Yet one\nof them, who deserved that name the best, was no great Traveller. I\nremember to have read, that SOCRATES had never stirred out of _Athens_;\nand that, when his admirers would sometimes ask him why he affected\nthis singularity, he was used to say, _That Stones and Trees did not\nedify him_: intimating, I suppose, that the sight of fine towns and\nfine countries, which the voyagers of those days, as of ours, made\na matter of much vanity, was the principal fruit they had reaped to\nthemselves from their fashionable labours.\n\nHowever, allowing your lordship to make the most of these respectable\nauthorities for the use of travelling, it must still be remembered,\nthat they are wide of our present purpose. They were _Sages_, that\ntravelled: and we are now inquiring, whether this be the way for\nyoung men to _become_ Sages. PLATO might pick up more learning in his\nVoyages, than any body since has been able to understand; and yet a\nyouth of eighteen be little the wiser for staring away two or three\nyears in mysterious _Egypt_.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nWhy, truly, if he carried nothing abroad with him but the use of\nhis eye-sight, I should be much of your mind with regard to the\nimprovements he might be expected to bring back with him. But let him\nhear and observe a little, as well as see; and methinks a youth of\neighteen might pick up something of value, though he should not return\nladen with the mysteries of _Egypt_.\n\nAs to the gaiety on the ancient Sages, I could be much entertained\nwith it, if I did not recollect that the more enlightened moderns\nhave, also, been of their mind in this instance. To say nothing of\nother countries, which yet have risen in reputation for knowledge and\ncivility in proportion to their acquaintance with the neighbouring\nnations, surely it must be allowed of our _own_, that all its valuable\nacquisitions in both have been forwarded at least, if not occasioned,\nby this reasonable practice. We are now, without doubt, arrived at the\nsummit of politeness, and may subsist at length upon our own proper\nstock. But was this always the case? And must it not be acknowledged,\nthat the brightest periods of our story are those, in which our noble\nyouth were fashioned in the school of foreign Travel? You will hardly\npretend that the ornaments of the second CHARLES\u2019 and ELIZABETH\u2019S\ncourts were cast in the coarse mould of this _home-breeding_.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nI shall perhaps carry my pretensions still further, and affirm it had\nbeen much better if they had been so.\n\nI know what is to be said for the voyagers in ELIZABETH\u2019S time. We\nwere just then emerging from ignorance and barbarity. Learning and the\nArts were but then getting up; and were best acquired, we will say, in\nforeign schools, and the commerce of other nations, which might have\nthe start of us in such improvements. The state of _Europe_ at that\ntime was not unlike what I observed of the old world, when knowledge\nwas in few hands, and the exclusive property, as it were, of particular\npersons. So that it was to be travelled for, and fetched home, by such\nas would have it. _Italy_, in particular, was in those days, as it had\nlong been, the theatre of politeness, and without doubt could furnish\nus with very much of the learning we most wanted.\n\nThis then was the fashionable route of our curious and courtly youth:\nand many accomplished persons, I can readily admit, were to be found in\nthe number of our _Italian_ Travellers. Yet, methinks, they had done\nbetter to stay at home, and at least import the arts of _Italy_, if\nthey were necessary to them, in sager heads than their own.\n\nI say this, because it is no secret that the civility, we thus\nacquired, was dearly paid for; and that irreligion, and even Atheism,\nwere packed up among their choicest gleanings, and shewn about, at\ntheir return, as curiosities, which could not but very much enhance\nthe consideration of those who had been to gather them beyond the\nmountains[39].\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nOr, shall we say, that this impiety of the time was only employed to\ncorrect its superstition? And that the philosophic spirits of that age\ntrafficked in these wares, as thinking them a proper antidote to such\nas another set of missionaries largely dealt in: I mean, the _agnus\nDei\u2019s, holy beads, and consecrated medals_?\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nTake it which way you will, the conclusion, I believe, will scarcely\nbe much in favour of our _Italian_ Travellers.\u2014As to the worthies of\nCHARLES\u2019S court, your Lordship, without doubt, is disposed to divert\nyourself with them. For, if they brought any thing with them from\n_France_, besides the dress of its follies and vices (excepting always\nthe sacred babble of their language), it is a secret which it has not\nbeen my fortune to be apprized of.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nAnd so, because Travelling may, by accident, be attended with some ill\neffects, you roundly determine against the thing itself; as if the\nnational improvement in arts and civility, which unquestionably arose\nfrom it, were to go for nothing!\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nI would have it go for no more than it is honestly worth; which surely\nis something less than the price paid for it, our principles and our\nmorals. And I doubt the truth is, that this degeneracy in both was the\nusual acquisition of our travelled youth, and the improvement, your\nLordship speaks of, only the accidental benefit.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nWithout doubt, there is no extending our acquaintance with the world,\nbut we run the risk of catching its vices, as well as virtues. Yet,\npush this conclusion as far as it will go, and you shut up mankind in\nabsolute and incurable barbarism. Such is the unhappy condition of\nhuman nature, that in striving to cultivate its powers, you furnish the\nopportunities, at least, of its corruption. Yet to leave it in that\nsordid state, for fear of those abuses, is methinks but acting with the\nweak apprehension of fond mothers; who deny their children the liberty\nof stirring from the fire-side, for fear of the dirt or damp air,\nwhich, in their field-exercises, may chance to incommode them.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nThe allusion would be apt, if the health of the mind, as of the body,\ndepended on the use of such liberty; or if it were true, that one could\nas little help breathing the air of vice, as that of the heavens. But,\nthough I have heard much of the dangers to which Virtue is exposed in\nthis bad world, I have never understood that Vice is its proper element.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nYet methinks, Sir, it will be hard to keep clear of it in any part of\nthe world, that I am acquainted with: unless perhaps you take this\nhappy Island of ours to be as free from Vice, as a Neighbouring one,\nthey say, is from Venom.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nThere are, however, degrees in Vice, as well as varieties of it; and I\ncannot think it necessary for us to be greater proficients than we are,\nor to import new species of it; by rambling into countries where it may\nchance to rage with greater virulence, or where such modes of it, at\nleast, prevail, as are luckily unknown to us. And such, I doubt, were\nthe fruits of our _Italian_ and _French_ travels.\n\nBut allowing that Vice were of every clime, the same every where, and\nequally malignant, I should still imagine our youth to be safer from\nthe infection at home, under the eye and wing of their own parents or\nfamilies, than wandering at large in foreign countries, with as little\ncare of others, as prudence of their own, to guard them from this\ndanger.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nYes, if they were turned loose into this wicked world, and left to\ntheir own devices. But, what if some sage Philosopher\u2014\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nSome God, you would say, in the shape of a Tutor; for a mere mortal\nGuide of that stamp is not easily met with. Or, if He were, his wisdom,\nI doubt, would hardly give him the authority, he stands in need of, for\nthe discharge of his function. But I take your Lordship\u2019s raillery, and\ncould say in my turn, But what if some inquisitive and well-disposed\nyoung Nobleman\u2014\n\nAfter all, we may let these two voyagers, so well matched and fitted\nto each other, proceed on their journey. The question at present is of\nno such rarities; but of raw, ignorant, ungovernable boys, on the one\nhand, and of shallow, servile, and interested governors, on the other.\nAnd if any good can arise from such worthies as these, sauntering\nwithin the circle of the grand Tour, the magic of travelling can _call\nup_ more than I have ever yet seen.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nIt may be true, perhaps, that the advantages of travelling are not so\ngreat, or so general, as is sometimes pretended. Yet, on the other\nhand, that there are advantages, and considerable ones too, can hardly\nbe denied. And to come at length more closely to the point (for what\nhas hitherto passed is but a sort of prelude to the main argument)\nlet me have leave to state those advantages clearly and distinctly to\nyou, and then to request your own proper sense (I mean as a man of\nthe world, according to the advice you just now gave me, and not as a\nPhilosopher) of this practice.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nIs this fair dealing in your Lordship? I supposed that by starting this\nquestion you had meant only, as on other occasions, to engage an old\nman in a little conversation; whereas your purpose, I now find, is to\nmake a formal debate of it.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nNot a formal debate, but a free conference; for which we seem to have\nleisure enough; and the subject is, besides, of real importance. I\nmay presume to answer for our friends here, that they will not be\ndispleased to assist at it.\n\nI am aware, as you said, that the practice may be sometimes\ninconvenient, as it is commonly managed, on the side of _morals_; and\nI would not be thought to have benefited so little by yours, and the\ninstructions of my other masters, as not to lay the greatest stress on\nthat consideration.\n\nBut, after all, these inconveniences may be pretty well avoided, by\nthe choice of an honest and able governor. Such an one it will not be\nimpossible to find, if the persons concerned be in earnest to look\nout for him: I do not say in _Cells_, for a Pedant without manners;\nand still less, you will say, in _Camps_, for a mannered man, without\nprinciples or letters; but, in the world at large, for some learned and\nwell-accomplished person, who, yet, may not disdain to be engaged in\nthis noblest office of conducting a young gentleman\u2019s education.\n\nUnder such a Governor, as this, the danger, to which a young man\u2019s\nmorals may be exposed by early travel, will be tolerably guarded\nagainst; and to make amends for the hazard he runs in this respect, I\nsee, on the other hand, so many reasons for breeding young men in this\nway, so many benefits arising from it at all times, and such peculiar\ninducements with regard to the present state of our own country, that,\nI think, we shall hardly be of two minds, when you have attended to\nthem.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nWe shall see that in due time. For the present, the serious air, you\nassume, so different from your wonted manner, secures my attention.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nI cannot tell what may be the opinion of others; but ignorance and\nbarbarity seem to me to be the parents of the most and the worst vices.\nConceit, pride, bigotry, insolence, ferocity, cruelty, are the native\nproduct of the human mind, kept uncultivated. Self-love, which makes so\npredominant a part in the constitution of man, that some sufferers by\nits excesses have mistaken it for the sole spring of all his actions,\nnaturally engenders these vices, when no care is taken to controul its\noperations by another principle.\n\nOn this account, wise men have had recourse to various expedients;\nsuch as the provision of Laws; the culture of Arts and Letters; and,\nin general, all that discipline which comes under the notion of early\ntutorage and education. But none of these has been found so effectual\nto the end in view, or is so immediately directed to the purpose of\nenlarging the mind, and curing it, at once, of all its obstinate and\nmalignant prejudices, as a knowledge of the world acquired in the way\nof society, and general conversation.\n\nTo say nothing of the solitary sequestered life, which all men agree\nto term _Savage_, look only on those smaller knots and fraternities\nof men, which meet together in our provincial towns and cities, and,\nwithout any larger commerce, are confined within the narrow enclosure\nof their own walls or districts. In as much as this condition is more\nsocial than the other, it is, without doubt, more eligible. Yet see how\nmany weak views are entertained by these separate clans, how many fond\nconceits, and over-weening fancies! The world seems to them shrunk up\ninto their own private circle; just as the heavens appear to children\nto be contained within the limits of their own horizon.\n\nExtend this prospect of mankind to still greater combinations, to\nstates, kingdoms, nations, and what we call a whole people. By this\nfreer intercourse, indeed, their thoughts take a larger range, and\ntheir minds open to more generous and manly conceptions. Yet their\nnative barbarism sticks close to them, and requires to be loosened and\nworn off by a more social habit, by the experience of a still wider and\nmore thorough communication. Tribes of men, although very numerous,\nyet, if shut up within one territory, and held closely together under\nthe influence of the same political constitution, easily assimilate,\nas it were; run into the same common sentiments and opinions; and\npresently take, in the whole extent of their community, one uniform\nprevailing character.\n\nHence the necessity of their still looking beyond their _own_, into\nother combinations and societies; that so, as the mind strengthens by\nthis exercise, they may be enabled to shake off their local, as we may\nsay, and territorial prejudices.\n\nThose other societies may not be without their defects, which it will\nbe equally proper to keep clear of. But, by this free prospect of the\ndifferences subsisting between different nations, each naturally gets\nquit of his own peculiar and characteristic vices; and those of others,\npresenting themselves to our unbiassed observation, are not so readily\nentertained, or do not cling so fast to us, as what have grown up with\nus, and, by long unquestioned use, are become, as we well express it, a\n_second nature_.\n\nThus, by this near approach and attrition, as it were, of each other,\nour rude parts give way; our rough corners are insensibly worn off; and\nwe are polished by degrees into a general and universal humanity.\n\n    EXTERNI _nequid valeat per l\u00e6ve morari_,\n\nto use the poet\u2019s words, though with some small difference, I believe\nin their application.\n\nWhat says my friend to these principles? are they just and reasonable?\nor, am I going to build on precarious and insecure foundations?\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nWhatever defect there may be in this foundation, your Lordship, as a\nwise architect, is for sparing no cost or pains in providing for its\nstability. Yet, methinks, you go deeper for it, than you need. At\nleast, I did not expect your defence of Travelling would require you to\nmake these profound researches into human nature.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nI take your meaning. These researches, you would say, are so little\nprofound, that I might have spared myself the trouble of making them\nat all, at least in conversation with a philosopher. Be that as it\nwill; provided the principles themselves, I am contending for, be\nwell founded. For the conclusion necessarily follows, \u201cThat therefore\nFOREIGN TRAVEL is, of all others, the most important and essential part\nof Education.\u201d\n\nThe youth of the most accomplished people in _Europe_ would have much\nto correct in themselves, and something, perhaps, to learn, in their\nvoyages into the neighbouring nations; however inferior to their own,\nin the general state of knowledge and politeness. What then must be\nthe case of our _English_ youth, confined in this remote corner among\nthemselves, and indulged in their own rustic and licentious habits?\n\nOur country has never been famous for the civility of its inhabitants.\nWe have, rather, been stigmatized in all ages, and are still considered\nby the rest of _Europe_, as proud, churlish, and unsocial. The very\ncircumstance of our Island-situation seems to expose us to the just\nreproach of inhospitality. And if, with this disadvantage, we should\ncherish, and not correct, those vices which so naturally spring from\nit, what less could we expect than to be distinguished by such names,\nas our ill-manners would well deserve, though our pride might suffer\nfrom the application of them?\n\nIt seems then to be an inevitable consequence of what has been said,\nthat we of this country have a more than ordinary occasion for the\nbenefits of _foreign travel_. And the reason of the thing shews,\nthey cannot be obtained too soon. Young minds are the fittest to take\nthe ply of civility and good manners. The task is less easy, and the\nsuccess more uncertain, when we enter upon this business late in life;\nwhen intractable humours have gathered strength, and the unsocial\nmanner is become habitual to us. Whatever may be objected to the\nincapacity of this age in other respects, youth is out of question the\ntime for acquiring right propensities and virtuous habits.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nYour Lordship has so many good words at command upon all occasions,\nthat one cannot but be entertained, at least, with your rhetoric,\nif not convinced by it. But my present concern is, to have a clear\nconception of your argument, which in plain terms, as I apprehend it,\nstands thus; \u201cThat every nation has many vices and follies to correct\nin itself; that this is perhaps more especially the case of our own;\nand that early _Travel_ is the only, at least the most proper, cure for\nthem.\u201d\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nThat, Sir, is my meaning; and, though expressed in more words than\nmay be necessary, it is surely not coloured by any rhetorical\nexaggerations. But you must allow me to proceed in my own way, and\nenforce the general argument, I have delivered, by applying it to the\nparticular exigencies and necessities of our _English_ youth.\n\nYou, who have been abroad in the world, and have so just a knowledge\nof other states and countries, tell me, if there can be any thing more\nridiculous than the idiot PREJUDICES of our home-bred gentlemen; which\nshew themselves, whenever their own dear Island comes, in any respect,\nto be the topic of conversation. What wondrous conceits of their own\nprowess, wisdom, nay of their manners and politeness! With what disdain\nis a foreigner mentioned by them, and with what apparent signs of\naversion is his very person treated! They scarcely give you leave to\nsuppose that any virtuous quality can thrive out of their own air, or\nthat good sense can be expressed in any foreign language. Nay, their\nfoolish prepossession extends to their very soil and climate. Such\nwarm patriots are they, such furious lovers of their country, that they\nwill have it to be the theatre of all convenience, delight, and beauty.\n\n\u201cTo hear their discourse among themselves, one would imagine that\nthe finest lands near the _Euphrates_, the Babylonian or Persian\n_Paradises_, the rich plains of _Egypt_, the Gr\u00e6cian _Tempe_, the\nRoman _Campania_, _Lombardy_, _Provence_, the Spanish _Andalusia_, or\nthe most delicious tracts in the Eastern or Western _Indies_, were\ncontemptible countries in respect of what they dote upon under the name\nof _Old England_[40].\u201d\n\nNow, if it were only for the sake of truth and decency, if it were but\nto avoid the ridicule to which these palpable absurdities and childish\nfancies expose them, one cannot but wish that our countrymen would open\ntheir eyes, and extend their prospect beyond their own foggy air, and\ndirty acres.\n\nBut this is the least inconvenience of their home breeding. How many\nlow HABITS and sordid practices grow upon our youth of fortune,\nand even of quality, from the influence of their family, or at best\nprovincial, education!\n\nThey retain so much of their _Saxon_ or _Norman_ character, that their\nnoblest passion is that of the Chace; unless a horse-race may, haply,\ncontend with it. Their ideas are all taken from the stable or kennel;\nand they have hardly words for any other sort of conversation.\n\nIn conjunction with this habit, or in direct consequence of it, they\nplunge themselves into the brutalities of the bottle and table. Having\nlittle use of the faculty of thinking or discoursing on any reasonable\nsubject, they care not how soon they disable themselves for either. To\nthis end, their surloins are of sovereign effect; and if any spark of\nthe _divine particle_ be still unsubdued, they quench it forthwith in\nthe strongest wines, or, which suits their taste and design best, in\ntheir own country liquor.\n\nThis sottish debauch leads to others. My young master will be denied no\nanimal gratification. And thus low intrigues and vulgar amours follow\nof course, in which the sum of his refined pleasures is, at length,\ncompleted.\n\nThe rest of his life runs on in this drowzy tenour; unless perhaps\nyou except those intervals, which can hardly be called _lucid_, when\nhis half-closed understanding seems stunned, rather than awakened, by\nparty-rage, election bustle, and the noise of faction.\n\nAdmirable patriots these! and usefuller citizens by far, than if they\nhad acquired some relish of temperance, decency, and reason, in foreign\ncourts, and the more improved societies of _Europe_.\n\nBut suppose our young gentleman to have escaped this sordid taste,\nand by better luck than ordinary to have finished his home education\nwithout much injury to his morals. Nay, suppose him to be inured, in\ngood time, to better discipline, and to have had the advantage of\nwhat is called amongst us, by a violent figure of speech, _a liberal\neducation_.\n\nTo put the case at the best, suppose him to have been well whipped\nthrough one of our public schools, and to come full fraught, at length,\nwith _Latin_ and _Greek_, from his college. You see him, now, on the\nverge of the world, and just ready to step into it. But, good heavens,\nwith what PRINCIPLES and MANNERS? His spirit broken by the servile\nawe of pedants, and his body unfashioned by the genteeler exercises!\nTimid at the same time, and rude; illiberal and ungraceful! An absurd\ncompound of abject sentiments, and bigoted notions, on the one hand;\nand of clownish, coarse, ungainly demeanor, on the other! In a word,\nboth in mind and person, the furthest in the world from any thing that\nis handsome, gentlemanlike, or of use and acceptation in good company!\n\nBring but one of these grown boys into a circle of well-bred people,\nsuch as his rank and fortune entitle him, and in a manner oblige him,\nto live with: and see how forbidding his air, how embarrassed all his\nlooks and motions! His awkward attempts at civility would provoke\nlaughter, if, again, his rustic painful bashfulness did not excite\none\u2019s pity. What wonder if the young man, under these circumstances,\nis glad to shrink away, as soon as possible, from so constraining a\nsituation; and to seek the low society of his inferiors, at least of\nsuch as himself among his equals, where he can be at ease, and give a\nloose to his unformed and disorderly behaviour!\n\nBut now, on the other hand, let a young gentleman, who has been trained\nabroad; who has been accustomed to the sight and conversation of men;\nwho has learnt his exercises, has some use of the languages, and has\nread his HORACE or HOMER in good company; let such an one, at his\nreturn, make his appearance in the best societies; and see with what\nease and address he sustains his part in them! how liberal his air and\nmanner! how managed and decorous his delivery of himself! In short,\nhow welcome to every body, and how prepared to acquit himself in the\nordinary commerce of the world, and in conversation!\n\nI should think, if there were no other advantage of early travel,\nbeside this of _manners_, it were well worth setting against all the\nother inconveniences, whatever they be, of this sort of Education.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nGood my Lord\u2014\u2014\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nI know what you would say: that _manners_, in the proper acceptation\nof the word, at least in the sense of wise men, implies much more\nthan the ease, assurance, civility, (call it what you will) which a\nyoung Traveller is supposed to acquire in his intercourse with the\npoliter nations. Without doubt, it does. But give me this foundation\nof good breeding to work upon; and if I had the tutorage of a noble\nyouth, I durst be answerable for all the rest, which even a philosopher\nincludes in his sublime notion of _manners_: whereas, without it, his\nimprovements of other sorts would be almost thrown away; nay, his\nvirtues themselves would be offensive and unlovely.\n\nBut do not imagine I confine myself to _manners_ in the obvious meaning\nof that term. I further understand by it an ability for ingenuous,\nuseful, and manly conversation. For a traveller, that makes the proper\nuse of his opportunities, will be all of a piece, and return as\npolished in his mind and understanding, as in his person.\n\nAnd here, again, how deficient is the turn and course of our ordinary\neducation! Whither would you send our young pupil, to accomplish\nhimself in the necessary art of speaking handsomely and thinking\njustly? What companions have you provided for him, or what instructors\nin this man-science will you direct him to? shall he court the\nacquaintance of some lettered pedagogue in the schools, or solicit the\nprecious communication of some famed professor in the occult sciences?\nWonderful models of correct wit, sublime sense, and elegant expression!\n\nI have read of an ancient Rhetorician, that took upon him to teach\nothers the _art of speaking_; but in such a way, says my author, that\nif a man had a mind to learn the art of _not speaking_, he could not\nhave been directed to an abler master.\n\nI forbear the application of my little tale, out of pure respect to the\nmodern disciples and ornaments of this ancient school; and, without\npushing matters so far, it will be owned, that whatever advantage of\nthis sort may be left at home, the loss will be amply made up to an\ninquisitive traveller, on the Continent. _France_, and even _Italy_,\nabounds in men of distinguished literature and politeness. Nay, a\n_German_ Professor may supply the place of an University Doctor.\nThink, what illustrious persons may be sometimes met with even in a\n_Dutch_ town: and how many instructive hours you and I have passed in\nconversation with such knowing, candid, and accomplished scholars,\nas LE CLERC and LIMBORCH. Philosophy, and even Divinity, could take\na liberal air, under their management; and eloquence itself might be\nlearned, on almost every subject, in their company.\n\nI consider then the acquaintance and familiarity of men of eminent\nparts and genius, as another considerable benefit resulting from this\nway of foreign education.\n\nStill there are higher things in view (for, now I have ventured\nthus far in the dogmatic tone, I find myself, like our authorized\nteachers, a little impatient of control, and in a humour to run myself\nout without lett or interruption); still, I say, there are higher\nadvantages in view from travelled culture and education.\n\nYou may think as slightly as you please, of the exterior polish of\n_manners_, or may even treat as superficial the _information_ that\ncan be acquired in good company. But what say you to that supreme\naccomplishment, a KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORLD; a science so useful, as to\nsupersede or disgrace all the rest; and so profound, as to merit all\nthe honours, and to fill up all the measures of the best philosophy?\nFor, by _a knowledge of the world_, I mean that which results from the\nobservation of men and things; from an acquaintance with the customs\nand usages of other nations; from some insight into their policies,\ngovernment, religion; in a word, from the study and contemplation\nof men; as they present themselves on the great stage of the world,\nin various forms, and under different appearances. This is that\nmaster-science, which a gentleman should comprehend, and which our\nschools and colleges never heard of.\n\nI know this science is too difficult to be perfectly acquired, but by\nlong habit and mature reflection. I know it is not to be expected from\na slight survey of mankind; from a hasty passage through the different\ncountries, or a short residence in the great towns, of _Europe_. All\nthis I am not to be told; but it must be allowed me at the same time,\nthat so important a study cannot be entered upon too soon, and that the\nrudiments at least of this science cannot be laid in too early.\n\nThe proper business of men, especially those of rank and quality,\nlies among men. The first and last object of a Gentleman should be an\nintimate study and knowledge of his species. Say, that some chapters\nof this great book, the world, are above his reach, and too hard for\nhis decyphering. Yet others are easier and more manageable. Initiate\na young man betimes in these pursuits; and his progress, as in other\nthings, must be the more sure and successful.\n\nAbove all, let him be taught to give an early attention to the manners\nof men, to observe their dispositions, to inspect and analyze their\ncharacters. What a field is here for an intelligent young man, assisted\nby the superior lights and experience of an able governor! And what a\nharvest of true knowledge and learning must he gather and bring home\nwith him, from the numberless varied scenes he has passed through in\nhis voyages! With what lustre must such a person appear in the court or\nsenate of his own country! How secure against the attempts of artifice\nand design! the plots of insidious enemies, or the pretences of false\nfriends! how apt for the business of life, and for bearing his part in\npublic debates and cabinet-consultations!\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nYour Lordship declaims so handsomely on this theme, that I am something\nloth to spoil your panegyric by asking a plain question, \u201cHow this\nknowledge of the public affairs of his own country is to be come at, by\nforeign politics?\u201d\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nAs if the objects of that knowledge were not every where much\nthe same! Bigotry or Fanaticism in religion, selfish or factious\nintrigues in government, neglected or ill-improved agriculture or\ncommerce, insolence and want of discipline in fleets and armies,\na bad-constituted police under venal magistrates, and a corrupt\nadministration; are not these the principal mischiefs to be guarded\nagainst by our young citizen, or perhaps senator? And where is the\ncountry, which does not afford opportunities of laying in useful\nlessons on all these subjects?\n\nTo say the least, a little home-practice will go a great way, when\nentered upon with so true a preparation of general knowledge. On the\nother hand, it hardly needs to be observed, the disadvantage, with\nwhich our young Islander must come into this scene; a novice to the\naffairs of the world; a stranger to men and characters; and who has\nnever perhaps stretched his observation beyond the narrow circle of\nhis companions, or even his own family.\n\nMy panegyric, as you call this plain representation of facts and\nthings, would never have an end, if I were to take to myself all the\nadvantages, which this topic of an early knowledge of the world in a\nyoung traveller affords me. But I leave the rest to be supplied out of\nthese hints; and pass on to other considerations, which seem of moment\nto the credit and reputation of our country, and to the accomplishment,\nat least, of our ingenuous youth; however they may rank in the\nestimation of some, who in modern times have assumed to themselves the\nname and office of Philosophers.\n\nYou, who have so much a nobler way of thinking than these nominal\nsages, will allow me, I hope, to lay some stress on the LIBERAL ARTS;\nwhich adorn and embellish human life; and, where they prevail to some\ndegree of perfection, are among the surest marks of the civility and\npoliteness of any people.\n\nIt is notorious enough how backward we have been, and still are, in\nall these elegant and muse-like applications. There is little or\nnothing in the way of _picture_, _sculpture_, and the arts of _design_\namong us, that can stand the test of a knowing and judicious eye.\nIt is but of late we have begun to form to ourselves any thing like\nan _ear_ in harmony and the proportions of just music. And whatever\nmagisterial airs our fashionable workmen in the dramatic and poetical\nkinds may give themselves in their prologues and prefaces, it is no\nsecret to such as have looked into the ancient masters, or have made\nan acquaintance with the style and manner of the politer moderns, that\nwe are far from possessing a right taste in these things, and that the\nMuses have hitherto shewn themselves but little indulgent to us.\n\nThe courtship, we have paid to them, has been pressing and ardent, if\nyou will; but this circumstance, though it may do much, nay is thought\nto do every thing with the sex, seems not to have succeeded with these\ncoy Ladies. Passion and assiduity are not the only things: somewhat\nof an address and management is looked for in our advances. Wherever\nthe defect lies, and whatever be the cure for it, certain it is, there\nis much of the Gothic manner in the performances of our best artists:\nthere is neither chasteness of design, nor elegance of hand, in our\nmanual operations: nothing like correctness of thought, simplicity of\nstyle, or the grace of numbers, in our literate productions.\n\n\u2019Tis true, the strength and vigour of our genius has been exerted\nin other things. We have been solicitous to procure a just taste in\npolicy and government, and have at length succeeded in this first and\nhighest emulation. It may now be proper to apply the liberty, we have\nso happily gained, to other improvements. There is something, I have\never observed, congenial to the liberal arts in the reigning spirit of\na free people. It must then be our own fault, if our progress in every\nelegant pursuit do not keep pace with our excellent constitution.\n\nBut the likeliest way to quicken the growth of these studies, is to\nturn our attention from the bad models of our own country, and enter\ninto a free commerce and generous struggle, as it were, with our more\nadvanced neighbours. And it is here again, as in the manners and arts\nof life, the seeds of good taste cannot be committed to the mind\ntoo soon. It were then to be wished, that our young men had right\nimpressions of _art_ in their tender years; and that, forming their\nrelish among the ablest proficients in _Europe_, they might afterwards\ncommunicate their improvements to their own country.\n\nThus, it might be hoped, in some convenient time, we should have\nsomething of our own to oppose to the wit, learning, and elegance of\n_France_; and that, in the mechanic execution of the fine arts, we\nshould come at length to vye with the _Italian_ masters.\n\nNor think, that such an emulation as this would be without its use,\neven in a moral and political view. Beauty and virtue are nearer of\nkin, than every one is perhaps aware of: and the mind that is taken\nwith the charm of what is _true and becoming_ in the representation of\nsensible things, cannot be inattentive to those qualities in the higher\nspecies and moral forms. It is thither indeed the virtuoso passion\nnaturally tends; and there, it finally acquiesces.\n\n    _Quid VERUM atque DECENS curo et rogo, et omnis in hoc sum._\n\nBut I see what you think of this language. Let me add then, that\npolicy, as well as philosophy, is on the side of these studies. Who\ncan doubt their virtue in softening and refining the manners of a\npeople? or, to take policy in its vulgar sense, where would be the\nhurt, if _Britain_ were the seat of arts and letters, as well as of\ntrade and liberty? Then might _we_ be travelled to, in our turn, as\nour neighbours are at present: and our country, amidst its other\nacquisitions, be also enriched (I use the word in its proper, not\nmetaphorical sense) with a new species of commerce.\n\nNot to insist, that the ascendant which one nation takes over another\nin all public concerns, is very much owing to this pre-eminence of\ntaste and politeness, to its acknowledged superiority, I may say, in\nthe literate and virtuoso character; of which _France_ is an instance\nin our days; as _Italy_ is well known to have been in the days of our\nforefathers.\n\nAnd, if there be use and value in such things, how shall our ingenuous\nyouth be tinctured with a right sense of them, but by early and\nwell-conducted travel? For what discipline, what examples, what\nencouragements, have we at home? what academies for the genteel\nexercises? what conferences for the improvement of art or language?\nwhat societies for the cultivation of the liberal character?\n\nThe contemplation of these defects carries me still further; to the\nsource and fountain of them all, which I make no scruple to lay open to\nyou.\n\n\u201cTime was, Sir, when philosophy herself could appear with grace even\nin courts, when the great and noble, nay and princes themselves, were\nnot ashamed to be of her train, but frequented her studious schools and\nwalks, and were even ambitious of her company in their hours of leisure\nand recreation.\n\nSee now to what unpractised cells and ignoble societies she is\ndegraded! her graceful form faded and shrunk; her ingenuous sprightly\nair deadened into I know not what gloom and austerity of the cloyster.\n\nYou, who have done more than any other, to retrieve her credit and\nbring her back to the world, can best tell her present degenerate\ncondition. You know where she lies, unapproached by her former suitors;\nher liberal manner soured into disdain and hate; her persuasive voice,\nwhich spoke the language of the Gods, broken into untuned numbers\nand discordant harshness; and her very sense corrupted into empty\nsophisms and unintelligible jargon. The Graces, those companions of\nher better days, are all fled: and in their room, a riotous band of\nfauns and satyrs dance around her. Yet still she assumes a sort of\nmock-sovereignty; and, under the new name of _Genius of the Schools_,\npresides, in sullen majesty, over her numerous, servile, awe-struck\nvotaries.\u201d\n\nIn some such way as this, were I at liberty to pursue the figured\nspeech, and to adopt the higher tone of the ancient masters, would\nI presume to represent the present state of Erudition, as we see it\nmanaged in certain sublime seats and authorized nurseries amongst us.\n\nAnd would you invite our liberal and noble youth to resort thither?\ncould you expect that their free spirits would stoop to be lectured\nby bearded boys; or that their minds could ever be formed and tutored\nby such pedants, in a way that fits them for the real practice of the\nworld and of mankind?\n\nHave we not long enough submitted to the inconveniencies of this\nmonkish education? Look on the generality of those persons who have\nhad their breeding in those seminaries. What principles in morals, in\ngovernment, in religion, have sprouted thence! what dispositions have\nwe known corrupted by their discipline! what understandings perverted\nby their servile and false systems! Has truth, or liberty, or reason,\nfair play from that quarter? Nay, has not truth, and liberty, and\nreason, though speaking by ONE of their own sons, been calumniated and\nrejected! In a word, have they not always set themselves to obstruct\nthe progress of true knowledge, and the cause of freedom?\n\nIf such then be the state of our own seats of literature and education,\nwhat more needs be alleged in the behalf of FOREIGN TRAVEL; which is\nthe only means left to remedy these mischiefs, or at least to palliate\nand correct them?\n\n\n\n\nDIALOGUE VIII.\n\nON THE USES OF FOREIGN TRAVEL.\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY\u2014MR. LOCKE.\n\n\nTO ROBERT MOLESWORTH, ESQ.\n\nHere I concluded my defence: when Mr. LOCKE, perceiving, by the\nattention we all paid to him, that we were now prepared to receive his\nanswer, raised himself in his chair, and, with a firmer tone and look\nthan I expected, addressed himself to me in the following manner.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nWere the subject before us a matter of indifference or curiosity, such\nas idle men are used to discourse of, I could allow your lordship\nto pursue it in this way of Socratic raillery and declamation. But,\nif ever there was a question, that deserved the examination of a\nphilosopher, properly so called, it is, surely, this of EDUCATION;\nand, among the various parts of it, none is more strictly to be\ninquired into, as none is, perhaps, so big with important consequences,\nas that which comes recommended to us under the specious name of\nFOREIGN TRAVEL.\n\nI could not, therefore, but wonder to hear your lordship enlarge so\nmuch, and so long, on I know not what varnish of manners and good\nbreeding; of the knowledge of men and the world; of arts, languages,\nand other trappings and shewy appendages of education: just as if\nan architect should entertain you with a discourse on Festoons and\nFoliage, or the finishing of his Frize and Capitals, when you expected\nhim to instruct you in what way to erect a solid edifice on firm walls\nand durable foundations.\n\nWhat a reasonable man wants to know, is, the proper method of building\nup _men_: whereas your lordship seems solicitous for little more than\ntricking out a set of fine _gentlemen_. It seemed, indeed, as if\nyour lordship had calculated your defence of travelling for a knot\nof Virtuosi, or a still more fashionable circle (where, doubtless,\nit would pass with much ease and without contradiction); and had,\nsomehow, forgotten that your hearers are all plain men; one of them,\nan old one; and he too, as your Lordship loves to qualify him, a\nphilosopher.\n\nTo speak my mind frankly, my Lord, your defence of foreign travel, as\nlively and plausible as it seemed, has no solid basis to rest upon. You\ntell us of many defects in the breeding of our _English_ youth, and you\nwould willingly redress them: but in what way this is best done, can\nnever be known from vague and general declamation.\n\nTo make this inquiry to purpose, some certain principles must be laid\ndown; some scheme of life and manners must be formed; some idea or\nmodel of the character, you would imprint on young minds, must be\ndescribed; to which we may constantly refer, as we go along; and by\nwhich, as a rule, we may estimate the fitness and propriety of that\nsort of breeding, you would recommend to us.\n\nSince your Lordship then will needs have me dictate to you on the\nsubject of Education, I must have leave to do it in another way, and\nafter a more solemn manner, than you perhaps expect from me in this\nfreedom of conversation.\n\nI begin with this certain principle: That the business of education is\nto form the UNDERSTANDING, and regulate the HEART. If man be a compound\nof Reason and Passion, the only proper discipline of his nature is that\nwhich accomplishes these two purposes.\n\nSo far we are, doubtless, agreed. But the subject requires a more\nparticular application of this principle.\n\nYou have laboured with much plausibility to persuade us, That the\nonly reasonable education is that which prepares and fits a man for\nthe commerce of the world: and I readily admit the notion, provided\nwe first agree about the meaning of this big word, the WORLD. Your\nLordship, it may be, in your sublime view of things, is projecting to\nmake of your Pupil, what is called, in the widest sense of the term, a\n_Citizen of the World_. A great and awful character, my Lord! But let\nus advance by just degrees.\n\nFirst, if you please, let us provide that he be a worthy citizen of\n_England_; and, by your favour, let me ennoble this small island of\nours with the pompous appellation of the world. It is that world,\nat least, in which our adventurer is to play his part; and for the\ncommerce of which it concerns him most immediately to be prepared.\n\nNow, as your Lordship\u2019s chief care is directed, very properly, towards\nits chief subjects; I mean, the men of rank and fortune, whose ample\nproperty and noble birth give their country the greatest concern in\ntheir education; let me ask in what manner they are likely to qualify\nthemselves best for the important parts, they are to act in it?\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nCertainly, by acquiring that knowledge, and those accomplishments, that\nare most proper for the discharge of them.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nUndoubtedly, my Lord: there cannot be two answers to so plain a\nquestion. As that education is, in general, the best which forms the\nman, in the best manner; so, in this confined view, that education must\nbe thought the best, which forms the _Englishman_, in the best manner.\n\nTo proceed then on this reasonable concession.\n\nAn _English_ citizen, or, if you will, Senator, (for this is the\nstation to which our greater citizens do, and our best should aspire)\ncan never acquit himself of the duties he owes his country, under this\ncharacter, but by furnishing himself with all those qualities of the\n_head_ and _heart_, which his superior rank and pretensions demand.\n\nThis _last_ chapter is an important one; and would be very long, if\njustice were done to it. But a summary of the main articles, of which\nit consists, may be given in few words.\n\nI require then in our young aspirant to the name and honours of an\n_English_ Senator, that his mind be early and thoroughly seasoned\nwith the principles of virtue and religion: that he be trained, by a\nstrict discipline, to the command of his temper and passions: that his\nambition be awakened, or rather directed, to its right object, the\n_public good_; and to that end, that his soul be fired with the love\nof excellence and true honour: above all, that he have a reverence for\nthe legal constitution of his country, and a fervent affection for the\ngreat community to which he belongs.\n\nYour Lordship has a due respect for these virtuous qualities of the\nHEART, which will give this consideration its full weight with you.\nBut were they of no more account, than many institutors of youth seem\ndisposed to reckon them, still there are other qualities, those of the\nHEAD, in every man\u2019s account essentially requisite to the discharge of\nthose offices, which our greater citizens are destined to sustain.\n\nI require, therefore, in the next place, that our young Senator have\na ready and familiar use, at least, of the _Latin_ tongue (your\nLordship, I know, will add, and of the _Greek_; but in this I am not\nso peremptory): that he be competently instructed in the elements of\nscience, as well as what are called polite letters: that, especially,\nhe be well grounded in the principles of morals, public and private;\nthat he have made a thorough acquaintance with the history of his own\ncountry, and with its constitution, Civil and Ecclesiastical: that\nhe have a general insight into the history of the world, ancient and\nmodern: above all, that he have a well-exercised understanding; I\nmean, that he be taught to reason clearly and consequentially upon\nany subject: and, further, to put all these abilities to use, that he\nhave a ready command of his own language, and the power of expressing\nhimself, whether in writing or speaking, with ease and perspicuity, at\nleast, if not with elegance.\n\nOther ornamental qualities I omit for the present, which will almost\ncome of themselves, if his education be rightly conducted; or may be\nacquired with little pains, and in the way of diversion only. But these\nsolid accomplishments I hold it necessary for our youth of quality to\npossess, by the time in which they usually pass out of the hands of\ntheir Tutors and Governors, I mean the age of twenty-one.\n\nAm I unreasonable in these demands? or can any thing less be dispensed\nwith in a gentleman, who, by established custom, is to enter into the\nworld at those years, and to bear a part in the public business and\nlegislature of his country?\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nWithout doubt, these accomplishments are no more than may be reasonably\nrequired in our young gentleman, or Senator. But how they are to be\ncome at in our vulgar way of _Education_, I do not easily apprehend.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nOf that, in due time. At present, you accept this as a reasonable idea\nor sketch of an _English_ gentleman\u2019s character; such as the course of\nhis education ought to imprint upon him: and I shall now shew you very\nclearly that it is not possible to be attained in the way of _foreign\nTravel_.\n\nConsider, _first_ of all, the unavoidable WASTE OF TIME; of that time\nwhich is so precious in every view; not only as being the most proper\nfor making the acquisitions, I speak of; but as being the only period\nof his life, which he will be at liberty to employ in that manner.\n\nEarly youth is flexible and docile: apt to take the impressions of\nvirtue, and ready to admit the principles of knowledge. The faculties\nof the mind are then vigorous and alert: the conception quick, and\nthe memory retentive. The humble drudgery of acquiring the elements\nof literature and science is to young minds an easy and a flattering\nemployment. A submissive reverence for their teachers disposes them\nto proceed without reluctance in any path that is prescribed to them;\nand a springing emulation, joined to a conscious sense of gradual\nimprovement, gives force and constancy to their pursuits. The objects\nof their application seem important; not only from the novelty of them,\nand the authority of those who have the direction of their studies,\nbut chiefly perhaps from a confused sense of their value, much above\nwhat they would entertain, were they able to form a true and distinct\njudgment of them.\n\nThis, then, is the season for laying the foundations of knowledge and\nability of every kind; and if you let it slip, without applying it\ncarefully to those purposes, you will in vain lament the omission in\nriper years, when the cares or amusements of life afford little leisure\nfor such pursuits, and less inclination.\n\nThere may have been some few examples of those, whose superior industry\nin advanced age has atoned for the defects of their education. But in\ngeneral the _man_ depends intirely on the _boy_; and he is all his life\nlong, what the impressions, he received in his early years, have made\nhim[41]. If therefore any considerable part of this precious season be\n_wasted_ in foreign travel, I mean if it be actually _not employed_ in\nthe pursuits proper to it, this circumstance must needs be considered\nas an objection of great weight to that sort of education.\n\nYour Lordship may consider, _next_, the DISSIPATION OF MIND attending\non this itinerant education; while the scene is constantly changing;\nand new objects perpetually springing up before him, to solicit the\nadmiration of our young traveller.\n\nOne of the greatest secrets in education is, to fix the attention\nof youth: a painful operation! which requires long use and a steady\nunremitting discipline; the very reverse of that roving, desultory\nhabit, which is inseparable from the sort of life you would recommend.\nThe young mind is naturally impatient of constraint: it hates to\nbe confined for any time in the same track; and is flying out, at\nevery turn, from the proper subject of its meditation. Instead of\ncounteracting this native infirmity, you indulge and flatter it;\ntill, by degrees, the mind loses its tone and vigour, and is utterly\nincapable of paying a due attention to any thing.\n\nI insist the more on this consideration, because in acquiring the\nelements of learning it is of great importance that the learner proceed\nuniformly in the course on which he has entered. It may now and then\nbe the privilege of a genius, to seize the principles of knowledge at\nonce, and to grow wise, as we may say, by intuition. But the common\nsort of minds are of another make. It is by slow steps only that they\narrive at knowledge; and, if you stop or divert their progress, their\nlabour is all thrown away, or yields at best a shallow, superficial,\nand ill-digested learning.\n\nBut were no account to be had of _the loss of time_, or of _this\ndissipated turn of mind_, which is still more pernicious, I should\nnevertheless object to this travelled education, on account of the very\nobjects to which our traveller\u2019s APPLICATION is directed.\n\nInstead of those necessary and fundamental parts of knowledge, which\nI require him to have laid in, his attention, so much of it as can be\nspared for any thing that looks like information, is wasted on things\neither frivolous or unimportant.\n\nHis _first_ business is, to make himself perfect in the forms of\nbreeding, which he finds in use among those he lives with, or perhaps\nin their forms of dress only.\n\nHis _next_ concern is, to acquire a readiness in the languages of\n_Europe_; or, to shorten his labour as much as possible, at least in\nthe _French_ language. The pretence is, that he may fit himself for\nconversation with his foreign acquaintance; which takes up much time to\nlittle purpose, as the use ceases, in a good degree, with his return\nhome: and, that he may qualify himself for perusing their best books;\nwhich takes him off from the study of those which are still better; in\nthe learned languages, and I will venture to say, in his own.\n\nIf any thing _further_ employ his attention, it is perhaps a little\nvirtuosoship. He inquires after fine pictures, fine statues, fine\nbuildings. He visits the shops of artificers; gets admission to\nlibraries, cabinets of medals, and repositories of curiosities; and,\nfor some relaxation from these arduous toils, is frequent at Churches,\nTheatres, and Courts of Judicature, and stares at processions,\nceremonies, and other solemn shews.\n\nAnd, now, when these three points have been duly attended to, I\nleave your Lordship to guess what leisure he is likely to have for\naccomplishing himself in those other studies, which you allow me to\nsuppose are of much greater importance.\n\nIn one word, my Lord, if he acquires any knowledge, it is only, or\nchiefly, of such things as he may very well do without, or, at best,\nare of an inferior and subordinate consideration: while the branches of\nlearning, he must neglect for these, are of the most constant use and\nnecessity to him in the commerce of his whole life.\n\nTill then your Lordship can find a way to reconcile these different\npursuits, I must be of opinion that the boasted way of travel is the\nworst that can be contrived for the proper instruction of our young\ncountrymen.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nWithout doubt, if these less important points engross all their\nattention. But can there be a difficulty in carrying on the two designs\ntogether; especially, if a good and attentive tutor be at hand to\ndirect his pupil\u2019s pursuit and quicken his application?\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nYour Lordship, like the friends and parents of a young traveller, is\nfor exacting wonders at the hands of this important personage, a tutor.\nBut the truth is, so many, and so different things cannot be well\nlearned, even with the advantage of the best parts under the very best\ndirection.\n\nBesides, your Lordship forgets that what we now inquire into, is,\nwhether the generality of our _English_ youth of quality should be\neducated in this form; not, whether two or three young men, of the most\nuncommon genius and application, may not possibly succeed in it. I\ndemand an education, which may ordinarily produce useful and able men:\nyour Lordship is providing only for, what comes of itself, a prodigy.\n\nAnd now, my Lord, with this preparation, I think myself enabled\nto reply distinctly to the several arguments you alleged for the\nexpediency of foreign travel. It is very clear, that the most solid\nadvantages are lost by it. But perhaps we shall find a recompense for\nthis loss, in the shewy and ornamental accomplishments, which travel\npromises; and which your Lordship supposes the world will readily, and\nwith reason, accept instead of them.\n\nThese accomplishments are summed up in the BENEFITS of an enlarged\nsociety and conversation; which, again, branch out into many heads; and\nunder different names, furnished, I think, the substance, as well as\ngoverned the method, of your vindication.\n\nThis was the polite and popular theme, which you chose to dress out in\nall the colours of your eloquence. To make way for these, and to lay\nthem on with more effect, your Lordship was pleased to tell us a very\nmelancholy story. _England_, it seems, is over-run with barbarism and\nignorance; its inhabitants are rude and uncivilized; and nothing can\nbe learnt among them, which is fit to appear in good company.\n\nIf this had been said of our forefathers in C\u00c6SAR\u2019S time, or even in\ngood King EDGAR\u2019S, when the land, they say, was over-run with wolves\n(by which, I suppose, the monkish mythology means _men_, as savage); I\ncould have found but little, it may be, to oppose to the accusation.\nBut at this time of the day, when arts and letters have at least made\nsome progress among us; when commerce has extended our acquaintance\nwith the rudest parts of the globe, and policy strengthened our\nconnexions with the most civilized; when our country is filled with\nlarge flourishing towns, and even prides itself in a vast, opulent,\nand splendid metropolis; I could not but think the charge was a little\naggravated, or that your Lordship had forgotten to speak of _England_,\nas it now subsists, in the close of the seventeenth century. It seemed\nto me as if the _English_ might now, at least, deserve to be considered\nas _men_; and that in our courts and camps, if not in our colleges, we\nmight stand a chance of finding what your Lordship would not disdain to\nqualify with the name of _gentlemen_.\n\nBut the other representation was more favourable to your Lordship\u2019s\ncause: and out of that representation arose the several BARBARITIES,\nwith which you thought fit to mortify and alarm us.\n\nThe first fire of your zeal is spent on that swarm of PREJUDICES,\nwith which our _English_, or at least provincial, youth are commonly\nover-run.\n\nPREJUDICES, my Lord, is an equivocal term; and may as well mean right\nopinions taken upon trust, and deeply rooted in the mind, as false and\nabsurd opinions, so derived and grown into it.\n\nThe _former_ of these will do no hurt; on the contrary, perhaps, the\nvery best part of education is employed in the culture of them.\n\nBut admit, they are of the _latter_ sort: still they may be only the\nexcesses of right principles and notions. And in that case, I should\ndoubt whether the evil be of consequence enough to deserve your\nindignation. Perhaps no man has enough of certain virtues, that does\nnot carry them something too far. The just degree, the precise mean, is\na nice point to hit. The condition of our common nature is such, that\nwe either overshoot the mark, or fall short of it; and your Lordship\neasily apprehends which is the more convenient as well as more generous\npart, in this moral archery.\n\nBesides, reflexion and experience will come in, soon enough to moderate\nthese excesses. So that, for my part, though our young patriot should\nhappen to entertain the extravagant conceit, you diverted yourself\nwith, of the soil and climate of _Old England_, I should take that for\nno great objection to his home-breeding, and should, possibly, not be\nover-forward to disabuse him of such honest errors.\n\nSurely, my Lord, there are certain _associations_ of ideas, which,\nhowever oddly formed, your Lordship would be something loth to undo.\n\nTo take your own instance: What if the ideas of liberty chanced to be\nclosely connected with those of _Old England_; so as, by the magic\nof this union, to convert her rude heaths and barren mountains into\npleasurable landskips; would you be forward, if you had it in your\npower, to dissolve this charm, and, by setting those objects in their\ntrue and proper light, disenchant the mind, at the same time, from the\nidea, or warm love at least, of _English_ liberty?\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nYou know well, I perceive, how to chuse your instances. The force of\nthis, you suppose, will hardly be lost on him, who professes himself an\nadorer of that liberty. But, under favour, I see no such inconvenience,\nas you suggest, in putting asunder two things which truth and nature\nhad no hand in bringing together. LIBERTY has charms enough to attach\nthe mind, wherever the place of her abode be; and I have never heard\nthat the loveliness of her form is impaired, or even disgraced, by the\nhomeliness of her habitation.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nIt may be so; and the reason, as in the case of the more selfish\naffections, is, That the habitation of our idol, whatever be our\nworship, is rarely thought homely. But convince us that our country\nis scarce worth contending for, and, as lovely as its Goddess Liberty\nmay appear to enamoured eyes, the generality of her votaries will, I\ndoubt, be something slack in her defence.\n\nBut, after all, an illustration must not be questioned at this rate. It\nis enough, that your Lordship sees I am not for discarding Principles,\nunder the opprobrious name of Prejudices. The tender minds of youth\nare to be treated with indulgence. If they put forth too fast, and too\nluxuriantly, let the ordinary methods of culture be applied to them.\nA little dressing and pruning, at fit seasons, may do more good, than\n_transplanting_: a fatal experiment, in many cases; which, in checking\nthe immoderate vigour of its growth, kills the tree, or, at best,\nbrings on a languishing and dwarfish imbecillity.\n\nIf, indeed, by Prejudices you mean _vicious principles_, properly so\ncalled; that is, vicious in themselves, as well as in the degree:\nthese, it is certain, must be rooted up; and the sooner, the better:\nbut then there is no need of crossing the seas for the benefit of such\nan operation.\n\nFor the proper cure of such prejudices, as I take it, is to be made by\nthe application of those truths that are common to all climes; not by\nthe partial manners or opinions which arise out of them in this or that\nmore polished society.\n\nBut your Lordship, I observed, as though you had taken up this charge\nof Prejudices purely to introduce the satire on _Old England_, was\ncontent to drop it, as soon as it had served your turn. You exchanged\nit, however, for _another_ of more importance, THE LOW, SORDID, AND\nIMMORAL HABITS; which strike into the lives and manners of our youth,\nand are, as you conceive, epidemical and incurable in this Island.\n\nIt may be true, that too much of the complaint is well-founded. The\ntaste of our provincial gentry may be something coarse; and their\nhouses, none of the best schools of civility and politeness: so that\nlow and even immoral habits may be, and, I doubt, too often are, the\nfruit of an ordinary domestic education. But then what remedy does your\nLordship prescribe for the removal of them? Why, you send them abroad\nwith all their imperfections upon their heads; to get rid of their bad\nhabits, as they can, and to pick up better, as they will: or, do you\nperhaps imagine that the ill qualities, they take out with them, will\ndrop off, of themselves? and that the good ones they stand in need of,\nlike new leaves in the spring, will immediately put forth and take\ntheir places?\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nI do but imagine, that bad habits are only to be expelled by better;\nand that therefore the readiest way for our countrymen to get quit of\ntheir ill manners, is, to force them into good company. And, with your\nleave, I see nothing very absurd or unreasonable in this imagination.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nCertainly not, in prescribing good habits as a cure for bad ones. But\nyour Lordship had done well to shew what there is in a foreign air,\nthat is so propitious to good habits, as that none but such can thrive\nin it; or, if there be a mixture of good and bad, as with us, how your\ntraveller shall be secured against an ill choice. Otherwise our young\nspark may pick up new habits indeed; but they may only be different\nfrom what he took from home, not better or more reasonable.\n\nI doubt, my Lord, that, when such rude and untutored boys find\nthemselves removed from that restraint which the eye of a parent,\nthough but little accustomed to civility himself, imposed upon them,\nthey will rather give way to a freer indulgence of their own froward\nhumours, than be in any disposition to check and reform them. What\ninclination will such persons have to benefit by good company? or how\nindeed will they gain admittance into it?\n\nI appeal to your own observation, whether, when this sort of\nill-educated people get abroad, and settle for a time in some\nfrequented city, their usual way be not to keep at distance from\nthe better company of the place, and to flock together into little\nknots and clubs of their own countrymen, or of such others as are\nmost resembling in taste and manners to themselves; where all their\nlow humours are freely indulged, and even inflamed, by the mutual\nsociety and countenance of one another. This, your Lordship knows,\nis most frequently the case; while the obsequious tutor is at length\nmore likely to be swayed by the importunity, and perverted by the ill\nexample, of his disciples, than they are to be restrained by his advice\nand authority.\n\nBut, though foreign travel should be indeed a remedy for the mischiefs,\ncomplained of, I still question whether it would be a _proper_ one.\nSuppose our young gentleman to be of so pliant a make, as to lay aside\nhis rustic and illiberal habits in complaisance to the better company,\nhe is obliged to live with: does it immediately follow, that he will\nadopt none but what are fit for him to assume; and, with so raw and\nundiscerning a judgment as he carried out with him, that he will have\nthe skill to select only and assume such manners as are most becoming\nand ornamental?\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nAs if one needs be in any pain, on that head; when the habits, I spoke\nof, are not only different from those he must assume abroad, but the\nvery reverse of them!\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nAlas, your Lordship is not to be told, that the reverse of wrong is not\nalways right. Even in the instance your Lordship puts, a young man may\nbe polished indeed out of his rusticity; yet, if he have no better\nrule to go by, than the fashion of the place where he lives, he may\neasily wear himself into the contrary defect, an effeminate and unmanly\nfoppery. And, for the probability of such miscarriage, your Lordship is\nagain referred to your own experience and observation.\n\nAs to what I take to be the proper remedy for these barbarities, that\nis another question, which I may afterwards find occasion to explain\nto you more at large. For the present, I must take leave to conclude,\nthat, under the circumstances here supposed, foreign travel is\ngenerally an _insufficient_, always an _improper_, cure for them.\n\nYour Lordship indeed goes further. You contend, that, if these sordid\nand dirty habits could by any means be expelled, still our _English_\neducation is so essentially bad, that no liberal or graceful manners\ncould be derived from it. And here your Lordship\u2019s rhetoric expatiates\nin full security. You seem confident that, though a method might\nbe found out for making reasonable men, yet our home-breeding is\nabsolutely incapable of furnishing fine gentlemen.\n\nOn this occasion it was, that the servile discipline of our schools,\nand the pedant tutorage of our colleges, afforded ample scope to your\nresentment. From an over-charged picture of both these, your Lordship\nfinds means to dress up such a prodigy of ill manners, as must be the\nscorn, or pity, of all good company: which, to move our pity, or our\nscorn the more, your Lordship, I remember, took care to contrast to the\neasy, the assured, the all-sufficient air of a finished traveller.\n\nTo this triumphant part of your harangue, I have only to oppose some\nplain and simple truths.\n\nThe awkward bashfulness of a young man is a sin which, I know, admits\nof no expiation, in good company. However, what good company will not\npardon, it will soon remove. And, till that blessed time comes, let\nit _first_ be considered that the modesty of ingenuous youth, though\na terrible vice in itself, is yet favourable to some virtues. It is\nfull of deference and respect; it preserves innocence; nourishes\nemulation; and, till reason be of age to take the rein into her hands,\nsuspends and controuls all the passions. Nay, if it did nothing more\nthan dispose a young man to observe much and talk little; even this\nadvantage might be some recompence for the ill figure it gives him in\nthe eyes of your Lordship\u2019s good company.\n\nHave a care, my Lord, lest by taking off this restraint too soon, you\nemancipate your favoured youth from every principle of honour, and let\nhim run headlong into worthlessness, dissolution, and ruin!\n\nI know what the world is ready to think of this talk. But a truce with\nthe world. I am a Philosopher, your Lordship knows: nay, your Lordship,\ntoo, is a Philosopher. Let us for once then hazard an unfashionable\ntruth, that modesty in a young man is his grace and ornament; and that\na confident young booby, not a bashful one, is the prodigy that needs\nthe expiation.\n\nConsider, _further_, my Lord, that bashfulness is not so much the\neffect of an ill education, as the proper gift and provision of wise\nnature. Every stage of life has its own set of manners, that is suited\nto it, and best becomes it. Each is beautiful in its season; and you\nmight as well quarrel with the child\u2019s rattle, and advance him directly\nto the boy\u2019s top and span-farthing, as expect from diffident youth the\nmanly confidence of riper age.\n\nLamentable in the mean time, I am sensible, is the condition of my good\nLady; who, especially if she be a mighty well-bred one, is perfectly\nshocked at the boy\u2019s awkwardness, and calls out on the taylor, the\ndancing-master, the player, the travelled tutor, any body and every\nbody, to relieve her from the pain of so disgraceful an object.\n\nShe should however be told, if a proper season and words soft enough\ncould be found to convey the information, that the odious thing,\nwhich disturbs her so much, is one of nature\u2019s signatures impressed\non that age; that bashfulness is but the passage from one season of\nlife to another; and that as the body is then the least graceful, when\nthe limbs are making their last efforts and hastening to their just\nproportion, so the manners are the least easy and disengaged, when the\nmind, conscious and impatient of its imperfections, is stretching all\nits faculties to their full growth.\n\nIf I had the honour of her Ladyship\u2019s ear, I might further add, for her\ncomfort, that as to this over-whelming modesty, which muffles merit,\nthe boy, if she have but patience, will presently outgrow it, as he\ndoes his cloaths; that when this cloak of shame has done its work of\nwarming and invigorating his young virtue, it may safely be laid aside,\nor rather will drop off of itself; and that, as poor and sheepish a\nthing as master now is, he may turn out, in the end, as forward a spark\nas the best of them.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nFye, Mr. LOCKE; what, my philosopher give into this gaiety! he, who\nreproached me just now for the way of raillery and declamation!\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nYour Lordship does well to upbraid me for treating in so light a manner\nwhat deserves, indeed, the most indignant reproof. For, what is this\nendeavour to quench ingenuous shame, but a blasphemous attempt to\ncounteract the designs of Providence, and obliterate, by main force,\none of the most natural, as well as most precious, distinctions of\nearly youth? Modesty is the blush of budding reason and virtue: and if\nart could succeed in the preposterous project of forcing the fruit\nwithout the bud, not only this prime grace of the year would be lost,\nbut the production itself, though it might be wondered at as a rarity,\ncould never pretend to the flavour and ripeness of that which is of\nnature\u2019s own growth.\n\nIn plain words, my Lord, modesty is the ornament of youth: and the\nearnest or rather the proper cause, of all that is excellent in riper\nage. It graces the boy, and, in due time, forms the man: whereas in\nsuppressing this young virtue, you precipitate, indeed, a sort of\nmanhood; which, yet, in effect, is only a perpetual boyism, or rather a\nportentous mixture of both states, without the virtues of either.\n\nI am far from meaning by all this, and your Lordship will be as far\nfrom suspecting me to mean, that an easy unconstrained manner is not an\namiable and agreeable thing. I am only for waiting the proper time of\nits appearance; which nature makes a little later than our impatient\nfancies are ready to prescribe to her.\n\nConsider too this polite accomplishment, this supreme finishing\nof a well-formed character, can only be acquired, except in\nsome extraordinary instances, by long incessant use and habit in\nconversation; which, besides the unfitness of the thing in other\nrespects, would dissipate the young mind too much, and take it off from\nthose other more important pursuits, which are proper to that age.\n\nNay, I might further say, and with much truth, that politeness, in your\nLordship\u2019s, at least the court-sense of the word, is not to be attained\nby the ablest men; and when it is attainable, would generally do hurt,\nI mean beyond a certain degree, to its possessors.\n\nNo very great man was ever what the world calls, perfectly polite. Men\nof that stamp cannot afford such attention to little things, as is\nnecessary to form and complete that character.\n\nAnd even to men of a common make, that excessive sedulity about grace\nand manner, which constitutes the essence of good-breeding, would be\ninjurious; as it tends to cramp their faculties, effeminate the temper,\nand break that force and vigour of mind which is requisite in a man of\nbusiness for the discharge of his duty, in this free country.\n\nSo that, for any thing I see, this exquisite ease of good breeding\nshould be left to the ambition of still inferior spirits, of such\nindeed as are conscious to themselves of an incapacity for any other.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nThe concession is gracious; and the danger, no doubt, alarming, lest\nour senators and men of business should be disabled for their high\nfunctions by an excess of good manners. Yet \u2019tis some consolation, that\nat present I see no symptoms of that enfeebling politeness among such\nof the ornaments of either house, as I have the honour to be acquainted\nwith.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nYour Lordship may divert yourself as you think fit, with an old man\u2019s\nfears. But if this mode of travelling, which has taken so much with us\nsince the peace[42], should continue for any time, the day may come but\ntoo soon, when these fancies of mine will be realized: when politeness\nshall be fatal to ability of every kind; and, at least in the higher\nranks of life, when our countrymen shall be too well bred to be good\nfor any thing.\n\nAnd now, having ventured so far, shall I proceed one step further, and\ntake to myself the privilege of an old man, to express my sense of this\nwhole matter, a little unfashionably? The mighty value, that is set\nupon manners, comes, as I have already hinted, from a quarter, which,\nthough it may imprint respect on a person of your Lordship\u2019s age and\ngallantry, must not pretend to be so much considered by grey hairs. If\nyou can forgive the liberty, I will then, at length, speak out, and\nsay, They are the ladies, only, or chiefly, that have affixed such an\nidea of merit to this envied quality of good-breeding; and that, as\nappearances are thought to sway full enough with that delicate sex,\nthey may perhaps have advanced the credit of it something higher than\nsuch an accomplishment deserves.\n\nAnd when I further consider the mighty influence which these fair\ndispensers of reputation must needs have on our gallant and courtly\nyouth, I cannot wonder that the mode of foreign travel is become so\nfashionable. Nay, I am half inclined to suppose, that, in this debate\nbetween us, I have rather your politeness to contend with, than your\njudgment: and that, if your Lordship would deal roundly with me, your\nanswer on this occasion would be the same with HIS, who, (as I have\nheard you tell the story) being questioned by his friends why a person\nof his acknowledged sense and bravery would accept the challenge of\na coxcomb, thought it vindication enough of himself to reply, \u201cthat,\nfor the _men_, he could safely trust their judgment; but how should he\nappear, at night, before the _maids of honour_[43]?\u201d\n\nWhether I presume too much in this fancy, is not material. It is enough\nto say, that what there is of use or beauty in polite carriage will\ncome of itself, with a little experience of the world and good company;\nand shall not, with my consent, be purchased at the expence of far\nbetter things.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nNor with mine: for, with all the courtliness and gallantry you make me\nmaster of, I never intended by the _good company_, I mentioned with\nso much respect, either those foolish men, or women, who prefer the\nforward assurance of their boys to every other consideration. I only\nthink that a reasonable attention to the manners of our noble youth is\na matter of much consequence; as early impressions of this sort are\nnecessary to fit them for the commerce of the world, from which alone\nthey can hope to derive their best and most solid instruction: and your\ngaiety on the fair sex must not restrain me from agreeing with them, in\nthis instance, that I see not how that world can be read and studied,\nas it ought to be, without travelling.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nYes; now your Lordship comes to an important point indeed. From the\npolish of manners, the least considerable, and the easiest to be\nattained of all the parts of good breeding, your Lordship, as I now\nremember, rose at once to a subject of real consequence, I mean, THE\nKNOWLEDGE OF THE WORLD; a science, as you well termed it, the most\nprofound and useful. And if this MASTER-SCIENCE were to be acquired by\nmeans of early travel, our young gentleman should have my consent to\nshut up his books, and set forth on his adventures, directly.\n\nBut, good my Lord, consider with yourself the difficulty of this study;\nthe ripeness of age and judgment necessary for entering upon it; much\nmore, for making a real progress in it.\n\nAnd why, as I before hinted, will your Lordship be so impatient to come\nat the end, without the means? Why, in such haste to build up men, when\nnature has allotted a season for their being boys?\n\nWithout doubt, if our youth could start up men, at once, armed at all\npoints, as the fable has it, and thoroughly furnished for the business\nof life, we should gladly accept this benefit, and might then be\ncontent to overlook or suppress all the cares of education. But this\nis not the condition of humanity. Its improvements of every kind are\nslow and gradual. Time and attention form each; and it is only through\nthe right application of preceding states, that we arrive, at length,\nat the maturity of human wisdom. Let the child and boy be allowed to\nperfect themselves in what belongs to those conditions, and it will\nthen be time enough to provide for the manly character.\n\nReflect with yourself, my Lord. When the young unfurnished traveller is\ncarried out into the world, with no principles to poize his conduct, no\nmaxims to direct his judgment, what can be expected from this untimely\nenterprize? what, but fluctuating morals, and fortuitous deliberations?\nHe has not so much as the idea of what constitutes _man_. How then\nshould he obtain any real and useful knowledge of the human character?\n\nIf by a knowledge of the world, be only meant a knowledge of the\nexternal modes and customs of it, this, no doubt, were best acquired\nby surveying them as they present themselves in the various tribes\nand societies of mankind. But your Lordship means more than this:\nyou understand a knowledge of a higher kind; such as respects the\ncreature _man_, considered in his essential parts, his _reason_ and\nhis _passions_. This is a different kind of study, my Lord, from that\nother. Any one that has eyes, is qualified to observe the shapes and\nmasks of men; but to penetrate their interior frame, to inspect their\nproper dispositions and characters, is the business of a well-informed\nand well-disciplined understanding.\n\nCan your Lordship seriously expect that a young boy should comprehend\nthe effect, which government, policy, institution, and other\ncircumstances of life, have on the pliant reason of mankind? or that he\nshould have the skill to disentangle the various folds and intricacies,\nin which their real characters lie involved, through the insidious and\ndiscordant working of the passions? He should surely know what truth\nand reason is, before he can derive any benefit to himself from the\ndiscourse of men: and he should have carefully watched the movements of\nhis own heart, before he presume to analyze, as your Lordship expressed\nit, the characters of others.\n\nYou see, then, the unseasonableness and inutility of foreign travel,\nas to the case in hand, even on the supposition that our traveller\nwere admitted into what is called, the best company. But how shall\nthis privilege be obtained? In what country can it be thought that\nthe politeness of eminent men will condescend to a free and intimate\ncommunication with boys, of whatever promising hopes, or illustrious\nquality? Certain slight and formal civilities, your Lordship knows, are\nthe utmost that can be looked for; and are indeed the whole of what our\nill-prepared traveller is capable.\n\nYour Lordship did well to remind me of such societies as those in which\nyou and I have, at times, been engaged. The recollection is, of course,\nflattering and agreeable. But let us presume upon ourselves, my Lord;\nthe LIMBORCHS and LE CLERCS are not so obvious to every body, as they\nwere to us; or, if they were, every body would not profit so well by\nthem. And if private scholars be thus inaccessible, how shall we think\nto intrude on the business and occupations of experienced magistrates\nand ministers? And, putting both these out of the question, who remain\nfor the tutorage and instruction of these travelled boys, but such raw,\nunaccomplished companions, as they left at home, and may find every\nwhere in abundance?\n\nStill my objections go further. What if, by uncommon sagacity and\ngood luck, some acquaintance be made with superior persons, and some\nlittle insight at length be gained into their real characters? Of\nwhat mighty advantage will this be in life, when their business lies\namongst other men; and when the same industry and attention had brought\nthem acquainted with the characters of those, they must act and live\nwith? Foreigners are neither an easier study than our own countrymen,\nnor a more useful one. The very modes and forms of external breeding\ncatch the attention of unexperienced youth; and are so many obstacles\nto their real progress in this science. And, when all is done, the\nmodifications of the human character, as existing at home, and\nexhibited in the lives and actions of their fellow-citizens, are, as I\nsaid, the proper objects of their curiosity.\n\nIn short, the utmost I can allow to this discipline of foreign travel,\nunder the idea of its furnishing _a knowledge of the world_, is,\nThat it may possibly wear a young man into some studied and apish\nresemblance of the models, he copies from, in his deportment and\nmanners; or that the various scenes, he has passed through, may furnish\nmatter, at his return, for much unprofitable babble in conversation:\nbut, that he should come back fraught with any solid information\nconcerning men and things, such as, in your Lordship\u2019s sublime phrase,\nmay fit him to appear with lustre in the court or senate of his own\ncountry, is what I can never promise myself from this fashionable mode\nof education.\n\nI am even disposed to promise myself the less from it, for an\n_observation_, I have sometimes had the opportunity of making.\n\nAn old man has so little about him to provoke envy, that he may be\nallowed to make the best of his former successes. And though I pride\nmyself in _one_, of a very delicate nature, the boast of it will not be\nill taken even there, where your Lordship, with all your pretensions,\nwould be heard with no patience. In short, I indulge myself in the\nvanity of saying that I have, in my time, been well with the fair sex,\nand have even been countenanced so far as to be admitted into a degree\nof acquaintance and familiarity with some ladies of the highest quality\nand distinction. And of these, I have constantly observed, that, though\nbred up at home, they had a manifest advantage over their travelled\nbrothers, I was going to say, in learning and science, but certainly in\ntrue politeness, good sense, and even a knowledge of the world.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nI understand this civility to the ladies, as a decent atonement for\nyour late freedoms with them. In this light I should be unwilling to\ncavil at it: and yet I see not, how your high encomiums on the superior\ngood sense and politeness of these home-bred ladies can consist with\nthe passion, you before censured in them, for foreign travel, as\nfavourable, in their opinion, to the production of such virtues.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nMy consistency in this representation, I doubt, is less questionable,\nthan my civility. For the ladies, on whom I bestowed those high, but\njust encomiums, were chiefly such as I had known in my younger days,\nbefore the passion for travel had got among them. Now indeed the case\nis altering apace, and the effects are answerable. The virtues of the\n_English_ ladies, when they staid at home, were more conspicuous than\nthose of our travelled gentlemen. Now that they, too, begin to travel,\ntheir follies are, also, more glaring: in either case, I am willing\nto own, for the credit of my civility, from the same reason, that both\ngood and ill qualities strike us most, when _set_ in the precious metal\nof that sex.\n\nHowever, from the whole of my experience, I must needs conclude, that\nthis finishing of a travelled education only serves to corrupt good\nqualities, or inflame bad ones.\n\nBut the ladies are not in my province. If they were, a knowledge of\nthe world is not the leading virtue I might wish to see them possessed\nof. In the men, I confess, this accomplishment is of more importance;\nand I am therefore solicitous, that no well-meaning youth, whom it so\nmuch concerns to gain a knowledge of the world, should be misled in his\nsearch of it.\n\nSeriously, my Lord, the WORLD, which I am forced to repeat so often, is\na solemn word, and the study of it has an air of something plausible\nand imposing. But those, who know what the world is, will think it best\nthat a young man begin with what is the first and last concern of every\nman, the study of himself; and if, in due time, he come to understand,\nand, still more, to value as they deserve, the characters of the great\nand good men of his own country, the opprobrious name of _home-bred_\nwill not hinder him from acquiring the best fruit, with which a\nknowledge of the world, rightly understood, can furnish him.\n\nFor, my Lord, I must not, on so inviting an occasion as this, conceal\nan odd fancy of mine from your Lordship.\n\nThe affair of _knowing the world_, about which weak and fantastic\npeople make so much noise, and which one hears them perpetually\ninsisting upon with so much sufficiency, is of all others the nicest\nand most momentous step that is made in education. And, though volumes\nhave been written to teach us how we may best become scholars, orators,\ncourtiers, what not; yet not one leaf do I ever remember to have seen,\ncomposed by any capable man, that instructs us in the proper way of\ngetting into this great secret.\n\nIt is not a matter to be entered upon, if I were vain enough to think\nmyself capable of it, in this casual conversation; but thus much I may\npresume to say, that whoever designs to let a young man into a safe and\nuseful knowledge of the world, must do it in a way very remote from\nthat which has hitherto been taken.\n\nA young man, they tell us, must know the world; therefore, say they,\npush him into it at once, that he may acquire that knowledge, which his\nown experience, and not another\u2019s, must procure for him.\n\nI, on the other hand, take upon me to say, Therefore keep him out of\nthat world, as long as you can; and when you commit him to it, let the\nablest friend or tutor lend him his best experience, to conduct him\ngradually, cautiously, imperceptibly, into an acquaintance with it.\n\nYou ask the reason of this mysterious procedure; yet methinks it should\nbe obvious enough. From _sixteen to one and twenty_ (a period, in which\nthe cares of an ordinary education cease, or are much relaxed) is that\nprecise season of life, which requires all the attention of the most\nvigilant, and all the address of the wisest, governor. The passions are\nthen opening; curiosity awake; and the young mind ready to take its ply\nfrom the seducements of fashion, and creditable example.\n\nNor is this the worst. An education, that deserves the name, has\ninculcated maxims of honour and probity; has inspired the noblest\nsentiments of moral duty; has impressed on the mind a veneration for\nall the virtues, and an equal horror for all the vices, of humanity.\n\nFull of these sublime ideas, which his parents, his tutors, his books,\nand even his own ingenuous heart has rendered familiar to him, the\nfatal time is at hand, when our well-instructed youth is now to make\nhis entrance into the world: but, good God, what a world! not that\nwhich he has so long read, or dreamt of; but a world, new, strange, and\ninconsistent with all his former notions and expectations.\n\nHe enters this scene with awe; and contemplates it with astonishment.\nVice, he sees assured, prosperous, and triumphant; virtue\ndiscountenanced, unsuccessful, and degraded. He joins the first croud,\nthat presents itself to him: a loud laugh arises; and the edge of their\nridicule is turned on sobriety, industry, honesty, generosity, or some\nother of those qualities, he has hitherto been most fond of.\n\nHe quits this clamorous set with disdain; and is glad to unite himself\nwith _another_, better dressed, better mannered, in all respects more\nspecious and attractive. His simplicity makes him for some time the\ndupe of this plausible society: but their occasional hints, their\nnegligent sarcasms, their sallies of wit, and polite raillery on all\nthat he has been accustomed to hold sacred, shew him at last that he\nhas only changed his company, not mended it.\n\nThis discovery leads him to another. He attends to the lives of these\nwell-bred people, and finds them of a piece with their manners and\nconversation; shewy indeed, and, on first view, decorous; but, in\neffect, deformed by every impotent and selfish passion; wasted in\nsloth and luxury; in ruinous play; criminal intrigues; or, at best,\nunprofitable amusements.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nThis painting, methinks, is a little strong. Besides, you might surely\nhave provided better company for your young inspector of the world,\nthan that shameless crew, or this corrupt one.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nI take up, as he must do, with such company as the world is most apt\nto throw in our way; and the colouring, your Lordship knows, is modest\nenough for the occasion.\n\nBut I attend our boy-adventurer no further in his progress into the\nworld, and return now to ask you, what effect your Lordship thinks\nthese strange unexpected scenes must naturally have upon him? Certainly\none or the other of these two; either that the scorn of virtue, he\nevery where observes, will by degrees abate his reverence of it,\nand at length obliterate all the better impressions of his education;\nor, if these should still keep their hold of his young ingenuous\nbreast, that he will entertain the most indignant sentiments of\nmankind, and suffer himself to be carried by them into a sour and\nsullen misanthropy, at least; perhaps into a sceptical and prophane\nimpiety.\n\nI have seldom known a young man of sense and parts, educated in this\nway, escape from one or other of these mischiefs.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nBut why then bring him up with those high notions of mankind, of which\nthe world must presently disabuse him, at the expence either of his\ninnocence, or good nature?\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nThat question had been natural enough from most men. But your Lordship\nknows very well, that, in this moral discipline, as in every other,\nideas of excellence are to be imprinted on the young mind, and the most\nconsummate models proposed for imitation: on this certain principle,\nThat, whoever would be moderately accomplished in any art, and most of\nall in this supreme art of life, must take his aim high, and aspire to\nabsolute perfection. A painter or statuary of the lowest form, your\nLordship knows, is taught to work after a MADONNA _of_ RAPHAEL, or a\nVENUS _of_ MEDICIS; yet is not likely to meet with either, among his\nacquaintance.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nThe observation is surely just; and I could only mean that those\nhigh fancies should be checked and moderated in due time, before\nour entrance into that world, which, it is foreseen, will so little\ncorrespond to them.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nAnd what is that _due time_, your Lordship sets apart for this delicate\noperation?\n\nIs it, before the young boy commences his travels? But that, according\nto your Lordship\u2019s scheme, is so early, that the regimen, you would now\nabate, has not taken its full effect, and his weak unconfirmed virtue\nwould die under the experiment.\n\nIs it then, when his travels are already begun? And is the sage tutor,\nyour Lordship anxiously flies to, as to some god, on every occasion\nof distress, to charge himself with the solution of this difficulty?\nAlas! now it is too late. You have brought the boy into the scene. He\nwill see and judge for himself. The torrent bears him away: the instant\nimpression is too strong to be counteracted by the feeble and, now,\ndisgusting admonitions of a tutor.\n\nSee then, if the proper way, to secure him from these inconveniences,\nbe not, To keep him yet at a distance from the world; and, when you\nlet him into some knowledge of it, to do it seasonably, gradually, and\ncircumspectly: to take the veil off from some parts, and leave it still\nupon others; to paint what he does not see, and to hint at more than\nyou paint: to confine him, at first, to the best company, and prepare\nhim to make allowances even for the best: to preserve in his breast the\nlove of excellence, and encourage in him the generous sentiments, he\nhas so largely imbibed, and so perfectly relishes: yet temper, if you\ncan, his zeal with candour; insinuate to him the prerogative of such a\nvirtue, as his, so early formed, and so happily cultivated; and bend\nhis reluctant spirit to some aptness of pity towards the ill-instructed\nand the vicious: by degrees to open to him the real condition of that\nworld, to which he is approaching; yet so as to present to him, at the\nsame time, the certain inevitable misery of conforming to it: last of\nall, to shew him some examples of that vice, which he must learn to\nbear in others, though detest in himself; to watch the effect these\nexamples have upon him; and, as you find his dispositions incline, to\nfortify his abhorrence of vice, or excite his commiseration of the\nvicious: in a word (for I am not now directing a tutor, but suggesting,\nin very general terms, my ideas of his office) to inform the minds of\nyouth with such gradual intelligence, as may prepare them to see the\nworld without surprize, and live in it without danger.\n\nThis is that important chapter, which I presumed to say no institutor\nof youth had yet composed, or so much as touched upon, in a treatise\nof education. You will learn from this brief summary of its contents,\nwhat, in my opinion, should be the employment of those precious years,\nwhich are usually thrown away upon foreign travel.\n\nIn earnest, my Lord, there is a fatal mistake in this matter. People\nspeak of a knowledge of the world, as what may be acquired at any\ntime, and, for its importance, cannot be acquired too soon. Alas! they\nforget, that a long and careful preparation is necessary, before we are\nqualified so much as to enter on this task; and that they, who are\nlatest in setting out, will arrive the soonest, certainly the safest,\nat their journey\u2019s end.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nBut where shall this mighty work of preparation be carried on? And in\nwhat privileged sanctuary shall our good young man be kept from the\nsight and contagion of this wicked world, and yet be gradually forming\nfor the use and practice of it?\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nWhere, does your Lordship ask? Why, in his college; in a friend\u2019s,\nor his father\u2019s house; any where, in short, rather than in a foreign\ncountry, where every wholesome restraint is taken off, and the young\nmind left a prey to every ill impression.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nAnd are there no inconveniences, on the other hand, which a provident\nparent may be supposed to foresee, and may be willing to guard against?\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nI understand your Lordship. I know, that, for want of better arguments\nin support of this foreign breeding, weak or unworthy parents are ready\nto take up with such as these:\n\nThey tell us, especially if of rank and quality, that their children\nhave suffered more than enough already, in their passage through our\npublic and vulgar schools; that, together with many illiberal habits,\nthey have contracted many low and illiberal friendships, which are, in\nall reason, to be shaken off; that these unworthy companions follow\nthem to the University, and are, if not the bane, yet the dishonour\nand incumbrance of their future lives; that an absence of some years\nabroad loosens these hasty and ill-timed connexions; and leaves them,\non their return, at full liberty to contract others, more suitable to\ntheir birth and quality, and more conducive to their views of fortune,\nas well as of reputation, in the world; that indeed they might remove\nthe young man immediately from his school into their own house; but\nthat much of their time is necessarily spent in the metropolis, the\nlicence of which is not to be guarded against by any care of their\nown, or of the best governor; that his low illiberal acquaintance would\nhaunt him even there; at least, that the youth of his own age and rank\nwould naturally flock about him, and, under a thousand pretences of\ncivility or amusement, engage him in all the follies, and perhaps the\nvices, of this great town; that, on the whole, his only refuge from\nthese mischiefs is in the way of foreign travel; whence, at length, he\nmay return in riper age and with better judgment to take his station\nin the world.\n\nTo this popular talk (which your Lordship, I suppose, glanced at, but\nwould not condescend to enforce directly) it is enough to reply, that\npart of the inconveniences, here enumerated, are feigned at pleasure,\nand the rest exaggerated; that the authority of a father, if he\ndeserve that name, in concurrence with honest friends and an ordinary\ngovernor, will prevent them all, or at least palliate them; and that,\nto take matters at the worst, his son will be exposed to still greater\ninconveniences any where else. But in truth I cannot see, if a college\nbe excepted against, and the business be to see the world, as it is\ncalled, why _London_ should not be esteemed as fit a scene for the\npurpose, as any other great town in _Europe_. I think it contains\nas much good company as any other; and I doubt whether it be more\nlicentious; or, if it be, there are three restraints upon it, which, I\nam sure, will not be found abroad: I mean, \u201cthe parental authority;\u201d\n\u201cdomestic government;\u201d and \u201ca regard to reputation, under the eye and\nnotice of his friends.\u201d\n\nSo that, in every view, whether on your Lordship\u2019s plan, of entering\ndirectly on the great study of the world, or on mine, of only preparing\nfor it, our young man cannot possibly do better, at his years, than\nstay at home; where, if your Lordship please, we will then leave\nhim; at least, till we have tried the force of your next, and, as I\nremember, LAST argument in behalf of foreign travel, \u201cwhich arose out\nof the mighty benefits, supposed to attend the study and cultivation of\nwhat are called the FINE ARTS; in short, from the lustre and importance\nof the virtuoso character.\u201d\n\nYour Lordship, who has so acknowledged a taste in these things, and\nof course has so exquisite a sense of their value, may be excused for\nenlarging so particularly on this head. But to me, who am of a plainer\nmake and cooler disposition, they appear, if not frivolous, yet of\nlittle importance, when compared with those other things, which are the\nproper and more immediate objects of education.\n\nIt would, I doubt, disgust your Lordship, should I speak my mind freely\nof them; or even insinuate, that I take these studies, when entered\nupon in early youth, and proposed as matters of serious pursuit and\napplication, to have indeed the most pernicious tendency; as breaking\nthe nerves and force of the mind, and inspiring I know not what of a\ntrifling and superfluous vanity.\n\nTo render these pursuits serviceable in any degree, or even harmless,\nthey should in all reason be postponed to riper years, when the\nconfirmed judgment will of course take them but for what they are, for\nnothing more than elegant and polite amusements.\n\nNot to insist, that to excel in this species of taste, as in all\nothers, a previous foundation is required, of reflexion and good\nsense: for I agree with your favourite poet; of every polite study and\nindulgence even of the imagination,\n\n    SAPERE, _est et principium et fons_.\n\nThese and still stronger objections might be made to your partiality\nfor the _fine arts_. But I am contented to wave them all; as indeed\nthey would come with an ill grace from one, who must acknowledge\nhimself to have no particular skill or discernment in them, and who\nshould not therefore presume to enter the lists with so consummate a\nmaster of them as your Lordship.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nAnd so, under the cover of a civil speech, you escape from the most\nspecious, at least, of those arguments, which are alleged in favour\nof an early travelled education. For, whether it be true, or no, that\nother accomplishments may be as well acquired at home, it is past a\ndoubt that the polite and liberal arts can only be learnt abroad. And\nof their use and ornament to our noble youth\u2014\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nYour Lordship, I know, can say more, and finer things, than you expect\nI should seriously dispute with you, on this occasion.\n\nI have now, my Lord, (at least if my old memory has not betrayed me)\ngone over the several heads and topics of your defence; and said\nenough, I believe, on each, to shew that foreign travel is not, on\nwhatever side we view it, the most proper method of a young gentleman\u2019s\neducation.\n\nThe benefits, you propose by it, are either of small account in\nthemselves, at least of much less account than those you must sacrifice\nto them; or, when their importance is real and confessed, may be\nattained more conveniently in some other way, and at some other season.\n\nFor, after all I have said, your Lordship is not to conclude that I am\nwholly bent against the practice of foreign travel. I am as sensible,\nas any man, of its important use, when undertaken at a proper time\nand by fit persons. For, though I esteem it idleness, and something\nworse, for a young boy to waste his prime and most precious years in\nsauntering round _Europe_, yet I know what ends of wisdom and of virtue\nmay be answered by a capable man\u2019s survey of it.\n\nBut then, my Lord, I reckon that capacity at no vulgar rate. He must\nbe of worth and consideration enough to be received into the wisest,\nnay the greatest company. His natural insight into men and things must\nbe quick and penetrating. His faculties must all be at their height;\nhis studies matured; and his reading and observation extensive. With\nthese accomplishments, if a man of rank and fortune can find leisure to\nemploy a few years among the neighbouring nations, I readily agree, his\nvoyage may turn out to his own benefit, and to that of his country.\n\nIn this way it may be true, as your Lordship insisted, that our island\nprejudices will be usefully worn off, and much real civility and\npoliteness be imported among us.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nI thank you for this concession. Although I cannot yet be convinced\nof the total impropriety of an earlier voyage, I am pleased to find\nyou do not interdict the thing itself. Many wise persons among us have\neven talked at that rate. But you are more reasonable; and indeed\nthat extravagance was not to be apprehended from your true sense and\nsuperior knowledge of human nature.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nI have that esteem of your Lordship\u2019s kind opinion, as to be very\nunwilling to forfeit any share of it. Yet what I have now to advance\nwill, I readily foresee, expose me to some risk, in that particular.\n\nFor now your Lordship has expressed your regard for _a superior\nknowledge of human nature_, it emboldens me to add that such knowledge\n(which I have small right to claim to myself) is not to be acquired but\nby the largest and most extensive observation of the human species:\nso that I may be found at last even a warmer advocate for the uses of\nforeign travel, than your Lordship.\n\nI hold then that the knowledge of human nature (the only knowledge, in\nthe largest sense of the expression, deserving a wise man\u2019s regard)\ncan never be well attained but by seeing it under all its appearances;\nI mean, not merely, or chiefly, in that fair and well-dressed form\nit wears amid the arts and embellishments of our western world;\nbut in its naked simplicity, and even deformities; nay, under all\nits disguises and distortions, arising from absurd governments and\nmonstrous religions, in every distant region and quarter of the globe.\n\nThe subject appears to me of that importance, that it almost warms me,\nan old philosopher as I am, into some emulation of your Lordship\u2019s\nenthusiasm.\n\nI would say then, \u201cthat, to study HUMAN NATURE to purpose, a traveller\nmust enlarge his circuit beyond the bounds of _Europe_. He must go,\nand catch her undressed, nay quite naked, in _North-America_, and at\nthe Cape of _Good Hope_. He may then examine how she appears crampt,\ncontracted, and buttoned up close in the strait tunic of law and\ncustom, as in _China_ and _Japan_: or, spread out and enlarged above\nher common size, in the loose and flowing robe of enthusiasm, among\nthe Arabs and Saracens: or, lastly, as she flutters in the old rags\nof worn-out policy and civil government, and almost ready to run back\nnaked to the deserts, as on the _Mediterranean_ coast of _Africa_.\u201d\n\nThese, my Lord, are the proper scenes for the philosopher, for the\ncitizen of the world, to expatiate in. The tour of _Europe_ is a paltry\nthing: a tame, uniform, unvaried prospect: which affords nothing but\nthe same polished manners and artificial policies, scarcely diversified\nenough to take, or merit, our attention.\n\nIt is from a wider and more extensive view of mankind that a just\nestimate is to be made of the powers of human nature. Hence we collect\nwhat its genuine faculties are: what ideas and principles, or if any,\nare truly innate and essential to it; and what changes and modification\nit is susceptible of from law and custom.\n\nIf you think I impose too great a task on our inquisitive traveller,\nmy next advice is, That he stay at home: read _Europe_ in the mirror\nof his own country, which but too eagerly reflects and flatters every\nstate that dances before its surface; and, for the rest, take up with\nthe best information he can get from the books and narratives of the\nbest voyagers.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nThat is, you discourage him from looking abroad into the world of\nreason and civility, the most natural state of mankind; and require\nhim to waste his time and observation on slaves, madmen, or savages;\nstates, in which reason and civility have no place, and where humanity\nitself, almost, disappears.\n\nAdmirable advice this, to come from a philosopher! and still better, to\nsend your disciple to take his information of this unnatural disordered\nscene from the lying accounts of ignorant, ill-instructed, and gaping\ntale-tellers!\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nI was afraid, I should not be able to secure to myself the good\nopinion, which your Lordship was pleased to express of my _knowledge of\nhuman nature_. This mortifying experience puts an end to my adventurous\nflights, at once; and forces me back again into the narrower walk,\nwhich your Lordship seems willing to prescribe to me.\n\nBe it then, as you insist, that an _English_ gentleman\u2019s care should\nbe, to accomplish himself in the school of reason and civility; to fit\nhimself, in short, for that state which your Lordship dignifies with\nthe name of _natural_. Still I declare against his _European_ travels.\n\nThe manners of each state are peculiar to itself, and best adapted to\nit. The civility, that prevails in some places on the continent, may be\nmore studied and exquisite than ours; but not therefore to be preferred\nbefore it. Those refinements have had their birth from correspondent\npolicies; to which they are well suited, and from which they receive\ntheir whole value. In the more absolute monarchies of _Europe_, all are\ncourtiers. In our freer monarchy, all should be citizens. Let then the\narts of address and insinuation flourish in _France_. Without them,\nwhat merit can pretend to success, what talents open the way to favour\nand distinction? But let a manlier character prevail here. We have a\nprince to serve, not to flatter: we have a country to embrace, not a\ncourt to adore: we have, in a word, objects to pursue, and interests\nto promote, from the care of which our finer neighbours are happily\ndisburthened.\n\nLet our countrymen then be indulged in the plainness, nay, the\nroughness of their manners: but let them atone for this defect, by\ntheir useful sense, their superior knowledge, their public spirit, and,\nabove all, by their unpolished integrity.\n\nWould your Lordship\u2019s favourite Athens have done wisely (or rather did\nit do so?) to exchange the simplicity and manly freedom of its ancient\ncharacter, for the fopperies and prostrations of the Asiatic courts?\nNay, would the softer accomplishments of Athens, in its best state,\nhave done well in a citizen of _Sparta_?\n\nYour Lordship sees what to conclude from these hints. For my own part,\nmy Lord, I esteem politeness, in the reasonable sense of the word, as\nthe ornament, nay more, as the duty of humanity. But, under colour of\nmaking this valuable acquisition, let no culture of the human mind, no\ninstruction in letters and business, no discipline of the passions, no\nimprovements of the head and heart, be neglected. Let the foundation\nof these essential virtues be laid deep in the usual forms of our\n_public_, if you will, or (as you know I had rather) in the way of\na more attentive and moral, because _private_, education. Let the\ncommerce of the world, in due time and under due regulation, succeed to\nthis care; and your Lordship will find your young gentleman as fully\naccomplished in all respects as, in reason, you should wish to see him.\nAnd for proof of it, if I were not restrained, by a common and perhaps\nfalse delicacy, from bringing the names of our friends and acquaintance\ninto example in conversation, how many instances of this sort could I\npoint to, in such men as your Lordship has known in your own country,\nand is most disposed to reverence; and some of them, possibly, in your\nown family!\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nRather tell me, how we may reasonably expect to see such models\nproduced, according to the vulgar way of our home-breeding: that one or\ntwo such may, perhaps, after strict search, be found among ourselves, I\nshall not dispute with you.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nThe search would cost me small pains. But I press the matter no\nfurther. It is enough that your Lordship sees I have my eye on some,\nthe most estimable, nay the most accomplished characters, that have\nbeen formed among ourselves: and that even so envied a thing, as a fine\ngentleman, has been fashioned on this side the water. But the rarity\nof the production, you think, makes against me, and shews there is no\ntrusting to the stubborn soil and unfriendly climate of our country.\nYou conclude, upon the whole, for the expediency of foreign travel,\nfrom the acknowledged defects of our authorized seats of learning;\nwhich, according to your Lordship\u2019s idea and representation of them,\nare so degenerate and depraved, that nothing of worth and value can be\nreasonably expected from that quarter.\n\nThis, after all, is your main reason for advising a foreign education.\nYour spite is to our Universities; and, to bribe, or rather provoke me\ninto the same quarrel, your Lordship did not forget to remind me of the\nlittle obligation, which I myself, who was trained in their discipline,\nhave had to them.\n\nI could assent, perhaps, to some part of this charge. It is certain, at\nleast, that the prejudices, the bigotry, the false learning, and narrow\nprinciples, which have prevailed too much, and still prevail, in\nthose famous seminaries, create an unfavourable opinion of them in the\nminds of many liberal and discerning persons. Nay, I will not disown\nto you, that I have at times been tempted myself to entertain, perhaps\nto express, some resentment against them. But we are always severe,\ngenerally unfair, judges in our own case. And, to say the truth, when\nthe matter comes to be considered impartially and coolly, their faults,\nof whatever kind, will admit of much alleviation.\n\nThe UNIVERSITIES OF ENGLAND, your Lordship knows, had their rise in\nthe barbarous ages. The views of their institutors were, accordingly,\nsuch as might be expected from men of their stamp, and in their\ncircumstances.\n\nThese seminaries were more immediately consecrated to the service of\nthe church; which is the less to be wondered at, as our statesmen,\nyou know, were, at that time, churchmen. Hence the plan of studies,\nprescribed to the youth, would be such as was best adapted to the\noccasions of that class of men, in whose instruction the public was\nmore directly interested.\n\nBesides, the learning of that time was rude and barbarous; and, had\ntheir views been more enlarged, the founders of our colleges had it\nnot in their power to provide for the encouragement of any other. The\nsupreme accomplishment even of our men of business was little more than\na readiness in the forms, and a dexterity in the quirks, of the canon\nlaw: and the pride of the most profound scholars lay in applying the\nsubtleties of the Aristotelian philosophy to theologic and metaphysical\nquestions; whence too much stress was evidently laid on logical\nexercises and scholastic disputations.\n\n\u2019Tis true, some few of our colleges were erected at a time, when\nsomething more light and knowledge had broke in upon us; I mean, during\nthe progress of the _Reformation_. But the great object that filled all\nmen\u2019s minds being the dispute with the see of _Rome_, the principal\ncircumstance that distinguishes these later foundations from the other\nis, that their statutes provide more especially for the management of\nthat controversy. So that, even in these societies, the scholastic\ndisputative genius still prevailed, to the exclusion of that more\nliberal plan of studies, which is fitted to all times, and would have\nsuited better to the general purpose of these established seats of\neducation.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nThis account of the institution and genius of our _English_\nUniversities may be easily credited, even from what we now see of them.\nBut, though some causes may be assigned for the introduction of these\nbarbarous plans of education, what reason can be given why they should\nbe cherished in our days, or that men of sense should submit to them?\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nThe reason is not far to seek. These barbarous plans of education had,\nwe have seen, in former times, both their reason and their use. Bodies\nof men retain the character of their first institution very long; and,\nall things considered, I am inclined to think it not amiss that they\ndo so. Universities and schools of learning, in particular, should not\nbe in haste to exchange established principles and practices, which\nthe best sense of former ages had introduced, for novel and untried\npretensions. The reason is plain: their instructions would have small\nweight, and their discipline no stability, amid such easy and perpetual\nchanges. They are, indeed, the depositaries of the public wisdom\nand virtue; and their business is, to inculcate both on the rising\ngeneration, upon the footing on which they are received and understood\nin the several countries where they are erected. Even if their local\nstatutes laid them under no restraint, an easiness in departing from\nestablished rules were a levity not to be commended; and would, in the\nend, be unfavourable to truth itself, when at any time it should come,\nin its turn, to be entertained among them.\n\nThe truth is, my Lord, we are ready to consider these seminaries\nas schools of philosophy, strictly so called: whereas their proper\ncharacter is that of schools of learning and education. Under this\nlast idea, much of that bigotry and prejudice is to be looked for, and\nshould be excused, which would rightly be objected to them under that\nother denomination.\n\nHence then, I conceive, a just apology may be made for the present\ncondition of our Universities. If they have not, in all respects,\ncorrected the vices of their original institution, let the influence\nand authority of such institution be pleaded in their excuse; and\nif certain inveterate errors in speculation (for I know your\nLordship\u2019s chief quarrel to them) not immediately connected with their\ninstitution, happen still to maintain their credit in those places,\nlet it be considered that the general sense of the public should in\nall reason be expected to go before their profession and propagation\neven of right principles. Believe it, my Lord, as reason and sound\nphilosophy make a progress among us, these bodies will gradually,\nthough reluctantly indeed, reform themselves: and the service they will\nthen render to truth will be the greater for the opposition they now\nmake to it.\n\nI have ventured to say, that this reformation will, in due time, come\nof itself. I think, it certainly _will_; as well in regard to the\ngeneral plan of their studies, as their particular principles and\nopinions. Yet, in respect of the _former_ at least, it might perhaps\nbe something quickened by external application. I know the attempt is\ndelicate and difficult; but it might possibly succeed, if carried on\nunder cover of some still greater reformation; which seizes the mind\nwith much force, turns it to a new bias, and makes it propitious to\nevery thing that tends to the attainment of its principal object.\n\nSuch occasions do not present themselves every day. One such we have\nseen; but we missed the season. Whatever was fundamentally wrong in the\nconstitution of the Universities, should have been set right in that\ngreat \u00e6ra, when the church was reformed. The undertaking had been of a\npiece with the rest of that extraordinary work; and the opportunity was\ninviting. But whether the minds of men were then ripe for this other\nreformation, or whether there was indeed light enough in the nation\nat that time fully and properly to effect it, may not unreasonably, I\nknow, be made a question with your Lordship.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nIt is no question at all with me, whether any service of that kind was\nto be expected from those great dealers in church-work. Perhaps another\nand _later_ \u00e6ra may be pointed out, when the same office might, and\nshould, have been undertaken by our political craftsmen.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nYour Lordship means at the _Revolution_; and, as the generous\nprinciples of liberty, on which the Revolution was founded,\nhad received but little countenance from the Universities, this\nconsideration, you will say, afforded the best pretence for attempting\ntheir reformation. But wise men saw, that the credit which those\nlearned bodies had drawn to themselves, and indeed deservedly, by\ntheir late conduct, notwithstanding their speculative systems and\nconclusions, was at that time too high, to suffer a rigorous inspection\nto be made into their statutes and constitutions: they saw, in that\nconvulsion of the state, it would be impossible to carry on a design\nof this nature, without endangering the new settlement, or exposing it\nat least to many odious and inconvenient imputations: and they saw,\nbesides, that the spirit of liberty, which had prevailed so far as to\nreform the state itself, would insensibly extend its influence to all\nsubordinate societies.\n\nIn a word, the close and immediate connexion, which the Universities\nhave with the church, made it natural and highly reasonable to expect\nthat both should have shared the same fate at the _Reformation_: but\nthe necessity was not so urgent, or so visible at least, that the\nUniversities should be new-modelled, at the _Revolution_.\n\nHowever, my Lord, what the wisdom of _either_ age omitted, or was\nunable to do, time, and that desuetude which attends upon it, will\ngradually bring about; not to say, has in some measure accomplished.\nAnd, to take matters as they now are, the studies and discipline of the\nUniversities are not without their use, and should not be too violently\ndeclaimed against and degraded.\n\nThe elements of literature are reasonably well taught in those places.\nAt least, the familiarity, which men have with the learned languages\n(the proper foundation, as I dare say your Lordship holds, of all real\nlearning and politeness) is very much owing to the lectures of our\ncolleges. And, though I am sensible what exceptions are to be made in\nother respects, yet, on the whole, religion, and good morals, receive\nan advantage from their institutions, and the regularity of their\ndiscipline.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nYes; their religion is intolerance; and their morals, servility. For,\nas to any freedom of manly thought, or the dignity of virtue\u2014\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nYou are ready to look for them any where else than in our _English_\nUniversities.\n\nCome on then, my Lord: have the goodness to point out to us those\nhappier seminaries, where these and all other virtues are more\nsuccessfully propagated.\n\nBut which way will your Lordship direct us to take, in this search?\nShall we turn to the North of this country for those advantages,\nwhich we despair of finding in the South? Or, because the grossness\nof our island air may infect all parts alike, shall we shape our\ncourse to the Continent? And does your Lordship encourage us to look\nfor some _Athens_ amidst the Protestant states of _Germany_, in the\n_Netherlands_, or the _Swiss_ Cantons?\n\nThese, I take it, are the only scenes which your Lordship can have in\nview; for, as high as their reputation may be in this respect, you\nwould hardly advise the breeding of our _English_ youth in the colleges\nof the Jesuits.\n\nOne word then, if you please, on these Protestant Universities on the\nContinent.\n\nYour Lordship and I have had some experience of the state of literature\nand education in those places. Eminent and excellent men they surely\nhave amongst them. But so, your Lordship will confess, have the\nUniversities of _England_. If we do not readily find those who, at this\nday, may be opposed to a LIMBORCH or a LE CLERC; yet it is not long\nsince we had to boast of a CHILLINGWORTH, a CUDWORTH, and a WHICHCOT;\nall, men of manly thought, generous minds, and incomparable learning.\n\nBut the question is not, you know, of particular men, which such great\nbodies rarely want; but, of the general frame and constitution of\nlearned societies, fit for the purposes of polite and liberal education.\n\nShall we say then, that the scattered tribes of students in a _Dutch_\nor _Swiss_ town are likely to be better instructed, or better governed,\nthan the young scholars in our colleges; or, that the good order,\ndiscipline, and sobriety of these places, is to be compared with the\nanarchy and licence of those other?\n\nYour Lordship, I know, takes a pleasure to conceive of certain foreign\nacademies, as of that ANCIENT one, where the students visited, without\nconstraint, the schools of philosophers, and even bore a part in their\nfree conferences and disputations: you even love to paint the noble\nyouth to yourself, as of old, spatiating, at their leisure, in shady\nwalks and porticos, and imbibing the principles of science as they drop\nupon them in the dews of Attic eloquence and politeness.\n\nAll this, my Lord, is very well: yet, setting aside a certain colouring\nof expression which takes and amuses the imagination, I see but\nlittle to admire in this picture; certainly not enough to make one\nregret the want of the original, and seriously to prefer this easy\nmanner of breeding, to that stricter form which prevails in our own\nUniversities: where the day begins and ends with religious offices:\nwhere the diligence of the youth is quickened and relieved, in turn,\nby stated hours of study and recreation: where temperance and sobriety\nare even _convivial_ virtues; and the two extremes of a festive jollity\nand unsocial gloom are happily tempered by the decencies of a _common\ntable_; where, in a word, the discipline of Spartan HALLS and the\ncivility of Athenian BANQUETS are, or may be, united.\n\nSurely, my Lord, these wholesome regulations, with many others that\nmight be mentioned, could we but strip them of the opprobrious name of\ncollegiate and monastic, are of another use and value in education,\nthan the lax unrestrained indulgence of foreign seminaries.\n\nBut, were there even no difference in this respect, as there is surely\na great deal, are we to reckon for nothing the disparity of civil and\nreligious constitutions?\n\nYour Lordship, I dare say, will not suspect me of a bigoted adherence\nto any mere _mode_ of civil or ecclesiastical regimen. But is it all\none, whether a young boy, who is destined to be a subject to the crown,\nand a member of the church of _England_, be inured to the equality of\nrepublican governments, and of calvinistical churches? It may be well\nfor men of confirmed age and ability to look into both; but would you\ntrain up your son in a way that is likely to indispose him, right or\nwrong, to the institutions of his own country?\n\nBesides, are there fewer prejudices, think ye, in the men of other\nchurches and governments, than our own? or, are their professors\nand institutors of youth more free from popular errors and blind\nattachments, though of a different sort, than the tutors and masters of\neducation in our country?\n\nNay, consider with yourself, my Lord; is there not as much tyranny\nin the administration of some they call _free states_; and as much\nrestraint and persecution in the principles of some they call _free\nchurches_, as can fairly be charged on the monarchy or church of\n_England_?\n\nSo that what you could expect to gain by preferring these foreign\nschools of learning to your own, I cannot easily imagine. All that is\nworth acquiring in either, you have, at least, an equal chance to meet\nwith at home: and what should be avoided, may, nay must, with more\nprobability, be encountered abroad.\n\nBut your Lordship, perhaps, would confine your young traveller to no\n_one_ seat of learning; and have it only in view to convey him hastily,\nunder the wing of a tutor, through many a famous academy, without\nsettling him in any. This, I must confess, is the way to keep clear of\nprejudices; but, whether any solid instruction, or just science either\nof men or things, is to be gathered from so cursory an education, your\nLordship will do well to consider.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nYou have done me the favour to imagine many projects and designs for\nme, which I was too dull to entertain in my own thoughts. But, if the\neducation of a young man of rank and quality cannot be carried on\nwithout the assistance of academical instructors, I would much sooner\ntrust him to the care of such as the more free and liberal genius\nof certain foreign Universities has formed, than submit him to the\ntutorage of those priestly guides, to whom our narrow and slavish\ninstitutions have consigned the province of education, in our own\ncountry.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nYour Lordship now indeed speaks out very plainly. Your objection, then,\nis to CLERGY-TUTORS; and you think it absurd and even pernicious to\ncommit our noble and liberal youth to the care of churchmen. You would\nrather see them in lay-hands; in the hands of philosophers, properly\nso called; who, indifferent to every thing but pure truth and reason,\nare in no danger of imbibing wrong principles themselves, and are\ntherefore under no temptation of instilling any such into the minds of\ntheir followers.\n\nThe thought is happy, my Lord; and, if a number of these philosophers\ncould any where be found, I might be induced to fall into the project\nof employing such only in the province of education. But, the\ncondition, in which truth and reason are now left, and seem likely\nto continue, in this world of ours, affords little room for such\nflattering expectations. An unprejudiced instructor, I doubt, is a\nrarity not to be met with, I do not say in our Universities, but even\nout of them: and, prejudices for prejudices, some persons may be apt to\nthink those of a churchman as tolerable as of any other.\n\nBut, my Lord, having no particular bias on my own mind in favour of\nthat order, and having something perhaps to _resent_ from several\nindividuals of it, it will not misbecome me to hazard a word or two, in\nits vindication.\n\nYou will permit me then to say, that I see no peculiar unfitness in\nthe clergy for the office, they are called to, in this country, of\nsuperintending the business of education. The leisure they enjoy;\nthe various learning and general studies, which that leisure enables\nthem, and their profession obliges them, to pursue; and, lastly, the\nstrictness of life and manners, or, if you will, the very decorum,\nwhich their character imposes upon them; these circumstances seem\ngenerally to have marked them out, as the properest persons to form\nthe manners and cultivate the minds of youth, in all countries. In our\n_own_, that propriety strikes one the more, since their prejudices, of\nwhatever kind, are but in common to them with other speculative and\nstudious men; and since even their interest, rightly understood, and\nas seen by the best and wisest of themselves, (whatever may have been\nwarmly and passionately said by some persons) is in no degree separate\nfrom that of the great community, to which they belong.\n\nYes, your Lordship will say, their hopes and views of preferment\u2014\n\nYet, in this respect, they are but on a level with other men of most\nother professions; nay, with all men out of them, that aspire to rise,\nby their merits or the favour of their superiors, to any distinction\nin the world. And though we commonly say, that the clergy should be\n_only_ animated by purer motives, yet you cannot expect, nay would not\nseriously wish, that they should be altogether insensible to such as\nthese.\n\nIt is true, in countries where the clergy have a dependance on some\nforeign power, or where they have usurped an independent power to\nthemselves, or where, lastly, the civil constitution is so ill defined\nthat the privileges of the subject lie at the mercy of the prince; in\neach of these cases, the ambition of the clergy may be, and in fact\nhas been, productive of many public mischiefs. But our Protestant\nclergy, who are in no foreign subjection, claim no independency, and\nfill their place in a system all whose parts are, now at least, exactly\nregulated by known laws, cannot, by their private ambition, disturb the\ngeneral interest, and have no peculiar inducements to attempt it. And\nthough particulars may sometimes, by their follies and indiscretions,\ndishonour themselves, yet the effect cannot be considerable, and\ncertainly affords no good reason for taking the province of education,\nfor which on so many accounts they are well qualified, out of their\nhands.\n\nYour Lordship\u2019s candour and equity will then, upon the whole, permit an\nobvious distinction to be made between the MEN and their PROFESSION.\nToo many of the sacred order, I confess, and am sorry for it, seem now\nto have their minds perverted by those principles, and heated by those\npassions, which do little credit to their function, or themselves; and\nare equally inconsistent with the genius of that religion they profess\nto teach, as they are unfriendly to that legal constitution both of\nchurch and state, which they have bound themselves to support. But\ntheir _profession_ is little concerned in all this; and in a succession\nor two of these men (if the present set be, many of them, incorrigible)\nyou may surely reckon upon all those prejudices and passions being\nworked off, which now administer the occasion of so much dislike to it.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nWell, but _clergy-manners_; will they, too, be worked off, with their\nother infirmities?\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nPerhaps, they may; if not, forgive them this one defect; at least,\nif it be their only one. But you do not mean, that the manners of\nthe clergy, _as such_, are more offensive than those of other people.\nThey are suited to their profession and way of life, from which they\nnaturally result; and if the clergy have not that gloss upon them,\nwhich sets off the manners of finer men, they rarely disgust you with\nthe affectation of it. But, after all, if persons of your Lordship\u2019s\nquality and breeding would condescend to countenance them a little,\nthey would, doubtless, brighten under your eye; and might come in time\nto reflect somewhat of that high polish, which glistens so much in the\naddress and conversation of their betters.\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nWhat transmutations they may undergo hereafter, and by what means, I\nam not curious to enquire. On this head, their candid apologist is at\nliberty to be as much in jest, or in earnest, as he thinks fit. But\nfrom what appears at present, I must take leave, in my turn, to think\nless reverendly, than He would have me, of our sacred instructors;\nand though I value some particular persons of the order, as much as\nany man, yet, till I see a greater change in the principles, temper,\nand manners of that body, than, I fear, is likely to come to pass\nin our days, I can have no very favourable sentiments of those rude,\nilliberal, and monkish seminaries, where such worthies preside.\n\n\nMR. LOCKE.\n\nLet us have patience, my Lord. I have not scrupled to confess to you,\nthat much is, at present, amiss in those seminaries, and wants to\nbe set right. But so, God knows, there is every where else. As our\nfactions and parties both in religion and government die away, the\nUniversities will become more reasonable; and as the general manners\nrefine, they too will, of course, take a better air and polish. In a\nword, they may not lead the public taste or judgment; but, as I said,\nthey will be sure to follow it.\n\nAnd the happy period is not, perhaps, far off. For, now I have taken\nupon me to divine so much of the future condition of our Universities,\nlet me paint to you more particularly what I conceive of their growing\nimprovements; and, in a kind of prophetic strain, such as old age, they\nsay, pretends to, and may be indulged in, delineate to you a faint\nprospect of those brighter days, which I see rising upon us.\n\n\u201cThe TIME will come, my Lord, and I even assure myself it is at\nno great distance, when the Universities of _England_ shall be as\nrespectable, for the learning they teach, the principles they instil,\nand the morals they inculcate, as they are now contemptible, in your\nLordship\u2019s eye at least, on these several accounts.\n\n\u201cI see the day, when a scholastic theology shall give place to a\nrational divinity, conducted on the principles of sound criticism and\nwell interpreted scripture: when their sums and systems shall fly\nbefore enlightened reason and sober speculation: when a fanciful,\nprecarious, and hypothetic philosophy, shall desert their schools; and\nbe replaced by real science, supporting itself on the sure grounds of\nexperiment and cautious observation: when their physics shall be fact;\ntheir metaphysics, common sense; and their ethics, human nature.\n\n\u201cDo I flatter myself with fond imaginations, my Lord? Or is not the\ntime at hand, when St. PAUL shall lecture our divines, and not CALVIN;\nour BACONS and BOYLES expel ARISTOTLE; Mr. NEWTON fill the chair of\nDES CARTES; and even your friend (if your Lordship can forgive the\narrogance of placing himself by the side of such men) take the lead of\nBURGERSDICIUS?\n\n\u201cStill, my Lord, my prophetic eye penetrates further. Amidst these\nimprovements in real science, the languages shall be learnt for use,\nand not pedantry: Your Lordship\u2019s admired ancients shall be respected,\nand not idolized: the forms of classic composition be emulated: and a\nset of men arise, even beneath the shade of our academic cloysters,\nthat shall polish the taste, as well as advance the knowledge, of their\ncountry.\n\n\u201cYet, I am but half way in the portraiture of my vision. The appointed\nlecturers of our youth, whom your Lordship loves to qualify with the\nname of _bearded boys_, shall adopt the manners of men; shall instruct\nwith knowledge, and persuade with reason; shall be the first to\nexplode slavish doctrines and narrow principles; shall draw respect\nto themselves, rather from the authority of their characters, than\nof their places; and, which is the first and last part of a good\neducation, set the noble and ingenuous youth intrusted to their care,\nthe brightest examples of diligence, sobriety, and virtue.\n\n\u201cPerhaps in those days, a freer commerce shall be opened with the\nworld: the students of our colleges be ambitious of appearing in good\ncompany: and a general civility prevail, where your Lordship sees\nnothing, at present, but barbarism and rudeness.\n\n\u201cNay, who knows but, in this different state of things, the arts\nthemselves may gain admission into these seminaries; and even the\nexercises be taught there, which our noble youth are now sent to\nacquire on the Continent?\n\n\u201cSuch, I persuade myself, if the presage of old experience may pass\nfor any thing, is the happier scene which a little time shall disclose\nto your view, in our _English_ Universities. What its duration may be,\nI cannot discover. Much will depend on the general manners, and the\npublic encouragement. In the mean time, if any cloud rest upon it, it\nwill not, I assure myself, arise immediately from within, but from the\nlittle, or, which is worse, the ill-directed favour, which the Great\nshall vouchsafe to shew to places, so qualified, and so deserving their\nprotection.\n\n\u201cYet, after all I have seen, or perhaps dreamt, as your Lordship\nmay rather object to me, of the future flourishing estate of our\nUniversities, and of their extreme fitness in all respects to answer\nthe ends of their institution, I cannot be mistaken in one prediction,\n\u201cthat the mode of early Travel will still continue; perhaps its fury\nwill increase; and our youth of quality be still sent abroad for their\neducation, when every reason shall cease which your Lordship has now\nalleged in favour of that practice.\u201d\n\n\nLORD SHAFTESBURY.\n\nThis last prediction may, perhaps, be true; I mean, if those others\nshould ever be accomplished. But as I have no great faith in modern\nprophecy, and see at present no symptoms of this coming age of gold,\nwhich your fancy has now presented to us, you must excuse me if these\n_prophetic strains_, as you termed them, have no great weight with me\nbefore their completion. Should that ever happen, I shall respect your\nforesight, at least; and rejoice extremely at an event, which, I shall\nthen freely own, will leave my countrymen no excuse for their folly.\n\nThis, Sir, was the substance of what passed between us on the subject\nin question. Our other friends interposed, indeed, at times; but\nrarely, and in few words; and I have rather chosen to mix their\noccasional observations with our own, than perplex and lengthen this\nrecital by a more punctilious exactness. Besides, I could not think\nit civil to introduce my friends upon the scene, only to shew them,\nas it were, for mutes; their politeness to us, who were principals\nin the debate, being such, as to restrain them from bearing any\nconsiderable part in it. Yet this way of relation would, no doubt, have\ngiven something more of life to the sketch I here send you; as their\npresence, you may believe, certainly did to the original conversation.\n\nIt is enough to say, that nothing more material, than what I have now\nrelated to you, passed on the occasion. For by this time the day was\npretty well spent, and it was necessary for us to withdraw to our\nseveral engagements.\n\nFor myself, I leave you to guess the effect which our philosopher\u2019s\ngrave remonstrance left upon me. One thing you will think remarkable;\nthat the part of arraigning the present state of things should fall\nto my share; while he, at an age that is naturally querulous and\ndissatisfied, was employed in defending it. Whether this be a proof\nof his wisdom, or good spirits, I pretend not to say. But it gave me\na pleasure to hear the old man indulging himself in the prospect of\nbetter days, of which, as young as we are, and as warmly as we wish for\nthem, you and I had always despaired.\n\n\n\n\n  LETTERS\n\n  ON\n\n  CHIVALRY AND ROMANCE.\n\n\n\n\n  LETTERS\n\n  ON\n\n  CHIVALRY AND ROMANCE:\n\n  SERVING TO ILLUSTRATE SOME\n\n  PASSAGES IN THE THIRD DIALOGUE.\n\n            _Guarda, che mal fato\n    O giovenil vaghezza non ti meni\n    Al magazino de le ciancie, ab fuggi,\n    Fuggi quell incantato alloggiamento.\n    Quivi habitan le maghe, che incantande\n    Fan traveder, e traudir ciascuno._\n                                    TASSO.\n\n\n\n\n  CONTENTS OF THE LETTERS.\n\n\n  Letter I. _The Subject proposed._\n\n  II. _Origin of Chivalry._\n\n  III. _Characteristics of, accounted for._\n\n  IV. _Heroic and_ Gothic _manners_, _compared_.\n\n  V. _Their differences, noted._\n\n  VI. Gothic _manners more poetical_, _than\n  the Heroic_.\n\n  VII. _Their effect on_ SPENSER, MILTON,\n  SHAKESPEAR.\n\n  VIII. _Fairy Queen criticized\u2014the method\n  of that poem explained and justified._\n\n  IX. TASSO\u2019S Gier. Lib. _considered_\u2014_history\n  of the_ Italian _poetry_.\n\n  X. _Fairy way of writing\u2014vindicated._\n\n  XI. Gothic _poetry_, _whence fallen into\n  disrepute_.\n\n  XII. _Steps of its decline, traced._\n\n\n\n\nLETTERS\n\nON\n\nCHIVALRY AND ROMANCE.\n\n\nLETTER I.\n\nThe ages, we call barbarous, present us with many a subject of curious\nspeculation. What, for instance, is more remarkable than the _Gothic_\nCHIVALRY? or than the spirit of ROMANCE, which took its rise from that\nsingular institution?\n\nNothing in human nature, my dear friend, is without its reasons. The\nmodes and fashions of different times may appear, at first sight,\nfantastic and unaccountable. But they, who look nearly into them,\ndiscover some latent cause of their production.\n\n    \u201cNature once known, no prodigies remain,\u201d\n\nas sings our philosophical bard; but to come at this knowledge, is the\ndifficulty. Sometimes a close attention to the workings of the human\nmind is sufficient to lead us to it: sometimes more than that, the\ndiligent observation of what passes without us, is necessary.\n\nThis last I take to be the case here. The prodigies we are now\ncontemplating, had their origin in the barbarous ages. Why then, says\nthe fastidious modern, look any further for the reason? Why not resolve\nthem at once into the usual caprice and absurdity of barbarians?\n\nThis, you see, is a short and commodious philosophy. Yet barbarians\nhave their _own_, such as it is, if they are not enlightened by our\nreason. Shall we then condemn them unheard, or will it not be fair to\nlet them have the telling of their own story?\n\nWould we know from what causes the institution of _Chivalry_ was\nderived? The time of its birth, the situation of the barbarians amongst\nwhom it arose, must be considered: their wants, designs, and policies,\nmust be explored: we must inquire when, and where, and how, it came to\npass that the Western world became familiarized to this _prodigy_,\nwhich we now start at.\n\nAnother thing is full as remarkable, and concerns us more nearly. The\nspirit of Chivalry was a fire which soon spent itself: but that of\n_Romance_, which was kindled at it, burnt long, and continued its light\nand heat even to the politer ages.\n\nThe greatest geniuses of our own and foreign countries, such as ARIOSTO\nand TASSO in _Italy_, and SPENSER and MILTON in _England_, were seduced\nby these barbarities of their forefathers; were even charmed by the\n_Gothic_ Romances. Was this caprice and absurdity in them? Or, may\nthere not be something in the _Gothic_ Romance peculiarly suited to\nthe views of a genius, and to the ends of poetry? And may not the\nphilosophic moderns have gone too far in their perpetual ridicule and\ncontempt of it?\n\nTo form a judgment in the case, the rise, progress, and genius of\n_Gothic_ Chivalry must be explained.\n\nThe circumstances in the _Gothic_ fictions and manners, which are\nproper to the ends of poetry (if any such there be) must be pointed\nout.\n\nReasons, for the decline and rejection of the _Gothic_ taste in later\ntimes, must be given.\n\nYou have in these particulars both the Subject and the PLAN of the\nfollowing Letters.\n\n\nLETTER II.\n\nI look upon Chivalry, as on some mighty river, which the fablings of\nthe poets have made immortal. It may have sprung up amidst rude rocks,\nand blind deserts. But the noise and rapidity of its course, the extent\nof country it adorns, and the towns and palaces it ennobles, may lead a\ntraveller out of his way, and invite him to take a view of those dark\ncaverns,\n\n                              unde supern\u00e8\n    Plurimus Eridani per sylvam volvitur amnis.\n\nI enter, without more words, on the subject I began to open to you in\nmy last letter.\n\nThe old inhabitants of these North-West parts of _Europe_ were\nextremely given to the love and exercise of arms. The feats of\nCHARLEMAGNE and our ARTHUR, in particular, were so famous as in later\ntimes, when books of Chivalry were composed, to afford a principal\nsubject to the writers of them[44].\n\nBut CHIVALRY, properly so called, and under the idea of \u201ca distinct\nmilitary order, conferred in the way of investiture, and accompanied\nwith the solemnity of an oath and other ceremonies, as described in the\nold historians and romancers,\u201d was of later date, and seems to have\nsprung immediately out of the FEUDAL CONSTITUTION.\n\nThe first and most sensible effect of this constitution, which brought\nabout so mighty a change in the policies of _Europe_, was the erection\nof a prodigious number of petty tyrannies. For, though the great barons\nwere closely tied to the service of their Prince by the conditions of\ntheir tenure, yet the power which was given them by it over their own\nnumerous vassals was so great, that, in effect, they all set up for\nthemselves; affected an independency; and were, in truth, a sort of\nabsolute Sovereigns, at least with regard to one another. Hence, their\nmutual aims and interests often interfering, the feudal state was, in a\ngood degree, a state of war: the feudal chiefs were in frequent enmity\nwith each other: the several combinations of feudal tenants were so\nmany separate armies under their head or chief: and their castles were\nso many fortresses, as well as palaces, of these puny princes.\n\nIn this state of things one sees, that all imaginable encouragement was\nto be given to the use of arms, under every different form of attack\nand defence, according as the safety of these different communities, or\nthe ambition of their leaders, might require. And this condition of the\ntimes, I suppose, gave rise to that military institution, which we know\nby the name of CHIVALRY.\n\nFurther, there being little or no security to be had amidst so many\nrestless spirits and the clashing views of a neighbouring numerous and\nindependent nobility, the military discipline of their followers, even\nin the intervals of peace, was not to be relaxed, and their ardour\nsuffered to grow cool, by a total disuse of martial exercises. And\nhence the proper origin of JUSTS and TURNAMENTS; those images of war,\nwhich were kept up in the castles of the barons, and, by an useful\npolicy, converted into the amusement of the knights, when their arms\nwere employed on no serious occasion.\n\nI call this the _proper origin_ of Justs and Turnaments; for the date\nof them is carried no higher, as far as I can find, even in _France_\n(where unquestionably they made their first appearance) than the\nyear 1066; which was not till after the introduction of the feudal\ngovernment into that country. Soon after, indeed, we find them in\n_England_ and in _Germany_; but not till the feudal policy had spread\nitself in those parts, and had prepared the way for them.\n\nYou see, then, my notion is, that Chivalry was no absurd and freakish\ninstitution, but the natural and even sober effect of the feudal\npolicy; whose turbulent genius breathed nothing but war, and was fierce\nand military even in its amusements.\n\nI leave you to revolve this idea in your own mind. You will find, I\nbelieve, a reasonable foundation for it in the history of the feudal\ntimes, and in the spirit of the feudal government.\n\n\nLETTER III.\n\nIf the conjecture, I advanced, of the rise of Chivalry, from the\ncircumstances of the feudal government, be thought reasonable, it will\nnot be difficult to account for the several CHARACTERISTICS of this\nsingular profession.\n\nI. \u201cThe passion for arms; the spirit of enterprize; the honour of\nknighthood; the rewards of valour; the splendour of equipages;\u201d in\nshort, every thing that raises our ideas of the prowess, gallantry, and\nmagnificence of these sons of MARS, is naturally and easily explained\non this supposition.\n\nAmbition, interest, glory, all concurred, under such circumstances, to\nproduce these effects. The feudal principles could terminate in nothing\nelse. And when, by the necessary operation of that policy, this turn\nwas given to the thoughts and passions of men, use and fashion would do\nthe rest; and carry them to all the excesses of military fanaticism,\nwhich are painted so strongly, but scarcely exaggerated, in the old\nRomances.\n\nII. \u201cTheir romantic ideas of justice; their passion for adventures;\ntheir eagerness to run to the succour of the distressed; and the pride\nthey took in redressing wrongs, and removing grievances;\u201d all these\ndistinguishing characters of genuine Chivalry are explained on the\nsame principle. For, the feudal state being a state of war, or rather\nof almost perpetual violence, rapine, and plunder, it was unavoidable\nthat, in their constant skirmishes, stratagems, and surprizes, numbers\nof the tenants or followers of one Baron should be seized upon and\ncarried away by the followers of another: and the interest, each had\nto protect his own, would of course introduce the point of honour, in\nattempting by all means to retaliate on the enemy, and especially to\nrescue the captive sufferers out of the hands of their oppressors.\n\nIt would be meritorious, in the highest degree, to fly to their\nassistance, when they knew where they were to be come at; or to seek\nthem out with diligence, when they did not. This last _feudal_ service\nsoon introduced, what may be truly called _romantic_, the _going in\nquest of adventures_; which at first, no doubt, was confined to those\nof their own party, but afterwards, by the habit of acting on this\nprinciple, would be extended much further. So that in process of time,\nwe find the Knights errant, as they were now properly styled, wandering\nthe world over in search of occasions on which to exercise their\ngenerous and disinterested valour, indifferently to friends and enemies\nin distress;\n\n    Ecco quei, che le charte empion di sogni,\n    LANCILOTTO, TRISTANO, e gli altri erranti.\n\nIII. \u201cThe courtesy, affability, and gallantry, for which these\nadventurers were so famous, are but the natural effects and\nconsequences of their situation.\u201d\n\nFor the castles of the Barons were, as I said, the courts of these\nlittle sovereigns, as well as their fortresses; and the resort of\ntheir vassals thither in honour of their chiefs, and for their own\nproper security, would make that civility and politeness, which is seen\nin courts and insensibly prevails there, a predominant part in the\ncharacter of these assemblies.\n\nThis is the poet\u2019s own account of\n\n          \u2014\u2014court and royal citadel,\n    The great school-maistresse of all Courtesy.\n                            B. III. C. vi. s. 1.\n\nAnd again, more largely in B. VI. C. i. s. 1.\n\n    Of Court it seems men Courtesie do call,\n      For that it there most useth to abound;\n    And well beseemeth that in Princes hall\n      That Virtue should be plentifully found,\n      Which of all goodly manners is the ground\n    And root of civil conversation:\n      Right so in _faery court_ it did resound,\n    Where courteous knights and ladies most did won\n    Of all on earth, and made a matchless paragon.\n\nFor _Faery Court_ means the _reign of Chivalry_; which, it seems, had\nundergone a fatal revolution before the age of MILTON, who tells us\nthat _Courtesy_\n\n        \u2014\u2014is sooner found in lonely sheds\n    With smoaky rafters, than in tap\u2019stry halls\n    And courts of princes, where it first was nam\u2019d,\n    And yet is most pretended.\n                                               MASK.\n\nFurther, the free commerce of the ladies, in those knots and circles of\nthe great, would operate so far on the sturdiest knights, as to give\nbirth to the attentions of gallantry. But this gallantry would take a\nrefined turn, not only from the necessity there was of maintaining the\nstrict form of decorum, amidst a promiscuous conversation under the\neye of the Prince and in his own family; but also from the inflamed\nsense they must needs have of the frequent outrages committed, by their\nneighbouring clans of adversaries, on the honour of the sex, when by\nchance of war they had fallen into their hands. Violations of chastity\nbeing the most atrocious crimes they had to charge on their enemies,\nthey would pride themselves in the merit of being its protectors: and\nas this virtue was, of all others, the fairest and strongest claim of\nthe sex itself to such protection, it is no wonder that the notions of\nit were, in time, carried to so platonic an elevation.\n\nThus, again, the great master of Chivalry himself, on this subject,\n\n    It hath been thro\u2019 all ages ever seen,\n      That, with the praise of arms and chivalry,\n    The prize of beauty still hath joined been;\n      And that for reason\u2019s special privity:\n    For either doth on other much rely;\n      For HE mee seems most fit the fair to serve,\n    That can her best defend from villainy;\n      And SHE most fit his service doth deserve,\n    That fairest is, and from her faith will never swerve.\n                                     SPENSER, B. IV. C. v.\n\nNot but the foundation of this refined gallantry was laid in the\nancient manners of the _German_ nations. C\u00c6SAR tells us how far they\ncarried their practice of chastity, which he seems willing to account\nfor on political principles. However that be, their consideration of\nthe sex was prodigious, as we see in the history of their irruptions\ninto the Empire; where among all their ravages and devastations of\nother sorts, we find they generally abstained from offering any\nviolence to the honour of the women.\n\nIV. It only remains to account for that \u201ccharacter of Religion,\u201d which\nwas so deeply imprinted on the minds of all knights, and was essential\nto their institution. We are even told, that _the love of God and of\nthe ladies_ went hand in hand, in the duties and ritual of Chivalry.\n\nTwo reasons may be assigned for this singularity:\n\nFirst, the superstition of the times, in which Chivalry arose; which\nwas so great, that no institution of a public nature could have found\ncredit in the world, that was not consecrated by the churchmen, and\nclosely interwoven with religion.\n\nSecondly, the condition of the Christian states; which had been\nharassed by long wars, and had but just recovered a breathing-time from\nthe brutal ravages of the _Saracen_ armies. The remembrance of what\nthey had lately suffered from these grand enemies of the faith, made it\nnatural, and even necessary, to engage a new military order on the side\nof religion.\n\nAnd how warmly this principle, _a zeal for the faith_, was acted upon\nby the professors of Chivalry, and how deeply it entered into their\nideas of the military character, we see from the term so constantly\nused by the old Romancers, of RECREANT [_i. e._ Apostate] Knight; by\nwhich they meant to express, with the utmost force, their disdain of\na dastard or vanquished knight. For, many of this order falling into\nthe hands of the _Saracens_, such of them as had not imbibed the full\nspirit of their profession, were induced to renounce their faith, in\norder to regain their liberty. These men, as sinning against the great\nfundamental laws of Chivalry, they branded with this name; a name of\ncomplicated reproach, which implied a want of the two most essential\nqualities of a Knight, COURAGE and FAITH.\n\nHence too, the reason appears why the _Spaniards_, of all the\nEuropeans, were furthest gone in every characteristic madness of true\nchivalry. To all the other considerations, here mentioned, their\nfanaticism in every way was especially instigated and kept alive by the\nmemory and neighbourhood of their old infidel invaders.\n\nAnd thus we seem to have a fair account of that PROWESS, GENEROSITY,\nGALLANTRY, and RELIGION, which were the peculiar and vaunted\ncharacteristics of the purer ages of Chivalry.\n\nSuch was the state of things in the Western world, when the Crusades\nto the Holy Land were set on foot. Whence we see how well prepared the\nminds of men were for engaging in that enterprize. Every object, that\nhad entered into the views of the institutors of Chivalry, and had been\nfollowed by its professors, was now at hand, to inflame the military\nand religious ardor of the knights, to the utmost. And here, in fact,\nwe find the strongest and boldest features of their genuine character:\n_daring_ to madness, in enterprises of hazard: burning with zeal for\nthe delivery of the _oppressed_; and, which was deemed the height of\n_religious_ merit, for the rescue of the holy city out of the hands of\ninfidels; and, lastly, exalting their honour of _chastity_ so high as\nto profess celibacy; as they constantly did, in the several orders of\nknighthood created on that extravagant occasion.\n\n\nLETTER IV.\n\nWhat think you, my good friend, of this learned deduction? Do not you\nbegin to favour my conjecture, as whimsical as it might seem, of the\n_rise and genius_ of Knight-errantry.\n\nAnd yet (so slippery is the ground, on which we system-makers stand)\nfrom what I observed of the spirit, with which the Crusades were\ncarried on, a hint may be taken, which threatens to overturn my whole\nsystem.\n\nIt is, \u201cThat, whereas I derive the Crusades from the spirit of\nChivalry, the circumstances attending the progress of the Crusades, and\neven as pointed out by myself, seem to favour the opposite opinion of\nChivalry\u2019s taking its rise from that enterprize.\u201d\n\nFor thus the argument is drawn out by a learned person[45], to whom I\ncommunicated the substance of my last Letter.\n\n\u201cOn the crumbling of the Western empire into small states, with regular\nsubordinations of vassals and their chiefs, who looked up to a common\nsovereign, it was soon found that those chiefs had it in their power\nto make themselves very formidable to their masters; and, just in that\ncrisis of European manners and empire, the _Saracens_ having expelled\nChristianity from the East, the Western Princes seized the opportunity,\nand with great craft turned the warlike genius of their feudataries,\nwhich would otherwise have preyed upon themselves, into the spirit of\nCrusades against the common enemy.\n\nBut when, now, the ardour of the Crusades was abated in some sort,\nthough not extinguished, the _Gothic_ princes and their families\nhad settled into established monarchies. Then it was, that the\nrestless spirit of their vassals, having little employment abroad,\nand being restrained in a good degree from exerting itself with\nsuccess in domestic quarrels, broke out in all the extravagances of\nKNIGHT-ERRANTRY.\n\nMilitary fame, acquired in the Holy land, had entitled the adventurers\nto the _insignia_ of arms, the source of Heraldry; and inspired\nthem with the love of war and the passion of enterprize. Their late\nexpeditions had given them a turn for roving in quest of adventures;\nand their religious zeal had infused high notions of piety, justice,\nand chastity.\n\nThe scene of action being now more confined, they turned themselves,\nfrom _the world\u2019s debate_, to private and personal animosities.\nChivalry was employed in rescuing humble and faithful vassals, from the\noppression of petty lords; their women, from savage lust; and the hoary\nheads of hermits (a species of Eastern monks, much reverenced in the\nHoly land), from rapine and outrage.\n\nIn the mean time the courts of the feudal sovereigns grew magnificent\nand polite; and, as the military constitution still subsisted, military\nmerit was to be upheld; but, wanting its old objects, it naturally\nsoftened into the fictitious images and courtly exercises of war,\nin _justs and tournaments_: where the honour of the ladies supplied\nthe place of zeal for the holy Sepulchre; and thus the courtesy of\nelegant love, but of a wild and fanatic species, as being engrafted on\nspiritual enthusiasm, came to mix itself with the other characters of\nthe Knights-errant.\u201d\n\nIn this way, you see, all the characteristics of Chivalry, which I had\nderived from the essential properties of the feudal government, are\nmade to result from the spirit of Crusades, which with me was only an\naccidental effect of it: and this deduction may be thought to agree\nbest with the representation of the old Romancers.\n\nThis hypothesis, so plausible in itself, is very ingeniously supported.\nYet I have something to object to it; or rather, which flatters me\nmore, I think I can turn it to the advantage of my own system.\n\nFor what if I allow (as indeed I needs must) that _Chivalry_, such as\nwe have it represented in books of Romance, so much posterior to the\ndate of that military institution, took its colour and character from\nthe impressions made on the minds of men by the spirit of crusading\ninto the Holy land? Still it may be true, that Chivalry itself had,\nproperly, another and an earlier origin. And I must think it certainly\n_had_, if for no other, yet, for this reason: that, unless the seeds\nof that spirit, which appeared in the Crusades, had been plentifully\nsown and indeed grown up into some maturity in the feudal times\npreceding that event, I see not how it could have been possible for\nthe Western princes to give that politic diversion to their turbulent\nvassals, which the new hypothesis supposes.\n\nIn short, there are TWO DISTINCT PERIODS to be carefully observed, in a\ndeduction of the rise and progress of Chivalry.\n\nThe FIRST is that in which the empire was overturned, and the feudal\ngovernments were every where introduced on its ruins, by the Northern\nnations. In this \u00e6ra, that new policy settled itself in the West, and\noperated so powerfully as to lay the first foundations, and to furnish\nthe remote causes, of what we know by the name of Chivalry.\n\nThe OTHER period is, when these causes had taken a fuller effect, and\nshewed themselves in that signal enterprize of the Crusades; which not\nonly concurred with the spirit of Chivalry, already pullulating in the\nminds of men, but brought a prodigious encrease, and gave a singular\nforce and vigour, to all its operations. In this \u00e6ra, Chivalry took\ndeep root, and at the same time shot up to its full height and size. So\nthat now it was in the state of VIRGIL\u2019S Tree\u2014\n\n        \u2014Qu\u00e6 quantum vertice ad auras\n    \u00c6thereas, tantum radice in Tartara tendit.\n    Ergo non hiemes illam, non flabra, neque imbres\n    Convellunt: immota manet, multosque per annos\n    Multa vir\u00fbm volvens durando s\u00e6cula vincit.\n\nFrom this last period, the Romancers, whether in prose or verse, derive\nall their ideas of Chivalry. It was _natural_ for them to do so; for\nthey were best acquainted with that period: and, besides, it suited\ntheir _design_ best; for the manners, they were to paint, were then\nfull formed, and so distinctly marked as fitted them for the use of\ndescription.\n\nBut that the former period, notwithstanding, really gave birth to this\ninstitution may be gathered, not only from the reason of the thing, but\nfrom the surer information of authentic history. For there are traces\nof Chivalry, in its most peculiar and characteristic forms, to be found\nin the age preceding the Crusades; and even justs and tournaments, the\n_image_ of serious Knight-errantry, were certainly of earlier date than\nthat event, as I had before occasion to observe to you.\n\nThough I think, then, my notion _of the rise of Chivalry_ stands\nunimpaired, or rather is somewhat illustrated and confirmed, by what\nthe excellent person has opposed to it, yet I could not hold it fair to\nconceal so specious and well supported an objection from you. You are\ntoo generous to take advantage of the arms I put into your hands; and\nare, besides, so far from any thoughts of combating my system itself,\nthat your concern, it seems, is only to know, where I learned the\nseveral particulars, on which I have formed it.\n\nYou are willing, you say, to advance on sure grounds; and therefore\ncall upon me to point out to you the authorities, from which I pretend\nto have collected the several marks and characteristics of true\nChivalry.\n\nYour request is reasonable; and I acknowledge the omission, in not\nacquainting you that my information was taken from its proper source,\nthe _old Romances_. Not that I shall make a merit with you in having\nperused these barbarous volumes myself; much less would I impose the\nungrateful task upon you. Thanks to the curiosity of certain painful\ncollectors, this knowledge may be obtained at a cheaper rate. And I\nthink it sufficient to refer you to a learned and very elaborate memoir\nof a _French_ writer, who has put together all that is requisite to\nbe known on this subject. Materials are first laid in, before the\narchitect goes to work; and if the structure, I am here raising out\nof them, be to your mind, you will not think the worse of it because\nI pretend not, myself, to have worked in the quarry. In a word, and\nto drop this magnificent allusion, if I account to you for the rise\nand genius of Chivalry, it is all you are to expect; for an idea of\nwhat Chivalry was in itself, you may have recourse to tom. xx. of the\n_Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres_.\n\nAnd with this explanation I return, at length, to my proper business.\n\nSupposing my idea of Chivalry to be fairly given, the conjecture I\nadvance on the _origin and nature_ of it, you incline to think, may\ndeserve to be admitted. But you will, perhaps, admit it the more\nreadily, if you reflect, \u201cThat there is a remarkable correspondency\nbetween the manners of the old heroic times, as painted by their great\nromancer, HOMER, and those which are represented to us in books of\nmodern knight-errantry.\u201d A fact, of which no good account, I believe,\ncan be given but by the assistance of another, not less certain, \u201cThat\nthe political state of _Greece_, in the earlier periods of its story,\nwas similar in many respects to that of _Europe_, as broken by the\nfeudal system into an infinite number of petty independent governments.\u201d\n\nIt is not my design to encroach on the province of the learned\nperson[46], to whom I owe this hint, and who hath undertaken, at his\nleisure, to enlarge upon it. But some few circumstances of agreement\nbetween the _Heroic_ and _Gothic_ manners, such as are most obvious and\noccur to my memory, while I am writing, may be worth putting down, by\nway of specimen only of what may be expected from a professed inquiry\ninto this curious subject.\n\nAnd, FIRST, \u201cthe military enthusiasm of the Barons is but of a piece\nwith the fanaticism of the Heroes.\u201d Hence the same particularity of\ndescription, in the account of battles, wounds, deaths, in the _Greek_\npoet, as in the _Gothic_ romancers: hence that perpetual succession\nof combats and deeds of arms, even to satiety, in the _Iliad_: and\nhence that minute curiosity, in the display of the dresses, arms,\naccoutrements of the combatants, which we find so strange, in that\npoem. The minds of all men being occupied and in a manner possessed\nwith warlike images and ideas, were much gratified by the poet\u2019s\ndwelling on the very slightest circumstances of these things, which\nnow, for want of their prejudices, appear cold and unaffecting to\nmodern readers.\n\nBut the correspondency holds in more particular considerations. For,\n\n2. \u201cWe hear much of Knights-errant encountering _Giants_, and quelling\n_Savages_, in books of Chivalry.\u201d\n\nThese Giants were oppressive feudal Lords; and every Lord was to be met\nwith, like the Giant, in his strong hold, or castle. Their dependants\nof a lower form, who imitated the violence of their superiors, and\nhad not their castles, but their lurking-places, were the Savages of\nRomance. The greater Lord was called a Giant, for his power; the less\na Savage, for his brutality.\n\nAll this is shadowed out in the _Gothic_ tales, and sometimes expressed\nin plain words. The objects of the Knight\u2019s vengeance go indeed by the\nvarious names of Giants, Paynims, Saracens, and Savages. But of what\nfamily they all are, is clearly seen from the poet\u2019s description:\n\n    What Mister wight, quoth he, and how far hence\n      Is he, that doth to travellers such harms?\n    He is, said he, a man of great defence,\n      Expert in battle, and in deeds of arms;\n      And more embolden\u2019d by the wicked charms\n    With which his daughter doth him still support;\n      Having _great Lordships got and goodly farms\n    Thro\u2019 strong oppression of his power extort_;\n    By which he still them holds and keeps with strong effort.\n\n    And daily he his wrong encreaseth more:\n      For never wight he lets to pass that way\n    Over his bridge, albee he rich or poor,\n      But he him makes his passage penny pay.\n      Else he doth hold him back or beat away.\n\n    Thereto he hath a _Groom of evil guise_,\n      Whose scalp is bare, that bondage doth bewray,\n    Which polls and pills the poor in piteous wise,\n    But he himself upon the rich doth tyrannize.\n                               SPENSER, B. V. C. ii.\n\nHere we have the great oppressive Baron very graphically set forth:\nand the _Groom of evil guise_ is as plainly the Baron\u2019s vassal. The\nRomancers, we see, took no great liberty with these respectable\npersonages, when they called the one a Giant, and the other a Savage.\n\n\u201cAnother terror of the _Gothic_ ages was, _Monsters_, _Dragons_, and\n_Serpents_.\u201d These stories were received in those days for several\nreasons: 1. From the vulgar belief of enchantments: 2. From their being\nreported, on the faith of Eastern tradition, by the adventurers into\nthe Holy Land: 3. In still later times, from the strange things told\nand believed, on the discovery of the new world.\n\nThis last consideration we find employed by SPENSER to give an air of\nprobability to his _Fairy Tales_, in the preface to his second book.\n\nNow in all these respects _Greek_ antiquity very much resembles the\n_Gothic_. For what are HOMER\u2019S _L\u00e6strigons_ and _Cyclops_, but bands\nof lawless savages, with, each of them, a Giant of enormous size at\ntheir head? And what are the _Grecian_ BACCHUS and HERCULES, but\nKnights-errant, the exact counter-parts of Sir LAUNCELOT and AMADIS DE\nGAULE?\n\nFor this interpretation we have the authority of our great poet:\n\n    Such first was BACCHUS, that with furious might\n      All th\u2019 East, before untam\u2019d, did overcome,\n    And wrong repressed and establish\u2019d right,\n      Which lawless men had formerly fordonne.\n    Next HERCULES his like ensample shew\u2019d,\n      Who all the West with equal conquest wonne,\n    And monstrous tyrants with his club subdu\u2019d,\n    The club of justice drad, with kingly pow\u2019r endu\u2019d.\n                                            B. V. C. i.\n\nEven PLUTARCH\u2019S life of THESEUS reads, throughout, like a modern\nRomance: and Sir ARTHEGAL himself is hardly his fellow, for righting\nwrongs and redressing grievances. So that EURIPIDES might well make\nhim say of himself, _that he had chosen the profession and calling\nof a Knight-errant_: for this is the sense, and almost the literal\nconstruction, of the following verses:\n\n    \u1f1c\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\n    \u1f08\u03b5\u1f76 \u039a\u039f\u039b\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0397\u03a3 \u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u039a\u0391\u039a\u03a9\u039d \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n                \u1f39\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, ver. 340.\n\nAccordingly, THESEUS is a favourite Hero (witness the _Knight\u2019s Tale_\nin CHAUCER) even with the Romance-writers.\n\nNay, could the very castle of a _Gothic_ giant be better described than\nin the words of HOMER,\n\n    High walls and battlements the courts inclose,\n    And the strong gates defy a host of foes.\n                       Od. B. XVII. ver. 318.\n\nAnd do not you remember that the _Grecian_ Worthies were, in their day,\nas famous for encountering Dragons and quelling Monsters of all sorts,\nas for suppressing Giants?\n\n      \u2014\u2014per hos cecidere just\u00e2\n    Morte Centauri, cecidit tremend\u00e6\n               Flamma Chim\u00e6r\u00e6.\n\n3. \u201cThe oppressions, which it was the glory of the Knight to avenge,\nwere frequently carried on, as we are told, _by the charms and\nenchantments of women_.\u201d\n\nTHESE _charms_, we may suppose, are often metaphorical; as expressing\nonly the blandishments of the sex, by which they either seconded\nthe designs of their Lords, or were enabled to carry on designs for\nthemselves. Sometimes they are taken to be real; the ignorance of those\nages acquiescing in such conceits.\n\nAnd are not these stories matched by those of _Calypso_ and _Circe_,\nthe enchantresses of the _Greek_ poet?\n\nStill there are conformities more directly to our purpose.\n\n4. \u201cRobbery and piracy were honourable in both; so far were they from\nreflecting any discredit on the ancient or modern _redressers of\nwrongs_.\u201d\n\nWhat account can be given of this odd circumstance, but that, in the\nfeudal times and in the early days of _Greece_, when government was\nweak, and unable to redress the frequent injuries of petty sovereigns,\nit would be glorious for private adventurers to undertake this work;\nand, if they could accomplish it in no other way, to pay them in kind\nby downright plunder and rapine?\n\nThis, in effect, is the account given us, of the same disposition of\nthe old _Germans_, by C\u00c6SAR: \u201cLatrocinia,\u201d says he, \u201cnullam habent\ninfamiam, qu\u00e6 extra fines cujusque civitatis fiunt.\u201d And the reason\nappears from what he had just told us\u2014\u201cin pace, nullus est communis\nmagistratus; sed principes regionum atque pagorum inter suos jus\ndicunt, controversiasque minuunt.\u201d _De Bello Gall._ l. vi. \u00a7 21.\n\n5. Their manners, in another respect, were the same. \u201cBastardy was\nin credit with both.\u201d They were extremely watchful over the chastity\nof their own women; but such as they could seize upon in the enemy\u2019s\nquarter were lawful prize. Or, if at any time they transgressed in this\nsort at home, the heroic ages were complaisant enough to cover the\nfault by an ingenious fiction. The offspring was reputed divine.\n\nNay, so far did they carry their indulgence to this commerce, that\ntheir greatest Heroes were the fruit of Goddesses approached by\nmortals; just as we hear of the doughtiest Knights being born of\nFairies.\n\n6. Is it not strange, that, together with the greatest fierceness and\nsavageness of character, \u201cthe utmost generosity, hospitality, and\ncourtesy, should be imputed to the heroic ages?\u201d ACHILLES was at once\nthe most relentless, vindictive, implacable, and the friendliest of men.\n\nWe have the very same representation in the _Gothic_ Romances, where it\nis almost true what BUTLER says humorously of these benign heroes, that\n\n    They did in fight but cut work out\n    T\u2019 employ their courtesies about.\n\nHow are these contradictions, in the characters of the ancient and\nmodern men of arms, to be reconciled, but by observing that, as in\nthose lawless times dangers and distresses of all sorts abounded, there\nwould be the same demand for compassion, gentleness, and generous\nattachments to the unfortunate, those especially of their own clan, as\nof resentment, rage, and animosity against their enemies?\n\n7. Again: consider the martial _Games_, which ancient _Greece_\ndelighted to celebrate on great and solemn occasions: and see if they\nhad not the same origin, and the same purpose, as the _Tournaments_ of\nthe _Gothic_ warriors.\n\n8. Lastly, \u201cthe passion for adventures, so natural in their situation,\nwould be as naturally attended with the love of praise and glory.\u201d\n\nHence the same encouragement, in the old _Greek_ and _Gothic_ times, to\npanegyrists and poets; the BARDS being as welcome to the tables of the\nfeudal Lords, as the \u0391\u039f\u0399\u0394\u039f\u0399 of old, to those of the _Grecian_ Heroes.\n\nAnd, as the same causes ever produce the same effects, we find that,\neven so late as ELIZABETH\u2019S reign, the savage _Irish_ (who were much\nin the state of the ancient _Greeks_, living under the anarchy, rather\nthan government, of their numberless puny chiefs) had their Rhymers in\nprincipal estimation. It was for the reason just given, for the honour\nof their panegyrics on their fierce adventures and successes. And thus\nit was in _Greece_:\n\n    For chief to Poets such respect belongs,\n    By rival nations courted for their Songs;\n    These, states invite, and mighty kings admire,\n    Wide as the Sun displays his vital fire.\n                                      Od. B. XVII.\n\n\nLETTER V.\n\nThe purpose of the casual hints, suggested in my last letter, was\nonly to shew that the resemblance between the Heroic and _Gothic_\nages is great: so great that the observation of it did not escape\nthe old Romancers themselves, _with whom_, as an ingenious critic\nobserves, _the siege of THEBES and TROJAN WAR were favourite stories;\nthe characters and incidents of which they were mixing perpetually\nwith their Romances_[47]. And to this persuasion and practice of the\nRomance-writers CERVANTES plainly alludes, when he makes Don QUIXOTE\nsay\u2014\u2014_If the stories of Chivalry be lies, so must it also be, that\nthere ever was a HECTOR, or an ACHILLES, or a TROJAN WAR_[48]\u2014a\nsly stroke of satire, by which this mortal foe of Chivalry would, I\nsuppose, insinuate that the _Grecian_ Romances were just as extravagant\nand as little credible, as the _Gothic_. Or, whatever his purpose might\nbe, the resemblance between them, you see, is confessed, and hath now\nbeen shewn in so many instances that there will hardly be any doubt of\nit. And though you say true, that ignorance and barbarity itself might\naccount for some circumstances of this resemblance; yet the parallel\nwould hardly have held so long, and run so closely, if the _civil_\ncondition of both had not been much the same.\n\nSo that when we see a sort of Chivalry, springing up among the\n_Greeks_, who were confessedly in a state resembling that of the feudal\nbarons, and attended by the like symptoms and effects, is it not fair\nto conclude that the Chivalry of the _Gothic_ times was owing to that\ncommon corresponding _state_, and received its character from it?\n\nAnd this circumstance, by the way, accounts for the constant mixture,\nwhich the modern critic esteems so monstrous, of Pagan fable with the\nfairy tales of Romance. The passion for ancient learning, just then\nrevived, might seduce the classic poets, such as SPENSER and TASSO\nfor instance, into this practice; but the similar turn and genius of\nancient manners, and of the fictions founded upon them, would make it\nappear easy and natural in all.\n\nI am aware, as you object to me, that, in the affair of _religion_ and\n_gallantry_, the resemblance between the Hero and Knight is not so\nstriking.\n\nBut the religious character of the Knight was an accident of the times,\nand no proper effect of his _civil_ condition.\n\nAnd that his devotion for the sex should so far surpass that of the\nHero, is a fresh confirmation of my system.\n\nFor, though much, no doubt, might be owing to the different humour and\ngenius of the East and West, antecedent to any customs and forms of\ngovernment, and independent of them; yet the consideration had of the\nfemales in the feudal constitution will, of itself, account for this\ndifference. It made them capable of succeeding to fiefs as well as the\nmen. And does not one see, on the instant, what respect and dependence\nthis privilege would draw upon them?\n\nIt was of mighty consequence who should obtain the grace of a rich\nheiress. And though, in the strict feudal times, she was supposed to be\nin the power and disposal of her superior Lord, yet this rigid state\nof things did not last long; and, while it did last, could not abate\nmuch of the homage that would be paid to the fair feudatary.\n\nThus, when interest had begun the habit, the language of love and\nflattery would soon do the rest. And to what that language tended,\nyou may see by the constant strain of the Romances themselves. Some\ndistressed damsel was the spring and mover of every Knight\u2019s adventure.\nShe was to be rescued by his arms, or won by the fame and admiration of\nhis prowess.\n\nThe plain meaning of all which was this: that, as in those turbulent\nfeudal times a protector was necessary to the weakness of the sex,\nso the courteous and valorous knight was to approve himself fully\nqualified for that office. And we find, he had other motives to set him\non work than the mere charms and graces, though ever so bewitching, of\nthe person addressed.\n\nHence then, as I suppose, the custom was introduced: and, when\nintroduced, you will hardly wonder it should operate much longer and\nfurther than the reason may seem to require, on which it was founded.\n\nIf you still insist that I carry this matter too far, and that, in\nfact, the introduction of the female succession into fiefs was too\nlate to justify me in accounting for the rise of feudal gallantry from\nthat circumstance; you will only teach me to frame my answer in a more\naccurate manner.\n\nFirst then, I shall confess that the way to avoid all confusion on this\nsubject would be, to distinguish carefully between the state of things\nin the _early_ feudal times, and that in the _later_, when the genius\nof the feudal law was much changed and corrupted; and that, whoever\nwould go to the bottom of this affair, should keep a constant eye on\nthis reasonable distinction.\n\nBut then, _secondly_, I may observe that this distinction is the less\nnecessary to be attended to in the present case, because the law of\nfemale succession, whenever it was introduced, had certainly taken\nplace long before the Romancers wrote, from whom we derive all our\nideas of the feudal gallantry. So that, if you take their word for the\ngallantry of those times, you may very consistently, if you please,\naccept my account of it. For it is but supposing that the feudal\ngallantry, such as they paint it, was the offspring of that privilege,\nsuch as they saw the ladies then possess, of feudal succession. And the\nconnexion between these two things is so close and so natural, that we\ncannot be much mistaken in deducing the one from the other.\n\nIn conclusion of this topic, I must just observe to you, that the two\npoems of HOMER express in the liveliest manner, and were intended to\nexpose, the capital mischiefs and inconveniencies arising from the\n_political state_ of old _Greece_; the _Iliad_, the dissensions that\nnaturally spring up amongst a number of independent chiefs; and the\n_Odyssey_, the insolence of their greater subjects, more especially\nwhen unrestrained by the presence of their sovereign.\n\nThese were the subjects of his pen. And can any thing more exactly\nresemble the condition of the _feudal times_, when, on occasion\nof any great enterprise, as that of the Crusades, the designs of\nthe confederate Christian states were perpetually frustrated, or\ninterrupted at least, by the dissensions of their leaders; and their\naffairs at home as perpetually distressed and disordered by domestic\nlicence, and the rebellious usurpations of their greater vassals?\n\nIt is true, as to the charge of _domestic licence_, so exactly does\nthe parallel run between old _Greece_ and old _England_, I find one\nexception to it, in each country: and that _one_, a Romance-critic\nwould shew himself very uncourteous, if he did not take a pleasure\nto celebrate. GUY, the renowned earl of _Warwick_, old stories say,\nreturned from the holy wars to his lady in the disguise of a pilgrim\nor beggar, as ULYSSES did to PENELOPE. What the suspicions were of the\nKnight and the Hero, the contrivance itself but too plainly declares.\nBut their fears were groundless in both cases. Only the Knight seems to\nhave had the advantage of the Prince of ITHACA: for, instead of rioting\nsuitors to drive out of his castle, he had only to contemplate his good\nlady in the peaceful and pious office of _distributing daily alms to\nXIII poor men_.\n\nNo conclusion, however, is to be drawn from a single instance; and, in\ngeneral, it is said, the adventurers into the Holy Land could no more\ndepend on the fidelity of their spouses, than of their vassals. So\nthat, in all respects, _Jerusalem_ was to the _European_, what _Troy_\nhad been to the _Grecian_ heroes. And, though the _Odyssey_ found no\nrival among the _Gothic_ poems, you will think it natural enough from\nthese corresponding circumstances, that TASSO\u2019S immortal work should be\nplanned upon the model of the _Iliad_.\n\n\nLETTER VI.\n\nLet it be no surprise to you that, in the close of my last Letter, I\npresumed to bring the _Gierusalemme liberata_ into competition with the\n_Iliad_.\n\nSo far as the heroic and _Gothic_ manners are the same, the pictures of\neach, if well taken, must be equally entertaining. But I go further,\nand maintain that the circumstances, in which they differ, are clearly\nto the advantage of the _Gothic_ designers.\n\nYou see, my purpose is to lead you from this forgotten Chivalry to a\nmore amusing subject; I mean, the _Poetry_ we still read, though it was\nfounded upon it.\n\nMuch has been said, and with great truth, of the felicity of HOMER\u2019S\nage, for poetical manners. But, as HOMER was a citizen of the world,\nwhen he had seen in _Greece_, on the one hand, the manners he has\ndescribed, could he, on the other hand, have seen in the West the\nmanners of the feudal ages, I make no doubt but he would certainly\nhave preferred the latter. And the grounds of this preference would, I\nsuppose, have been, \u201c_the improved gallantry of the Gothic knights_;\nand the _superior solemnity of their superstitions_.\u201d\n\nIf any great poet, like HOMER, had flourished in these times, and\ngiven the feudal manners from the _life_ (for, after all, SPENSER and\nTASSO came too late, and it was impossible for them to paint truly and\nperfectly what was no longer seen or believed); this preference, I\npersuade myself, had been very sensible. But their fortune was not so\nhappy:\n\n        \u2014\u2014omnes illacrymabiles\n    Urgentur, ignotique long\u00e2\n      Nocte, carent quia vate sacro.\n\nAs it is, we may take a guess of what the subject was capable of\naffording to real genius, from the rude sketches we have of it in the\nold Romancers. And it is but looking into any of them to be convinced,\nthat the GALLANTRY, which inspired the feudal times, was of a nature to\nfurnish the poet with finer scenes and subjects of description in every\nview, than the simple and uncontrolled barbarity of the _Grecian_.\n\nThe principal entertainment arising from the delineation of these\nconsists in the exercise of the boisterous passions, which are\nprovoked and kept alive, from one end of the _Iliad_ to the other,\nby every imaginable scene of rage, revenge, and slaughter. In the\nother, together with these, the gentler and more humane affections are\nawakened in us by the most interesting displays of love and friendship;\nof love, elevated to its noblest heights; and of friendship, operating\non the purest motives. The mere variety of these paintings is a relief\nto the reader, as well as writer. But their beauty, novelty, and\npathos, give them a vast advantage, on the comparison.\n\nSo that, on the whole, though the spirit, passions, rapine, and\nviolence, of the two sets of manners were equal, yet there was an\nelegance, a variety, a dignity in the feudal, which the other wanted.\n\nAs to RELIGIOUS MACHINERY, perhaps the popular system of each was\nequally remote from reason; yet the latter had something in it more\namusing, as well as more awakening to the imagination.\n\nThe current popular tales of Elves and Fairies were even fitter to\ntake the credulous mind, and charm it into a willing admiration of the\n_specious miracles_ which wayward fancy delights in, than those of the\nold traditionary rabble of Pagan divinities. And then, for the more\nsolemn fancies of witchcraft and incantation, the _Gothic_ are above\nmeasure striking and terrible.\n\nYou will tell me, perhaps, that these fancies, as terrible as they\nwere, are but of a piece with those of Pagan superstition; and that\nnothing can exceed what the classic writers have related or feigned of\nits magic and necromantic horrors.\n\nTo spare you the trouble of mustering up against me all that your\nextensive knowledge of antiquity would furnish, let me confess to you\nthat many of the ancient poets have occasionally adorned this theme.\nIf, among twenty others, I select only the names of OVID, SENECA, and\nLUCAN, it is, because these writers, by the character of their genius,\nwere best qualified for the task, and have, besides, exerted their\nwhole strength upon it. LUCAN, especially, has drawn out all the pomp\nof his eloquence in celebrating those THESSALIAN CHARMS,\n\n            ficti quas nulla licentia monstri\n    Transierat, quarum, quicquid non creditur, ars est.\n\nYet STILL I pretend to shew you that all his prodigies, fall short\nof the _Gothic_: and you will come the less reluctantly into my\nsentiments, if you reflect, \u201cTHAT the thick and troubled stream of\nsuperstition, which flowed so plentifully in the classic ages, has been\nconstantly deepening and darkening by the confluence of those supplies,\nwhich ignorance and corrupted religion have poured in upon it.\u201d\n\nFirst, you will call to mind that all the gloomy visions of d\u00e6mons and\nspirits, which sprung out of the Alexandrian or Platonic philosophy,\nwere in the later ages of Paganism engrafted on the old stock of\nclassic superstition. These portentous dreams, _new hatched to the\nwoful time_, as SHAKESPEAR speaks, enabled APULEIUS to outdo LUCAN\nhimself, in some of his magic scenes and exhibitions.\n\nNext, you will observe that a fresh and exhaustless swarm of the\ndirest superstitions took their birth in the frozen regions of the\nNorth, and were naturally enough conceived in the imaginations of a\npeople involved in tenfold darkness; I mean, in the thickest shades\nof ignorance, as well as in the gloom of their comfortless woods and\nforests. I call these the _direst superstitions_; for though the South\nand East may have produced some that shew more wild and fantastic, yet\nthose of the North have ever been of a more sombrous and horrid aspect,\nagreeably to the singular circumstances and situation of that savage\nand benighted people.\n\nThese dismal fancies, which the barbarians carried out with them in\ntheir migrations into the North-west, took the readier and the faster\nhold of men\u2019s minds, from the kindred darkness into which the Western\nworld was then fallen, and from the desolation (so apt to engender all\nfearful conceits and apprehensions) which every where attended the\nincursions of those ravagers.\n\nLastly, before the Romancers applied themselves to dress up these\ndreadful stories, Christian superstition had grown to its height,\nand had transferred on the magic system all its additional and\nsupernumerary horrors.\n\nTaking, now, the whole together, you will clearly see what we are to\nconclude of the _Gothic_ system of prodigy and enchantment; which was\nnot so properly a single system, as the aggregate,\n\n            \u2014of all that nature breeds\n    Perverse; all monstrous, all prodigious things,\n    Which fables yet had feign\u2019d or fear conceiv\u2019d.\n\nFor, to the frightful forms of ancient necromancy (which easily\ntravelled down to us, when the fairer offspring of pagan invention lost\nits way, or was swallowed up in the general darkness of the barbarous\nages) were now joined the hideous phantasms which had terrified the\nNorthern nations; and, to complete the horrid groupe, with these\nwere incorporated the still more tremendous spectres of Christian\nsuperstition.\n\nIn this state of things, as I said, the Romancers went to work; and\nwith these multiplied images of terror on their minds, you will\nconclude, without being at the pains to form particular comparisons,\nthat they must manage ill indeed, not to surpass, in this walk of\nmagical incantation, the original classic fablers.\n\nBut, if you require a comparison, I can tell you where it is to be\nmade, with much ease, and to great advantage: I mean, in SHAKESPEAR\u2019S\n_Macbeth_, where you will find (as his best critic observes) \u201cthe\n_Danish_ or _Northern_, intermixed with the _Greek_ and _Roman_\nenchantments; and all these worked up together with a sufficient\nquantity of our own country superstitions. So that SHAKESPEAR\u2019S\n_Witch-Scenes_ (as the same writer adds) are like the _charms_ they\nprepare in one of them: where the ingredients are gathered from every\nthing shocking in the _natural_ world; as here, from every thing absurd\nin the _moral_.\u201d\n\nOr, if you suspect this instance, as deriving somewhat of its force\nand plausibility from the _magic_ hand of this critic, you may turn to\nanother in a great poet of that time; who has been at the pains to make\nthe comparison himself, and whose word, as he gives it in honest prose,\nmay surely be taken.\n\nIn a work of B. JONSON, which he calls THE MASQUE OF QUEENS, there are\nsome Witch-scenes; written with singular care, and in emulation, as it\nmay seem, of SHAKESPEAR\u2019S; but certainly with the view (for so he tells\nus himself) _of reconciling the practice of antiquity to the neoteric,\nand making it familiar with our popular witchcraft_.\n\nThis Masque is accompanied with notes of the learned author, who\nhad rifled all the stores of ancient and modern _D\u00e6monomagy_, to\nfurnish out his entertainment; and who takes care to inform us, under\neach head, whence he had fetched the ingredients, out of which it is\ncompounded.\n\nIn this elaborate work of JONSON you have, then, an easy opportunity of\ncomparing the ancient with the modern magic. And though, as he was an\nidolater of the ancients, you will expect him to draw freely from that\nsource, yet from the large use he makes, too, of his other more recent\nauthorities, you will perceive that some of the darkest shades of his\npicture are owing to hints and circumstances which he had catched, and\ncould only catch, from the _Gothic_ enchantments. Even such of these\ncircumstances, as, taken by themselves, seem of less moment, should not\nbe overlooked, since (as the poet well observes of them) _though they\nbe but minutes in ceremony, yet they make the act more dark and full of\nhorror_.\n\nThus MUCH, then, may serve for a cast of SHAKESPEAR\u2019S and JONSON\u2019S\nmagic: abundantly sufficient, I must think, to convince you of the\nsuperiority of the _Gothic_ charms and incantations, to the classic.\n\nThough, after all, the conclusion is not to be drawn so much from\nparticular passages, as from the _general impression_ left on our\nminds, in reading the ancient and modern poets. And this is so much\nin favour of the _latter_, that Mr. ADDISON scruples not to say, \u201cThe\nancients have not much of this poetry among them; for indeed (continues\nhe) almost the whole substance of it owes its original to the darkness\nand superstition of later ages\u2014Our forefathers looked upon nature with\nmore reverence and horror, before the world was enlightened by learning\nand philosophy; and loved to astonish themselves with the apprehensions\nof witchcraft, prodigies, charms, and inchantments. There was not a\nvillage in _England_, that had not a ghost in it; the church-yards were\nall haunted; every large common had a circle of fairies belonging to\nit; and there was scarce a shepherd to be met with, who had not seen a\nspirit.\u201d\n\nWe are upon enchanted ground, my friend; and you are to think yourself\nwell used, that I detain you no longer in this fearful circle. The\nglympse, you have had of it, will help your imagination to conceive\nthe rest. And without more words you will readily apprehend that\nthe fancies of our modern bards are not only more gallant, but, on\na change of the scene, more sublime, more terrible, more alarming,\nthan those of the classic fablers. In a word, you will find that the\n_manners_ they paint, and the _superstitions_ they adopt, are the more\npoetical for being _Gothic_.\n\n\nLETTER VII.\n\nBut nothing shews the difference of the two systems under consideration\nmore plainly, than the effect they really had on the Two greatest of\nour Poets; at least the two which an _English_ reader is most fond to\ncompare with HOMER; I mean, SPENSER and MILTON.\n\nIt is not to be doubted but that each of these bards had kindled his\npoetic fire from classic fables. So that, of course, their prejudices\nwould lie that way. Yet they both appear, when most inflamed, to have\nbeen more particularly rapt with the _Gothic_ fables of Chivalry.\n\nSPENSER, though he had been long nourished with the spirit and\nsubstance of HOMER and VIRGIL, chose the times of Chivalry for his\ntheme, and Fairy Land for the scene of his fictions. He could have\nplanned, no doubt, an heroic design on the exact classic model:\nor, he might have trimmed between the _Gothic_ and classic, as his\ncontemporary TASSO did. But the charms of _fairy_ prevailed. And if\nany think, he was seduced by ARIOSTO into this choice, they should\nconsider that it could be only for the sake of his subject; for the\ngenius and character of these poets was widely different.\n\nUnder this idea then of a _Gothic_, not classical poem, the _Fairy\nQueen_ is to be read and criticized. And on these principles it would\nnot be difficult to unfold its merit in another way than has been\nhitherto attempted.\n\nMILTON, it is true, preferred the classic model to the _Gothic_. But\nit was after long hesitation; and his favourite subject was ARTHUR\n_and his Knights of the round table_. On this he had fixed for the\ngreater part of his life. What led him to change his mind was, partly,\nas I suppose, his growing fondness for religious subjects; partly, his\nambition to take a different rout from SPENSER; but chiefly perhaps,\nthe discredit into which the stories of Chivalry had now fallen by the\nimmortal satire of CERVANTES. Yet we see through all his poetry, where\nhis enthusiasm flames out most, a certain predilection for the legends\nof Chivalry before the fables of _Greece_.\n\nThis circumstance, you know, has given offence to the austerer and more\nmechanical critics. They are ready to censure his judgment, as juvenile\nand unformed, when they see him so delighted, on all occasions, with\nthe _Gothic_ romances. But do these censors imagine that MILTON did not\nperceive the defects of these works, as well as they? No: it was not\nthe _composition_ of books of Chivalry, but the _manners_ described in\nthem, that took his fancy; as appears from his _Allegro_\u2014\n\n    Towred cities please us then\n    And the busy hum of men,\n    Where throngs of knights and barons bold\n    In weeds of peace high triumphs hold,\n    With store of ladies, whose bright eyes\n    Rain influence, and judge the prize\n    Of wit, or arms, while both contend\n    To win her grace, whom all commend.\n\nAnd when in the _Penseroso_ he draws, by a fine contrivance, the same\nkind of image to sooth melancholy which he had before given to excite\nmirth, he indeed extols an _author_, or two, of these romances, as he\nhad before, in general, extolled the _subject_ of them: but they are\nauthors worthy of his praise; not the writers of _Amadis_, and _Sir\nLauncelot of the Lake_; but Fairy SPENSER, and CHAUCER himself, who\nhas left an unfinished story on the _Gothic_ or feudal model.\n\n    Or, call up him that left half-told\n    The story of CAMBUSCAN bold,\n    Of CAMBALL and of ALGARSIFF,\n    And who had CANACE to wife,\n    That own\u2019d the virtuous ring and glass,\n    And of the wondrous horse of brass,\n    On which the Tartar king did ride;\n    And if aught else great bards beside\n    In sage and solemn tunes have sung\n    Of turneys and of trophies hung,\n    Of forests and inchantments drear,\n    Where more is meant than meets the ear.\n\nThe conduct then of these two poets may incline us to think with more\nrespect, than is commonly done, of the _Gothic manners_; I mean, as\nadapted to the uses of the greater poetry.\n\nI shall add nothing to what I before observed of SHAKESPEAR, because\nthe sublimity (the divinity, let it be, if nothing else will serve) of\nhis genius kept no certain rout, but rambled at hazard into all the\nregions of human life and manners. So that we can hardly say what he\npreferred, or what he rejected, on full deliberation. Yet one thing\nis clear, that even he is greater when he uses _Gothic_ manners and\nmachinery, than when he employs classical: which brings us again to\nthe same point, that the former have, by their nature and genius, the\nadvantage of the latter in producing the _sublime_.\n\n\nLETTER VIII.\n\nI spoke \u201cof criticizing SPENSER\u2019S poem under the idea, not of a\nclassical, but _Gothic_ composition.\u201d\n\nIt is certain, much light might be thrown on that singular work, were\nan able critic to consider it in this view. For instance, he might\ngo some way towards explaining, perhaps justifying, the general plan\nand _conduct_ of the _Fairy Queen_, which, to classical readers, has\nappeared indefensible.\n\nI have taken the fancy, with your leave, to try my hand on this curious\nsubject.\n\nWhen an architect examines a _Gothic_ structure by _Grecian_ rules, he\nfinds nothing but deformity. But the _Gothic_ architecture has its own\nrules, by which when it comes to be examined, it is seen to have its\nmerit, as well as the _Grecian_. The question is not, which of the two\nis conducted in the simplest or truest taste: but whether there be not\nsense and design in both, when scrutinized by the laws on which each is\nprojected.\n\nThe same observation holds of the two sorts of poetry. Judge of the\n_Fairy Queen_ by the classic models, and you are shocked with its\ndisorder: consider it with an eye to its _Gothic_ original, and you\nfind it regular. The unity and simplicity of the former are more\ncomplete: but the latter has that sort of unity and simplicity, which\nresults from its nature.\n\nThe _Fairy Queen_ then, as a _Gothic_ poem, derives its METHOD, as well\nas the other characters of its composition, from the established modes\nand ideas of Chivalry.\n\nIt was usual, in the days of knight-errantry, at the holding of any\ngreat feast, for knights to appear before the prince, who presided at\nit, and claim the privilege of being sent on any adventure to which\nthe solemnity might give occasion. For it was supposed that, when such\na _throng of knights and barons bold_, as MILTON speaks of, were got\ntogether, the distressed would flock in from all quarters, as to a\nplace where they knew they might find and claim redress for all their\ngrievances.\n\nThis was the real practice, in the days of pure and ancient Chivalry.\nAnd an image of this practice was afterwards kept up in the castles\nof the great, on any extraordinary festival or solemnity: of which, if\nyou want an instance, I refer you to the description of a feast made at\n_Lisle_ in 1453, in the court of PHILIP the good, duke of _Burgundy_,\nfor a Crusade against the _Turks_: as you may find it given at large in\nthe memoirs of MATTHIEU DE CONCI, OLIVIER DE LA MARCHE, and MONSTRELET.\n\nThat feast was held for _twelve_ days: and each day was distinguished\nby the claim and allowance of some adventure.\n\nNow, laying down this practice as a foundation for the poet\u2019s design,\nyou will see how properly the _Fairy Queen_ is conducted.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u201cI DEVISE,\u201d says the poet himself in his letter to Sir W. RALEIGH,\n\u201cthat the _Fairy Queen_ kept her annual feaste xii days: upon which xii\nseveral days, the occasions of the xii several adventures happened;\nwhich being undertaken by xii several knights, are in these xii books\nseverally handled.\u201d\n\nHere you have the poet delivering his own method, and the reason of it.\nIt arose out of the order of his subject. And would you desire a better\nreason for his choice?\n\nYes; you will say, a poet\u2019s method is not that of his subject. I grant\nyou, as to the order of _time_, in which the recital is made; for here,\nas SPENSER observes (and his own practice agrees to the rule), lies the\nmain difference between _the poet historical, and the historiographer_:\nthe reason of which is drawn from the nature of _Epic_ composition\nitself, and holds equally let the subject be what it will, and whatever\nthe system of manners be, on which it is conducted. Gothic or Classic\nmakes no difference in this respect.\n\nBut the case is not the same with regard to the general plan of a work,\nor what may be called the order of _distribution_, which is and must\nbe governed by the subject-matter itself. It was as requisite for the\n_Fairy Queen_ to consist of the adventures of twelve Knights, as for\nthe _Odyssey_ to be confined to the adventures of one Hero: justice had\notherwise not been done to his subject.\n\nSo that if you will say any thing against the poet\u2019s method, you must\nsay that he should not have chosen this subject. But this objection\narises from your classic ideas of Unity, which have no place here; and\nare in every view foreign to the purpose, if the poet has found means\nto give his work, though consisting of many parts, the advantage of\nUnity. For in some reasonable sense or other, it is agreed, every work\nof art must be _one_, the very idea of a work requiring it.\n\nIf you ask then, what is this _Unity_ of SPENSER\u2019S Poem? I say, It\nconsists in the relation of its several adventures to one common\n_original_, the appointment of the _Fairy Queen_; and to one common\n_end_, the completion of the _Fairy Queen\u2019s_ injunctions. The knights\nissued forth on their adventures on the breaking up of this annual\nfeast: and the next annual feast, we are to suppose, is to bring them\ntogether again from the atchievement of their several charges.\n\nThis, it is true, is not the classic Unity, which consists in the\nrepresentation of one entire action: but it is an Unity of another\nsort, an unity resulting from the respect which a number of related\nactions have to one common purpose. In other words, it is an unity of\n_design_, and not of action.\n\nThis _Gothic_ method of design in poetry may be, in some sort,\nillustrated by what is called the _Gothic_ method of design in\ngardening. A wood or grove cut out into many separate avenues or\nglades was among the most favourite of the works of art, which our\nfathers attempted in this species of cultivation. These walks were\ndistinct from each other, had each their several destination, and\nterminated on their own proper objects. Yet the whole was brought\ntogether and considered under one view, by the relation which these\nvarious openings had, not to each other, but to their common and\nconcurrent center. You and I are, perhaps, agreed that this sort of\ngardening is not of so true a taste as that which _Kent and Nature_\nhave brought us acquainted with; where the supreme art of the designer\nconsists in disposing his ground and objects into an _entire landskip_;\nand grouping them, if I may use the term, in so easy a manner, that the\ncareless observer, though he be taken with the symmetry of the whole,\ndiscovers no art in the combination:\n\n    In lieto aspetto il bel giardin s\u2019aperse,\n    Acque stagnanti, mobili cristalli,\n    Fior vari, e varie piante, herbe diverse,\n    Apriche collinette, ombrose valli,\n    Selve, e spelunche in UNA VISTA offerse:\n    E quel, che\u2019l bello, e\u2019l caro accresce \u00e0 l\u2019opre,\n    L\u2019arte, che tutto s\u00e0, nulla si scopre.\n                          TASSO, C. XVI. s. ix.\n\nThis, I say, may be the truest taste in gardening, because the\nsimplest: yet there is a manifest regard to unity in the other method;\nwhich has had its admirers, as it may have again, and is certainly not\nwithout its _design_ and beauty.\n\nBut to return to our poet. Thus far he drew from _Gothic_ ideas; and\nthese ideas, I think, would lead him no further. But, as SPENSER knew\nwhat belonged to classic composition, he was tempted to tie his subject\nstill closer together by _one_ expedient of his own, and by _another_\ntaken from his classic models.\n\nHis _own_ was, to interrupt the proper story of each book, by\ndispersing it into several; involving by this means, and as it were\nintertwisting the several actions together, in order to give something\nlike the appearance of one action to his twelve adventures. And for\nthis conduct, as absurd as it seems, he had some great examples in the\n_Italian_ poets, though, I believe, they were led into it by different\nmotives.\n\nThe _other_ expedient, which he borrowed from the classics, was, by\nadopting one superior character, which should be seen throughout.\nPrince ARTHUR, who had a separate adventure of his own, was to have\nhis part in each of the other; and thus several actions were to be\nembodied by the interest which one principal Hero had in them all. It\nis even observable, that SPENSER gives this adventure of Prince ARTHUR,\nin quest of GLORIANA, as the proper subject of his poem. And upon this\nidea the late learned editor of the _Fairy Queen_ has attempted, but,\nI think, without success, to defend the unity and simplicity of its\nfable. The truth was, the violence of classic prejudices forced the\npoet to affect this appearance of unity, though in contradiction to his\n_Gothic_ system. And, as far as we can judge of the tenour of the whole\nwork from the finished half of it, the adventure of Prince ARTHUR,\nwhatever the author pretended, and his critic too easily believed, was\nbut an after-thought; and, at least, with regard to the _historical\nfable_, which we are now considering, was only one of the expedients by\nwhich he would conceal the disorder of his _Gothic_ plan.\n\nAnd if this was his design, I will venture to say that both his\nexpedients were injudicious. Their purpose was, to ally two things, in\nnature incompatible, the _Gothic_, and the classic unity; the effect\nof which misalliance was to discover and expose the nakedness of the\n_Gothic_.\n\nI am of opinion then, considering the _Fairy Queen_ as an epic or\n_narrative_ poem constructed on _Gothic_ ideas, that the poet had\ndone well to affect no other unity than that of _design_, by which\nhis subject was connected. But his poem is not simply narrative; it\nis throughout _allegorical_: he calls it _a perpetual allegory or\ndark conceit_: and this character, for reasons I may have occasion\nto observe hereafter, was even predominant in the _Fairy Queen_. His\nnarration is subservient to his moral, and but serves to colour it.\nThis he tells us himself at setting out,\n\n    Fierce wars and faithful loves shall _moralize_ my song;\n\nthat is, shall serve for a vehicle, or instrument to convey the moral.\n\nNow under this idea, the _Unity_ of the _Fairy Queen_ is more apparent.\nHis twelve knights are to exemplify as many virtues, out of which\none illustrious character is to be composed. And in this view the\npart of Prince ARTHUR in each book becomes _essential_, and yet not\n_principal_; exactly, as the poet has contrived it. They who rest\nin the literal story, that is, who criticize it on the footing of a\nnarrative poem, have constantly objected to this management. They say,\nit necessarily breaks the unity of design. Prince ARTHUR, they affirm,\nshould either have had no part in the other adventures, or he should\nhave had the chief part. He should either have done nothing, or more.\nThis objection I find insisted upon by SPENSER\u2019S best critic[49];\nand, I think, the objection is unanswerable; at least, I know of\nnothing that can be said to remove it, but what I have supposed above\nmight be the purpose of the poet, and which I myself have rejected as\ninsufficient.\n\nBut how faulty soever this conduct be in the literal story, it is\nperfectly right in the _moral_: and that for an obvious reason, though\nhis critics seem not to have been aware of it. His chief hero was not\nto have the twelve virtues in the _degree_ in which the knights had,\neach of them, their own (such a character would be a monster;) but\nhe was to have so much of each as was requisite to form his superior\ncharacter. Each virtue, in its perfection, is exemplified in its own\nknight; they are all, in a due degree, concentrated in Prince ARTHUR.\n\nThis was the poet\u2019s _moral_: and what way of expressing this moral in\nthe _history_, but by making Prince ARTHUR appear in each adventure,\nand in a manner subordinate to its proper hero? Thus, though inferior\nto each in his own specific virtue, he is superior to all by uniting\nthe whole circle of their virtues in himself: and thus he arrives,\nat length, at the possession of that bright form of _Glory_, whose\nravishing beauty, as seen in a dream or vision, had led him out into\nthese miraculous adventures in the land of Fairy.\n\nThe conclusion is, that, as an _allegorical_ poem, the method of\nthe _Fairy Queen_ is governed by the justness of the _moral_: as\na _narrative_ poem, it is conducted on the ideas and usages of\n_Chivalry_. In either view, if taken by itself, the plan is defensible.\nBut from the union of the two designs there arises a perplexity and\nconfusion, which is the proper, and only considerable, defect of this\nextraordinary poem.\n\n\nLETTER IX.\n\nNo doubt, SPENSER might have taken one single adventure, of the TWELVE,\nfor the subject of his Poem; or he might have given the principal part\nin every adventure to Prince ARTHUR. By this means his fable had been\nof the classic kind, and its unity as strict as that of HOMER and\nVIRGIL.\n\nAll this the poet knew very well; but his purpose was not to write a\nclassic poem. He chose to adorn a _Gothic_ story; and, to be consistent\nthroughout, he chose that the _form_ of his work should be of a piece\nwith his subject.\n\nDid the poet do right in this? I cannot tell: but, comparing his work\nwith that of another great poet, who followed the system you seem to\nrecommend, I see no reason to be peremptory in condemning his judgment.\n\nThe example of this poet deserves to be considered. It will afford, at\nleast, a fresh confirmation of the point, I principally insist upon,\n_the pre-eminence of the GOTHIC manners and fictions, as adapted to\nthe ends of poetry, above the classic_.\n\nI observed of the famous TORQUATO TASSO, that, coming into the world a\nlittle of the latest for the success of the pure _Gothic_ manner, he\nthought fit to _trim_ between that and the classic model.\n\nIt was lucky for his fame, that he did so. For the _Gothic_ fables\nfalling every day more and more into contempt, and the learning of the\ntimes, throughout all _Europe_, taking a classic turn, the reputation\nof his work has been chiefly founded on the strong resemblance it has\nto the ancient _Epic_ poems. His fable is conducted in the spirit of\nthe _Iliad_; and with a strict regard to that unity of _action_ which\nwe admire in HOMER and VIRGIL.\n\nBut this is not all; we find a studied and close imitation of those\npoets, in many of the smaller parts, in the minuter incidents, and even\nin the descriptions and similes of his poem.\n\nThe classic reader was pleased with this deference to the public\ntaste: he saw with delight the favourite beauties of HOMER and VIRGIL\nreflected in the _Italian_ poet; and was almost ready to excuse, for\nthe sake of these, his magic tales and fairy enchantments.\n\nI said, was _almost ready_; for the offence given by these tales to the\nmore fashionable sort of critics was so great, that nothing, I believe,\ncould make full amends, in their judgment, for such extravagancies.\n\nHowever, by this means, the _Gierusalemme Liberata_ made its fortune\namongst the _French_ wits, who have constantly cried it up above the\n_Orlando Furioso_, and principally for this reason, that TASSO was more\nclassical in his fable, and more sparing in the wonders of _Gothic_\nfiction, than his predecessor.\n\nThe _Italians_ have indeed a predilection for their elder bard; whether\nfrom their prejudice for his subject; their admiration of his language;\nthe richness of his invention; the comic air of his style and manner;\nor from whatever other reason.\n\nBe this as it will, the _French_ criticism has carried it before\nthe _Italian_, with the rest of _Europe_. This dextrous people have\nfound means to lead the taste, as well as set the fashions, of their\nneighbours: and ARIOSTO ranks but little higher than the rudest\nRomancer in the opinion of those who take their notions of these things\nfrom their writers.\n\nBut the same principle, which made them give TASSO the preference to\nARIOSTO, has led them by degrees to think very unfavourably of TASSO\nhimself. The mixture of the _Gothic_ manner in his work has not been\nforgiven. It has sunk the credit of all the rest; and some instances\nof false taste in the expression of his sentiments, detected by their\nnicer critics, have brought matters to that pass, that, with their good\nwill, TASSO himself should now follow the fate of ARIOSTO.\n\nI will not say, that a little national envy did not perhaps mix itself\nwith their other reasons for undervaluing this great poet. They aspired\nto a sort of supremacy in letters; and finding the _Italian_ language\nand its best writers standing in their way, they have spared no pains\nto lower the estimation of both.\n\nWhatever their inducements were, they succeeded but too well in their\nattempt. Our obsequious and over-modest critics were run down by their\nauthority. Their taste of letters, with some worse things, was brought\namong us at the Restoration. Their language, their manners, nay their\nvery prejudices, were adopted by our polite king and his royalists. And\nthe more fashionable wits, of course, set their fancies, as my Lord\nMOLESWORTH tells us the people of _Copenhagen_ in his time did their\nclocks, by the court-standard.\n\nSir W. DAVENANT opened the way to this new sort of criticism in a very\nelaborate preface to GONDIBERT; and his philosophic friend, Mr. HOBBES,\nlent his best assistance towards establishing the credit of it. These\ntwo fine letters contain, indeed, the substance of whatever has been\nsince written on the subject. Succeeding wits and critics did no more\nthan echo their language. It grew into a sort of cant, with which\nRYMER, and the rest of that school, filled their flimsy essays and\nrambling prefaces.\n\nOur noble critic himself[50] condescended to take up this trite theme:\nand it is not to be told with what alacrity and self-complacency\nhe flourishes upon it. The _Gothic manner_, as he calls it, is the\nfavourite object of his raillery; which is never more lively or\npointed, than when it exposes that \u201cbad taste which makes us prefer an\nARIOSTO to a VIRGIL, and a Romance (without doubt he meant, of TASSO)\nto an _Iliad_.\u201d Truly, this critical sin requires an expiation; which\nyet is easily made by subscribing to his sentence, \u201cThat the French\nindeed may boast of legitimate authors of a just relish; but that the\n_Italian_ are good for nothing but to corrupt the taste of those who\nhave had no familiarity with the noble antients[51].\u201d\n\nThis ingenious nobleman is, himself, one of the _gallant votaries_ he\nsometimes makes himself so merry with. He is perfectly enamoured of his\n_noble ancients_; and will fight with any man who contends, not that\nhis Lordship\u2019s mistress is not fair, but that his own is fair also.\n\nIt is certain the French wits benefited by this foible. For pretending,\nin great modesty, to have formed themselves on the pure taste of his\nnoble ancients, they easily drew his Lordship over to their party:\nwhile the _Italians_, more stubbornly pretending to a taste of their\nown, and chusing to _lye_ for themselves, instead of adopting the\nauthorised _lyes_ of _Greece_, were justly exposed to his resentment.\n\nSuch was the address of the _French_ writers, and such their triumphs\nover the poor _Italians_.\n\nIt must be owned, indeed, they had every advantage on their side, in\nthis contest with their masters. The taste and learning of _Italy_\nhad been long on the decline; and the fine writers under LOUIS XIV.\nwere every day advancing the _French_ language, such as it is (simple,\nclear, exact, that is, fit for business and conversation; but for that\nreason, besides its total want of numbers, absolutely unsuited to the\ngenius of the greater poetry), towards its last perfection. The purity\nof the ancient manner became well understood, and it was the pride\nof their best critics to expose every instance of false taste in the\nmodern writers. The _Italian_, it is certain, could not stand so severe\na scrutiny. But they had escaped better, if the most fashionable of the\n_French_ poets had not, at the same time, been their best critic.\n\nA lucky word in a verse, which sounds well and every body gets by\nheart, goes further than a volume of just criticism. In short, the\nexact, but cold BOILEAU happened to say something of the _clinquant_ of\nTASSO; and the magic of this word, like the report of ASTOLFO\u2019S horn in\nARIOSTO, overturned at once the solid and well-built reputation of the\n_Italian_ poetry.\n\nIt is not perhaps strange that this potent word should do its business\nin _France_. What was less to be expected, it put us into a fright\non this side the water. Mr. ADDISON, who gave the law in taste here,\ntook it up, and sent it about the kingdom in his polite and popular\nessays[52]. It became a sort of watchword among the critics; and, on\nthe sudden, nothing was heard, on all sides, but the _clinquant_ of\nTASSO.\n\nAfter all, these two respectable writers might not intend the mischief\nthey were doing. The observation was just; but was extended much\nfurther than they meant, by their witless followers and admirers. The\neffect was, as I said, that the _Italian_ poetry was rejected in the\ngross, by virtue of this censure; though the authors of it had said no\nmore than this, \u201cthat their best poet had some false thoughts, and\ndealt, as they supposed, too much in incredible fiction.\u201d\n\nI leave you to make your own reflexions on this short history of the\n_Italian_ poetry. It is not my design to be its apologist in all\nrespects. However, with regard to the _first_ of these charges, I\npresume to say, that, as just as it is in the sense in which I persuade\nmyself it was intended, there are more instances of natural sentiment,\nand of that divine simplicity we admire in the ancients, even in\nGUARINI\u2019S _Pastor Fido_, than in the best of the _French_ poets.\n\nAnd as to the _last_ charge, I pretend to shew you, in my next Letter,\nthat it implies no fault at all in the _Italian_ poets.\n\n\nLETTER X.\n\n_Chi non sa che cosa sia Italia?_\u2014If this question could ever be\nreasonably asked on any occasion, it must surely be when the wit\nand poetry of that people were under consideration. The enchanting\nsweetness of their tongue, the richness of their invention, the fire\nand elevation of their genius, the splendour of their expression on\ngreat subjects, and the native simplicity of their sentiments on\naffecting ones; all these are such manifest advantages on the side of\nthe _Italian_ poets, as should seem to command our highest admiration\nof their great and capital works.\n\nYet a different language has been held by our finer critics. And,\nin particular, you hear it commonly said of the tales of _Fairy_,\nwhich they first and principally adorned, \u201cthat they are extravagant\nand absurd; that they surpass all bounds, not of truth only, but of\nprobability; and look more like the dreams of children, than the manly\ninventions of poets.\u201d\n\nAll this, and more, has been said; and, if truly said, who would not\nlament\n\n    L\u2019arte del po\u00ebtar troppo infelice?\n\nFor they are not the cold fancies of plebeian poets, but the golden\ndreams of ARIOSTO, the celestial visions of TASSO, that are thus\nderided.\n\nBut now, as to the _extravagance_ of these fictions, it is frequently,\nI believe, much less than these laughers apprehend.\n\nTo give an instance or two, of this sort.\n\nOne of the strangest circumstances in those books, is that of\nthe _women-warriors_, with which they all abound. BUTLER, in his\n_Hudibras_, who saw it only in the light of a poetical invention,\nridicules it, as a most unnatural idea, with great spirit. Yet in this\nrepresentation, they did but copy from the manners of the times. ANNA\nCOMNENA tells us, in the life of her father, that the wife of ROBERT\nthe _Norman_ fought side by side with her husband, in his battles; that\nshe would rally the flying soldiers, and lead them back to the charge:\nand NICETAS observes, that, in the time of MANUEL COMNENA, there were\nin one Crusade many women, armed like men, on horseback.\n\nWhat think you now of TASSO\u2019S _Clarinda_, whose prodigies of valour I\ndare say you have often laughed at? Or, rather, what think you of that\nconstant pair,\n\n    \u201cGILDIPPE et ODOARDO amanti e sposi,\n    In valor d\u2019arme, e in lealt\u00e0 famosi?\u201d\n                           C. III. s. 40.\n\nAgain: what can be more absurd and incredible, it is often said, than\nthe vast armies we read of in Romance? a circumstance, to which MILTON\nscruples not to allude in those lines of his _Paradise Regained_\u2014\n\n      Such forces met not, nor so wide a camp,\n    When AGRICAN with all his northern powers\n    Besieg\u2019d _Albracca_, as Romances tell,\n    The city of GALLAPHRONE, from thence to win\n    The fairest of her sex, ANGELICA.\n                              B. III. ver. 337.\n\nThe classical reader is much scandalized on these occasions, and never\nfails to cry out on the impudence of these lying fablers. Yet if he\ndid but reflect on the prodigious swarms which _Europe_ sent out in\nthe Crusades, and that the transactions of those days furnished the\nRomance-writers with their ideas and images, he would see that the\nmarvellous in such stories was modest enough, and did not very much\nexceed the strict bounds of historical representation.\n\nThe first army, for instance, that marched for the Holy Land, even\nafter all the losses it had sustained by the way, amounted, we are\ntold, when it came to be mustered in the plains of _Asia_, to no\nless than seven hundred thousand fighting men: a number, which would\nalmost have satisfied the Romancer\u2019s keenest appetite for wonder and\namplification.\n\nA third instance may be thought still more remarkable.\n\n\u201cWe read perpetually of walls of fire raised by magical art to stop\nthe progress of knights-errant. In TASSO, the wizard ISMENO guards\nthe inchanted forest with walls of fire. In the _Orlando Inamorato_,\nL. III. c. i. MANDRICARDO is endeavoured to be stopped by enchanted\nflames; but he makes his way through all.\u201d\n\nThus far the learned editor of the _Fairy Queen_ [Notes on B. III.\nc. xi. s. 25.] who contents himself, like a good Romance-critic,\nwith observing the fact, without the irreverence of presuming to\naccount for it. But if the profane will not be kept within this decent\nreserve, we may give them to understand, that this fancy, as wild as\nit appears, had some foundation in _truth_. For I make no question\nbut these _fires_, raised by magical art, to stop the progress of\nassailants, were only the flames of FEUGREGEOIS, as it was called, that\nis of WILDFIRE, which appeared so strange, on its first invention and\napplication, in the barbarous ages.\n\nWe hear much of its wonders in the history of the Crusades; and even so\nlate as SPENSER\u2019S own time they were not forgotten. DAVILA, speaking of\nthe siege of _Poitiers_ in 1569, tells us\u2014\u2014_Abbondavano nella citta\nle provisioni da guerra; tra le quali, quantita inestimabile di FUOCHI\nARTIFICIATI, lavorati in diverse maniere, ne\u2019quali avenano i defensori\nposta grandissima speranza di respingere gli assalti de\u2019nemici._ Lib. v.\n\nHence, without doubt, the _magical flames and fiery walls_, of the\n_Gothic_ Romancers[53]; and who will say, that the _specious miracles_\nof HOMER himself had a better foundation?\n\nBut, after all, this is not the sort of defence I mean chiefly to\ninsist upon. Let others explain away these _wonders_, so offensive to\ncertain philosophical critics. They are welcome to me in their own\nproper form, and with all the extravagance commonly imputed to them.\n\nIt is true, the only criticism, worth regarding, is that which these\ncritics lay claim to, the philosophical. But there is a sort which\nlooks like philosophy, and is not. May not that be the case here?\n\nThis criticism, whatever name it deserves, supposes that the poets, who\nare lyars by profession, expect to have their lyes believed. Surely\nthey are not so unreasonable. They think it enough, if they can but\nbring you to _imagine_ the possibility of them.\n\nAnd how small a matter will serve for this? A legend, a tale, a\ntradition, a rumour, a superstition; in short, any thing is enough to\nbe the basis of their air-formed _visions_. Does any capable reader\ntrouble himself about the truth, or even the credibility of their\nfancies? Alas, no; he is best pleased when he is made to conceive (he\nminds not by what magic) the existence of such things as his reason\ntells him did not, and were never likely to, exist.\n\nBut here, to prevent mistakes, an explanation will be necessary.\nWe must distinguish between the _popular belief_, and _that of the\nreader_. The fictions of poetry do, in some degree at least, require\nthe _first_ (they would, otherwise, deservedly pass for _dreams_\nindeed): but when the poet has this advantage on his side, and his\nfancies have, or may be supposed to have, a countenance from the\ncurrent superstitions of the age in which he writes, he dispenses with\nthe _last_, and gives his reader leave to be as sceptical, and as\nincredulous, as he pleases.\n\nA fashionable _French_ critic diverts himself with imagining \u201cwhat a\nperson, who comes fresh from reading Mr. ADDISON and Mr. LOCKE, would\nbe apt to think of TASSO\u2019S Enchantments[54].\u201d\n\nThe _English_ reader will, perhaps, smile at seeing these two writers\nso coupled together: and, with the critic\u2019s leave, we will put Mr.\nLOCKE out of the question. But if he be desirous to know what a reader\nof Mr. ADDISON would pronounce in the case, I can undertake to give him\nsatisfaction.\n\nSpeaking of what Mr. DRYDEN calls, _the Fairy way of writing_, \u201cMen\nof cold fancies and philosophical dispositions, says he, object to\nthis kind of poetry, that it has not probability enough to affect the\nimagination. But\u2014many are prepossest with such false opinions, as\ndispose them to _believe_ these particular delusions: at least, we\nhave all _heard_ so many pleasing relations in favour of them, that\nwe do not care for seeing through the _falsehood_, and willingly give\nourselves up to so agreeable an imposture.\u201d [_Spect._ N^{o} 419.]\n\nApply, now, this sage judgment of Mr. ADDISON to TASSO\u2019S\n_Enchantments_; and you see that a _falsehood convict_ is not to be\npleaded against a _supposed belief_, or even the _slightest hear-say_.\n\nSo little account does this wicked poetry make of philosophical or\nhistorical truth: all she allows us to look for, is _poetical truth_;\na very slender thing indeed, and which the poet\u2019s eye, when rolling in\na _fine frenzy_, can but just lay hold of. To speak in the philosophic\nlanguage of Mr. HOBBES, it is something much _beyond the actual bounds,\nand only within the conceived possibility of nature_.\n\nBut the source of bad criticism, as universally of bad philosophy, is\nthe abuse of terms. A poet, they say, must follow _nature_; and by\nnature we are to suppose can only be meant the known and experienced\ncourse of affairs in this world. Whereas the poet has a world of his\nown, where experience has less to do, than consistent imagination.\n\nHe has, besides, a supernatural world to range in. He has Gods, and\nFairies, and Witches, at his command: and,\n\n            \u2014 \u2014 \u2014 \u2014O! who can tell\n    The hidden _pow\u2019r_ of herbes, and might of magic spell?\n                                      SPENSER, B. V. C. ii.\n\nThus, in the poet\u2019s world, all is marvellous and extraordinary; yet\nnot _unnatural_ in one sense, as it agrees to the conceptions that are\nreadily entertained of these magical and wonder-working natures.\n\nThis trite maxim of _following Nature_ is further mistaken, in applying\nit indiscriminately to all sorts of poetry.\n\nIn those species which have men and manners professedly for their\ntheme, a strict conformity with human nature is reasonably demanded.\n\n    Non hic Centauros, non Gorgonas, Harpyiasque\n      Invenies: hominem pagina nostra sapit;\n\nis a proper motto to a book of epigrams; but would make a poor figure\nat the head of an epic poem.\n\nStill further in those species that address themselves to the heart,\nand would obtain their end, not through the _imagination_, but through\nthe _passions_, there the liberty of transgressing nature, I mean the\nreal powers and properties of human nature, is infinitely restrained;\nand _poetical_ truth is, under these circumstances, almost as severe a\nthing as _historical_.\n\nThe reason is, we must first _believe_ before we can be _affected_.\n\nBut the case is different with the more sublime and creative poetry.\nThis species, addressing itself solely or principally to the\nImagination; a young and credulous faculty, which loves to admire\nand to be deceived; has no need to observe those cautious rules of\ncredibility, so necessary to be followed by him who would touch the\naffections and interest the heart.\n\nThis difference, you will say, is obvious enough: How came it then to\nbe overlooked? From another mistake, in extending a particular precept\nof the drama into a general maxim.\n\nThe _incredulus odi_ of HORACE ran in the heads of these critics,\nthough his own words confine the observation singly to the stage:\n\n    Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem\n    Quam qu\u00e6 sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus, et qu\u00e6\n    Ipse sibi tradit Spectator\u2014\u2014\n\nThat, which passes in _representation_, and challenges, as it were, the\nscrutiny of the eye, must be truth itself, or something very nearly\napproaching to it. But what passes in _narration_, even on the stage,\nis admitted without much difficulty\u2014\n\n                        multaque tolles\n    Ex oculis, qu\u00e6 mox narret facundia presens.\n\nIn the epic narration, which may be called _absens facundia_, the\nreason of the thing shews this indulgence to be still greater.\nIt appeals neither to the _eye_ nor the _ear_, but simply to the\n_imagination_, and so allows the poet a liberty of multiplying and\nenlarging his impostures at pleasure, in proportion to the easiness and\ncomprehension of that faculty[55].\n\nThese general reflexions hardly require an application to the present\nsubject. The tales of Fairy are exploded, as fantastic and incredible.\nThey would merit this contempt, if presented on the stage; I mean, if\nthey were given as the proper subject of dramatic imitation, and the\ninterest of the poet\u2019s plot were to be wrought out of the adventures of\nthese marvellous persons. But the epic muse runs no risque in giving\nway to such fanciful exhibitions.\n\nYou may call them, as one does, \u201cextraordinary dreams, such as\nexcellent poets and painters, by being over-studious, may have in the\nbeginning of fevers[56].\u201d\n\nThe epic poet would acknowledge the charge, and even value himself upon\nit. He would say, \u201cI leave to the sage dramatist the merit of being\nalways broad awake, and always in his senses. The _divine dream_[57],\nand delirious fancy, are among the noblest of my prerogatives.\u201d\n\nBut the injustice done the _Italian_ poets does not stop here. The\ncry is, \u201cMagic and enchantments are senseless things. Therefore\nthe _Italian_ poets are not worth the reading.\u201d As if, because the\nsuperstitions of HOMER and VIRGIL are no longer believed, their poems,\nwhich abound in them, are good for nothing.\n\nYes, you will say, their fine pictures of life and manners\u2014\n\nAnd may not I say the same, in behalf of ARIOSTO and TASSO? For it\nis not true that all is _unnatural_ and monstrous in their poems,\nbecause of this mixture of the wonderful. Admit, for example, ARMIDA\u2019S\nmarvellous conveyance to the happy Island; and all the rest of the\nlove-story is as natural, that is, as suitable to our common notions of\nthat passion, as any thing in VIRGIL or (if you will) VOLTAIRE.\n\nThus, you see, the apology of the _Italian_ poets is easily made on\nevery supposition. But I stick to my point, and maintain that the\nFairy tales of TASSO do him more honour than what are called the more\nnatural, that is, the classical parts of his poem. His imitations of\nthe ancients have indeed their merit; for he was a genius in every\nthing. But they are faint and cold, and almost insipid, when compared\nwith his _Gothic_ fictions. We make a shift to run over the passages he\nhas copied from VIRGIL. We are all on fire amidst the magical feats of\nISMEN, and the enchantments of ARMIDA.\n\n    Magnanima mensogna, hor quando \u00e8 il vero\n    Si bello, che si possa \u00e0 te preporre?\n\nI speak at least for myself; and must freely own, if it were not for\nthese _lyes_ of _Gothic_ invention, I should scarcely be disposed to\ngive the _Gierusalem Liberata_ a second reading.\n\nI readily agree to the lively observation, \u201cThat impenetrable armour,\ninchanted castles, invulnerable bodies, iron men, flying horses, and\nother such things, are easily feigned by them that dare[58].\u201d But, with\nthe observer\u2019s leave, not so feigned as we find them in the _Italian_\npoets, unless the writer have another quality, besides that of courage.\n\nOne thing is true, that the success of these fictions will not be\ngreat, when they have no longer any footing in the popular belief:\nand the reason is, that readers do not usually do as they ought, put\nthemselves in the circumstances of the poet, or rather of those of whom\nthe poet writes. But this only shews, that some ages are not so fit\nto write epic poems in, as others; not, that they should be otherwise\nwritten.\n\nIt is also true, that writers do not succeed so well in painting what\nthey have heard, as what they believe, themselves, or at least observe\nin others a facility of believing. And on this account I would advise\nno modern poet to revive these Fairy tales in an epic poem. But still\nthis is nothing to the case in hand, where we are considering the\nmerit of epic poems, written under other circumstances.\n\nThe Pagan Gods and _Gothic_ Fairies were equally out of credit when\nMILTON wrote. He did well therefore to supply their room with Angels\nand Devils. If these too should wear out of the popular creed (and\nthey seem in a hopeful way, from the liberty some late critics have\ntaken with them) I know not what other expedients the epic poet might\nhave recourse to; but this I know, the pomp of verse, the energy of\ndescription, and even the finest moral paintings, would stand him in\nno stead. Without _admiration_ (which cannot be affected but by the\nmarvellous of celestial intervention, I mean, the agency of superior\nnatures really existing, or by the illusion of the fancy taken to be\nso) no epic poem can be long-lived.\n\nI am not afraid to instance in the _Henriade_ itself; which,\nnotwithstanding the elegance of the composition, will in a short time\nbe no more read than the _Gondibert_ of Sir W. DAVENANT, and for the\nsame reason.\n\nCritics may talk what they will of _Truth and Nature_, and abuse\nthe _Italian_ poets as they will, for transgressing both in their\nincredible fictions. But, believe it, my friend, these fictions with\nwhich they have studied to delude the world, are of that kind of\ncreditable deceits, of which a wise ancient pronounces with assurance,\n\u201c_That they, who deceive, are honester than they who do not deceive;\nand they, who are deceived, wiser than they who are not deceived._\u201d\n\n\nLETTER XI.\n\nBut you are weary of hearing so much of these exploded fancies; and are\nready to ask, if there be any truth in this representation, \u201cWhence\nit has come to pass, that the classical manners are still admired and\nimitated by the poets, when the _Gothic_ have long since fallen into\ndisuse?\u201d\n\nThe answer to this question will furnish all that is now wanting to a\nproper discussion of the present subject.\n\nOne great reason of this difference certainly was, that the ablest\nwriters of _Greece_ ennobled the system of heroic manners, while it\nwas fresh and flourishing; and their works, being master-pieces of\ncomposition, so fixed the credit of it in the opinion of the world,\nthat no revolutions of time and taste could afterwards shake it.\n\nWhereas the _Gothic_ having been disgraced in their infancy by bad\nwriters, and a new set of manners springing up before there were any\nbetter to do them justice, they could never be brought into vogue by\nthe attempts of later poets; who yet, in spite of prejudice, and for\nthe genuine charm of these highly poetical manners, did their utmost to\nrecommend them.\n\nBut, FURTHER, the _Gothic_ system was not only forced to wait long for\nreal genius to do it honour; real genius was even very early employed\nagainst it.\n\nThere were two causes of this mishap. The old Romancers had even\noutraged the truth in their extravagant pictures of Chivalry; and\nChivalry itself, such as it once had been, was greatly abated.\n\nSo that men of sense were doubly disgusted to find a representation\nof things _unlike_ to what they observed in real life, and _beyond_\nwhat it was ever possible should have existed. However, with these\ndisadvantages, there was still so much of the old spirit left, and the\nfascination of these wondrous tales was so prevalent, that a more than\ncommon degree of sagacity and good sense was required to penetrate the\nillusion.\n\nIt was one of this character, I suppose, that put the famous question\nto ARIOSTO, which has been so often repeated that I shall spare you\nthe disgust of hearing it. Yet long before his time an immortal genius\nof our own (so superior is the sense of some men to the age they live\nin) saw as far into this matter, as ARIOSTO\u2019S examiner.\n\nYou will, perhaps, be as much surprised, as I was (when, many years\nago, the observation was, first, made to me) to understand, that this\nsagacious person was DAN CHAUCER; who in a reign that almost realized\nthe wonders of Romantic Chivalry, not only discerned the absurdity of\nthe old Romances, but has even ridiculed them with incomparable spirit.\n\n\u201cHIS RIME OF SIR TOPAZ in the _Canterbury_ Tales (said the curious\nobserver, on whose authority I am now building) is a manifest banter\non these books, and may be considered as a sort of prelude to the\nadventures of Don QUIXOTE. I call it _a manifest banter_: for we are\nto observe that this was CHAUCER\u2019S own tale; and that, when in the\nprogress of it the good sense of the Host is made to break in upon him,\nand interrupt him, CHAUCER approves his disgust, and, changing his\nnote, tells the simple instructive tale of MELIBOEUS; _a moral tale\nvirtuous_, as he terms it; to shew, what sort of fictions were most\nexpressive of real life, and most proper to be put into the hands of\nthe people.\n\nIt is, further, to be noted, that the tale of _the Giant_ OLYPHANT _and\nChylde_ TOPAZ was not a fiction of his own, but a story of antique\nfame, and very celebrated in the days of Chivalry: so that nothing\ncould better suit the poet\u2019s design of discrediting the old Romances,\nthan the choice of this venerable legend for the vehicle of his\nridicule upon them.\n\nBut what puts the satyric purpose of _the Rime of Sir_ TOPAZ out of\nall question, is, that this short poem is so managed as, with infinite\nhumour, to expose the leading impertinencies of books of Chivalry; the\nvery _same_, which CERVANTES afterwards drew out, and exposed at large,\nin his famous history.\n\nIndeed Sir TOPAZ is all Don QUIXOTE in little; as you will easily see\nfrom comparing the two knights together; who are drawn with the same\nfeatures, are characterized by the same strokes, and differ from each\nother but as a sketch in miniature from a finished and full-sized\npicture.\n\n1. CERVANTES is very particular in describing the _person_ and _habit_\nof his Hero, agreeably to the known practice of the old Romancers.\nCHAUCER does the same by his knight, and in a manner that almost equals\nthe arch-gravity of the _Spanish_ author:\n\n    Sir TOPAZ was a doughty swaine,\n    White was his face as paine maine,\n      His lippes red as rose,\n    His rudde is like scarlet in graine,\n    And I you tell in good certaine,\n      _He had a seemely nose_.\n\n    His haire, his berde, was like safroune,\n    That to his girdle raught adowne,\n      His shoone of cordewaine,\n    Of Bruges were his hosen broun.\n    His robe was of chekelatoun,\n      That cost many a jane.\n\n2. CERVANTES tells us how Don QUIXOTE passed his time in the country,\nbefore he turned Knight-errant. CHAUCER, in the same spirit, celebrates\nhis knight\u2019s country diversions of _hunting_, _hawking_, _shooting_,\nand _wrestling_, those known _prolusions_ to feats of arms:\n\n    He couth hunt at the wilde dere,\n    And ride an hauking for by the rivere\n      With grey GOSHAUKE on honde,\n    Thereto he was a good archere,\n    Of wrastling was there none his pere\n      There any Ram should stonde.\n\n3. The Knights of Romance were used to dedicate their services to some\nparagon of beauty, such as was only conceived to exist in the land of\nFairy, and could no where be found in this vulgar disenchanted world.\nHence one of the strongest features in Don QUIXOTE\u2019S character is the\nsublime passion he had conceived for an imaginary or fairy mistress.\nSir TOPAZ is not behind him in this extravagance:\n\n    An Elfe-queene woll I love, I wis,\n    For in this world no woman is\n      To be my make in towne,\n    All other women I forsake\n    And to an Elfe-queene I me take\n      By dale and eke by downe.\n\n4. Don QUIXOTE\u2019S passion for this idol of his fancy was so violent,\nthat, after all the bangs and bruises of the day, instead of suffering\nhis weary limbs to take any rest, it occupied him all night with\nincessant dreams and reveries of his mistress. Sir TOPAZ is in the same\nwoful plight:\n\n    Sir TOPAZ eke so weary was\u2014\n    That down he laid him in that place\u2014\n    Oh, Saint MARY, benedicite\n    What aileth this love at me\n      To blind me so sore?\n    Me dreamed all this night parde\n    An Elfe-queen shall my leman be\n      And sleepe under my gore.\n\n5. As the chastity of the hero of LA MANCHA is well known, from a\nvariety of trying temptations, so Sir TOPAZ distinguishes himself by\nthis knightly virtue:\n\n    Full many a maide bright in boure\n    They mourne for him their paramoure.\n      _Whan hem were bet to sleepe_,\n    But he was chaste and no lechoure,\n    And sweet as is the bramble floure\n      That bereth the red hipe.\n\n6. The fight of Sir TOPAZ with the Giant of three heads, in honour of\nhis mistress,\n\n    For needes must he fight\n      With a giant with heads thre,\n      For paramours and jolitie\n    Of one that shone full bright\u2014\n\ntogether with his arming, and the whole ridiculous preparation for the\ncombat, described at large in several stanzas, is exactly in the style\nand taste of CERVANTES, on similar occasions.\n\n7. CERVANTES gives us to understand that it was familiar with his\nknight to sleep in the open air, to endure all hardships that befell,\nand to let his horse graze by him. CHAUCER, in like manner, of his\nknight, with much humour:\n\n    And for he was a knight auntrous,\n    He nolde slepen in none house\n      But liggen in his hood,\n    His bright helme was his wanger\n    And by him fed his destrer\n      Of herbes fine and good.\n\n8. And, lastly, as CERVANTES, after the example of the Romance-writers,\nwill have it, that his knight surpasses all others of ancient fame, so\nDAN CHAUCER is careful to vindicate this high prerogative, to his hero:\n\n    Men speaken of Romances of pris\n    Of HORNECHILD and of IPOTIS,\n      Of BEVIS and Sir GIE,\n    Of Sir LIBEAUX and BLANDAMOURE;\n    But Sir TOPAZ, he beareth the floure\n      Of rial chivalrie.\u201d\n\nThus far, at least to this effect, the concealed author (for the\ndispensers of these fairy favours would not be inquired after) of this\nnew interpretation of the _Rime of Sir_ TOPAZ. Other circumstances of\nresemblance might be added (for when a well-grounded hint of this sort\nis once given, and opened in some instances, it is not difficult to\npursue it), but one needs go no further to be certain that the general\nscope of this poem is, Burlesque.\n\nOnly, I would observe, that though, in this ridiculous ballad, the\npoet clearly intended to expose the Romances of the time, as they were\ncommonly written, he did not mean, absolutely and under every form,\nto condemn the kind of writing itself: as, I think, we must conclude\nfrom the serious air, and very different conduct, of the SQUIRE\u2019S TALE;\nwhich SPENSER and MILTON were so particularly pleased with.\n\nWe learn too, from the same tale, that, though CHAUCER could be as\npleasant on the other fooleries of Romance, as any modern critic, he\nlet the _marvellous_ of it escape his ridicule, or rather esteemed\nthis character of the _Gothic_ Romance, no foolery. For the tale of\nCAMBUSCAN is all over MARVELLOUS; and MILTON, by specifying the\n_virtuous ring and glass_, and the _wondrous horse of brass_, as the\ncircumstances that charmed him most, shews very plainly, that, in his\nopinion, these amusing fictions were well placed, and of principal\nconsideration, as they surely are, in this _Fairy way of writing_.\n\nBut, whatever our old Bard would insinuate by his management of this\nenchanting tale, and whatever conclusions have, in fact, been drawn\nfrom it by such superior and congenial spirits as our two epic poets,\nthe _half-told_ story of CAMBUSCAN could never atone for the mischiefs\ndone to the cause of Romance, by the pointed ridicule of _the Rime of\nSir_ TOPAZ. Common readers would be naturally induced by it to reject\nthe old Romances, in the gross: and thus it happened, according to the\nobservation I set out with, \u201cthat these phantoms of Chivalry had the\nmisfortune to be laughed out of countenance by men of sense, before the\nsubstance of it had been fairly and truly represented by any capable\nwriter.\u201d\n\nStill, the principal cause of all, which brought disgrace on the\n_Gothic_ manners of Chivalry, no doubt, was, That these manners,\nwhich sprang out of the feudal system, were as singular, as that\nsystem itself: so that when that political constitution vanished out\nof _Europe_, the manners, that belonged to it, were no longer seen or\nunderstood. There was no example of any such manners remaining on the\nface of the earth: and as they never did subsist but once, and are\nnever likely to subsist again, people would be led of course to think\nand speak of them, as romantic, and unnatural. The consequence of which\nwas a total contempt and rejection of them; while the classic manners,\nas arising out of the customary and usual situations of humanity, would\nhave many archetypes, and appear natural even to those who saw nothing\nsimilar to them actually subsisting before their eyes.\n\nThus, though the manners of HOMER are perhaps as different from ours,\nas those of Chivalry itself, yet as we know that such manners always\nbelong to rude and simple ages, such as HOMER paints; and actually\nsubsist at this day in countries that are under the like circumstances\nof barbarity; we readily agree to call them _natural_, and even take a\nfond pleasure in the survey of them.\n\nYour question then is easily answered, without any obligation upon me\nto give up the _Gothic_ manners as visionary and fantastic. And the\nreason appears, why the _Fairy Queen_, one of the noblest productions\nof modern poetry, is fallen into so general a neglect, that all the\nzeal of its commentators is esteemed officious and impertinent, and\nwill never restore it to those honours which it has, once for all,\nirrecoverably lost.\n\nIn effect, what way of persuading the generality of readers that\nthe romantic manners are to be accounted _natural_, when not one in\nten-thousand knows enough of the barbarous ages, in which they arose,\nto believe they ever really existed?\n\nPoor SPENSER then,\n\n      \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014\u201cin whose gentle spright\n    The pure well-head of Poesie did dwell,\u201d\n\nmust, for aught I can see, be left to the admiration of a few lettered\nand curious men: while the many are sworn together to give no quarter\nto the _marvellous_, or, which may seem still harder, to the _moral_ of\nhis song.\n\nHowever, this great revolution in modern taste was brought about by\ndegrees; and the steps, that led to it, may be worth the tracing in a\ndistinct Letter.\n\n\nLETTER XII.\n\nThe wonders of Chivalry were still in the memory of men, were still\nexisting, in some measure, in real life, when CHAUCER undertook to\nexpose the barbarous relaters of them.\n\nThis ridicule, we may suppose, hastened the fall both of Chivalry and\nRomance. At least from that time the spirit of both declined very fast,\nand at length fell into such discredit, that when now SPENSER arose,\nand with a genius singularly fitted to immortalize the land of Fairy,\nhe met with every difficulty and disadvantage to obstruct his design.\n\nThe age would no longer bear the naked letter of these amusing stories;\nand the poet was so sensible of the misfortune, that we find him\napologizing for it on a hundred occasions.\n\nBut apologies, in such circumstances, rarely do any good. Perhaps, they\nonly served to betray the weakness of the poet\u2019s cause, and to confirm\nthe prejudices of his reader.\n\nHowever, he did more than this. He gave an air of mystery to his\nsubject, and pretended that his stories of knights and giants were but\nthe cover to abundance of profound wisdom.\n\nIn short, to keep off the eyes of the prophane from prying too\nnearly into his subject, he threw about it the mist of allegory:\nhe moralized his song: and the virtues and vices lay hid under his\nwarriors and enchanters. A contrivance which he had learned indeed\nfrom his _Italian_ masters: for TASSO had condescended to allegorise\nhis own work; and the commentators of ARIOSTO had even converted the\nextravagances of the _Orlando Furioso_, into moral lessons.\n\nAnd this, it must be owned, was a sober attempt in comparison of some\nprojects that were made about the same time to serve the cause of\nthe old, and now-expiring Romances. For it is to be observed, that\nthe idolizers of those Romances did by them, what the votaries of\nHOMER had done by him. As the times improved and would less bear his\nstrange tales, they _moralized_ what they could, and turned the rest\ninto mysteries of _natural science_. And as this last contrivance was\nprincipally designed to cover the monstrous stories of the _Pagan\nGods_, so it served the lovers of Romance to palliate the no less\nmonstrous stories of _magic enchantments_.\n\nThe editor or translator of the 24th book of AMADIS DE GAULE, printed\nat _Lyons_ in 1577, has a preface explaining the whole secret, which\nconcludes with these words, \u201cVoyla, lecteur, le FRUIT, qui se peut\nrecueiller du sens mystique des Romans antiques par les ESPRITS ESLEUS,\nle commun peuple soy contentant de la SIMPLE FLEUR DE LA LECTURE\nLITERALE.\u201d\n\nBut to return to SPENSER; who, as we have seen, had no better way to\ntake in his distress, than to hide his fairy fancies under the mystic\ncover of moral allegory. The only favourable circumstance that attended\nhim (and this no doubt encouraged, if it did not produce, his untimely\nproject) was, that he was somewhat befriended in these fictions, even\nwhen interpreted according to the Letter, by the Romantic Spirit of his\nage; much countenanced, and for a time brought into fresh credit, by\nthe Romantic ELIZABETH. Her inclination for the fancies of Chivalry is\nwell known; and obsequious wits and courtiers would not be wanting, to\nfeed and flatter it. In short, tilts and tournaments were in vogue:\nthe _Arcadia_ and the _Fairy Queen_ were written.\n\nWith these helps the new spirit of Chivalry made a shift to support\nitself for a time, when reason was but dawning, as we may say, and\njust about to gain the ascendant over the portentous spectres of the\nimagination. Its growing splendour, in the end, put them all to flight,\nand allowed them no quarter even among the poets. So that MILTON, as\nfond as we have seen he was of the _Gothic_ fictions, durst only admit\nthem on the bye, and in the way of simile and illustration only.\n\nAnd this, no doubt, was the main reason of his relinquishing his\nlong-projected design of Prince ARTHUR, at last, for that of the\n_Paradise Lost_; where, instead of Giants and Magicians, he had\nAngels and Devils to supply him with the _marvellous_, with greater\nprobability. Yet, though he dropped the tales, he still kept to the\nallegories of SPENSER. And even this liberty was thought too much, as\nappears from the censure passed on his _Sin and Death_ by the severer\ncritics.\n\nThus at length the magic of the old Romances was perfectly dissolved.\nThey began with reflecting an image indeed of the feudal manners,\nbut an image magnified and distorted by unskilful designers. Common\nsense being offended with these perversions of truth and nature (still\naccounted the more monstrous, as the antient manners, they pretended to\ncopy after, were now disused, and of most men forgotten), the next step\nwas to have recourse to _allegories_. Under this disguise they _walked\nthe world_ a while; the excellence of the moral and the ingenuity of\nthe contrivance making some amends, and being accepted as a sort of\napology, for the absurdity of the literal story.\n\nUnder this form the tales of Fairy kept their ground, and even made\ntheir fortune at court; where they became, for two or three reigns, the\nordinary entertainment of our princes. But reason, in the end (assisted\nhowever by party, and religious prejudices), drove them off the scene,\nand would endure these _lying wonders_, neither in their own proper\nshape, nor as masked in figures.\n\nHenceforth, the taste of wit and poetry took a new turn: and the\n_Muse_, who had wantoned it so long in the world of fiction, was now\nconstrained, against her will,\n\n    \u201cTo stoop with disenchanted wings to truth,\u201d\n\nas Sir JOHN DENHAM somewhere expresses her present enforced state, not\nunhappily.\n\nWhat we have gotten by this revolution, you will say, is a great deal\nof good sense. What we have lost, is a world of fine fabling; the\nillusion of which is so grateful to the _charmed Spirit_, that, in\nspite of philosophy and fashion, _Fairy_ SPENSER still ranks highest\namong the poets; I mean, with all those who are either come of that\nhouse, or have any kindness for it.\n\nEarth-born critics, my friend, may blaspheme:\n\n      \u201cBut all the GODS are ravish\u2019d with delight\n    Of his celestial song, and music\u2019s wondrous might.\u201d\n\n\nTHE END OF THE FOURTH VOLUME.\n\n\n  NICHOLS and SON, Printers,\n  Red Lion Passage, Fleet Street, London.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\nTO\n\nVOLUMES III. AND IV.\n\n\n  A.\n\n  ACADEMY, the ancient, compared with a modern university, iv. 214.\n\n  ACCOMMODATION, of one\u2019s-self, a great art, in public life, iii. 82.\n\n  ADDISON, Mr. his contemplation in the ruins of Kenelworth Castle,\n      iii. 172.\n    his political character exhibited in his Whig Examiner, 177. n.\n    calls in question the praises bestowed on Queen Elizabeth, 178.\n    his strictures on the manners of that age, 186.\n    character of his treatise on medals, 24.\n    his remark on the use of popular superstitions in poetry, iv. 289.\n    his observation on the fairy way of writing, 323.\n\n  ADMIRALTY COURT, the imperial law still obtains there, iii. 375.\n\n  ALLODIAL estates, in France, what, iii. 318.\n\n  AMADIS DE GAULE, remarkable passage in a preface to, iv. 347.\n\n  ARBUTHNOT, Dr. discourses with Mr. Addison and Mr. Digby on the age\n      of Queen Elizabeth, iii. 168.\n    his veneration for the manners of those times, 180.\n    his opinion on the influence of the nobility, 184.\n    on the pageants at Kenelworth, 203.\n    See Elizabeth.\n\n  ARIOSTO, why considered inferior to Tasso by the French critics,\n      iv. 310.\n    his work admirable for its pictures of life and manners, 328.\n\n  ARTHUR, a subject to the writers of romance, iv. 241.\n    the superior character in the Fairy Queen, 303.\n\n  ASCHAM, his remark on the pernicious tendency of books of chivalry,\n      iii. 192. n.\n\n  ATHEISM, imported by our travelling gentry, iv. 99.\n\n  ATHENS, its manly character corrupted by Asiatic manners, iv. 201.\n\n\n  B.\n\n  BACCHUS, a knight errant, iv. 266.\n\n  BACON, Lord, his remark on retirement, iii. 137.\n    why he was neglected by Queen Elizabeth, iii. 243. n.\n    his excuse for bribery, 269.\n    his remark on depression of nobility, iv. 27. n.\n\n  BACON, NAT. character of his discourses on government, iii. 307.\n    his observation on the state of the law in Henry V\u2019s reign, 378.\n    his character of Henry VIII. iv. 29. n.\n\n  BARONS, their contests with the king, whence arising, iii. 332.\n    how reduced by Henry VII. 334.\n    they originally formed the great council of the kingdom, _ib._\n    their opposition to a law for legitimating bastards, 363.\n    their castles courts, as well as fortresses, iv. 247.\n    described in romances as giants, 264.\n\n  BASHFULNESS in young persons, whence arising, iv. 161.\n    a wise provision of nature, 162.\n\n  BASTARDS, how legitimated by the imperial and canon laws, iii. 362.\n\n  BEAR-BAITING practised in the reign of Elizabeth, iii. 186. n.\n\n  BENEFICIARY ESTATES, in France, what, iii. 318.\n\n  BERKELEY, Bishop, his \u201cMinute Philosopher\u201d excellent as a specimen\n      of modern dialogue, iii. 24.\n\n  BOILEAU, a word of his overturned the reputation of the Italian\n      poetry, iv. 314.\n\n  BRACTON, his notion of a free government, iii. 370.\n\n  BREEDING, forms of, a primary concern in foreign travel, iv. 147.\n\n  BRIBERY, common in Elizabeth\u2019s reign, iii. 267.\n\n  BURGHLEY, Lord, practised on the fears of Queen Elizabeth, iii. 257.\n\n  BURNET, Bishop, his notion of the danger to be apprehended from the\n      Pretender, iii. 293.\n    Augurs favourably of the Revolution, iv. 9, 10.\n    his inquiry into the increase of Prerogative under the Tudors, 19.\n    and after the ecclesiastical supremacy was transferred, 46.\n    his apology for the clergy, 58 _to_ 64.\n    his opinion on resistance, 66. n.\n\n  BUTLER, ridicules the circumstance of women warriors in romance,\n      iv. 317.\n\n\n  C.\n\n  C\u00c6SAR, tribute to, misapplication of that precept by our reformers,\n      iv. 74.\n\n  CAMDEN, Mr. his opinion of the Irish rebellion in the reign of\n      Elizabeth, iii. 232. n.\n\n  CANON LAW, introduction of, discountenanced by our Kings, iii. 355,\n      358.\n    retained in the church after the Reformation, iv. 67.\n    its doctrine convenient for the maintenance of absolute supremacy,\n      69.\n\n  CAPET, HUGH, the nobles had become independent on his accession, iii.\n      321.\n\n  CERVANTES, his ridicule destroyed the remains of Spanish prowess, iii.\n      199.\n    keenly satirizes the Grecian epics, iv. 272.\n\n  CHACE, the favourite passion of our home-bred gentry, iv. 116.\n\n  CHALLENGE, accepted, through deference to the opinion of the ladies,\n      iv. 168.\n\n  CHARLEMAGNE, a subject to the writers of romance, iv. 241.\n\n  CHARLES I. arguments of the lawyers in his time, for divine right, iv.\n      78. n.\n\n  CHARLES II. how far his court benefited by foreign travel, iv. 100.\n    his restoration introduced the French manners and prejudices among\n      us, 311.\n\n  CHARMS, in romance, often metaphorical, iv. 268.\n\n  CHARTERS, GREAT, by some considered as usurpations on the Prince, iii.\n      298.\n\n  CHAUCER, has left an unfinished story on the Gothic model, iv. 294.\n    his Rime of Sir Topaz a banter on books of romances, 335.\n    compared with the work of Cervantes, 336.\n    his tale of Cambuscan a proof that he did not intend to ridicule the\n      marvellous, 342.\n\n  CHIVALRY, its tendency to refine the manners, iii. 189.\n    its ill effects, 192. n.\n    contributed to the revival of letters, 195.\n    had its origin in a barbarous age, iv. 238.\n    sprung out of the feudal constitution, 242.\n    its characteristics accounted for, 245.\n    passion for arms, _ib._\n    romantic ideas of justice, 246.\n    courtesy and gallantry, 247.\n    love of God and of the Ladies, 250.\n    its genuine character displayed in the Crusades, 252, 254.\n    two distinct periods in deducing its rise and progress, 258.\n    agreement between heroic and Gothic manners, 262.\n    their differences noted, 272.\n    custom which prevailed at festivals, 297.\n    women-warriors, 317.\n    Greek fire, 320.\n\n  CHURCH, its revenues dilapidated by queen Elizabeth, iii. 273.\n    more immediately subjected to the feudal system than the civil\n      power, iii. 326.\n    struggles between the ecclesiastics and the monarchs, thence\n      arising, 331.\n    distinction between ecclesiastical and temporal courts by William\n      I. 352.\n    canon law discountenanced by our Kings, 359.\n\n  CICERO, introduced the writing of Dialogue among the Romans, iii. 20.\n    his remark on the advantage of applying it to real personages, 26.\n    his rule respecting the appropriate style and expression, 36.\n    character of his dialogue defined, 40.\n\n  CITIZENS _and_ BURGESSES, whence originating, iii. 338.\n\n  CLARENDON, Lord, his character of Lord Falkland, iii. 67. n.\n    of Waller, 69. n.\n    his eulogium on Ben Jonson and Cowley, 140. n.\n\n  CLERGY, justified in attending the courts of princes, iii. 145.\n    in the reign of the Conqueror, turned common lawyers, 352.\n    the Imperial law their favourite study, 361.\n    opposed by the barons, 363.\n    supported by the judges and great officers of the realm, 366.\n    at the Reformation propagated the doctrine of passive obedience,\n      iv. 57.\n    and of divine right, 62.\n    apology for them, 63, 64.\n\n  COMBAT, a mode of deciding questions of right and property, iii. 200.\n\n  COMNENA, MANUEL, a crusade in his time attended by women-warriors, iv.\n      317.\n\n  CONSTITUTION, English, enquiry into, iii. 284.\n    hath at all times been free, 286.\n    many have but crude notions of it, 297.\n    summary of erroneous doctrines respecting it, 298.\n    question proposed, 305.\n    its origin in the Saxon institutions, 309.\n    \u00e6ra of the Conquest, 310.\n    contest for liberty throughout the Norman and Plantagenet lines,\n      313.\n    council of the Kingdom originally consisting of such as held _in\n      capite_ of the crown, by barony, or knight\u2019s service, 334.\n    origin of knights of shires, 337.\n    of citizens and burgesses, 338.\n    formation of a House of Commons, 340, 346.\n    its freedom shewn in the perpetual opposition of the people to the\n      civil and canon laws, 349 _to_ 358.\n    proofs of it, 363, 367.\n    Imperial law still prevails in certain of our Courts, and in the\n      Universities, 375.\n    fate and fortunes of the Civil law down to the present time, 378.\n    contrasted with the free principles of the English law, 384 _to_\n      386.\n    increase of prerogative under the Tudor line, 392. iv. 16.\n    state of the nation at the accession of Henry VII. 24, 27.\n    Henry VIII. 28.\n    Rupture with the Court of Rome, 29.\n    high prerogative, 37.\n    Commons house rising in importance, 39.\n    causes of the increase of Royal authority, 40.\n    translation of the Pope\u2019s supremacy to the king, 41.\n    use made of the title, Supreme head of the Church, 49.\n    high commission court and star-chamber, 50.\n    dispensing power, 52.\n    instances of its exercise, 53, 54.\n    passive obedience, 57.\n    why inculcated by the clergy, 58.\n    doctrine of divine right whence originating, 62.\n    growth of Puritanism, 63.\n    Canon laws retained after the yoke of Rome was thrown off, 67.\n    influence of the crown, after the Reformation, required to be\n      limited by another change in the government, 71.\n    translation of the supremacy no argument against the freedom of\n      the constitution, 73.\n    causes concurring with the Reformation to favour liberty, in the\n      time of Charles I. 76, 77.\n    issue of the conflict between prerogative and liberty, 79, 80.\n    what is meant by the free constitution of the English monarchy,\n      81. n.\n\n  COURT, but two sorts of men that should live in one, iii. 124.\n    the clergy justified in attending, 145.\n\n  COWLEY, Mr. his motives for retiring from the world, iii. 101.\n    expatiates on the benefit of solitude, 104.\n    grounds of his apology for seclusion, 110.\n    his early habits, 112.\n    his residence at Oxford, and friendship with Lord Falkland, 116.\n    his peculiar disposition, 120.\n    his invective against courts, 124.\n    his pursuits in retirement, 127.\n    uses of applying experiment and observation to natural science, 129.\n    his cynical severity against courts, 135.\n    eulogium on him by Lord Clarendon, 140. n.\n    remonstrance of his friend on his seclusion, 147.\n    his reply in the words of Spenser, 148.\n    his resolution unshaken, 150.\n    his purposed apology to Lord St. Alban\u2019s begun in his Essays, 152.\n    his poem, called \u201cThe Complaint,\u201d 157.\n\n  CRAIG, his opinion of the feudal law, iii. 328.\n\n  CRITICISM, bad, arises from abuse of terms, iv. 324.\n\n  CROMWELL, his design for setting up a Protestant Council, iv. 14.\n\n  CRUSADES, state of things when they were set on foot, iv. 252.\n    considered as the origin of knight errantry, 255.\n    domestic disorders resulting from them, 277.\n    vast armies which were sent out, 318.\n\n  CUTTER OF COLEMAN STREET, origin and purpose of that comedy, iii. 122.\n      n.\n\n\n  D.\n\n  DAVENANT, Sir W. a new sort of criticism in his preface to Gondibert,\n      iv. 311.\n\n  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, a barrier against future encroachments of the\n      crown, iii. 293.\n\n  DECRETALS, of the popes, against the civil law, iii. 355.\n\n  DIALOGUE, a favourite form of instruction with the ancients, iii. 19.\n    its advantages, 21.\n    only three in the English language worthy of mention, 24.\n    real persons only to be introduced in it, 27.\n    a new species, created by Lucian, 28.\n    the serious and philosophic, the best, 32.\n    its requisites, 34.\n    rule for restraining the characteristic peculiarities of style, 39.\n    modern writers cannot aspire to the elegance of the ancient, 43.\n    remedies for their difficulties, ib. 46.\n    the ancient notion of, very little comprehended in our days, iv. 90.\n\n  DISPARITY, a passage from a tract so called, iii. 235. n.\n    another, illustrative of Queen Elizabeth\u2019s policy, 258. n.\n\n  DISPENSING POWER of the Crown, iv. 52.\n    exercised by various sovereigns, 53, 54.\n    eleven out of twelve judges declared for it, 55.\n\n  DISSIPATION OF MIND, caused by travel, iv. 145.\n\n  DIVINE RIGHT, doctrine of, why preached up, iv. 62.\n    arguments for it used by the lawyers in the time of Charles I. 78. n.\n\n  DRAMA, a particular precept for, mistaken for a general maxim, iv. 326.\n\n  DUTCH TOWNS, accomplished scholars sometimes met within them, iv. 121.\n\n\n  E.\n\n  EDUCATION, that commonly called liberal, wherein defective, iv. 117,\n      118.\n    its proper objects pointed out, 138.\n    one of its great secrets, to fix the attention of youth, 145.\n    private, why preferable to public, 210.\n\n  EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, formed a digest of the Saxon laws, iii. 349.\n\n  EDWARD I. dispute concerning the succession to the crown of Scotland\n      in his reign, iii. 367.\n\n  EDWARD III. a house of commons originating in his reign, iii. 340,\n      344.\n\n  \u0395\u0399\u03a1\u0397\u039d\u0391\u03a1\u03a7\u0399\u0391, a Latin panegyric on Queen Elizabeth taught in schools,\n      iii. 239. n.\n\n  ELIZABETH, Queen, dialogue on the age of, iii. 167.\n    humour of magnifying her character, whence arising, 177.\n    her romantic spirit, 196.\n    examples of it, _ib._ n.\n    honours paid her at Kenelworth, 203.\n    superiority of poets in her reign, to what owing, 209.\n    language of that age, favourable to poetry, 210.\n    inquiry into the merits of her government, 219.\n    sketch of its history, 221, 222.\n    splendour of her reign how far owing to fortunate circumstances,\n      223.\n    her enthusiasm for her Protestant subjects, 225.\n    contending factions of Papists and Puritans, 226.\n    condition of the Continental powers, 230.\n      of Ireland, 231.\n      of Scotland, 233.\n    her prerogative uncontrouled, 234.\n    passion for letters in her reign, 236.\n    a Latin panegyric on her, taught in grammar-schools, 239. n.\n    spirit and genius of the nation roused by the dangers of the time,\n      241.\n    manners of her subjects debased by servility and insolence, 242.\n    her choice of ministers, _ib._\n    her personal qualities, 245.\n    her love for her people called in question, 250.\n    her foreign and domestic policy glanced at, 252.\n    her popularity in part ascribed to her vices, 255.\n    her cowardice, 256.\n    her avarice, 261.\n    her fondness for shew, 265.\n    sale of offices, 266.\n    reason why she did not marry, 271. n.\n    her government oppressive, 272.\n    two great events which cast an uncommon lustre over her reign, 274.\n    causes of her domestic successes, 275.\n    her character, 276.\n    vindicated, 279.\n    established the Reformation, iv. 31, 32.\n    exercised the dispensing power, 54.\n    her inclination for the fancies of chivalry, iv. 347.\n\n  EMPSON _and_ DUDLEY, how enabled to violate the constitution, iii.\n      379.\n    their proceedings sanctioned by Parliament, iv. 34.\n\n  ENGLAND, a constitutional history of, highly desirable, iii. 286,\n      288.\n    its monarchy by some declared to be absolute, 298, 299.\n    its lands were allodial in the Saxon times, 324.\n    how possessed, _ib._\n    introduction of feudal tenures at the conquest, why popular, 325.\n    origin of the struggles between the Church and the King, 331.\n    between the King and his Barons, 332.\n    never famous for the civility of its inhabitants, iv. 112.\n    early travel recommended as a cure for this defect, 113.\n    prejudices and low habits of our youth, 115.\n    liberal arts not much advanced, 127.\n    foreign nations to be emulated, 129.\n    qualifications for a Senator, 140.\n    another view of the state of the country, 151.\n    ideas of liberty connected with it, 153.\n\n  EPIC NARRATION, less restricted to truth than the drama, iv. 327.\n\n  ERASMUS, improved on the dialogue of Lucian, iii. 28.\n\n  ERUDITION, present state of, iv. 132.\n\n  ESPRIT, DE L\u2019, remark on a work so called, iv. 89. n.\n\n  EUROPE, why not fit for an Englishman to travel in, iv. 200.\n    view of the Protestant Universities of, 212, 213.\n\n\n  F.\n\n  FAERY COURT, means the reign of chivalry, iv. 248.\n\n  FAIRIES, more engaging than the rabble of Pagan divinities, iv. 283.\n\n  FAIRY QUEEN of Spenser, to be criticized as a Gothic, and not a\n      classical poem, 292, 296.\n    derives its method from the established modes of chivalry, 297.\n    in what its unity consists, 300.\n    expedients of the poet in connecting the subject, 302.\n    allegorical character of the poem, 304.\n    conduct of the story justified by its moral, 305.\n    principal defect arising from the union of two designs, 306.\n\n  FAIRY WAY OF WRITING, vindicated, iv. 316.\n    allegory its last resource, 349.\n\n  FALKLAND, Lord, his scruples on accepting the office of Secretary of\n      State, iii. 67.\n\n  FEUGREGEOIS, wonders told of it in the history of the crusades, iv.\n      320.\n\n  FEUDAL LAW, instituted by William the Conqueror, iii. 313.\n    or rather new-modelled by him, 317.\n    previously adopted in France, 319, 320.\n    its _fruits_, 321.\n    favourable to the cause of liberty, 323.\n    definition of the feudal system, 329.\n    its defects, 333, 334.\n    fitted itself to the varying situations of society, 345.\n\n  FEUDAL CONSTITUTION, the origin of chivalry, iv. 242.\n    consideration had of females under it, 274.\n    distinction between the early and later feudal times, 276.\n    dissensions of leaders, domestic disorders, and usurpations, 277,\n      278.\n\n  FOREIGNERS, their disputes with British subjects, by what laws\n      decided, iii. 376.\n\n  FORTESCUE, his distinction between regal and political forms of\n      government, iii. 388. n.\n\n  FORTUNE, the making of one, an indefinite expression, iii. 131.\n\n  FRANC-ALMOIGN, a particular tenure in the Saxon times, iii. 327.\n\n  FRANCE, its lands, under the Carlovingian line, of two kinds, iii.\n      318.\n    changes introduced, _ib._ 319, 320.\n    most of its lands were beneficiary, 324.\n    her pre-eminence in taste and politeness, iv. 130.\n\n  FREEDOM, English, best supported by the ancient nobility, iii. 184.\n\n  FREE MEN, persons holding _allodial_ estates in France, so called,\n      iii. 318.\n\n  FRENCH CRITICS, preferred the Gierusalemme Liberata to the Orlando\n      Furioso, iv. 309.\n\n  FYNES MORYSON, his remark on the condition of the English people,\n      iii. 183. n.\n\n\n  G.\n\n  GARDENING, Gothic method of design in, iv. 301.\n\n  GENIUS, men of, infelicities attending the sensibility of their\n      gratitude, iii. 140.\n\n  GENTLEMAN, what his chief object, iv. 123.\n\n  GERMAN NATIONS, foundation of gallantry in their ancient manners,\n      iv. 250.\n    their predatory disposition, 269.\n\n  GIANTS of Romance, were oppressive feudal lords, iv. 263.\n\n  GOTHIC ROMANCE, incorporated with pagan fable, in a pageant given to\n      Queen Elizabeth at Kenelworth, iii. 203.\n    whence fallen into disrepute, iv. 333.\n    steps of its decline traced, 345.\n\n  \u2014\u2014 MANNERS,\n    in some circumstances agree with the heroic, iv. 262.\n    military enthusiasm, _ib._\n    giants and savages, 263.\n    monsters, dragons, and serpents, 265.\n    robbery and piracy, 268.\n    bastardy, 269.\n    hospitality and courtesy, 270.\n    martial exercises, _ib._\n    passion for adventures, 271.\n    wherein they differed from the heroic, 272.\n    in the affair of religion and gallantry, 274.\n    more poetical than the heroic, 280.\n    in the displays of love and friendship, 282.\n    in religious machinery, 283.\n    their effect on Spenser, 291.\n    on Milton, 292.\n    on Shakespear, 294.\n    method of design in poetry, 300.\n\n  GREEKS, a sort of chivalry prevailed among them, iv. 273.\n\n  GROTIUS, his character of the English in Elizabeth\u2019s reign, iii.\n      242. n.\n    his remark on the foreign policy of that Queen, 259. n.\n\n  GUARINI, his Pastor Fido, for what admirable, iv. 315.\n\n  GUY, EARL OF WARWICK, his return from the wars, compared with that\n      of Ulysses, iv. 278.\n\n\n  H.\n\n  HABITS, low and immoral, how far likely to be corrected by foreign\n      travel, iv. 157.\n\n  HALE\u2019S CASE, afforded an alarming proof of the influence of the\n      dispensing power, iv. 55.\n\n  HAMPDEN, Mr. his allegation in the great cause of ship-money, 78. n.\n\n  HARRINGTON, Sir James, his opinion on the statutes against retainers,\n      in Henry VII.\u2019s reign, 184. n.\n\n  HARRISON, his account of the progress of learning in Queen Elizabeth\u2019s\n      reign, iii. 237. n.\n\n  HELMET, used as a signal of hospitality in the ages of chivalry, iii.\n      182.\n\n  HENRIADE, why not long-lived, iv. 331.\n\n  HENRY III. issued a prohibition against the teachers of the Roman law\n      in London, iii. 357, 358.\n\n  HENRY VII. his character, iv. 19.\n    increased his own authority and diminished that of his nobles, 25.\n    filled the great offices with churchmen only, 26.\n    exercised the dispensing power, contrary to act of parliament, 53.\n\n  HENRY VIII. favoured the study of the civil law, though constrained to\n      abolish it, iii. 380.\n    his character, iv. 19.\n    advantageous circumstances on his accession, 29.\n    his rupture with the court of Rome, _ib._\n    obtained of his parliament to have his proclamations pass for laws,\n      34.\n\n  HELVIDIUS, PRISCUS, a fine trait in his character, as given by\n      Tacitus, iii. 142.\n\n  HENTZNERUS, PAULUS, praises Queen Elizabeth\u2019s skill in languages,\n      iii. 257. n.\n\n  HERBERT, Mr. GEORGE, commended king James as a greater orator than\n      any of the ancients, iii. 240. n.\n\n  HERCULES, a knight errant, iv. 266.\n\n  HEROIC POETRY, why it has survived the Gothic, iv. 333.\n\n  HIGH COMMISSION COURT, iii. 381.\n    in what originating, iv. 49.\n\n  HISTORY, ENGLISH, study of it essential to a young senator, iv. 142.\n\n  HOBBES, Mr. assisted in establishing a new sort of criticism, iv. 311.\n    his notion of poetical truth, 324.\n\n  HOMER, correspondence of his descriptions with those of Gothic\n      romance, iv. 266.\n    his two poems intended to expose the evils arising from the\n      political state of old Greece, 277.\n    felicity of his age, for poetical manners, 280.\n\n  HOSPITALITY, much practised by the great, in former times, iii. 181.\n    species of it peculiar to the purer ages of chivalry, 182. n.\n\n  HOUSE OF COMMONS, its origin, iii. 340.\n    generated by the constitution, 346.\n\n  HUMAN NATURE, how to be studied, iv. 197.\n\n  HUME, ground of his apology for the House of Stuart, iii. 391. n.\n    his account of the feudal times the best part of his history of\n      England, iv. 80. n.\n    his zeal for the house of Stuart a disgrace to his work, 82.\n\n\n  I & J.\n\n  JAMES I. favoured the study of the civil law, iii. 381.\n    advantages under which he succeeded to the crown, iv. 33.\n    believed himself absolute, 37.\n    his bold language to his parliaments, 38.\n    asserts the right of the King to suspend the laws, 54.\n    considered a most able judge of _church work_, 59, 60. n.\n    styles himself the great schoolmaster of the land, 69. n.\n\n  JESUITS, their expedient to justify the pope in deposing kings, iv.\n      61.\n\n  IGNORANCE, the parent of many vices, iv. 108.\n\n  INTEREST, of men in office, how connected with duty, iii. 139.\n\n  JONSON, BEN, praised by Lord Clarendon, iii. 140. n.\n    his encomium on legends of ancient chivalry, 194.\n    contrasts them with real life and manners, 198.\n    design of the witch-scenes in his Masque of Queens, iv. 287.\n\n  IRELAND, distractions in, during the reign of Elizabeth, iii. 231.\n\n  IRISH, savage, in the reign of Elizabeth, held their rhymers in\n      principal estimation, iv. 271.\n\n  ITALIAN POETRY, a short history of, 309 to 315.\n    vindicated, 316, 328.\n    its fictions ingenious as well as bold, 330.\n\n  ITALY, the theatre of politeness in the age of Elizabeth, iv. 99.\n    abounding with literary men, 121.\n\n  JURY, trial by, when disgraced and rejected, iii. 379, 382.\n\n  JUSTICES OF PEACE, in Queen Elizabeth\u2019s reign, notoriously corrupt,\n      iii. 270.\n\n  JUSTINIAN LAW, when introduced into England, iii. 354.\n    Why the chief study of the clergy, 361.\n    opposed by the barons, 363.\n    allows legitimation by subsequent marriage, 365.\n    in what courts it obtains to this day, 375.\n    its fate and fortunes down to the present time, 378.\n\n  JUSTS AND TURNAMENTS, their origin, iv. 243.\n\n\n  K.\n\n  KENELWORTH CASTLE, contemplations in the ruins of, iii. 170.\n    behaviour of Lord Leicester\u2019s porter on Queen Elizabeth\u2019s visit,\n      174.\n    pageants in honour of her, 203.\n\n  KNIGHTS OF SHIRE, whence originating, iii. 337, 338.\n\n  KNIGHTS ERRANT, iv. 247.\n    their devotion to the fair sex, 248.\n    their most essential qualities, courage and faith, 251.\n    origin ascribed to the crusades, 255.\n    objection to that hypothesis, 257.\n    what the principal mover of their adventures, 275.\n\n  KNOWLEDGE of the world, necessary for enlarging the mind, iv. 108.\n    what is meant by it, 122, 123.\n    not attainable by early travel, 170.\n    to be acquired by degrees, 180.\n\n\n  L.\n\n  LADIES, attach a high degree of merit to good breeding, iv. 168.\n    though bred at home, have a manifest advantage over their travelled\n      brothers in liberal acquirements, 176.\n    virtues and faults more conspicuous in them than in the other sex,\n      177, 178.\n\n  \u201cLADY OF THE LAKE,\u201d a pageant at Kenelworth Castle, iii. 203.\n\n  LAGA, or LEAGA, the Saxon word for law, its extensive import, iii.\n      308.\n\n  LANGUAGE, ENGLISH, at what period most favourable to poetry, iii. 210.\n\n  LANGUAGES, time sometimes wasted in studying, iv. 147.\n\n  LAWS, how rendered necessary, iv. 108.\n\n  LEARNING, revival of, began first by poetry, iii. 206.\n\n  LEGISLATORS, ancient, why required to travel for instruction, iv. 95.\n\n  LEGISLATURE, their right to settle the government, unquestionable,\n      iii. 302.\n\n  LEICESTER, Earl of, his splendid monument in the great church of\n      Warwick, iii. 168.\n    Strictures on his conduct, 176.\n\n  LETTERS, the cultivation of, its own reward, iii. 130.\n\n  LIBERAL ARTS, of late growth in England, iv. 127.\n    study of them less important than other branches of education, 192.\n\n  LIBERTY, a right understanding of its principles necessary to the\n      security of the British government, iii. 295.\n    religious, made way for the entertainment of civil, in all its\n      branches, iv. 76.\n\n  LIFE-GUARD, instituted by Henry VII. iv. 25.\n\n  LIVY, his dialogues, if preserved, would have suffered by comparison\n      with those of Cicero, iii. 41.\n\n  LOCKE, Mr. Lord Shaftesbury\u2019s opinion of him as a philosopher, iv. 88.\n    his notion of education, opposed to that of his lordship, 136, 138.\n    denies that its objects can be attained by foreign travel, 143.\n    his remarks on England, 151.\n    on national prejudices, 152, 154.\n    on evil habits, 156.\n    on bashfulness in youth, 161.\n    on knowledge of the world, 170.\n    on the means of instilling it into the minds of youth, 180.\n    his objections to the study of the fine arts, 191, 193.\n    of the fine arts, 191, 193.\n    Declares against European travels, 200.\n    his remarks on the universities, 204.\n    on clergy tutors, 217.\n    Presage of brighter days for the universities, 224.\n\n  LOLLARDISM, spreading in the reign of Henry VII. iv. 27.\n\n  LONDON, a fit scene for seeing the world, iv. 190.\n\n  LUCAN, his magic scenes excelled by those of Apuleius, iv. 283, 284.\n\n  LUCIAN, created a new species of dialogue, iii. 28.\n    its nature defined, 30, 32.\n    his remark on the social use of the table, 182.\n\n\n  M.\n\n  MANNERS, best acquired by early travel, iv. 119.\n    meaning of the term, 120.\n    a chief object of study, 124.\n\n  MASKS and SHOWS, their origin and design, iii. 207.\n\n  MATTHEW PARIS, his remark on the subjection of the ecclesiastical to\n      the secular power at the Conquest, iii. 327. n.\n\n  MAYNARD, Sir JOHN, one of the most accomplished lawyers of his time,\n      iii. 289. n.\n    traces the origin of the English Constitution, 306.\n    was one of the _eleven members_ proceeded against, on the charge of\n      the army, 383. n.\n    his opinion that the power of the militia was not in the king, iv.\n      75. n.\n\n  MELVIL, Sir JAMES, his frank reply to Queen Elizabeth touching her\n      celibacy, iii. 271. n.\n\n  MILTON, recommends gymnastics in his Tractate of Education, iii. 188.\n    why he preferred the classic to the Gothic model in poetry, iv. 292.\n    pleased with the manners described in books of chivalry, 293.\n    his allusion to the vast armies described in romance, 318.\n    Pagan gods and Gothic fairies out of credit when he wrote, 331.\n    admired Chaucer\u2019s tale of Cambuscan, 342.\n    His reason for relinquishing his design of Prince Arthur, 348.\n\n  MODESTY, in young persons, a grace and ornament, iv. 162.\n    the blush of budding reason and virtue, 164.\n\n  MONTESQUIEU, his observation on the Gothic government, iii. 341. n.\n\n  MORE, Dr. HENRY, his dialogue with Mr. Waller on sincerity, iii. 53.\n    his character, according to Bishop Burnet, 93. n.\n\n  MOUNTJOY, Lord, how reprimanded by Queen Elizabeth, iii. 249.\n\n\n  N.\n\n  NATIONS, improved by intercourse with each other, iv. 109.\n\n  NATURE, how to be followed in poetry, iv. 324.\n\n  NEUTRALITY, why another name for insincerity, iii. 66.\n\n  NORHAM, great Council of, rejected the C\u00e6sarean law, iii. 367.\n\n\n  O.\n\n  OBEDIENCE, PASSIVE, doctrine of, by whom propagated, iv. 57.\n\n\n  P.\n\n  PAGAN superstitions, fall short of the Gothic, iv. 284.\n\n  PANDECTS, when and by whom introduced into England, iii. 354.\n    their doctrine concerning the origin of government, 371.\n\n  PAPAL SUPREMACY, its extent in this kingdom, iv. 42.\n    how transferred to Henry VIII. 43.\n    qualifying clauses, _ib._\n    high notions entertained of the pope\u2019s power, 46.\n    dispensing power, 52.\n    exercised by the popes against the Gospel itself, 56. n.\n    indignation of the popes against our reforming sovereigns, 61.\n\n  PARLIAMENTS, their authority acknowledged even under our most despotic\n      Princes, iv. 37.\n    transferred the papal supremacy to Henry VIII. 43.\n    how curbed by the _dispensing power_, 51, 52.\n\n  PERSONIFICATION, why frequent in old poetry, iii. 211, 212.\n\n  PHILIP THE GOOD, duke of Burgundy, a festival given by him, for a\n      crusade, iv. 298.\n\n  PHILOSOPHERS, ancient, considered travel as a necessary part of their\n      studies, iv. 95.\n\n  PHILOSOPHY, how at present degraded, iv. 131.\n\n  PLATO, the model, if not the inventor, of the Greek dialogue, iii. 20.\n\n  PLOT, of Mr. Waller, its failure, iii. 71, 72.\n    confounded with another of more dangerous tendency, 75.\n\n  PLUTARCH, his life of Theseus reads like a modern romance, iv. 266.\n\n  POETRY, what point in the revolutions of taste and language most\n      favourable to it, iii. 210.\n    the sublime species not subject to strict rules of credibility,\n      iv. 325, 326.\n\n  POETS, generally enamoured of solitude, iii. 113, 114.\n\n  POLE, Cardinal, violent in his invectives against Henry VIII. iv. 60.\n\n  POLITENESS, not attainable by great men, iv. 166.\n    what its most reasonable sense, 201.\n\n  PREJUDICES, of home-bred gentlemen, iv. 114.\n    the term equivocal, 152.\n    some ought not to be removed, 153.\n    proper cure for vicious prejudices, 155.\n\n  PREROGATIVE, of English monarchs, controuled by law, iii. 287.\n\n  PROTESTANT COUNCIL, projected by Cromwell, iv. 14. n.\n\n  PROTESTANTISM, had made considerable progress on the accession of\n      Elizabeth, iii. 224.\n    its effects on the public morals, 238.\n\n  PROTESTANTS, French, persecution of, iv. 12. n.\n\n  PURITANISM, growth of, iv. 63.\n\n  PURITANS, how managed by Queen Elizabeth, iii. 227.\n\n\n  R.\n\n  RALEIGH, Sir Walter, his opinion on the conduct of the Spanish war,\n      iii. 252.\n    received money to use his interest with the Queen, 268.\n\n  REASON, best exercised in society, iii. 106.\n\n  RECREANT, why a term of disgrace for a vanquished knight, iv. 251.\n\n  REFORMATION, established in the reign of Elizabeth, iv. 31, 32.\n    though founded on principles of liberty, for a time favoured the\n      power of the crown, 70.\n    carried on and established by the whole legislature, 73.\n\n  RELIGIOUS HOUSES, suppression of, favoured the extension of\n      prerogative, iv. 20.\n\n  REPRESENTATION, Dramatic, requires stricter adherence to truth than\n      narration, iv. 326.\n\n  RETAINERS, laws of Henry VII. against, iv. 25.\n\n  RETIREMENT, foundation of the dialogue concerning, iii. 97. n.\n    its good effects on the mind, 104.\n    its disadvantages, 106.\n    retirement of good men from public employments prejudicial to the\n      state, 141.\n\n  REVOLUTION of 1688, why justifiable, iii. 283.\n    settlement introduced by it, how to be rendered secure, 295.\n\n  RHETORICIAN, one who taught the art of _not speaking_, iv. 121.\n\n  RICHARD II. the wonder-working parliament in his reign rejected the\n      Roman civil law, iii. 367.\n    his declaration that his will was law, 374.\n\n  ROBERT THE NORMAN, his wife fought by his side in battle, iv. 317.\n\n  ROMAN EMPERORS, their policy in assuming the title of Pontifex\n      Maximus, iv. 47.\n\n  ROME, Court of, its authority rejected by Henry VIII. iv. 29.\n\n  ROMANCE, Spirit of, whence originating, iv. 239.\n    principal subjects, 241.\n    from what period its writers derive their ideas of chivalry, 259.\n    practice of mixing Pagan fable with it, 272.\n    Gothic superstitions introduced, 284.\n    decline of this species of writing, 333, 345, 348.\n\n  ROUSSEAU, his observation on the use of the marvellous in epic and\n      dramatic compositions, iv. 327. n.\n\n  ROYAL SOCIETY, much talked of, before it was instituted, iii. 143. n.\n\n  RYSWICK, treaty of, wherein defective, iv. 12.\n\n\n  S.\n\n  ST. ALBAN\u2019S, Lord, the patron of Cowley, iii. 97, 99, 102.\n\n  SAXONS, the principles of their policy still maintained in our\n      government, iii. 307.\n    spirit of liberty prevailed among them, 309.\n    their institutions, after the decline of the Romans, the standing\n      laws of this kingdom, 349.\n\n  SAVAGES of Romance, dependants of feudal lords, iv. 263.\n\n  SELDEN, his character of Ben Jonson, iii. 209.\n    a curious extract from his dissertation on Fleta, 370.\n\n  SELF-LOVE, when uncontrouled, engenders vices, iv. 108.\n\n  SENATOR, English, requisite qualifications of one, iv. 140.\n    are not attainable by foreign travel, 143.\n\n  SIDNEY, Sir PHILIP, the flower of knighthood, iii. 197.\n\n  SINCERITY in the commerce of the world, a dialogue on, iii. 53.\n\n  SHAFTESBURY, Lord, eminent as a writer of dialogue, iii. 24.\n    his remarks on the difficulties attending that class of composition,\n      42.\n    represented in a dialogue with Mr. Locke, on the uses of foreign\n      travel, iv. 87.\n    states its advantages, 107.\n    asserts it to be the most important part of education, 111.\n    descants on the prejudices of home-bred gentlemen, 115.\n    on the state of the arts in Britain, 126.\n    on the decay of philosophy, 131.\n    his raillery against the Gothic manner in poetry, 311.\n\n  SHAKESPEAR, remark of his best critic on the witch-scenes in Macbeth,\n      iv. 286.\n    greater in the Gothic than in the classic manner, 295.\n\n  SOCRATES, whence he took his name of Ironist, iii. 28.\n    never stirred out of Athens, iv. 96.\n\n  SOMERS, Mr. his fears that the principles of liberty are not\n      thoroughly established in the minds of the people, iii. 295, 297.\n    his notion of the varying ascendancy of liberty and prerogative,\n      iv. 18.\n\n  SPAIN, Queen Elizabeth\u2019s triumph over, to what owing, iii. 274.\n\n  SPENSER, had talent for business as well as for poetry, iii. 243.\n    his funeral, _ib._ n.\n    charmed by Gothic Romance, iv. 239.\n    his account of the courtesy of chivalry, 247.\n    of the connection of gallantry with the profession of Knighthood,\n      249.\n    his description of characters in romance, 264.\n    his design in the Fairy Queen, 280.\n    why he chose chivalry for his theme, and Fairy land for his scene,\n      291.\n    why he had recourse to allegory, 346.\n    with whom he ranks highest among the poets, 350.\n\n  SPRAT, the Rev. Mr. his account of a conversation with Mr. Cowley on\n      retirement, iii. 99.\n\n  STAR-CHAMBER, iii. 381.\n    when confirmed by act of parliament, iv. 25, 34.\n    its jurisdiction why extended, 50.\n\n  STEPHEN, the Justinian laws introduced into England during his reign,\n      iii. 354.\n    interdicted the study of them, 356.\n\n  STILLINGFLEET, Dr. his remark on the dispensing power, iv. 54.\n\n  STUART, House of, part of their difficulties ascribed to the bad\n      policy of their predecessor, iii. 228.\n    English Government despotic under the first princes of that line,\n      iii. 390.\n    prerogative increased in the preceding reigns, iv. 20, 33.\n    confirmed the jurisdiction of the Star-Chamber by statute, 34.\n    exercised the dispensing power to a dangerous degree, 55.\n\n\n  T.\n\n  TACITUS, bears testimony to the free spirit of the German\n      constitutions, iii. 309.\n\n  TASSO, his Gierusalemme Liberata planned on the model of the Iliad,\n      iv. 279.\n    his description of a garden, iv. 301.\n    his Gierusalemme Liberata considered, 308.\n    how estimated by the French critics, 309, 310.\n    his Clarinda not so extravagant a character as is generally\n      supposed, 318.\n    remark of a French critic on his enchantments, 322.\n    his fairy tales do him more honour than the classical parts of his\n      poem, 329.\n\n  TERENCE, his characters all express themselves with equal elegance,\n      iii. 39.\n\n  THEOBALD, Archbishop, favoured the reading of the Justinian laws in\n      England, iii. 354.\n\n  THIRD ESTATE in France, their deputies how stigmatized by one of\n      the popes, iv. 59. n.\n\n  THUANUS, his remark on the romantic spirit of Queen Elizabeth,\n      iii. 196.\n\n  THURKEBY, Judge, exclaims against the dispensing power, iv. 53. n.\n\n  TILT YARD, a school of fortitude and honour to our forefathers, iii.\n      185.\n    Its exercises excelled those of the Grecian gymnastics, 188.\n\n  TOLERATION-ACT, when passed, iv. 11. n.\n\n  TOPAZ, SIR, of Chaucer, a prelude to Don Quixote, iv. 336.\n\n  TOUR OF EUROPE, too limited for a philosophic traveller, iv. 198.\n\n  TRAVEL, foreign, dialogue on the uses of, iv. 87.\n    considered as a part of early education, 93.\n    question stated, 94.\n    example of the ancient philosophers, 96.\n    allusion to the court of Elizabeth, 98.\n    of Charles II. 100.\n    youth more exposed to vice abroad than at home, 103.\n    arguments in favour of it, 107.\n    its tendency to remove prejudices and correct low habits, 115.\n    and to qualify a person for bearing his part in public affairs, 124.\n    the argument refuted, 135.\n    proper objects of education, 138.\n    does not contribute to attain them, 143.\n    waste of time, _ib._\n    dissipation of mind, 145.\n    objects to which the traveller\u2019s application is directed, 146.\n    hinder him from more important studies, 149.\n    vicious prejudices may be removed without it, 155.\n    low habits not likely to be corrected by it, 157, 158.\n    precipitates youth into manhood, 165.\n    is become fashionable through the influence of the ladies, 168.\n    knowledge of the world not to be acquired by it, 172.\n    unseasonable and useless in youth, 173.\n    considered as a means of dissolving hasty and ill-timed connexions,\n      188.\n    of studying the fine arts, 191.\n    when to be practised with most advantage, 195.\n    to be extended beyond the tour of Europe, 198.\n    foreign and English universities compared, 212.\n    what tutorage most proper, 217.\n\n  TUDOR LINE, government of England more despotic under them than in\n      the preceding reigns, iii. 390.\n\n  TUTOR, Travelling, how to be chosen, iv. 106.\n    the best cannot teach every thing requisite, 149.\n    what tutorage most proper, 217.\n\n\n  V. and U.\n\n  VACARIUS taught the civil law in England, iii. 355.\n\n  VIRTUE, exists most in the offices of social life, iii. 106.\n    not incompatible with ambition, 139.\n\n  VIRTUOSOSHIP, one of the objects of foreign travel, iv. 146.\n\n  ULYSSES, his return afforded an exception to the domestic licence of\n      the time, iv. 278.\n\n  UNITY of design in Gothic poems, iv. 300.\n\n  UNIVERSITIES, the Imperial law still obtains in them, iii. 375.\n    strictures on, iv. 132.\n    a sketch of their institution and genius, 204.\n    why the barbarous plans of education still prevail, 206.\n    a reformation contemplated, 208.\n    their studies and discipline not without their use, 211.\n    compared with those of the continent, 212.\n    their forms and regulations commended, 214.\n    much room for improvement in them, 223.\n    happy presage of their future condition, 224.\n\n\n  W.\n\n  WALLER, Mr. EDMUND, represented in dialogue with Dr. More, on\n      sincerity in the commerce of the world, iii. 53.\n    recites his history, 57.\n    his introduction at court, where he recommended himself by his\n      poetry, 60.\n    engaged actively in the parliament of 1640, 63.\n    his relationship and attachment to Mr. Hampden could never bias\n      him from moderation, 65.\n    his resolution to pursue the King\u2019s interests, and yet keep clear\n      with the Parliament, 69.\n    his popularity drew him into difficulties, 71.\n    failure of his _plot_, 72.\n    his address in extricating himself from the danger thence arising,\n      77.\n    his hypocrisy, 79.\n    retired into France during the troubles of the country, 83.\n    ascribes his misfortunes to _sincerity_, and his escape from them,\n      to _dissimulation_, 84.\n    is admitted, on his return, to the confidence of the Protector,\n      whom he panegyrized, 86.\n    congratulated Charles II. on his restoration, 88.\n    his arguments in justification of his conduct, 91.\n\n  WALLS OF FIRE, mentioned in romance, what in reality, iv. 320.\n\n  WALSINGHAM, Secretary, recounts the ill effects of Queen Elizabeth\u2019s\n      frugality, iii. 263. n.\n    his illustrious poverty, 264.\n\n  WARWICK, Great Church of, famous for its monuments, iii. 168.\n\n  WILLIAM I. his Conquest by some considered as the foundation of\n      absolute monarchy in England, iii. 298, 309.\n    his claim to the crown not conquest but testamentary succession,\n      311.\n    instituted the feudal law, 313.\n    consequences of his distribution of forfeited estates and\n      seignories, 333.\n    obliged to ratify the old standing laws of the kingdom, 349.\n    illustration of his policy in his distinction of the ecclesiastical\n      and temporal courts, 351, 352.\n    styles himself _Bastard_, in one of his charters, 363.\n\n  WILLIAM III. King, his character, iv. 14.\n\n  WOLSEY, Cardinal, charged with subjecting the laws of the land to\n      the imperial laws, iii. 380.\n\n  WOMEN-WARRIORS, in times of chivalry, iv. 317.\n\n  WORLD, the Commerce of, how to be prepared for, iv. 138.\n    a knowledge of, the most momentous part of education, and least\n      understood, 179.\n\n\n  X.\n\n  XENOPHON, why lavish in praise of hunting, iii. 189.\n\n\n  Y.\n\n  YORKE, the late Right Hon. CHARLES, extract from a letter of his,\n      on the origin of chivalry, iv. 254.\n\n  YOUTH, the season for acquiring right propensities and virtuous\n      habits, iv. 113.\n    education of, in England, wherein defective, iv. 117.\n    value of time at that age, 144.\n    bashfulness a favourable symptom, 161.\n    what period of it requires most care and vigilance, 180.\n    entrance into the world, 181.\n    necessity of moral discipline, 184.\n\n\n  Z.\n\n  ZEAL for the faith, actuated the professors of chivalry, iv. 251.\n\n\nTHE END OF VOLUME IV.\n\n\n  J. Nichols and Son, Printers,\n  Red Lion Passage, Fleet Street, London.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n\n[1] _7 May, 1689._\n\n[2] The act of toleration did not pass till _24 May, 1689_, which lets\nus see at what time this preface is _supposed_ to have been drawn up.\n\n[3] This was the talk of men at that time. It was perhaps in the king\u2019s\nintention. But the design, if it had ever been formed, miscarried; as\nthe Bishop himself observes in his History\u2014\u201cThe most melancholy part\nof the treaty of _Ryswick_ was, that no advantages were got by it,\nin favour of the Protestants in _France_.\u201d Vol. iv. p. 295. _Edinb._\n1753.\u2014Whether the blame of this lies in the king, or his parliaments,\nor neither, the reader is left to judge for himself, from considering\nthe state and transactions of those times.\n\n[4] These rigours the bishop gives a particular account of in THE\nHISTORY OF HIS OWN TIMES, vol. iii. _Edinb._ 1753.\u2014Speaking of the\npersecution of the _French_ Protestants, he says, \u201cI went over a great\npart of _France_, while it was in its hottest rage, from _Marseilles_\nto _Montpelier_, and from thence to _Lyons_, and so on to _Geneva_. I\nsaw and knew so many instances of their injustice and violence, that it\nexceeded even what could have been well imagined; for all men set their\nthoughts on work to invent new methods of cruelty. In all the towns\nthrough which I passed, I heard the most dismal accounts of things\npossible.\u201d p. 60.\u2014Again\u2014\u201cThe fury that appeared on this occasion did\nspread itself with a sort of contagion: for the intendants and other\nofficers, that had been mild and gentle in the former parts of their\nlife, seemed now to have laid aside the compassion of Christians, the\nbreeding of gentlemen, and the impressions of humanity.\u201d p. 61.\n\n[5] Meaning CROMWELL, who, it seems, had a design of setting up \u201ca\ncouncil for the Protestant religion, in opposition to the congregation\n_de propagand\u00e2 fide_ at _Rome_.\u201d See the Bishop\u2019s own account in his\nHist. vol. i. p. 109.\n\n[6] NAT. BACON, in his Disc. part II. p. 125. _Lond._ 1739.\n\n[7] The story is told by Lord BACON in his history of this prince.\n\n[8] He did not consider that maxim of the Lord BACON, \u201cDepression of\nthe nobility may make a king more absolute, but less safe.\u201d Works, vol.\niii. p. 296.\n\n[9] And yet Lord BACON tells us, that when HENRY VIII. came to the\ncrown, \u201cThere was no such thing as any great and mighty subject, who\nmight any way eclipse or overshade the imperial power.\u201d Works, vol.\niii. p. 508.\n\n[10] \u201cA man, as Mr. BACON characterises him, underneath many passions,\nbut above fear.\u201d DISC. Part II. p. 120.\n\n[11] DISC. Part II. p. 125.\n\n[12] This terrible act is 31 HEN. VIII. c. 8. It was repealed in 1 EDW.\nVI. c. 12.\n\n[13] Speech to the lords and commons at _Whitehall_. An. 1609.\n\n[14] It was said well of this king\u2014\u201cThat he spake peace abroad, and\nsung lullaby at home: yet, like a dead calm in a hot spring, treasured\nup in store sad distempers against a back-winter.\u201d NAT. BACON.\n\n[15] Meaning such clauses as these\u2014_as by any spiritual or\necclesiastical power or authority may LAWFULLY be exercised_, and,\n_provided that nothing be done contrary to the LAWS of this realm._\n\n[16] The bishop does well to say\u2014_in some measure_. For, according\nto popish prejudices, the sacerdotal character is vastly above the\nregal. See POLE\u2019S address to HEN. VIII. I. 1, where this high point is\ndiscussed at large.\n\n[17] HIST. ANG. p. 694.\n\n[18] Something to this purpose occurs in p. 706.\n\n[19] The name of this reverend judge was ROGER DE THURKEBY. A cause\nwas trying before him in _Westminster-hall_, when one of the parties\nproduced the king\u2019s letters patent with a _non-obstante_ in it. \u201cQuod\ncum comperisset,\u201d says the historian, \u201cab alto ducens suspiria, de\npr\u00e6dict\u00e6 adjectionis appositione, dixit; Heu, heu, hos ut quid dies\nexpectavimus? ecce jam civilis curia exemplo ecclesiastic\u00e6 conquinatur,\net a sulphureo fonte rivulus intoxicatur.\u201d p. 784. HEN. III.\n\n[20] Many statutes, and especially 23 HEN. VI. had forbidden the\ncontinuance of any person in the office of sheriff for more than\none year. HENRY VII. dispensed with these statutes. And the twelve\njudges resolved in 2 HEN. VII. that, by a _non-obstante_, a patent\nfor a longer time should be good.\u2014It seems, the good old race of the\nTHURKEBYS was now worn out.\n\n[21] See his Works, vol. iii. p. 806.\n\n[22] _The true law of free monarchies_, in the King\u2019s Works, p. 203.\n\n[23] Alluding to the doctrine of the canonists, who say, _Papa\ndispensare potest de omnibus pr\u00e6ceptis_ VETERIS ET NOVI TESTAMENTI. See\n_bishop_ JEWELL\u2019S _defence of his apology of the church of England,\nagainst_ HARDING, p. 313.\n\n[24] See this particular taken notice of in K. JAMES\u2019S Works, p. 384.\n\n[25] One of them, King JAMES, profited so well by this discipline,\nthat, as we are told on very competent authority, \u201cHe was the most able\nprince that ever this kingdom had, to JUDGE OF CHURCH-WORK.\u201d _Ded. of\nBp. ANDREWS\u2019S sermons to CHARLES I. by the bishops LAUD and BUCKERIDGE._\n\n[26] This notion was started even so early as HENRY\u2019s rejection of the\nsupremacy. Cardinal POLE insists strongly on this origin of kingship in\nhis book, _Pro ecclesiastic\u00e6 unitatis defensione_, lib. i. p. 74.\n\n[27] In the writings, published by political men for twenty years\ntogether before the Restoration; in which the great question of the\norigin of civil government was thoroughly canvassed.\n\n[28] The bishop declares his opinion to this purpose very fully in\nseveral places of the History of his Own Times. His and his friend\nTILLOTSON\u2019S representations to the unhappy Lord RUSSELL, no doubt,\nturned upon this principle.\n\n[29] The bishop gives the same account of this matter in his History of\nthe Reformation, Part I. p. 330.\n\n[30] TRUE LAW OF FREE MONARCHIES, p. 203.\u2014What is said of the king\u2019s\nbeing the _great schoolmaster of the land_ is taken from the same\ndiscourse, p. 204. His words are these\u2014\u201cThe people of a borough cannot\ndisplace their provost\u2014yea, even the poor school-master cannot be\ndisplaced by his scholars\u2014How much less it is lawful upon any pretext\nto control or displace the great provost and GREAT SCHOOL-MASTER OF THE\nWHOLE LAND.\u201d\n\n[31] Mr. SOMERS had reason for saying this; for the intimation was no\nless than that the power of the _militia_ was not in the king. Sir J.\nMAYNARD was of this opinion, when the matter was debated in parliament\nin 1642. See WHITLOCK, p. 56.\n\n[32] The doctrines of divine right, as propagated by the churchmen\nof that time in their books and sermons, are well known.\u2014Those of\nthe lawyers were such as these\u2014It had been alleged on the part of\nMr. HAMPDEN, in the great cause of ship-money, \u201cthat by a fundamental\npolicy in the creation of the frame of this kingdom, in case the\nmonarch of _England_ should be inclined to exact from his subjects at\nhis pleasure, he should be restrained, for that he could have nothing\nfrom them, but upon a common consent of parliament.\u201d Sir ROBERT\nBERKELEY, one of the judges of the king\u2019s-bench, affirmed\u2014\u201cThat the\nlaw knows no such king-yoking policy:\u201d\u2014Sir THOMAS TREVOR, one of\nthe barons of the exchequer, \u201cThat our king hath as much power and\nprerogative belonging to him as any prince in Christendom:\u201d\u2014The\nattorney-general, Sir JOHN BANKS, \u201cThat the king of _England_ hath an\nentire empire; he is an absolute monarch: nothing can be given to an\nabsolute prince! but is inherent in his person.\u201d _State Trials_, vol.\ni. Such was the language of the guardians of the LAW, that temple or\nsanctuary, as it has been called, whither the subject is to run for\nshelter and protection. Had not Mr. ST. JOHN then much reason for\nsaying, as he did on that occasion, \u201cWe have the fabric of the temple\nstill; but the Gods, the DII TUTELARES, are gone?\u201d There is the more\nforce and propriety in this censure, as it comes from a man who was\nhimself of the profession. And another of the same order, the best\nand wisest perhaps that frequented the temple of law in those days,\nproceeds with a just indignation still further\u2014\u201cThese men (said Mr.\nHIDE, in a speech to the lords) have, upon vulgar fears, delivered up\nthe precious forts they were trusted with, almost without assault; and,\nin a tame easy trance of flattery and servitude, lost and forfeited\n(shamefully forfeited) that reputation, awe, and reverence, which\nthe wisdom, courage, and gravity of their venerable predecessors had\ncontracted and fastened to their places; and have even rendered that\nstudy and profession, which in all ages hath been, and I hope now shall\nbe, of honourable estimation, so contemptible and vile, that, had not\nthis blessed day come [the day of impeachment of the six judges],\nall men would have had that quarrel to the Law itself, which MARCIUS\nhad to the _Greek_ tongue, who thought it a mockery to learn that\nlanguage, the masters whereof lived in bondage under others.\u201d\u2014Thus\nthese eloquent apologists for law and liberty. The conclusion is, that\nthough in the great bodies of churchmen and lawyers, some will always\nbe found to dishonour themselves, there have never been wanting others\nto do justice to the public, and to assert, maintain, and preserve, the\ndignity of their respective professions.\n\n[33] This appears even from Mr. HUME\u2019S own account of the feudal times;\nincomparably the best part of his _History of England_. And it is to be\npresumed that, if so ingenuous a writer had begun his work at the right\nend, he would have been led, by the evidence of so palpable a truth,\nto express himself more favourably, indeed more consistently, of the\n_English_ constitution. But having, by some odd chance, written the\nhistory of the STUARTS first, and afterwards of the TUDORS, (in both\nwhich he found it for his purpose to adopt the notion of a despotic\nindependent spirit in the _English_ monarchy), he chuses in the last\npart of his work, which contains the history of _England from_ JULIUS\nC\u00c6SAR _to_ HENRY VII. to abide by his former fancy; on this pretence,\nthat, in the administration of the feudal government, the liberty of\nthe subject was incomplete and partial; often precarious and uncertain:\na way, in which the learned historian might prove, that no nation under\nheaven ever was, or ever will be, possessed of a FREE CONSTITUTION.\n\nBy the FREE CONSTITUTION of the _English_ monarchy, every advocate\nof liberty, that understands himself, I suppose, means, that limited\nplan of policy, by which the supreme legislative power (including\nin this general term the power of levying money) is lodged, not in\nthe prince singly, but jointly in the prince and people; whether the\n_popular_ part of the constitution be denominated _the king\u2019s_ or\n_kingdom\u2019s great council_, as it was in the proper feudal times; or\n_the parliament_, as it came to be called afterwards; or, lastly, _the\ntwo houses of parliament_, as the style has now been for several ages.\n\nTo tell us, that this constitution has been different at different\ntimes, because the regal or popular influence has at different times\nbeen more or less predominant, is only playing with a word, and\nconfounding _constitution_ with _administration_. According to this way\nof speaking, we have not only had _three or four_[34], but possibly\nthree or four score, different constitutions. So long as that great\ndistribution of the supreme authority took place (and it has constantly\nand invariably taken place, whatever other changes there might be, from\nthe _Norman_ establishment down to our times) the nation was always\nenabled, at least _authorized_, to regulate all subordinate, or, if\nyou will, supereminent claims and pretensions. This it effectually did\nat the _Revolution_, and, by so doing, has not created a _new plan\nof policy_, but perfected the old one. The great MASTER-WHEEL of the\n_English_ constitution is still the same; only freed from those checks\nand restraints, by which, under the specious name of _prerogatives_,\ntime and opportunity had taught our kings to obstruct and embarrass its\nfree and regular movements.\n\nOn the whole, it is to be lamented that Mr. HUME\u2019s too zealous concern\nfor the honour of the house of STUART, operating uniformly through all\nthe volumes of his history, has brought disgrace on a work, which,\nin the main, is agreeably written, and is indeed the most readable\n_general_ account of the ENGLISH affairs, that has yet been given to\nthe public.\n\n[34] Mr. HUME\u2019S Hist. vol. v. p. 472, _n._ ed. 8vo, 1763.\n\n[35] A great lawyer, however, and one of the ornaments of Mr. SOMERS\u2019S\nown house, is not afraid to indulge in these generous expectations.\nIn a late treatise, in which he explains, with exquisite learning,\nthe genius of the feudal policy, \u201cThese principles, says he, are\nthe principles of freedom, of justice, and safety. The _English_\nconstitution is formed upon them. Their reason will subsist, as long\nas the frame of it shall stand; and being maintained in purity and\nvigour, will preserve it from the usual mortality of government.\u201d\n_Considerations on the Law of Forfeiture_, 3d ed. Lond. 1748.\n\n[36] Account of _Denmark_, as it was in the year 1692.\n\n[37] Such as certain philosophers amused themselves with building, on\n_Innate Ideas_.\n\n[38] _Ideas of Sensation_\u2014on which principles, indeed, a late writer\nhas constructed, but by no fault of Mr. LOCKE, a material system of\nthe grossest Epicurism. See a work entitled, _De l\u2019Esprit_, in 2 tom.\n_Amst._ 1759.\n\n[39] \u201cInfidelity is the natural product of restraint and spiritual\ntyranny\u2014Hence it is we see _France_ and _Italy_ over-run with the\nworst kind of _Deism_. There our travelling gentry first picked it\nup for a rarity. And, indeed, at first, without much malice. It was\nbrought home in a cargo of new fashions: and worn, for some time, with\nthat levity, by the importers, and treated with that contempt by the\nrest, as suited, and was due, to the apishness of foreign manners: till\na set, &c.\u201d Bishop of GLOUCESTER\u2019S _Sermon on the Suppression of the\nlate Rebellion_, p. 78.\n\n[40] CHARACT. Vol. iii. Dis. iii.\n\n[41]\n\n    \u1f0b \u03b4\u2019 \u1f02\u03bd \u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ce\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\n    \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2. \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f56 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5.\n                      Eurip. \u0399\u039a\u0395\u03a4\u0399\u0394\u0395\u03a3.\n\n[42] Of _Ryswick_, in 1697.\n\n[43] _Advice to an Author_, P. II. S. III.\n\n[44] See a discourse at the end of _Love\u2019s Labour Lost_ in WARB. Ed. of\nSHAKESPEAR; in which the _origin_, _subject_, and _character_ of these\nbooks of Chivalry (or _Romances_, properly so called) are explained\nwith an exactness of learning, and penetration, peculiar to that\nwriter\u2014\n\n    In tenui labor, at tenuis non gloria\u2014\n\n[45] The late right honourable CHARLES YORKE; who to all the learning\nof his own profession had joined an exact taste, and very extensive\nknowledge, of polite literature. What follows is an extract from a\nlong letter which this excellent person did me the honour to write to\nme on the subject of these letters, when he had read them in the first\nedition.\n\n[46] See the _Memoir_, just quoted.\n\n[47] Mr. WARTON\u2019S Observations on SPENSER, vol. i. p. 175.\n\n[48] Don QUIXOTE, b. iv. c. 22.\n\n[49] Mr. WARTON, _Obs. on the F. Q._ p. 7. vol. i. _Lond._ 1762.\n\n[50] Lord SHAFTESBURY, _Adv. to an Author_.\n\n[51] _Adv. to an Author_, Part III. S. II.\n\n[52] _Spectator_, vol. i. N^{o} 5. vol. v. N^{o} 369.\n\n[53] For an account of some other wonders in Romance, such as\n_enchanted arms_, _invulnerable bodies_, _flying horses_, &c. see\n_L\u2019Esprit des Loix_, l. xxviii. c. 22.\n\n[54] VOLTAIRE, _Essai sur la Po\u00ebsie Epique_, ch. vii.\n\n[55] A celebrated writer, whose good sense, or whose perverseness,\nwould not suffer him to be the dupe of French prejudices, declares\nhimself roundly of this opinion: \u201cOn a voulu mettre en _representation_\n(says he, speaking of the absurd magnificence of the _French_ Opera) le\nMERVEILLEUX, qui, n\u2019etant fait que pour \u00eatre imagin\u00e9, EST AUSSI BIEN\nPLACE DANS UN POEME EPIQUE que ridiculement sur un theatre.\u201d [_Nouv.\nHeloise_, p. II. l. xxiii.]\n\n[56] Sir W. DAVENANT\u2019S Preface.\n\n[57] \u0398\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. HOMER.\n\n[58] Mr. HOBBES\u2019S Letter.\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nInconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]","title":"The works of Richard Hurd, volume 4 (of 8)","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":69234}