Part 12

XV. The story of Dedalus, and his being obliged to fly from the resentment of Minos, by means of the invention of wings, for having facilitated to Pasiphaë her abominable commerce with a bull, was meant to describe nothing more, than her having been enamoured with Taurus, who, according to Plutarch, was one of the principal generals in the army of Minos; and Dedalus’s having assisted, by exerting the ordinary means practised on such occasions, in bringing about the completion of the lovers wishes; after finishing the business he fled from the vengeance of Minos, in a vessel that had sails, which might properly enough be compared to wings, and which the imagination being put to the stretch to find out a way of escaping, they were then supposed to have been first invented: or if the idea had before been entertained, that was the first time of its being carried into practice.

XVI. The chimerical feats of Jason, and his stealing the golden fleece, are historically explained by the celebrated Samuel Bochart, who, by the help of his knowledge of the Phœnician language, discovered, that there were some words of equivocal meaning in that idiom, which gave occasion to the fabrication of this portentous fable. The Syriac word _Gaza_, in the Phœnician language, signifies both a treasure and a fleece; the word _Saur_ also, in the same language, signifies both a wall and a bull; and the word _Nachas_, is also indifferently used to express a dragon and iron. Thus, instead of saying that Jason, by breaking down or scaling a wall defended by armed men, had made himself master of the treasure of the king of Colquida; they represent him, as having tamed the bulls which breathed fire, and the tremendous dragon, which guarded the golden fleece, and by that means had made himself master of it. Neither in the love of Medea for Jason, or in her running away with him, was there any thing extraordinary, or that required the assistance of Minerva, for a natural passion, accompanied with resolution, could without any other aid, surmount all the difficulties in such an undertaking.

XVII. The Centaurs, half men and half horses, which make a great figure in the heathen mythology, were nothing more, according to the best authors, than types or representations of some of the inhabitants of Thessaly, who were the first people that were known to fight on horseback, and to train and break horses, for the use and business of war; and it was in that region, the poets placed the Centaurs, and it was from thence, that they say Hercules expelled them.

XVIII. The harpies (who could suppose it?) were no more than great swarms of locusts, which in the reign of king Phineus, desolated Paphlagonia. In the dictionary of Moreri (vid. the word Harpies) you may see the proofs of this, which I shall omit inserting here, as that dictionary is so well known.

XIX. In the same manner, from portions of profane history, may be explained many other parts of the heathen mythology; such as the fable of Perseus, that of Belerophonte, that of the Hesperides, that of the Gorgons, and many more. But this is not a matter of sufficient importance to dwell upon.

XX. I also confess, that there are some parts of profane mythological history, that may be opportunely explained by the sacred, as those who have embraced the general system of deducing the first from the last, have clearly proved; but their success in some of these particulars, has been the cause of their great error, as it has encouraged them in the absurd and incongruous attempt, of deducing from scripture, the whole Pagan mythology. I will here venture, notwithstanding this has been a path so much trodden, to point some especial marks of similitude and identity, between a deity of the gentiles, and a conspicuous person of holy writ. This is the example I before promised to give, and which relates to the resemblance between the father of the faithful with one of the most antient of the Pagan deities, that is, between Abraham and Saturn. But I must premise, that the reader is not indebted to me for this beautiful parallel, but to the Abbé Boissy, a member of the Academy Royal of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres at Paris, who is the person that advanced it in that famous assembly; and I shall translate it here in the sense of the language of the author, as I find it inserted, in the first volume of the History of that academy.

XXI. He says that Saturn, according to the relations of the poets and historians, was the person who first introduced the detestable custom of sacrificing human victims. The Saturn of the Pagans, is in the judgment of the best critics, the Abraham of scripture; and a fragment of Sanchionata, which is produced by Eusebius, does to appearance, put the thing out of all doubt. The fragment runs as follows; _Saturn, whom the Phœnicians call Israel, was after his death classed among the gods, under the name of a planet, which at this time is called Saturn. In the days of this prince’s reign in Phœnicia, he had by a nymph named_ Anobret, _an only son whom he called_ Jeud, _a word which even to this day, among the Phœnicians signifies_ only son. Finding that he had engaged his country in a dangerous war, he adorned his son with the vestments and insignia of royalty, and sacrificed him on an altar erected by himself. In another fragment of the same Sanchionata, we find, that this same Saturn circumcised himself, and obliged all his family to do the like. Nicholas Damascenus, Justin, and other authors, give to Abraham the rank and quality of a king; and even the scripture remarks, that he made alliances, and treated with other kings as with his equals; and besides this, the patriarchs were known to exercise royal authority in their own families. Berosus, as we are informed by Josephus, adds, that Abraham had great skill in astrology; and Eupolemus, as we are told by Eusebius, says, that he was the inventor of the science of the Chaldeans. There needs nothing more to persuade us, that the Phœnicians were disposed to place him among the gods and the planets. They called him Israel, either from their confounding the grandfather with the grandson, or because they gave that name to the people who were descended from him. The name of _Jeud_, his only son, has the same meaning as that of _Isaac_; and _Anobret_, as Bochart informs us, signifies _ex gratia concipiens_, which signification, is very applicable to the circumstances of _Sarah_. Finally, and as the last instance of conformity between them, Saturn circumcised himself, and obliged all his family to do the same; a remarkable particular this, and which can agree only with the circumstances of Abraham. Thus far the before cited author.

XXII. I say the same of the two systems, that derive all the fictions of Paganism, the one from sacred, the other from profane history, that I say of all the other systems; which is, that there is somewhat of truth in every one of them, but that they all in general are false. Father Kircher inclined to the sentiment, that all the fables derived their origin from the language, or hyerogliphical characters of the Egyptians; although it is necessary, in order to support this opinion, to suppose that they all originated in Egypt, which is very wide of the truth; but as that kingdom in the ages of antiquity, made a great figure in the world, and was in an especial manner venerated as the metropolis of the sciences, it is probable, that the language of it, and the mysterious expressions of some of its inhabitants, which were ill understood, or not understood at all by the vulgar, might have given rise to some of the mythological tales.

XXIII. Bochart pretends to demonstrate, that they were all derived from the equivocal meaning of words in the Phœnician language, and with respect to some of them, has succeeded very happily in illustrating this sentiment; as for example, in his explanation of the fable of the golden fleece. But the general system is absurd, even if you suppose there is no other thing to object against it, than the chimera, that Phœnicia is the country from whence the whole of the fables are descended; but in order to prove this, it will be necessary to shew, that no histories depraved with fictions, were communicated to other kingdoms, but in Phœnician manuscripts.

XXIV. The Platonists imagined, that nothing else was concealed under the veil of fables, but documents and maxims of natural philosophy. And there certainly is something of this sort implied in them; as for example, in the description which Homer gives of Aurora, as the daughter of the air, and the office which other poets assign to her, of the guardianship or custody of the gates of the east, which she is to open every morning with her dewy fingers, taking care to send the zephyrs before to dispel the dark shades. All which imagery at the bottom, means nothing more, than to describe the properties of the morning air, and to display the appearances of day-break in the east, before the sun rises above the horizon.

XXV. Others have imagined, that all the fables were meant to convey some moral or political lessons, and that the authors designed nothing more when they invented them, than to inculcate under a species of allegory, rational maxims, which might be useful in human life; and there are really some of them, that seem to have been written with no other view. The fable of Phaeton for example, appears to have been calculated, to represent the dangers to which people expose themselves, by attempting things greatly superior to their power or abilities; and that of Narcissus, to represent the extravagance and folly of self-love or admiration. But saying that all the fables were written with this design, would be a manifest chimera.

XXVI. Finally, the infatuated alchymists, or at least some of them, have dreamed, that the fables of which we have been speaking, contain enigmatically, the doctrine of the philosophers stone; that is, that they teach in a mysterious way, all the operations which are necessary to be gone thro’, for attaining the happy secret of transmuting all other metals into gold. Perhaps what occasioned this silly apprehension, was their finding in the idiom of their art, the names of the seven principal deities of the Pagans, which are the same as those of the seven planets, applied to the seven metals they make use of; but the application of those names to the metals, was posterior many ages, to their being given to the deities and the planets. The first alchymists who called the metals by those names, were excited to do it by the same motive, which has ever induced them to give to all the materials, operations, and effects of their art, strange and sounding names, which they do, either to conceal their pretended secrets, or by the mysterious magnificence of their stile, to attract the respect and admiration of the vulgar; and the resemblance of the splendor of the sun’s rays to the colour of gold, and the light of the moon, to that of silver, was favourable to their intention, and assisted them in making the application.

XXVII. This system, is not only in its complex or whole substance, but in each, and every one of its parts, destitute of all foundation, and is therefore not worthy to be controverted, but should be treated with that contempt, which both this, and all the other imaginary productions of the alchymists deserve.

XXVIII. If this letter shall afford you neither entertainment nor instruction, it will at least serve as an apology for my conduct, and incline you to retract the censure, which you have fulminated against me, and my discourse of the _Divorce of History from Fable_; and I hope that at all events, your resentment will be calmed, and your apprehensions quieted by the following reflection; that although in that discourse I have weakened the bond of matrimony between the two parties, I have in this letter, on one of the sides, established a degree of affinity between them.

ON BOOKS OF INSTRUCTION, WITH RESPECT TO POLITICS.

SECT. I.

I. We scarce ever hear the antients talked of, with that judgment and moderation which good sense dictates. They are either treated with excessive veneration, or else they are scoffed at and despised, and this is generally governed by the subject matter on which you discourse. If this happens to be science or learning, the antient professors are talked of, as men much superior in abilities and comprehension to any of the moderns; and it will scarcely be admitted, that these last have discovered any thing, which was not known to the others long before. But when political sagacity or industry becomes the subject of conversation, all the advantage is given to these latter times; and to such an excessive degree, that the men of former ages, compared to the moderns, are considered as a sort of demi-brutes, who were actuated by a blind ferocity, and who exercised power, unrestrained by reason, and with a daring hardiness, void of all address.

II. I am of opinion, that this comparison between the antients and moderns should be inverted, and the things placed in a quite opposite point of view. I say, the moderns should be considered as superior to the antients in science, but not in political industry. The reason is, because science is communicated by books; and as we find expressed in those all which the antient professors ever attained, we by them are enabled to enrich our minds with the discoveries, not only of one, but many learned men. Thus a modern, of equal application and ingenuity with an antient, may consider himself as a river, which is enlarged by the stock flowing from all those fountains, and who has over and above this, a source in his own reason, with which he may add somewhat to the whole.

III. But this is not the case with political industry. For there is scarce any man who possesses a greater stock of policy, than what arises from the funds he has within himself. It is true, that you will find books full of political documents, and histories which exhibit numerous examples of them, which are still more instructive than the documents, because they represent more strikingly the application of them to practice, when circumstances for applying them to practice occur. But if we attend to the thing with subtle reflection, we shall find, that this instruction is only apparent; and although it makes a figure in theory, is useless in practice.

IV. The reason is, because when we are desirous of carrying those precepts into execution, there never occurs in the contingent we would apply them to, the same complex of circumstances which we find in the book. Never? Is it not possible that in one or another case we may meet with the same? No certainly, for it is absolutely necessary that one must always be wanting, which is the intervention of the agent who acted in the business. This circumstance, which nobody adverts to, is of the greatest weight. The same political maxim, which in the hands of one man may be most beneficial, conduced by another, may be found useless, and even pernicious.

V. The manner of doing things is of as much importance, and sometimes of more, than the substance of the things themselves; and this is hardly ever to be imitated. Every man has a peculiar, and an especial something, which is characteristic of himself, and distinguishes him from all others; and this is apt to vary in the same individual, according to the different temperament or disposition of his body or mind. A frank sentence, delivered with energy and grace, may be capable of exciting the admiration, respect, and applause, of the same person, whom it might offend, if spoken in a different manner; and the very same thing, pronounced timidly, ungraciously, and with an unpleasant countenance, might excite contempt, or indignation.

VI. A pirate who had fallen into the hands of Alexander, told the conqueror to his face, that he was a greater robber than himself, which was so far from exciting the indignation of that prince, that he rather seemed pleased with the man’s frankness. The liberty that Clitus took with him, was not near so insolent or injurious, and Alexander run him through with a lance. From whence could this extreme difference in Alexander’s feelings arise? Why from the pirate’s speaking with an heroic and serene firmness; and from Clitus his having spoken with a coarse impatience, and rustic impetuosity. This difference of manner is never to be acquired by study, but is the production and effect of innate genius.

VII. It is commonly said, that flattery is one of the most certain means by which a man can make his fortune; but with all this, how many thousands of flatterers do we see despised and neglected? The reason is, because there are very few of them, who know how to give to flattery that nice application which communicates strength to it, and makes it appear meritorious. Nor is it of any avail, to those who are so unfortunate as not to hit upon the mode of doing this, to study by detail the motions, the words, the air, and gestures of the fortunate, as the application we have mentioned, depends upon an innate genial quality, which can never be counterfeited by imitation; for how many people do we see make themselves ridiculous, by imitating the very thing, which when done by others, makes them respected?

VIII. Every political negotiation, may be compared to a machine, composed of many wheels, every one of which, by being more rigid, or more pliant, than is consistent with its just proportion, renders the whole machine useless; or it may be compared to a chemical process of long duration, whose success depends upon the different degrees of heat, to be applied with great nicety and precision, in the different stages of the process. But all the books that were ever written, either upon chemistry or mechanics, can never teach how to preserve this exact proportion of rigidity or pliability in the metals, or to apply this nice degree of heat to the fire, which is necessary for the completion of the business, and to answer the purposes intended. Even in these material operations, where the most nice and delicate parts of them, and the ultimate degree of exactitude in their execution, must be confided to a gift or innate talent in the artificer, we find that precepts are unequal to teach their performance; how then in political ones, where there is neither rule nor limits to determine their extension, their degrees of suspension, delay, or acceleration, with a thousand other contingent circumstances, can modes be prescribed for their execution?

SECT. II.

IX. The impossibility of imitating political examples, will be found still more manifest, if we consider, besides the person who acts, the people he is to act with. What is it to the purpose, that such an ambassador, has negotiated perfectly well at such a court, by employing such means? This example will be of no use to another ambassador, because, abstracted from an infinite number of other circumstances, a repetition of whose perfect assemblage will scarce ever happen, he does not negotiate with the same ministers; and every different genius, has a different door, through which you must enter to have access to his spirit.

X. I may be told, that the political books have provided against this inconvenience, and have accommodated negotiators with a variety of prudent precepts, suited to the various geniuses with whom you are to treat. This is nothing to the purpose, but is all talking at random. For the examination of these geniuses, must be made by the negotiator, and not by the author of the book, and the difference and variety of geniuses, is totally incomprehensible to the human understanding. Every man has his distinct one, which is no more exactly like that of other men, than the features of his face. The terms in which these are described, both in books of morality and politics, are general. They tell you, that one man is passionate, another gentle; one ambitious, another moderate; one avaricious, another liberal; one courageous, another timid, &c. Do you think that these are the ultimate, and only differences to be found in geniuses? No, they are not; but are sorts or species, every one of which, contains within itself innumerable differences. Have you not seen a man, who was remarkable for facing his enemy in battle, and timid in supporting his opinion in conversation? and another who is very patient under acute pain, and outrageous upon hearing any thing injurious said against him? What does all this amount to, but that these are different degrees of valour, and of patience, which we have no names for? and it would be impossible to give names to all of them, because they are innumerable.

XI. These things may be compared to colours. If you should be asked how many species of colours there are, you would begin by reckoning up eight or ten; such as the red, the green, the blue, the white, &c. But can you suppose, that these are the ultimate and only species? No, they are subalterns, as the logicians call them, or sorts, every one of which, has innumerable species. To convince you of this truth, examine the leaves of a hundred plants of different species. You will find them all green, but not in any one of them, will you find a green perfectly like to that of any other plant. To every different species of plant, there is a correspondent different texture of the insensible particles of its leaves, and a different texture of the insensible particles, occasions a different reflexion of the light, in which, according to the most probable opinion, consists the diversity of the colours.

XII. In the same manner, there is no man who has not a distinct particular temperament, and different from that of all other men; and to a distinct temperament, there is no doubt, but there must be annexed a distinct genius.

SECT. III.

XIII. Don’t imagine, that in political concerns, these minute differences are of no consequence; for oftentimes the whole depends upon them. Historians represent Philip the second severe; and they also represent the great Tamerlane the same, and even describe him as a ferocious and most cruel prince; but this second charge, is either false or uncertain. Who can comprehend, the difference there was between the severity of the two men? perhaps it might have been imperceptible. But with all this, it was sufficient to produce upon some particular occasions, diametrically opposite effects. A buffoon, with whom Philip was much entertained, said to him upon a certain occasion, a witty thing which the prince thought was indecent, for which he punished him with banishment: a pleasant poet, with whom Tamerlane used to amuse himself, said a satirical thing to him, which expressed a contempt of his person; and in return, Tamerlane made him a handsome present.

XIV. If I should be told, that this may depend not upon the substantial diversity, and let us call it by this name, of the different geniuses, but upon the accidental humour, which at that time prevailed in either of the princes, it being certain, that the same person may have his favourable and unfavourable moments, according as various internal or external causes affect his mind, and dispose it, either towards anger, or complacency; I reply, that for the support of my argument, one of these causes answers my purpose as well as the other. This same accidental disposition, is for the most part impenetrable, and is only known by experience from bad success, and after the mischief is done. The clouds of the soul, are sometimes seen on the brow of the countenance; but they for the most part do not appear; nor do we perceive them, till they are manifested to us by the flash of anger.