Part III. Homer and Ariftotle might appear at the head of all their commentators; but thefe were fo numer. ous, that fome hundreds were forced to attend in

the

have made the figure of this divine old man lefs awful: at least I am glad that he wanted his eye fight while he lived (fince it is impoffible not to conclude from the productions of Homer and Milton, that the mind's eye becomes more intenfely differning, when it is not interrupted by external objects. It is an old ob ervation, that Homer has nourished more perfons than Sylla, Cæfar, and Auguftus; and while their pictures have decayed, not a letter of the Ilad has been loft. The Grecian poet not only preferves his original form, but breathes freely, and looks beautifully, in other languages; a happier metempfychofs than Pythagoras ever d:camed of. However, if Homer was abfolutely obliged to wear the different dreffes which have been given to him, he would fometimes, I believe, find the motion of his limbs uneafy and confined; and would prefer his own fimple attire, even to the birth-day fuit which our English bard has given him. The commentators have done lefs honour to Homer, than the tranflators. Some of those learned pedants have entirely wafted their obfervations upon particles and words; others have run into a minute exactness, in comparing the propriety of his images; while others, again, have endeavoured to trace out from the Iiad and Odyssey, all the rudiments of arts and sciences. Some there are who dwell on fuch narrow circumstances as were neglected by Homer and can only be fuitable to their own confined genius. They are not able to pursue him in bis fublime flights, and attempt therefore to bring him upon a level with themselves. Their low mechanical notions remind me of an abfurd problem, propofed by the famous Monf. Huet, whether the Iliad might not be written upon vellum in fo fmall a hand, that the whole might be contained within a nut-fhell? This important quef tion is faid to have engaged the thoughts and attention of the French court, and gives us a true picture of a laborious, tastelefs critic, upon Homer. The Dauphin and his train, are for putting the Iliad into a nut-shell, when Alexander and his courtiers chose the richest and moft curious cabinet of Darius, as the only proper repofitory for Homer's works.

Homer and Ariftotle were as oppofite as poffible in their characters: But Dr. Swift has placed them together, chiefly with a view of fhewing their commentators in that juft and ridiculous light in which thofe fcholiafts ought to appear. When an age is bleffed with the productions of an uncommon genius, fuch as refembles Homer, it muft, in fome measure, be punished by bad imitations and comments; in the fame manner that you may have obferved the fun, by its heat aud influence, raifing vapours, and animating infects, that infect, and perhaps corrupt the air, in which he fhines with fo much luftre. But when an original admired author, as Ariftotle, is really errone. eus, and deceives with falfe fpecious principles, what a train of errors muft arife from commentators on fuch fubjects, who while they en

deavour

the court and outward rooms of the palace. I knew and could distinguish those two heroes at firft fight, not only from the crowd, but from each other. Homer was the taller and comlier perfon of the two, walked very erect for one of his age, and his eyes were the moft quick and piercing I ever beheld, Ariftotle ftooped much and made ufe of a ftaff. His vifage was meagre, his hair lank and thin, and his voice hollow * I foon difcovered

deavour to purfue and extend a pleafing inchanted profpect, that has no real foundation, deviate into a dark, difagreeable road of briers and thorns?It is on this account, that the Dean has introduced Ariftotle in company with Homer. Orrery.

This defcription of Ariftotle is fine, and in a few words, reprefents the true nature of his works. By not having the immortal spirit of Homer, he was unable to keep his body ere; and his staff, which feebly supported him, like his commentators, made this defect more confpicuous. He wanted not fome ufeful qualities: but these real ornaments, like his hair, were thin and ungraceful †. His flyle was harsh, and like his voice, had neither force nor harmony. He was without doubt a man of great genius and penetration; but he did infinitely more prejudice than fervice to real literature. He ftudied words more than facts; and delivered his philofophy perplexed with fuch intricate logical terms, as have laid a foundation for the endless fcholaftic disputations which have corrupted and retarded the progrefs of learning. He waged war with all his predeceffors. He never quotes an author but with a view to refute his opinion. the Ottoman emperor, he could not reign in fafety, till he had first deftroyed his brethren, He was as ambitious in fcience, as his pupil Alexander was in arms. He aimed to be a defpotic orginal; and not only to be the prince, but the tyrant of philofophy. What then can be expected from the commentators of his works, who were devoid of his ingenuity, and poffeffed all his intricate follies? Ramus with his covert ignorance, and Scotus and Aquinas, with their fubdivifions and imaginary nothings, muft make a contemptible figure in the Elyfian fields, which are the fuppofed manfions of chearfulness, truth and candour, and confequently must be a very improper fituation for that tribe of philofophers. Orrery.

Like

In Gulliver's portrait of Homer, we obferve all the marks and delineations of quickness, genius, and fire, accompanied with an exquifite power and felicity, in the communication of his ideas, with clearness and force, unto the fouls of his auditors, Swift's portrait of Ariftotle is equally strong and mafterly. He ftooped much, faith he,

"In this the noble commentator feems to be mistaken; for it "cannot be believed, that Ariftotle's real ornaments, however few, 66 were ungraceful."

and

covered that both of them were perfect ftrangers to the reft of the company, and had never feen or heard of them before. And I had a whisper from a ghoft, who fhall be nameless, that thefe commentators always kept in the most distant quarters from their principals in the lower world, through a confcioufnefs of fhame and guilt, becaufe they had fo horribly mifreprefented the meaning of thofe authors to pofterity. I introduced Didymus and Euftathius to Homer, and prevailed on him to treat them better than perhaps they deferved, for he foon found they wanted a genius to enter into the fpirit of a poet. But Ariftotle was out of all patience with the account I gave him of Scotus and Ramus, as I prefented them to him, and he asked them whether the rest of the tribe were as great dunces as themselves.

I then defired the governor to call up Defcartes and Gaffendi, with whom I prevailed to explain their fyftems to Ariftotle. This great philofopher

and made ufe of a staff; that is, he thought, he confidered, he ruminated, he pondered deeply on the most intricate and abftrufe points relating to the fciences; and, by the force of reafoning, which is meant by his ftaff, he cleared his way through briers and thorns, until he ftruck into the road which leads to fcience and philofophy.The remaining part of Ariftotle's portrait, is only the reprefentation of an abftracted fcholar, worn away and decayed with years, hard ftudy, nocturnal lucubrations, and the want of bodily exercise.

Some would make Swift treat Ariftotle with very little refpe&t. But, on the contrary, Swift admired Ariftotle beyond all the philofophers which had appeared in the world, from the days of Alexander the Great to the moment he was then writing; I had almost faid, even to the contempt of all others, not excepting Defcartes, Gaffendi, and the famous Sir Ifaac Newton.- -From a little book of inftructions which Dr. Swift was pleafed to draw up for the ufe of a lady, I fhall, in his own words, give his real opinion of Ariftotle. "Ariftotle, the difciple of Plato, and tutor to Alexander "the Great. His followers were called Peripateties, from a Greek "word which fignifies to walk; because he taught his difciples walk"ing. We have not all his works; and fome of thofe which are imputed to him, are fuppofed not genuine. He writ upon logic, "or the art of reafoning; upon moral and natural philofophy; upon oratory, poetry, etc, and feems to be a perfon of the most comprebenfive genius that ever lived," Swift.

86

freely

freely acknowledged his own mistakes in natural philofophy, because he proceeded in many things upon conjecture, as all men muft do; and he found that Gaffendi, who had made the doctrine of Epicurus as palatable as he could, and the vortices of Defcartes, were equally to be exploded *. He predicted the fame fate to attraction, whereof the

I believe you will find, that Ariftotle is ftill to be preferred to Epicurus. The former made fome useful experiments and difcoveries and was engaged in a real purfuit of knowledge, although his manner is much perplexed. The latter was full of vanity and ambition. He was an impoftor, and only aimed at deceiving. He feemed not to believe the principles which he has afferted. He committed the government of all things to chance. His natural philofophy is abfurd. His moral philofophy wants its proper baffs, the fear of God. M. Bayle one of his warmeft advocates is of this last opinion, where he fays, On ne fcauroit pas dire affez de bien de l'bonnetetè de fes moeurs, ni affez de mal de fes opinions fur la religion. His general maxim, that happiness confifted in pleasure, was too much unguarded, and must Jay a foundation of a most deftructive practice: although from his temper and conftitution, he made his actions fufficiently pleasurable to himself, and agreeable to the rules of true philofophy. His fortune exempted him from care and folicitude; his valetudinarian habit of body, from intemperance. He paffed the greatest part of his time in his garden, where he enjoyed all the elegant amufements of life. There he ftudied; there he taught his philofophy. This particular happy fituation greatly contributed to that tranquility of mind, and indolence of body, which he made his chief ends. He had not however refolution fufficient to meet the gradual approaches of death, and wanted that conftancy which Sir William Temple afcribes to him for, in his last moments, when he found that his condition was defperate, he took fuch large draughts of wine, that he was abfolutely intoxicated, and deprived of his fenfes; fo that he died more like a Bacchanal than a philofopher; to which the epigram alludes. Hinc flygias ebrius boufit aquas.

I fhould not have ventured into this criticifm and cenfure upon thefe ancient philofophers, if my opinion was not in a great measure Supported by Lord Bacon, who as he was certainly the most accurate judge of this fubject, might be perhaps, from that pre-eminence, too fevere a critic. It must be owned, that Epicurus in particular has many followers and admirers among the ancients, and among the moderns. Cicero commends him for cultivating his friendships in the most exquifite manner. The book lies open before me, and I will tranfcribe the words. De qua [ami itia] Epicurus quidem ita drcit, omnium rerum quas ad beate vivendum fapientia comparaverit, nibil effe majus amicitia, nihiluverius, nibil jucundius; neque vero hoc oratione folum, fed multo magis vita, et factis, et moribus, comprobavit. Diogenes Laertius praifes his virtue and learning. In the Auguftan age the

great

the prefent learned are fuch zealous affertors. He faid, that new fyftems of nature were but new fafhions, which would vary in every age: and even thofe, who pretend to demonstrate them from mathematical principles, would flourish but a fhort period of time, and be out of vogue when that was determined.

I have spent five days in converfing with many

others of the ancient learned. I faw most of the firft Roman emperors. I prevailed on the governor to call up Eliogabalus's cooks to drefs us a dinner, but they could not fhew us much of their skill for want of materials. A helot of Agefilaus made greatest names are inferted among his followers. Cæfar, Atticus, Mecenas, Lucretius, Virgil and Horace, embraced his philofophy, and gave a lure to his fuct and doctrines. Sir William Temple Lays, "that he wonders why fuch sharp invectives were fo generally made against Epicurus, by the ages that followed him; efpe"cially as his admirable wit, felicity of expreffion, excellence of na

ture, fweetness of converfation, temperance of life, and conftancy "of ceath, made him fo much beloved by his friends, admired by "his scholars, and honoured by the Athenians." Sir William Temple imputes this injuftice" to the envy and malignity of the "Stoics, and to fome grofs pretenders, who affumed the denomina❝tion of that fect; who mistook his favourite principle," [THAT ALL HAPPINESS CONSISTED IN PLEASURE,]" by confining it to fenfual pleasure only. To the fe fucceeded the Chriftians, who "efteemed his principles of natural philofophy more oppofite to thofe "of our religion, than either the Platonifts, the Peripatetics, or "" even the Stoics themselves." This is the opinion, and these are almost the exact words of the great Sir William Temple.

Swift equally explodes Epicurus, and the more modern philofophers Defcartes and Gaffendi.

Defcartes was a knight errant in philofophy, perpetually mistaking windmills for giants; yet by the ftrength of a warm imagination, he ftarted fome opinions, which probably put Sir Ifaac Neuton and others on making many experiments that produced most useful difcoveries.

Gaffendi was efteemed one of the greatest ornaments of France, He was a doctor of divinity, and royal profeffor of mathematics. He was born in Provence in 1592, and died in 1655. With great induftry be collected whatever related to the perfon and to the philofo. phy of Epicurus; the latter of which he has reduced into a complete fyftem.

I have now curforily gone through the characters of fuch ghofts, as are nominally fpecified by Gulliver. I may be wrong either in my account or in my obfervations: and I fhall rejoice to be confuted by you in any point of learning whatever. Orrery.