are blind, he claps and encores it with infinite pleasantness and self-satisfaction: In vacuo lætus sessor plausorque theatro. Virgil,* to do honour to the memory of Cato, makes him the legislator of Elysium. We are not to transfer our Christian ideas of the 'spirits of just men made perfect' to the Elysium of the poets. They who are admitted into it are described as purified indeed from all vice, but otherwise as carrying thither the dispositions, and a love for the pursuits, of the former life. Some study to excel in manly exercises; some in poetry or eloquence; others in scientific or moral researches. Now, where competitions, however temperate, must arise, and doubts might occur for we are not to think them infallible-on subjects of high importance, variously stated and argued, it seems for the greater good of the happy community, that one or more should preside,-of genius and wisdom, to define what was best in each kind of excellence, and of pure unbiassed philanthropy, to decide for the most deserving Roman, Greek, or Barbarian. Virgil supposes this dignity to be vested in Cato, and, as conferred on him by the heroes, sages, and refined spirits of Elysium, to be a noble testimony to his virtues. Unfortunate panegyrist! For Mr. Heront opines that Horace's praise of Cato is excellent, Lucan's transcendent, but Virgil's futile and ridiculous. His judgment in criticism resembling that of his Cato in morals, to dispute it were profane. They whom Heaven has not visited with a taste, and who therefore admire Virgil as one of the first rank of poets, have only to request that they be indulged in a pleasing error, which has been, and is likely to continue, pretty general. Discoveries, such as are made by the rare genius of Mr. Heron, will require, what may be seldom found, a near affinity of genius to adopt them. "Yours, &c. MANTUAN." Oct. 4, 1786. Mr. PINKERTON to the GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE.S "MR. URBAN, "As you have admitted many censures on Mr. Heron's 'Letters of Literature' into your miscellany, it is hoped * Eneid, VIII. ver. 670. + Gent. Mag. for July, 1785, p. 544. Gent Mag. 1786, p. 284. § Gent. Mag. 1786, p. 943. you will not refuse to hear a few words in defence of that work. Literary quarrels are of all others the most ridiculous, and have little need to be rendered still more so by heat and scurrility. He who is at a loss for arguments naturally grows peevish; and passion in such cases is a sure sign of the absence of reason. An author, conscious of truth and rectitude, will often express himself vehemently; but this vehemence, this acer animi vis, differs as widely from declamatory heat as the warmth of the sun from that of a furnace. For these reasons this short defence shall be proposed with the utmost moderation; for what cannot be defended with the coolest ratiocination certainly deserves no defence. Much heat has often appeared in attacks on these Letters, and expressions so scorching as to singe the paper; but let us throw a little cold water upon them, Mr. Urban, and they will hiss and be extinguished. "These Letters have nothing that can offend morality or science. Whence then these severe censures of them? From two causes :-1. That the author has spoken freely of some living persons, who thus take their revenge.2. That he has criticised the favourite authors of others. "The former cause of enmity is, no doubt, a very strong one but the revenge would be more manly if the persons offended would use the sword of argument, instead of the pop-gun of invective. Had Mr. Heron regarded what is now called reputation, he would certainly have avoided offending people who, as he doubtless knew, have great influence over the periodical dispensatories of fame, and, by them, over the public opinion. But he, questionless, thought this age and country too much enlightened to be long deceived by any misrepresentations; and hoped to be coolly heard, only after the clamour of this opposition had subsided. It has been observed by one critic, that the intent of these Letters seemed to be, to introduce a total revolution into literary opinions. To me they appear only to propose a reform, and not a revolution; for there are as many old opinions supported in them as new ones advanced. But even a reform, if not quashed at once, must be a matter of long time, and gradual progress. A Huss and a Jerome of Prague may suffer persecution for it before a more fortunate Luther arise. As the attacks in the periodical prints have mostly sprung from personal enmity, and not from any love of truth or science, they can have but a temporary influence upon a work which proposes to advance the cause of truth and science: and have indeed only served to attract unexpected notice upon what was evidently written for the thinking few, whose opinions prevail infallibly, but very slowly; and by centuries, not by years. This personal enmity must die with the author, and with his antagonists; but, if his work bears the signature of truth, it will live, and, if not, the sooner it dies the better. 6 "The second cause of enmity is as strong as the first. For weak men naturally idolize their favourite authors; and their zeal and rage when they are criticised equal those of savages when their idols are torn down. It is almost impossible, Mr. Urban, to conceive the fury of a man who has laid up a pretty little stock of ideas, and finds them turned topsy-turvy by some insolent intruder into his mental cabinet. For if he loses these ideas, where shall he get new ones? Strong minds, on the contrary, love new ideas, as they naturally produce them, and never regard a loss which they can instantly repair; or rather a collision, by which they gain fresh sparks of knowledge and pleasure. It is well known that a great mark of insanity is the incapability of bearing contradiction: when you contradict a madman, you throw him into his fit; when you contradict a man of sense he converses with you. De la Motte observes, that, with the many, to differ from their opinion, seems a sign that you despise them; and their self-love hastens to avenge this groundless suspicion by hatred.' This appears the real origin of that singular species of hatred arising from difference in opinion, which is the more violent as it is totally unjust; and, as Tacitus remarks, odiis, quorum causæ acriores quia inique. For this hatred rises solely from a false suspicion: and opposite opinions can never kindle it in enlightened minds. To quarrel with a person because he dissents from you is surely as ludicrous as to quarrel with him because his clothes are not of the same colour with your own. "Let me now proceed to answer a few such remarks on these Letters as may seem to merit notice, with as much brevity as possible; for I have little time and paper to spare. The poor and weak scurrilities which a few have employed against them honour the work by disgracing its enemies, and require no notice. "The attack on Virgil, as a mere abridger, and a very VOL. VIII. K bad abridger, of Homer, has, as might be expected, excited much animadversion. But, though abundant abuse and declamation have followed, yet it is strange, Mr. Urban, that not one argument has appeared against this degradation of Virgil. One critic has argued a little, but unhappily only with sophisms. He says, Mr. Heron judges of ancient works by modern ideas; which he certainly does, because he often dissents from old ideas. Then tells us that, though the love of Æneas for Dido be now a gross error in chronology, it was not so anciently! Your reason, Sir?-Because those old times were dark times, and chronology a mass of confusion. Thus unhappily falling under his own charge of judging by modern ideas; for in Virgil's time the period of Æneas was but 1200 years old, and that of Dido but 800; whereas now the former is near 3000, and the latter 2586; so that in Virgil's time the error was more manifest and inexcusable than now, because he lived so much nearer the periods he perverted; and must have known from Herodotus, Varro, and others, just as much about the real epochs of Æneas and Dido as we do at present, if not more. But he wanted, in defiance of all chronology and common sense, to link the fates of Carthage and Rome, the celebrated rivals for the empire of the world. This critic again accuses Mr. Heron of modern ideas upon ancient subjects, because he objects to Virgil's representing Cato as giving laws to the departed pious in Elysium, * Secretisque piis, his dantem jura Catonem. Our critic says, that in Elysium the departed were not perfect, so might receive laws: and again falls under his own charge of judging ancient subjects by modern opinions, or rather by utter ignorance; for what ancient, or what modern, ever dreamed of the good, the pii, requiring laws for their conduct in Elysium? while, as an ancient said, the difference between the good and the wicked lay in this, that, were there no laws, the good would act as they did. Mr. Heron says nothing of the perfection or imperfection of the good in Elysium; he only says, 'they were emancipated from possibility of crime; and there could be no laws where there was no punishment nor reward.' Can this be denied? Can even the most ignorant suppose that the ancients thought a good man might become a criminal in Elysium? Can any be so weak as to * See Dr. Townson's Remarks reprinted in this volume, p. 127. be imposed upon by such illiterate sophistry? The other remarks of this critic, on other parts of these Letters, are equally sophistic and fallacious with the above. Mr. Heron's meaning constantly suffers by passing through such a strainer: and the critic fights with his own nonsense, being so kind as to murder himself for Mr. Heron's sake, who, I dare say, expected no such sacrifice, though he must doubtless suffer great mortification at having so weak an enemy. "A critic of a very different stamp, possessed both of talents and learning, says, that Mr. Heron accuses Virgil's Georgics because not intelligible by common farmers. But Mr. Heron blames Virgil for constantly addressing old Latin farmers (not our common farmers) in a work of such refined phrase and remote metaphor, as they could not in the least understand. Surely this is a perfect and palpable absurdity, unequalled in any other work, ancient or modern, and to defend it would be to violate good sense. The cause of Virgil must therefore be desperate, when the ignorant defend him with sophistry and misrepresentation; and the learned only by mistaking the charge. As no other arguments have appeared in defence of Virgil, the whole other heavy censures alleged against him by Mr. Heron remain in full force. "I shall not encroach further on your patience at present, Mr. Urban, but remit the rest of this brief defence to one other epistle. But must, before I conclude, recommend some slight attention to common morality to Mr. Heron's opponents. They who could send forged letters in his name to the reviewers, with a view to exasperate them against him, would certainly assassinate if they durst. But this very manoeuvre must at once convince him that their cowardice is equal to their villany. "VINDEX."* Mr. Pinkerton continued his defence of Heron's Letters in another letter, signed Vindex, in Gentleman's Magazine for Dec. 1786, p. 1021, in which he attacked Dr. Stuart and the English Review. This produced a controversy between Small Shot [Dr. Towers] and Vindex [Pinkerton]; for which the reader is referred to the Gentleman's Magazine for 1786, p. 1128; 1787, pp. 121, 130, 296, 397. *Gent. Mag. 1786, p. 962. |