# Reflections upon Ancient and Modern Learning/Chapter 3

CHAP. III.
Of Ancient and Modern Eloquence and Poesie.
It is acknowledged by most Men, that he who has studied any Subject, is a better Judge of that Subject than another Man who did never purposely bend his Thoughts that way, provided they be both Men of equal Parts. Yet we see there are many Things, whereof Men will, at first sight, pass their Judgment, and obstinately adhere to it, though they not only know nothing of those Matters, but will confess that it requires Parts, and Skill, and Exercise, to be excellent in them. This is remarkably visible in the Censures which are passed upon Pieces of Oratory and Poesie every Day by those who have very little, or none, of that sort of Learning themselves; and to whom all that is said of Skill in those Things, and of a true Relish of what is really fine, is Jargon and Cant. And in the mean time, these Men do in other Things shew great Accuracy and Judgment, even in Subjects which require quick Apprehension, nice Observation, ​and frequent Meditation. If one should ask why such Men so frequently mistake and differ in those other Matters, the Answer, I think is this: (1.) The Foundations of Eloquence of all sorts lying in Common Sence, of which every Man is in some degree a Master, most ingenious Men have, without any Study, a little Insight into these Things. This little Insight betrays them immediately to declare their Opinions, because they are afraid, if they should not, their Reputation would be in danger. On the contrary, where the Subject is such, that every Man finds he can frame no Idea of it in his own Mind, without a great number of Premises, which cannot be attained by common Conversation, all wise Men hold their Hands, suspect their own Abilities, and are afraid that they cannot fathom the Depth of his Knowledge with whom they converse; especially if he has a Name for Skill in those Matters. And therefore, talk with such Men of a Law-Case, or a Problem in Geometry, if they never studied those Things, they will frankly tell you so, and decline to give their Opinion. Whereas if you speak to them of a Poem, a Play, or a Moral Discourse upon a Subject capable of Rhetorical Ornaments, they will immediately ​pass their Censure, right or wrong; and Twenty Men, perhaps, shall give Twenty different Opinions; whilst, in the other Cases, scarce Two of the Twenty shall disagree, if they are conscious to themselves that they have Skill enough to judge without another's help. (2.) In most of these Things our Passions are some Way or other concerned; at least, being accustomed to have them moved, we expect it, and think our selves disappointed when our Expectation is deceived. Now, when a Man is to judge in Matters of this kind, he generally beforehand is pre-possessed with such Passions as he would willingly have raised, or confirmed; and so speaks as his Expectation is answered. But when our Passions do not move in these Matters, as they seldom do upon Subjects a great way off, then our Censures are more unanimous. For, as the Poet says,
Securus licet Æneam Rutulumq; ferocem Committas; nulli gravis est percussus Achilles.
So that there is no great Wonder why Men should receive the Writings of the Ancients with so great Respect: For the Distance of Time takes off Envy; and the ​being accustomed from our Childhood to hear them commended, creates a Reverence. Yet though due Allowances ought to be made for these Pre-possessions, one has Reason to believe, that this Reverence for the Ancient Orators and Poets is more than Prejudice. (By Orators, I understand all those Writers in Prose who took pains to beautifie and adorn their Stile.) Their Works give us a very solid Pleasure when we read them. The best in their kind among the Moderns have been those who have read the Ancients with greatest Care, and endeavoured to imitate them with the greatest Accuracy. The Masters of Writing in all these several Ways, to this Day, appeal to the Ancients, as their Guides; and still fetch Rules from them, for the Art of Writing. Homer, and Aristotle, and Virgil, and Horace, and Ovid, and Terence, are now studied as Teachers, not barely out of Curiosity, by Modern Poets. So likewise are Demosthenes, Aristotle, Tully, Quinctilian, and Longinus, by those who would write finely in Prose. So that there is Reason to think that in these Arts the Ancients may have out-done the Moderns; though neither have they been neglected in these later Ages, in which we have seen extraordinary Productions, ​which the Ancients themselves, had they been alive, would not have been ashamed of.
If this be so, as I verily believe it is, sure now (it will be objected) It is evident that the Ancients had a greater Force of Genius than the Moderns can pretend to. Will it be urged, that here also they had an Advantage by being born first? Have these Arts a fixed Foundation in Nature; or were they not attained to by Study? If by Nature, why have we heard of no Orators among the Inhabitants of the Bay of Soldania, or eminent Poets in Peru? If by Study, why not now, as well as formerly, since Printing has made Learning cheap and easie? Does it seem harder to speak and write like Cicero or Virgil, than to find out the motions of the Heavens, and to calculate the Distances of the Stars? What can be the Reason of this Disparity?
The Reasons are several, and scarce one of them of such a Nature as can now be helped, and yet not conclusive against the Comparative Strength of Understanding, evidently discernible in the Productions of the Learned Men of the present, and immediately foregoing Ages; to which I would be understood strictly to confine my Notion of the Word Modern. ​These Reasons I shall examine at large, because, if they are valid, they quite take away the Force of Sir William Temple's Hypothesis; and by removing the blind Admiration now paid to the Ancient Orators and Poets, set it upon such a Foot as will render the Reading of their Books more useful, because less superstitious. They are of several Sorts; some relating to Oratory, some to Poesie, and some in common to both.
I shall first speak of those which relate more particularly to Poetry, because it was much the ancientest Way of Writing in Greece; where their Orators owned, that they learned a great deal of what they knew, even in their own, as well as in other Parts of Learning, from their Poets. And here one may observe, that no Poetry can be Charming that has not a Language to support it. The Greek Tongue has a vast variety of long Words, wherein long and short Syllables are agreeably intermixed together, with great Numbers of Vowels and Diphthongs in the Middle-Syllables, and those very seldom clogged by the joyning of harsh-sounding Consonants in the same Syllable: All which Things give it a vast Advantage above any other Language that has ever yet been cultivated by Learned ​Men. By this Means all manner of Tunable Numbers may be formed in it with Ease; as still appears in the remaining Dramatick and Lyrick Composures of the Greek Poets. This seems to have been at first a lucky Accident, since it is as visible in Homer, who lived before the Grammarians had determined the Analogy of that Language by Rules; which Rules were, in a very great measure, taken from his Poems, as the Standard; as in those Poets that came after him. And that this peculiar Smoothness of the Greek Language was at first Accidental, farther appears, because the Phœnician or Hebrew Tongue, from whence it was formed, as most Learned Men agree, is a rough, unpolished Tongue; abounding with short Words, and harsh Consonants: So that if one allows for some very small Agreement in the Numbers of Nouns, and Variations of Tenses in Verbs, the two Languages are wholly of a different Make. That a derived Language should be sweeter than its Mother-Tongue, will seem strange to none that compares the Modern Tuscan with the Ancient Latin; where, though their Affinity is visible at first Sight, in every Sentence, yet one sees that that derived Language actually has a Sweetness and Tunableness in its ​Composition, that could not be derived from its Parent; since nothing can impart that to another, which it has not it self: And it shows likewise, that a Barbarous People, as the Italians were when mingled with the Goths and Lombards, may, without knowing or minding Grammatical Analogy, form a Language so very musical, that no Art can mend it. For, in Boccace's Time, who lived above 300 Years ago, in the earliest Dawnings of Polite Learning in these Western Parts of the World, Italian was a formed Language, endued with that peculiar Smoothness which other European Languages wanted; and it has since suffered no fundamental Alterations; not any, at least, for the better, since in the Dictionary of the Academy della Crusca, Boccace's Writings are often appealed to in doubtful Cases, which concern the Niceties of the Tongue.
Now, when this Native Smoothness of the Greek Tongue was once discovered to common Ears, by the sweetness of their Verses, which depended upon a Regular Composition of Long and Short Syllables, all Men paid great Respect to their Poets, who gave them so delightful an Entertainment. The wiser Sort took this Opportunity of Civilizing the rest, by ​putting all their Theological and Philosophical Instructions into Verse; which being learnt with Pleasure, and remembred with Ease, helped to heighten and preserve the Veneration already, upon other Scores, paid to their Poets. This increased the Number of Rivals, and every one striving to out-do his Neighbour; some by varying their Numbers, others by chusing Subjects likely to please, here and there some, one or two at least of a sort, proved excellent: And then, those who were the most extraordinary in their several Ways, were esteemed as Standards by succeeding Ages; and Rules were framed by their Works, to examine other Poems of the same sort. Thus Aristotle framed Rules of Epick Poesie from Homer: Thus Aristophanes, Menander, Sophocles and Euripides were looked upon as Masters in Dramatick Poesie; and their Practice was sufficient Authority. Thus Mimnermus, Philetas and Callimachus were the Patterns to following Imitators for Elegy and Epigram. Now, Poetry being a limited Art, and these Men, after the often-repeated Trials of others, had proved successless; finding the true Secret of pleasing their Country-men, partly by their Wit and Sence, and partly by the inimitable Sweetness of their Numbers, ​there is no Wonder that their Successors, who were to write to a pre-possessed Audience, though otherwise Men of equal, perhaps greater Parts, failed of that Applause of which the great Masters were already in possession; for Copying nauseates more in Poetry, than any thing: So that Buchanan and Sannazarius, tho' admirable Poets, are not read with that Pleasure which Men find in Lucretius and Virgil, by any but their Country-men, because they wrote in a dead Language, and so were frequently obliged to use the same Turns of Thought, and always the same Words and Phrases, in the same Sense in which they were used before by the Original Authors; which forces their Readers too often to look back upon their Masters; and so abates of that Pleasure which Men take in Milton, Cowley, Butler, or Dryden, who wrote in their Mother-Tongue, and so were able to give that unconstrained Range and Turn to their Thoughts and Expressions that are truly necessary to make a compleat Poem.
It may therefore be very reasonably believed, that the natural Softness, Expressiveness and Fulness of the Greek Language gave great Encouragement to the Greek Poets to labour hard, when they ​had such manageable Matter to work upon, and when such Rewards constantly attended their Labours. This likewise was a great Help to their Orators, as well as their Poets; who soon found the Beauties of a numerous Composition, and left nothing undone, that could bring it to its utmost Perfection. But this was not so important a Consideration, as alone to have encouraged the Greeks to cultivate their Eloquence, if the Constitution of their Governments had not made it necessary; and that Necessity had not obliged a very great Number of ingenious Men to take Pains about it.
Most part of Greece, properly so called, and of Asia the Leẞ, the Coasts of Thrace, Sicily, the Islands in the Mediterranean, and a great part of Italy, were long divided into great Numbers of Kingdoms and Commonwealths; and many of these small Kingdoms, taking Example by their neighbouring Cities that had thrown off their imperious Masters, turned, in time, to Commonwealths, as well as they. These, as all little Governments that are contiguous, being well nigh an even Match for each other, continued for many Ages in that Condition. Many of the chiefest were Democracies; as, the Republicks of Athens, Syracuse, Thebes and Corinth; ​where it was necessary to complement the People upon all Occasions: So that busie, factious Men had Opportunities enough to shew their Skill in Politicks. Men of all Tempers, and all Designs, that would accuse or defend, that would advise or consult, were obliged to address themselves in set Harangues to the People. Interest therefore, and Vanity, Motives sometimes equally powerful, made the Study of Rhetorick necessary; and whilst every Man followed the several Bias of his own Genius, some few found out the true Secret of Pleasing, in all the several Ways of Speaking well, which are so admirably, and so largely discoursed of by the ancient Rhetoricians. Demosthenes being esteemed beyond all his Predecessors, for the Correctness of his Stile, the Justness of his Figures, the Easiness of his Narrations, and the Force of his Thoughts; his Orations were looked upon as Standards of Eloquence by his Country-men: Which Notion of theirs effectually damped future Endeavours of other Men, since here, as well as in Poetry and Painting, all Copiers will ever continue on this side of their Originals. And besides, the great End of Oratory being to persuade, wherein Regard must be had to the Audience, as well as to the Subject, if there be but ​one Way of doing best at the same time in both, as there can be but one in all limited Arts or Sciences, they that either first find it out, or come the nearest to it, will unquestionably, and of Right, keep the first Station in Men's Esteem, though perhaps they dare not, for fear of disgusting the Age they live in, follow those Methods which they admire so much, and so justly, in those great Masters that went before them.
That these Accidents, and not a particular Force of Genius, raised the Grecian Poesie and Oratory, will further appear, if we reflect upon the History of the Rise and Increase of both those Arts amongst the Romans: Their Learning, as well as their Language, came originally from Greece; they saw what was done to their Hands, and Greek was a living Language; and so, by the help of Masters, they could judge of all its Beauties. Yet, with all their Care, and Skill, and Pains, they could not, of a long time, bring their Poetry to any Smoothness; they found that their Language was not so ductile, they owned it, and complained of it. It had a Majestick Gravity, derived from the People themselves who spoke it; which made it proper for Philosophical and Epical Poems; for which Reason, ​Lucretius and Virgil were able to do so great Things in their several Ways, their Language enabling them to give the most becoming Beauties to all their Thoughts. But there not being that Variety of Feet in the Latin, which Language, for the most part, abounds in Dactyles, Spondees and Trochees; nor that Sprightliness of Temper, and in-bred Gaiety in the Romans, which the Greeks are to this Day famous for, even to a Proverb, in many Parts of Poetry they yielded, though not without Reluctancy, to a People whom they themselves had conquered. Which shews, that Natural Imperfections cannot be overcome: And when these Imperfections are accidental, as the Language is which every Man speaks at first, though he has equal Parts, and perhaps greater Industry, yet he shall be thrown behind another Man who does not labour under those Inconveniences; and the Distance between them will be greater, or less, according to the Greatness or Quality of these Inconveniences.
If we bring this Thing down to Modern Languages, we shall find them labouring under much greater: For, the Quantities of Syllables being, in a manner, lost in all Modern Languages, we can have no Notion of that Variety of ​Feet which was anciently used by the Greeks and Romans, in Modern Poems. The Guide of Verses is not now Length of Syllable, but only Number of Feet, and Accent: Most of the French Accents are in the last Syllable; Ours, and the Italian, in the fore-going. This fits French for some sorts of Poems, which Italian and English are not so proper for. Again, All Syllables, except the Accented one in each Word, being now common in Modern Languages, we Northern People often make a Syllable short that has two or three Consonants in it, because we abound in Consonants: This makes English more unfit for some Poems, than French and Italian; which having fewer Consonants, have consequently a greater Smoothness and Flowingness of Feet, and Rapidity of Pronunciation.
I have brought these Instances out of Modern Languages, whereof Sir William Temple is so great a Master, to prove my first Assertion; namely, That though a very great deal is to be given to the Genius and Judgment of the Poet, which are both absolutely necessary to make a good Poem, what Tongue soever the Poet writes in; yet the Language it self has so great an Influence, that if Homer and Virgil had been Polanders, or High-​Dutch-Men, they would never, in all probability, have thought it worth their while to attempt the Writing of Heroick Poems; Virgil especially, {c} who began to write an Historical Poem of some great Actions of his Country-men; but was so gravelled with the Roughness of the Roman Names, that he laid it aside.
Now, as the Roman Poetry arrived to that Perfection which it had, because it was supported by a Language which, though in some Things inferiour to the Greek, had noble and charming Beauties, not now to be found in Modern Languages; so the Roman Oratory was owing to their Government: Which makes the Parallel much more perfect: And all those Reasons alledged already for the Growth of the Attick Eloquence, are equally applicable to the History of the Roman; so that there is no Necessity of Repeating them. To which we may add, That when the Romans once lost their Liberty, their Eloquence soon fell: And Tacitus (or Quinctilian) needed not have gone so far about to search for Reasons of the Decay of the Roman Eloquence. Tully left his Country and Profession, after his Defence of S. Roscius Amerinus; resolv​ing to give over Pleading, if Sylla's Death had not restored that Freedom which only gave Life to his Oratory: And when the Civil Wars between Pompey and Cæsar came on, he retired, because his Profession was superseded by a rougher Rhetorick, which commands an Attentive Audience in all Countries where it pleads.
When Orators are no longer Constituent Parts of a Government, or, at least, when Eloquence is not an almost certain Step to arrive at the chiefest Honours in a State, the Necessity of the Art of Speaking is, in a great measure, taken off; and as the Authority of Orators lessens. which it will insensibly do as Tyranny and Absolute Power prevail, their Art will dwindle into Declamation, and an Affectation of Sentences, and Forms of Wit. The Old Men, who out-live their former Splendor, will, perhaps, set their own Scholars and Auditors right, and give them a true Relish of what is Great and Noble; but that will hardly continue above one or two Generations. Which may be super-added as another Reason why there were no more Demosthenes's or Tullies, after the Macedonian and Roman Emperors had taken away the Liberty of their respective Commonwealths. It is ​Liberty alone which inspires Men with Lofty Thoughts, and elevates their Souls to a higher Pitch than Rules of Art can direct. Books of Rhetorick make Men Copious and Methodical; but they alone can never infuse that true Enthusiastick Rage which Liberty breaths into their Souls who enjoy it: And which, guided by a Sedate Judgment, will carry Men further than the greatest Industry, and the quickest Parts can go without it.
When private Members of a Commonwealth can have Foreign Princes for their Clients, and plead their Causes before their Fellow-Citizens; when Men have their Understandings enlarged, by a long Use of publick Business, for many Years before they speak in publick; and when they know that their Auditory are Men, not only of equal Parts, and Experience in Business; but also many of them Men of equal, if not greater Skill in Rhetorick than themselves: Which was the Case of the old Romans. These Men, inflamed with the mighty Honour of being Patrons to Crowned Heads, having Liberty to speak any Thing that may advantage their Cause, and being obliged to take so great Pains to get up to, or to keep above so many Rivals, must needs be much more excellent Orators, than other Ages, ​destitute of such concurrent Circumstances, though every thing else be equal, can possibly produce.
Besides all this, the Humour of the Age which we live in is exceedingly altered: Men apprehend or suspect a Trick in every Thing that is said to move the Passions of the Auditory in Courts of Judicature, or in the Parliament-House: They think themselves affronted when such Methods are used in Speaking, as if the Orator could suppose within himself, that they were to be catched by, such Baits. And therefore, when Men have spoken to the Point, in as few Words as the Matter will bear, it is expected they should hold their Tongues. Even in the Pulpit, the Pomp of Rhetorick is not always commended; and very few meet with Applause, who do not confine themselves to speak with the Severity of a Philosopher, as well as with the Splendour of an Orator; two Things, not always consistent. What a Difference in the Way of Thinking must this needs create in the World? Anciently, Orators made their Employment the Work of their whole Lives; and as such, they followed it: All their Studies, even in other Things, were, by a sort of Alchemy, turned into Eloquence. The Labour which they ​thought requisite, is evident to any Man that reads Quinctilian's Institutions, and the Rhetorical Tracts of Cicero. This exceedingly takes off the Wonder: Eloquence may lie in common for Ancients and Moderns, yet those only shall be most excellent that cultivate it most, who live in an Age that is accustomed to, and will bear nothing but Masculine, unaffected Sence; which likewise must be cloathed with the most splendid Ornaments of Rhetorick.
Sir William Temple will certainly agree with me in this Conclusion, that former Ages made greater Orators, and nobler Poets, than these later Ages have done; though perhaps he may disagree with me about the Way by which I came to my Conclusion; since hence it will follow, that the present Age, with the same Advantages, under the same Circumstances, might produce a Demosthenes, a Cicero, a Horace, or a Virgil; which, for any thing hitherto said to the contrary, seems to be very probable.
But, though the Art of Speaking, assisted by all these Advantages, seems to have been at a greater heighth amongst the Greeks and Romans, than it is at present, yet it will not follow from thence, that every Thing which is capable of ​Rhetorical Ornaments should, for that sole Reason, be more perfect anciently than now; especially if these be only Secondary Beauties, without which, that Discourse wherein they are found may be justly valuable, and that in a very high Degree. So that, though, for the purpose, one should allow the Ancient Historians to be better Orators than the Modern, yet these last may, for all that, be much better, at least, equally good Historians; those among them especially, who have taken fitting Care to please the Ears, as well as instruct the Understandings of their Readers. Of all the Ancient Historians before Polybius, none seems to have had a right Notion of writing History, except Thucydides: And therefore Polybius, whose first Aim was, to instruct his Reader by leading him into every Place, whither the Thread of his Narrative carried him, makes frequent Excuses for those Digressions, which were but just necessary to beget a thorough Understanding of the Matter of Fact of which he was then giving an Account. These Excuses show that he took a new Method; and they answer an Objection, which might otherwise have been raised from the small Numbers of extant Histories that were written before his ​Time; as if we could make no Judgment of those that are lost, from those that are preserved. For, the Generality of those who wrote before him, made Rhetorick their chief Aim; and therefore all Niceties of Time, and Place, and Person, that might hurt the Flowingness of their Stile, were omitted; instead whereof, the Great Men of their Drama's were introduced, making long Speeches; and such a Gloss was put upon every Thing that was told, as made it appear extraordinary; and Things that were wonderful and prodigious were mentioned with a particular Emphasis.
This Censure will not appear unjust to any Man who has read Ancient Historians with ordinary Care; Polybius especially: Who, first of all the Ancient Historians, fixes the Time of every great Action that he mentions: Who assigns such Reasons for all Events, as seem, even at this distance, neither too great, nor too little: Who, in Military Matters, takes Care, not only to shew his own Skill, but to make his Reader a Judge, as well as himself: Who, in Civil Affairs, makes his Judgment of the Conduct of every People from the several Constitutions of their respective Governments, or from the Characters and Cir​cumstances of the Actors themselves: And last of all, Who scrupulously avoids saying any Thing that might appear incredible to Posterity; but represents Things in such a manner, as a wise Man may believe they were transacted: And yet he has neglected all that Artful Eloquence which was before so much in fashion.
If these therefore be the chiefest Perfections of a just History, and if they can only be the Effects of a great Genius, and great Study, or both; at least, not of the last, without the first, we are next to enquire whether any of the Moderns have been able to attain to them: And then, if several may be found, which in none of these Excellencies seem to yield to the noblest of all the Ancient Histories, it will not be difficult to give an Answer to Sir William Temple's Question; (d) Pag. 57Whether (d) D'Avila's and Strada's Histories be beyond those of Herodotus and Livy? I shall name but two; The Memoirs of Philip Comines, and F. Paul's History of the Council of Trent.
Philip Comines ought here to be mentioned for many Reasons: For, besides that he particularly excels in those very Vertues which are so remarkable in Polybius, to whom Lipsius makes no Scruple ​to compare him, he had nothing to help him but Strength of Genius, assisted by Observation and Experience: He owns himself, that he had no Learning; and it is evident to any Man that reads his Writings. He flourished in a barbarous Age, and died just as Learning had crossed the Alpes, to get into France: So that he could not, by Conversation with Scholars, have those Defects which Learning cures, supplied. This is what cannot be said of the Thucydides's, Polybius's, Sallusts, Livies, and Tacitus's of Antiquity. Yet, with all these Disadvantages, to which this great one ought also to be added, That by the Monkish Books then in vogue, he might sooner be led out of the Way, than if he had none at all to peruse, his Stile is Masculine and significant; though diffuse, yet not tedious; even his Repetitions, which are not over-frequent, are diverting: His Digressions are wise, proper, and instructing: One sees a profound Knowledge of Mankind in every Observation that he makes; and that without Ill Nature, Pride, or Passion. Not to mention that peculiar Air of Impartiality, which runs through the whole Work; so that it is not easie to withdraw our Assent from every Thing which he says. To all which I need not ​add, that his History never tires, though immediately read after Livy or Tacitus.
In F. Paul's History one may also find the Excellencies before observed in Polybius; and it has been nicely examined by dextrous and skilful Adversaries, who have taken the Pains to weigh every Period, and rectifie every Date. So that, besides the Satisfaction which any other admirable History would have afforded us, we have the Pleasure of thinking that we may safely rely upon his Accounts of Things, without being mis-guided in any one leading Particular of great moment, since Adversaries, who had no Inclination to spare him, could not invalidate the Authority of a Book which they had so great a Desire to lessen. I had gone no further than D'Avila and Strada, if there were as much Reason to believe their Narratives, as there is to commend their Skill in writing. D'Avila must be acknowledged to be a most Entertaining Historian; one that wants neither Art, Genius, nor Eloquence, to render his History acceptable. Strada imitates the old Romans so happily, that those who can relish their Eloquence, will be always pleased with his.
Upon the whole Matter, one may positively say, That where any Thing ​wherein Oratory can only claim a Share, has been equally cultivated by the Moderns, as by the Ancients; they have equalled them at least, if not out-done them, setting aside any particular Graces, which might as well be owing to the Languages in which they wrote, as to the Writers themselves.