University of Virginia Library

It is certain that though the rashest actions have at times been crowned with success, they are but few in number, when compared with the destructive termination which has in general accompanied this species of folly.— Charles the Twelfth, of Sweden, proved himself a rash fool, in opposing the whole army of the Turks at Bender, when he had but a few followers; nor was there more real bravery in his conduct than was displayed some years back, by the fool who walked round the iron balustrade which appears at the summit of the monument; for in both cases, the same fact will hold good, viz. had the Swedish monarch been shot, no one would have pitied his fate, but branded him with the well earned appellation of fool; and, in like manner, if the ideot who sported himself on the rail of the monument, had been precipitated to the bottom, there would have been but one opinion—That his foolhardiness well merited its punishment. Such being the fact, let all rash men, ere they undertake an action, consider only what will be the derision of mankind, if they fail, and that simple interrogatory will at once instruct them, whether or no their conduct is sanctioned by the dictates of reason, common sense, and prudence, for the latter requisite is as absolutely essential to real courage, as any other.

Notwithstanding the modern vocabulary of honour, which tells a man to risk his life, because another treads upon the tail of his dog; I must nevertheless affirm, that such conduct has nothing to do with real courage; for there are but very few injuries of such a glaring nature as to demand the blood of one fellow creature at the hands of another. Would it argue real courage, let me ask, for a man of a delicate and weak habit, and quite devoid of skill, to put his strength in opposition to an experienced bruiser? or would it redound to the credit of an individual who had never fired a pistol, to place himself within twelve paces of a man who could hit a crown piece at 30 yards, and who was to have the first shot into the bargain; if such be the standard bravery, and the touchstone of honour, I must certainly coincide with Falstaff, when he exclaims,

“What is honour? a word—What is that word honour? Air; a trim reckoning. Who hath it? He that died a Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No. Is it insensible then? Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? No.”

Dr. Paley, in his Political and Moral Philosophy, very justly observes, that honour is nothing more than a law instituted by one certain class of people which is to act as a tie upon another, having no reference whatever, either to religion or morality; and with respect to that species of honour which prompts a man to rush headlong into ruin, it is invariably the rule, that if the actor succeeds, he is crowned with the applause of the multitude; whereas, if he fails, he is sure to be as universally reprehended.