1. CHAPTER I.
A wonderful long chapter concerning the marvellous; being much the
longest of all our introductory chapters
As we are now entering upon a book in which the course of our
history will oblige us to relate some matters of a more strange and
surprizing kind than any which have hitherto occurred, it may not be
amiss, in the prolegomenous or introductory chapter, to say
something of that species of writing which is called the marvellous.
To this we shall, as well for the sake of ourselves as of others,
endeavour to set some certain bounds, and indeed nothing can be more
necessary, as critics[8] of different complexions are here apt to run
into very different extremes; for while some are, with M. Dacier,
ready to allow, that the same thing which is impossible may be yet
probable,[9] others have so little historic or poetic faith, that
they believe nothing to be either possible or probable, the like to
which hath not occurred to their own observation.
First, then, I think it may very reasonably be required of every
writer, that he keeps within the bounds of possibility; and still
remembers that what it is not possible for man to perform, it is
scarce possible for man to believe he did perform. This conviction
perhaps gave birth to many stories of the antient heathen deities (for
most of them are of poetical original). The poet, being desirous to
indulge a wanton and extravagant imagination, took refuge in that
power, of the extent of which his readers were no judges, or rather
which they imagined to be infinite, and consequently they could not be
shocked at any prodigies related of it. This hath been strongly
urged in defence of Homer's miracles; and it is perhaps a defence;
not, as Mr. Pope would have it, because Ulysses told a set of
foolish lies to the Phaeacians, who were a very dull nation; but
because the poet himself wrote to heathens, to whom poetical fables
were articles of faith. For my own part, I must confess, so
compassionate is my temper, I wish Polypheme had confined himself to
his milk diet, and preserved his eye; nor could Ulysses be much more
concerned than myself, when his companions were turned into swine by
Circe, who showed, I think, afterwards, too much regard for man's
flesh to be supposed capable of converting it into bacon. I wish,
likewise, with all my heart, that Homer could have known the rule
prescribed by Horace, to introduce supernatural agents as seldom as
possible. We should not then have seen his gods coming on trivial
errands, and often behaving themselves so as not only to forfeit all
title to respect, but to become the objects of scorn and derision. A
conduct which must have shocked the credulity of a pious and sagacious
heathen; and which could never have been defended, unless by
agreeing with a supposition to which I have been sometimes almost
inclined, that this most glorious poet, as he certainly was, had an
intent to burlesque the superstitious faith of his own age and
country.
But I have rested too long on a doctrine which can be of no use to a
Christian writer; for as he cannot introduce into his works any of
that heavenly host which make a part of his creed, so it is horrid
puerility to search the heathen theology for any of those deities
who have been long since dethroned from their immortality. Lord
Shaftesbury observes, that nothing is more cold than the invocation of
a muse by a modern; he might have added, that nothing can be more
absurd. A modern may with much more elegance invoke a ballad, as
some have thought Homer did, or a mug of ale, with the author of
Hudibras; which latter may perhaps have inspired much more poetry,
as well as prose, than all the liquors of Hippocrene or Helicon.
The only supernatural agents which can in any manner be allowed to
us moderns, are ghosts; but of these I would advise an author to be
extremely sparing. These are indeed, like arsenic, and other dangerous
drugs in physic, to be used with the utmost caution; nor would I
advise the introduction of them at all in those works, or by those
authors, to which, or to whom, a horselaugh in the reader would be any
great prejudice or mortification.
As for elves and fairies, and other such mummery, I purposely omit
the mention of them, as I should be very unwilling to confine within
any bounds those surprizing imaginations, for whose vast capacity
the limits of human nature are too narrow; whose works are to be
considered as a new creation; and who have consequently just right
to do what they will with their own.
Man therefore is the highest subject (unless on very extraordinary
occasions indeed) which presents itself to the pen of our historian,
or of our poet; and, in relating his actions, great care is to be
taken that we do not exceed the capacity of the agent we describe.
Nor is possibility alone sufficient to justify us; we must keep
likewise within the rules of probability. It is, I think, the
opinion of Aristotle; or if not, it is the opinion of some wise man,
whose authority will be as weighty when it is as old, "That it is no
excuse for a poet who relates what is incredible, that the thing
related is really matter of fact." This may perhaps be allowed true
with regard to poetry, but it may be thought impracticable to extend
it to the historian; for he is obliged to record matters as he finds
them, though they may be of so extraordinary a nature as will
require no small degree of historical faith to swallow them. Such
was the successless armament of Xerxes described by Herodotus, or
the successful expedition of Alexander related by Arrian. Such of
later years was the victory of Agincourt obtained by Harry the
Fifth, or that of Narva won by Charles the Twelfth of Sweden. All
which instances, the more we reflect on them, appear still the more
astonishing.
Such facts, however, as they occur in the thread of the story,
nay, indeed, as they constitute the essential parts of it, the
historian is not only justifiable in recording as they really
happened, but indeed would be unpardonable should he omit or alter
them. But there are other facts not of such consequence nor so
necessary, which, though ever so well attested, may nevertheless be
sacrificed to oblivion in complacence to the scepticism of a reader.
Such is that memorable story of the ghost of George Villiers, which
might with more propriety have been made a present of to Dr.
Drelincourt, to have kept the ghost of Mrs. Veale company, at the head
of his Discourse upon Death, than have been introduced into so
solemn a work as the History of the Rebellion.
To say the truth, if the historian will confine himself to what
really happened, and utterly reject any circumstance, which, though
never so well attested, he must be well assured is false, he will
sometimes fall into the marvellous, but never into the incredible.
He will often raise the wonder and surprize of his reader, but never
that incredulous hatred mentioned by Horace. It is by falling into
fiction, therefore, that we generally offend against this rule, of
deserting probability, which the historian seldom, if ever, quits,
till he forsakes his character and commences a writer of romance. In
this, however, those historians who relate public transactions, have
the advantage of us who confine ourselves to scenes of private life.
The credit of the former is by common notoriety supported for a long
time; and public records, with the concurrent testimony of many
authors, bear evidence to their truth in future ages. Thus a Trajan
and an Antoninus, a Nero and a Caligula, have all met with the
belief of posterity; and no one doubts but that men so very good,
and so very bad, were once the masters of mankind.
But we who deal in private character, who search into the most
retired recesses, and draw forth examples of virtue and vice from
holes and corners of the world, are in a more dangerous situation.
As we have no public notoriety, no concurrent testimony, no records to
support and corroborate what we deliver, it becomes us to keep
within the limits not only of possibility, but of probability too; and
this more especially in painting what is greatly good and amiable.
Knavery and folly, though never so exorbitant, will more easily meet
with assent; for ill nature adds great support and strength to faith.
Thus we may, perhaps, with little danger, relate the history of
Fisher; who having long owed his bread to the generosity of Mr. Derby,
and having one morning received a considerable bounty from his
hands, yet, in order to possess himself of what remained in his
friend's scrutore, concealed himself in a public office of the Temple,
through which there was a passage into Mr. Derby's chambers. Here he
overheard Mr. Derby for many hours solacing himself at an
entertainment which he that evening gave his friends, and to which
Fisher had been invited. During all this time, no tender, no
grateful reflections arose to restrain his purpose; but when the
poor gentleman had let his company out through the office, Fisher came
suddenly from his lurking-place, and walking softly behind his
friend into his chamber, discharged a pistol-ball into his head.
This may be believed when the bones of Fisher are as rotten as his
heart. Nay, perhaps, it will be credited, that the villain went two
days afterwards with some young ladies to the play of Hamlet; and with
an unaltered countenance heard one of the ladies, who little suspected
how near she was to the person, cry out, "Good God! if the man that
murdered Mr. Derby was now present!" manifesting in this a more seared
and callous conscience than even Nero himself; of whom we are told
by Suetonius, "that the consciousness of his guilt, after the death of
his mother, became immediately intolerable, and so continued; nor
could all the congratulations of the soldiers, of the senate, and
the people, allay the horrors of his conscience."
But now, on the other hand, should I tell my reader, that I had
known a man whose penetrating genius had enabled him to raise a
large fortune in a way where no beginning was chaulked out to him;
that he had done this with the most perfect preservation of his
integrity, and not only without the least injustice or injury to any
one individual person, but with the highest advantage to trade, and
a vast increase of the public revenue; that he had expended one part
of the income of this fortune in discovering a taste superior to most,
by works where the highest dignity was united with the purest
simplicity, and another part in displaying a degree of goodness
superior to all men, by acts of charity to objects whose only
recommendations were their merits, or their wants; that he was most
industrious in searching after merit in distress, most eager to
relieve it, and then as careful (perhaps too careful) to conceal
what he had done; that his house, his furniture, his gardens, his
table, his private hospitality, and his public beneficence, all
denoted the mind from which they flowed, and were all intrinsically
rich and noble, without tinsel, or external ostentation; that he
filled every relation in life with the most adequate virtue; that he
was most piously religious to his Creator, most zealously loyal to his
sovereign; a most tender husband to his wife, a kind relation, a
munificent patron, a warm and firm friend, a knowing and a chearful
companion, indulgent to his servants, hospitable to his neighbours,
charitable to the poor, and benevolent to all mankind. Should I add to
these the epithets of wise, brave, elegant, and indeed every other
amiable epithet in our language, I might surely say,
-Quis credet? nemo Hercule! nemo;
Vel duo, vel nemo;
and yet I know a man who is all I have here described. But a single
instance (and I really know not such another) is not sufficient to
justify us, while we are writing to thousands who never heard of the
person, nor of anything like him. Such
raræ aves should be remitted
to the epitaph writer, or to some poet who may condescend to hitch him
in a distich, or to slide him into a rhime with an air of carelessness
and neglect, without giving any offence to the reader.
In the last place, the actions should be such as may not only be
within the compass of human agency, and which human agents may
probably be supposed to do; but they should be likely for the very
actors and characters themselves to have performed; for what may be
only wonderful and surprizing in one man, may become improbable, or
indeed impossible, when related of another.
This last requisite is what the dramatic critics call conversation
of character; and it requires a very extraordinary degree of judgment,
and a most exact knowledge of human nature.
It is admirably remarked by a most excellent writer, that zeal can
no more hurry a man to act in direct opposition to itself, than a
rapid stream can carry a boat against its own current. I will
venture to say, that for a man to act in direct contradiction to the
dictates of his nature, is, if not impossible, as improbable and as
miraculous as anything which can well be conceived. Should the best
parts of the story of M. Antoninus be ascribed to Nero, or should
the worst incidents of Nero's life be imputed to Antoninus, what would
be more shocking to belief than either instance? whereas both these
being related of their proper agent, constitute the truly marvellous.
Our modern authors of comedy have fallen almost universally into the
error here hinted at; their heroes generally are notorious rogues, and
their heroines abandoned jades, during the first four acts; but in the
fifth, the former become very worthy gentlemen, and the latter women
of virtue and discretion: nor is the writer often so kind as to give
himself least trouble to reconcile or account for this monstrous
change and incongruity. There is, indeed, no other reason to be
assigned for it, than because the play is drawing to a conclusion;
as if it was no less natural in a rogue to repent in the last act of a
play, than in the last of his life; which we perceive to be
generally the case at Tyburn, a place which might indeed close the
scene of some comedies with much propriety, as the heroes in these are
most commonly eminent for those very talents which not only bring
men to the gallows, but enable them to make an heroic figure when they
are there.
Within these few restrictions, I think, every writer may be
permitted to deal as much in the wonderful as he pleases; nay, if he
thus keeps within the rules of credibility, the more he can surprize
the reader the more he will engage his attention, and the more he will
charm him. As a genius of the highest rank observes in his fifth
chapter of the Bathos, "The great art of all poetry is to mix truth
with fiction, in order to join the credible with the surprizing."
For though every good author will confine himself within the
bounds of probability, it is by no means necessary that his
characters, or his incidents, should be trite, common, or vulgar; such
as happen in every street, or in every house, or which may be met with
in the home articles of a newspaper. Nor must he be inhibited from
showing many persons and things, which may possibly have never
fallen within the knowledge of great part of his readers. If the
writer strictly observes the rules above mentioned, he hath discharged
his part; and is then intitled to some faith from his reader, who is
indeed guilty of critical infidelity if he disbelieves him.
For want of a portion of such faith, I remember the character of a
young lady of quality, which was condemned on the stage for being
unnatural, by the unanimous voice of a very large assembly of clerks
and apprentices; though it had the previous suffrages of many ladies
of the first rank; one of whom, very eminent for her understanding,
declared it was the picture of half the young people of her
acquaintance.
[[8]]
By this word here, and in most other parts of our work, we mean
every reader in the world.
[[9]]
It is happy for M. Dacier that he was not an Irishman.