The Rise And Progress Of The Arts

Monarchies get their foundation from a superstitious reverence to priests and princes who have commonly abridged the liberty of reasoning on religion and politics, and consequently on metaphysics and morals.

This leaves mathematics and natural philosophy as not half as valuable.

Among the arts of conversation, mutual deference or civility is the most pleasing. This makes us:

• resign our own inclinations to those of our companion, and
• curb and conceal our presumption and arrogance

A good-natured educated man practises this civility to every mortal, without premeditation or interest.

But to render that valuable quality general among any people, it seems necessary to assist the natural disposition by some general motive.

Where power rises upwards from the people to the great, as in all republics, such refinements of civility are apt to be little practised; since the whole state is, by that means, brought near to a level, and every member of it is rendered, in a great measure, independent of another. The people have the advantage, by the authority of their suffrages:

The great, by the superiority of their station.

But in a civilized monarchy, there is a long train of dependence from the prince to the peasant, which is not great enough to render property precarious, or depress the minds of the people; but is sufficient to beget in every one an inclination to please his superiors, and to form himself upon those models, which are most acceptable to people of condition and education.

Politeness of manners, therefore, arises most naturally in monarchies and courts; and where that flourishes, none of the liberal arts will be altogether neglected or despised. The republics in Europe are at present noted for want of politeness.

The good-manners of a Swiss civilized in Holland, is an expression for rusticity among the French. The English, in some degree, fall under the same censure, notwithstanding their learning and genius. If the Venetians are an exception to the rule, they owe it to their communication with the other Italians, most of whose governments beget a dependence more than sufficient for civilizing their manners.

It is difficult to judge the refinements of the ancient republics in this particular.

But I suspect that the arts of conversation were not brought so near to perfection among them as the arts of writing and composition.

The scurrility of the ancient orators is quite shocking. Vanity and licentiousness too is often not offensive in ancient authors.

Sallust writes in one of the gravest and most moral passages of his history: “Quicunque impudicus, adulter, ganeo, manu, ventre, pene, bona patria laceraverat”

Horace traces the origin of moral good and evil as: “Nam fuit ante Helenam Cunnus teterrima belli Causa”

Ovid and Lucretius are almost as licentious in their style as Lord Rochester, though Ovid and Lucretius were fine gentlemen and delicate writers, and Lord Rochester was indecent because of the corruptions of his time.

Juvenal inculcates modesty with great zeal, but sets a very bad example of it as seen in the impudence of his expressions. Among the ancients, there was not much delicacy of breeding, or that polite deference and respect, which civility obliges us either to express or counterfeit towards the persons with whom we converse.

Cicero was a learned and virtuous Roman and was one of the finest gentlemen of his age.

• Yet I am shocked with the poor figure he describes his friend Atticus.

Philalethes’ dialogues shows Cicero in a more pitiful light. Philalethes was a humble admirer of Cicero and frequently complimented him just as a scholar respects his master.

Even Cato is treated in somewhat of a cavalier manner in the dialogues de finibus. Polybius writes a real dialogue between Philip, king of Macedon, and Titus Flamininus, one of the politest of the Romans, as we learn from Plutarch. Philip’s ambassador very abruptly tells the king, that he talked like a fool or a madman (ληρει̑ν). Philip said that that is evident even to a blind man. Yet all this did not pass the usual bounds: For the conference was not disturbed; and Flamininus was very well diverted with these strokes of humour.

At the end, when Philip craved a little time to consult with his friends, of whom he had none present, the Roman general, being desirous also to shew his wit, as the historian says, tells him, that perhaps the reason, why he had none of his friends with him, was because he had murdered them all; which was actually the case. This unprovoked piece of rusticity is not condemned by the historian; caused no farther resentment in Philip, than to excite a Sardonian smile, or what we call a grin; and hindered him not from renewing the conference next day.

Plutarch too mentions this raillery amongst the witty and agreeable sayings of Flamininus.

Cardinal Wolsey apologized for his famous piece of insolence, in saying, Ego et Rex meus, I and my king, by observing, that this expression was conformable to the Latin idiom, and that a Roman always named himself before the person to whom, or of whom he spake.

Yet this seems to have been an instance of want of civility among that people.

The ancients made it a rule, that the person of the greatest dignity should be mentioned first in the discourse; insomuch, that we find the spring of a quarrel and jealousy between the Romans and Ætolians, to have been a poet’s naming the Ætolians before the Romans, in celebrating a victory gained by their united arms over the Macedonians.29 Thus Livia disgusted Tiberius by placing her own name before his in an inscription.

No advantages in this world are pure and unmixed.

Modern politeness is naturally so ornamental. But it often degenerates into foppery, disguise and insincerity.

Likewise, the ancient simplicity is naturally amiable and affecting. But it often degenerates into rusticity and abuse, scurrility and obscenity.

If the superiority in politeness is allowed in modern times, the modern notions of gallantry, the natural produce of courts and monarchies, will probably be assigned as the causes of this refinement.

No one denies this invention to be modern:31 But some of the more zealous partizans of the ancients, have asserted it to be foppish and ridiculous, and a reproach, rather than a credit, to the present age.

Nature has implanted in all living creatures an affection between the sexes, which, even in the fiercest and most rapacious animals, is not merely confined to the satisfaction of the bodily appetite, but begets a friendship and mutual sympathy, which runs through the whole tenor of their lives.

Even in those species, where nature limits the indulgence of this appetite to one season and to one object, and forms a kind of marriage or association between a single male and female, there is yet a visible complacency and benevolence, which extends farther, and mutually softens the affections of the sexes towards each other.

How much more must this have place in man, where the confinement of the appetite is not natural; but either is derived accidentally from some strong charm of love, or arises from reflections on duty and convenience?

Nothing, therefore, can proceed less from affectation than the passion of gallantry.

It is natural in the highest degree. Art and education, in the most elegant courts, make no more alteration on it, than on all the other laudable passions. They only turn the mind more towards it; they refine it; they polish it; and give it a proper grace and expression.

But gallantry is as generous as it is natural. To correct such gross vices, as lead us to commit real injury on others, is the part of morals, and the object of the most ordinary education. Where that is not attended to, in some degree, no human society can subsist.

But in order to render conversation easier and agreeable, good-manners have been invented and have carried the matter somewhat farther.

Wherever nature has given the mind a propensity to any vice, or to any passion disagreeable to others, refined breeding has taught men to throw the biass on the opposite side, and to preserve, in all their behaviour, the appearance of sentiments different from those to which they naturally incline.

Thus, as we are commonly proud and selfish, and apt to assume the preference above others, a polite man learns to behave with deference towards his companions, and to yield the superiority to them in all the common incidents of society.

In like manner, wherever a person’s situation may naturally beget any disagreeable suspicion in him, it is the part of good-manners to prevent it, by a studied display of sentiments, directly contrary to those of which he is apt to be jealous. Thus, old men know their infirmities, and naturally dread contempt from the youth: Hence, well-educated youth redouble the instances of respect and deference to their elders.

Strangers and foreigners are without protection: Hence, in all polite countries, they receive the highest civilities, and are entitled to the first place in every company. A man is lord in his own family, and his guests are, in a manner, subject to his authority:

Hence, he is always the lowest person in the company; attentive to the wants of every one; and giving himself all the trouble, in order to please, which may not betray too visible an affectation, or impose too much constraint on his guests.33 Gallantry is nothing but an instance of [133] the same generous attention.

Nature has given man the superiority above woman by giving him more strength of mind and body. He should alleviate that superiority, as much as possible, by:

• the generosity of his behaviour, and
• a studied deference and complaisance for all her inclinations and opinions.

Barbarous nations display this superiority, by reducing their females to the most abject slavery; by confining them, by beating them, by selling them, by killing them.

But the male sex, among a polite people, discover their authority in a more generous, though not a less evident manner; by civility, by respect, by complaisance, and, in a word, by gallantry. In good company, you need not ask,

Who is the master of the feast?

The man, who sits in the lowest place, and who is always industrious in helping every one, is certainly the person. We must either condemn all such instances of generosity, as foppish and affected, or admit of gallantry among the rest.

The ancient Russians wedded their wives with a whip, instead of a ring.

The same people, in their own houses, took always the precedency above foreigners, even34 foreign ambassadors. These two instances of their generosity and politeness are much of a piece. Gallantry is not less compatible with wisdom and prudence, than with nature and generosity; and when under proper regulations, contributes more than any other invention, to the entertainment and improvement of the youth of both sexes.

Among every species of animals, nature has founded on the love between the sexes their sweetest and best enjoyment. But the satisfaction of the bodily appetite is not alone sufficient to gratify the mind; and even among brute-creatures, we find, that their play and dalliance, and other expressions of fondness, form the greatest part of the entertainment.

In rational beings, we must certainly admit the mind for a considerable share.

Were we to rob the feast of all its garniture° of reason, discourse, sympathy, friendship, and gaiety, what remains would scarcely be worth acceptance, in the judgment of the truly elegant and luxurious.

What better school for manners, than the company of virtuous women; where the mutual endeavour to please must insensibly polish the mind, where the example of the female softness and modesty must communicate itself to their admirers, and where the delicacy of that sex puts every one on his guard, lest he give offence by any breach of decency?

Among the ancients, the character of the fair-sex was considered as altogether domestic; nor were they regarded as part of the polite world or of good company. This, perhaps, is the true reason why the ancients have not left us one piece of pleasantry that is excellent, (unless one may except the Banquet of Xenophon, and the Dialogues of Lucian) though many of their serious compositions are altogether inimitable.

Horace condemns the coarse railleries and cold jests of Plautus:36 But, though the most easy, agreeable, and judicious writer in the world, is his own talent for ridicule very striking or refined? This, therefore, is one considerable improvement, which the polite arts have received from gallantry, and from courts, where it first arose.o

But, to return from this digression, I shall advance it as a fourth observation on this subject, of the rise and progress of the arts and sciences, That when the arts and sciences come to perfection in any state, from that moment they naturally, or rather necessarily decline, and seldom or never revive in that nation, where they formerly flourished.

This maxim is conformable to experience. But it may, at first sight, be esteemed contrary to reason.

If the natural genius of mankind be the same in all ages, and in almost all countries, (as seems to be the truth) it must very much forward and cultivate this genius, to be possessed of patterns in every art, which may regulate the taste, and fix the objects of imitation.

The models left us by the ancients gave birth to all the arts about 200 years ago, and have mightily advanced their progress in every country of Europe: Why had they not a like effect during the reign of Trajan and his successors; when they were much more entire, and were still admired and studied by the whole world?

So late as the emperor Justinian, the Poet, by way of distinction, was understood, among the Greeks, to be Homer; among the Romans, Virgil.

Such admiration still remained for these divine geniuses.

Though no poet had appeared for many centuries, who could justly pretend to have imitated them.

A man’s genius is always, in the beginning of life, as much unknown to himself as to others.

It is only after frequent trials, attended with success, that he dares think himself equal to those undertakings, in which those, who have succeeded, have fixed the admiration of mankind.

If his own nation already has many models of eloquence, he naturally compares his own juvenile exercises with these. The great disproportion discourages him from any farther attempts.

He never aims to rival those authors he admires so much.

A noble emulation is the source of every excellence.

Admiration and modesty naturally extinguish this emulation. And no one is so liable to an excess of admiration and modesty, as a truly great genius.

Next to emulation, the greatest encourager of the noble arts is praise and glory.

A writer is animated with new force, when he hears the applauses for his former productions. This helps him reach perfection. But when the posts of honour are all occupied, his first attempts are but coldly received by the public, They would be compared to productions more excellent and established.

Were Moliere38 and Corneille to bring upon the stage at present their early productions, which were formerly so well received, it would discourage the young poets, to see the indifference and disdain of the public. The ignorance of the age alone could have given admission to the Prince of Tyre; but it is to that we owe the Moor: Had Every man in his humour been rejected, we had never seen Volpone.39 Perhaps, it may not be for the advantage of any nation to have the arts imported from their neighbours in too great perfection. This extinguishes emulation, and sinks the ardour of the generous youth.

So many models of Italian painting brought into England, instead of exciting our artists, is the cause of their small progress in that noble art.

The same, perhaps, was the case of Rome, when it received the arts from Greece. That multitude of polite productions in the French language, dispersed all over Germany and the North, hinder these nations from cultivating their own language, and keep them still dependent on their neighbours for those elegant entertainments. It is true, the ancients had left us models in every kind of writing, which are highly worthy of admiration.

But besides that they were written in languages, known only to the learned; besides this, the comparison is not so perfect or entire between modern wits, and those who lived in so remote an age. Had Waller been born in Rome, during the reign of Tiberius, his first productions had been despised, when compared to the finished odes of Horace.

But in this island the superiority of the Roman poet diminished nothing from the fame of the English. We esteemed ourselves sufficiently happy, that our climate and language could produce but a faint copy of so excellent an original. In short, the arts and sciences, like some plants, require a fresh soil; and however rich the land may be, and however you may recruit it by art or care, it will never, when once exhausted, produce any thing that is perfect or finished in the kind.