Reflections upon Ancient and Modern Learning/Chapter 27
CHAP. XXVII.
Of the Philological Learning of the Moderns.
HItherto in the main I please my self, that there cannot be much said against what I have asserted, though I have all along taken Care not to speak too positively, where I found that it was not an easie Thing to vindicate every Proposition without entring into a Controversy, which would bear plausible things on both sides, and so might be run out into a Multitude of Words, which in Matters of this kind are very tiresome. But there are other Parts of Learning still behind, where the very offering to compare the Moderns to the Ancients may seem a Paradox; where the subject Matter is entirely ancient, and is chiefly, if not altogether contained in Books that were written before the Ancient Learning suffered much Decay.
Under this Head Philology and Divinity may very properly be ranked. I place Divinity last to avoid Repetition, because what I have to say concerning Modern Philology will strengthen many things that may be urged in the Behalf of Modern Divinity as opposed to the Ancient.
In speaking of the Extent and Excellency of the Philological Learning of the Moderns within these last 200 Years, I would not be mis-understood. For the Question is not whether any Modern Critick has understood Plato or Aristotle, Homer or Pindar, as well as they did themselves, for that were ridiculous; but whether Modern Industry may not have been able to discover a great many Mistakes in the Assertions of the Ancients about Matters not done in their own Times, but several Ages before they were born. For the Ancients did not live all in one Age, and though they appear all under one Denomination, and so as it were upon a Level, like things seen at a vast Distance, to us who are very remote from the youngest of them; yet, upon a nearer View, they will be found very remote each from the other; and so as liable to Mistakes when they talk of Matters not transacted in their own Times, as we are when we[errata 1] reason of Matters of Fact, which were acted in the Reign of William the Conquerour. Wherefore if one reflects upon the Alteration which Printing has introduced into the State of Learning, when every Book once printed becomes out of Danger of being lost, or hurt by Copiers; and that Books may be compared, examined, and canvassed with much more Ease than they could before, it will not seem ridiculous to say, That Joseph Scaliger, Isaac Casaubon, Salmasius, Henricus Valesius, Selden, Usher, Bochart, and other Philologers of their Stamp, may have had a very comprehensive View of Antiquity, such a one as Strangers to those Matters, can have no Idea of; nay a much greater than, taken altogether, any one of the Ancients themselves ever had, or indeed, could have. Demosthenes and Aristophanes knew the State of their own Times better than Casaubon or Salmasius: But it is a Question whether Boëthius or Sidonius Apollinaris knew the State of Demosthenes's Time so well; yet these also are Ancients to us, and have left behind them Writings of a very estimable Value. Literary Commerce was anciently not so frequent as now it is, though the Roman Empire made it more easie than otherwise it could have been.
In Ecclesiastical Antiquity this can be more fully proved than it can in Civil; because Monuments of that Kind are more numerous, and have been better preserved. How widely were the Greek Writers many times mistaken, when they gave an Account of the Affairs of the Latin Churches. And how very imperfect, many Times, were the Accounts which the Western Churches had of Things of the greatest Moment that had been determined in the East? Though the Council of Nice was Oecumenical, yet the African Churches knew so little of its Canons above Fifty Years after it was held, that the Bishops of Rome imposed Canons made in another Council, held several Years after, in another Place, upon them, as Canons made in the Council of Nice: Yet they were all, at that Time, under one common Government, and these Things were acknowledged by all Sides to be of Eternal Concernment. The same Negligence, if not greater, is discernable in Matters which were studied, rather as Recreation and Diversion, than as necessary Business. How many of the Ancients busied themselves about Examining into the Antiquities of several Nations, especially after the Old Testament was translated into Greek? Yet how few of them understood the Languages of those Countries of which they disputed? There were but two of the Ancient Fathers, that we know of, that pretended to Learning, who understood Hebrew accurately; Origen, and St. Hierom: And how well St. Hierom understood it, is now certainly known; not like the Lightfoot's, the Buxtorf's, the Drusius's, and the Cappell's of the present Age, one may be very well assured: The other Oriental Languages, even these Inquisitive Fathers knew very little, or nothing, of. To how good purpose they have been cultivated by the Moderns, the Writings of Selden, Bochart, Pocock, and several others, do abundantly declare. When Pocock and Golius went into the East, to bring away their Learning, they went to very good purpose indeed. The Bodleyan and Leyden-Libraries can witness what vast Heaps of Eastern MSS. have been brought by such Men as these, into Europe. One would think I were drawing up a Catalogue, not writing of a Discourse[errata 2], if I should enumerate the Books which have been printed about the Oriental Learning, within these last Seventy Years: And how much they have enlightned all manner of Antiquity, is easie to tell.
How clearly has the Old Chronology and Geography been stated by Modern Criticks and Philologers; and the Mistakes and Carelesness of many Writers detected, who were esteemed Authentick even in the Times wherein they lived? Selden and Bochart, to name no more at present, have plainly proved, that all the Ancient Greek Antiquaries were not near so well acquainted with the Originals of that Mythology, which then made up a good part of their Religion, as well as of their Learning, as they are[errata 3] known at present, since the Languages of those Countries, from whence most of those Rites and Stories took their Original, have been carefully examined, and critically studied. Is it not a very odd Thing, that of so many as have written of the Pyramids, there should not be one exact Account of them, Ancient nor Modern, till Mr. Greaves described them? They were admired formerly, as much as now (d);(d) Barbara Pyramidum sileat miracula Memphis. Martial. reckoned amongst the Seven Wonders of the World; and mentioned, from Herodotus's Time, downwards, by all that gave any Account of Egypt: Yet most Men copied after Herodotus; and many of the rest, who did not, spoke by guess. None of the extant Ancient Authors was so exact as Sir George Sandys, who wanted nothing but Mathematical Skill, to have left nothing for Mr. Greaves, who came after him, to do. This is an eminent Instance, whereby we may give a certain Judgment of the Historical Exactness of the Ancients, compared to that of the Moderns. It may be improved to considerable Purposes; at least, it is of great use to justifie those Modern Writers, who have, with great Freedom, accused some of the Greatest of the Ancients, of Carelesness in their Accounts of Civil Occurrencies, as well as of Natural Rareties; and who have dared to believe their own Reason, against the positive Evidence of an old Historian, in Matters wherein one would think that he had greater Opportunities of knowing the certain Truth, than any Man that has lived for several Ages.
But here I expect that it should be objected, that this is not to be esteemed as a Part of Real Learning. To pore in old MSS. to compare various Readings; to turn over Glossaries, and old Scholia upon Ancient Historians, Orators and Poets; to be minutely critical in all the little Fashions of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, the Memory whereof was, in a manner, lost within Fifty or an Hundred Years after they had been in use; may be good Arguments of a Man's Industry, and Willingness to drudge; but seem to signifie little to denominate him a great Genius, or one who was able to do great Things of himself. The Objection is specious enough, and the Indiscretions of many Modern Commentators have given but too much Colour for it; which has, in our Nation especially, been riveted in Men's Minds, more, perhaps, than in any other learned Nation in Europe: Tho in Enquiries into the remotest Antiquities of the oldest Nations, perhaps no People have done near so much as some learned English-Men. But this Objection lies chiefly against the Men, not the Knowledge, the Extent whereof it is only my Business to enquire into; and yet, even there too, it is without Ground; for, whoever will be at the pains to reflect upon the vast Extent of the various Knowledge which such Men as those I named before had treasured together, which they were able to produce to such excellent Purposes in their Writings, must confess that their Genius's were little, if at all, inferiour to their Memories; those among them especially, who have busied themselves in restoring corrupted Places of Ancient Authors. There are Thousands of Corrections and Censures upon Authors to be found in the Annotations of Modern Criticks, which required more Fineness of Thought, and Happiness of Invention, than, perhaps, Twenty such Volumes as those were, upon which these very Criticisms were made. For, though, generally speaking, good Copies are absolutely necessary; though the Critick himself must have a perfect Command of the Language and particular Stile of his Author, must have a clear Idea of the Way and Humour of the Age in which he wrote; many of which Things require great Sagacity, as well as great Industry; yet there is a peculiar Quickness in Discerning what is proper to the Passage then to be corrected, in distinguishing all the particular Circumstances necessary to be observed, and those, perhaps, very numerous; which raise a judicious Critick very often as much above the Author upon whom he tries his Skill, as he that discerns another Man's Thoughts, is therein greater than he that thinks. And the Objection that is commonly made against Editors of old Books, That every Man cries up his own Author, beyond all that have ever wrote upon that Subject, or in that Way, will rarely hold of truly great Criticks, when they pass their Judgments, and employ their Thoughts upon indifferent Books; since some have taken as much Pains, in their Critical Annotations (e)(e) Vide Petri Cunæi Animadversiones in Nonni Dionysiaca., to expose Authors who have had the good Luck to be exceedingly commended by learned Men, as ever others did to praise them.
Soon after Learning was restored, when Copies of Books, by Printing, were pretty well multiplied, Criticism began; which first was exercised in Setting out Correct Editions of Ancient Books; Men being forced to try to mend the Copies of Books, which they saw were so very negligently written. It soon became the Fashionable Learning; and after Erasmus, Budaeus, Beatus Rhenanus and Turnebus had dispersed that sort of Knowledge through England, France, Germany, and the Low-Countries, which before had been kept altogether amongst the Italians, it was, for about One Hundred and Twenty Years, cultivated with very great Care: And if since it has been at a Stand, it has not been because the Parts of Men are sunk; but because the Subject is, in a manner, exhausted; or, at least, so far drained, that it requires more Labour, and a greater Force of Genius, now to gather good Gleanings, than formerly to bring home a plentiful Harvest; and yet this Age has produced Men who, in the last, might have been reckoned with the Scaligers, and the Lipsius's. It is not very long since Holstenius, Bochart, and Gerhard Vossius died; but if they will not be allowed to have been of our Age, yet Isaac Vossius, Nicholas Heinsius, Frederick Gronovius, Ezekiel Spanheym and Graevius may come in; the two last of them are still alive, and the others died but a few Years since. England, perhaps, cannot shew a proportionable Stock of Criticks of this Stamp. In Henry VIII's Time there was an admirable Set of Philologers in the Nation; though there is great difference to be made between a good Critick, and a Man that writes Latin as easily and correctly as his Mother-Tongue. Sir Thomas More, Cardinal Poole, Linacre, Collet, Cheek, Ascham, and several more, often to be met with in Erasmus's Epistles, wrote Latin with a Purity that no Italian needed then to have been ashamed of. Let the Subject they wrote have been what it would, one may see by the Purity of their Stile, that they wrote in a Language which expressed their Thoughts without Constraint. A great Familiarity with the politest Authors of Antiquity was what these Men valued themselves much upon; and it was then the Delight of the Nation, as much as their Disputes in Religion would give them Leave. Though this seemed to sink by degrees, yet that afterwards Critical Skill in Antiquity was valued and pursued by our learned Men, will not be questioned by those who consider that Sir Henry Savile, Mr. Cambden, Archbishop Usher, Mr. Selden, Sir John Marsham, Mr. Gataker (not to mention some now alive, whose Fame will one Day equal that of the Scaligers and the Grotius's of other Nations) were the Glories of our Country, as well as of the Age they lived in.
In short, to conclude this Argument: Though Philological and Critical Learning has been generally accused of Pedantry, because it has sometimes been pursued by Men who seemed to value themselves upon Abundance of Quotations of Greek and Latin, and a vain Ostentation of diffused Reading, without any Thing else in their Writings to recommend them; yet the Difficulty that there is, to do any Thing considerable in it, joyned with the great Advantages which thereby have accrued to the Commonwealth of Learning, have made this no mean Head whereon to commend the great Sagacity, as well as Industry of these later Ages.
Errata