| 684 
ordinary fufceptibility, therefore, of the 
impreffions of fenfe, and an ordinary de- 
fire of natural gratifications, can be no 
marks of fuperiority of charaéter. Will 
the theorift, then, maintain that ex/ra- 
ordinary fenfibilities in thefe re{peéts are 
proofs of excellence ? Will he look for 
the feeds of greatnefs in the voracious 
appetite ofa Vitellius, or the infatiable luft 
of a Caligula? or, turning his view upon 
inferior 2nimals, will he infer generofity 
and nobienefs of nature from the incli- 
nations of the afs, the goat, the monkey, 
and the hog> A founder philofophy 
would. lead us to conclude, that there 
being always a certain relation between 
the power of being excited and aétual 
excitement—the former fuffering exhauf- 
tion in proportion to the repetition of the 
latter—the more the fufceptibilities of 
our nature are wafted upon common pro- 
penfities, the lefs alive will they be to 
the rarer and more exalted. Thus, the 
indulgence of appetite will weaken paf- 
fon ; that of the meaner paffions Will 
ftifle the nobler ; fondnefs for the plea- 
fures of fenfe will damp the ardour for 
pleafures of the underftanding. And 
experience, on the whole, feems to con- 
firm this theoretical deduétion. ‘For 
though there are fome ardent natures 
which carry every thing to its extreme, 
and feem formed for whatever is exqui- 
fite, both in fenfe and intelleét, yet the 
quick viciffitudes to which they are liable 
in their purfuits, muft ever prevent their 
attaining that high degree of perfection, 
which.can only be the refult of ftéadi- 
nefs and felf-controul. An Alcibiades or 
a Villiers may obtain diftinétion by being 
““ every thing by turns, and nothine 
long ;’’ they may dazzle by the variety 
of their powers, and excite vulgar ad- 
miration by the apparently incongruous 
mixture of levity with ferioufnefs, dif- 
fipation with induftry—but they can 
never rife to the character of true great- 
nefs, more than of folid virtue. If Cxfar 
be confidered as one of the firft of-men, 
it is not for his debauched youth. but 
for his fober and ‘edate manhood. Cata- 
line, who continued to be at once, all 
that Cefar was at different periods, rofe 
only to be the head of a defperate 
banditti. Scipio is as famed for his con 
-tinence as his valour. The Spartans 
eenquered themfelves, before they came 
to be the conquerors of nations. Even 
the elegant Athenians became the difci- 
ples of philofophers, before they were 
advanced to highofi ces in the ftate; and 
when Themiftocles could not flecp for 
the trophies of Miltiades, we may be a 
i 
Love of Pleafure and Greatnefs of Charadiere 
[Ode 
fured that his head did not run upon 
feafts or love adventures. But it is need- 
lefts to multiply ancient authorities on a 
point, concerning which all antiquity 
{peaks but one language. The fable of 
the choice of Hercules may fiand for the 
univerfal doétrine of thofe ages—that the 
love of pleafure and the fpirit of perform- 
ing great ations, are in direét oppofition 
to each other. 
Were the principles of modern times 
really thofe of the religion profeffed in 
them, the queftion, as far as relates to- 
them, would be inftantly decided; fora - 
genuine Chriftian hero canzot be a volup- 
tuary. But fince, in faét, men have 
known as well how to conciliate licenti- 
oufnefs in conduét with rigidity in prin~ - 
ciple under the fyfems of Chriftianity, 
as under thofe of Heathenifm, there is 
ample room for the fame enquiry refpec- 
ting diftinguifhed modern charaéters, as 
the ancient have afforded; and I doubt 
not that the fame refult would-be the 
confequence. Afterall that Voltaire has 
done to throwa fplendour round his am 
able hero of the Henriade, fober hiftory will 
tell us that he was zof a great man, becau/e 
he was the flave of appetite and paflion— 
that had he not pofieffed, in Sully, a mi- 
nifter whofe talents were equalied by his 
orals, he would probably never have 
rifen even to the rank of a great king— 
and that his fcandalous indulgencies with 
the fex, at an advanced period of life, 
were proofs of an incurable weaknefs of 
charaéter, and involved him in perpe- 
tual difficulties and diferaces. Who was 
the only king of the Englifh line truly 
deferving the epithet of great? ‘The 
temperate, virtuous, and indefatigable 
Alfred. What made the two Swedes, 
Guftavus. Adclphus and Charles: XI, 
the one the greateft hero, the other the 
hardieft warrior of his age but their 
rigid fobriety and felf-command? When 
was the power of the Spanifh monarchy 
wielded with fo much vigour and regard 
to the public welfare, as by the auftere- 
Ximenes? Were not the mumifters of 
Elizabeth as much diftinguifhed by re- 
gularity and decorum as by capacity 3 
Were not chaftity and temperance qua= 
liries in highefteem in theage of chivalry 5, 
the principles of which, fantaftie as they 
were, in fcme refpeéts, undoubtedly tended 
to the elevation of the human character ? 
Did not even the feverity- of religious felf- 
denial! mingle with habitual contempt of 
pleafure in thofe numerous chara‘ters of 
vigour and abilitv which the civil trou=: 
bles confequent to the reformation, ex- 
hibited in io many cewntries ? To con- 
clude 

. 
» 
: 
