« PreviousContinue »
controversies are never determined ; for, though they be amply proposed, they are scarce at all handled,—they do so swell with unnecessary digressions; and the parenthesis on the party, is often as large as the main discourse
the subject.” Sir Th. Browne's Religio Medici, Lond. 1736. p. 159. 2. “But are Books the only channel, through which the stream of intellectual usefulness can flow? Is the diffusion of truth to be estimated by PUBLICATIONS; or PUBLICATIONS by the truth, which they diffuse, or at least contain? I speak it in the excusable warmth of a mind stung by an accusation, which has not only been advanced in Reviews of the widest circulation, not only registered in the bulkiest works of periodical literature, but by frequency of repetition has become an admitted fact in private literary cireles, and thoughtlessly repeated by too many, who call themselves my friends, and whose own RECOLLECTIONS ought to have suggested a contrary testimony. Would that the criterion of a scholar's utility were the number and moral value of the truths, which he has been the means of
throwing into the general circulation; or the number and value 1 of the minds, whom ( which) by his CONVERSATION OF LETTERS
he has excited into activity, and supplied with the germs of their after-growth! A distinguished rank might not indeed, even then, be awarded to my exertions; but I should dare look forward with confidence to an honorable acquittal. I should dare appeal to the numerous and respectable audiences, which at different times and in different places honored my
Lecturerooms with their attendance, whether the points of view, from which the subjects treated of were surveyed, whether the grounds of my reasoning were such, as they had heard or read elsewhere, or have since found in previous publications? I can conscientiously declare that the complete success of the REMORSE on the first night of its representation did not give me as great, or as heart-felt a pleasure, as the observation that the pit and boxes were crowded with faces familiar to me, though of individuals, whose names I did not know, and of whom I knew nothing, but that they had attended one or other of my courses
of Lectures. It is an excellent, though perhaps somewhat vulgar proverb, that there are cases, where a man may be as well ‘in for a pound as for a penny. To those, who from ignorance of the serious injury I have received from this rumour of having dreamt away my life to no purpose, — injuries, which I unwillingly remember at all, much less am disposed to record in a sketch of my literary life; or to those, who from their own feelings, or the gratification they derive from thinking contemptuously of others, would, like Job's comforters, attribute these complaints, extorted from me by the sense of wrong, to selfconceit or presumptuous vanity, I have already furnished such ample materials, that I shall gain nothing by withholding the remainder. I will not, therefore, hesitate to ask the consciences of those, who from their long acquaintance with me and with the circumstanees, are best qualified to decide or be my judges, whether the restitution of the suum CUIQUE would increase or detract from my literary reputation? In this exculpation I hope to be understood as speaking of myself comparatively, and in proportion to the claims, which OTHERS are intitled to make on my
time talents. By what I have effected, am I to be judged by my
what I could have done, is a question for my own conscience. On
my own account I
may perhaps have had sufficient reason to lament my deficiency in selfcontroul, and the neglect of concentering my powers to the realization of some permanent work.” Biographia Literaria, or Biographical Sketches of my (his) Literary Life and Opinions. By S. T. Coleridge, Esq. Lond. 1817. V. 1. p. 218. .
P.S. May 12. The Author is fortunately able to add a Letter from Mr. Fearn, wbich has just reached his hands :
“ London, May 8. Mr. Stewart's book, The Philosophy of the Active and Moral Powers of Man, is out. I have run iny eye over the pages; and, I believe, I may venture to say, he has not therein attempted any defence of the contradictions, or defence whatever. Upon this my long-past
conjecture continues to strengthen, namely that some friend may have concealed the Newspapers and other such matters from him ; and that he is actually not in the least aware of the situation, in which his conflicting assertions have placed him. The solemn voice of Dr. Parr, and the statement of the whole matter in your work, cannot be dealt with in any such way, whether the former have been so or not. I am glad to inform you that Mr. Stewart has, (as I also have myself, and where is the man who would not have?) been happy to avail himself publicly, (in a note at the very end of his first Volume p. 414,) of both the intellectual and the MORAL approbation of Dr. Parr, a copy of which note I now enclose. And, since he has thus appealed to CÆSAR, to CÆSAR I consign him. I believe, he little dreams how near he is to his journey's end, toward his chosen tribunal of the ' MIGHTY DEAD.' Or can it be that he can resolve to stalk, with a serENE ASSUMPTION OF DIGNITY over and off the stage of life, without deigning to show that amenableness or respect to Public opinion, (setting that of any individual out of the question,) which every man of high feeling must feel dear to him to manifest. I cannot believe that Mr. Stewart will die in this predicament, with his own deliberate knowledge and intention, any more than I can believe the country would suffer any man to do so, in such a case."
Mr. Stewart's note is this :-" The following Note, (which was kindly transmitted to me by Sir James Mackintosh,) contains the opinion of Dr. Parr upon the much controverted point, whether Aristotle was really the author of the Treatise De Mundo, commonly printed as part of his Works? It was, alas! the last communication I had with that truly learned and excellent person.
• Dec. 10, 1821. I told Sir James Mackintosh and Mr. Dugald Stewart, ' that the book De Mundo was not written by Aristotle : and to such illus'trious men I ought to state my reasons for an opinion so confidently expressed. In my Aristotle I have marked other Works, which I hold to be spurious. I stated before, and I now state again as the ground of my opinion, the total want of resemblance to the style of Aristotle. My sagacious friends will promptly assent, when I tell them, that in the third chapter of the Liber De Mundo p. 609, the writer mentions the Islands of Great Britain, quite unknown to the Greeks in Aristotle's time:
'Εν τω ωκεανώ νήσοι μέγισταί τε τυγχάνουσιν ούσαι “ δύο, Βρεταννικαι λεγόμεναι, "Αλβιον και Ιέρνη, των apoiotopnuévav uelGous, K. 7. X. I suppose Mr. Stewart and
Sir James to have access to Fabricii Bibliotheca Græca by Harles. Now 'in 3, 232 — 3. there is much learned matter upon this work. The title
• is wrong ; for it should be, as we learn from Stobæus, a Letter Trepà
του Παντός. Towards the close of the addition by Harles and his friends we have these words :-M. Gærenz, in Disp. de Libri Trepi Koouoü, qui inter Aristotelis Scripta reperitur, Auctore, Wittebergæ 'M, Aprili 1792, 4. illam sententiam, quæ Aristotelem auctorem respuit,
probabiliorem animadvertens, primum examinat dissentientium rationes, tum argumenta alia, ab aliis omissa, a Kappio tamen partim udlata et exposita, cogit, et contra Petitun et Battesiun tela potissimum dirigit. Denique suspicatur, uuclorem Aristotelis nomen libro suo quæstus causa supposuisse, qui
eum regi Ptolemæo Philadelpho pro Aristotelis libro venderet. Quidquid est, 6 satis evictum esse puto a Kappio et Gærenzio, superiorum V. D. vestigia prementibus, Aristotelem non fuisse libelli parentem.-J. G. You will find that Harles thinks as I do. In p. 347, you will find among the editions of parts of Aristotle, some account of this book de Mundo. Vulcanius says, the arguments of those, who deny the book to be Aristotle's, are plumbea. Vulcanius mire laudal the version of Apuleius. Now hear what is said p. 232, on this work of Apuleius, and said well. Quum Apuleius libri sui de Mundo initio non dicat, se versionem libri Græci scribere, sed se satis clare conditorem illius libri profiteatur, hinc credo, Apuleium verum esse illius libri auctorem; Græcum textum esse versionem. Heu
'I agree with Heumannus; for the matter and the manner suit well the known age of Apuleius. Let me advert to another subject. Mr. * Stewart has written wisely and virtuously upon atheism, direct or indirect. I agree with him about Spinoza, and I almost agree with him about Hobbes. But I do earnestly entreat Sir James and Mr. Stewart to bestow great attention to what is said 3, 377 - 8. of Fabricius. The 'observations and cautions of Harles should be attended to. I am sure
that Sir James and Mr. Stewart will thank me for pointing out these two pages.
In the Second Volume the reader will find a communication, addressed to me by my philosophical friend, Thomas Taylor, Esq., on this subject.
E. H. BARKER.
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.
The following observations, extracted from the Letter of a very distinguished Dissenter, and a very excellent man, dated May 8, 1828. are highly honourable to Dr. Parr's memory, as well as to the writer himself, and will serve to disabuse the public mind on the subject of Dr. Parr's supposed tendencies to SECTARIANISM and disaffection to the established Church :- " I see in a publication, called the Imperial Magazine, an attack on Dr. Parr's orthodoxy, founded on some of his remarks in the Catalogue of his Library, (Bibl. Parr.) A note in Field's Life of Parr will also open this idle and invidious question. As to the Doctor's sentiments on minute points of controversy, I had never the impertinence to enquire ; nor did I ever lay any train to take advantage of his open and kind temper to catch admissions, from which to draw conclusions ; but this I know that I never met with a more zealous friend, or a more stout advocate, of the Church of England than he was.”
By the side of this extract I would place the following remarks, made, in a Letter dated March 15, 1828, by a very enlightened Minister of the Church of England:
“What you say of Mr. Field's work is true — the style is somewhat too pompous for easy biography. But I do not think any sensible stranger to Parr's character would rise from the perusal of this First Volume with any misconstruction as to his religious feelings. It is clear that Parr's mind was of too Catholic a cast, and of larger views than, to admit of his being exclusively identified with any particular sect of Christians. He was neither of Apollos, nor of Cephas, and spurned at those petty, artificial distinctions, which keep the world in hot water. With a multitude of high-toned Church-zealots the circumstance of his living in habits of civility and friendship with a dissenting clerical neighbour is enough to fix the mark of the beast upon him; and on the other hand, with violent sectaries, his handsome ecclesiastical endowments will be enough to stamp him a prevaricator and hypocrite. But temperate persons of all denominations will do Dr. Parr the justice of believing him to have been a Christian of enlarged bene