Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

fence) let a man flatter himself as much as he will, and think as highly as he pleases of his genius and natural parts, I will use the freedom to tell him, that, without the knowledge of thefe firft principles of logic, he never can understand, as a philofopher ought to understand, the philofophy of Mind, and the nature of Truth and Science. Thefe principles are to be learned from Ariftotle's book of Categories, with the affiftance of Porphyry's Introduction to that book, and of Ammonius's Commentary upon both the introduction and the book itself. There are, I doubt not, fome French or Eng lih fyftems of logic which may be of ufe to the reader; but with these I am not much acquainted, nor defire to be more, because I chufe to go to the fource itself, being well affured, from what I know of them, that, if they have not drawn from that fource, they have produced nothing that is valuable upon the fubject. Not that I believe it to be abfolutely impoffible, even as men are educated and live at prefent, that our times fhould produce a great genius in philofophy; but I fay, that genius must be taught, and by good matters; and, that it is impoffible, without fuch affiftance, for any mortal man to invent a whole fyftem of fcience. I think I may fay, without offence to any modern philofopher, that Ariftotle had as acute and inventive a genius in philofophy as any of them; yet, I will venture to affirm, that, unless he had been taught, as he was, both by Socrates and Plato, and, unless he had ftudied diligently, as it appears he did, the writings of the more ancient philofophers of the Ionic and Eleatic fchool, and of a greater fchool than either of these, I mean the Pythagorean, from which he took his book of Categories, the foundation of his whole fyllem, he never could have difcovered the Syllogifm (if it be true that it is his discovery), nor produced that compleat fyftem of logic to be found in his book of Categories, his first and fecond Analytics, his Topics, and his treatise of Sophifm, to which the labours of all the ages fince his time have added nothing confiderable. Before him, many philofophers, no doubt, reasoned very well, and made great difcoveries; but they reafoned as the women and children spoke; for, though women and children, who have been well educated, may speak very well, they. do it by mere habit, without being able to give any account how they do it; the reafon of which is, that they cannot analyfe lan guage into its elements, nor account how thefe elements are compofed into speech; for analyfis is the work of art or fcience. In the fame manner, the philofophers before Ariftotle could reafon very well; but, as they could not analyse reason, so they could not give any rational account why one argument was conclufive, and another inconclufive; but they knew them to be fo only by common sense, that is, natural fenfe, not inftructed by science.'

We confider the above, and fuch like paffages, of which the prefent work is principally compofed, as a grofs infult offered to the discernment of the prefent age. It is to fuppofe that God Almighty made men with legs and arms, but that Ariftotle made them reasonable creatures. We are so far from thinking that the works which our Author afcribes to Aristotle (feveral of which, however, are probably the productions of very infe

04

rior

rior men) have been favourable to the progrefs of the human mind, that we are perfuaded the authority of these works formed, during feveral centuries, a very powerful obftruction to all rational improvement. Ariftotle himfelf makes no ufe of the dif coveries of his Ogyavov (which is the general name for the writings above mentioned) in his treatifes of poetry, ethics, politics, natural hiftory, &c. performances which are equally ufeful and ingenious, and which do real honour to the stagyrite, Thefe performances are more worthy than the Ogyavar of being explained and illuftrated by the learning of the prefent age; they have, in general, met with that attention which they de-ferve; which, as well as the late elegant tranflations of feveral poets and orators, affords reafon to believe that it will not be poffible, even for Lord Monboddo's panegyric, to render Grecian literature unfashionable.

* See Bayle's Dictionary, Article Tyrannion.

ART. VII. An Universal Military Di&ionary, or. A copious Explanation of the Technical Terms, &c. ufed in the Equipment, Machinery, Movements, and military Operations of an Army. By Captain George Smith, Inspector of the Royal Military Academy at Wolwich. 4to. 1. 18. Large Paper. 21. 25. Subfcription. Millan. 1779.

MONG the vast number of dictionaries, of various

A kinds, which have lately iffued from the prefs, it is fome

what wonderful, that a Military Dictionary has not been thought of (a trifling performance or two excepted) before now, elpecially as the profpect of fale was not unpromifing.

Captain Smith obferves, that, although feveral performances on the fame fubject with his work have appeared in foreign languages, there had been nothing of the kind in our own, except Watfon's Military Dictionary; and another anonymous work called, The New Military Dictionary, or, The Field of War .

1

This laft mentioned work, inftead of what one would naturally have expected from its title, is only an account of the moft remarkable battles, fieges, bombardments, and expeditions, whether by fea or land, in which Great Britain has been concerned, from the defcent of Julius Cæfar to the year 1760: and the former, fo far from exhibiting an enlarged and comprehenfive view of military affairs, is extremely imperfect, even on its own very circumfcribed plan, and is only a small pamphlet in

† Another book of this kind was published lat year, printed for G. Robinfon. See Review for December 1778, Art. 22, of the Catalogue.

duodecimo.

duodecimo. This defect, Captain Smith remarks, would have been the lefs to be regretted, if even our best Dictionaries of Arts and Sciences had not been moft wretchedly defective and obfolete, in their explanations of the terms which relate to the art of war. It was there confiderations, joined to the use which fuch a work, when properly executed, might be of to every military officer, that induced Captain Smith to undertake the work before us; in the execution of which, he feems to have fpared no pains, and we are glad to fee, by the numerous Jift of fubfcribers, that it has not (fo far) met with an unfavourable reception from the public..

In a preface of fome length, our Author treats of the requifites neceffary to form the foldier, the officer, and the general; points out thofe virtues and qualifications which, he thinks, relate more immediately to each, and fhews how they are diftinguished from each other. In the difcuffion of thefe points, we apprehend, his manner and fentiments are fufficiently out of the common road, to afford entertainment to many of our readers.

Speaking of bravery and courage, he fays, "These two virtues, which are often confounded in the fame fubject, merit a particular diftinction; they are not fo clofely united, but that they are often to be found one without the other. Courage feems fitteft for a general, and all thofe who command; bravery more neceffary for a foldier, and all who receive orders: bravery is in the blood, courage in the foul; the firft is a kind of inftinct, the fecond a virtue; the one is an impulfe almoft mechanical, the other a noble and fublime conception. A man is brave at a particular time, and according to circumftances; he has courage at all times, and upon all occafions. Bravery is fo much the more impetuous, as it is lefs the refult of reflection; courage, the more it is the effect of reafon, becomes more intrepid. Bravery is infpired by the force of example, infenfible of danger, and the fury of action; courage is infused by the love of our duty, the defire of glory, and zeal for our king and Country: courage depends on reafon; but bravery, on the conftitution. Achilles, fuch as Horace defcribes him from Homer, implacable, cruel, defpifing every other right but that of force, prefents nothing to the idea, but the hardinefs of a gladiator: but the Roman general, whofe death would have produced the ruin of the army, the great Scipio, when covered by the bucklers of three foldiers, to avoid a fhower of arrows which the enemy directed against him, approaches in fafety the walls he befieged; and, ftanding only a fpectator of the action, and content himself with giving them orders, exhibits the idea of true courage. Bravery is involuntary, and depends not at all upon ourfelves; whereas courage (as Seneca obferves) may

be

be taught and acquired by education: but yet, nature must fow the first feeds of it. It would be eafy to make the difference of thefe qualities better understood, by running over all the cafes in which they make their appearance, were it not for fear of going too far into fo copious a fubject. It is faid of a magiftrate, who expofes his life and fortune in defence of the laws, that he has virtue. Cicero, fheltering himself from the hatred of Catiline, undoubtedly wanted bravery; but certainly, he had an elevated firmnefs of mind (which is in reality courage), when he disclosed the confpiracy of that traitor to the Senate, and pointed out all his accomplices; or, when he pleaded for Deiotarus against Cæfar, his friend and his judge.

Coolness is the effect of courage, which knows its danger, but makes no other ufe of that knowledge, than to give directions with greater certainty: courage is always mafter of itself, provided against all accidents, and regulated by the prefent occafions; never confounded by any danger, fo as to lose fight of the motions of the enemy, or of the means by which he may be most effectually oppofed. At the battle of Cannæ, when Gifco feemed to be moft aftonished at the fuperiority of the enemy's number, Hannibal answered him coolly, There is a thing ftill more furprifing, of which you feem to take no notice.' Gifco afked him what it was: It is," replied Han- nibal, that in all that great croud, there is not one man whose name is Gifco.' Plutarch .obferves, that this coolness of Hannibal greatly animated the Carthaginians, who could not imagine that their general would joke at fo important a time, without being certain of overcoming his enemies.'

[ocr errors]

.

And further on: Genius,' fays he, is not to be acquired; it is born with us. It has been defined to be a natural aptitude of doing fomething: but that definition is wrong; it is the difpofition only that fhould be fo defined. It is faid, to be eafier for nature to produce a monfter, than a man without a particular difpofition, but every one is not born with a genius; it is the fairest attribute of the foul. With parts, a man may be a good foldier; but with genius, a good foldier becomes a great general. It is fometimes an affemblage of talents, but it is always the perfecting of that which nature has given us, that discovers genius. A man ftudies; he fearches for his talent, and often miffes it; genius unfolds it. Talent remains hidden. for want of occafions to fhow itself; genius breaks through all obstacles; genius alone is the contriver; talent only the work

man.

It often happens, that he who has only bright parts, is believed to have genius. These two modifications of the foul are very different. Genius can only apply itself to the sciences and noble arts; wit, more airy, fkims indifferently over all:

the former undertakes but one fcience, but goes to the bottom of it; the other would undertake every thing, but touches only lightly upon all: wit renders the talents more brilliant, without their becoming more folid; genius, with lefs application, conceives every thing, outstrips even ftudy itself, and brings the talents to perfection.

What is generally called a quick eye, is no other than that penetrating genius, which lets nothing efcape it; that looks into the heart, and difcovers the lighteft impreffions which can diforder it. A general, who knows how to unite this quality with perpetual coolnefs, never is in want of expedients; he will fee how thefe events, which, to any other, would be the prefage of his own defeat, may end in the overthrow of his

enemies.

Thus the army of Cyrus, in the presence of that of Crœfus at Timbrea, took a clap of thunder for a bad omen. This impreffion did not escape the quick eye of Cyrus; but the coolness, which on this occafion he knew how to preserve, fuggefted to him an interpretation which removed his foldiers fears. "My friends," cried he, "Heaven declares for us: come on! I hear the found of victory. Great Jupiter, we

follow thee."

Befides thefe qualities which are effential to a general, and which all who would attain that high rank should of course have, there are many others neceffary to make a great man. A hero requires fewer virtues: the great man is always a good member of the community; he confiders hus manity as his first duty; he is juft, open, and unbiassed; his temper may be fiery, but this ardour is always regulated by prudence; he gives advice with the fame openness as he would afk it; and never afks but of those whofe experience, which he eftimates rather by their actions than their age, makes them capable of giving fuch as may be trufted; he is haughty only to his enemies, free to his equals, affable to his inferiors, brave without either arrogance or rafhnefs, and eafy of access to all.

The general should be acquainted with the interests and force of princes: a knowledge, very neceffary in judging of the power of princes, upon whom war is made, that he may fall fooner upon the country of him who can obftruct his projects, than upon a prince who, by the fituation of his dominions and force, can make no oppofition. In a word, a general, who would merit the title of a great man, fhould unite in himself all civil, military, and political excellence. It is by this, that he will eafily attain to make war with fuccefs; nothing will escape him; he will know, without difficulty, the genius of every country, and of the nations which compofe the enemy's army; the abilities of the generals who command, and the

nature

« VorigeDoorgaan »