droll. Such an address one is apt to translate into other words; and when the different parties are thoroughly considered, the panegyric generally implies no more than if the author should say to the patron, 'My very good lord, you and I can never understand one another, therefore I humbly desire we may be intimate friends for the future.' The rich may as well ask to borrow of the poor, as the man of virtue or merit hope for addition to his character from any but such as himself. He that commends another, engages so much of his own reputation as he gives to that person commended; and he that has nothing laudable in himself, is not of ability to be such a surety. The wise Phocion was so sensible how dangerous it was to be touched with what the multitude approved, that upon a general acclamation made when he was making an oration, he turned to an intelligent friend who stood near him, and asked, in a surprised manner, 'What slip have I made?'' 1 I shall conclude this paper with a billet which has fallen into my hands, and was written to a lady from a gentleman whom she had highly commended. The author of it had formerly been her lover. When all possibility of commerce between them on the subject of love was cut off, she spoke so handsomely of him, as to give occasion for this letter: 'MADAM, 'I SHOULD be insensible to a stupidity, if I could forbear making you my acknowledgments for your late mention of me with so much applause. It is, I think, your fate to give me new sentiments; as you formerly inspired me with the true sense of love, so do you now with the true sense of glory. As desire had the least part in the passion I heretofore professed towards you, so has vanity no share in the glory to which you have now raised me. Innocence, knowledge, beauty, virtue, sincerity, and discretion are the constant ornaments of her who has said this of me. Fame is a babbler, but I have arrived at the highest glory in this world, the commendation of the most deserving person in it.' No 189. Saturday, TH T. [ADDISON. -Patriæ pietatis imago.—VIRG., Æn. x. 824. HE following letter being written to my bookseller, upon a subject of which I treated some time since, I shall publish it in this paper, together with the letter that was enclosed in it: 'Mr. BUCKLEY, 'MR. SPECTATOR having of late descanted upon the cruelty of parents to their children,1 I have been induced (at the request of several of Mr. Spectator's admirers) to enclose this letter, which I assure you is the original from a father to his own son, notwithstanding the latter gave but little or no provocation. It would be wonderfully obliging to the world, if Mr. Spectator would give his opinion of it, in some of his speculations, and particularly to, Mr. Buckley, Your humble Servant.' 1 Nos. 181, 182. 'you are a saucy audacious rascal, and both fool and mad, and I care not a farthing whether you comply or no; that does not raze out my impressions of your insolence, going about railing at me, and the next day to solicit my favour: these are inconsistencies such as discover the reason depraved. To be brief, I never desire to see your face; and, sirrah, if you go to the workhouse, it's no disgrace to me for you to be supported there; and if you starve in the streets, I'll never give anything underhand in your behalf. If I have any more of your scribbling nonsense, I'll break your head the first time I set sight on you: you are a stubborn beast; is this your gratitude for my giving you money? You rogue, I'll better your judgment, and give you a greater sense of your duty to (I regret to say) your father, &c. 'P.S.-It's prudence for you to keep out of my sight; for to reproach me, that might overcomes right, on the outside of your letter, I shall give you a great knock on the skull for it.' Was there ever such an image of paternal tenderness! It was usual among some of the Greeks to make their slaves drink to excess, and then expose them to their children, who by that means conceived an early aversion to a vice which makes men appear so monstrous and irrational. I have exposed this picture of an unnatural father with the same intention, that its deformity may deter others from its resemblance. If the reader has a mind to see a father of the same stamp represented in the most exquisite strokes of humour, he may meet with it in one of the finest comedies that ever appeared upon the English stage: I mean the part of Sir Sampson in Love for Love.'1 I must not however engage myself blindly on the side of the son, to whom the fond letter abovewritten was directed. His father calls him a saucy and audacious rascal' in the first line, and I am afraid upon examination he will prove but an ungracious youth. To go about railing' at his father, and to find no other place but the outside of his letter' to tell him that might overcomes right,' if it does not discover his reason to be depraved,' and 'that he is either fool or mad,' as the choleric old gentleman tells him, we may at least allow that the father will do very well in endeavouring to 'better his judgment, and give him a greater sense of his duty.' But whether this may be brought about 'by breaking his head,' or 'giving him a great knock on the skull,' ought I think to be well considered. Upon the whole, I wish the father has not met with his match, and that he may not be as equally paired with a son, as the mother in Virgil: Crudelis tu quoque mater : Crudelis mater magis an puer improbus ille? Or like the crow and her egg in the Greek proverb : Κακοῦ κόρακος κακὸν ὠόν.3 I must here take notice of a letter which I have received from an unknown correspondent, upon the subject of my paper, upon which the foregoing 1 1 Congreve's Love for Love' was produced in 1695. 3 Bad crow, bad egg. letter is likewise founded. The writer of it seems very much concerned lest that paper should seem to give encouragement to the disobedience of children towards their parents; but if the writer of it will take the pains to read it over again attentively, I daresay his apprehensions will vanish. Pardon and reconciliation are all the penitent daughter requests, and all that I contend for in her behalf; and in this case I may use the saying of an eminent wit, who upon some great men's pressing him to forgive his daughter who had married against his consent, told them he could refuse nothing to their instances, but that he would have them remember there was difference between giving and forgiving. I must confess, in all controversies between parents and their children, I am naturally prejudiced in favour of the former. The obligations on that side can never be acquitted, and I think it is one of the greatest reflections upon human nature that paternal instinct should be a stronger motive to love than filial gratitude; that the receiving of favours should be a less inducement to goodwill, tenderness, and commiseration, than the conferring of them; and that the taking care of any person should endear the child or dependant more to the parent or benefactor, than the parent or benefactor to the child or dependant; yet so it happens, that for one cruel parent we meet with a thousand undutiful children. This is indeed wonderfully contrived (as I have formerly observed1) for the support of every living species; but at the same time that it shows the wisdom of the Creator, it discovers the imperfection and degeneracy of the creature. The obedience of children to their parents is the 1 No. 120. |