A treatise concerning enthusiasme, as it is an effect of nature, but is mistaken by many for either divine inspiration, or diabolical possession by Meric Casaubon ...

CHAP. V. Of Poeticall Enthusiasme. (Book 5)

The Contents.

Poeticall and Rhetoricall Enthusiasme, how near in nature; though the faculties themselves, (Oratorie and Poetrie,) seldome concur∣ring in one man. The perfection both of Poets and Orators to pro∣ceed from one cause, Enthusiasme. The division of Poets, accor∣ding to Jul. Caes. Scaliger. Poets by nature, and by inspiration. Plato his Dialogue concerning that subject. Not only Poets, but their actors also, &c. according to Plato's doctrine, divinely in∣spired. Plato not to be excused in that Dialogue; though more sound in some others. Much lesse Scaliger, a Christian, for his ex∣pressions in this subject, if not opinions, as some have apprehended him. Homer (the occasion of Plato's Dialogue,) how much ad∣mired by the Ancients: by Aristotle, particularly. His language: his matter: and why not so much admired, and so ravishing in our dayes, as he hath been formerly. Some use to be made of him, for confirmation of the antiquitie of the Scriptures of the Old T. No Poets (true Poets) made by Wine; disputed and maintained against Scaliger: though it be granted, that Wine may contribute much towards the making of a good Poem; and why. So, some other things, proper to stirre up (in some tempers) the spirits, or the phansie, to Enthusiasme; as Musick, &c.

OF Poeticall Enthusiasme, (the subject of this Chapter) there is so little to be said particular∣ly, besides what hath been of Rhetoricall; that I needed not to have made a distinct head of it, but that it hath been a common Maxime in most Ages, approved by sundrie pregnant instances, That a good Ora∣tor and a good Poet, are things, if not altogether incompa∣tible, yet seldome or never meeting in one: how then should

they be led and agitated by one spirit, or enthusi∣asme? Yet certain it is, and it is the opinion of best Ora∣tors, and Masters of Rhetorick, Cicero, Dionysius Hali∣carnasseus, and others, that Oratory and Poetry, though so seldome concurring in the Professors of each, are very little different in their causes and nature. It might prove a long businesse, if I should take upon me to examine all reasons, and all instances, on both sides, for, or against this common Maxime. For the difference of their style and language, Aristotle may satisfie any man, in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Books of Rhetorick: though even in that difference so much affinity perchance might be found, as might argue rather different wayes, or effects of the same faculty, then different Faculties: but that it is not our task here to examine particulars. However, there is no questi∣on, but in divers respects, their parts may be as different as their style: and where the end in general, (the one to please, the other to perswade,) is not the same; how should particular endeavours, which produce abilities, be? And yet after all this, though we allow some difference in their parts and proprieties, such as are more common and ordi∣nary, which may make the difference between ordinary Poets and Orators the greater: my opinion is, that scarce ever was (so I speak, because some accidental circumstance may alter the case in some particulars:) that scarce ever was any excellent Poet, but might have been (which in Virgil's case we know to be most true:) as excellent an Orator; or excellent Orator, but might have attained to equall excel∣lency in Poetry; had they applied themselves to the means in time, and external provocations and encouragements equally concurred for the one, as for the other. But how the same Enthusiasme (originally and in its nature,) may bo∣the cause of very different effects and faculties; we shall have a more proper place to consider and examine.

Julius Caesar Scaliger, whose authority is such with

most men, that whatsoever he saith, passeth for current with them without any further consideration; in that work of his, where he treats of all things belonging unto Poetrie, and of all Poets, whether ancient or late, that he thought worthy the mention; in the first book of it, and second chapter, reduceth all Poets into three several divisions, as it were: from their Spirit, their Age (or time when they lived,) and their Argument. For their Spirit; he delivers it at first as out of Plato and Aristotle, that some are born Poets; by Nature, without Art or Study, endowed with all parts and faculties necessary to that profession. Others, though born simple and ignorant, yea dull and stupid; to become Poets by immediate inspiration. As for matter of inspiration, it is Plato's doctrine, I confesse, in more then one place; but disputed and maintained at large in a pe∣culiar Dialogue, inscribed by him, Ion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. where he doth not onely dispute, that all true Poetrie is by immediate inspiration; immediate divine inspiration, in the most proper and literal sense; using all the words that the Greek tongue could afford, to expresse inspirati∣on, and repeating them often: but that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also, that is, actors or representators of Poets, so reciting their words, that they imitated the nature of the things by their pronunciation, and action of body, (an art in those dayes in great request,) yea and the Auditors, all, or most, were inspired in some degree. which he doth endeavour to illu∣strate by the example of the Load-stone, which infuseth vertue, first upon one ring, and from that upon another, and so to many iron rings: though still with some a∣batement; yet so neverthelesse, that as long as there is any vertue to draw, it must be acknowledged to have proceed∣ed from the same beginning. So that Plato, nay God him∣self, he saith, would not have us to doubt, but that it is (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.) God himself, (not they,) that speaketh unto us in, and by Poets. But that any are borne Poets, distinct from those that are inspired, I do not find in that Dialogue; nor remember any where else in Plato.

As for Aristotle, I wish Scaliger had quoted the place. I know more then one place, where Aristotle likewise upon the by, doth affirm that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Poetry comes by inspiration; or rather, is not without inspiration: but where he doth so positively avouch it, as that a man may call it his doctrine, or a resolved case of his upon debate, I know not any place. Indeed I am not at this time (the more is my grief,) master of all Aristotles Works: and thereby of necessity am eased of the labour of seeking it in him. But even of Plato, though we find it in that one Dialogue so positively maintained; yet whether we may call it absolutely Plato's Doctrine, I make some question, when I remember (as is observed by many) what he writes elsewhere of Poets, and of Homer particularly, whom he would not allow to be read in a well-governed Common∣weal, (which I would not have any ignorant Zelot take any advantage of, as though it concerned us Christians as much, or rather, at all: for they had no other Bible, then Homer, in those dayes, such was the common opinion of him; and the reading of him with such an opinion, must needs be very dangerous:) because of so many false, absurd, yea impious Fictions, concerning the Gods. However, I cannot excuse Plato for that Dialogue; a most irrational piece, I think, as ever was written by any Philosopher.

But neither can I well brook Scaliger his words, (for I would not question his meaning; God forbid:) which I take notice of, of purpose to prevent, that I say not to re∣prove, the mistake of some others. After he hath spoken of Plato and Aristotle their opinion, he seemeth to deliver his own in these words: Horum autem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 duo ad∣huc

genera animadverti: unum cui coelitus advenit divina illa vis; aut ultro, nec opinanti; aut simpliciter invocanti. Quo in numero seipsum ponit Hesiodus: Homerus au∣tem ponitur ab omnibus. Alterum acuit meri exha∣latio, &c. They do him great wrong cer∣tainly,* 1.1 that make this to be his opinion. No man pretending to Christianity, can en∣tertain such sottishnesse. However, so cen∣sorious a man (witness his bitter invectives against Erasmus, for lesse matters;) should have written more warily. That some became Poets by immediate inspiration, without any thought, or seeking; o∣thers, upon immediate request and prayer, without any further endeavours: what more can be said of the truest, and most holy Prophets? But if all this were intended by him (as most probable,) in reference to those Philoso∣phers their opinion: Yet he should have used some of their termes rather, (whereof Plato afforded him so much choice;) then that Scripture word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: though not proper to the Scripture perchance, yet seldome used by any profane Author.

As for Homer, (the chiefest subject of those extrava∣gancies,) there is no commendation can be given unto man, as to point of nature, but I should be more ready to adde to it, then to detract. Neither do I wonder, if Heathens, that had so many Gods, when they found themselves so transported above their ordinary temper by his verses, when either judiciously read, or skilfully acted; did really per∣swade themselves, that he must be somewhat above a man, that was the author of such ravishing language. I have alwaies thought of Aristotle, in point of humane wisdome and sound reason, rather as of a Miracle, then a man: yet when I consider how much he was beholding to Homer, and how much he doth in all his writings adscribe to the wit and wisdome of that one Poet; I must needs think

very highly of him, that was so much admired by such a one as Aristotle. And though I do easily grant that his lan∣guage, of the two, is the more ravishing; as may easily ap∣pear by such translations as have been made of him in any language, wherein so little of that charming power is to be found, that the reading of them is rather a task of pati∣ence, then an object of any admiration: yet allowing him to be a Poet, that is, one whose chief end (and probably his best subsistence,) was to please; and a very ancient Poet, that is, one that was to fit himself and his expressions for such as then lived, when such a religion, such opinions, such fashions, were in use; these things taken into considera∣tion, which I doubt many that read him little think of, his matter, in my judgement, for the most part, doth deserve no lesse admiration.

Of the mysteries of bare language, that it may ravish, and what it is that makes it so, hath sufficiently been dis∣coursed in the former chapter. And if Rhetorical, how much more (in all sense and reason) Poetical? And if good language may ravish, how much more excellent mat∣ter, delivered in ravishing language? But as every eare is not fitted for all ravishing language, when barely read, espe∣cially, not acted; so neither is every capacity, for excellent matter. Though in this particular of Homer's case, it is not so much want of wit and capacity, that maketh so few in these dayes to admire his wisdome; as ignorance of former times. Who would not at a Market, or Fair, if suddainly such a sight should offer it self, look upon either man or woman, though very beautifull otherwise, if dressed in old apparell, such as was worn but two or three ages agoe; rather as a Monster, or a ghost, then such creatures as they would have appeared, when such apparel was in use? An old Hat will alter a mans countenance: and many both men and women, whose onely ambition and employment in this world is, so to dresse themselves, that they may be

thought fair or proper, would think themselves undone (so ridiculous would they appear,) if they were seen in those fashions, which but ten or twenty yeares ago were their chiefest both pride and beauty? No wonder therefore if so ancient a Poet as Homer, appear ridiculous unto many, who are better skilled in the fashions of the times, then they are read in ancient books; which by long use of reading▪ would make the fashions of those times to which they are strangers, not only known, but comely; and so lead them to somewhat else, more observable then the fashions of the times. However, this use (to a learned and hearty Chri∣stian not inconsiderable,) any man may make of Homer and his antiquity, that by reading of him, many passages of the Old Testament relating to certain fashions and cu∣stomes of those ancient times may the better be understood, and the antiquity of those books, among many other argu∣ments, by the antiquity of such whether expressions (which we may call, the fashions of language,) or manners, both publick and private, the better asserted. Somewhat hath been done, I know, by some learned men, to that purpose, by collation of some passages: but not the tenth part of what may be done, I dare say: not by any, at least, that I have yet seen. But now I am gone from my Text.

So much for the first kind of inspired Poets, whom Scaliger doth call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Though he name Hesiod too, from Hesiods own testimony of himself; (quo in nu∣mero &c.) yet he passeth no judgement on him: Homer is his only instance; and Homer the occasion and only subject, almost, of that Dialogue in Plato, of this argu∣ment. I thought it therefore necessary that somewhat should be said of him: but that he should be thought in∣spired, truly and really, or otherwise supernaturally agita∣ted, then as of Orators was determined; notwithstanding all that hath been, or might yet be said of his so much ad∣mired excellency, I see no necessity at all.

The second kind, according to the same Scaliger, are those, quos acuit meri exhalatio, educens animae instru∣menta, spiritus ipsos, à partibus corporis materialibus: that is, whom the vapours of wine, freeing the spirits of the body from all material entanglements, and bodily function̄s, to serve the soul, do quicken and stirre up. No wonder indeed, if such be styled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by those by whom Bacchus was worshipped for a God. But where Bac∣chus is not a God, but a fruit of the Vine, of the earth, and no more; how can they think it reasonable, to adscribe divinity unto Poets, for those effects, which not real inspi∣ration only, as they seem to say, but even the vapours of wine, as themselves acknowledge, can produce? But let us consider of it soberly, and philosophically. It may be, we may find in this, though lesse danger of Blasphemy, yet as little reality of truth, as we have found in the former. Can the vapours of Wine make Poets? Truly I think not: I see no ground at all for it in nature. I have read what A∣ristotle doth write of Wine, where he compares the several effects of it with the effects of Melancholy. I think he hath said as much of it, as can be said by any man, with any probability of reason. Yet I find not any thing in him, to perswade me that any Poets are made by Wine. I easily believe that the vapours of wine may dispose a man to make somewhat, that may be called a verse, or a rime, or a strong line: but that every one that makes verses, or rimes, or strong lines, is a Poet, I believe no more, then that an Ape is a man, because of some likenesse in out∣ward shape; or a Parrot, a man, because of some words of mans language, which he is taught to utter. To make a Poet, that may deserve that title, is, as I take it, a work both of Art and Nature; but more of Nature then of Art. A divine wit, naturally, is the first ingredient in that rare piece. and though I allow not any real inspiration to any Poet (as a Poet,) more then to an Orator: yet of all kinds

of natural Enthusiasme, I allow to Poets that which is the purest, and hath most of heaven in it. An Orator must not alwaies ravish. If he affect it in every part, it is likely he doth it in no part: he is a Fool, or a Child; not an Orator. But if through exuberance of wit and good language, he happen, without affectation, to ravish every where; he is not an Orator, but a Poet. We admire Plato, as a Phi∣losopher: but they that read him with the same judgement, as many Ancients did, will finde that it is his Poetry, that he professeth not, that is admired; more then that Philo∣sophy, that he professeth.

But is Wine nothing then towards the making of a Poet? Not toward the making, as to the faculty it self: but to∣ward the making of a Poem, I think it may conduce not a little. It may lighten the heart, as of sorrow, so of care, the bane of all sublime thoughts: it may raise the spirits, when they want to be stirred up; and those spirits may work upon the faculty, which oftentimes is more at the command of such helps, (by a secret sympathy,) then it is of the will, though never so much endeavour be used. They are sel∣dome good Poets, that can be Poets when they will. But all that are good, are not of one temper of body: & as they vary in temper of body, so may these accidental external helps be more or lesse requisite. I do not think it impossible, though it be much against the authority of some, and pra∣ctise, I believe, of most Poets, that one that drinketh wa∣ter, (the ordinary drink of many nations,) should be a good Poet. But he had need to have good store of good bloud, or a very strong phansie; which alone is able to raise spirits, and of all spirits, those especially, that have most power of the wit; that is, the purest, and most abstract from materiality.

That Wine doth not work upon the wit, by any parti∣cular property or sympathy, but only by heating, or raising the spirits, I am the more apt to believe, because there be

other things besides Wine, that have no lesse operation up∣on the wit and invention. (the fountains of all good lan∣guage,) of which no such suspicion can be, that they can adde or increase, but only stirre up and quicken. There be strange things written of the effects of Feavers, in that kind: few men, I think, that have been acquainted with feavers, or feaverish fits, not very violent, but can speak somewhat of their own experience. But this will have a more proper place, where we shall consider of the causes of Enthusiasme in general; and among other things, of that ardor parti∣cularly, as one of the chief: of which somewhat already hath been anticipated in the former chapter; which makes me the more willing to forbear any further prosecution of it here. I believe Musick, some kind of it, may have the same operation in some tempers, upon the wit and phansie, as Wine hath: not by heating, or infusing any spirits, that can have any such operation of themselves; but by stirring up by a secret sympathy. But of that also, more in its proper place.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Joan. Fabricii Specimen A∣••ab. pag. 174. Statuis idem Scal. &c.