The history of the illustrious Cervantes forms part of the record of the calamities of genius, and the narrative is true, that after fighting his country's battles he languished in prison at Algiers-that after returning to his own country he was again imprisoned for debt, and that at this period (not while imprisoned in Barbary as Mr. D'Israeli, under the head of "the imprisonment of the learned," has stated) he wrote his immortal work-and that he died poor and neglected. It is a sad tale-but along with this calamitous narrative we should recollect that the great Calderon, whom Spain hails as her Shakspere, revelled in riches, the reward of his genius-kings and nobles vieing with each other in pouring honours and wealth in profusion on his head.*

The life of Camoens, the glory of Portugal, is an authentic narrative of a great genius struggling through life with dire misfortunes and bitter poverty.

The popular history of the fortunes of Galileo is one great mass of falsehood, but it serves a purpose, and will, to the end of time, keep its ground. Whenever any quack comes forward to bespeak public sympathy with the monstrosities of phrenology or mesmerism, he begins his discourse with the fabulous tale of Galileo's dungeon, in order to warn the world against the crime of persecuting new doctrines. The dungeon has no place in authentic history, and all the annoyance that Galileo received he appears to have owed to his own temper, which delighted in the excitement of a little persecution. The restraint placed upon him by his friends and admirers was confinement to palaces and gardens of his own choosing, with wines of his own selection, and the company and honour of the great. The doctrine of the motion of the earth was, before his day, taught by the mild and amiable Copernicus, with the approbation of many of the clergy. But Galileo did not seek to disarm, but studiously courted hostility. Some accounts bear, that Galileo in his old age was poor, but this poverty is undoubtedly spoken of comparatively with the general splendour in which he had lived, as it is certain that he left property behind him. Most men of genius would be glad to pass through the world with as little real ground of complaint against it as Galileo had; it was his own blame that he had any complaint. In this nineteenth century, should any philosopher propose a doctrine equally startling to the present as the doctrine which Galileo proclaimed was to his age, we would advise him, if he wish to avoid rather more serious persecution than Galileo endured, to cultivate the Christian temper and prudence of Copernicus rather than indulge in the proud combativeness of Galileo. When a man proposes a doctrine in science, which appears to the age in which he lives to be as directly contrary to the truth of revelation as it is insulting to the evidence of the human senses, he has no excuse for rushing into persecution in behalf of such a doctrine, unless he believe that it is connected with the interests of morality and religion. Now the world surely might be as moral and

*See Vida de D. Pedro Calderon. By D. Juan de Vera Tasis, p. v. prefixed to the fine edition of Calderon; Leipsique, 1827.

religious, and as happy under the Ptolemaic as under the Copernican system.

Tycho Brache appears, amidst some ups and downs, to have had, on the whole, a liberal share of this world's wealth and honours. A spirit of quackery and imposture mingled itself with the gifts of this singular man; and the share of troubles which he had was clearly owing to his own ill temper and love of quarrelling. Galileo, Tycho, and Kepler, are the three, whose biographies compose Sir David Brewster's elegant little work," The Martyrs of Science." The history of Galileo, Sir David has treated faithfully, and according to reason. The fault of this popular volume is, the inappropriateness of the title to the contents. The greatest misfortune of Tycho's life was to lose his nose in a duel. It is humbling to genius to call this a calamity of genius; it is surely a sneer at science to call a man who loses his nose in a duel a 66 martyr of science."

Butler, the author of "Hudibras," and Ockley, the admirable Orientalist, (who, however, confessed that literature consoled him for the want of wealth,) are amongst the most marked authentic instances of the neglect of genius by the world. And the Aristocracy of Scotland will never be pardoned for not having raised Burns beyond the fear of want and the temptation to intemperance. The poverty of Spencer is not so well authenticated as his spirit of discontentment; Defoe was unjustly persecuted for his politics; his great genius did not get justice from the age in which he lived, but he was never otherwise than in comfortable circumstances in money matters. Richard Savage, called, by courtesy, "Savage, the poet," was unfortunate, but he was neither a poet nor a genius, but simply an unhappy profligate, not entitled to rank amongst the world's creditors for patronage unpaid to merit.

Men of genius and learning have not been exempted from a share in the afflictions to which all the human race are subject, and some of them have undoubtedly been oppressed by poverty, and by neglect; that, however, this has been their usual fate, as is the popular assertion, is so far from being true that it is nearly the reverse of truth.

The greatest of all human geniuses, there is every reason to believe, was never otherwise than in easy circumstances. If we rank next to Shakspere, Bacon, the most illustrious of philosophers, he certainly, whatever his misfortunes were, could not complain of the neglect of the world, though the world might complain of his neglect of himself. It is a mistake that Milton was poor. He was poorly rewarded with wealth for his great genius, but his income, at all times, was sufficient for his simple and frugal habits. If he had desired wealth, he could have had it, when he was the friend and the secretary of Cromwell. There is reason to believe that Charles II. would have willingly advanced the interests of his political opponent, but that Milton neither required nor would stoop to partake of the royal favour. It is true, that Paradise Lost, though it was not a neglected work, but a highly admired one, in the author's own age,* was sold to the bookseller for

* The mass of falsehood told about the neglect of Milton's genius, by his contemporaries, is very satisfactorily refuted by facts. Between 1667 and 1695, Paradise Lost had gone

the miserable sum of fifteen pounds, (fifteen pounds, says Fenton, a wealthy poet, by the bye-not five pounds, as the historians of the aclamities of genius usually make it-in order to heighten the pathetic.) That, however, the poverty of Milton, after the Restoration, was but comparative, one fact places beyond all doubt. Besides other property, he left behind him fifteen hundred pounds in cash. Comparing his means with his desires, Milton had all his life-time been a richer man than Bacon, surrounded with his jewels, and his silver and gold.

We have thus struck off the pauper-roll, three princes of intellect. We proceed with the list of the wealthy men of genius and learning. The poets, Anacreon, Sophocles, Euripides, Pindar, Theocritus, Terence, Virgil, Horace, Silius Italicus, Petrarch, Sannazarius, Lope de Vega, Ronsard, Boileau, Waller, Prior, Pope, Tickel, Mallet, Thomson, Ramsay, and Cowper; the painters, Zeuxis, Leonardo da Vinci, Michael Angelo, Titian, Giulio Romano, Raphael, Rubens, Bassano, Paul Veronese, Velasquez, Murillo, Vandyke, Rembrandt, Kneller, Lely, Reynolds, Opie, and Tassie; the historians, Thucydides, by his own admission very wealthy, Paterculus, Josephus, Plutarch, Tacitus, Herodian, De Thou, Clarendon, Hume, Robertson, Gibbon, Watson, Ferguson, and Henry; the philosophers, Plato, Locke, Montesquieu, Hobbes, and Adam Smith; as well as the geniuses Rabelais, Moliere, Voltaire, Addison, Swift, Richardson, Vanburgh, Congreve, Buffon, Hayley, Henry Mackenzie, and Harris, the metaphysician, were all either men of great wealth, or in the possession of a competency, or who attained to wealth or competency, as the reward of their talent, genius, or learning.

The vast geniuses, Newton, Leibnitz, Picus Mirandula, Selden and Boerhaave, found it utterly impossible to get clear of the wealth that poured in in torrents upon them. Newton was obliged to leave L.32,000 behind him, a sum perhaps equal to L.100,000 now-a-days. Boerhaave with all his benevolence was obliged to leave a huge fortune. Viviani, Van Helmont, Sir Hans Sloane, and Lagrange were immensely wealthy. Dr. Jenner got a present of L.20,000 from Parliament. Selden got from Parliament a present of L.5000 at the very time that he was in the enjoyment of the revenue of a variety of lucrative offices. Henry Grattan got L.50,000 cash down from Parliament. Harrison, the improver of the chronometer, got L.20,000 as a grant from government. The men of science, both false and true, have been in general well rewarded. The quacks, Mesmer, Brodum, Solomon, and Lilly the astrologer, accumulated vast fortunes out of the ignorance of the public.

It will be seen that the list above given, which is taken from the through six editions-the edition of 1668, in the poet's own life time, being a splendid folio, with plates, got up by subscription among the chief public men of the age. Milton was alive when Sir John Denham (a wealthy Poet, who could spend thousands at the gamingtable) pronounced Paradise Lost to be "the noblest Poem that ever was written in any language, or in any age." Before the end of the century, Paradise Lost appeared in a German and in a Latin translation. These facts have often been stated, but the cry still is, that till Addison gave Paradise Lost a lift with his popular criticism, it had been unheeded by the world.

common histories of the learned, contains a very fair proportion of poets. They are in general believed to be the greatest sufferers; they are, and ever have been the greatest grumblers against providence and the world, and each other-the best disposed to be miserable, and the most ungrateful for real kindness received. Many of them have spent the greater part of their breath in calumniating not only each other, but in abusing and calumniating those who fed them. Of persecution it is indeed ridiculous to hear the poets complaining. The world has never persecuted poetry, because it could have no interest or imagined interest in doing so. Philosophers and moralists have at times been persecuted by priests, and despots, and mobs, but poets, as such, have never deserved nor incurred the displeasure of any of these parties. The persecutors of poets have been their own evil passions, their intemperance and licentiousness, their ambition, vanity, intense selfishness, and mutual envy and hatred. They have indeed been petted and spoiled by the world, by being readily relieved and assisted in the distresses which they have brought on themselves by their vices and their idleness, and have in all ages been allowed to do deeds with imrunity, which would not have been tolerated in the sons of prose. The poets Alcæus, Archilochus, and Horace, while serving in the army, in the hour of battle flung down their arms and took to their heels, for which, according to all military law, they should have been shot, and yet because they were good poets, they got pardon to the utter relaxation of army discipline. Horace lived in wealth to make a joke of his celerem fugam and his relicta non bene parmula.

The great geniuses in art have in general been wealthy. Long life, good health, and plenty of money, have been the lot of the great painters. Guido and Sir Thomas Lawrence spent their vast gains in gambling. After the death of Correggio, a clamour was got up by posterity that he had been allowed to pine in poverty. It is certain that he made great gains, and lived continually amongst the wealthy and powerful.

With regard to the profound scholars, it is a well-established fact, that they have been either men of vast wealth or in comfortable circumstances. "It is observable," says Mr. Pinkerton, "that all the chief eruditi of every age and country, have been men of large property, and who could afford to purchase libraries." Pinkerton himself, who is certainly entitled to be ranked amongst the few men of learning whom Scotland has produced, was, we believe, afflicted with the heavy calamity of a bad temper, but we are not aware how he stood in respect of money.

very

Amongst the popular fables related of men of genius and learning is the fiction, which deprives them of their fair share of life. Dr. Johnson has, with much solemnity, pronounced the common and false opinion entertained on this subject. "The heroes of literary, as well as civil history," says the Doctor, in his Life of Savage, "have been very often no less remarkable for what they have suffered than for what they have achieved; and volumes have been written only to enumerate the miseries of the learned, and to relate their unhappy

lives and untimely deaths." In point of fact, men of learning and genius, cannot claim being the favourites of the gods, on account of their early deaths. The health of men whose lives have been devoted to literature, art, or science, has been, in general, excellent, as might be expected from the cheering and consoling nature of their labours. Peter Daniel Huetius, well known for his learned labours, lived immersed amongst books, from infancy to the age of ninety-one, having scarcely ever experienced what sickness was. Many of the greatest of literary men, have acknowledged, that their lives have been lives of happiness. Gibbon, in a well-known beautiful passage, has spoken of the pleasure which the composition of his great work afforded him. The illustrious Montesquieu, the model of a man of letters, has rapturously described his happiness, and told us, that through life he had hardly experienced a chagrin, or felt ennui-that he awoke every morning with joy-was pleased all day through, and closed his eyes at night amidst delicious feelings. This, to a certain degree, is the life of the man of literature and art, who is free from the cares of severe poverty, and is enabled to devote his hours to the enjoyments of intellect. In consequence of their good health, the lives of men of learning and genius are protracted far beyond the average. If we were to give a list of the names of men of this class who lived beyond their seventieth year it would fill a space twice as long as this whole essay. As a matter of curiosity, therefore, we give, in a note below, the names of a galaxy of great men who have lived to four-score and upwards.* We have endeavoured to avoid giving the names of men not more or less

* Dr. Bentley, M. Rollin, Immanuel Kant, W. Roscoe, Amyot, Dr. Calcott, Kircher, Limborch, Lilly the astrologer, Harvey the physician, Peter of Apono, M. Vertot, and Dr. Ward, were men of eighty. Emerson the mathematician, Dugdale the antiquary, M. Buffon, Dr. Hugh Blair, Magliabechi, of universal erudition, Viviani the mathematician, Boileau, Dr. Warburton, and Bishop T. Wilson, were eighty-one. Dupin and Fleury, the two great ecclesiastical historians, Denina, Arnauld, Apostolo Zeno, Dr. Nichols, Daniel Bernouilli, Archbishop Wake, Dr. Wallis, Claude Lorraine, the learned divine Witzius, and the profound historian Polybius, reached eighty-two. The Abbe Raynal, Sir Edward Coke, James Watt, Izaak Walton, and Dr. Woodward, were eighty-three. Franklin, Voltaire, Daubenton the naturalist, Madame Genlis, the erudite Bellarmin, the erudite Whiston, Wicquefort (who by the bye comes in among the list of the imprisoned learned, having been some time in confinement), and Dr. Young, were eighty-four. D'Anquetil, D'Anville, Newton, Lord Monboddo, Anacreon, Anstes the antiquary, Valesius, Pierius Valerianus, (who wrote on the misery of the learned), and Mathurinus Corderius, known to all school-boys, were eightyfive. Dr. Richard Cumberland, Evelyn, Chiabrera, Goldoni and Cibber the dramatists, Montfaucon the Benedictine, Beza, and Halley the astronomer, were eighty-six. Brantome, Dr. Pococke, the orientalist, Calderon, Cassini, (John Dominic) the mathematician, Albertus Magnus and Voetius the divine were eighty-seven. Dr. Whitby, John Wesley, Dr. Burney, Varro, the most learned of the Romans, and Dr. Wallis were eighty-eight. Jacob Byrant, Cassini (James) Mrs. Carter, Castell the mathematician, and Michael Angelo, were eightynine. Xenophon, Theophrastus, Vondel, the great dramatist of Holland, and Gian Bellini, the painter, were ninety. Huetius, Hobbes, Bishop Lloyd, and Christopher Wren, were ninety-one. Ferguson the historian, ninety-two; Bouillainvilliers, ninety-three; Burigny, ninety-four; Vida, Titian and Jeremy Collier, ninety-six; Amory, the delightful author of the Life of John Bunkle, ninety-seven. Fontenelle, John de Gombauld, (who, as the reward of his poetry, enjoyed a handsome pension for full fifty years,) and John Asgill, (whose English attracted the warm admiration of Coleridge,) all three stood out a full hundred years. The last named genius, indeed, persuaded himself, and tried to persuade the world, that there was no absolute necessity for dying at all.