SECT. II.
VIII. But there is no necessity for dwelling upon a subject which is common, and on which so many and so fine things have been written, that all I could add to them would be like contributing a small fountain to the ocean, or a little stone to the mountain of Mercury. My intention is only to banish a vulgar error which is entertained of this matter, and which ferments greatly in the imaginations of people of quality.
IX. It is commonly said, that good or bad blood has its occult influence on thoughts and actions, and that as in the ordinary course of nature the genus of the tree follows that of the seed, and the fruit that of the tree; so it is with mankind, who, according to the stock from whence they are derived, copy after the customs and manners of their ancestors. This prepossession in favour of nobility is so general among the vulgar, that there are several adages made use of in their common conversation to express it; and you will at every turn, when a man well born has done a bad action, hear them say, he has not behaved like what he is; as on the contrary, if the same thing is related of a poor man, they answer, you could not expect any better of him, considering from whence he sprung.
X. If this was really so, the estimation the nobility enjoy might with great justice be said to belong to them; but this is so far from being the case, that there is scarce any other erroneous opinion that has so many, and so evident testimonies to contradict it. In what kingdom of the world do we not at present see the same thing come to pass, which formerly happened at Rome? a Cicero of obscure extraction, ennobling himself and his country with illustrious actions; and, by way of contrast to him, a most noble Catiline, debasing himself and family by licentiousness and treachery? or the same which was heretofore seen at Athens, a Socrates the son of a blacksmith, replete with virtues, contrasted with a Critias, who was the worthless disciple of so great a master, and an unworthy descendant of a brother of Solon’s, whom neither nobility nor philosophy, could withhold or refrain from behaving like a monster, compounded or made up of abominable vices?
XI. What Plutarch says of the kings, who were the successors of those captains, among whom the empire of Alexander was divided, is very remarkable. What progenitors could be more illustrious than those heroes, to whom, in a great measure, the Macedonian chief owed such glorious conquests? But all the descendants, says Plutarch, of these generous leaders, were people of evil, and perverse customs and manners. All? Yes, all without the least reserve: Omnes parricidiis, et incestis libidinibus, infames fuere. Let the nobility contemplate this, and then say, what dependence they can place on the future virtue of their race.
XII. The reflection of Elius Spartianus is still stronger. This writer says, that by casting your eyes over history, you will see clearly, that there is scarce a great man who has figured in the world, that has left a son who was a worthy successor of his father, that is, one who proved equally good and useful to the state: Et reputanti mihi, neminem prope magnorum virorum optimum, et utilem filium reliquisse, satis liquet. (Spartian, in vita Severi.)
XIII. There is no doubt but you will frequently meet in history, accounts of unworthy children, who were descended from good parents. Germanicus is so generously disinterested, that he refuses the empire when it is offered him by the army; and his daughter Agrippina so determinedly ambitious, that she sacrifices shame, and even life itself, to the thirst of dominion. Octavianus is modest and reserved, and besides possesses many other excellent qualities; his daughter Juliana, scandalizes Rome with her indecencies. Cicero, view, him on which side you will, is a most elevated genius; the son, who only resembled his father in name, was heavy, stupid, and a man of no other ability, but that of drinking a great deal of wine. Quintus Hortensius, was the competitor of Cicero, in oratory, political talents, and zeal for his country; his son departed so widely from the foot-steps of his father, that he was in danger of being disinherited, but, bad as the son was, the grandson was still worse. Septimus Severus, with the exception of his excessive rigour, was an accomplished prince; his son Antoninus Caracalla, neither deserved the name of a prince, nor to be called a man. To the prudent and wise Marcus Aurelius, succeeded the brutal and unbridled Commodus; to the glorious Constantine, the unworthy Constantius; to the magnanimous Theodosius, the timorous Arcadius, and the pusillanimous Honorius. But endeavouring to establish general rules upon these and such like examples, is giving a large scope to the pen.
XIV. Although we may with certainty affirm, that being allied in blood does not produce a similitude of manners, as this truth is invincibly proved, by the great variance of dispositions we frequently meet in brothers. If the children of the same father were to be like him, they would also be like one another. How then can we account for the great difference that is so frequently observed between them? One is courageous, another timid; one liberal, another avaricious; one ingenious, another dull; one rakish, another reserved; and the same in every other instance.