FROM THURSDAY DECEMBER 7, TO THURSDAY DECEMBER 14, 1710.
Sunt quibus in Satira videor nimis acer, et ultra
Legem tendere opus: sine nervis altera, quicquid
Composui, pars esse putat——[2]
When the printer came last week for his copy, he brought along with him a bundle of those papers,[3] which in the phrase of Whig coffee-houses have "swinged off" the "Examiner," most of which I had never seen nor heard of before. I remember some time ago in one of the "Tatlers" to have read a letter,[4] wherein several reasons are assigned for the present corruption and degeneracy of our taste, but I think the writer has omitted the principal one, which I take to be the prejudice of parties. Neither can I excuse either side of this infirmity; I have heard the arrantest drivellers pro and con commended for their smartness even by men of tolerable judgment; and the best performances exploded as nonsense and stupidity. This indeed may partly be imputed to policy and prudence; but it is chiefly owing to that blindness, which prejudice and passion cast over the understanding: I mention this because I think it properly within my province in quality of Examiner. And having granted more than is usual for an enemy to do, I must now take leave to say, that so weak a cause, and so ruined a faction, were never provided with pens more resembling their condition, or less suited to their occasions.
Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis
Tempus eget——[5]
This is the more to be wondered at, when we consider they have the full liberty of the press, that they have no other way left to recover themselves, and that they want not men of excellent parts to set their arguments in the best light they will bear. Now if two men would argue on both sides with fairness, good sense, and good manners, it would be no ill entertainment to the town, and perhaps be the most effectual means to reconcile us. But I am apt to think that men of a great genius are hardly brought to prostitute their pens in a very odious cause; which besides, is more properly undertaken by noise and impudence, by gross railing and scurrility, by calumny and lying, and by little trifling cavils and carpings in the wrong place, which those whifflers use for arguments and answers.
I was well enough pleased with a story of one of these answerers, who in a paper[6] last week found many faults with a late calculation of mine. Being it seems more deep learned than his fellows, he was resolved to begin his answer with a Latin verse, as well as other folks: His business was to look out for something against an "Examiner" that would pretend to tax accounts; and turning over Virgil, he had the luck to find these words,
———fugiant examina taxos;[7]
so down they went, and out they would have come, if one of his unlucky prompters had not hindered it.
I here declare once for all, that if these people will not be quiet, I shall take the bread out of their mouths, and answer the "Examiner" myself;[8] which I protest I have never yet done, though I have been often charged with it; neither have those answers been written or published with my privity, as malicious people are pleased to give out; nor do I believe the common Whiggish report, that the authors are hired by the ministry to give my paper a value.
But the friends of this paper have given me more uneasiness with their impatience, than its enemies by their answers. I heard myself censured last week by some of the former, for promising to discover the corruptions in the late administration, but never performing any thing. The latter on the other side, are thundering out their anathemas against me for discovering so many. I am at a loss how to decide between these contraries, and shall therefore proceed after my own way, as I have hitherto done: my design being of more importance than that of writing only to gratify the spleen of one side, or provoke that of the other, though it may occasionally have both effects.
I shall therefore go on to relate some facts that in my humble opinion were no hindrance to the change of the ministry.
The first I shall mention, was that of introducing certain new phrases into the court style, which had been very seldom or never made use of in former times. They usually ran in the following terms: "Madam, I cannot serve you while such a one is in employment: I desire humbly to resign my commission, if Mr. ——— continues secretary of state: I cannot answer that the city will lend money, unless my L— ——— be pr[esiden]t of the c[ounc]il. I must beg leave to surrender, except ——— has the staff. I must not accept the seals, unless ——— comes into the other office." This has been the language of late years from subjects to their prince.[9] Thus they stood upon terms, and must have their own conditions to ruin the nation. Nay, this dutiful manner of capitulating, had spread so far, that every understrapper began at length to perk up and assume: he "expected a regiment"; or "his son must be a major"; or "his brother a collector", else he threatened to vote "according to his conscience."
Another of their glorious attempts, was the clause intended in the bill for the encouragement of learning;[10] for taking off the obligation upon fellows of colleges in both Universities to enter upon holy orders: the design of which, as I have heard the undertakers often confess, was to remove the care of educating youth out of the hands of the clergy, who are apt to infuse into their pupils too great a regard for the Church and the Monarchy. But there was a farther secret in this clause, which may best be discovered by the first projectors, or at least the garblers of it; and these are known to be C[o]llns[11] and Tindal,[12] in conjunction with a most pious lawyer their disciple.[13]
What shall we say to their prodigious skill in arithmetic, discovered so constantly in their decision of elections; where they were able to make out by the rule of false, that three were more than three-and-twenty, and fifteen than fifty? Nay it was a maxim which I never heard any of them dispute, that in determining elections, they were not to consider where the right lay, but which of the candidates was likelier to be true to "the cause." This they used to illustrate by a very apt and decent similitude, of gaming with a sharper; if you cannot cheat as well as he, you are certainly undone.
Another cast of their politics was that of endeavouring to impeach an innocent l[a]dy, for no reason imaginable, but her faithful and diligent service to the Q[ueen],[14] and the favour her M[ajesty] bore to her upon that account, when others had acted contrary in so shameful a manner. What else was the crime? Had she treated her royal mistress with insolence or neglect? Had she enriched herself by a long practice of bribery, and obtaining exorbitant grants? Had she engrossed her M[ajest]y's favours, without admitting any access but through her means? Had she heaped employments upon herself, her family and dependants? Had she an imperious, haughty behaviour? Or, after all, was it a perfect blunder and mistake of one person for another? I have heard of a man who lay all night on a rough pavement; and in the morning, wondering what it could possibly be, that made him rest so ill, happened to see a feather under him, and imputed the uneasiness of his lodging to that. I remember likewise the story of a giant in Rabelais,[15] who used to feed upon wind-mills, but was unfortunately choked with a small lump of fresh butter, before a warm oven.
And here I cannot but observe how very refined some people are in their generosity and gratitude. There is a certain great person[16] (I shall not say of what sex) who for many years past, was the constant mark and butt, against which our present malcontents used to discharge their resentment: upon whom they bestowed all the terms of scurrility, that malice, envy and indignation could invent; whom they publicly accused of every vice that can possess a human heart: pride, covetousness, ingratitude, oppression, treachery, dissimulation, violence and fury, all in the highest extremes: but of late, they have changed their language on a sudden; that person is now the most faithful and just that ever served a prince; that person, originally differing from them in principles, as far as east and west, but united in practice, and falling together, they are now reconciled, and find twenty resemblances between each other, which they could never discover before. Tanti est ut placeam tibi perire.[17]
But to return: How could it be longer suffered in a free nation, that all avenues to preferment should be shut up, except a very few, when one or two stood constant sentry, who docked all favours they handed down; or spread a huge invisible net, between the prince and subject, through which nothing of value could pass? And here I cannot but admire at one consequence from this management, which is of an extraordinary nature: Generally speaking, princes who have ill ministers are apt to suffer in their reputation, as well as in the love of the people: but it was not so with the Q[ueen]. When the sun is overcast by those clouds he exhales from the earth, we still acknowledge his light and influence, and at last find he can dispel and drive them down to the horizon. The wisest prince, by the necessity of affairs, the misrepresentations of designing men, or the innocent mistakes, even of a good predecessor, may find himself encompassed by a crew of courtiers, whom time, opportunity and success, have miserably corrupted. And if he can save himself and his people from ruin, under the worst administration, what may not his subjects hope for, when with their universal applause, he changes hands, and makes use of the best?
Another great objection with me against the late party, was the cruel tyranny they put upon conscience, by a barbarous inquisition, refusing to admit the least toleration or indulgence. They imposed a hundred tests, but could never be prevailed with to dispense with, or take off the smallest, nor even admit of occasional conformity;[18] but went on daily (as their apostle Tindal expresseth it) narrowing their terms of communion; pronouncing nine parts in ten of the kingdom heretics, and shutting them out of the pale of their Church. These very men, who talk so much of a comprehension in religion among us, how came they to allow so little of it in politics, which is their sole religion? You shall hear them pretending to bewail the animosities kept up between the Church of England and Dissenters, where the differences in opinion are so few and inconsiderable; yet these very sons of moderation were pleased to excommunicate every man who disagreed with them in the smallest article of their political creed, or who refused to receive any new article, how difficult soever to digest, which the leaders imposed at pleasure to serve their own interest.
I will quit this subject for the present, when I have told one story.[19] "There was a great king in Scythia, whose dominions were bounded to the north, by the poor, mountainous territories of a petty lord, who paid homage as the king's vassal. The Scythian prime minister being largely bribed, indirectly obtained his master's consent to suffer this lord to build forts, and provide himself with arms, under pretence of preventing the inroads of the Tartars. This little depending sovereign, finding he was now in a condition to be troublesome, began to insist upon terms, and threatened upon every occasion to unite with the Tartars: upon which, the prime minister, who began to be in pain about his head, proposed a match betwixt his master, and the only daughter of this tributary lord, which he had the good luck to bring to pass: and from that time, valued himself as author of a most glorious union, which indeed was grown of absolute necessity by his corruption." This passage, cited literally from an old history of Sarmatia, I thought fit to set down, on purpose to perplex little smattering remarkers, and put them upon the hunt for an application.
[Footnote 1: No. 19 in the reprint. [T.S.]
[Footnote 2: Horace, "Satires," II. i. 1-3:
"There are, to whom too poignant I appear;
Beyond the laws of satire too severe.
My lines are weak, unsinewed, others say."—P. FRANCIS.
[T.S.]
[Footnote 3: One of these papers was "The Observator." The issue for December 6th (vol. ix., No. 93) dealt largely with "The Examiner's" attack on Verres (No. 18, ante), and the following number returned to the charge, criticizing the attacks made in Nos. 17 and 18 of "The Examiner" on the Duke of Marlborough. [T.S.]
[Footnote 4: This appears to refer to "The Tatler," No. 183 (June 10th, 1710), where Steele writes: "The ridicule among us runs strong against laudable actions. Nay, in the ordinary course of things, and the common regards of life, negligence of the public is an epidemic vice... It were to be wished, that love of their country were the first principle of action in men of business." [T.S.]
[Footnote 5: Virgil, "Aeneid," ii. 521-2:
"'Tis not such aid or such defence as thine
The time demands."—-R. KENNEDY.
[T.S.]
[Footnote 6: The paper in all probability was "The Medley," No. 10 (December 4th), which was mainly devoted to a reply to Swift's "calculation" as to the rewards of the Duke of Marlborough. Scott thinks the answerer may have been Defoe, for in No. 114 (of vol. vii.) of his "Review of the State of the British Nation," he has a passage evidently directed at Swift: "I know another, that is an orator in the Latin, a walking index of books, has all the libraries in Europe in his head, from the Vatican at Rome, to the learned collection of Dr. Salmon at Fleet-Ditch; but at the same time, he is a cynic in behaviour, a fury in temper, impolite in conversation, abusive and scurrilous in language, and ungovernable in passion. Is this to be learned? Then may I be still illiterate. I have been in my time, pretty well master of five languages, and have not lost them yet, though I write no bill over my door, or set Latin quotations in the front of the 'Review.' But, to my irreparable loss, I was bred but by halves; for my father, forgetting Juno's royal academy, left the language of Billingsgate quite out of my education: hence I am perfectly illiterate in the polite style of the street, and am not fit to converse with the porters and carmen of quality, who grace their diction with the beauties of calling names, and curse their neighbour with a bonne grace." [T.S.]
[Footnote 7: "Eclogues," ix. 30:
"So may thy bees the poisonous yew forgo."
ARCHDN. F. WRANGHAM.
[T.S.]
[Footnote 8: See No. 23, post. [T.S.]
[Footnote 9: See Swift's account of the intrigues of the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Godolphin to secure Harley's dismissal in his "Memoirs Relating to that Change" (vol. v., pp. 370-371 of present edition), and "Some Considerations" (vol. v., pp. 421-422, ibid.).]
[Footnote 10: The "Bill for the Encouragement of Learning" was introduced in the House of Commons, January 11th, 1709/10, passed March 14th, and obtained royal assent April 5th, 1710. There were several amendments, but the "Journals of the House of Commons" throw no light on their purport. [T.S.]
[Footnote 11: Anthony Collins (1676-1729), the deist, who wrote "A Discourse of Free-Thinking" (1713), which received a reply from Swift (see vol. iii., pp. 163-192 of present edition). The most thorough reply, however, was made by Bentley, under the pen-name "Phileleutherus Lipsiensis." Collins's controversies with Dr. Samuel Clarke were the outcome of the former's thinking on Locke's teaching. [T.S.]
[Footnote 12: Matthew Tindal (1657?-1733) was the author of "The Rights of the Christian Church Asserted" (1706), a work that created a great stir at the time, and occasioned many replies. Swift deals with him in his "Remarks upon a Book, intituled, 'The Rights of the Christian Church'" (see vol. iii., pp. 79-124, also note on p. 9 of same volume of present edition). [T.S.]
[Footnote 13: The pious lawyer was John Asgill (1659-1738), who was called to the bar in 1692. He was elected to Parliament for Bramber (1698-1700 and 1702-1707), but was expelled the House of Commons for blasphemy (see note on p. 9 of vol. iii, of present edition). [T.S.]
[Footnote 14: Mrs. Masham, when Abigail Hill, was appointed bedchamber-woman to the Princess of Denmark. See vol. v., p. 365 of present edition. [T.S.]
[Footnote 15: The giant Widenostrils had swallowed every pan, kettle, "dripping-pan, and brass and iron pot in the land, for want of windmills, which, were his daily food." But he "choked himself with eating a huge lump of fresh butter at the mouth of a hot oven, by the advice of physicians."—RABELAIS, iv. 17; Motteux's translation. [T.S.]
[Footnote 16: Daniel Finch, second Earl of Nottingham (1647-1730), was Secretary of State (1689-1693 and 1702-1704). He is the Don Diego Dismallo of "The Tatler" (No. 21). See also vol. v., p. 247, of present edition of Swift's works. [T.S.]
[Footnote 17: "It is worth while to perish that I may give you pleasure." [T.S.]
[Footnote 18: The Occasional Conformity Bill was rejected in 1702, and again in 1703 and 1704. It was, however, passed in 1711; but repealed in 1718. [T.S.]
[Footnote 19: "The Medley," No. 14 (January 1st, 1710) [sic], translates this story into an account of the Union. It is the same story, in effect, which gave great offence to the Scotch peers when printed in "The Public Spirit of the Whigs." The "Medley's" version runs: "England being bounded on the north by a poor mountainous people called Scots, who were vassals to that crown, and the English prime minister, being largely bribed, obtained the Q——'s consent for the Scots to arm and exercise themselves; and they finding they were now in a condition to be troublesome, began to insist upon terms, and threatened upon every occasion to join with the French. Upon which the prime minister, who began to be in pain about his head, set on foot a treaty to unite the two kingdoms, which he had the good luck to bring to pass, and from that time valued himself as author of a most glorious union, which indeed was grown of absolute necessity by his corruption." [T.S.]