No More Learning

. . Yes, faith, and when I write to M. D. , I am happy
too; it is just as if methinks you were here, and I prating to you, and telling
you where I have been.
In another place, he says to Stella:
I can hardly imagine you absent when I am reading your letter or writing
to you: No, faith, you are just here upon this little paper, and therefore I
see and talk with you every evening constantly, and sometimes in the morning.
Besides the personal interest, the Journal throws valuable
light on the social life of the day, both in Dublin and in London.
There are constant allusions to Stella's life in Ireland and to the
friends with whom she mixed. There was a club, with ombre,
claret and toasted oranges; there are descriptions of Stella's
rides and walks ; of dinners at three or four o'clock; of London
sights; of the Mohocks and other terrors; of the polite ways of
society, and of snuff taken by ladies and of jokes which they
indulged in. We hear, too, of the dangers of robbers at night
across the fields of Chelsea and of the risk of French privateers
in the Irish channel. The Journal is a mine of information for
the historian and the student of manners, and of absorbing interest
as a picture of character.


## p. 127 (#151) ############################################

Character of Swift's Life and Work 127
Swift's general correspondence is remarkable, like his other
writings, for the ease with which he could always find apt words
to express the exact meaning which he wished to convey. He
also has the merit, essential in a good correspondent, that he
can adapt himself readily to the character and point of view of
the person to whom he is writing. In his letters, we have not
only a graphic picture of Swift's own feelings and character, but
clear indications of the nature of the men with whom he was in
communication. In the letters to Pope, there is something of the
artificiality of the poet; in those to King, the dignity and state-
liness befitting a dignitary of the church ; and, in those to
Arbuthnot, the sincere affection which was a marked charm in
the doctor. Unfortunately, when Swift wrote to the companions
who occupied too much of his time in the period of his decay, he
condescended to jests unworthy of him. In writing to his friends,
he never leaned on his elbow to consider what he should write. '
There is evidence that letters of importance were often carefully
revised and considered before they were despatched; but, ordi-
narily, he wrote ‘nothing but nature and friendship,' as he said to
Pope, without any eye to the public.
Various interpretations have been placed on Swift's life and
work. Much has been written in his defence since the unsym-
pathetic studies of Macaulay, Jeffrey and Thackeray appeared ;
but he remains somewhat of a mystery. It is not easy to reconcile
his contempt for mankind with his affection for his friends and
their affection for him; or his attacks on woman with his love for
one, and the love which two women felt for him. It is, again,
difficult, in view of the decorum of his own life and his real, if
formal, religion, to explain the offensiveness of some of his writings.
Probably, this was due to a distorted imagination, the result of
physical or mental defect; and it must be remembered that it is
only here and there that coarseness appears. Sterne remarked,
'Swift has said a thousand things I durst not say. But there is
no lewdness in Swift's work, and no persistent strain of indecency,
as in Sterne.
Some have suggested that Swift's avoidance of the common
ties of human life was due to fears of approaching madness ;
others have supposed that the explanation was physical infirmity;
others, again, have found the key in his coldness of temperament
or in bis strong desire for independence. He appears to have
hungered for human sympathy, but to have wanted nothing more.
From the passion of love, he seems to have turned with disgust.


## p. 128 (#152) ############################################

128
Swift
The early years of poverty and dependence left an indelible mark
on him, and he became a disappointed and embittered man. His
mind, possessed by a spirit of scorn, turned in upon itself, and his
egotism grew with advancing years. Cursed with inordinate pride
and arrogance, he became like a suppressed volcano. His keen-
ness of vision caused him to see with painful clearness all that
was contemptible and degrading in his fellow men; but he had
little appreciation for what was good and great in them. The
pains and giddiness to which Swift was subject left their impression
upon his work ; 'at best,' he said, 'I have an ill head, and an
aching heart. ' His misanthropy was really a disease, and his life
of loneliness and disappointment was a tragedy, calling for pity and
awe, rather than for blame.
Swift's style is very near perfection. Clear, pointed, precise,
he seems to have no difficulty in finding words to express exactly
the impression which he wishes to convey. The sentences are not
always grammatically correct, but they come home to the reader,
like the words of a great orator or advocate, with convincing
force. He realizes so clearly what he is describing that the reader
is, of necessity, interested and impressed. There are no tricks of
style, no recurring phrases ; no ornaments, no studied effects ; the
object is attained without apparent effort, with an outward gravity
marking the underlying satire or cynicism, and an apparent
calmness concealing bitter invective. There is never any doubt
of his earnestness, whatever may be the mockery on the surface.
For the metaphysical and the speculative, he had no sympathy.
Swift was a master satirist, and his irony was deadly. He
was the greatest among the writers of his time, if we judge
them by the standard of sheer power of mind; yet, with some few
exceptions, his works are now little read. Order, rule, sobriety
,
—these are the principles he set before him when he wrote,
and they form the basis of his views on life, politics and religion.
Sincerity is never wanting, however much it is cloaked with
humour; but we look in vain for lofty ideals or for the prophetic
touch which has marked the bearers of the greatest names in our
literature. That which is spiritual was strangely absent in Swift.
He inveighs against folly and evil; but be seems to have no hope
for the world. He is too often found scorning the pettiness of his
fellow creatures, as in Lilliput, or describing with loathing the
coarseness of human nature, as in Brobdingnag. Satire and
denunciation alone are unsatisfying, and the satirist must, in the
end, take a lower place than the creative writer.


## p. 129 (#153) ############################################

CHAPTER V
ARBUTHNOT AND LESSER PROSE WRITERS
ARBUTHNOT's name is familiar to all readers of the literature
of the early portion of the eighteenth century; but, to most people,
he is known only by the references to him in the correspondence
of Pope and Swift, and what he wrote is now little read. This is
due, in part, to the nature of the topics which he chose, but chiefly
to the fact that he was lavish in the assistance which he gave to
his friends and took little trouble to preserve his work or to
ensure its receiving recognition.
John Arbuthnot was born in 1667 at Arbuthnott, where his
father had become parson in 1665. The village is near Arbuthnott
castle in Kincardineshire; but whether the Arbuthnots were con-
nected with the patron of the living, Viscount Arbuthnott, is
not certain. After the revolution, Arbuthnot's father refused to
conform to the General Assembly and was deprived of his living.
He retired to a small property in the neighbourhood, and died in
1696. His sons left their old home; John-who had studied at
Marischal college, Aberdeen, from 1681 to 1685-going to London,
where he earned a living by teaching mathematics. In 1692, he
published a translation of a book by Huygens on the laws of
chance, and, two years later, he entered University college, Oxford,
as a fellow-commoner, and acted as private tutor to a young man
admitted to the college on the same day. In the summer of
1696, Arbuthnot decided to try some other course of life, and, in
September, he took his doctor's degree in medicine at St Andrews,
where, we are told, he acquitted himself extraordinarily well in
both his public and private trials. He seems to have returned to
London to practise, and, at the end of 1697, he published An
Examination of Dr Woodward's Account of the Deluge, etc. , in
which he pointed out the difficulties which made it impossible to
accept Woodward's theory. Arbuthnot was now on friendly terms
with many wellknown literary and scientific men, including Pepys.
E. L. IX.
CH. V.
9


## p. 130 (#154) ############################################

130 Arbuthnot and Lesser Prose Writers
a
In 1701, he published at Oxford an admirable essay On the Useful-
ness of Mathematical Learning. In 1704, he was elected a fellow
of the Royal Society and, in 1705, was created an M. D. of Cambridge.
In this latter year, he had the good fortune to be at Epsom when
prince George of Denmark was taken ill, and he was always after-
wards employed by the prince as his physician. In the summer,
he dedicated to the prince a little volume, Tables of the Grecian,
Roman and Jewish Measures, Weights and Coins, and
appointed physician extraordinary to the queen, a post which
gave him considerable influence at court. In 1709, he became
physician in ordinary to the queen.
When the negotiations for the union of England and Scotland
were in progress, in 1706, Arbuthnot assisted in removing the
prejudices of his countrymen by publishing at Edinburgh A Sermon
preached to the People at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh on the
subject of the Union, and, before long, he was in close touch with
Robert Harley, who had begun to plot against the duke and
duchess of Marlborough. Abigail Hill, Harley's cousin, became
bedchamber-woman and was secretly married, in Arbuthnot's
lodgings in the palace, to Samuel Masham, of prince George's
household. In 1710, Arbuthnot's position was still further secured
both in his profession and at court: he was made a fellow of the
college of physicians and was constantly with the queen. The
downfall of the whigs followed the impeachment of Dr Sache-
verell, and Peter Wentworth expressed his belief that Arbuthnot
was “as much heard as any that give advice now. ' In September,
Swift came to London from Ireland, and undertook the manage-
ment of the tory periodical, The Examiner ; but it is not
until the following year that we find references to Arbuthnot
in Swift's Journal to Stella. The acquaintance of Swift and
Arbuthnot soon ripened into intimacy, and allusions to meet-
ings between them, practical jokes which they perpetrated, and
to the patronage which lay in Arbuthnot's way, become frequent.
Arbuthnot, like Swift, may have had a hand in the attack on the
Marlboroughs called The Story of the St. Alb-n's Ghost; but,
however that may be, we know he was responsible for a series
of pamphlets published, in 1712, with the object of convincing
the public of the desirability of bringing to a close the war
with France. The first of these pamphlets, published on 6 March,
was called Law is a Bottomless Pit, exemplified in the case
of the Lord Strutt, John Bull, Nicholas Frog, and Lewis
Baboon, who spent all they had in a Law Suit. Other pamphlets,
6


## p. 131 (#155) ############################################

Arbuthnot and the Tory Wits
131
published between March and July, were called John Bull
in his Senses, John Bull still in his Senses, An Appendix
to John Bull still in his Senses and Lewis Baboon turned
Honest, and John Bull Politician. Afterwards, these pieces were
rearranged and printed in Pope and Swift's Miscellanies of 1727
as The History of John Bull. These pamphlets carried on, in
their own way, the work done by Swift in his conduct of the
Allies and The Escaminer; but it would appear that Arbuthnot
was alone responsible for them. Arbuthnot, Pope told Spence,
‘was the sole writer of John Bull. '
In October, Arbuthnot published an amusing pamphlet en-
titled The Art of Political Lying, and he was one of the society
of tory statesmen and writers who called each other 'brother'
and had weekly meetings. At a dinner in April 1713, George
Berkeley, a young Irishman recently come to London, was present;
afterwards, he wrote:
Dr Arbuthnot is the first proselyte I have made of the Treatise 1 I came over
to print: his wit you have an instance of in the Art of Political Lying, and in
the Tracts of John Bull, of which he is the author. He is the Queen's
domestic physician, and in great esteem with the whole Court, a great
philosopher, and reckoned the first mathematician of the age, and has the
character of uncommon virtue and probity.
7
Pope was introduced to Arbuthnot by Swift, in 1713, and, soon
afterwards, we hear of the Scriblerus club, of which Pope, Swift
and Arbuthnot, Gay, Parnell, Congreve, Lord Oxford and Atter-
bury were members. The wits decided to publish the Memoirs of
Scriblerus and other pieces intended to ridicule, as Pope says,
'all the false tastes in learning, under the character of a man of
capacity enough, that had dipped into every art and science, but
injudiciously in each. ' The Memoirs of Scriblerus were not
published until 1741; but other pieces connected with the scheme
were included in the Miscellanies of 1727 and in The Dunciad.
From time to time, there were serious reports of the queen's
health, and Gay, in his Shepherd's Week, referred to Arbuthnot as
a skilful leech who had saved the queen's life. There were now
serious dissensions in the ministry, Oxford struggling hard against
his enemies; but, by July, Bolingbroke's friends felt sure of triumph.
Oxford's fall came on 27 July 1714; but the cabinet council
which was to have met on the 29th was postponed owing to the
illness of the queen. Everything that was possible was done by
Arbuthnot and other doctors; but it was clear that she was sinking,
1 Dialogue between Hylas and Philonour, 1713.
9-2


## p. 132 (#156) ############################################

132 Arbuthnot and Lesser Prose Writers
and steps were taken to secure the peaceful succession of the
elector of Hanover. Fuimus tories, was Arbuthnot's witty com-
ment on the fall of the party. On the queen’s death, he removed
to Chelsea and, soon after, paid a visit to a brother in France.
On his return, he took a house in Dover street, which became, as
he called it, Martin's office, where old friends were always welcome.
An unmerciful attack, in 1715, on Gilbert Burnet, called Notes
and Memorandums of the six days preceding the Death of a late
Right Reverend . . . , has been attributed to Arbuthnot; but it has
nothing of his characteristic style. Arbuthnot printed, in 1716, The
Humble Petition of the Colliers, Cooks, Cook-Maids, . . . and others,
and, in 1717, he had a hand in the play called Three Hours after
Marriage, for which, however, Gay was chiefly responsible! He
may or may not be the author of a pamphlet called An Account of
the sickness and death of Dr Woodward (1719). Probably, he wrote
a piece, printed in 1724, entitled Reasons humbly offered by the
Company exercising the trade and mystery of Upholders against
part of the Bill for the better viewing, searching and examining
of drugs, medicines, etc. Two pieces relating to a wild boy named
Peter, who had been brought to England and committed to Arbuth-
not's care, are of doubtful authenticity. They are called It cannot
rain but it pour8 (1725), and The most wonderful wonder that ever
appeared to the wonder of the British Nation (1726). Arbuthnot
was seriously ill in September 1725, when Swift wrote, “If the
world had but a dozen Arbuthnots I would burn my Travels. '
Swift's visit to London, in 1726, to arrange for the publication of
Gulliver's Travels, enabled him to see his friends, and he was
introduced by Arbuthnot to the princess of Wales, shortly after-
wards to become queen Caroline. After Swift's return to Ireland,
Arbuthnot, who was very musical, recommended singers for the choir
at St Patrick's. In the following year, he published Tables of Ancient
Coins, Weights and Measures, a larger version of the little book of
1705; and he was named an elect by the college of physicians,
and delivered the Harveian oration. He may have contributed to
T'he Craftsman in 1726–82. There is no doubt he contributed to
The Variorum Dunciad (1729); but his share cannot be identified.
He may be the author of an attack on Bentley called An account
of the state of learning in the Empire of Lilliput, and of Critical
Remarks on Capt. Gulliver's Travels, by Doctor Bantley.
.
i Cf. ante, p. 72.
Bolingbroke and his Times (The Sequel), by Sichel, W. , 1902, pp. 248 ff. ; and
cf. post, chap. VIII.


## p. 133 (#157) ############################################

6
Position of Arbuthnot 133
Arbuthnot's wife died in 1730, and his own health was bad;
but Pope told Swift that he was unalterable in friendship and
quadrille. In February 1731, he published A Brief Account of
Mr John Ginglicutt's Treatise concerning the Altercation or
Scolding of the Ancients, and, later in the year, he printed a
valuable medical work called An Essay concerning the nature of
Aliments. This was followed, in 1733, by An Essay concerning
the effects of Air on Human Bodies, and by a poem called
Know Yourself (1734). His friends were now much troubled by
his ill-health, which caused him to move to Hampstead for the
sake of the air; but recovery was impossible. Pope visited his
friend, and we have touching letters between Arbuthnot and Pope
and Swift. In January 1735, Pope published his Epistle to
Dr Arbuthnot, to whom he referred as the friend who had
helped him through this long disease, my life. ' Arbuthnot
died on 27 February, in Cork street. Swift wrote that the
death of his friends, Gay and the Doctor, had been terrible
wounds near his heart. ' Afterwards, Lord Chesterfield wrote of
him as both his physician and his friend, entirely confided in by
him in both capacities? . Johnson said of him, 'I think Dr Arbuthnot
the first man among them. He was the most universal genius,
being an excellent physician, a man of deep learning and a
man of much humour. ' Thackeray called him 'one of the wisest,
wittiest, most accomplished, gentlest of mankind.
A collection entitled Miscellaneous Works of the late Dr
Arbuthnot, in two volumes, was published at Glasgow in 1750.
Arbuthnot's son, George, inserted an advertisement in the papers,
declaring that the contents are not the works of my late father,
Dr Arbuthnot, but an imposition on the public. ' Some of the
pieces are certainly not Arbuthnot's, and others are of doubtful
authenticity; but a considerable portion are genuine, and the
advertisement must be taken to mean only that the collection was
unauthorised and untrustworthy. Fortunately, there is no doubt
as to Arbuthnot's claim to the best of the work attributed to him,
and the remainder may very well be neglected.
The History of John Bull will probably be found, nowadays,
to be the most interesting of Arbuthnot's works. To enjoy it,
some knowledge of the history of the time is necessary; but the
allegory, as the brief sketch that follows will show, is, for the most
part, transparent, and the humour is well kept up. The book
begins with an account of the quarrels since the death of Charles II
1 Letters of the Earl of Chesterfield, 1845, vol. 11, p. 446.


## p. 134 (#158) ############################################

134 Arbuthnot and Lesser Prose Writers
of Spain (Lord Strutt), who settled his estate upon his cousin
Philip Baboon, to the great disappointment of his cousin Esquire
South (archduke Charles of Austria). John Bull and Nicholas
Frog (the Dutch) were afraid that Lord Strutt would give all his
custom to his grandfather Lewis Baboon, and they threatened
Lord Strutt that, if he continued to deal with his grandfather,
they would go to law with him; while there were other tradesmen
who were glad to join against Lewis Baboon if Bull and Frog
would bear the charges of the suit. The case was put into the
hands of Hocus, the attorney (the duke of Marlborough), and
the decision went in favour of John Bull and his friends; but
repeated promises that the next verdict would be the final deter-
mination were not fulfilled, and new trials and new difficulties
continued to present themselves. Hocus proved himself superior
to most of his profession:
He kept always good clerks, he loved money, was smooth tongued, gave good
words, and seldom lost his temper; he was not worse than an infidel, for he
provided plentifully for his family; but he loved himself better than them all.
The neighbours reported that he was henpecked, which was most impossible
with such a mild-spirited woman as his wife was.
John Bull was so pleased with his success that he thought of
leaving off his trade and turning lawyer. John, in the main,
was
an honest, plain dealing fellow, choleric, bold, and of a very inconstant
temper. . . . He was very apt to quarrel with his best friends, especially if they
pretended to govern him. If you flattered him you might lead him like a
child. John's temper depended very much upon the air; his spirits rose and
fell with the weather-glass. John was quick and understood his business
very well: but no man alive was more careless in looking into his accounts,
or more cheated by partners, apprentices and servants. This was occasioned
by his being a boon companion, loving his bottle and his diversion; for, to
say truth, no man kept a better house than John, nor spent his money more
generously.
His mania for the law was checked by his discovery of an
intrigue between Hocus and Mrs Bull, his first wife (the late whig
parliament). Violent scenes ensued and, at last, Mrs Bull was
maltreated and died, leaving three daughters, Polemia, Discordia
and Usuria. John at once married again (the new tory parlia-
ment). This wife was a sober country gentlewoman, who gave
him good advice, urging him to bring the litigation to an end.
When he looked through his attorney's bill, he was shocked at its
length, and discovered that he had been egregiously cheated, and
that the whole burden of the lawsuit had been thrown upon his


## p. 135 (#159) ############################################

John Bull
>
The History of John
135
shoulders. The other tradesmen abused Mrs Bull, and said that
their interests were sacrificed.
The second of the series of pamphlets begins with the discovery
of a paper by the first Mrs Bull containing a vindication of the
duty of unfaithfulness incumbent upon wives in cases of infidelity
of their husbands. This, of course, is a satire on the disloyalty
of whigs. Then, Diego (earl of Nottingham) had an interview
with the second Mrs Bull, in the hope of satisfying her that John
must not desert his friends; but she showed that Nick Frog had
been deceiving John and endeavouring to make a private
arrangement with Lewis Baboon. The guardians of Bull's three
daughters (the whig leaders) came to John and urged that the
lawsuit should be continued; but John told them that he knew
when he was ill-used; that he was aware how his family were
apt to throw away their money in their cups; but that it was an
unfair thing to take advantage of his weakness and make him
set his hand to papers when he could hardly hold his pen. .
The third pamphlet relates to John Bull's mother (the church
of England), and his sister Peg (the Scottish church) and her love
affair with Jack (presbyterianism). The mother was of a meek
spirit, and strictly virtuous. She always put the best construction
on the words and actions of her neighbours; she was neither a prude
nor a fantastic old belle. John's sister was a poor girl who had
been starved as nurse. John had all the good bits: his sister had
:
only a little oatmeal or a dry crust; he had lain in the best apart-
ments with his bedchamber towards the south; she had lodged in
a garret exposed to the north wind; but she had life and spirit
in abundance and knew when she was ill-used. The pamphlet
ends with a letter from Nick Frog to John Bull urging him to
mortgage his estate, and with an account of a conference between
Bull, Frog, South and Lewis Baboon at the Salutation tavern
(congress of Utrecht). The fourth part of John Bull is concerned,
to some extent, with Jack and the bill against occasional con-
formity; and the fifth and last part refers to the meetings at the
Salutation inn and the intrigues of the various tradesmen. John
had interviews with Nick Frog and Lewis Baboon about Ecclesdown
castle (Dunkirk) and other matters, and the lawsuit was brought
to an end with John in possession of Ecclesdown, to his great
satisfaction.
Arbuthnot’s masterpiece owed something to Swift's Tale of a
Tub, published eight years earlier; but the plot in Swift's book is
very slight, and there was nothing in the past history of satire to


## p. 136 (#160) ############################################

136 Arbuthnot and Lesser Prose Writers
correspond to the clearly drawn characters and the well developed
story designed to promote certain views on public policy in the
minds of the people, which are to be found in John Bull.
The Art of Political Lying is a delightful skit, like those
pamphlets called “The Works of the Learned. ” Political lying is
the art of convincing the people of salutary falsehoods, for some
good end. ' A lie, it is suggested, is best contradicted by another
lie; if it be said that a great person is dying, the answer should
be, not that he is in perfect health, but that he is slowly recovering.
One chapter of the promised treatise was to be an enquiry, which
of the two parties are the greatest political liars. In both are to be
found great geniuses; but they are prone to glut the market with lies.
Heads of parties are warned against believing their own lies; all
parties have been subject to this misfortune, due to too great
a zeal in the practice of the art. There are many forms of political
lies: the additory, the detractory, the translatory, which transfers
the merit of a man's good action, or the demerit of a man's bad
action, to another.
When one ascribes anything to a person which does not belong to him, the
lie ought to be calculated not quite contradictory to his known quality. For
example, one would not make the French king present at a Protestant con-
venticle, nor the Dutch paying more than their quota.
The wit of this jeu d'esprit is worthy of Swift at his best, and the
method of gravely asserting impossible things and arguing from
those assertions is often to be found in Swift's work. The style,
too, bas the vigorous and idiomatic character of Swift's, and there
is abundance of humour.
The Memoirs of Martinus Scriblerus, of which we have only
the first book, is a curious collection of satires on the learned;
it contains much wit, but a good deal of the satire cannot be
understood without considerable knowledge of metaphysics and
medicine. The earlier part of the work, which relates to the
parentage and bringing-up of Scriblerus, gave many hints to
Sterne for his account of Tristram Shandy and his father. Martin
was born at Münster, the son of a learned gentleman, Cornelius,
by profession an antiquary. When the child was born, his father
remembered that the cradle of Hercules was a shield, and, finding
an antique buckler, he determined that the child should be laid
on it and brought into the study and shown to learned men; but
the maid-servant, having regard to her reputation for cleanliness,
scoured the shield and, in so doing, showed that a certain promi-
nency, on which the antiquaries had speculated, was nothing but


## p. 137 (#161) ############################################

Memoirs of Scriblerus
137
the head of a nail. The nurse was indignant at the father's
views about the proper food for the infant and about its early
education. He found an assistant in a boy called Crambe, who
had a great store of words and composed a treatise on syllogisms.
Martin had the Greek alphabet stamped on his gingerbread,
played games after the manner of the ancients and wore a
geographical suit of clothes. Afterwards, he became a critic,
practised medicine, studied the diseases of the mind, and en-
deavoured to find out the seat of the soul. Then, he went on
his travels, and visited the countries mentioned in Gulliver's
Travels.
The Memoirs of Scriblerus were printed in the second volume
of Pope's prose works (1741), with a note from the booksellers to
the reader which stated that the Memoirs, and all the tracts in the
same name, were written by Pope and Arbuthnot, 'except the
Essay on the Origin of Sciences, in which Parnell had some hand,
as had Gay in the Memoirs of a Parish Clerk, while the rest were
Pope's. ' There cannot, however, be any doubt that the Memoirs
are wholly, or almost wholly, by Arbuthnot, though suggestions
were probably made by his friends; Pope's earlier editors admitted
that the knowledge of medicine and philosophy displayed marked
many of the chapters as the work of the Doctor. ' "To talk of
Martin,' wrote Swift to Arbuthnot, “in any hands but yours is folly.
For you every day give us better hints than all of us together
could do in a twelvemonth. '
The Memoirs abound in wit, and are written with delightful
gravity; but some modern readers will find an element of truth in
Johnson's judgment that the absence of more of the Memoirs need
not be lamented, for the follies ridiculed were hardly practised :
'It has been little read, or when read has been forgotten, as
no man could be wiser, better or merrier by remembering it. '
Arbuthnot's work was at its best when (as in John Bull) he was
dealing with matters of the world of action. In the Memoirs of
Scriblerus, he attacked follies which, for the most part, though not
wholly, were obsolete ; and, though this criticism applies, also, to
some of the matter in Sterne's Tristram Shandy, yet the later
humorist dealt with a wider field, which embraced much besides
Mr Shandy's peculiarities, and he had a love for his characters
which makes them live, and prevented him from allowing them to
become grotesque.
Of the minor pieces connected with the Scriblerus scheme, the
chief is An Essay concerning the Origin of Sciences (1732), in which
6


## p. 138 (#162) ############################################

138 Arbuthnot and Lesser Prose Writers
Pope claimed some share. In this humorous piece, the inhabitants
of India, Greece and Italy are said to have derived their know-
ledge from men-monkeys, the descendants of the original
Ethiopians, with whom the gods conversed. The design, wrote
Pope, was 'to ridicule such as build general assertions upon two
or three loose quotations from the ancients. ' Virgilius Restaura-
tus contains some amusing emendations in ridicule of Bentley,
probably contributed by various members of the club, but chiefly
by Arbuthnot. A Brief Account of Mr John Ginglicutt's Treatise
concerning the Altercation or Scolding of the Ancients (1731), as
Pope said, is of little value ; its object was to satirise the practice
of political opponents in applying to each other the language of
Billingsgate, by showing that this sort of altercation is ancient and
classical, while what is commonly considered polite is barbarous.
Arbuthnot's principal medical works are An Essay concerning
the nature of Aliments (1731) and An Essay concerning the effect
of Air on Human Bodies (1733). In the first of these books, both
of which may be read with interest by laymen, he argued that all
that is done by medicine might be done equally well by diet.
Sir Benjamin Richardson, who has called the second work ‘one of
the most remarkable books in the literature of medicine,' says
that Arbuthnot was far in advance of his age in medical
science, and made some remarkable discoveries. An Essay on
the Usefulness of Mathematical Learning (1701) is an admirable
and well reasoned paper, with some good suggestions respecting
the study of mathematics.
Two other serious writings may be mentioned briefly. A Sermon
preached to the People at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh (1706) was
in defence of the union with England, then under discussion. The
text was 'Better is he that laboureth and aboundeth in all things,
than he that boasteth himself and wanteth bread. ' Arbuthnot's
countrymen were urged, in this wise and moderate paper, to
pocket their pride, and take the benefits that the union offered
to them. 'I have set before you to-day, on one hand, industry and
riches ; on the other, pride and poverty'; it was the interest of
all classes in Scotland to accept the offer of a partnership in
the great blessings which England could bestow. The other
piece, INNOI £E'ATTON Know Yourself (1734), is Arbuthnot's
sole poem. In this earnest study, probably his last work, he
described the principles of his own life. Divine truth made
clear his way, encouraging him with the revelation of his high
descent.


## p. 139 (#163) ############################################

William King
139
In vain thou hop'st for bliss on this poor clod,
Return, and seek thy father, and thy God:
Yet think not to regain thy native sky,
Borne on the wings of vain philosophy;
Mysterious passage! hid from human eyes;
Soaring you'll sink, and sinking you will rise;
Let humble thoughts thy wary footsteps guide,
Regain by meekness what you lost by pride.
There seems to be no evidence that Arbuthnot knew William
King; but King was a tory, used his wit in the interests of the
party and was acquainted with Swift and Gay. If Arbuthnot and
King met, they must have had a good deal in common, besides
easy-going temperaments. King was born in 1663, and was
educated at Westminster and Christ Church, Oxford, where he took
his degree of D. C. L. in 1692. (He should not be confused either
with Dr William King, archbishop of Dublin, or with Dr William
King, of St Mary hall, Oxford, who wrote The Toast. ) His first
noticeable piece was an amusing Dialogue showing the way to
Modern Preferment (1690). He became an advocate at Doctor's
Commons and secretary to princess Anne, and joined Charles
Boyle in the campaign against Bentley, in the very clever
Dialogues of the Dead, and other pieces. Other amusing works
were A Journey to London in the year 1698, in which King
burlesqued a book on Paris written by Martin Lister, and The
Transactioner, with some of his philosophical Fancies (1700), in
which he ridiculed Sir Hans Sloane, editor of the Transactions
of the Royal Society. King was given several posts in Ireland,
where he wrote a poem, Molly of Mountown, on a cow whose
milk he used ; but he returned to England about 1707, with
straitened means. He had already issued a volume of Mis-
cellanies in Prose and Verse, dedicated to the members of the
Beef-Steak club, which contains much of his best work. A clever
poem was published, in 1708, under the title The Art of Cookery,
in imitation of Horace's Art of Poetry, and, in 1709, he printed
three parts of Useful Transactions in Philosophy and other sorts
of Learning, a skit on the Philosophical Transactions and on
Sloane, which may have furnished hints to Arbuthnot when writing
the Memoirs of Scriblerus.
King wrote on the side of the high church party in the
Sacheverell controversy, and attacked Marlborough in Rufinus
(1712). He seems to have been an inmate of the Fleet prison ;
but Swift obtained for the 'poor starving wit' the post of
gazetteer, an office which he resigned in six months because,


## p. 140 (#164) ############################################

140 Arbuthnot and Lesser Prose Writers
apparently, it required too much work, and regular hours. His
last piece of importance was Useful Miscellanies, Part the First
(1712), a curious but amusing compilation. A few months later, he
died. His writings, which were edited by the indefatigable John
Nichols in 1776, deserve to be better known than they now are.
Literary criticism at the end of the seventeenth century owed
much to Boileau and Rapin, who pleaded for 'good sense' and
urged the wisdom of following classical models. Thomas Rymer,
born in 1641, the son of a Yorkshire roundhead, published, in
1674, a translation of Rapin's Reflections on Aristotle's Treatise
of Poesie, and wrote a play, Edgar, or the English Monarch
(1678), in accordance with classical laws. But his principal
literary work was The Tragedies of the Last Age considered
and examined by the Practice of the Ancients, and by the
Common Sense of all Ages (1678), in which he examined three
of Beaumont and Fletcher's plays, and Paradise Lost. These
pieces he found to be 'as rude as our architecture. ' Both the
poetry and Gothic architecture were condemned because they
were not based on classical models. Rime he defended against
the slender sophistry’ in Paradise Lost, 'which some are pleased
to call a poem. ' Dryden, in the preface to All for Love (1678),
said that he had here endeavoured to follow the practice of the
ancients, 'who, as Mr Rymer has judiciously observed, are, and
ought to be, our masters. ' In order, however, to imitate Shake-
speare in his style, he disencumbered himself of rime: "Not that
I condemn my former way, but that this is more proper to my
present purpose. ' In 1692, Rymer published (with the date 1693
on the title-page), A short View of Tragedy: Its original
excellency and corruption, with some reflections on Shakespeare
and other practitioners for the stage ; in which he proved his
incompetence as a critic by expressing contempt for Shakespeare's
tragedies. Dryden's criticism, said Johnson, ‘has the majesty of a
queen ; Rymer's has the ferocity of a tyrant. ' In a letter to
Dennis', Dryden said that our comedy was far beyond anything of
the ancients;
and notwithstanding our irregularities, so is our Tragedy. Shakespeare had
a genius for it; and we know (in spite of Mr Rymer) that genius alone is a
greater virtue (if I may so call it) than all other qualifications put together.
. . . Who will read Mr Rymer, or not read Shakespeare ? For my own part,
I reverence Mr Rymer's learning, but I detest his ill-nature and his arro-
gance.
1 Select Works of Mr John Dennis, 1718, vol. 11, p. 504.


## p. 141 (#165) ############################################

6
Rymer. Langbaine. Gildon 141
But the preaching of common sense' and of the need of laws in
writing was a useful work, and, if Rymer is full of extravagances,
he was at least qualified by his learning to discuss the practice of
the ancients. Spence says that Pope thought him generally right,
though unduly severe on some of the plays he criticised? Rymer
devoted the later years of his life to historical work, and we
owe him a great debt for Foedera, fifteen volumes of which
appeared before his death in 1713.
Gerard Langbaine, son of the provost of Queen's college,
Oxford, of the same name, is known chiefly by his Account
of the English Dramatic Poets, 1691. Langbaine frequented
,
the theatre and collected plays, and had already published,
in 1687—8, catalogues of plays, with notes concerning the
sources of the plots. His passion for discovering plagiarisms
annoyed Dryden and others, but his work was scholarly and is
still sometimes useful. A new edition of his book was brought
out by Charles Gildon in 1699, under the title The Lives and
Characters of the English Dramatic Poets. The name Gildon,
a hack writer on the whig side, is familiar to posterity because
Pope wrote of his 'venal quill. ' He is described by a con-
temporary as of 'great literature and mean genius. ' Neither his
critical nor his dramatic work is of value; but he wrote an
entertaining book, A Comparison between the Two Stages (1702),
in which, in dialogue forms, he discussed the plays and players of
the day. Some interesting critical views are expressed in a letter
to Prior (1721) on one of his tragedies, in which Gildon says that
to move the passions is the chief excellence in that way of writing,
and so allowed to be by all ages but the present, when critics had
arisen who made diction or language the chief mark of a good
or bad tragedy, and such a diction as, though correct, was
scarcely tolerable in this way of writing ; ‘for tragedy, consisting
of the representation of different passions, must, of necessity, vary
its style according to the nature of each passion which it brings
on the stage? ' Gildon's Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures
of Mr D- De F-, of London, Hosier, who has lived above
fifty years by himself, in the kingdoms of North and South
Britain' (1719) is an interesting pamphlet on the new romance
of Robinson Crusoe, which shows that the authorship of that
1 Cf. , as to Rymer, ante, vol. VIII, p. 195, and, as to him and Jeremy Collier, see
ibid. pp. 163—4.
? Calendar of Manuscripts of the Marquis of Bath, Hist. MSS Comm. , 1908,
vol. in, p. 496.


## p. 142 (#166) ############################################

142 Arbuthnot and Lesser Prose Writers
work was no secret to some, at least, of Defoe's contemporaries.
Gildon's charges of inconsistencies in Robinson Crusoe are some-
times without foundation.
One of the best known critics of his time was the redoubtable
John Dennis. Dennis had the advantage of an education at
Harrow and Cambridge, of early travel in France and Italy and
of the company, in his earlier days, of many men of culture. His
plays are noticed elsewhere, and it is not necessary to give details
of his quarrels with Pope, Steele, Addison and others. His later
criticisms are marred by pedantry and abuse, but there is often
real merit in his work? He answered Collier's attack on the stage
with two pamphlets, intended to be 'a vindication of the stage,
and not of the corruptions or the abuses of it,' and, in 1701,
published The Advancement and Reformation of Modern Poetry:
a Critical Discourse, which was followed, in 1704, by The Grounds
of Criticism in Poetry. An Essay on the Operas after the Italian
Manner (1706), was directed against the growth of effeminacy.
An Essay on the Genius and Writings of Shakespeare (1712),
contains some excellent passages, but, for the most part, shows
the writer's inability to understand or appreciate his subject.
Shakespeare, he says, had great qualities by nature, but he made
gross mistakes : 'If he had had the advantage of art and learning,
he would have surpassed the very best and strongest of the
Ancients. The poetical justice of which he was so fond he often
missed in Shakespeare, and he regretted that the crowd in Julius
Caesar showed 'want of art. His favourite views are indicated
'
on the title-page of The Advancement and Reformation of
Modern Poetry (1701), which is in two parts,
the first, showing that the principal reason why the Ancients excelled the
Moderns in the greater poetry, was because they mixed religion with poetry.
The second, proving that by joining poetry with the religion revealed to us in
Sacred Writ, the modern poets might come to equal the Ancients.
The answer to the question why he preferred Oedipus to Julius
Caesar, is, says Dennis, 'first, the Oedipus is exactly just
and regular, and the Julius Caesar is very extravagant and
irregular: secondly, the Oedipus is very religious, and the Julius
Caesar is irreligious. '
‘Every tragedy,' he adds, ought to be a very solemn lecture, inculcating
a particular Providence, and showing it plainly protecting the good, and
1 Ante, vol. VIII, pp. 193—4.
2 See John Dennis. His Life and Criticism, by Paul, H. G. , New York, 1911.


## p. 143 (#167) ############################################

Dennis. Cibber. Hughes 143
chastizing the bad, or at least the violent. . . . If it is otherwise, it is either an
empty amusement, or a scandalous and pernicious libel upon the
government
of the worldi!
The same views are repeated in The Grounds of Criticism in
Poetry. Poetry, he says, had fallen to a low level, because of
ignorance of the rules by which poets ought to proceed.
If the end of poetry be to instruct and reform the world, that is, to bring
mankind from irregularity, extravagance and confusion, to rule and order,
how this should be done by a thing that is in itself irregular and extravagant
is difficult to be conceived 2.
One of the most entertaining as well as useful books of the
first half of the eighteenth century is An Apology for the Life of
Mr Colley Cibber, Comedian, 1740; but of this mention has
already been made in a previous chapter, in connection with
Cibber's earlier plays. In 1730, Cibber was made poet laureate,
an appointment which furnished material for the wits who
attacked him. From the time that Pope substituted Cibber for
Theobald as hero of the Dunciad, Cibber has been constantly
misrepresented as being a dunce, whereas his plays are amusing,
and he is an admirable dramatic critic. His worst fault was
inordinate vanity; but this, to some extent, was carried off by the
liveliness of his disposition. Johnson was not friendly to Cibber,
but he admitted that An Apology was 'very well done, and
Horace Walpole calls it 'inimitable. The book is admirable as
an autobiography, because it displays the whole character of the
writer; the criticism is intelligent and well informed; and the
style is bright and amusing.
John Hughes, born in 1677, collected materials for the first
two volumes of a History of England (1706), which is generally
known as White Kennett's, who wrote the third volume. He
translated Fontenelle's Dialogues of the Dead and wrote an
opera ; and, in 1715, he published The Works of Mr Edmund
Spenser . . . with a glossary explaining the old and obscure words.
This, the first attempt at a critical edition of Spenser, appeared at
a time when there was some wish in the air for relief from the
rimed couplet. Prior, in the preface to Solomon, said, 'He that
writes in rhymes, dances in fetters'; and he had real respect for
Spenser, though he considered the verse of the older writers 'too
dissolute and wild. ' But, to Spenser's first editor, his stanza
See 'Epistle dedicatory' to The Advancement, etc.
? As to Dennis's own plays, see ante, vol. VIII, pp. 193—4.
: See ibid. pp. 176—7.
6


## p. 144 (#168) ############################################

144 Arbuthnot and Lesser Prose Writers
seemed 'defective' and his general composition ‘monstrous. '
'
Hughes's own verse is of no importance ; reference has been
already made to his one tragedy, The Siege of Damascus (1720),
which has some merit, and was very successful"; but the author
died on the night of its production. Johnson says that Hughes
was 'not only an honest but a pious man. ' Swift and Pope agreed
that he was among the mediocrities in prose as well as verse, and
that he was too grave for them. Hughes had written for The
Tatler and The Spectator, and Steele, in The Theatre, said that
his pen was always engaged in raising the mind to what was noble
and virtuous.
A word must be added here as to several other editors of
English classics, to some of whom reference is made also in
other chapters of this work. Nicholas Rowe has been previously
treated, both as a dramatista and as the producer, in 1709, of the
first edition of Shakespeare that can in any way be called critical 3.
His chief service in the latter capacity lay in his preserving, in the
'Life' which he prefixed to the plays, information, derived largely
from Betterton, which might otherwise have been forgotten. To
subsequent editions of Shakespeare belonging to this period, it is
unnecessary again to refer4
To Warburton's edition (1747), Thomas Edwards, a barrister
who devoted most of his time to literature, published a Supple-
ment, which, in the third edition (1748), was called The Canons of
Criticism, and a Glossary, ‘being a supplement to Mr Warburton's
edition of Shakespeare, collected from the notes in that celebrated
work, and proper to be bound up with it. ' The Canons are
satirical, with illustrations from Edwards's victim; e. g. , a critic 'has
a right to alter any passage which he does not understand'; 'He
may explain a difficult passage by words absolutely unintelligible. '
Johnson compared Edwards's attack to a fly stinging a stately
horse; but, as Warton says, the attack was allowed by all
impartial critics to have been decisive and judicious. ' Warburton
retorted in notes to The Dunciad. Edwards died in 1757, at
Samuel Richardson's house. His Canons of Criticism went
through many editions.
Benjamin Heath, a town clerk of Exeter, with literary tastes,
published notes on the Greek dramatists, and, in 1765, A Revisal
of Shakespeare's Text, 'wherein the alterations introduced into it
by the more modern editors and critics are particularly considered. '
1 See ante, vol. VIII, p. 194.
2 See ibid. pp. 195—7.
3 See ante, vol. v, pp. 267–8.
• See ibid. pp. 268 ff.


## p. 145 (#169) ############################################

Shakespearean Critics
145
Heath attacked Pope, Hanmer and Warburton, but agreed that
the public was under real obligations to Theobald. He himself
was not so fortunate as to be furnished with the Shakespeare
folios, still less the quartos ; but he concluded that all readings
deserving of attention were given by Pope or Theobald. Some of
his annotations were included in a collection published in 1819.
Among the manuscripts which he left unpublished on his death,
in 1766, were notes (used by Dyce) on Beaumont and Fletcher's
plays.
John Upton, rector of Great Rissington and prebendary of
Rochester, edited Epictetus and Spenser's Faerie Queene (1758),
and published Critical Observations on Shakespeare (1746).