Lavengro is the history up to a certain period of one of
rather a peculiar mind and system of nerves, with an exterior shy
and cold, under which lurk much curiosity, especially with regard
to what is wild and extraordinary, a considerable quantity of
energy and industry, and an unconquerable love of
independence. It narrates his earliest dreams and feelings,
dwells with minuteness on the ways, words, and characters of his
father, mother, and brother, lingers on the occasional
resting-places of his wandering, half-military childhood,
describes the gradual hardening of his bodily frame by robust
exercises, his successive struggles, after his family and himself
have settled down in a small local capital, to obtain knowledge
of every kind, but more particularly philological lore; his
visits to the tent of the Romany chal, and the parlour of the
Anglo-German philosopher; the effect produced upon his character
by his flinging himself into contact with people all widely
differing from each other, but all extraordinary; his reluctance
to settle down to the ordinary pursuits of life; his struggles
after moral truth; his glimpses of God and the obscuration of the
Divine Being to his mind’s eye; and his being cast upon the
world of London by the death of his father, at the age of
nineteen. In the world within a world, the world of London,
it shows him playing his part for some time as he best can, in
the capacity of a writer for reviews and magazines, and describes
what he saw and underwent whilst labouring in that capacity; it
represents him, however, as never forgetting that he is the son
of a brave but poor gentleman, and that if he is a hack author,
he is likewise a scholar. It shows him doing no
dishonourable jobs, and proves that if he occasionally associates
with low characters, he does so chiefly to gratify the curiosity
of a scholar.
In his conversations with the apple-woman of London Bridge,
the scholar is ever apparent, so again in his acquaintance with
the man of the table, for the book is no
raker up of the uncleanness of London, and if it gives what at
first sight appears refuse, it invariably shows that a pearl of
some kind, generally a philological one, is contained amongst it;
it shows its hero always accompanied by his love of independence,
scorning in the greatest poverty to receive favours from anybody,
and describes him finally rescuing himself from peculiarly
miserable circumstances by writing a book, an original book,
within a week, even as Johnson is said to have written his
“Rasselas,” and Beckford his “Vathek,”
and tells how, leaving London, he betakes himself to the roads
and fields.
In the country it shows him leading a life of roving
adventure, becoming tinker, gypsy, postillion, ostler;
associating with various kinds of people, chiefly of the lower
classes, whose ways and habits are described; but, though leading
this erratic life, we gather from the book that his habits are
neither vulgar nor vicious, that he still follows to a certain
extent his favourite pursuits, hunting after strange characters,
or analysing strange words and names. At the conclusion of
Chapter XLVII., which terminates the first part of the history,
it hints that he is about to quit his native land on a grand
philological expedition.
Those who read this book with attention—and the author
begs to observe that it would be of little utility to read it
hurriedly—may derive much information with respect to
matters of philology and literature; it will be found treating of
most of the principal languages from Ireland to China, and of the
literature which they contain; and it is particularly minute with
regard to the ways, manners, and speech of the English section of
the most extraordinary and mysterious clan or tribe of people to
be found in the whole world—the children of Roma. But
it contains matters of much more importance than anything in
connection with philology, and the literature and manners of
nations. Perhaps no work was ever offered to the public in
which the kindness and providence of God have been set forth by
more striking examples, or the machinations of priestcraft been
more truly and lucidly exposed, or the dangers which result to a
nation when it abandons itself to effeminacy, and a rage for what
is novel and fashionable, than the present.
With respect to the kindness and providence of God, are they
not exemplified in the case of the old apple-woman and her
son. These are beings in many points bad, but with warm
affections, who, after an agonising separation, are restored to
each other, but not until the hearts of both are changed and
purified by the influence of affliction. Are they not
exemplified in the case of the rich gentleman, who touches
objects in order to avert the evil chance? This being has
great gifts and many amiable qualities, but does not everybody
see that his besetting sin is selfishness. He fixes his
mind on certain objects, and takes inordinate interest in them,
because they are his own, and those very objects, through the providence of God, which is kindness in disguise,
become snakes and scorpions to whip him. Tired of various
pursuits, he at last becomes an author, and publishes a book,
which is very much admired, and which he loves with his usual
inordinate affection; the book, consequently, becomes a viper to
him, and at last he flings it aside and begins another; the book,
however, is not flung aside by the world, who are benefited by
it, deriving pleasure and knowledge from it; so the man who
merely wrote to gratify self, has already done good to others,
and got himself an honourable name. But God will not allow
that man to put that book under his head and use it as a pillow:
the book has become a viper to him, he has banished it, and is
about another, which he finishes and gives to the world; it is a
better book than the first, and every one is delighted with it;
but it proves to the writer a scorpion, because he loves it with
inordinate affection; but it was good for the world that he
produced this book, which stung him as a scorpion. Yes; and
good for himself, for the labour of writing it amused him, and
perhaps prevented him from dying of apoplexy; but the book is
banished, and another is begun, and herein, again, is the
providence of God manifested; the man has the power of producing
still, and God determines that he shall give to the world what
remains in his brain, which he would not do, had he been
satisfied with the second work; he would have gone to sleep upon
that as he would upon the first, for the man is selfish and
lazy. In his account of what he suffered during the
composition of this work, his besetting sin of selfishness is
manifest enough; the work on which he is engaged occupies his
every thought, it is his idol, his deity, it shall be all his
own, he won’t borrow a thought from any one else; and he is
so afraid lest, when he publishes it, that it should be thought
that he had borrowed from any one, that he is continually
touching objects, his nervous system, owing to his extreme
selfishness, having become partly deranged. He is left
touching, in order to banish the evil chance from his book, his
deity. No more of his history is given; but does the reader
think that God will permit that man to go to sleep on his third
book, however extraordinary it may be? Assuredly not.
God will not permit that man to rest till he has cured him to a
certain extent of his selfishness, which has, however, hitherto
been very useful to the world.
Then, again, in the tale of Peter Williams, is not the hand of
Providence to be seen? This person commits a sin in his
childhood, utters words of blasphemy, the remembrance of which,
in after life, preying upon his imagination, unfits him for quiet
pursuits, to which he seems to have been naturally inclined; but
for the remembrance of that sin, he would have been Peter
Williams the quiet, respectable Welsh farmer, somewhat fond of
reading the ancient literature of his country in winter evenings,
after his work was done. God, however, was aware that there
was something in Peter Williams to entitle him to
assume a higher calling; he therefore permits this sin, which,
though a childish affair, was yet a sin and committed
deliberately, to prey upon his mind till he becomes at last an
instrument in the hand of God, a humble Paul, the great preacher,
Peter Williams, who, though he considers himself a reprobate and
a castaway, instead of having recourse to drinking in mad
desperation, as many do who consider themselves reprobates, goes
about Wales and England preaching the word of God, dilating on
His power and majesty, and visiting the sick and afflicted, until
God sees fit to restore to him his peace of mind; which He does
not do, however, until that mind is in a proper condition to
receive peace, till it has been purified by the pain of the one
idea which has so long been permitted to riot in his brain; which
pain, however, an angel, in the shape of a gentle, faithful wife,
had occasionally alleviated; for God is merciful even in the
blows which He bestoweth, and will not permit any one to be
tempted beyond the measure which he can support. And here
it will be as well for the reader to ponder upon the means by
which the Welsh preacher is relieved from his mental misery: he
is not relieved by a text from the Bible, by the words of
consolation and wisdom addressed to him by his angel-minded wife,
nor by the preaching of one yet more eloquent than himself; but
by a quotation made by Lavengro from the life of Mary Flanders,
cut-purse and prostitute, which life Lavengro had been in the
habit of reading at the stall of his old friend the apple-woman,
on London Bridge, who had herself been very much addicted to the
perusal of it, though without any profit whatever. Should
the reader be dissatisfied with the manner in which Peter
Williams is made to find relief, the author would wish to answer,
that the Almighty frequently accomplishes His purposes by means
which appear very singular to the eyes of men, and at the same
time to observe that the manner in which that relief is obtained,
is calculated to read a lesson to the proud, fanciful, and
squeamish, who are ever in a fidget lest they should be thought
to mix in low society, or to bestow a moment’s attention on
publications which are not what is called of a perfectly
unobjectionable character. Had not Lavengro formed the
acquaintance of the old apple-woman on London Bridge, he would
not have had an opportunity of reading the life of Mary Flanders;
and, consequently, of storing in a memory which never forgets
anything, a passage which contained a balm for the agonised mind
of poor Peter Williams. The best medicines are not always
found in the finest shops. Suppose, for example, if,
instead of going to London Bridge to read, he had gone to
Albemarle Street, and had received from the proprietors of the
literary establishment in that very fashionable street permission
to read the publications on the tables of the saloons there, does
the reader think he would have met any balm in those publications
for the case of Peter Williams? does the reader suppose that he
would have found Mary Flanders there? He would
certainly have found that highly unobjectionable publication,
“Rasselas,” and the “Spectator,” or
“Lives of Royal and Illustrious Personages,” but, of
a surety, no Mary Flanders; so when Lavengro met with Peter
Williams, he would have been unprovided with a balm to cure his
ulcerated mind, and have parted from him in a way not quite so
satisfactory as the manner in which he took his leave of him; for
it is certain that he might have read “Rasselas,” and
all the other unexceptionable works to be found in the library of
Albemarle Street, over and over again, before he would have found
any cure in them for the case of Peter Williams. Therefore
the author requests the reader to drop any squeamish nonsense he
may wish to utter about Mary Flanders, and the manner in which
Peter Williams was cured.
And now with respect to the old man who knew Chinese, but
could not tell what was o’clock. This individual was
a man whose natural powers would have been utterly buried and
lost beneath a mountain of sloth and laziness, had not God
determined otherwise. He had in his early years chalked out
for himself a plan of life in which he had his own ease and
self-indulgence solely in view; he had no particular bad passions
to gratify, he only wished to lead an easy, quiet life, just as
if the business of this mighty world could be carried on by
innocent people fond of ease and quiet, or that Providence would
permit innocent, quiet drones to occupy any portion of the earth
and to cumber it. God had at any rate decreed that this man
should not cumber it as a drone. He brings a certain
affliction upon him, the agony of which produces that terrible
whirling of the brain which, unless it is stopped in time,
produces madness; he suffers indescribable misery for a period,
until one morning his attention is arrested, and his curiosity is
aroused, by certain Chinese letters on a teapot; his curiosity
increases more and more, and, of course, in proportion as his
curiosity is increased with respect to the Chinese marks, the
misery in his brain, produced by his mental affliction,
decreases. He sets about learning Chinese, and after the
lapse of many years, during which his mind subsides into a
certain state of tranquillity, he acquires sufficient knowledge
of Chinese to be able to translate with ease the inscriptions to
be found on its singular crockery. Yes, the laziest of
human beings, through the providence of God, a being too of
rather inferior capacity, acquires the written part of a language
so difficult that, as Lavengro said on a former occasion, none
but the cleverest people in Europe, the French, are able to
acquire it. But God did not intend that man should merely
acquire Chinese. He intended that he should be of use to
his species, and by the instrumentality of the first Chinese
inscription which he translates, the one which first arrested his
curiosity, he is taught the duties of hospitality; yes, by means
of an inscription in the language of a people who have scarcely
an idea of hospitality themselves, God causes the slothful man to
play a useful and beneficent part in the world, relieving distressed wanderers, and, amongst others, Lavengro
himself. But a striking indication of the man’s
surprising sloth is still apparent in what he omits to do; he has
learnt Chinese, the most difficult of languages, and he practises
acts of hospitality, because he believes himself enjoined to do
so by the Chinese inscription, but he cannot tell the hour of the
day by the clock within his house; he can get on, he thinks, very
well without being able to do so; therefore, from this one
omission, it is easy to come to a conclusion as to what a
sluggard’s part the man would have played in life, but for
the dispensation of Providence; nothing but extreme agony could
have induced such a man to do anything useful. He still
continues, with all he has acquired, with all his usefulness, and
with all his innocence of character, without any proper sense of
religion, though he has attained a rather advanced age. If
it be observed that this want of religion is a great defect in
the story, the author begs leave to observe that he cannot help
it. Lavengro relates the lives of people so far as they
were placed before him, but no farther. It was certainly a
great defect in so good a man to be without religion; it was
likewise a great defect in so learned a man not to be able to
tell what was o’clock. It is probable that God, in
his loving kindness, will not permit that man to go out of the
world without religion; who knows but some powerful minister of
the Church, full of zeal for the glory of God, will illume that
man’s dark mind; perhaps some clergyman will come to the
parish who will visit him and teach him his duty to his
God. Yes, it is very probable that such a man, before he
dies, will have been made to love his God; whether he will ever
learn to know what’s o’clock, is another
matter. It is probable that he will go out of the world
without knowing what’s o’clock. It is not so
necessary to be able to tell the time of day by the clock as to
know one’s God through his inspired word; a man cannot get
to heaven without religion, but a man can get there very
comfortably without knowing what’s o’clock.
But, above all, the care and providence of God are manifested
in the case of Lavengro himself, by the manner in which he is
enabled to make his way in the world up to a certain period,
without falling a prey either to vice or poverty. In his
history there is a wonderful illustration of part of the text
quoted by his mother, “I have been young, and now am old,
yet never saw I the righteous forsaken, or his seed begging
bread.” He is the son of good and honourable parents,
but at the critical period of life, that of entering into the
world, he finds himself without any earthly friend to help him,
yet he manages to make his way; he does not become a Captain in
the Life Guards, it is true, nor does he get into Parliament, nor
does the last chapter conclude in the most satisfactory and
unobjectionable manner, by his marrying a dowager countess, as
that wise man Addison did, or by his settling down as a great
country gentleman, perfectly happy and contented, like the very
moral Roderick Random, or the equally estimable
Peregrine Pickle; he is hack author, gypsy, tinker, and
postillion, yet, upon the whole, he seems to be quite as happy as
the younger sons of most earls, to have as high feelings of
honour; and when the reader loses sight of him, he has money in
his pocket honestly acquired, to enable him to commence a journey
quite as laudable as those which the younger sons of earls
generally undertake. Surely all this is a manifestation of
the kindness and providence of God: and yet he is not a religious
person; up to the time when the reader loses sight of him, he is
decidedly not a religious person; he has glimpses, it is true, of
that God who does not forsake him, but he prays very seldom, is
not fond of going to church; and, though he admires Tate and
Brady’s version of the Psalms, his admiration is rather
caused by the beautiful poetry which that version contains than
the religion; yet his tale is not finished—like the tale of
the gentleman who touched objects, and that of the old man who
knew Chinese without knowing what was o’clock; perhaps,
like them, he is destined to become religious, and to have,
instead of occasional glimpses, frequent and distinct views of
his God; yet, though he may become religious, it is hardly to be
expected that he will become a very precise and strait-laced
person; it is probable that he will retain, with his scholarship,
something of his gypsyism, his predilection for the hammer and
tongs, and perhaps some inclination to put on certain gloves, not
white kid, with any friend who may be inclined for a little old
English diversion, and a readiness to take a glass of ale, with
plenty of malt in it, and as little hop as may well be—ale
at least two years old—with the aforesaid friend, when the
diversion is over; for, as it is the belief of the writer that a
person may get to heaven very comfortably without knowing
what’s o’clock, so it is his belief that he will not
be refused admission there because to the last he has been fond
of healthy and invigorating exercises, and felt a willingness to
partake of any of the good things which it pleases the Almighty
to put within the reach of His children during their sojourn upon
earth.
The writer will now say a few words about priestcraft, and the
machinations of Rome, and will afterwards say something about
himself, and his motives for writing against them.
With respect to Rome and her machinations, much valuable
information can be obtained from particular parts of Lavengro and
its sequel. Shortly before the time when the hero of the
book is launched into the world, the Popish agitation in England
had commenced. The Popish propaganda had determined
to make a grand attempt on England; Popish priests were scattered
over the land, doing the best they could to make converts to the
old superstition. With the plans of Rome, and her hopes,
and the reasons on which those hopes are grounded, the hero of
the book becomes acquainted during an expedition which he makes
into the country, from certain conversations which he holds with
a priest in a dingle, in which the hero had taken up his
residence; he likewise learns from the same person much of the
secret history of the Roman See, and many matters connected with
the origin and progress of the Popish superstition. The
individual with whom he holds these conversations is a learned,
intelligent, but highly-unprincipled person, of a character
however very common amongst the priests of Rome, who in general
are people void of all religion, and who, notwithstanding they
are tied to Rome by a band which they have neither the power nor
wish to break, turn her and her practices, over their cups with
their confidential associates, to a ridicule only exceeded by
that to which they turn those who become the dupes of their
mistress and themselves.
It is now necessary that the writer should say something with
respect to himself, and his motives for waging war against
Rome. First of all, with respect to himself, he wishes to
state, that to the very last moment of his life, he will do and
say all that in his power may be to hold up to contempt and
execration the priestcraft and practices of Rome; there is,
perhaps, no person better acquainted than himself, not even among
the choicest spirits of the priesthood, with the origin and
history of Popery. From what he saw and heard of Popery in
England, at a very early period of his life, his curiosity was
aroused, and he spared himself no trouble, either by travel or
study, to make himself well acquainted with it in all its phases,
the result being a hatred of it, which he hopes and trusts he
shall retain till the moment when his spirit quits the
body. Popery is the great lie of the world; a source from
which more misery and social degradation have flowed upon the
human race, than from all the other sources from which those
evils come. It is the oldest of all superstitions; and
though in Europe it assumes the name of Christianity, it existed
and flourished amidst the Himalayan hills at least two thousand
years before the real Christ was born in Bethlehem of
Judæa; in a word, it is Buddhism; and let those who may be
disposed to doubt this assertion, compare the Popery of Rome, and
the superstitious practices of its followers, with the doings of
the priests who surround the grand Lama; and the mouthings,
bellowing, turnings round, and, above all, the penances of the
followers of Buddh with those of Roman devotees. But he is
not going to dwell here on this point; it is dwelt upon at
tolerable length in the text, and has likewise been handled with
extraordinary power by the pen of the gifted but irreligious
Volney; moreover, the élite of the Roman priesthood
are perfectly well aware that their system is
nothing but Buddhism under a slight disguise, and the European
world in general has entertained for some time past an inkling of
the fact.
And now a few words with respect to the motives of the writer
for expressing a hatred for Rome.
This expressed abhorrence of the author for Rome might be
entitled to little regard, provided it were possible to attribute
it to any self-interested motive. There have been professed
enemies of Rome, or of this or that system; but their professed
enmity may frequently be traced to some cause which does them
little credit; but the writer of these lines has no motive, and
can have no motive, for his enmity to Rome, save the abhorrence
of an honest heart for what is false, base, and cruel. A
certain clergyman wrote with much heat against the Papists in the
time of . . ., who was known to favour the Papists, but was not
expected to continue long in office, and whose supposed
successor, the person, indeed, who did succeed him, was thought
to be hostile to the Papists. This divine, who obtained a
rich benefice from the successor of . . ., who during . .
.’s time had always opposed him in everything he proposed
to do, and who, of course, during that time, affected to be very
inimical to Popery—this divine might well be suspected of
having a motive equally creditable for writing against the
Papists, as that which induced him to write for them, as soon as
his patron, who eventually did something more for him, had
espoused their cause; but what motive, save an honest one, can
the present writer have for expressing an abhorrence of
Popery? He is no clergyman, and consequently can expect
neither benefices nor bishoprics, supposing it were the fashion
of the present, or likely to be the fashion of any future
administration, to reward clergymen with benefices or bishoprics,
who, in the defence of the religion of their country, write, or
shall write, against Popery, and not to reward those who write,
or shall write, in favour of it and all its nonsense and
abominations.
“But if not a clergyman, he is the servant of a certain
society, which has the overthrow of Popery in view, and
therefore,” etc. This assertion, which has been
frequently made, is incorrect, even as those who have made it
probably knew it to be. He is the servant of no society
whatever. He eats his own bread, and is one of the very few
men in England who are independent in every sense of the
word.
It is true he went to Spain with the colours of that society
on his hat—oh! the blood glows in his veins! oh! the marrow
awakes in his old bones when he thinks of what he accomplished in
Spain in the cause of religion and civilisation with the colours
of that society on his hat, and its weapon in his hand, even the
sword of the word of God; how with that weapon he hewed left and
right, making the priests fly before him, and run away squeaking:
“Vaya! que demonio es este!” Ay, and when he
thinks of the plenty of bible swords
which he left behind him, destined to prove, and which have
already proved, pretty calthrops in the heels of Popery.
“Halloo! Batuschca,” he exclaimed the other
night, on reading an article in a newspaper; “what do you
think of the present doings in Spain? Your old friend the
zingaro, the gitano who rode about Spain, to say nothing of
Galicia, with the Greek Buchini behind him as his squire, had a
hand in bringing them about; there are many brave Spaniards
connected with the present movement who took bibles from his
hands, and read them and profited by them, learning from the
inspired page the duties of one man towards another, and the real
value of a priesthood and their head, who set at nought the word
of God, and think only of their own temporal interests; ay, and
who learned Gitano—their own Gitano—from the lips of
the London Caloró, and also songs in the said Gitano, very
fit to dumbfounder your semi-Buddhist priests when they attempt
to bewilder people’s minds with their school-logic and
pseudo-ecclesiastical nonsense, songs such as—
“Un
Erajai
Sinaba chibando un sermon . . .”
—But with that society he has long since ceased to have
any connection; he bade it adieu with feelings of love and
admiration more than fourteen years ago; so, in continuing to
assault Popery, no hopes of interest founded on that society can
sway his mind—interest! who, with worldly interest in view,
would ever have anything to do with that society? It is
poor, and supported, like its founder Christ, by poor people; and
so far from having political influence, it is in such disfavour,
and has ever been, with the dastardly great, to whom the
government of England has for many years past been confided, that
the having borne its colours only for a month would be sufficient
to exclude any man, whatever his talents, his learning, or his
courage may be, from the slightest chance of being permitted to
serve his country either for fee or without. A fellow who
unites in himself the bankrupt trader, the broken author, or
rather book-maker, and the laughed-down single speech spouter of
the House of Commons, may look forward, always supposing that at
one time he has been a foaming radical, to the government of an
important colony. Ay, an ancient fox who has lost his tail
may, provided he has a score of radical friends, who will swear
that he can bark Chinese, though Chinese is not barked but sung,
be forced upon a Chinese colony, though it is well known that to
have lost one’s tail is considered by the Chinese in
general as an irreparable infamy, whilst to have been once
connected with a certain society, to which, to its honour be it
said, all the radical party are vehemently hostile, would be
quite sufficient to keep any one not only from a government, but
something much less, even though he could translate the rhymed
“Sessions of Hariri,” and were
versed, still retaining his tail, in the two languages in which
Kien-Loung wrote his Eulogium on Moukden, that piece which,
translated by Amyot, the learned Jesuit, won the applause of the
celebrated Voltaire.
No! were the author influenced by hopes of fee or reward, he
would, instead of writing against Popery, write for it; all the
trumpery titled—he will not call them great
again—would then be for him, and their masters the
radicals, with their hosts of newspapers, would be for him, more
especially if he would commence maligning the society whose
colours he had once on his hat—a society which, as the
priest says in the text, is one of the very few Protestant
institutions for which the Popish Church entertains any fear, and
consequently respect, as it respects nothing which it does not
fear. The writer said that certain “rulers”
would never forgive him for having been connected with that
society; he went perhaps too far in saying
“never.” It is probable that they would take
him into favour on one condition, which is, that he should turn
his pen and his voice against that society; such a mark “of
a better way of thinking” would perhaps induce them to give
him a government, nearly as good as that which they gave to a
certain ancient radical fox at the intercession of his radical
friends (who were bound to keep him from the pauper’s
kennel), after he had promised to foam, bark, and snarl at
corruption no more; he might even entertain hopes of succeeding,
nay of superseding, the ancient creature in his government; but
even were he as badly off as he is well off he would do no such
thing. He would rather exist on crusts and water; he has
often done so and been happy; nay, he would rather starve than be
a rogue—for even the feeling of starvation is happiness
compared with what he feels who knows himself to be a rogue,
provided he has any feeling at all. What is the use of a
mitre or a knighthood to a man who has betrayed his
principles? What is the use of a gilt collar, nay, even of
a pair of scarlet breeches, to a fox who has lost his tail?
Oh! the horror which haunts the mind of the fox who has lost his
tail; and with reason, for his very mate loathes him, and more
especially if, like himself, she has lost her brush. Oh!
the horror which haunts the mind of the two-legged rogue who has
parted with his principles, or those which he professed—for
what? We’ll suppose a government. What’s
the use of a government, if, the next day after you have received
it, you are obliged for very shame to scurry off to it with the
hoot of every honest man sounding in your ears?
“Lightly liar leaped and away ran.”
—Piers Plowman.
But bigotry, it has been said, makes the author write against
Popery; and thorough-going bigotry, indeed, will make a person
say or do anything. But the writer is a very pretty bigot
truly! Where will the public find traces of
bigotry in anything he has written? He has written against
Rome with all his heart, with all his mind, with all his soul,
and with all his strength; but as a person may be quite honest
and speak and write against Rome in like manner he may speak and
write against her and be quite free from bigotry; though it is
impossible for any one but a bigot or a bad man to write or speak
in her praise; her doctrines, actions, and machinations being
what they are.
Bigotry! The author was born, and has always continued,
in the wrong church for bigotry, the quiet, unpretending Church
of England; a church which, had it been a bigoted church, and not
long-suffering almost to a fault, might with its opportunities,
as the priest says in the text, have stood in a very different
position from that which it occupies at present. No! let
those who are in search of bigotry seek for it in a church very
different from the inoffensive Church of England, which never
encourages cruelty or calumny. Let them seek for it amongst
the members of the Church of Rome, and more especially amongst
those who have renegaded to it. There is nothing, however
false and horrible, which a pervert to Rome will not say for his
church, and which his priests will not encourage him in saying;
and there is nothing, however horrible—the more horrible
indeed and revolting to human nature, the more eager he would be
to do it—which he will not do for it, and which his priests
will not encourage him in doing.
Of the readiness which converts to Popery exhibit to sacrifice
all the ties of blood and affection on the shrine of their
newly-adopted religion there is a curious illustration in the
work of Luigi Pulci. This man, who was born at Florence in
the year 1432, and who was deeply versed in the Bible, composed a
poem, called the “Morgante Maggiore,” which he
recited at the table of Lorenzo de Medici, the great patron of
Italian genius. It is a mock-heroic and religious poem, in
which the legends of knight-errantry, and of the Popish Church,
are turned to unbounded ridicule. The pretended hero of it
is a converted giant, called Morgante; though his adventures do
not occupy the twentieth part of the poem, the principal
personages being Charlemagne, Orlando, and his cousin Rinaldo of
Montalban. Morgante has two brothers, both of them giants,
and, in the first canto of the poem, Morgante is represented with
his brothers as carrying on a feud with the abbot and monks of a
certain convent, built upon the confines of heathenesse; the
giants being in the habit of flinging down stones, or rather huge
rocks, on the convent. Orlando, however, who is banished
from the court of Charlemagne, arriving at the convent,
undertakes to destroy them, and accordingly kills Passamonte and
Alabastro, and converts Morgante, whose mind has been previously
softened by a vision, in which the “Blessed Virgin”
figures. No sooner is he converted than, as a sign of his
penitence, what does he do, but hastens and cuts off the hands of
his two brothers, saying—
“Io vo’ tagliar le mani
a tutti quanti
E porterolle a que’ monaci santi.”
And he does cut off the hands of his brethren, and carries
them to the abbot, who blesses him for so doing. Pulci here
is holding up to ridicule and execration the horrid butchery or
betrayal of friends by Popish converts, and the encouragement
they receive from the priest. No sooner is a person
converted to Popery than his principal thought is how he can
bring the hands and feet of his brethren, however harmless they
may be, and different from the giants, to the “holy
priests,” who, if he manages to do so, never fail to praise
him, saying to the miserable wretch, as the abbot said to
Morgante:—
“Tu sarai or perfetto e vero amico
A Cristo, quanto tu gli eri nemico.”
Can the English public deny the justice of Pulci’s
illustration, after something which it has lately witnessed? [311] Has it not seen equivalents for
the hands and feet of brothers carried by Popish perverts to the
“holy priests,” and has it not seen the manner in
which the offering has been received? Let those who are in
quest of bigotry seek for it amongst the perverts to Rome, and
not amongst those who, born in the pale of the Church of England,
have always continued in it.
With respect to the third point, various lessons which the
book reads to the nation at large, and which it would be well for
the nation to ponder and profit by.
There are many species of nonsense to which the nation is much
addicted, and of which the perusal of Lavengro ought to give them
a wholesome shame. First of all, with respect to the
foreign nonsense so prevalent now in England. The hero is a
scholar; but, though possessed of a great many tongues, he
affects to be neither Frenchman nor German, nor this or that
foreigner; he is one who loves his country, and the language and
literature of his country, and speaks up for each and all when
there is occasion to do so. Now what is the case with nine
out of ten amongst those of the English who study foreign
languages? No sooner have they picked up a smattering of
this or that speech than they begin to abuse their own country
and everything connected with it, more especially
its language. This is particularly the case with those who
call themselves German students. It is said, and the writer
believes with truth, that when a woman falls in love with a
particularly ugly fellow, she squeezes him with ten times more
zest than she would a handsome one if captivated by him. So
it is with these German students; no sooner have they taken
German in hand than there is nothing like German. Oh, the
dear, delightful German! How proud am I that it is now my
own, and that its divine literature is within my reach! And
all this whilst mumbling the most uncouth speech, and crunching
the most crabbed literature in Europe. The writer is not an
exclusive admirer of everything English; he does not advise his
country-people never to go abroad, never to study foreign
languages, and he does not wish to persuade them that there is
nothing beautiful or valuable in foreign literature; he only
wishes that they would not make themselves fools with respect to
foreign people, foreign languages or reading; that if they chance
to have been in Spain, and have picked up a little Spanish, they
would not affect the airs of Spaniards; that if males they would
not make Tom-fools of themselves by sticking cigars into their
mouths, dressing themselves in zamarras, and saying, carajo! [312] and if females that they would not
make zanies of themselves by sticking cigars into their mouths,
flinging mantillas over their heads, and by saying carai, and
perhaps carajo too; or if they have been in France or Italy, and
have picked up a little French or Italian, they would not affect
to be French or Italians; and particularly, after having been a
month or two in Germany, or picked up a little German in England,
they would not make themselves foolish about everything German,
as the Anglo-German in the book does—a real character, the
founder of the Anglo-German school in England, and the cleverest
Englishman who ever talked or wrote encomiastic nonsense about
Germany and the Germans. Of all infatuations connected with
what is foreign, the infatuation about everything that is German,
to a certain extent prevalent in England, is assuredly the most
ridiculous. One can find something like a palliation for
people making themselves somewhat foolish about particular
languages, literatures, and people. The Spanish certainly
is a noble language, and there is something wild and captivating
in the Spanish character, and its literature contains the grand
book of the world. French is a manly language. The
French are the most martial people in the world; and French
literature is admirable in many respects. Italian is a
sweet language, and of beautiful simplicity—its literature
perhaps the first in the world. The
Italians!—wonderful men have sprung up in Italy.
Italy is not merely famous for painters, poets, musicians,
singers, and linguists—the greatest linguist the world ever
saw, the late Cardinal Mezzofanti, was an Italian; but it is
celebrated for men—men emphatically
speaking: Columbus was an Italian, Alexander Farnese was an
Italian, so was the mightiest of the mighty, Napoleon
Bonaparte;—but the German language, German literature, and
the Germans! The writer has already stated his opinion with
respect to German; he does not speak from ignorance or prejudice;
he has heard German spoken, and many other languages.
German literature! he does not speak from ignorance; he has read
that and many a literature, and he repeats . . . however, he
acknowledges that there is one fine poem in the German language,
that poem is the “Oberon”; a poem, by-the-bye,
ignored by the Germans—a speaking fact—and of course
by the Anglo-Germanists. The Germans! he has been amongst
them, and amongst many other nations, and confesses that his
opinion of the Germans, as men, is a very low one. Germany,
it is true, has produced one very great man, the monk who fought
the pope, and nearly knocked him down; but this man his
countrymen—a telling fact—affect to despise, and of
course the Anglo-Germanists: the father of Anglo-Germanism was
very fond of inveighing against Luther.
The madness, or rather foolery, of the English for foreign
customs, dresses, and languages, is not an affair of to-day or
yesterday—it is of very ancient date, and was very properly
exposed nearly three centuries ago by one Andrew Borde, who,
under the picture of a “Naked man with a pair of shears in
one hand, and a roll of cloth in the other,” [313] inserted the following lines along
with others:—
“I am an Englishman, and naked I stand
here,
Musing in my mind what garment I shall weare;
For now I will weare this, and now I will weare that,
Now I will weare, I cannot tell what.
All new fashions be pleasant to mee,
I will have them, whether I thrive or thee;
What do I care if all the world me fail?
I will have a garment reach to my taile;
Then am I a minion, for I weare the new guise.
The next yeare after I hope to be wise,
Not only in wearing my gorgeous array,
For I will go to learning a whole summer’s day;
I will learn Latine, Hebrew, Greek, and French,
And I will learn Dutch, sitting on my bench.
I had no peere if to myself I were true,
Because I am not so, divers times do I rue.
Yet I lacke nothing, I have all things at will
If I were wise and would hold myself still,
And meddle with no matters but to me pertaining,
But ever to be true to God and my king.
But I have such matters rowling in my pate,
That I will and do . . . I cannot tell what,” etc.
What is gentility? People in different stations in
England entertain different ideas of what is genteel, [314] but it must be something gorgeous,
glittering, or tawdry, to be considered genteel by any of
them. The beau-ideal of the English aristocracy, of course
with some exceptions, is some young fellow with an imperial
title, a military personage of course, for what is military is so
particularly genteel, with flaming epaulets, a cocked hat and a
plume, a prancing charger, and a band of fellows called generals
and colonels, with flaming epaulets, cocked hats and plumes, and
prancing chargers, vapouring behind him. It was but lately
that the daughter of an English marquis was heard to say, that
the sole remaining wish of her heart—she had known
misfortunes, and was not far from fifty—was to be
introduced to—whom? The Emperor of Austria! The
sole remaining wish of the heart of one who ought to have been
thinking of the grave and judgment, was to be introduced to the
miscreant who had caused the blood of noble Hungarian females to
be whipped out of their shoulders, for no other crime than
devotion to their country, and its tall and heroic sons.
The middle classes—of course there are some
exceptions—admire the aristocracy, and consider them pinks,
the aristocracy who admire the Emperor of Austria, and adored the
Emperor of Russia, till he became old, ugly, and unfortunate,
when their adoration instantly terminated;
for what is more ungenteel than age, ugliness, and
misfortune! The beau-ideal with those of the lower classes,
with peasants and mechanics, is some flourishing railroad
contractor: look, for example, how they worship Mr.
Flamson. This person makes his grand
débût in the year thirty-nine, at a public
meeting in the principal room of a country inn. He has come
into the neighbourhood with the character of a man worth a
million pounds, who is to make everybody’s fortune; at this
time, however, he is not worth a shilling of his own, though he
flashes about dexterously three or four thousand pounds, part of
which sum he has obtained by specious pretences, and part from
certain individuals who are his confederates. But in the
year forty-nine, he is really in possession of the fortune which
he and his agents pretended he was worth ten years
before—he is worth a million pounds. By what means
has he come by them? By railroad contracts, for which he
takes care to be paid in hard cash before he attempts to perform
them, and to carry out which he makes use of the sweat and blood
of wretches who, since their organisation, have introduced crimes
and language into England to which it was previously almost a
stranger—by purchasing, with paper, shares by hundreds in
the schemes to execute which he contracts, and which are of his
own devising; which shares he sells as soon as they are at a high
premium, to which they are speedily forced by means of
paragraphs, inserted by himself and agents, in newspapers devoted
to his interest, utterly reckless of the terrible depreciation to
which they are almost instantly subjected. But he is worth
a million pounds, there can be no doubt of the fact—he has
not made people’s fortunes, at least those whose fortunes
it was said he would make; he has made them away: but his own he
has made, emphatically made it; he is worth a million
pounds. Hurrah for the millionaire! The clown who
views the pandemonium of red brick which he has built on the
estate which he has purchased in the neighbourhood of the place
of his grand débût, in which every species of
architecture, Greek, Indian, and Chinese, is employed in
caricature—who hears of the grand entertainment he gives at
Christmas in the principal dining-room, the hundred wax-candles,
the waggon-load of plate, and the oceans of wine which form parts
of it, and above all the two ostrich poults, one at the head, and
the other at the foot of the table, exclaims, “Well! if he
a’n’t bang up, I don’t know who be; why, he
beats my lord hollow!” The mechanic of the borough
town, who sees him dashing through the streets in an open landau,
drawn by four milk-white horses, amidst its attendant outriders;
his wife, a monster of a woman, by his side, stout as the wife of
Tamerlane, who weighed twenty stone, and bedizened out like her
whose person shone with the jewels of plundered Persia, stares
with silent wonder, and at last exclaims, “That’s the
man for my vote!” You tell the clown that the man of
the mansion has contributed enormously to corrupt the rural
innocence of England; you point to an incipient
branch railroad, from around which the accents of Gomorrah are
sounding, and beg him to listen for a moment, and then close his
ears. Hodge scratches his head and says, “Well, I
have nothing to say to that; all I know is, that he is bang up,
and I wish I were he;” perhaps he will add—a Hodge
has been known to add—“He has been kind enough to put
my son on that very railroad; ’tis true the company is
somewhat queer and the work rather killing, but he gets there
half-a-crown a day, whereas from the farmers he would only get
eighteen-pence.” You remind the mechanic that the man
in the landau has been the ruin of thousands, and you mention
people whom he himself knows, people in various grades of life,
widows and orphans amongst them, whose little all he has
dissipated, and whom he has reduced to beggary by inducing them
to become sharers in his delusive schemes. But the mechanic
says, “Well, the more fools they to let themselves be
robbed. But I don’t call that kind of thing robbery,
I merely call it outwitting; and everybody in this free country
has a right to outwit others if he can. What a turn-out he
has!” One was once heard to add, “I never saw a
more genteel-looking man in all my life except one, and that was
a gentleman’s walley, who was much like him. It is
true he is rather undersized, but then madam, you know, makes up
for all.”
In the last chapter have been exhibited specimens of
gentility, so considered by different classes; by one class,
power, youth, and epaulets are considered the ne plus
ultra of gentility; by another class, pride, stateliness, and
title; by another, wealth and flaming tawdriness. But what
constitutes a gentleman? It is easy to say at once what
constitutes a gentleman, and there are no distinctions in what is
gentlemanly, [316] as there are in what is genteel.
The characteristics of a gentleman are high feeling—a
determination never to take a cowardly advantage of
another—a liberal education—absence of narrow
views—generosity and courage, propriety of behaviour.
Now a person may be genteel according to one or another of the
three standards described above, and not possess
one of the characteristics of a gentleman. Is the emperor a
gentleman, with spatters of blood on his clothes, scourged from
the backs of noble Hungarian women? Are the aristocracy
gentlefolks, who admire him? Is Mr. Flamson a gentleman,
although he has a million pounds? No! cowardly miscreants,
admirers of cowardly miscreants, and people who make a million
pounds by means compared with which those employed to make
fortunes by the getters up of the South Sea Bubble might be
called honest dealing, are decidedly not gentlefolks. Now
as it is clearly demonstrable that a person may be perfectly
genteel according to some standard or other, and yet be no
gentleman, so is it demonstrable that a person may have no
pretensions to gentility, and yet be a gentleman. For
example, there is Lavengro! Would the admirers of the
emperor, or the admirers of those who admire the emperor, or the
admirers of Mr. Flamson, call him genteel? and gentility with
them is everything! Assuredly they would not; and assuredly
they would consider him respectively as a being to be shunned,
despised, or hooted. Genteel! Why, at one time he is
a hack author—writes reviewals for eighteen-pence a
page—edits a Newgate chronicle. At another he wanders
the country with a face grimy from occasionally mending kettles;
and there is no evidence that his clothes are not seedy and torn,
and his shoes down at the heel; but by what process of reasoning
will they prove that he is no gentleman? Is he not
learned? Has he not generosity and courage? Whilst a
hack author, does he pawn the books entrusted to him to
review? Does he break his word to his publisher? Does
he write begging letters? Does he get clothes or lodgings
without paying for them? Again, whilst a wanderer, does he
insult helpless women on the road with loose proposals or ribald
discourse? Does he take what is not his own from the
hedges? Does he play on the fiddle, or make faces in
public-houses, in order to obtain pence or beer? or does he call
for liquor, swallow it, and then say to a widowed landlady,
“Mistress, I have no brass”? In a word, what
vice and crime does he perpetrate—what low acts does he
commit? Therefore, with his endowments, who will venture to
say that he is no gentleman?—unless it be an admirer of Mr.
Flamson—a clown—who will, perhaps,
shout—“I say he is no gentleman; for who can be a
gentleman who keeps no gig?”
The indifference exhibited by Lavengro for what is merely
genteel, compared with his solicitude never to infringe the
strict laws of honour, should read a salutary lesson. The
generality of his countrymen are far more careful not to
transgress the customs of what they call gentility, than to
violate the laws of honour or morality. They will shrink
from carrying their own carpet-bag, and from speaking to a person
in seedy raiment, whilst to matters of much higher importance
they are shamelessly indifferent. Not so Lavengro; he will
do anything that he deems convenient, or which
strikes his fancy, provided it does not outrage decency or is
unallied to profligacy; is not ashamed to speak to a beggar in
rags, and will associate with anybody, provided he can gratify a
laudable curiosity. He has no abstract love for what is
low, or what the world calls low. He sees that many things
which the world looks down upon are valuable, so he prizes much
which the world contemns; he sees that many things which the
world admires are contemptible, so he despises much which the
world does not; but when the world prizes what is really
excellent, he does not contemn it, because the world regards
it. If he learns Irish, which all the world scoffs at, he
likewise learns Italian, which all the world melts at. If
he learns Gypsy, the language of the tattered tent, he likewise
learns Greek, the language of the college hall. If he
learns smithery, he also learns . . . ah! what does he learn to
set against smithery?—the law? No; he does not learn
the law, which, by the way, is not very genteel.
Swimming? Yes, he learns to swim. Swimming, however,
is not genteel; and the world—at least the genteel part of
it—acts very wisely in setting its face against it; for to
swim you must be naked, and how would many a genteel person look
without his clothes? Come! he learns horsemanship; a very
genteel accomplishment, which every genteel person would gladly
possess, though not all genteel people do.
Again as to associates: if he holds communion when a boy with
Murtagh, the scarecrow of an Irish academy, he associates in
after life with Francis Ardry, a rich and talented young Irish
gentleman about town. If he accepts an invitation from Mr.
Petulengro to his tent, he has no objection to go home with a
rich genius to dinner; who then will say that he prizes a thing
or a person because they are ungenteel? That he is not
ready to take up with everything that is ungenteel he gives a
proof, when he refuses, though on the brink of starvation, to
become bonnet to the thimble-man, an office which, though
profitable, is positively ungenteel. Ah! but some
sticker-up for gentility will exclaim, “The hero did not
refuse this office from an insurmountable dislike to its
ungentility, but merely from a feeling of principle.”
Well! the writer is not fond of argument, and he will admit that
such was the case; he admits that it was a love of principle,
rather than an over-regard for gentility, which prevented the
hero from accepting, when on the brink of starvation, an
ungenteel though lucrative office, an office which, the writer
begs leave to observe, many a person with a great regard for
gentility, and no particular regard for principle, would in a
similar strait have accepted; for when did a mere love for
gentility keep a person from being a dirty scoundrel, when the
alternatives apparently were “either to be a dirty
scoundrel or starve”? One thing, however, is certain,
which is, that Lavengro did not accept the office, which if a
love for what is low had been his ruling passion he certainly
would have done; consequently, he refuses to do one thing which
no genteel person would willingly do, even as he does
many things which every genteel person would gladly do, for
example speaks Italian, rides on horseback, associates with a
fashionable young man, dines with a rich genius, et cetera.
Yet—and it cannot be minced—he and gentility with
regard to many things are at strange divergency; he shrinks from
many things at which gentility placidly hums a tune, or
approvingly simpers, and does some things at which gentility
positively sinks. He will not run into debt for clothes or
lodgings, which he might do without any scandal to gentility; he
will not receive money from Francis Ardry, and go to Brighton
with the sister of Annette Le Noir, though there is nothing
ungenteel in borrowing money from a friend, even when you never
intend to repay him, and something poignantly genteel in going to
a watering-place with a gay young Frenchwoman; but he has no
objection, after raising twenty pounds by the sale of that
extraordinary work “Joseph Sell,” to set off into the
country, mend kettles under hedge-rows, and make pony and donkey
shoes in a dingle. Here, perhaps, some plain, well-meaning
person will cry—and with much apparent justice—how
can the writer justify him in this act? What motive, save a
love for what is low, could induce him to do such things?
Would the writer have everybody who is in need of recreation go
into the country, mend kettles under hedges, and make pony shoes
in dingles? To such an observation the writer would answer,
that Lavengro had an excellent motive in doing what he did, but
that the writer is not so unreasonable as to wish everybody to do
the same. It is not everybody who can mend kettles.
It is not everybody who is in similar circumstances to those in
which Lavengro was. Lavengro flies from London and hack
authorship, and takes to the roads from fear of consumption; it
is expensive to put up at inns, and even at public-houses, and
Lavengro has not much money; so he buys a tinker’s cart and
apparatus, and sets up as tinker, and subsequently as blacksmith;
a person living in a tent, or in anything else, must do something
or go mad; Lavengro had a mind, as he himself well knew, with
some slight tendency to madness, and had he not employed himself,
he must have gone wild; so to employ himself he drew upon one of
his resources, the only one available at the time.
Authorship had nearly killed him, he was sick of reading, and had
besides no books; but he possessed the rudiments of an art akin
to tinkering; he knew something of smithery, having served a kind
of apprenticeship in Ireland to a fairy smith; so he draws upon
his smithery to enable him to acquire tinkering, and through the
help which it affords him, owing to its connection with
tinkering, he speedily acquires that craft, even as he had
speedily acquired Welsh, owing to its connection with Irish,
which language he possessed; and with tinkering he amuses himself
until he lays it aside to resume smithery. A man who has
any innocent resource, has quite as much right to draw upon it in
need, as he has, upon a banker in whose hands he has placed a
sum; Lavengro turns to advantage, under
particular circumstances, a certain resource which he has but
people who are not so forlorn as Lavengro, and have not served
the same apprenticeship which he had, are not advised to follow
his example. Surely he was better employed in plying the
trades of tinker and smith than in having recourse to vice, in
running after milk-maids for example. Running after
milk-maids is by no means an ungenteel rural diversion; but let
any one ask some respectable casuist (the Bishop of London for
example), whether Lavengro was not far better employed, when in
the country, at tinkering and smithery than he would have been in
running after all the milkmaids in Cheshire, though tinkering is
in general considered a very ungenteel employment, and smithery
little better, notwithstanding that an Orcadian poet, who wrote
in Norse about eight hundred years ago, reckons the latter
amongst nine noble arts which he possessed, naming it along with
playing at chess, on the harp, and ravelling runes, or as the
original has it, “treading runes”—that is,
compressing them into a small compass by mingling one letter with
another, even as the Turkish caligraphists ravel the Arabic
letters, more especially those who write talismans.
“Nine arts have I, all noble;
I play at chess so free,
At ravelling runes I’m ready,
At books and smithery;
I’m skill’d o’er ice at skimming
On skates, I shoot and row,
And few at harping match me,
Or minstrelsy, I trow.”
But though Lavengro takes up smithery, which, though the
Orcadian ranks it with chess-playing and harping, is certainly
somewhat of a grimy art, there can be no doubt that, had he been
wealthy and not so forlorn as he was, he would have turned to
many things, honourable, of course, in preference. He has
no objection to ride a fine horse when he has the opportunity: he
has his day-dream of making a fortune of two hundred thousand
pounds by becoming a merchant and doing business after the
Armenian fashion; and there can be no doubt that he would have
been glad to wear fine clothes, provided he had had sufficient
funds to authorise him in wearing them. For the sake of
wandering the country and plying the hammer and tongs he would
not have refused a commission in the service of that illustrious
monarch George the Fourth, provided he had thought that he could
live on his pay, and not be forced to run in debt to tradesmen,
without any hope of paying them, for clothes and luxuries, as
many highly genteel officers in that honourable service were in
the habit of doing. For the sake of tinkering he would
certainly not have refused a secretaryship of an embassy to
Persia, in which he might have turned his acquaintance with
Persian, Arabic, and the Lord only knows what other languages, to
account. He took to tinkering and smithery,
because no better employments were at his command. No war
is waged in the book against rank, wealth, fine clothes, or
dignified employments; it is shown, however, that a person may be
a gentleman and a scholar without them. Rank, wealth, fine
clothes, and dignified employments are no doubt very fine things,
but they are merely externals, they do not make a gentleman, they
add external grace and dignity to the gentleman and scholar, but
they make neither; and is it not better to be a gentleman without
them than not a gentleman with them? Is not Lavengro, when
he leaves London on foot with twenty pounds in his pocket,
entitled to more respect than Mr. Flamson flaming in his coach
with a million? And is not even the honest jockey at
Horncastle, who offers a fair price to Lavengro for his horse,
entitled to more than the scoundrel lord, who attempts to cheat
him of one-fourth of its value?
Millions, however, seem to think otherwise, by their servile
adoration of people whom without rank, wealth, and fine clothes
they would consider infamous, but whom possessed of rank, wealth,
and glittering habiliments they seem to admire all the more for
their profligacy and crimes. Does not a blood-spot, or a
lust-spot, on the clothes of a blooming emperor, give a kind of
zest to the genteel young god? Do not the pride,
superciliousness, and selfishness of a certain aristocracy make
it all the more regarded by its worshippers? and do not the
clownish and gutter-blood admirers of Mr. Flamson like him all
the more because they are conscious that he is a knave? If
such is the case—and alas! is it not the case?—they
cannot be too frequently told that fine clothes, wealth, and
titles adorn a person in proportion as he adorns them; that if
worn by the magnanimous and good they are ornaments indeed, but
if by the vile and profligate they are merely san benitos,
and only serve to make their infamy doubly apparent; and that a
person in seedy raiment and tattered hat, possessed of courage,
kindness, and virtue, is entitled to more respect from those to
whom his virtues are manifested than any cruel, profligate
emperor, selfish aristocrat, or knavish millionaire in the
world.
The writer has no intention of saying that all in England are
affected with the absurd mania for gentility; nor is such a
statement made in the book; it is shown therein that individuals
of various classes can prize a gentleman, notwithstanding seedy
raiment, dusty shoes, or tattered hat,—for example, the
young Irishman, the rich genius, the postillion, and his
employer. Again, when the life of the hero is given to the
world, amidst the howl about its lowness and vulgarity, raised by
the servile crew whom its independence of sentiment has stung,
more than one powerful voice has been heard testifying
approbation of its learning and the purity of its morality.
That there is some salt in England, minds not swayed by mere
externals, he is fully convinced; if he were not, he would spare
himself the trouble of writing; but to the fact that the generality of his countrymen are basely grovelling
before the shrine of what they are pleased to call gentility, he
cannot shut his eyes.
Oh! what a clever person that Cockney was, who, travelling in
the Aberdeen railroad carriage, after edifying the company with
his remarks on various subjects, gave it as his opinion that
Lieutenant P . . . would, in future, be shunned by all
respectable society! And what a simple person that elderly
gentleman was, who, abruptly starting, asked, in rather an
authoritative voice, “And why should Lieutenant P . . . be
shunned by respectable society?” and who after entering
into what was said to be a masterly analysis of the entire
evidence of the case, concluded by stating, “that having
been accustomed to all kinds of evidence all his life, he had
never known a case in which the accused had obtained a more
complete and triumphant justification than Lieutenant P . . . had
done in the late trial.”
Now the Cockney, who is said to have been a very foppish
Cockney, was perfectly right in what he said, and therein
manifested a knowledge of the English mind and character, and
likewise of the modern English language, to which his catechist,
who, it seems, was a distinguished member of the Scottish bar,
could lay no pretensions. The Cockney knew what the Lord of
Session knew not, that the British public is gentility crazy, and
he knew, moreover, that gentility and respectability are
synonymous. No one in England is genteel or respectable
that is “looked at,” who is the victim of oppression;
he may be pitied for a time, but when did not pity terminate in
contempt? A poor, harmless young officer—but why
enter into the details of the infamous case? they are but too
well known, and if ever cruelty, pride, and cowardice, and things
much worse than even cruelty, cowardice, and pride, were brought
to light, and at the same time countenanced, they were in that
case. What availed the triumphant justification of the poor
victim? There was at first a roar of indignation against
his oppressors, but how long did it last? He had been
turned out of the service, they remained in it with their red
coats and epaulets; he was merely the son of a man who had
rendered good service to his country, they were, for the most
part, highly connected—they were in the extremest degree
genteel, he quite the reverse; so the nation wavered, considered,
thought the genteel side was the safest after all, and then with
the cry of, “Oh! there is nothing like gentility,”
ratted bodily. Newspaper and public turned against the
victim, scouted him, apologised for the—what should they be
called?—who were not only admitted into the most
respectable society, but courted to come, the spots not merely of
wine on their military clothes giving them a kind of
poignancy. But there is a God in heaven; the British
glories are tarnished—Providence has never smiled on
British arms since that case—oh! Balaklava! thy name
interpreted is net of fishes, and well dost thou deserve that
name. How many a scarlet golden fish has of late perished
in the mud amidst thee, cursing the genteel
service, and the genteel leader which brought him to such a
doom.
Whether the rage for gentility is most prevalent amongst the
upper, middle, or lower classes it is difficult to say; the
priest in the text seems to think that it is exhibited in the
most decided manner in the middle class; it is the writer’s
opinion, however, that in no class is it more strongly developed
than in the lower: what they call being well born goes a great
way amongst them, but the possession of money much farther,
whence Mr. Flamson’s influence over them. Their rage
against, and scorn for, any person who by his courage and talents
has advanced himself in life, and still remains poor, are
indescribable; “he is no better than ourselves,” they
say, “why should he be above us?”—for they have
no conception that anybody has a right to ascendency over
themselves except by birth or money. This feeling amongst
the vulgar has been, to a certain extent, the bane of the two
services, naval and military. The writer does not make this
assertion rashly; he observed this feeling at work in the army
when a child, and he has good reason for believing that it was as
strongly at work in the navy at the same time, and is still as
prevalent in both. Why are not brave men raised from the
ranks? is frequently the cry; why are not brave sailors
promoted? The Lord help brave soldiers and sailors who are
promoted; they have less to undergo from the high airs of their
brother officers, and those are hard enough to endure, than from
the insolence of the men. Soldiers and sailors promoted to
command are said to be in general tyrants; in nine cases out of
ten, when they are tyrants, they have been obliged to have
recourse to extreme severity in order to protect themselves from
the insolence and mutinous spirit of the men,—“He is
no better than ourselves: shoot him, bayonet him, or fling him
overboard!” they say of some obnoxious individual raised
above them by his merit. Soldiers and sailors, in general,
will bear any amount of tyranny from a lordly sot, or the son of
a man who has “plenty of brass”—their own
term—but will mutiny against the just orders of a skilful
and brave officer who “is no better than
themselves.” There was the affair of the
“Bounty,” for example: Bligh was one of the best
seamen that ever trod deck, and one of the bravest of men; proofs
of his seamanship he gave by steering, amidst dreadful weather, a
deeply-laden boat for nearly four thousand miles over an almost
unknown ocean—of his bravery, at the fight of Copenhagen,
one of the most desperate ever fought, of which after Nelson he
was the hero: he was, moreover, not an unkind man; but the crew
of the “Bounty” mutinied against him, and set him
half naked in an open boat, with certain of his men who remained
faithful to him, and ran away with the ship. Their
principal motive for doing so was an idea, whether true or
groundless the writer cannot say, that Bligh was “no better
than themselves;” he was certainly neither a lord’s
illegitimate, nor possessed of twenty thousand pounds. The
writer knows what he is writing about,
having been acquainted in his early years with an individual who
was turned adrift with Bligh, and who died about the year
’22, a lieutenant in the navy, in a provincial town in
which the writer was brought up. The ring-leaders in the
mutiny were two scoundrels, Christian and Young, who had great
influence with the crew, because they were genteelly
connected. Bligh, after leaving the “Bounty,”
had considerable difficulty in managing the men who had shared
his fate, because they considered themselves “as good men
as he,” notwithstanding that to his conduct and seamanship
they had alone to look, under Heaven, for salvation from the
ghastly perils that surrounded them. Bligh himself, in his
journal, alludes to this feeling. Once, when he and his
companions landed on a desert island, one of them said, with a
mutinous look, that he considered himself “as good a man as
he;” Bligh, seizing a cutlass, called upon him to take
another and defend himself, whereupon the man said that Bligh was
going to kill him, and made all manner of concessions; now why
did this fellow consider himself as good a man as Bligh?
Was he as good a seaman? no, nor a tenth part as good. As
brave a man? no, nor a tenth part as brave; and of these facts he
was perfectly well aware, but bravery and seamanship stood for
nothing with him, as they still stand with thousands of his
class; Bligh was not genteel by birth or money, therefore Bligh
was no better than himself. Had Bligh, before he sailed,
got a twenty-thousand pound prize in the lottery, he would have
experienced no insolence from this fellow, for there would have
been no mutiny in the “Bounty.” “He is
our betters,” the crew would have said, “and it is
our duty to obey him.”
The wonderful power of gentility in England is exemplified in
nothing more than in what it is producing amongst Jews, Gypsies,
and Quakers. It is breaking up their venerable
communities. All the better, some one will say. Alas!
alas! It is making the wealthy Jews forsake the synagogue
for the opera-house, or the gentility chapel, in which a disciple
of Mr. Platitude, in a white surplice, preaches a sermon at
noon-day from a desk, on each side of which is a flaming
taper. It is making them abandon their ancient literature,
their “Mischna,” their “Gemara,” their
“Zohar,” for gentility novels, “The Young
Duke,” the most unexceptionably genteel book ever written,
being the principal favourite. It makes the young Jew
ashamed of the young Jewess, it makes her ashamed of the young
Jew. The young Jew marries an opera dancer, or if the
dancer will not have him, as is frequently the case, the cast-off
Miss of the Honourable Spencer So-and-so. It makes the
young Jewess accept the honourable offer of a cashiered
lieutenant of the Bengal Native Infantry; or if such a person
does not come forward, the dishonourable offer of a cornet of a
regiment of crack hussars. It makes poor Jews, male and
female, forsake the synagogue for the sixpenny theatre or penny
hop; the Jew to take up with an Irish
female of loose character, and the Jewess with a musician of the
Guards, or the Tipperary servant of Captain Mulligan. With
respect to the gypsies, it is making the women what they never
were before—harlots; and the men what they never were
before—careless fathers and husbands. It has made the
daughter of Ursula the chaste take up with the base-drummer of a
wild-beast show. It makes Gorgiko Brown, the gypsy man,
leave his tent and his old wife, of an evening, and thrust
himself into society which could well dispense with him.
“Brother,” said Mr. Petulengro the other day to the
Romany Rye, after telling him many things connected with the
decadence of gypsyism, “there is one Gorgiko Brown, who,
with a face as black as a teakettle, wishes to be mistaken for a
Christian tradesman; he goes into the parlour of a third-rate inn
of an evening, calls for rum and water, and attempts to enter
into conversation with the company about politics and business;
the company flout him or give him the cold shoulder, or perhaps
complain to the landlord, who comes and asks him what business he
has in the parlour, telling him if he wants to drink to go into
the tap-room, and perhaps collars him and kicks him out, provided
he refuses to move.” With respect to the Quakers, it
makes the young people, like the young Jews, crazy after
gentility diversions, worship, marriages, or connections, and
makes old Pease do what it makes Gorgiko Brown do, thrust himself
into society which could well dispense with him, and out of which
he is not kicked, because unlike the gypsy he is not poor.
The writer would say much more on these points, but want of room
prevents him; he must therefore request the reader to have
patience until he can lay before the world a pamphlet, which he
has been long meditating, to be entitled “Remarks on the
strikingly similar Effects which a Love for Gentility has
produced, and is producing, amongst Jews, Gypsies, and
Quakers.”
The Priest in the book has much to say on the subject of this
gentility nonsense; no person can possibly despise it more
thoroughly than that very remarkable individual seems to do, yet
he hails its prevalence with pleasure, knowing the benefits which
will result from it to the church of which he is the sneering
slave. “The English are mad after gentility,”
says he; “well, all the better for us; their religion for a
long time past has been a plain and simple one, and consequently
by no means genteel; they’ll quit it for ours, which is the
perfection of what they admire; with which Templars, Hospitalers,
mitred abbots, Gothic abbeys, long-drawn aisles, golden censers,
incense, et cetera, are connected; nothing, or next to nothing,
of Christ, it is true, but weighed in the balance against
gentility, where will Christianity be? why, kicking against the
beam—ho! ho!” And in connection with the
gentility nonsense, he expatiates largely, and with much
contempt, on a species of literature by which the interests of
his church in England have been very much advanced—all
genuine priests have a thorough contempt for
everything which tends to advance the interests of their
church—this literature is made up of pseudo-Jacobitism,
Charlie o’er the waterism, or nonsense about Charlie
o’er the water. And the writer will now take the
liberty of saying a few words about it on his own account.
Of the literature just alluded to Scott was the
inventor. It is founded on the fortunes and misfortunes of
the Stuart family, of which Scott was the zealous defender and
apologist, doing all that in his power lay to represent the
members of it as noble, chivalrous, high-minded, unfortunate
princes; though, perhaps, of all the royal families that ever
existed upon earth, this family was the worst. It was
unfortunate enough, it is true; but it owed its misfortunes
entirely to its crimes, viciousness, bad faith, and
cowardice. Nothing will be said of it here until it made
its appearance in England to occupy the English throne.
The first of the family which we have to do with, James, was a
dirty, cowardly miscreant, of whom the less said the
better. His son, Charles the First, was a
tyrant—exceedingly cruel and revengeful, but weak and
dastardly; he caused a poor fellow to be hanged in London, who
was not his subject, because he had heard that the unfortunate
creature had once bit his own glove at Cadiz, in Spain, at the
mention of his name; and he permitted his own bull-dog,
Strafford, to be executed by his own enemies, though the only
crime of Strafford was, that he had barked furiously at those
enemies, and had worried two or three of them, when Charles
shouted, “Fetch ’em.” He was a bitter,
but yet a despicable enemy, and the coldest and most worthless of
friends; for though he always hoped to be able some time or other
to hang his enemies, he was always ready to curry favour with
them, more especially if he could do so at the expense of his
friends. He was the haughtiest, yet meanest of
mankind. He once caned a young nobleman for appearing
before him in the drawing-room not dressed exactly according to
the court etiquette; yet he condescended to flatter and
compliment him who, from principle, was his bitterest enemy,
namely, Harrison, when the republican colonel was conducting him
as a prisoner to London. His bad faith was notorious; it
was from abhorrence of the first public instance which he gave of
his bad faith, his breaking his word to the Infanta of Spain,
that the poor Hiberno-Spaniard bit his glove at Cadiz; and it was
his notorious bad faith which eventually cost him his
head; for the Republicans would gladly have spared him, provided
they could have put the slightest confidence in any promise,
however solemn, which he might have made to them. Of them,
it would be difficult to say whether they most hated or despised
him. Religion he had none. One day he favoured
Popery; the next, on hearing certain clamours of the people, he
sent his wife’s domestics back packing to France, because
they were Papists. Papists, however, should make him a
saint, for he was certainly the cause of the taking of
Rochelle.
His son, Charles the Second, though he passed his youth in the
school of adversity, learned no other lesson from it than the
following one—take care of yourself, and never do an
action, either good or bad, which is likely to bring you into any
great difficulty; and this maxim he acted up to as soon as he
came to the throne. He was a Papist, but took especial care
not to acknowledge his religion, at which he frequently scoffed,
till just before his last gasp, when he knew that he could lose
nothing, and hoped to gain everything by it. He was always
in want of money, but took care not to tax the country beyond all
endurable bounds; preferring, to such a bold and dangerous
course, to become the secret pensioner of Louis, to whom, in
return for his gold, he sacrificed the honour and interests of
Britain. He was too lazy and sensual to delight in playing
the part of a tyrant himself; but he never checked tyranny in
others, save in one instance. He permitted beastly butchers
to commit unmentionable horrors on the feeble, unarmed, and
disunited Covenanters of Scotland, but checked them when they
would fain have endeavoured to play the same game on the
numerous, united, dogged, and warlike Independents of
England. To show his filial piety, he bade the hangman
dishonour the corpses of some of his father’s judges,
before whom, when alive, he ran like a screaming hare; but
permitted those who had lost their all in supporting his
father’s cause, to pine in misery and want. He would
give to a painted harlot a thousand pounds for a loathsome
embrace, and to a player or buffoon a hundred for a trumpery pun,
but would refuse a penny to the widow or orphan of an old
Royalist soldier. He was the personification of
selfishness; and as he loved and cared for no one, so did no one
love or care for him. So little had he gained the respect
or affection of those who surrounded him, that after his body had
undergone an after-death examination, parts of it were thrown
down the sinks of the palace, to become eventually the prey of
the swine and ducks of Westminster.
His brother, who succeeded him, James the Second, was a
Papist, but sufficiently honest to acknowledge his Popery, but,
upon the whole, he was a poor creature; though a tyrant, he was
cowardly, had he not been a coward he would never have lost his
throne. There were plenty of lovers of tyranny in England
who would have stood by him, provided he would have stood by
them, and would, though not Papists, have
encouraged him in his attempt to bring back England beneath the
sway of Rome, and perhaps would eventually have become Papists
themselves; but the nation raising a cry against him, and his
son-in-law, the Prince of Orange invading the country, he forsook
his friends, of whom he had a host, but for whom he cared
little—left his throne, for which he cared a great
deal—and Popery in England, for which he cared yet more, to
their fate, and escaped to France, from whence, after taking a
little heart, he repaired to Ireland, where he was speedily
joined by a gallant army of Papists whom he basely abandoned at
the Boyne, running away in a most lamentable condition, at the
time when by showing a little courage he might have enabled them
to conquer. This worthy, in his last will, bequeathed his
heart to England—his right arm to Scotland—and his
bowels to Ireland. What the English and Scotch said to
their respective bequests is not known, but it is certain that an
old Irish priest, supposed to have been a great grand-uncle of
the present Reverend Father Murtagh, on hearing of the bequest to
Ireland, fell into a great passion, and having been brought up at
“Paris and Salamanca,” expressed his indignation in
the following strain:—“Malditas sean tus tripas!
teniamos bastante del olor de tus tripas al tiempo de tu nuida
dela batalla del Boyne!”
His son, generally called the Old Pretender, though born in
England, was carried in his infancy to France, where he was
brought up in the strictest principles of Popery, which
principles, however, did not prevent him becoming (when did they
ever prevent any one?) a worthless and profligate scoundrel;
there are some doubts as to the reality of his being a son of
James, which doubts are probably unfounded, the grand proof of
his legitimacy being the thorough baseness of his
character. It was said of his father that he could speak
well, and it may be said of him that he could write well, the
only thing he could do which was worth doing, always supposing
that there is any merit in being able to write. He was of a
mean appearance, and, like his father, pusillanimous to a
degree. The meanness of his appearance disgusted, and his
pusillanimity discouraged the Scotch when he made his appearance
amongst them in the year 1715, some time after the standard of
rebellion had been hoisted by Mar. He only stayed a short
time in Scotland, and then, seized with panic, retreated to
France, leaving his friends to shift for themselves as they best
could. He died a pensioner of the Pope.
The son of this man, Charles Edward, of whom so much in latter
years has been said and written, was a worthless, ignorant youth,
and a profligate and illiterate old man. When young, the
best that can be said of him is, that he had occasionally springs
of courage, invariably at the wrong time and place, which merely
served to lead his friends into inextricable difficulties.
When old, he was loathsome and contemptible to both friend and
foe. His wife loathed him, and for the most
terrible of reasons; she did not pollute his couch, for to do
that was impossible—he had made it so vile; but she
betrayed it, inviting to it not only Alfieri the Filthy, but the
coarsest grooms. Dr. King, the warmest and almost last
adherent of his family, said that there was not a vice or crime
of which he was not guilty; as for his foes, they scorned to harm
him even when in their power. In the year 1745 he came down
from the Highlands of Scotland, which had long been a focus of
rebellion. He was attended by certain clans of the
Highlands, desperadoes used to freebootery from their infancy,
and consequently to the use of arms, and possessed of a certain
species of discipline; with these he defeated at Prestonpans a
body of men called soldiers, but who were in reality peasants and
artisans, levied about a month before, without discipline or
confidence in each other, and who were miserably massacred by the
Highland army; he subsequently invaded England, nearly destitute
of regular soldiers, and penetrated as far as Derby, from which
place he retreated on learning that regular forces which had been
hastily recalled from Flanders were coming against him, with the
Duke of Cumberland at their head; he was pursued, and his rear
guard overtaken and defeated by the dragoons of the duke at
Clifton, from which place the rebels retreated in great confusion
across the Eden into Scotland, where they commenced dancing
Highland reels and strathspeys on the bank of the river, for joy
at their escape, whilst a number of wretched girls, paramours of
some of them, were perishing in the waters of the swollen river
in an attempt to follow them; they themselves passed over by
eighties and by hundreds, arm in arm, for mutual safety, without
the loss of a man, but they left the poor paramours to shift for
themselves, nor did any of these canny people after passing the
stream dash back to rescue a single female life,—no, they
were too well employed upon the bank in dancing strathspeys to
the tune of “Charlie o’er the water.” It
was, indeed, Charlie o’er the water, and canny Highlanders
o’er the water, but where were the poor prostitutes
meantime? In the water.
The Jacobite farce, or tragedy, was speedily brought to a
close by the battle of Culloden; there did Charlie wish himself
back again o’er the water, exhibiting the most unmistakable
signs of pusillanimity; there were the clans cut to pieces, at
least those who could be brought to the charge, and there fell
Giles Mac Bean, or as he was called in Gaelic, Giliosa Mac
Beathan, a kind of giant, six feet four inches and a quarter
high, “than whom,” as his wife said in a coronach she
made upon him, “no man who stood at Cuiloitr was
taller”—Giles Mac Bean the Major of the clan
Cattan—a great drinker—a great fisher—a great
shooter, and the champion of the Highland host.
The last of the Stuarts was a cardinal.
Such were the Stuarts, such their miserable history.
They were dead and buried in every sense of
the word until Scott resuscitated them—how? by the power of
fine writing, and by calling to his aid that strange divinity,
gentility. He wrote splendid novels about the Stuarts, in
which he represents them as unlike what they really were as the
graceful and beautiful papillon is unlike the hideous and filthy
worm. In a word, he made them genteel, and that was enough
to give them paramount sway over the minds of the British
people. The public became Stuart-mad, and everybody,
especially the women, said, “What a pity it was that we
hadn’t a Stuart to govern.” All parties, Whig,
Tory, or Radical, became Jacobite at heart, and admirers of
absolute power. The Whigs talked about the liberty of the
subject, and the Radicals about the rights of man still, but
neither party cared a straw for what it talked about, and
mentally swore that, as soon as by means of such stuff they could
get places, and fill their pockets, they would be as Jacobite as
the Jacobs themselves. As for the Tories, no great change
in them was necessary; everything favouring absolutism and
slavery being congenial to them. So the whole nation, that
is, the reading part of the nation, with some exceptions, for
thank God there has always been some salt in England, went over
the water to Charlie. But going over to Charlie was not
enough, they must, or at least a considerable part of them, go
over to Rome too, or have a hankering to do so. As the
Priest sarcastically observes in the text, “As all the
Jacobs were Papists, so the good folks who through Scott’s
novels admire the Jacobs must be Papists too.” An
idea got about that the religion of such genteel people as the
Stuarts must be the climax of gentility, and that idea was quite
sufficient. Only let a thing, whether temporal or
spiritual, be considered genteel in England, and if it be not
followed it is strange indeed; so Scott’s writings not only
made the greater part of the nation Jacobite, but Popish.
Here some people will exclaim—whose opinions remain
sound and uncontaminated—what you say is perhaps true with
respect to the Jacobite nonsense at present so prevalent being
derived from Scott’s novels, but the Popish nonsense, which
people of the genteeler class are so fond of, is derived from
Oxford. We sent our sons to Oxford nice honest lads,
educated in the principles of the Church of England, and at the
end of the first term they came home puppies, talking Popish
nonsense, which they had learned from the pedants to whose care
we had entrusted them; ay, not only Popery, but Jacobitism, which
they hardly carried with them from home, for we never heard them
talking Jacobitism before they had been at Oxford; but now their
conversation is a farrago of Popish and Jacobite
stuff—“Complines and Claverse.” Now, what
these honest folks say is, to a certain extent, founded on fact;
the Popery which has overflowed the land during the last fourteen
or fifteen years, has come immediately from Oxford, and likewise
some of the Jacobitism, Popish and Jacobite nonsense, and little
or nothing else, having been taught at Oxford for about
that number of years. But whence did the pedants get the
Popish nonsense with which they have corrupted youth? Why,
from the same quarter from which they got the Jacobite nonsense
with which they have inoculated those lads who were not
inoculated with it before—Scott’s novels.
Jacobitism and Laudism, a kind of half Popery, had at one time
been very prevalent at Oxford, but both had been long consigned
to oblivion there, and people at Oxford cared as little about
Laud as they did about the Pretender. Both were dead and
buried there, as everywhere else, till Scott called them out of
their graves, when the pedants of Oxford hailed both—ay,
and the Pope, too, as soon as Scott had made the old fellow
fascinating, through particular novels, more especially the
“Monastery” and “Abbot.” Then the
quiet, respectable, honourable Church of England would no longer
do for the pedants of Oxford; they must belong to a more genteel
Church—they were ashamed at first to be downright
Romans—so they would be Lauds. The pale-looking, but
exceedingly genteel non-juring clergyman in
“Waverley” was a Laud; but they soon became tired of
being Lauds, for Laud’s Church, gewgawish and idolatrous as
it was, was not sufficiently tinselly and idolatrous for them, so
they must be Popes, but in a sneaking way, still calling
themselves Church of England men, in order to batten on the
bounty of the Church which they were betraying, and likewise have
opportunities of corrupting such lads as might still resort to
Oxford with principles uncontaminated. So the respectable
people, whose opinions are still sound, are, to a certain extent,
right when they say that the tide of Popery, which has flowed
over the land, has come from Oxford. It did come
immediately from Oxford, but how did it get to Oxford? Why,
from Scott’s novels. Oh! that sermon which was the
first manifestation of Oxford feeling, preached at Oxford some
time in the year ’38 by a divine of a weak and confused
intellect, in which Popery was mixed up with Jacobitism?
The present writer remembers perfectly well, on reading some
extracts from it at the time in a newspaper, on the top of a
coach, exclaiming—“Why, the simpleton has been
pilfering from Walter Scott’s novels!”
O Oxford pedants! Oxford pedants! ye whose politics and
religion are both derived from Scott’s novels! what a pity
it is that some lad of honest parents, whose mind ye are
endeavouring to stultify with your nonsense about
“Complines and Claverse,” has not the spirit to start
up and cry, “Confound your gibberish! I’ll have
none of it. Hurrah for the Church, and the principles of my
father!”
Now what could have induced Scott to write novels tending to
make people Papists and Jacobites, and in love with arbitrary
power? Did he think that Christianity was a gaudy
mummery? He did not, he could not, for he had read the
Bible; yet was he fond of gaudy mummeries, fond of talking about
them. Did he believe that the Stuarts were a good family,
and fit to govern a country like Britain? He knew that they
were a vicious, worthless crew, and that Britain was a degraded
country as long as they swayed the sceptre; but for those facts
he cared nothing, they governed in a way which he liked, for he
had an abstract love of despotism, and an abhorrence of
everything savouring of freedom and the rights of man in
general. His favourite political picture was a joking,
profligate, careless king, nominally absolute—the heads of
great houses paying court to, but in reality governing, that
king, whilst revelling with him on the plunder of a nation, and a
set of crouching, grovelling vassals (the literal meaning of
vassal is a wretch), who, after allowing themselves to be
horsewhipped, would take a bone if flung to them, and be
grateful; so that in love with mummery, though he knew what
Christianity was, no wonder he admired such a church as that of
Rome, and that which Laud set up; and by nature formed to be the
holder of the candle to ancient worm-eaten and profligate
families, no wonder that all his sympathies were with the Stuarts
and their dissipated insolent party, and all his hatred directed
against those who endeavoured to check them in their proceedings,
and to raise the generality of mankind something above a state of
vassalage that is wretchedness. Those who were born great,
were, if he could have had his will, always to remain great,
however worthless their characters. Those who were born
low, were always to remain so, however great their
talents—though if that rule were carried out, where would
he have been himself?
In the book which he called the “History of Napoleon
Bonaparte,” in which he plays the sycophant to all the
legitimate crowned heads in Europe, whatever their crimes, vices,
or miserable imbecilities, he, in his abhorrence of everything
low which by its own vigour makes itself illustrious, calls Murat
of the sabre the son of a pastry-cook, of a Marseilleise
pastry-cook. It is a pity that people who give themselves
hoity-toity airs—and the Scotch in general are wonderfully
addicted to giving themselves hoity-toity airs, and checking
people better than themselves with their birth [332] and their
country—it is a great pity that such people do not look at
home—son of a pastry-cook, of a Marseilleise
pastry-cook! Well, and what was Scott himself? Why,
son of a pettifogger, of an Edinburgh pettifogger.
“Oh, but Scott was descended from the old cow-stealers of
Buccleuch, and therefore . . .” Descended from old
cow-stealers, was he? Well, had he had nothing to boast of
beyond such a pedigree, he would have lived and died the son of a
pettifogger, and been forgotten, and deservedly so; but he
possessed talents, and by his talents rose like Murat, and like
him will be remembered for his talents alone, and deservedly
so. “Yes, but Murat was still the son of a
pastry-cook, and though he was certainly good at the sabre, and
cut his way to a throne, still . . .” Lord! what
fools there are in the world; but as no one can be thought
anything of in this world without a pedigree, the writer will now
give a pedigree for Murat, of a very different character from the
cow-stealing one of Scott, but such a one as the proudest he
might not disdain to claim. Scott was descended from the
old cow-stealers of Buccleuch—was he? Good! and Murat
was descended from the old Moors of Spain, from the Abencerages
(sons of the saddle) of Granada. The name Murat is Arabic,
and is the same as Murad (Le Desiré, or the wished-for
one). Scott, in his genteel life of Bonaparte, says that
“when Murat was in Egypt, the similarity between the name
of the celebrated Mameluke Mourad and that of Bonaparte’s
Meilleur Sabreur was remarked, and became the subject of jest
amongst the comrades of the gallant Frenchman.” But
the writer of the novel of Bonaparte did not know that the names
were one and the same. Now which was the best pedigree,
that of the son of the pastry-cook, or that of the son of the
pettifogger? Which was the best blood? Let us observe
the workings of the two bloods. He who had the blood of the
“sons of the saddle” in him became the wonderful
cavalier of the most wonderful host that ever went forth to
conquest, won for himself a crown, and died the death of a
soldier, leaving behind him a son, only inferior to himself in
strength, in prowess, and in horsemanship. The descendant
of the cow-stealer became a poet, a novel writer, the panegyrist
of great folks and genteel people; became insolvent because,
though an author, he deemed it ungenteel to be mixed up with the
business part of authorship; died paralytic and broken-hearted
because he could no longer give entertainments to great folks;
leaving behind him, amongst other children, who were
never heard of, a son, who through his father’s interest,
had become lieutenant-colonel in a genteel cavalry
regiment. A son who was ashamed of his father because his
father was an author; a son who—paugh—why ask which
was the best blood!
So, owing to his rage for gentility, Scott must needs become
the apologist of the Stuarts and their party; but God made this
man pay dearly for taking the part of the wicked against the
good; for lauding up to the skies miscreants and robbers, and
calumniating the noble spirits of Britain, the salt of England,
and his own country. As God had driven the Stuarts from
their throne, and their followers from their estates, making them
vagabonds and beggars on the face of the earth, taking from them
all they cared for, so did that same God, who knows perfectly
well how and where to strike, deprive the apologist of that
wretched crew of all that rendered life pleasant in his eyes, the
lack of which paralysed him in body and mind, rendered him
pitiable to others, loathsome to himself,—so much so, that
he once said, “Where is the beggar who would change places
with me, notwithstanding all my fame?” Ah! God
knows perfectly well how to strike. He permitted him to
retain all his literary fame to the very last—his literary
fame for which he cared nothing; but what became of the
sweetnesses of life, his fine house, his grand company, and his
entertainments? The grand house ceased to be his; he was
only permitted to live in it on sufferance, and whatever grandeur
it might still retain, it soon became as desolate a looking house
as any misanthrope could wish to see—where were the grand
entertainments and the grand company? there are no grand
entertainments where there is no money; no lords and ladies where
there are no entertainments—and there lay the poor lodger
in the desolate house, groaning on a bed no longer his, smitten
by the hand of God in the part where he was most
vulnerable. Of what use telling such a man to take comfort,
for he had written the “Minstrel” and “Rob
Roy,”—telling him to think of his literary
fame? Literary fame, indeed! he wanted back his lost
gentility:—
“Retain
my altar,
I care nothing for it—but, oh! touch not my
beard.”
Porny’s War of the Gods.
He dies, his children die too, and then comes the crowning
judgment of God on what remained of his race, and the house which
he had built. He was not a Papist himself, nor did he wish
any one belonging to him to be Popish, for he had read enough of
the Bible to know that no one can be saved through Popery, yet
had he a sneaking affection for it, and would at all times, in an
underhand manner, give it a good word both in writing and
discourse, because it was a gaudy kind of worship, and ignorance
and vassalage prevailed so long as it flourished—but he
certainly did not wish any of his people to
become Papists, nor the house which he had built to become a
Popish house, though the very name he gave it savoured of Popery;
but Popery becomes fashionable through his novels and
poems—the only one that remains of his race, a female
grandchild, marries a person who, following the fashion, becomes
a Papist, and makes her a Papist too. Money abounds with
the husband, who buys the house, and then the house becomes the
rankest Popish house in Britain. A superstitious person
might almost imagine that one of the old Scottish Covenanters,
whilst the grand house was being built from the profits resulting
from the sale of writings favouring Popery and persecution, and
calumniatory of Scotland’s saints and martyrs, had risen
from the grave, and banned Scott, his race, and his house, by
reading a certain psalm.
In saying what he has said about Scott, the author has not
been influenced by any feeling of malice or ill-will, but simply
by a regard for truth, and a desire to point out to his
countrymen the harm which has resulted from the perusal of his
works;—he is not one of those who would depreciate the
talents of Scott—he admires his talents, both as a prose
writer and a poet; as a poet especially he admires him, and
believes him to have been by far the greatest, with perhaps the
exception of Mickiewicz, who only wrote for unfortunate Poland,
that Europe has given birth to during the last hundred
years. As a prose writer he admires him less, it is true,
but his admiration for him in that capacity is very high, and he
only laments that he prostituted his talents to the cause of the
Stuarts and gentility. What book of fiction of the present
century can you read twice, with the exception of
“Waverley” and “Rob Roy”? There is
“Pelham,” it is true, which the writer of these lines
has seen a Jewess reading in the steppe of Debreczin, and which a
young Prussian Baron, a great traveller, whom he met at
Constantinople in ’44, told him he always carried in his
valise. And, in conclusion, he will say, in order to show
the opinion which he entertains of the power of Scott as a
writer, that he did for the spectre of the wretched Pretender
what all the kings of Europe could not do for his
body—placed it on the throne of these realms; and for
Popery, what Popes and Cardinals strove in vain to do for three
centuries—brought back its mummeries and nonsense into the
temples of the British Isles.
Scott during his lifetime had a crowd of imitators, who,
whether they wrote history so called—poetry so
called—or novels—nobody would call a book a novel if
he could call it anything else—wrote Charlie o’er the
water nonsense; and now that he has been dead a quarter of a
century, there are others daily springing up who are striving to
imitate Scott in his Charlie o’er the water
nonsense—for nonsense it is, even when flowing from his
pen. They, too, must write Jacobite histories, Jacobite
songs, and Jacobite novels, and much the same figure as the
scoundrel menials in the comedy cut when
personating their masters, and retailing their masters’
conversation, do they cut as Walter Scotts. In their
histories, they too talk about the Prince and Glenfinnan, and the
pibroch; and in their songs about “Claverse” and
“Bonny Dundee.” But though they may be Scots,
they are not Walter Scotts. But it is perhaps chiefly in
the novel that you see the veritable hog in armour; the time of
the novel is of course the ’15 or ’45; the hero a
Jacobite, and connected with one or other of the enterprises of
those periods; and the author, to show how unprejudiced he is,
and what original views he takes of subjects, must needs
speak up for Popery, whenever he has occasion to mention it;
though, with all his originality, when he brings his hero and the
vagabonds with which he is concerned before a barricadoed house,
belonging to the Whigs, he can make them get into it by no other
method than that which Scott makes his rioters employ to get into
the Tolbooth, burning down the door.
To express the more than utter foolishness of this latter
Charlie o’er the water nonsense, whether in rhyme or prose,
there is but one word, and that word a Scotch word. Scotch,
the sorriest of jargons, compared with which even Roth Welsch is
dignified and expressive, has yet one word to express what would
be inexpressible by any word or combination of words in any
language, or in any other jargon in the world; and very properly;
for as the nonsense is properly Scotch, so should the word be
Scotch which expresses it—that word is
“fushionless,” pronounced fooshionless; and
when the writer has called the nonsense fooshionless—and he
does call it fooshionless—he has nothing more to say, but
leaves the nonsense to its fate.
The writer now wishes to say something on the subject of
canting nonsense, of which there is a great deal in
England. There are various cants in England, amongst which
is the religious cant. He is not going to discuss the
subject of religious cant: lest, however, he should be
misunderstood, he begs leave to repeat that he is a sincere
member of the old-fashioned Church of England, in which he
believes there is more religion, and consequently less cant, than
in any other church in the world; nor is he going to discuss many
other cants; he shall content himself with saying something about
two—the temperance cant and the unmanly cant.
Temperance canters say that “it is unlawful to drink a
glass of ale.” Unmanly canters say that “it is
unlawful to use one’s fists.” The writer begs
leave to tell both these species of canters that they do not
speak the words of truth.
It is very lawful to take a cup of ale, or wine, for
the purpose of cheering or invigorating yourself when you are
faint and downhearted; and likewise to give a cup of ale or wine
to others when they are in a similar condition. The Holy
Scripture sayeth nothing to the contrary, but rather encourageth
people in so doing by the text, “Wine maketh glad the heart
of man.” But it is not lawful to intoxicate yourself
with frequent cups of ale or wine, nor to make others
intoxicated, nor does the Holy Scripture say that it is.
The Holy Scripture no more says that it is lawful to intoxicate
yourself or others, than it says that it is unlawful to take a
cup of ale or wine yourself, or to give one to others. Noah
is not commended in the Scripture for making himself drunken on
the wine he brewed. Nor is it said that the Saviour, when
He supplied the guests with first-rate wine at the marriage
feast, told them to make themselves drunk upon it. He is
said to have supplied them with first-rate wine, but He doubtless
left the quantity which each should drink to each party’s
reason and discretion. When you set a good dinner before
your guests, you do not expect that they should gorge themselves
with the victuals you set before them. Wine may be abused,
and so may a leg of mutton.
Second. It is lawful for any one to use his fists in his
own defence, or in the defence of others, provided they
can’t help themselves; but it is not lawful to use them for
purposes of tyranny or brutality. If you are attacked by a
ruffian, as the elderly individual in Lavengro is in the
inn-yard, it is quite lawful, if you can, to give him as good a
thrashing as the elderly individual gave the brutal coachman; and
if you see a helpless woman—perhaps your own
sister—set upon by a drunken lord, a drunken coachman, or a
drunken coalheaver, or a brute of any description, either drunk
or sober, it is not only lawful, but laudable, to give them, if
you can, a good drubbing: but it is not lawful, because you have
a strong pair of fists, and know how to use them, to go
swaggering through a fair, jostling against unoffending
individuals; should you do so, you would be served quite right if
you were to get a drubbing, more particularly if you were served
out by some one less strong, but more skilful than
yourself—even as the coachman was served out by a pupil of
the immortal Broughton—sixty years old, it is true, but
possessed of Broughton’s guard and chop. Moses is not
blamed in the Scripture for taking part with the oppressed, and
killing an Egyptian persecutor. We are not told how Moses
killed the Egyptian; but it is quite as creditable to Moses to
suppose that he killed the Egyptian by giving him a buffet under
the left ear, as by stabbing him with a knife. It is true,
that the Saviour in the New Testament tells his disciples to turn
the left cheek to be smitten, after they had received a blow on
the right; but He was speaking to people divinely inspired, or
whom He intended divinely to inspire—people selected by God
for a particular purpose. He likewise tells these people to
part with various articles of raiment when asked
for them, and to go a-travelling without money, and to take no
thought of the morrow. Are those exhortations carried out
by very good people in the present day? Do Quakers, when
smitten on the right cheek, turn the left to the smiter?
When asked for their coat, do they say, “Friend, take my
shirt also”? Has the Dean of Salisbury no
purse? Does the Archbishop of Canterbury go to an inn, run
up a reckoning, and then say to his landlady, “Mistress, I
have no coin”? Assuredly the Dean has a purse, and a
tolerably well-filled one; and, assuredly, the Archbishop, on
departing from an inn, not only settles his reckoning, but leaves
something handsome for the servants, and does not say that he is
forbidden by the gospel to pay for what he has eaten, or the
trouble he has given, as a certain Spanish cavalier said he was
forbidden by the statutes of chivalry. Now, to take the
part of yourself, or the part of the oppressed, with your fists,
is quite as lawful in the present day as it is to refuse your
coat and your shirt also to any vagabond who may ask for them,
and not to refuse to pay for supper, bed, and breakfast, at the
Feathers, or any other inn, after you have had the benefit of all
three.
The conduct of Lavengro with respect to drink may, upon the
whole, serve as a model. He is no drunkard, nor is he fond
of intoxicating other people; yet when the horrors are upon him
he has no objection to go to a public-house and call for a pint
of ale, nor does he shrink from recommending ale to others when
they are faint and downcast. In one instance, it is true,
he does what cannot be exactly justified; he encourages the
Priest in the dingle, in more instances than one, in drinking
more hollands and water than is consistent with decorum. He
has a motive indeed in doing so; a desire to learn from the knave
in his cups the plans and hopes of the Propaganda of Rome.
Such conduct, however, was inconsistent with strict fair dealing
and openness; and the author advises all those whose consciences
never reproach them for a single unfair or covert act committed
by them, to abuse him heartily for administering hollands and
water to the Priest of Rome. In that instance the hero is
certainly wrong; yet in all other cases with regard to drink, he
is manifestly right. To tell people that they are never to
drink a glass of ale or wine themselves, or to give one to
others, is cant; and the writer has no toleration for cant of any
description. Some cants are not dangerous; but the writer
believes that a more dangerous cant than the temperance cant, or
as it is generally called, teetotalism, is scarcely to be
found. The writer is willing to believe that it originated
with well-meaning, though weak people; but there can be no doubt
that it was quickly turned to account by people who were neither
well meaning nor weak. Let the reader note particularly the
purpose to which this cry has been turned in America; the land,
indeed, par excellence, of humbug and humbug cries.
It is there continually in the mouth of the most violent
political party, and is made an instrument of almost unexampled
persecution. The writer would say more on the temperance cant, both in England and America, but want
of space prevents him. There is one point on which he
cannot avoid making a few brief remarks—that is the
inconsistent conduct of its apostles in general. The
teetotal apostle says, it is a dreadful thing to be drunk.
So it is, teetotaller; but if so, why do you get drunk? I
get drunk? Yes, unhappy man, why do you get drunk on smoke
and passion? Why are your garments impregnated with the
odour of the Indian weed? Why is there a pipe or a cigar
always in your mouth? Why is your language more dreadful
than that of a Poissarde? Tobacco-smoke is more deleterious
than ale, teetotaller; bile more potent than brandy. You
are fond of telling your hearers what an awful thing it is to die
drunken. So it is, teetotaller. Then take good care
that you do not die with smoke and passion, drunken, and with
temperance language on your lips; that is, abuse and calumny
against all those who differ from you. One word of sense
you have been heard to say, which is, that spirits may be taken
as a medicine. Now you are in a fever of passion,
teetotaller; so, pray take this tumbler of brandy; take it on the
homœopathic principle, that heat is to be expelled by
heat. You are in a temperance fury, so swallow the contents
of this tumbler, and it will, perhaps, cure you. You look
at the glass wistfully—you say you occasionally take a
glass medicinally—and it is probable you do. Take one
now. Consider what a dreadful thing it would be to die
passion drunk; to appear before your Maker with
intemperate language on your lips. That’s
right! You don’t seem to wince at the brandy.
That’s right!—well done! All down in two
pulls. Now you look like a reasonable being!
If the conduct of Lavengro with regard to drink is open to
little censure, assuredly the use which he makes of his fists is
entitled to none at all. Because he has a pair of tolerably
strong fists, and knows to a certain extent how to use them, is
he a swaggerer or oppressor? To what ill account does he
turn them? Who more quiet, gentle, and inoffensive than
he? He beats off a ruffian who attacks him in a dingle; has
a kind of friendly tussle with Mr. Petulengro, and behold the
extent of his fistic exploits.
Ay, but he associates with prize-fighters; and that very
fellow, Petulengro, is a prize-fighter, and has fought for a
stake in a ring. Well, and if he had not associated with
prize-fighters, how could he have used his fists? Oh,
anybody can use his fists in his own defence, without being
taught by prize-fighters. Can they? Then why does not
the Italian, or Spaniard, or Affghan use his fists when insulted
or outraged, instead of having recourse to the weapons which he
has recourse to? Nobody can use his fists without being
taught the use of them by those who have themselves been taught,
no more than any one can “whiffle” without being
taught by a master of the art. Now let any man of the
present day try to whiffle. Would not any one who wished to
whiffle have to go to a master of the art. Assuredly! but
where would he find one at the present
day? The last of the whifflers hanged himself about a
fortnight ago on a bell-rope in a church steeple of “the
old town,” from pure grief that there was no further demand
for the exhibition of his art, there being no demand for
whiffling since the discontinuation of Guildhall banquets.
Whiffling is lost. The old chap left his sword behind him;
let any one take up the old chap’s sword and try to
whiffle. Now much the same hand as he would make who should
take up the whiffler’s sword and try to whiffle, would he
who should try to use his fists who had never had the advantage
of a master. Let no one think that men use their fists
naturally in their own disputes—men have naturally recourse
to any other thing to defend themselves or to offend others; they
fly to the stick, to the stone, to the murderous and cowardly
knife, or to abuse as cowardly as the knife, and occasionally
more murderous. Now which is best when you hate a person,
or have a pique against a person, to clench your fist and say
“Come on,” or to have recourse to the stone, the
knife, or murderous calumny? The use of the fist is almost
lost in England. Yet are the people better than they were
when they knew how to use their fists? The writer believes
not. A fisty combat is at present a great rarity, but the
use of the knife, the noose, and of poison, to say nothing of
calumny, are of more frequent occurrence in England than perhaps
in any country in Europe. Is polite taste better than when
it could bear the details of a fight? The writer believes
not. Two men cannot meet in a ring to settle a dispute in a
manly manner without some trumpery local newspaper letting loose
a volley of abuse against “the disgraceful
exhibition,” in which abuse it is sure to be sanctioned by
its dainty readers; whereas some murderous horror, the discovery,
for example, of the mangled remains of a woman in some obscure
den, is greedily seized hold on by the moral journal, and dressed
up for its readers, who luxuriate and gloat upon the ghastly
dish. Now, the writer of Lavengro has no sympathy with
those who would shrink from striking a blow, but would not shrink
from the use of poison or calumny; and his taste has little in
common with that which cannot tolerate the hardy details of a
prize-fight, but which luxuriates on descriptions of the murder
dens of modern England. But prize-fighters and pugilists
are blackguards, a reviewer has said; and blackguards they would
be provided they employed their skill and their prowess for
purposes of brutality and oppression; but prize-fighters and
pugilists are seldom friends to brutality and oppression; and
which is the blackguard, the writer would ask, he who uses his
fists to take his own part, or instructs others to use theirs for
the same purpose, or the being who from envy and malice, or at
the bidding of a malicious scoundrel, endeavours by calumny,
falsehood, and misrepresentation to impede the efforts of lonely
and unprotected genius?
One word more about the race, all but extinct, of the people
opprobriously called prize-fighters. Some of them
have been as noble, kindly men as the world ever produced.
Can the rolls of the English aristocracy exhibit names belonging
to more noble, more heroic men than those who were called
respectively Pearce, Cribb, and Spring? Did ever one of the
English aristocracy contract the seeds of fatal consumption by
rushing up the stairs of a burning edifice, even to the topmost
garret, and rescuing a woman from seemingly inevitable
destruction? The writer says No. A woman was rescued
from the top of a burning house; but the man who rescued her was
no aristocrat; it was Pearce, not Percy, who ran up the burning
stairs. Did ever one of those glittering ones save a
fainting female from the libidinous rage of six ruffians?
The writer believes not. A woman was rescued from the
libidinous fury of six monsters on . . . Down; but the man who
rescued her was no aristocrat; it was Pearce, not Paulet, who
rescued the woman, and thrashed my lord’s six
gamekeepers—Pearce, whose equal never was, and probably
never will be, found in sturdy combat. Are there any of the
aristocracy of whom it can be said that they never did a
cowardly, cruel, or mean action, and that they invariably took
the part of the unfortunate and weak against cruelty and
oppression? As much can be said of Cribb, of Spring, and
the other; but where is the aristocrat of whom as much can be
said? Wellington? Wellington, indeed! a skilful
general, and a good man of valour, it is true, but with that cant
word of “duty” continually on his lips, did he rescue
Ney from his butchers? Did he lend a helping hand to
Warner?
In conclusion, the writer would strongly advise those of his
country-folks who may read his book to have nothing to do with
the two kinds of canting nonsense described above, but in their
progress through life to enjoy as well as they can, but always
with moderation, the good things of this world, to put confidence
in God, to be as independent as possible, and to take their own
parts. If they are low-spirited, let them not make
themselves foolish by putting on sackcloth, drinking water, or
chewing ashes, but let them take wholesome exercise, and eat the
most generous food they can get, taking up and reading
occasionally, not the lives of Ignatius Loyola and Francis Spira,
but something more agreeable; for example, the life and
adventures of Mr. Duncan Campbell, the deaf and dumb gentleman;
the travels of Captain Falconer in America, and the Journal of
John Randall, who went to Virginia and married an Indian wife;
not forgetting, amidst their eating and drinking, their walks
over heaths, and by the sea-side, and their agreeable literature,
to be charitable to the poor, to read the Psalms, and to go to
church twice on a Sunday. In their dealings with people, to
be courteous to everybody, as Lavengro was, but always
independent like him; and if people meddle with them, to give
them as good as they bring, even as he and Isopel Berners were in
the habit of doing; and it will be as well for him to observe
that he by no means advises women to be too womanly,
but bearing the conduct of Isopel Berners in mind, to take their
own parts, and if anybody strikes them, to strike again.
Beating of women by the lords of the creation has become very
prevalent in England since pugilism has been
discountenanced. Now the writer strongly advises any woman
who is struck by a ruffian to strike him again; or if she cannot
clench her fists, and he advises all women in these singular
times to learn to clench their fists, to go at him with tooth and
nail, and not to be afraid of the result, for any fellow who is
dastard enough to strike a woman, would allow himself to be
beaten by a woman, were she to make at him in self-defence, even
if, instead of possessing the stately height and athletic
proportions of the aforesaid Isopel, she were as diminutive in
stature, and had a hand as delicate, and a foot as small, as a
certain royal lady, who was some time ago assaulted by a fellow
upwards of six feet high, whom the writer has no doubt she could
have beaten had she thought proper to go at him. Such is
the deliberate advice of the author to his countrymen and
women—advice in which he believes there is nothing
unscriptural or repugnant to common sense.
The writer is perfectly well aware that, by the plain language
which he has used in speaking of the various kinds of nonsense
prevalent in England, he shall make himself a multitude of
enemies; but he is not going to conceal the truth, or to tamper
with nonsense, from the fear of provoking hostility. He has
a duty to perform, and he will perform it resolutely; he is the
person who carried the Bible to Spain; and as resolutely as he
spoke in Spain against the superstitions of Spain, will he speak
in England against the nonsense of his own native land. He
is not one of those who, before they sit down to write a book,
say to themselves, what cry shall we take up? what principles
shall we advocate? what principles shall we abuse? before we put
pen to paper we must find out what cry is the loudest, what
principle has the most advocates, otherwise, after having written
our book, we may find ourselves on the weaker side.
A sailor of the “Bounty,” waked from his sleep by
the noise of the mutiny, lay still in his hammock for some time,
quite undecided whether to take part with the captain, or to join
the mutineers. “I must mind what I do,” said he
to himself, “lest, in the end, I find myself on the weaker
side;” finally, on hearing that the mutineers were
successful, he went on deck, and seeing Bligh pinioned to the
mast, he put his fist to his nose, and otherwise insulted
him. Now, there are many writers of the present day whose
conduct is very similar to that of the sailor. They lie
listening in their corners till they have ascertained which
principle has most advocates; then, presently, they make their
appearance on the deck of the world with their book; if truth has
been victorious, then has truth their hurrah! but if truth is
pinioned against the mast, then is their fist
thrust against the nose of truth, and their gibe and their insult
spirted in her face. The strongest party had the sailor,
and the strongest party has almost invariably the writer of the
present day.
A certain set of individuals calling themselves critics have
attacked Lavengro with much virulence and malice. If what
they call criticism had been founded on truth, the author would
have had nothing to say. The book contains plenty of
blemishes, some of them, by-the-bye, wilful ones, as the writer
will presently show; not one of these, however, has been detected
and pointed out; but the best passages in the book, indeed
whatever was calculated to make the book valuable, have been
assailed with abuse and misrepresentation. The duty of the
true critic is to play the part of a leech, and not of a
viper. Upon true and upon malignant criticism there is an
excellent fable by the Spaniard Iriarte. The viper says to
the leech, “Why do people invite your bite, and flee from
mine?” “Because,” says the leech,
“people receive health from my bite, and poison from
yours.” “There is as much difference,”
says the clever Spaniard, “between true and malignant
criticism, as between poison and medicine.” Certainly
a great many meritorious writers have allowed themselves to be
poisoned by malignant criticism; the writer, however, is not one
of those who allow themselves to be poisoned by pseudo-critics;
no! no! he will rather hold them up by their tails, and show the
creatures wriggling, blood and foam streaming from their broken
jaws. First of all, however, he will notice one of their
objections. “The book isn’t true,” say
they. Now one of the principal reasons with those that have
attacked Lavengro for their abuse of it is, that it is
particularly true in one instance, namely, that it exposes their
own nonsense, their love of humbug, their slavishness, their
dressings, their goings out, their scraping and bowing to great
people; it is the showing up of “gentility nonsense”
in Lavengro that has been one principal reason for the raising of
the above cry; for in Lavengro is denounced the besetting folly
of the English people, a folly which those who call themselves
guardians of the public taste are far from being above.
“We can’t abide anything that isn’t
true!” they exclaim. Can’t they? Then why
are they so enraptured with any fiction that is adapted to
purposes of humbug, which tends to make them satisfied with their
own proceedings, with their own nonsense, which does not tell
them to reform, to become more alive to their own failings, and
less sensitive about the tyrannical goings on of the
masters, and the degraded condition, the sufferings, and the
trials of the serfs in the star Jupiter? Had Lavengro,
instead of being the work of an independent mind, been written in
order to further any of the thousand and one cants, and species
of nonsense prevalent in England, the author would have heard
much less about its not being true, both from public detractors
and private censurers.
“But Lavengro pretends to be an autobiography,”
say the critics; and here the writer begs leave to observe, that
it would be well for people who profess to have a regard for
truth, not to exhibit in every assertion which they make a most
profligate disregard of it; this assertion of theirs is a
falsehood, and they know it to be a falsehood. In the
preface Lavengro is stated to be a dream; and the writer takes
this opportunity of stating that he never said it was an
autobiography; never authorised any person to say that it was
one; and that he has in innumerable instances declared in public
and private, both before and after the work was published, that
it was not what is generally termed an autobiography: but a set
of people who pretend to write criticisms on books, hating the
author for various reasons,—amongst others, because, having
the proper pride of a gentleman and a scholar, he did not, in the
year ’43, choose to permit himself to be exhibited and made
a zany of in London, and especially because he will neither
associate with, nor curry favour with, them who are neither
gentlemen nor scholars,—attack his book with abuse and
calumny. He is, perhaps, condescending too much when he
takes any notice of such people; as, however, the English public
is wonderfully led by cries and shouts, and generally ready to
take part against any person who is either unwilling or unable to
defend himself, he deems it advisable not to be altogether quiet
with those who assail him. The best way to deal with vipers
is to tear out their teeth; and the best way to deal with
pseudo-critics is to deprive them of their poison-bag, which is
easily done by exposing their ignorance. The writer knew
perfectly well the description of people with whom he would have
to do, he therefore very quietly prepared a stratagem, by means
of which he could at any time exhibit them, powerless and
helpless, in his hand. Critics, when they review books,
ought to have a competent knowledge of the subjects which those
books discuss.
Lavengro is a philological book, a poem if you choose to call
it so. Now, what a fine triumph it would have been for
those who wished to vilify the book and its author, provided they
could have detected the latter tripping in his
philology—they might have instantly said that he was an
ignorant pretender to philology—they laughed at the idea of
his taking up a viper by its tail, a trick which hundreds of
country urchins do every September, but they were silent about
the really wonderful part of the book, the philological
matter—they thought philology was his stronghold, and that it would be useless to attack him there; they of
course would give him no credit as a philologist, for anything
like fair treatment towards him was not to be expected at their
hands, but they were afraid to attack his philology—yet
that was the point, and the only point, in which they might have
attacked him successfully; he was vulnerable there. How was
this? Why, in order to have an opportunity of holding up
pseudo-critics by the tails, he wilfully spelt various foreign
words wrong—Welsh words, and even Italian words—did
they detect these misspellings? not one of them, even as he knew
they would not, and he now taunts them with ignorance; and the
power of taunting them with ignorance is the punishment which he
designed for them—a power which they might but for their
ignorance have used against him. The writer, besides
knowing something of Italian and Welsh, knows a little of
Armenian language and literature, but who knowing anything of the
Armenian language, unless he had an end in view, would say that
the word for sea in Armenian is anything like the word tide in
English? The word for sea in Armenian is dzow, a word
connected with the Tebetian word for water, and the Chinese shuy,
and the Turkish su, signifying the same thing; but where is the
resemblance between dzow and tide? Again, the word for
bread in ancient Armenian is hats; yet the Armenian on London
Bridge is made to say zhats, which is not the nominative of the
Armenian noun for bread, but the accusative: now, critics,
ravening against a man because he is a gentleman and a scholar,
and has not only the power but also the courage to write original
works, why did not you discover that weak point? Why,
because you were ignorant, so here ye are held up!
Moreover, who with a name commencing with Z, ever wrote fables in
Armenian? There are two writers of fables in
Armenian—Varthan and Koscht, and illustrious writers they
are, one in the simple, and the other in the ornate style of
Armenian composition, but neither of their names begins with a
Z. Oh, what a precious opportunity ye lost, ye ravening
crew, of convicting the poor, half-starved, friendless boy of the
book, of ignorance or misrepresentation, by asking who with a
name beginning with Z ever wrote fables in Armenian; but ye
couldn’t help yourselves, ye are duncie. We
duncie! Ay, duncie. So here ye are held up by the
tails, blood and foam streaming from your jaws.
The writer wishes to ask here, what do you think of all this,
Messieurs les Critiques? Were ye ever served so
before? But don’t you richly deserve it?
Haven’t you been for years past bullying and insulting
everybody whom you deemed weak, and currying favour with
everybody whom ye thought strong? “We approve
of this. We disapprove of that. Oh, this will never
do. These are fine lines!” The lines perhaps
some horrid sycophantic rubbish addressed to Wellington, or Lord
So-and-so. To have your ignorance thus exposed, to be shown
up in this manner, and by
whom? A gypsy! Ay, a gypsy was the very right person
to do it. But is it not galling after all?
Ah, but we don’t understand Armenian, it cannot
be expected that we should understand Armenian, or Welsh,
or . . . Hey, what’s this? The mighty we not
understand Armenian or Welsh, or . . . Then why does the mighty
we pretend to review a book like Lavengro? From the
arrogance with which it continually delivers itself, one would
think that the mighty we is omniscient; that it
understands every language; is versed in every literature; yet
the mighty we does not even know the word for bread in
Armenian. It knows bread well enough by name in English,
and frequently bread in England only by its name, but the truth
is, that the mighty we, with all its pretension, is in
general a very sorry creature, who, instead of saying nous
disons, should rather say nous dis: Porny in his “Guerre
des Dieux,” very profanely makes the three in one say, Je
faisons; now, Lavengro, who is anything but profane, would
suggest that critics, especially magazine and Sunday newspaper
critics, should commence with nous dis, as the first word would
be significant of the conceit and assumption of the critic, and
the second of the extent of the critic’s information.
The we says its say, but when fawning sycophancy or vulgar
abuse are taken from that say, what remains? Why a blank, a
void like Ginnungagap.
As the writer, of his own accord, has exposed some of the
blemishes of his book—a task which a competent critic ought
to have done—he will now point out two or three of its
merits, which any critic, not altogether blinded with ignorance,
might have done, or not replete with gall and envy would have
been glad to do. The book has the merit of communicating a
fact connected with physiology, which in all the pages of the
multitude of books was never previously mentioned—the
mysterious practice of touching objects to baffle the evil
chance. The miserable detractor will, of course, instantly
begin to rave about such a habit being common: well and good; but
was it ever before described in print, or all connected with it
dissected? He may then vociferate something about Johnson
having touched:—the writer cares not whether
Johnson—who, by-the-bye, during the last twenty or thirty
years, owing to people having become ultra Tory mad from reading
Scott’s novels and the “Quarterly Review,” has
been a mighty favourite, especially with some who were in the
habit of calling him a half crazy old fool—touched, or
whether he did not; but he asks where did Johnson ever describe
the feelings which induced him to perform the magic touch, even
supposing that he did perform it? Again, the history gives
an account of a certain book called the “Sleeping
Bard,” the most remarkable prose work of the most difficult
language but one, of modern Europe,—a book, for a notice of
which, he believes, one might turn over in vain the pages of any
review printed in England, or, indeed, elsewhere.—So here
are two facts, one literary and the
other physiological, for which any candid critic was bound to
thank the author, even as in the Romany Rye there is a fact
connected with Iro Norman Myth, for the disclosing of which any
person who pretends to have a regard for literature is bound to
thank him, namely, that the mysterious Finn or Fingal of
“Ossian’s Poems” is one and the same person as
the Sigurd Fofnisbane of the Edda and the Wilkina, and the
Siegfried Horn of the Lay of the Niebelungs.
The writer might here conclude, and, he believes, most
triumphantly; as, however, he is in the cue for writing, which he
seldom is, he will for his own gratification, and for the sake of
others, dropping metaphors about vipers and serpents, show up in
particular two or three sets or cliques of people, who, he is
happy to say, have been particularly virulent against him and his
work, for nothing indeed could have given him greater
mortification than their praise.
In the first place, he wishes to dispose of certain
individuals who call themselves men of wit and
fashion—about town—who he is told have abused his
book “vaustly”—their own word. These
people paint their cheeks, wear white kid gloves, and dabble in
literature, or what they conceive to be literature. For
abuse from such people, the writer was prepared. Does any
one imagine that the writer was not well aware, before he
published his book, that, whenever he gave it to the world, he
should be attacked by every literary coxcomb in England who had
influence enough to procure the insertion of a scurrilous article
in a magazine or newspaper! He has been in Spain, and has
seen how invariably the mule attacks the horse; now why does the
mule attack the horse? Why, because the latter carries
about with him that which the envious hermaphrodite does not
possess.
They consider, forsooth, that his book is low—but he is
not going to waste words about them—one or two of whom, he
is told, have written very duncie books about Spain, and are
highly enraged with him, because certain books which he wrote
about Spain were not considered duncie. No, he is not going
to waste words upon them, for verily he dislikes their company,
and so he’ll pass them by, and proceed to others.
The Scotch Charlie o’er the water people have been very
loud in the abuse of Lavengro—this again might be expected;
the sarcasms of the Priest about the Charlie o’er the water
nonsense of course stung them. Oh! it is one of the claims
which Lavengro has to respect, that it is the first, if not the
only work, in which that nonsense is, to a certain extent,
exposed. Two or three of their remarks on passages of
Lavengro, he will reproduce and laugh at. Of course your
Charlie o’er the water people are genteel exceedingly, and
cannot abide anything low. Gypsyism they think is
particularly low, and the use of gypsy words in literature
beneath its gentility; so they object to gypsy words being used
in Lavengro where gypsies are introduced
speaking—“What is Romany forsooth?” say
they. Very good! And what is Scotch? has not the
public been nauseated with Scotch for the last thirty
years? “Ay, but Scotch is not”—the writer
believes he knows much better than the Scotch what Scotch is and
what it is not; he has told them before what it is, a very sorry
jargon. He will now tell them what it is not—a sister
or an immediate daughter of the Sanscrit, which Romany is.
“Ay, but the Scotch are”—foxes, foxes, nothing
else than foxes, even like the gypsies—the difference
between the gypsy and Scotch fox being that the first is wild,
with a mighty brush, the other a sneak with a gilt collar and
without a tail.
A Charlie o’er the water person attempts to be witty,
because the writer has said that perhaps a certain old Edinburgh
High School porter, of the name of Boee, was perhaps of the same
blood as a certain Bui, a Northern Kemp who distinguished himself
at the battle of Horinger Bay. A pretty matter, forsooth,
to excite the ridicule of a Scotchman! Why, is there a
beggar or trumpery fellow in Scotland who does not pretend to be
somebody, or related to somebody? Is not every Scotchman
descended from some king, kemp, or cow-stealer of old, by his own
account at least? Why, the writer would even go so far as
to bet a trifle that the poor creature who ridicules Boee’s
supposed ancestry, has one of his own, at least as grand and as
apocryphal as old Boee’s of the High School.
The same Charlie o’er the water person is mightily
indignant that Lavengro should have spoken disrespectfully of
William Wallace; Lavengro, when he speaks of that personage,
being a child of about ten years old, and repeating merely what
he had heard. All the Scotch, by-the-bye, for a great many
years past, have been great admirers of William Wallace,
particularly the Charlie o’er the water people, who in
their nonsense-verses about Charlie generally contrive to bring
in the name of William, Willie, or Wullie Wallace. The
writer begs leave to say that he by no means wishes to bear hard
against William Wallace, but he cannot help asking why, if
William, Willie, or Wullie Wallace was such a particularly nice
person, did his brother Scots betray him to a certain renowned
southern warrior, called Edward Longshanks, who caused him to be
hanged and cut into four in London, and his quarters to be placed
over the gates of certain towns? They got gold, it is true,
and titles, very nice things no doubt; but, surely, the life of a
patriot is better than all the gold and titles in the
world—at least Lavengro thinks so,—but Lavengro has
lived more with gypsies than Scotchmen, and gypsies do not betray
their brothers. It would be some time before a gypsy would
hand over his brother to the harum-beck, even supposing you would
not only make him a king, but a justice of the peace, and not
only give him the world, but the best farm on the Holkham estate;
but gypsies are wild foxes, and there is certainly a wonderful
difference between the way of thinking of the wild fox
who retains his brush, and that of the scurvy kennel creature who
has lost his tail.
Ah! but thousands of Scotch, and particularly the Charlie
o’er the water people, will say, “We didn’t
sell Willie Wallace, it was our forbears who sold Willie Wallace
. . . If Edward Longshanks had asked us to sell Wullie Wallace,
we would soon have shown him that” . . . Lord better ye, ye
poor trumpery set of creatures, ye would not have acted a bit
better than your forefathers; remember how ye have ever treated
the few amongst ye who, though born in the kennel, have shown
something of the spirit of the wood. Many of ye are still
alive who delivered over men, quite as honest and patriotic as
William Wallace, into the hands of an English minister, to be
chained and transported for merely venturing to speak and write
in the cause of humanity, at the time when Europe was beginning
to fling off the chains imposed by kings and priests. And
it is not so very long since Burns, to whom ye are now building
up obelisks rather higher than he deserves, was permitted by his
countrymen to die in poverty and misery, because he would not
join with them in songs of adulation to kings and the trumpery
great. So say not that ye would have acted with respect to
William Wallace one whit better than your fathers—and you
in particular, ye children of Charlie, whom do ye write
nonsense-verses about? A family of dastard despots, who did
their best, during a century and more, to tread out the few
sparks of independent feeling still glowing in Scotland—but
enough has been said about ye. Amongst those who have been
prodigal in abuse and defamation of Lavengro, have been your
modern Radicals, and particularly a set of people who filled the
country with noise against the King and Queen, Wellington and the
Tories, in ’32. About these people the writer will
presently have occasion to say a good deal, and also of real
Radicals. As, however, it may be supposed that he is one of
those who delight to play the sycophant to kings and queens, to
curry favour with Tories, and to bepraise Wellington, he begs
leave to state that such is not the case.
About kings and queens he has nothing to say; about Tories,
simply that he believes them to be a bad set; about Wellington,
however, it will be necessary for him to say a good deal, of
mixed import, as he will subsequently frequently have occasion to
mention him in connection with what he has to say about
pseudo-Radicals.
About Wellington, then, he says, that he believes him at the
present day to be infinitely overrated. But there certainly
was a time when he was shamefully
underrated. Now what time was that? Why, the time of
pseudo-radicalism, par excellence, from ’20 to
’32. Oh, the abuse that was heaped on Wellington by
those who traded in radical cant—your newspaper editors and
review writers! and how he was sneered at then by your Whigs, and
how faintly supported he was by your Tories, who were half
ashamed of him; for your Tories, though capital fellows as
followers, when you want nobody to back you, are the faintest
creatures in the world when you cry in your agony, “Come
and help me!” Oh, assuredly Wellington was infamously
used at that time, especially by your traders in Radicalism, who
howled at and hooted him; said he had every vice—was no
general—was beaten at Waterloo—was a
poltroon—moreover, a poor illiterate creature, who could
scarcely read or write; nay, a principal Radical paper said
bodily he could not read, and devised an ingenious plan for
teaching Wellington how to read. Now this was too bad; and
the writer, being a lover of justice, frequently spoke up for
Wellington, saying that as for vice, he was not worse than his
neighbours; that he was brave; that he won the fight at Waterloo,
from a half-dead man, it is true, but that he did win it.
Also, that he believed he had read “Rules for the Manual
and Platoon Exercises” to some purpose; moreover, that he
was sure he could write, for that he, the writer, had once
written to Wellington, and had received an answer from him; nay,
the writer once went so far as to strike a blow for Wellington;
for the last time he used his fists was upon a Radical
sub-editor, who was mobbing Wellington in the street, from behind
a rank of grimy fellows; but though the writer spoke up for
Wellington to a certain extent when he was shamefully underrated,
and once struck a blow for him when he was about being hustled,
he is not going to join in the loathsome sycophantic nonsense
which it has been the fashion to use with respect to Wellington
these last twenty years. Now what have those years been to
England? Why, the years of ultra-gentility, everybody in
England having gone gentility mad during the last twenty years,
and no people more so than your pseudo-Radicals. Wellington
was turned out, and your Whigs and Radicals got in, and then
commenced the period of ultra-gentility in England. The
Whigs and Radicals only hated Wellington as long as the patronage
of the country was in his hands, none of which they were
tolerably sure he would bestow on them; but no sooner did they
get it into their own, than they forthwith became admirers of
Wellington. And why? Because he was a duke, petted at
Windsor and by foreign princes, and a very genteel
personage. Formerly many of your Whigs and Radicals had
scarcely a decent coat on their backs; but now the plunder of the
country was at their disposal, and they had as good a chance of
being genteel as any people. So they were willing to
worship Wellington because he was very genteel, and could not
keep the plunder of the country out of their hands. And
Wellington has been worshipped, and prettily so,
during the last fifteen or twenty years. He is now a noble,
fine-hearted creature; the greatest general the world ever
produced; the bravest of men; and—and—mercy upon us!
the greatest of military writers! Now the present writer
will not join in such sycophancy. As he was not afraid to
take the part of Wellington when he was scurvily used by all
parties, and when it was dangerous to take his part, so he is not
afraid to speak the naked truth about Wellington in these days,
when it is dangerous to say anything about him but what is
sycophantically laudatory. He said, in ’32, that as
to vice, Wellington was not worse than his neighbours; but he is
not going to say, in ’54, that Wellington was a
noble-hearted fellow; for he believes that a more cold-hearted
individual never existed. His conduct to Warner, the poor
Vaudois, and Marshal Ney, showed that. He said, in
’32, that he was a good general and a brave man; but he is
not going, in ’54, to say that he was the best general, or
the bravest man the world ever saw. England has produced a
better general—France two or three—both countries
many braver men. The son of the Norfolk clergyman was a
braver man; Marshal Ney was a braver man. Oh, that battle
of Copenhagen! Oh, that covering the retreat of the Grand
Army! And though he said in ’32 that he could write,
he is not going to say in ’54 that he is the best of all
military writers. On the contrary, he does not hesitate to
say that any Commentary of Julius Cæsar, or any chapter in
Justinus, more especially the one about the Parthians, is worth
the ten volumes of Wellington’s Despatches; though he has
no doubt that, by saying so, he shall especially rouse the
indignation of a certain newspaper, at present one of the most
genteel journals imaginable—with a slight tendency to
liberalism, it is true, but perfectly genteel—which is
nevertheless the very one which, in ’32, swore bodily that
Wellington could neither read nor write, and devised an ingenious
plan for teaching him how to read.
Now, after the above statement, no one will venture to say, if
the writer should be disposed to bear hard upon Radicals, that he
would be influenced by a desire to pay court to princes, or to
curry favour with Tories, or from being a blind admirer of the
Duke of Wellington; but the writer is not going to declaim
against Radicals, that is, real Republicans, or their principles;
upon the whole, he is something of an admirer of both. The
writer has always had as much admiration for everything that is
real and honest as he has had contempt for the opposite.
Now real Republicanism is certainly a very fine thing, a much
finer thing than Toryism, a system of common robbery, which is
nevertheless far better than Whiggism [351]—a compound of petty larceny,
popular instruction, and receiving
of stolen goods. Yes, real Republicanism is certainly a
very fine thing, and your real Radicals and Republicans are
certainly very fine fellows, or rather were fine fellows, for the
Lord only knows where to find them at the present day—the
writer does not. If he did, he would at any time go five
miles to invite one of them to dinner, even supposing that he had
to go to a workhouse in order to find the person he wished to
invite. Amongst the real Radicals of England, those who
flourished from the year ’16 to ’20, there were
certainly extraordinary characters, men partially insane,
perhaps, but honest and brave—they did not make a market of
the principles which they professed, and never intended to do so;
they believed in them, and were willing to risk their lives in
endeavouring to carry them out. The writer wishes to speak
in particular of two of these men, both of whom perished on the
scaffold—their names were Thistlewood and Ings.
Thistlewood, the best known of them, was a brave soldier, and had
served with distinction as an officer in the French service: he
was one of the excellent swordsmen of Europe; had fought several
duels in France, where it is no child’s play to fight a
duel; but had never unsheathed his sword for single combat, but
in defence of the feeble and insulted—he was kind and
open-hearted, but of too great simplicity; he had once ten
thousand pounds left him, all of which he lent to a friend, who
disappeared and never returned him a penny. Ings was an
uneducated man, of very low stature, but amazing strength and
resolution, he was a kind husband and father, and though a humble
butcher, the name he bore was one of the royal names of the
heathen Anglo-Saxons. These two men, along with five
others, were executed, and their heads hacked off, for levying
war against George the Fourth; the whole seven dying in a manner
which extorted cheers from the populace; the most of them
uttering philosophical or patriotic sayings. Thistlewood,
who was, perhaps, the most calm and collected of all, just before
he was turned off, said, “We are now going to
discover the great secret.” Ings, the moment before
he was choked, was singing “Scots wha ha’ wi’
Wallace bled.” Now there was no humbug about those
men, nor about many more of the same time and of the same
principles. They might be deluded about Republicanism, as
Algernon Sidney was, and as Brutus was, but they were as honest
and brave as either Brutus or Sidney; and as willing to die for
their principles. But the Radicals who succeeded them were
beings of a very different description; they jobbed and traded in
Republicanism, and either parted with it, or at the present day
are eager to part with it for a consideration. In order to
get the Whigs into power, and themselves places, they brought the
country by their inflammatory language to the verge of a
revolution, and were the cause that many perished on the
scaffold; by their incendiary harangues and newspaper articles
they caused the Bristol conflagration, for which six poor
creatures were executed; they encouraged the mob to pillage, pull
down and burn, and then rushing into garrets looked on.
Thistlewood tells the mob the Tower is a second Bastile; let it
be pulled down. A mob tries to pull down the Tower; but
Thistlewood is at the head of that mob; he is not peeping from a
garret on Tower Hill like Gulliver at Lisbon. Thistlewood
and Ings say to twenty ragged individuals, Liverpool and
Castlereagh are two satellites of despotism; it would be highly
desirable to put them out of the way. And a certain number
of ragged individuals are surprised in a stable in Cato Street,
making preparations to put Castlereagh and Liverpool out of the
way, and are fired upon with muskets by Grenadiers, and are
hacked at with cutlasses by Bow Street runners; but the twain who
encouraged those ragged individuals to meet in Cato Street are
not far off, they are not on the other side of the river, in the
Borough, for example, in some garret or obscure cellar. The
very first to confront the Guards and runners are Thistlewood and
Ings; Thistlewood whips his long thin rapier through
Smithers’ lungs, and Ings makes a dash at Fitzclarence with
his butcher’s knife. Oh, there was something in those
fellows! honesty and courage—but can as much be said for
the inciters of the troubles of ’32. No; they egged
on poor ignorant mechanics and rustics, and got them hanged for
pulling down and burning, whilst the highest pitch to which their
own daring ever mounted was to mob Wellington as he passed in the
streets.
Now, these people were humbugs, which Thistlewood and Ings
were not. They raved and foamed against kings, queens,
Wellington, the aristocracy, and what not, till they had got the
Whigs into power, with whom they were in secret alliance, and
with whom they afterwards openly joined in a system of robbery
and corruption, more flagitious than the old Tory one, because
there was more cant about it; for themselves they got
consulships, commissionerships, and in some instances
governments; for their sons clerkships in public
offices; and there you may see those sons with the never-failing
badge of the low scoundrel-puppy, the gilt chain at the waistcoat
pocket; and there you may hear and see them using the languishing
tones, and employing the airs and graces which wenches use and
employ, who, without being in the family way, wish to make their
keepers believe that they are in the family way. Assuredly
great is the cleverness of your Radicals of ’32, in
providing for themselves and their families. Yet, clever as
they are, there is one thing they cannot do—they get
governments for themselves, commissionerships for their brothers,
clerkships for their sons, but there is one thing beyond their
craft—they cannot get husbands for their daughters, who,
too ugly for marriage, and with their heads filled with the
nonsense they have imbibed from gentility novels, go over from
Socinus to the Pope, becoming sisters in fusty convents, or
having heard a few sermons in Mr. Platitude’s
“chapelle,” seek for admission at the establishment
of mother S . . ., who, after employing them for a time in
various menial offices, and making them pluck off their eyebrows
hair by hair, generally dismisses them on the plea of
sluttishness; whereupon they return to their papas to eat the
bread of the country, with the comfortable prospect of eating it
still in the shape of a pension after their sires are dead.
Papa (ex uno disce omnes) living as quietly as he can; not
exactly enviably it is true, being now and then seen to cast an
uneasy and furtive glance behind, even as an animal is wont, who
has lost by some mischance a very sightly appendage; as quietly
however as he can, and as dignifiedly, a great admirer of every
genteel thing and genteel personage, the Duke in particular,
whose “Despatches,” bound in red morocco, you will
find on his table. A disliker of coarse expressions, and
extremes of every kind, with a perfect horror for revolutions and
attempts to revolutionise, exclaiming now and then, as a shriek
escapes from whipped and bleeding Hungary, a groan from gasping
Poland, and a half-stifled curse from downtrodden but scowling
Italy, “Confound the revolutionary canaille, why
can’t it be quiet!” in a word, putting one in mind of
the parvenu in the “Walpurgis Nacht.” The
writer is no admirer of Göthe, but the idea of that parvenu
was certainly a good one. Yes, putting one in mind of the
individual who says—
“Wir waren wahrlich auch nicht dumm,
Und thaten oft was wir nicht sollten;
Doch jetzo kehrt sich alles um und um,
Und eben da wir’s fest erhalten
wollten.”
We were no fools, as every one discern’d,
And stopp’d at nought our projects in
fulfilling;
But now the world seems topsy-turvy turn’d,
To keep it quiet just when we were willing.
Now, this class of individuals entertain a mortal hatred for
Lavengro and its writer, and never lose an opportunity
of vituperating both. It is true that such hatred is by no
means surprising. There is certainly a great deal of
difference between Lavengro and their own sons; the one thinking
of independence, and philology, whilst he is clinking away at
kettles, and hammering horse-shoes in dingles; the others stuck
up at public offices with gilt chains at their waistcoat-pockets,
and giving themselves the airs and graces of females of a certain
description. And there certainly is a great deal of
difference between the author of Lavengro and themselves—he
retaining his principles and his brush; they with scarlet
breeches on, it is true, but without their republicanism and
their tails. Oh, the writer can well afford to be
vituperated by your pseudo-Radicals of ’32!
Some time ago the writer was set upon by an old Radical and
his wife; but the matter is too rich not to require a chapter to
itself.
“This very dirty man, with his very dirty
face,
Would do any dirty act, which would get him a place.”
Some time ago the writer was set upon by an old Radical and
his wife; but before he relates the manner in which they set upon
him, it will be as well to enter upon a few particulars tending
to elucidate their reasons for doing so.
The writer had just entered into his eighteenth year, when he
met at the table of a certain Anglo-Germanist, an individual,
apparently somewhat under thirty, of middle stature, a thin and
weaselly figure, a sallow complexion, a certain obliquity of
vision, and a large pair of spectacles. This person, who
had lately come from abroad, and had published a volume of
translations, had attracted some slight notice in the literary
world, and was looked upon as a kind of lion in a small
provincial capital. After dinner he argued a great deal,
spoke vehemently against the Church, and uttered the most
desperate Radicalism that was perhaps ever heard, saying, he
hoped that in a short time there would not be a king or queen in
Europe, and enveighing bitterly against the English aristocracy,
and against the Duke of Wellington in particular, whom, he said,
if he himself was ever president of an English republic—an
event which he seemed to think by no means improbable—he
would hang for certain infamous acts of profligacy and bloodshed
which he had perpetrated in Spain. Being informed that the
writer was something of a philologist, to which character the
individual in question laid great pretensions, he came and sat
down by him, and talked about languages
and literature. The writer, who was only a boy, was a
little frightened at first, but, not wishing to appear a child of
absolute ignorance, he summoned what little learning he had, and
began to blunder out something about the Celtic languages and
their literature, and asked the Lion who he conceived Finn Ma
Coul to be? and whether he did not consider the “Ode to the
Fox,” by Red Rhys of Eryry, to be a masterpiece of
pleasantry? Receiving no answer to these questions from the
Lion, who, singular enough, would frequently, when the writer put
a question to him, look across the table, and flatly contradict
some one who was talking to some other person, the writer dropped
the Celtic languages and literature, and asked him whether he did
not think it a funny thing that Temugin, generally called Genghis
Khan, should have married the daughter of Prester John? [356] The Lion, after giving a
side-glance at the writer through his left spectacle glass,
seemed about to reply, but was unfortunately prevented, being
seized with an irresistible impulse to contradict a respectable
doctor of medicine, who was engaged in conversation with the
master of the house at the upper and farther end of the table,
the writer, being a poor ignorant lad, sitting of course at the
bottom. The doctor, who had served in the Peninsula, having
observed that Ferdinand the Seventh was not quite so bad as had
been represented, the Lion vociferated that he was ten times
worse, and that he hoped to see him and the Duke of Wellington
hanged together. The doctor, who, being a Welshman, was
somewhat of a warm temper, growing rather red, said that at any
rate he had been informed that Ferdinand the Seventh knew
sometimes how to behave himself like a gentleman—this
brought on a long dispute, which terminated rather
abruptly. The Lion having observed that the doctor must not
talk about Spanish matters with one who had visited every part of
Spain, the doctor bowed and said he was right, for that he
believed no people in general possessed such accurate information
about countries as those who had travelled them as bagmen.
On the Lion asking the doctor what he meant, the Welshman, whose
under jaw began to move violently, replied that he meant what he
said. Here the matter ended, for the Lion, turning from
him, looked at the writer. The writer, imagining that his
own conversation hitherto had been too trivial and commonplace
for the Lion to consider it worth his while to take much notice
of it, determined to assume a little higher ground, and after
repeating a few verses of the Koran, and gabbling a little
Arabic, asked the Lion what he considered to be the difference
between the Hegira and the Christian era, adding that he thought
the general computation was in error by about one year; and being
a particularly modest person, chiefly, he believes, owing to his
having been at school in Ireland, absolutely blushed at finding
that the Lion returned not a word in answer.
“What a wonderful individual I am seated by,” thought
he, “to whom Arabic seems a vulgar speech, and a question
about the Hegira not worthy of an answer!” not reflecting
that as lions come from the Saharra, they have quite enough of
Arabic at home, and that the question about the Hegira was rather
mal à propos to one used to prey on the flesh of
hadjis. “Now I only wish he would vouchsafe me a
little of his learning,” thought the boy to himself, and in
this wish he was at last gratified; for the Lion, after asking
him whether he was acquainted at all with the Sclavonian
languages, and being informed that he was not, absolutely
dumbfoundered him by a display of Sclavonian erudition.
Years rolled by—the writer was a good deal about,
sometimes in London, sometimes in the country, sometimes abroad;
in London he occasionally met the man of the spectacles, who was
always very civil to him, and indeed cultivated his
acquaintance. The writer thought it rather odd that, after
he himself had become acquainted with the Sclavonian languages
and literature, the man of the spectacles talked little or
nothing about them. In a little time, however, the matter
ceased to cause him the slightest surprise, for he had discovered
a key to the mystery. In the meantime, the man of the
spectacles was busy enough; he speculated in commerce, failed,
and paid his creditors twenty pennies in the pound; published
translations, of which the public at length became heartily
tired; having, indeed, got an inkling of the manner in which
those translations were got up. He managed, however, to
ride out many a storm, having one trusty
sheet-anchor—Radicalism. This he turned to the best
advantage—writing pamphlets and articles in reviews, all in
the Radical interest, and for which he was paid out of the
Radical fund; which articles and pamphlets, when Toryism seemed
to reel on its last legs, exhibited a slight tendency to
Whiggism. Nevertheless, his abhorrence of desertion of
principle was so great in the time of the Duke of
Wellington’s administration, that when S . . . left the
Whigs and went over, he told the writer, who was about that time
engaged with him in a literary undertaking, that the said S . . .
was a fellow with a character so infamous, that any honest man
would rather that you should spit in his face, than insult his
ears with the mention of the name of S . . .
The literary project having come to nothing,—in which,
by-the-bye, the writer was to have all the labour, and his friend
all the credit, provided any credit should accrue from
it,—the writer did not see the latter for some years,
during which time considerable political changes took place; the
Tories were driven from, and the Whigs placed in, office, both
events being brought about by the Radicals coalescing with the
Whigs, over whom they possessed great influence for the services
which they had rendered. When the writer next visited his
friend, he found him very much altered; his opinions were by no
means so exalted as they had been—he was not disposed even
to be rancorous against the Duke of Wellington,
saying that there were worse men than he, and giving him some
credit as a general; a hankering after gentility seeming to
pervade the whole family, father and sons, wife and daughters,
all of whom talked about genteel diversions—gentility
novels, and even seemed to look with favour on high Churchism,
having in former years, to all appearance, been bigoted
Dissenters. In a little time the writer went abroad; as,
indeed, did his friend; not, however, like the writer, at his own
expense, but at that of the country—the Whigs having given
him a travelling appointment, which he held for some years,
during which he is said to have received upwards of twelve
thousand pounds of the money of the country, for services which
will, perhaps, be found inscribed on certain tablets, when
another Astolfo shall visit the moon. This appointment,
however, he lost on the Tories resuming power—when the
writer found him almost as radical and patriotic as ever, just
engaged in trying to get into Parliament, into which he got by
the assistance of his Radical friends, who, in conjunction with
the Whigs, were just getting up a crusade against the Tories,
which they intended should be a conclusive one.
A little time after the publication of “The Bible in
Spain,” the Tories being still in power, this individual,
full of the most disinterested friendship for the author, was
particularly anxious that he should be presented with an official
situation, in a certain region a great many miles off.
“You are the only person for that appointment,” said
he; “you understand a great deal about the country, and are
better acquainted with the two languages spoken there than any
one in England. Now I love my country, and have, moreover,
a great regard for you, and as I am in Parliament, and have
frequent opportunities of speaking to the Ministry, I shall take
care to tell them how desirable it would be to secure your
services. It is true they are Tories, but I think that even
Tories would give up their habitual love of jobbery in a case
like yours, and for once show themselves disposed to be honest
men and gentlemen; indeed, I have no doubt they will, for having
so deservedly an infamous character, they would be glad to get
themselves a little credit, by a presentation which could not
possibly be traced to jobbery or favouritism.” The
writer begged his friend to give himself no trouble about the
matter, as he was not desirous of the appointment, being in
tolerably easy circumstances, and willing to take some rest after
a life of labour. All, however, that he could say was of no
use, his friend indignantly observing that the matter ought to be
taken entirely out of his hands, and the appointment thrust upon
him for the credit of the country. “But may not many
people be far more worthy of the appointment than myself?”
said the writer. “Where?” said the friendly
Radical. “If you don’t get it, it will be made
a job of, given to the son of some steward, or perhaps to some
quack who has done dirty work; I tell you what, I shall ask it
for you, in spite of you; I shall, indeed!” and his eyes flashed with friendly and patriotic fervour
through the large pair of spectacles which he wore.
And, in fact, it would appear that the honest and friendly
patriot put his threat into execution. “I have
spoken,” said he, “more than once to this and that
individual in Parliament, and everybody seems to think that the
appointment should be given to you. Nay, that you should be
forced to accept it. I intend next to speak to Lord A . .
.” And so he did, at least it would appear so.
On the writer calling upon him one evening, about a week
afterwards, in order to take leave of him, as the writer was
about to take a long journey for the sake of his health, his
friend no sooner saw him than he started up in a violent fit of
agitation, and glancing about the room, in which there were
several people, amongst others two Whig members of Parliament,
said, “I am glad you are come; I was just speaking about
you. This,” said he, addressing the two members,
“is so and so, the author of so and so, the well-known
philologist; as I was telling you, I spoke to Lord A . . . this
day about him, and said that he ought forthwith to have the head
appointment in . . .; and what did the fellow say? Why,
that there was no necessity for such an appointment at all, and
if there were, why . . . and then he hummed and ha’d.
Yes,” said he, looking at the writer, “he did
indeed. What a scandal! what an infamy! But I see how
it will be, it will be a job. The place will be given to
some son of a steward or to some quack, as I said before.
Oh, these Tories! Well, if this does not make one . .
.” Here he stopped short, crunched his teeth, and
looked the image of desperation.
Seeing the poor man in this distressed condition, the writer
begged him to be comforted, and not to take the matter so much to
heart; but the indignant Radical took the matter very much to
heart, and refused all comfort whatever, bouncing about the room,
and, whilst his spectacles flashed in the light of four
spermaceti candles, exclaiming, “It will be a job—a
Tory job! I see it all, I see it all, I see it
all!”
And a job it proved, and a very pretty job, but no Tory job;
shortly afterwards the Tories were out, and the Whigs were
in. From that time the writer heard not a word about the
injustice done to the country in not presenting him with the
appointment to . . .; the Radical, however, was busy enough to
obtain the appointment, not for the writer, but for himself, and
eventually succeeded, partly through Radical influence, and
partly through that of a certain Whig lord, for whom the Radical
had done, on a particular occasion, work of a particular
kind. So, though the place was given to a quack, and the
whole affair a very pretty job, it was one in which the Tories
had certainly no hand.
In the meanwhile, however, the friendly Radical did not drop
the writer. Oh, no! On various occasions he obtained
from the writer all the information he could about the country in
question, and was particularly anxious to
obtain from the writer, and eventually did obtain, a copy of a
work written in the court language of that country, edited by the
writer. A language exceedingly difficult, which the writer,
at the expense of a considerable portion of his eyesight, had
acquired, at least as far as by the eyesight it could be
acquired. What use the writer’s friend made of the
knowledge he had gained from him, and what use he made of the
book, the writer can only guess; but he has little doubt that
when the question of sending a person to . . . was mooted in a
Parliamentary Committee—which it was at the instigation of
the Radical supporters of the writer’s friend—the
Radical, on being examined about the country, gave the
information which he had obtained from the writer as his own, and
flashed the book and its singular characters in the eyes of the
Committee; and then of course his Radical friends would instantly
say, “This is the man! there is no one like him. See
what information he possesses; and see that book written by
himself in the court language of Serendib. This is the only
man to send there. What a glory, what a triumph it would be
to Britain, to send out a man so deeply versed in the mysterious
lore of . . ., as our illustrious countryman; a person who with
his knowledge could beat with their own weapons the wise men of .
. . Is such an opportunity to be lost? Oh, no! surely
not; if it is, it will be an eternal disgrace to England, and the
world will see that Whigs are no better than Tories.”
Let no one think the writer uncharitable in these
suppositions. The writer is only too well acquainted with
the antecedents of the individual to entertain much doubt that he
would shrink from any such conduct, provided he thought that his
temporal interest would be forwarded by it. The writer is
aware of more than one instance in which he has passed off the
literature of friendless young men for his own, after making them
a slight pecuniary compensation, and deforming what was
originally excellent by interpolations of his own. This was
his especial practice with regard to translation, of which he
would fain be esteemed the king. This Radical literato is
slightly acquainted with four or five of the easier dialects of
Europe, on the strength of which knowledge he would fain pass for
a universal linguist, publishing translations of pieces
originally written in various difficult languages; which
translations, however, were either made by himself from literal
renderings done for him into French or German, or had been made
from the originals into English, by friendless young men, and
then deformed by his alterations.
Well, the Radical got the appointment, and the writer
certainly did not grudge it him. He, of course, was aware
that his friend had behaved in a very base manner towards him,
but he bore him no ill-will, and invariably when he heard him
spoken against, which was frequently the case, took his part when
no other person would; indeed, he could well afford
to bear him no ill-will. He had never sought for the
appointment, nor wished for it, nor, indeed, ever believed
himself qualified for it. He was conscious, it is true,
that he was not altogether unacquainted with the language and
literature of the country with which the appointment was
connected. He was likewise aware that he was not altogether
deficient in courage and in propriety of behaviour. He knew
that his appearance was not particularly against him; his face
not being like that of a convicted pickpocket, nor his gait
resembling that of a fox who has lost his tail; yet he never
believed himself adapted for the appointment, being aware that he
had no aptitude for the doing of dirty work, if called to do it,
nor pliancy which would enable him to submit to scurvy treatment,
whether he did dirty work or not—requisites, at the time of
which he is speaking, indispensable in every British official;
requisites, by-the-bye, which his friend, the Radical, possessed
in a high degree; but though he bore no ill-will towards his
friend, his friend bore anything but good-will towards him; for
from the moment that he had obtained the appointment for himself,
his mind was filled with the most bitter malignity against the
writer, and naturally enough; for no one ever yet behaved in a
base manner towards another without forthwith conceiving a mortal
hatred against him. You wrong another, know yourself to
have acted basely, and are enraged, not against
yourself—for no one hates himself—but against the
innocent cause of your baseness; reasoning very plausibly,
“But for that fellow, I should never have been base; for
had he not existed I could not have been so, at any rate against
him;” and this hatred is all the more bitter when you
reflect that you have been needlessly base.
Whilst the Tories are in power the writer’s friend, of
his own accord, raves against the Tories because they do not give
the writer a certain appointment, and makes, or says he makes,
desperate exertions to make them do so; but no sooner are the
Tories out, with whom he has no influence, and the Whigs in, with
whom he, or rather his party, has influence, than he gets the
place for himself, though, according to his own expressed
opinion—an opinion with which the writer does not, and
never did, concur—the writer was the only person competent
to hold it. Now had he, without saying a word to the
writer, or about the writer with respect to the employment, got
the place for himself when he had an opportunity, knowing, as he
very well knew, himself to be utterly unqualified for it, the
transaction, though a piece of jobbery, would not have merited
the title of a base transaction; as the matter stands, however,
who can avoid calling the whole affair not only a piece
of—come, come, out with the word—scoundrelism on the
part of the writer’s friend, but a most curious piece of
uncalled-for scoundrelism? and who, with any knowledge of fallen
human nature, can wonder at the writer’s friend
entertaining towards him a considerable portion of gall and
malignity?
This feeling on the part of the writer’s friend
was wonderfully increased by the appearance of Lavengro, many
passages of which the Radical in his foreign appointment applied
to himself and family—one or two of his children having
gone over to Popery, the rest become members of Mr.
Platitude’s chapel, and the minds of all being filled with
ultra notions of gentility.
The writer, hearing that his old friend had returned to
England, to apply, he believes, for an increase of salary and for
a title, called upon him, unwillingly, it is true, for he had no
wish to see a person for whom, though he bore him no ill-will, he
could not avoid feeling a considerable portion of contempt; the
truth is, that his sole object in calling was to endeavour to get
back a piece of literary property which his friend had obtained
from him many years previously, and which, though he had
frequently applied for it, he never could get back. Well,
the writer called; he did not get his property, which, indeed, he
had scarcely time to press for, being almost instantly attacked
by his good friend and his wife—yes, it was then that the
author was set upon by an old Radical and his wife—the
wife, who looked the very image of shame and malignity, did not
say much, it is true, but encouraged her husband in all he
said. Both of their own accord introduced the subject of
Lavengro. The Radical called the writer a grumbler, just as
if there had ever been a greater grumbler than himself until, by
the means above described, he had obtained a place: he said that
the book contained a melancholy view of human nature—just
as if anybody could look in his face without having a melancholy
view of human nature. On the writer quietly observing that
the book contained an exposition of his principles, the
pseudo-Radical replied that he cared nothing for his
principles—which was probably true, it not being likely
that he would care for another person’s principles after
having shown so thorough a disregard for his own. The
writer said that the book, of course, would give offence to
humbugs; the Radical then demanded whether he thought him a
humbug?—the wretched wife was the Radical’s
protection, even as he knew she would be; it was on her account
that the writer did not kick his good friend; as it was, he
looked at him in the face and thought to himself, “How is
it possible I should think you a humbug, when only last night I
was taking your part in a company in which everybody called you a
humbug?”
The Radical, probably observing something in the
writer’s eye which he did not like, became all on a sudden
abjectly submissive, and, professing the highest admiration for
the writer, begged him to visit him in his government; this the
writer promised faithfully to do, and he takes the present
opportunity of performing his promise.
This is one of the pseudo-Radical calumniators of Lavengro and
its author; were the writer on his death-bed he would lay his
hand on his heart and say, that he does not believe that there is
one trait of exaggeration in the
portrait which he has drawn. This is one of the
pseudo-Radical calumniators of Lavengro and its author; and this
is one of the genus who, after having railed against jobbery for
perhaps a quarter of a century, at present batten on large
official salaries which they do not earn. England is a
great country, and her interests require that she should have
many a well-paid official both at home and abroad; but will
England long continue a great country if the care of her
interests, both at home and abroad, is in many instances
intrusted to beings like him described above, whose only
recommendation for an official appointment was that he was deeply
versed in the secrets of his party and of the Whigs?
Before he concludes, the writer will take the liberty of
saying of Lavengro that it is a book written for the express
purpose of inculcating virtue, love of country, learning, manly
pursuits, and genuine religion, for example, that of the Church
of England, and for awakening a contempt for nonsense of every
kind, and a hatred for priestcraft, more especially that of
Rome.
And in conclusion, with respect to many passages of his book
in which he has expressed himself in terms neither measured nor
mealy, he will beg leave to observe, in the words of a great
poet, who lived a profligate life it is true, but who died a
sincere penitent—thanks, after God, to good Bishop
Burnet—
“All this with indignation I have
hurl’d
At the pretending part of this proud world,
Who, swollen with selfish vanity, devise
False freedoms, formal cheats, and holy lies,
Over their fellow fools to tyrannise.”
—rochester.
the
end.