Produced by Tor Martin Kristiansen, Sharon Vaninger, Joseph Cooper and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net [Transcriber's Note: Apparent printer's errors retained.] THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY Are these Things So? 1740 THE GREAT MAN'S ANSWER TO Are these Things So? (1740) _Introduction by_ IAN GORDON PUBLICATION NUMBER 153 WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 1972 GENERAL EDITORS William E. Conway, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library George Robert Guffey, University of California, Los Angeles Maximillian E. Novak, University of California, Los Angeles David S. Rodes, University of California, Los Angeles ADVISORY EDITORS Richard C. Boys, University of Michigan James L. Clifford, Columbia University Ralph Cohen, University of Virginia Vinton A. Dearing, University of California, Los Angeles Arthur Friedman, University of Chicago Louis A. Landa, Princeton University Earl Miner, University of California, Los Angeles Samuel H. Monk, University of Minnesota Everett T. Moore, University of California, Los Angeles Lawrence Clark Powell, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library James Sutherland, University College, London H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., University of California, Los Angeles Robert Vosper, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library Curt A. Zimansky, State University of Iowa CORRESPONDING SECRETARY Edna C. Davis, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Jean T. Shebanek, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library INTRODUCTION The two pamphlets reproduced here belong to the fierce heightening in the pamphlet campaign against Robert Walpole that took place at the end of 1740. They represent only two efforts within a brief but furious encounter that gave rise to the publication of no fewer than nine separate poems. On Thursday, 23 October 1740, Thomas Cooper, "one of the most prolific printers and publishers of the pamphlet literature of the eighteenth century,"[1] published a savage denunciation of Walpole called _Are these things so?_[2] This pamphlet, which took the fictional form of an open letter from Alexander Pope, "An Englishman in his Grotto," to Robert Walpole, "A Great Man at Court," set off a round of verse writing among the party hacks of the day that vividly illustrates the close relationship between literature and politics in the first half of the eighteenth century. Within the space of two months eight further pamphlets directly related to this pamphlet and to Walpole's position as First Minister were published. Such a spate of literary activity is only remarkable, however, when compared with other ages. While it is inconceivable that the publication of any poem in our own day, even by a major writer, should arouse such a response, it is reasonably typical of the first half of the eighteenth century that the publication of an occasional poem by a minor, indeed anonymous, writer should do so. On Saturday, 8 November, two weeks after the opening blast, Cooper delivered a second volley, an equally fierce (although largely repetitive) denunciation of Walpole entitled _Yes, they are:_.[3] A week later still, on Saturday, 15 November, the first pro-Government riposte, called _What of That!_, was published,[4] followed three days later, on 18 November, by a second reply, _The Weather-Menders: A proper Answer to Are these things so?_[5] The second edition of _What of That!_ was published on the following Saturday, 22 November,[6] and a third pro-Walpole poem entitled _They are Not_, was also published at about this time.[7] At the end of November, or early in December, a reply to all three of these defences of Walpole appeared carrying the title, _Have at you All_.[8] On Tuesday, 2 December, the pro-Walpole forces returned to the attack again with a poem entitled _What Things?_[9] This was followed on Saturday, 6 December, by the second edition, "corrected, with the addition of twenty lines omitted in the former impressions" of _Are these things so?_,[10] and on Thursday, 18 December, by yet another anti-Walpole poem, _The Great Man's Answer_[11] purporting to be "by the author of _Are these things so?_." But the pro-Walpole forces were still not silenced and two days later on Saturday, 20 December, published _A Supplement to Are these things so?_,[12] an attack on the Patriot opponents of the Ministry. A month later still, on Friday, 23 January 1741,[13] the third edition of _They are Not_ was published. Hereafter this particular controversy seemed to burn itself out, although an anonymous poem entitled _The Art of Poetry_, published on 17 March 1741, contains a long attack on _Are these things so?_. This confused battle is most easily summarized by saying that four separate pamphlets (not counting second and third editions) were published which attacked Walpole, and five which defended him. The poems attacking Walpole are far more poetically versatile than those defending him and it is the two most interesting of these attacks that are reproduced here. Taken together, this series of nine pamphlets forms a separate battle within that much larger and continuing war waged by Lord Bolingbroke and the various supporters of the Patriot Opposition against Sir Robert Walpole and the defenders of his Whig Ministry. From the first publication of _The Craftsman_ on 5 December 1726 to the final resignation of the "Great Man" on 11 February 1742 it is probably true to say that no English politician has ever been so continuously and so virulently attacked by so eminent an assemblage of literary persons. Gay, Swift, Pope, Arbuthnot, Chesterfield, Lyttleton, Thomson, Fielding, and Johnson each entered the fray at various stages. The fact that Walpole rode out these attacks for so long is more of a comment on the disorganized nature of the opposition politically and on the astute manoeuvring of Walpole himself, than on the ineffectiveness of the attacks. During the protracted span of this campaign there were only two periods during which the supporters of the Patriot cause had any real chance of toppling Walpole. The first came in 1733 when sustained opposition forced Walpole to drop his proposed Excise Scheme, while the second occurred five years later in 1738 and sprang from a new deterioration in Anglo-Spanish relations. Although Walpole did not finally resign until 11 February 1742 his fall from power was a direct result of this deterioration. His position in the House of Commons, and in the country at large, was never as assured in the last four years of his "reign" as it had been in the first seventeen. The pamphlets reproduced here deal with Walpole's declining reputation and especially with his handling of Spanish policy. The causes of the English differences with Spain go back to 1713 and the Treaty of Utrecht in which the South Sea Company had been granted, amongst other privileges, the right to send one trading vessel a year to the Spanish possessions.[14] This right had been grossly abused by English merchants eager to make large profits and a great number of English trading ships annually smuggled goods to Spanish America. The Spanish governors were only too pleased to accept such contraband trade for by it they avoided payment of duties to the King of Spain. In order to defend themselves against this illegal traffic the Spanish authorities established a fleet of _guarda-costas_ to intercept, search, and, if necessary, punish the English ships. The _guarda-costas_ did this with great effect and, on occasion, with considerable cruelty. The most notorious example concerned the capture, near Jamaica in 1731, of Captain Robert Jenkins' ship, the _Rebecca_, and the ensuing removal of one of Jenkins' ears. It was with Jenkins' presentation of this ear, which "wrapt up in cotton, he always carried about him,"[15] before the House of Commons seven years later in March 1738 that Anglo-Spanish differences came to a head. The Patriots demanded war and revenge: Walpole, however, was committed to a policy of peace. Accordingly, he spent the rest of the year trying to patch things up and the ill-fated Convention of Pardo concluded on 14 January 1739 was the result. The Convention involved compromise on both sides. England claimed that Spain owed her £343,277 by way of reparation for damages done to English vessels, and Spain claimed that England owed her £180,000 by way of arrears on duties due to the King of Spain. This left a balance of £163,277 and England agreed to accept £95,000 as a total discharge in return for payment within four months.[16] On 1 February Walpole laid this Convention before Parliament, and, despite vociferous opposition, it was eventually ratified on 9 March by a vote of 244 to 214. As a result of this ratification a considerable section of the opposition, under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham, immediately seceded from Parliament. Feelings had never been higher. On 15 May, one day after the payment had fallen due, Benjamin Keene, the British Minister in Madrid, was officially informed that the £95,000 would only be paid if Admiral Haddock removed his fleet from the Mediterranean. England had no intention of recalling Haddock, for both Gibraltar and Minorca would then remain defenceless, and Spain clearly had no real intention of paying the money. From this point on war became inevitable and on 19 October 1739 the declaration was made "and was received by all ranks and distinctions of men with a degree of enthusiasm and joy, which announced the general frenzy of the nation."[17] It was on hearing the church bells pealing at the news that Walpole made his famous remark: "They now ring the bells, but they will soon wring their hands."[18] One month later, on 22 November, Admiral Vernon captured Porto Bello, the port in which the _guarda-costas_ had been fitted out. The news of this victory did not arrive in England until nearly four months later on 13 March 1740, but it brought with it great public excitement and jubilation. Thus by the end of 1740 the revenge on the Spanish had begun. Those who had demanded war seemed justified and Walpole had been discredited. This is the political background against which these pamphlets are set. * * * * * Both pamphlets have been attributed to James Miller, but the evidence for such attribution is cumulative rather than definitive.[19] _Are these things so?_ has been far more frequently attributed to Miller than _The Great Man's Answer_. The earliest attribution is found in D. E. Baker's _Biographia Dramatica_ which, although it was not published till 1812, was originally compiled by Baker sometime before 1764.[20] Robert Watt also lists _Are these things so?_ as Miller's work in his _Bibliotheca Britannica_, Edinburgh, 1824.[21] The entries under Miller in the _CBEL_ and _DNB_ both accept these attributions as does the _British Museum Catalogue_. The evidence for attributing _The Great Man's Answer_ to Miller is far more slender and rests largely on the publisher's claim on the title page, which may well have been made for the sake of promotion, that it is "By the Author of _Are these things so?_". James Miller, 1706-1744, is better known as a comic dramatist than as a poet. He was the son of a clergyman from Upcerne in Dorset, and was educated at Wadham College, Oxford, where he wrote a comedy, _The Humours of Oxford_, which was successfully performed at Drury Lane in January 1730. On leaving Oxford he had been expected by his relations to go into business, but "not being able to endure the servile drudgery it demanded," he took holy orders and continued to write plays "to increase his finances."[22] From 1730 until his death in 1744 he wrote ten plays, several of which were performed with considerable success.[23] But it is as a poet that we are primarily interested in Miller. He was the author of several occasional poems of which his _Harlequin Horace, or the Art of Modern Poetry_, 1731, was the best known. This poem, yet another imitation of Horace's _Ars Poetica_ is an attack on John Rich, the manager of Lincoln's Inn Fields and Covent-Garden. The poem is ironically full of perverse modern advice on how to write poetry. Miller adopts the persona of a modern Grub Street poet who scorns the classical values. Consequently Pope, who insists on standards of excellence, is seen by the persona as the great enemy of modern poets. At the same time it is quite clear that for Miller himself Pope is the greatest of poets. The poem includes an attack on Walpole (ll. 209-216), and perhaps it was this that led the agents of the Ministry to make him the large offer referred to in the biography of Miller found in Cibber's _Lives_. But, as the anonymous writer of this life goes on to point out, Miller "had virtue sufficient to withstand the temptation, though his circumstances at that time were far from being easy."[24] A second verse satire in the manner of Horace, _Seasonable Reproof_, 1735, has also been attributed to Miller. The poem is a general satire on Britain's "State of Reprobation," and only makes a passing glance at Walpole. London has been so forsaken by people all rushing to the Italian opera that By _Excisemen_, it might now be taken, And great Sir _Bob_ ride through, and save his Bacon (ll. 6-7). But more significant in our context is that, as Maynard Mack has shown, the author creates a speaker "who by his careful echoings of the _Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot_ seems to labor to be mistaken for Pope."[25] If Miller was the author of both _Seasonable Reproof_ and _Are these things so?_ his fascination with the persona of the poet in his grotto emerges as no sudden whim of wit, but as a continuing concern with the symbolic significance of Pope's actual life. Furthermore, the poet who attacked Walpole so violently in October 1740 emerges as no upstart Patriot cashing in on Walpole's current unpopularity, but as a consistent and courageous opponent of Walpole since at least 1731. * * * * * In _Are these things so?_ Pope is imagined to be speaking throughout, although he in turn imagines what Walpole might say at various points. The poem is full of allusions and references intended to support the pretense that Pope is speaking. In line eight the speaker says his luxury is "lolling in my peaceful Grot"; in lines fifteen and sixteen he echoes Pope's famous claim in _To Fortescue_ that he is "TO VIRTUE ONLY and HER FRIENDS, A FRIEND,"[26] when he says: Close shut my Cottage-Gate, where none pretends To lift the Latch but Virtue and her Friends; and in lines seventeen and eighteen he shows that he knew Walpole had once visited Pope at Twickenham.[27] These allusions to Pope's actual life have been carefully chosen by the author in order to give dramatic credibility to his chosen spokesman rather than to persuade the reader that Pope was the real author. The impersonation of Pope is meant to be transparent: the poet is demonstrating his versatility at imitating Pope and has considerable fun in doing so. The only evidence that could be brought in to support an interpretation that stressed the author's serious intent to make Pope seem the real author concerns a Dublin reprint of the poem that actually carried Pope's name as author on the title page. But it is extremely unlikely that the true author had anything to do with this since the Dublin publisher did not even bother to incorporate the corrections and additions that the poet had made to the second edition. To point out that the device of creating a spokesman is meant to be seen through is not the same thing, however, as saying that the author could afford to admit his authorship. There were good reasons why the author of a poem that was primarily an attack on the First Minister, and who was himself probably without any great influence or reputation, should need to hide the fact of his authorship. For such a person the choice of Pope as spokesman could hardly have been more appropriate.[28] In May and July 1738 Pope had published his devastating attacks on the state of the country known as _The Epilogue to the Satires_. On 31 January 1739 Paul Whitehead published his attack on the artificialities and disguises of Walpole's Ministry and the Court favourites in a poem (which Boswell refers to as "brilliant and pointed"[29]) called _Manners: A Satire_. At this point the government decided that it was time they attempted to stop, or at least stem, these attacks. They were not keen to confront Pope himself, but Whitehead presented a less formidable opponent.[30] Consequently, in February 1739, he and his publisher Robert Dodsley were summoned before the bar of the House of Lords to account for the attacks on named individuals in _Manners_. On Monday, 12 February, the poem "was voted scandalous, etc. by the Lords, and the author and publisher ordered into custody, where Mr. Dodsley, the publisher, was a week; but Mr. Paul Whitehead, the author, absconds."[31] Whitehead anticipated this summons when he wrote in the poem: _Pope_ writes unhurt--but know, 'tis different quite To beard the lion, and to crush the mite. Safe may he dash the Statesman in each line, Those dread his satire, who dare punish mine (p. 15). Pope was then the ideal spokesman for our author's purposes: the mite must dress up as the lion. It was admittedly almost two years since Whitehead's original summons, but the incident was well enough remembered to spur a gossip columnist writing in _The Daily Gazetteer_ on 11 November 1740 to suggest that Whitehead was the author of _Are these things so?_ Whitehead, too, evidently felt the danger of the situation for he deemed it necessary to publish a denial four days later.[32] In choosing Pope for his spokesman the author of _Are these things so?_ showed a full awareness of the political realities. He also showed a detailed familiarity with Pope's life and work. There is nothing, however, to indicate that such knowledge was reciprocal, or even to indicate that Pope knew of the poem's existence. The only evidence that Pope knew anything about Miller's work, if indeed Miller was the author, comes in a letter Pope wrote to Caryll on 6 February 1731 in which he praises _Harlequin Horace_ although he does not seem to know the author's name.[33] _Are these things so?_ opens with Pope challenging Walpole to explain why Britain has fallen as low as she has and why France and Spain have been allowed "to limit out her sea." Walpole is then imagined defending his measures, especially the Excise Scheme, the Convention of Pardo, Placement and the Secret Service. In the second half of the poem the satirist repeats the charges and invites Walpole to turn his eyes inward and imagine that he dies guilty. Pope then begs Walpole to resign and, failing that, begs the King to intervene. The poem closes in a positive way by turning from Walpole and listing other persons (all members of the Opposition) that George II might appoint to a new Ministry. In the first edition (23 October) these persons were given fictitious names. The second edition (6 December) not only substituted their real names but also added twenty lines at the end which included Cobham and Argyle in the list of worthies. It is this edition, which carries an Advertisement explaining these changes, that we have reproduced here. Finally it seems helpful to append a few notes to help identify some of the allusions. In line 63 (p. 4) the "ONE more noble than the rest" is presumably Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke who was stripped of his title by Act of Attainder in 1725. In line 73 (p. 5) the "brave and honest _Adm'ral_" is Vernon who captured Porto Bello on 22 November 1739. The "_sturdy Beggars_" mentioned in line 100 (p. 6), was the appelation used by Walpole in referring to the mob outside the door of Parliament on 14 March 1733, and was taken up by the Opposition as pertaining to all the merchants and individuals opposed to the Excise.[34] In line 129 (p. 8) the "C--n----n" is the Convention of Pardo described earlier in this introduction. In line 139 (p. 8) the "BROTHER" referred to is Horatio Walpole who was a frequent ambassador abroad for Robert Walpole's government. In line 218 (p. 12) "HE whose _Fame_ to both the Poles is known" is George II. The persons named at the end of the poem as possible replacements for Walpole are all persons who were at one time members of the Whig party but who had joined the opposition because of their dislike for Walpole. John Carteret, Earl Granville (ll. 231-236, p. 13, and referred to as Camillus in the first edition), had a long struggle with Walpole for control of the Whig party and joined the Opposition Whigs after he returned from the lord lieutenancy of Ireland in 1730. It was Carteret who was to move the unsuccessful resolution on 13 February 1741, requesting the King to remove Walpole from his "presence and counsels for ever." William Pulteney, Earl of Bath (ll. 237-242, p. 13, and referred to as Demosthenes in the first edition) was also an early ally of Walpole's who later broke with him to form the Patriot party. He became one of the editors of _The Craftsman_. Philip Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield (ll. 243-245, p. 13, and referred to as Atticus in the first edition) was also a lifelong Whig who joined Carteret in leading the opposition to Walpole in the Lords. Hugh Hume, Lord Polwarth and Earl of Marchmont (ll. 246-257, p. 14, and referred to as "that fam'd _Caledonian Youth_" in the first edition), had been a persistent and relentless opponent of Walpole in the Commons, but on the death of his father in February 1740 had acceded to the Earldom of Marchmont and been unable to get elected as a representative peer. Although twenty years younger than Pope (he was only 32 in 1740) he became a close friend and was appointed an executor of his will. Pope refers to his friendship in his _Verses on a Grotto_: "And the bright Flame was shot thro' MARCHMONT'S Soul."[35] Sir Richard Temple, Viscount Cobham (ll. 258-261, p. 14), was also a staunch Whig who broke with Walpole and joined the Patriots. He, too, was an intimate friend of Pope's who addressed the first moral essay to him and praised his famous gardens at Stowe in the fourth. John Campbell, Duke of Argyle (ll. 262-265, pp. 14-15) was a distinguished soldier who joined the Opposition during the discussion of Spanish affairs. Both Pope and Thomson had celebrated his eloquence, and ll. 262-263 here are a direct recollection of lines 86-87 in Pope's _Epilogue to the Satires: Dialogue II_: ARGYLE, the State's whole Thunder born to wield, And shake alike the Senate and the Field. With the exception of Carteret each of the persons named at the end of the poem was either an acquaintance or a close friend of Pope's. We have here one last example of the remarkable degree to which the author of this pamphlet had assimilated the true facts of Pope's life into his fictional re-creation. * * * * * According to the title page, _The Great Man's Answer_ is by the same author as _Are these things so?_. Once again the setting is Pope's grotto, but this time the poet engages Walpole in a direct dialogue. The poem begins with the poet being disturbed in his retreat by someone "thundering at the gate." It is Walpole who has come to answer the questions asked in _Are these things so?_. He maintains that Britain has not fallen as low as Pope claims and that the Honour of the Fleet is still intact. He defends his handling of Parliament, his fiscal policies, his appointment of Placemen and Pensioners, his attitude to Commerce, and the self-aggrandisement involved in many of his contracts. These defences, which only bring out a severer irony in Pope, lead up to Walpole's version of his own epitaph in contrast to that given him in _Are these things so?_. Where Pope had stressed his role as the grave-digger of British Liberty, Walpole sees himself as the healer of factions. Finally he falls back on his ultimate weapon of bribery. But his offers of money, pension, place, title, and honour are turned down by the poet with increasing scorn, and the poem ends with appropriate focus on Pope' incorruptibility. The following notes are offered to help with the topical allusions.[36] The poem opens with Pope directing his servant, John Serle (l. 7, p. 1), to see who is thundering at his gate. This is a playful allusion to the famous opening of _An Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot_ where Serle had been urged to an exactly opposite course of action. The "_Gazetteer_ Abuse" scornfully mentioned by Pope (l. 37, p. 3) is a reference to _The Daily Gazetteer_, a pro-Government newspaper which ran from 30 June 1735-20 June 1745. The incomplete words, "Se--s" (l. 66, p. 4) and "P------ts!" (l. 79, p. 5) refer to Senates and Parliaments respectively. Walpole's claim (l. 89, p. 5) that "_Gin_ would then be drank without control" refers to the government's Gin Act of 1736, which placed an excise of five shillings a gallon on gin. His later claim that there would be "No _License_ on the _Press_, or on the _Stage_" (l. 98, p. 6) refers to the Stage Licensing Act of 1737, which placed the theatre under the control of the Lord Chamberlain. For Pope's ironic application of the epithet "sturdy" (l. 164, p. 9) to the London Merchants see the notes to _Are these things so?_. Pope's mention of "_Angria_" (l. 204, p. 11) is a comparison of Walpole to a Mahrattan pirate chief of the early part of the century. Walpole's introduction to his own epitaph, "They _best_ can speak it, who will _feel_ it most" (l. 223, p. 12) is an allusion to Pope's _Eloisa to Abelard_ (l. 366): "He best can paint 'em who shall feel 'em most." UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO London, Ontario, Canada NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION [1] H. R. Plomer, _A Dictionary of the Printers and Booksellers Who Were at Work in England. 1726-1775_ (Oxford, 1932), p. 61. [2] _The London Daily Post and General Advertiser_, 23 October 1740. "This Day is Published. Are these things so? The previous question from an Englishman in his Grotto, to a Great Man at Court." [3] _The London Daily Post and General Advertiser_, 8 November 1740. "This Day is Published. Yes, they are: Being an answer to Are these things so?" [4] _The Daily Gazetteer_, 15 November 1740. "This Day is Published. What of That! Occasioned by a Pamphlet intituled Are these things so? And its Answer, Yes, They are:" [5] _The London Daily Post and General Advertiser_, 17 November 1740. "Tomorrow will be published. The Weather-Menders. A proper Answer to Are these things so? By Mr. Spiltimber." [6] _The Daily Gazetteer_, 22 November 1740. "This Evening will be Published; The Second Edition of What of That!" [7] I have been unable to find an advertisement for this pamphlet, but it must have been published at the end of November or very early in December since _Have at you All_ (see following footnote) lists it as one of the pamphlets it is replying to. [8] _The London Magazine_, December 1740. The Monthly Catalogue. Item 13. "Have at you all. By the Author of Yes they are." This listing can only be taken as giving a terminal date. The pamphlet may well have been published in late November. _Are these things so?_, for example, is listed in the Monthly Catalogue for November. [9] _The London Daily Post and General Advertiser_, 1 December 1740. "Tomorrow, at Noon, will be published. What Things? or, An Impartial Inquiry What Things are so, and What Things are not so. Occasion'd by two late Poems, the one entitled Are these things so? And the other entitled Yes, they are." [10] _The Daily Post_, 6 December 1740. "This Day is Published. (The Second Edition, corrected; with the Addition of twenty lines omitted in the former Impressions) Are these things so? The previous question from an Englishman in his Grotto to a Great Man at Court." [11] _The Daily Post_, 18 December 1740. "This Day is Published. The Great Man's Answer. In a Dialogue between his Honour and the Englishman in his Grotto. By the author of Are these things so?" [12] _The London Daily Post and General Advertiser_, 20 December 1740. "This Day is Published. A Supplement to a late excellent Poem, entitled Are these things so?" [13] _The Daily Post_, 23 January 1741. "This Day is Published. The Third Edition. They are Not." [14] At the same time the South Sea Company agreed to pay a duty of 25% on all profits to the King of Spain. It was the question of the payment of this duty for illegal trips that became the basis of Spain's later claim for reparation. These details are taken from William Coxe, _Memoirs of the Life and Administration of Sir Robert Walpole, Earl of Orford_, 3 vols. (London, 1798), I, 589. [15] Coxe, I, 579. [16] These figures are taken from H.W.V. Temperley, "Chapter II, The Age of Walpole and the Pelhams," _The Cambridge Modern History_, ed. A. W. Ward, G. W. Prothero, and Stanley Leathes (Cambridge, 1909), VI, 66. [17] Coxe, I, 617. [18] Coxe, I, 618 _n_. [19] I have been unable to do any more to settle the authorship and have had to be content here with presenting the evidence. [20] D. E. Baker, I. Reed, and S. Jones, _Biographia Dramatica_, 3 vols. (London, 1812), I, ii, 512-515. [21] Robert Watt, _Bibliotheca Britannica_, 4 vols. (Edinburgh, 1824), II, 670. [22] Most of the details in this brief biography, including these quotations, are taken from "The Life of the Revd. Mr. James Millar," _The Lives of the Poets of Great-Britain and Ireland_, By Mr. Theophilus Cibber, and other hands (London, 1753), V, 332-334. [23] One of these, _The Man of Taste_, 1735, has sometimes been mistakenly confused with a pamphlet written three years earlier, _Mr. Taste, The Poetical Fop_, which viciously attacked Pope. See James T. Hillhouse, "The Man of Taste," _MLN_, XLIII (1928), 174-176. There is no evidence that Miller ever attacked Pope and, indeed, his political and literary sympathies put him strongly on Pope's side. [24] Cibber, p. 333. [25] Maynard Mack, _The Garden and the City_ (Toronto, 1969), p. 190. Mack is the first critic to pay any attention to these pamphlets and this reprint is largely offered to supplement his illuminating and suggestive book. [26] A. Pope, _The First Satire of the Second Book of Horace Imitated_ (London, 1733), l. 121. It is perhaps interesting to note that according to J. V. Guerinot, _Pamphlet Attacks on Alexander Pope 1711-1744_ (London, 1969), p. xlviii, "No other line more infuriated the dunces, it was for them Pope's ultimate hypocrisy." [27] Walpole visited Pope sometime in the summer of 1725. See Pope's letter to Fortescue, 23 September 1725. _The Correspondence of Alexander Pope_, ed. G. Sherburn (Oxford, 1956), II, 323. [28] For a full account of the ways in which Pope's actual retired life in his Twickenham villa, garden, and grotto became, in the 1730's, emblematic of the ideal of cultivated virtue, see Maynard Mack, _The Garden and the City_, especially Chapter VI. According to Mack, Pope becomes "spiritual patron of the poetical opposition to Walpole" (p. 190). [29] James Boswell, _Life of Johnson_, ed. R. W. Chapman (Oxford, 1953), p. 91. [30] This assumption is based on Johnson's comment in his life of Pope that "the whole process was probably intended rather to intimidate Pope than to punish Whitehead." S. Johnson, _Lives of the English Poets_, ed. G. Birkbeck Hill (Oxford, 1905), III, 181. [31] _The Gentleman's Magazine_, IX, 104. [32] _The London Daily Post and General Advertiser_, Saturday, 15 November 1740. "WHEREAS it has been generally reported that I am the Author of a Poem, lately publish'd, entitled ARE THESE THINGS SO? I think it necessary to assure the Public, that the said Report is without any Foundation, being entirely a Stranger both to that Piece and the Author of it. P. Whitehead." [33] "There is just now come out another imitation of the same original [_Ars Poetica_], _Harlequin Horace_, which has a good deal of humour." Sherburn, III, 173. [34] See _Fog's Weekly Journal_, 14 April 1733. [35] For an account of the publication of these verses see Mack, p. 70, _n_. 1. [36] It should be noted that the pamphlet is full of typographical errors. Lines 104-106, p. 6, should be prefixed by "G.M.," since Walpole must be the speaker, as should the last two lines in the poem, lines 251-252, p. 13. Page ten mistakenly carries the number twelve at the top of the page. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE The facsimiles of _Are these things so?_ (1740; the Second Edition, corrected; 163.n.57) and of _The Great Man's Answer_ (1740; 11630.h.50) are reproduced from copies in the British Museum by kind permission of the Trustees. Are these Things So? THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, FROM AN ENGLISHMAN in his GROTTO, TO A GREAT MAN at COURT. _Lusisti Satis, edisti Satis, atque_[A] _bibisti_, TEMPUS ABIRE TIBI----Horat. The Second Edition corrected: With the Addition of Twenty Lines omitted in the former Impressions. _LONDON:_ Printed for T. Cooper, at the _Globe_ in _Paternoster-Row_. MDCCXL. [A] Some great and erudite Criticks, instead of _Bibisti_, read Bribisti in this Place. Which of the two is the most applicable, our Querist does not pretend to determine. [Illustration: Decoration] Are these Things So? The Second Edition. With great Additions and Corrections. [Illustration: Decoration] (Price One Shilling.) ADVERTISEMENT. The first Publication of the following Poem having been entrusted to the Care of the Printer, it came, thro' either his Ignorance or Timorousness, extremely mutilated, and incorrect from the Press. The twenty last Lines were left out, which made the Conclusion very abrupt, and in a great measure destroy'd the Intention, as well as Unity, of the whole Piece. The Characters of some great Personages were entirely omitted, and fictitious Names placed to others, instead of the real ones inserted by the Author, who was always of Opinion, that deserved Praise, as well as just Satire, should disdain a Mask. As to the Pointing, it was false in almost every Line, and there were many Words either mis-plac'd or mis-spell'd in almost every Page. Notwithstanding its appearing under these many Disadvantages, the Public were pleas'd to shew their Approbation of it in general, and to give it such a generous and uncommon Reception, that a large Number were obliged to be printed off, to supply the present Demand, before there was Leisure to restore or correct any thing. The following Edition was at length undertaken by the Author Himself, and is entirely agreeable to the Manuscript which he at first put into the Hands of the Printer. [Illustration: Decoration] Are these Things So? THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, From an ENGLISHMAN in his GROTTO, To a GREAT MAN at COURT. Dead to the World's each Scene of Pomp or Care, Wrapp'd up in Apathy to all that's there; My sole _Ambition_ o'er myself to reign, My _Avarice_ to make each Hour a Gain; My _Scorn_--the Threats or Favours of a Crown, A Prince's Whisper, or a Tyrant's Frown; My _Pride_--forgetting and to be forgot; My _Lux'ry_--lolling in my peaceful Grot. All Rancour, Party, Pique, expung'd my Mind, Free or to _laugh_ at, or _lament_ Mankind; Here my calm Hours I with the Wise employ, And the great _Greek_, or _Roman_ Sage enjoy; Or, gayly bent, the Mirth-fraught Page peruse, Or, pensive, keep a _Fast-Day_ with the Muse. Close shut my Cottage-Gate, where none pretends To lift the Latch, but Virtue and her Friends; Tho' pardon me--a Word, Sir, in your Ear, Once, _long ago_, I think I saw You here. Yet to the World, all Hermit as I live, From all its vain Regards a Fugitive; Still in my Breast my _Country_ claims a Part, And Love of _Britain_ clings about my Heart: Then tell me, Sir, for You, 'tis said, best know, Is She, as Fame reports her, _fall'n so low_? Is _She_, who for so many Ages rode _Unquestion'd_ Monarch of the _Water-Flood_; Whose freighted Barks were hail'd in ev'ry Zone, And made each _India's_ envy'd Wealth her own; Protected still by such a Guardian Force, That were they e'er molested in their Course, Sure _Vengeance_ on th' Aggressor straight was pour'd, Unless _Seven-fold_ was for the Wrong restor'd? Is She now sunk to such _low Degree_, That _Gaul_ or _Spain_ must _limit_ out her _Sea_? That She must ask _what Winds_ her Sails shall fill, And steer by _Bounty_ who once steer'd _at Will_? Whilst the vast _Navies_ rais'd for her Support, _Nod_ on the _Main_, or _rot_ before the _Port_; With Hands _ty'd up_ vain _Menaces_ retail, Or try by meek _Perswasion_ to prevail? And is there--_What!_--So many _Millions_ gone, So _many_,--Heavens! yet nothing, _nothing_ done? Do then her Pow'rs this drowsy Sabbath keep? Is there no Trump will rouse 'em from their Sleep? Are they, quite lost to Empire and Renown, Bemus'd at Home, or sunk in _foreign Down_? Or, is it true, what Fame pretends to say, That You, Sir, are the _Author_ of To-day? That You're the fatal Cause of _Britain_'s Shame, The _Spend-thrift_ of her Freedom and her Fame? That _Albion_'s Sons are, by your Arts, become The _Dupes_ of Foreigners, and _Slaves_ of Home; That her fam'd S--te, on whose sage Debate, And _free_ Resolves, depended _Europe_'s Fate, Now meanly on your Nod _dependent_ sit, And _Yea_ or _No_ but just as you think fit; Nay, that the _Chiefs_ of even _Levi's Tribe_, Bow down to you, the _Converts_ of a _Bribe_? Whilst our trim _Warriors_, deaf to Honour's Call, Now wage no War but in the Senate-Hall; There wait your _Generalissimo_ Command, To fight _your_ Battles 'gainst the Patriot Band? And that should One more noble than the rest, Disdain to truckle to your high Behest, Speak what he thinks, and freely plead the Cause Of _Britain's_ Commerce, Liberty, and Laws; Exert his Pow'r to check Corruption's Swing, And serve, at _once_, his Country and his King, His _dang'rous_ Virtues are discarded straight, As sure as they are Vertues of your Hate; Stripp'd of all Honour, Dignity, and Rule, To cloath some _Kindred_ Oaf, or _Titled_ Tool. Or should a brave and honest _Adm'ral_ dare To make one Conquest tho' in Time of War, Without _your Leave_ to risk a vig'rous Blow, And shew what _Britons_, if they _might_, could do, Whilst ev'ry raptur'd Voice resounds his Praise, And grateful Hands triumphal Columns raise, Your venal Scribes are order'd all they can To _lessen_ and _prophane_ the _godlike Man_. That thus the _Fountain_ of _Britannia's_ Health, _Source_ of her Grandeur, Liberty, and Wealth, Polluted by your _all-corrupting_ Hand, With rank Infection deluges the Land; Parent at once of _Want_ and _Luxury_, Of open Rapine and dark Treachery; The Knaves _Elixir_, and the Just Man's _Bane_, _Food_ to the _Locust_, _Mildew_ to the _Swain_; Pouring on those who once in _Goshen_ dwelt; More deadly Plagues than _Ægypt_ ever felt, And _worse_ than _Israel's heaviest_ Task inflicts Tho' _gone_ our _Straw_ yet claiming _double Bricks_ Whilst _Commerce_ flies before th' oppressive Weight, And seeks in _Gaul_ a more indulgent Fate; Where, Shame to _Britain_! the fair Stranger Guest Is hail'd with Raptures, and her _Wrongs_ redress'd. "What then?" I'm told you say, "we nothing lose, "If they've our Commerce we've their wooden Shoes; "And since our _Merchants_ are so _fancy_ grown, "'Tis Time to pull _sturdy Beggars_ down; "They mutiny'd for _War_, and _War_ they have, "But _such a one_ that soon a _Peace_ they'll crave; "_Peace_ shall be Theirs, but _such a Peace_, that then "They'll curse their Prayers and wish for War again; "Thus pois'ning to 'em what they ask as best, "I'll ruin 'em by _granting_ their Request. Are these Things so? Or is it Fiction all? A _sland'rous Picture_ drawn in Soot and Gall? Offspring of Disappointment or Disgrace, Of Those who _want_ or who have _lost_ a _Place_? If so, why lives the Scandal? up for Shame, Confront your Foes, and vindicate your Fame; For, trust me Sir, to wink at such Offence, Rather proclaims a _Fear_ than _Innocence_; "No one is guilty 'till he's guilty prou'd---- Come then, be this wild Clamour strait remov'd; In _conscious Justice_ cloath'd assert your Right, Shake off this Load of Obloquy and Spite, Like _Samuel_ dauntless cry, _Lo here I am_! "Witness against me if I'm ought to blame. "Before the Lord and his Anointed say "Whose _Rights_ or _Honours_ have I ta'en away? "Whom, speak, have I _defrauded_ or _oppress_'d, "Or ever pilfer'd _Forage_ from whose Beast? "Of what vile _Contract_ was I e'er the Scribe, "Or of whose Hands have I receiv'd a _Bribe_? "What _Scheme_ did ever I at Home propose "But whence some _nameless_ Profit would have rose? "Or what _C--n----n_ e're devise abroad "But such as _Britain_'s Se--e did applaud? "What of my _Country_'s Money e'er bestow'd "Except in _secret Service_ for her Good? "Or what _Incumbrance_ on her _Commerce_ laid, "But for th' Increase of _our_ Revenues made? "In my dear Country's Service now _grown gray_ "_Spotless_ I've walk'd before you to this Day "My Thoughts laid out my precious Time all spent "In the hard _Slavery_ of _Government_; "My Brother too the _fruitless_ Bondage shares, "And all your _Peace_ is owing to his Cares, "Girding his Loins he Travels far and near "And brings home some _rare Treaty_ ev'ry Year. "You have my Sons too with you who bow down "Beneath the weighty Service of the Crown; "My Cousins and their Cousins too--hard Fate! "Are _loaded_ with the Offices of State; "And not _one Soul_ of all my Kindred's free "From _sharing_ in the Public Drudgery: "Why then these Shafts of Calumny you throw, "This groundless _Odium_ cast on all I do? "Speak out with Freedom what you have to say, "Aside all _Influence_, _Pow'r_, and _Skreen_ I lay, } "And put my Conduct on the Proof To-day. } This Sir, if you dare stand the Inquest, do, And then if you've but _Samuel_'s _Answer_ too, If all this heavy Charge is void of Ground, And by the _publick Voice_ you're _guiltless_ found, Resume your Power, with Terrors arm'd go forth, And blast the Villains that traduc'd your Worth; Who basely durst your Righteous Course Arraign, And Soil the Glory's of great _Brunswick_'s Reign. But if you _know_ your Cause is not the _best_ Know that you have Defrauded and Oppress'd, That you have ta'en and giv'n many a Bribe, And of a _wicked Contract_ been the Scribe. That you _have_ pilfer'd _Forage_ from the Beast, And with the _Publick Wealth_ your _own_ encreas'd; That a dire _Scheme_ you laid t' _Excise_ the Land, And to a vile C--v----n set your Hand; That you've _Monopoliz'd_ each Post and Place, To aggrandize your self and _Mushroom_ Race, That all your Kindred--Brother, Sons, and Cousins, Have _Titles_ and _Employments_ by the _Dozens_; And for as many _Sidesmen_ as are wanted, _New Places_ are contriv'd, _new Pensions_ granted. If you are travell'd in these _crooked_ Ways With a long Train of black _et Cetera's_; Whilst the _whole Nation_ loaths your very Name, And Babes and Sucklings your _Dispraise_ proclaim; Turn your Eyes inward, on yourself reflect, Think what you _are_, then what you're to _expect_: Pass a few Years the _Sisters_ cut your Thread, And rank you in the Number of the Dead; But of what _Dead_? not those whose Memory, Bloom with sweet Savour through Posterity. Those deathless Worthies, who, as Good as Great, Or rais'd a fall'n, or prop'd a sinking State; Or in the breach of Desolation stood, And for their Country's Welfare pledg'd their Blood. No! with the _Curs'd_ your Tomb shall foremost stand, The GAVESTON'S and WOLSEY'S of the Land. Your Epitaph--_In this foul Grave lies HE_, _Who dug the grave of_ British _Liberty_. Since then your Glass has but few Hours to run, Quit quit the Reins before we're quite undone. Why should you torture out your Dregs of Life, In publick Tumult, Infamy and Strife? To the last gasp maintain a baneful Power Only to see your Country die before? If not for _us_--for your _own_ Family, And as you've made 'em _Great_, pray leave 'em _Free_. But if there's nothing that can bribe your Will, From this perverse Propensity to Ill; If to the Grave you are on Mischeif bent. By growth in Crimes too harden'd to Repent. If, whilst _perhaps_ you may, you _won't Retreat_, Resolv'd the Nations _Ruin_ to compleat, On _Britain_'s Downfall to erect a Name, And trust to an _immortal Guilt_ for Fame, May'nt the _Just Vengeance_ of an injur'd Land, Thus greatly urg'd, exert a glorious _Stand_? Drive not the _Brave_ and _Wretched_ to Despair, For though of Freedom, Wealth and Power left bare, The Plunder'd still have _Tongues_--and they may rear, Their loud Complaints to reach their _Sovereign's_ Ear, Lay, with one Voice, their _Wrongs_ before the _Throne_, Whilst HE whose _Fame_ to both the Poles is known, All Europe's Arbiter, all Asia's Theme, Affrick's Delight, America's Supreme; HE who does still express his Royal Care, His loving Subjects Injuries to repair; To their _Addresses_ graciously attends, And above all their _Liberty_ defends, Who is as Wise as Pious, Mild as Great, And whose sole Business is to nurse the State; _May_ judge their Cause and, greatly rous'd, command, The _Staff_ of _Power_ from thy _polluted_ Hand, And to some _abler Head_ and _better Heart_, His long _dishonour'd Stewardship_ impart. Perhaps to Thee! great _Carteret_, who can'st boast. Talents quite equal to the arduous Post; A keen Discernment; strong, yet bridled Thought, One Natures Dow'r, one by just Learning taught: Calm Fortitude, unwarp'd Integrity, And Flame divine to keep thy Country Free. Or to thy Conduct, _Pultney_! whose just Zeal, Is still exerted for the publick Weal; Whose boundless Knowledge and distinguish'd Sense, Flow in full Tides of rapid Eloquence; And to the native Treasures of whose Mind, We see form'd Worth, and wide Experience join'd. With these the darling _Chesterfield_ may sit An _able_ Partner--if his _rebel Wit_ } Can to such _Pains_ and _Penalties_ submit. } And that fam'd _Caledonian Youth_, whose Morn Propitious Skies, and Noon-tide Rays adorn, Who rose so _early_ in his Country's Cause, Shone, though so Young, _so bright_, that our Applause Was lock'd in Wonder--gazing Senates hung On the divine Enchantment of his Tongue; Hark with what Force he pleads in our Defence! How just he speaks an injur'd People's Sense! _Half_ lost to _Britain_ now, He chides his Fate, For stealing him, _by Titles_, from the State; Whilst we, lov'd _Polwarth_! with thy Titles _more_, As might such Virtues to the State restore. Then too the noble _Cobham_, first of Men! May leave his Garden for the Camp again; Call'd, like old Rome's Dictator from the Plough, To plant once more the Laurel on his Brow. And Brave _Argile_, who's form'd alike to wield The Rhet'rick of the Senate and the Field, So tun'd whose Eloquence, whose Breast so Mann'd, None can the _Speaker_ or the _Chief_ withstand. Yet feign Methink's I'd hope that you were clear From this _high Charge_ that eccho's in my Ear; Trust that some Demon envious of my Rest With visionary Wrongs distracts my Breast, Or that this Blazon of enormous Crimes Springs from the wanton Licence of the Times. Therefore I put this _Question_ to your Heart,---- Speak, Culprit--_Are you Guilty_? Nay, don't Start, This is a Question all have right to ask, To answer it with _Honour_ is your Task; That, If you dare unbosom, I expect, Till when, _I'm Yours, Sir, with all_ due _Respect_. _FINIS_ [Illustration: Decoration] THE GREAT MAN's ANSWER TO Are these Things So? [Illustration: Decoration] (Price One Shilling.) THE GREAT MAN'S ANSWER TO Are these Things So? IN A DIALOGUE BRTWEEN His HONOUR and the ENGLISHMAN in His GROTTO. _Qui capit_---- By the Author of _Are these Things So?_ _LONDON:_ Printed for T. Cooper, at the _Globe_ in _Paternoster-Row_. MDCCXL. [Illustration: Decoration] THE GREAT MAN's ANSWER TO Are these Things So? _E.M._ HAIL blest _Elizium_! sweet, secure Retreat; Quiet and Contemplation's sacred Seat! Here may my Life's last Lamp in Freedom burn, Nor live to light my Country to her Urn: Die 'ere that huge _Leviathan_ of State Shall swallow all.--Who thunders at my Gate! See _John_--But hah! what Tempest shakes my Cell? Whence these big Drops that Ooze from ev'ry Shell? From this obdurate Rock whence flow those Tears? Sure some _Ill Power_'s at hand--Soft! it appears. _E. M._ What's That approaches, _John_? _J._ Why Sir, 'tis He. _E. M._ What He? _J._ Why He Himself, Sir; the _great_ HE. _E. M._ Enough. _G. M._ Your Slave, Sir. _E. M._ No Sir, I'm _your Slave_, Or soon shall be.--How then must I behave? Must I fall prostrate at your Feet? Or how-- I've heard the _Dean_, but never saw him _Bow_. _G. M._
{'title': "Are these Things So? (1740) The Great Man's Answer to Are These things So:", 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}