‘To enjoy the world’s conveniences, Be famed in war, yet live in ease, Without great vices is a vain Utopia, seated in the brain. Fraud, Luxury, and Pride must live, While we the benefits receive.’
In the prose which follows the fable, Mandeville may at least claim the credit of being outspoken, and he does not scruple to say that modesty is a sham and that what seems like virtue is nothing but self-love. ‘I often,’ he says, ‘compare the virtues of good men to your large china jars; they make a fine show, but look into a thousand of them, and you will find nothing in them but dust and cobwebs.’
While declaring that he is far from encouraging vice, he regards it as essential to the well-being of society. The degradation of the race excites his amusement, and the fact that he cannot see a way of escape from it, causes no regret. Shaftesbury’s arguments excited the mirth of a man who believed neither in present nor future good ‘Two systems,’ he says, ‘cannot be more opposite than his lordship’s and mine. His notions, I confess, are generous and refined. They are a high compliment to human kind, and capable, by the help of a little enthusiasm, of inspiring us with the most noble sentiments concerning the dignity of our exalted nature. What pity it is that they are not true.’
The author of the Fable of the Bees writes coarsely for coarse readers, and the arguments by which he supports his graceless theory merit the infamy generally awarded to them. The book was attacked by Warburton and Law, and with much force and humour by Berkeley, in the second Dialogue of Alciphron. But the bishop, to use a homely phrase, does not hit the right nail on the head. Instead of arguing that virtue and goodness are realities, while evil, being unreal and antagonistic to man’s nature, is an enemy to be fought against and conquered, Berkeley takes a lower ground, and is content to show in his reply to Mandeville that virtue is more profitable to a state than vice. He annihilates many of Mandeville’s arguments in a masterly style, but it was left to the author of the Serious Call to strike at the root of Mandeville’s fallacy, and to show how the seat of virtue, if I may apply Hooker’s noble words with regard to law, ‘is the bosom of God, her voice the harmony of the world; all things in heaven and earth do her homage, the very least as feeling her care, and the greatest as not exempted from her power.’
Lord Bolingbroke (1678-1751).
The life of Henry St. John was a mass of contradictions. He was a brilliant politician who affected to be a wise statesman, a traitor to his country while pretending to be a patriot, an orator whose lips distilled honied phrases which his actions belied, a man of insatiable ambition who masked as a philosopher, a profligate without shame, a faithless friend, and an unscrupulous opponent. Blessed with every charm of manner, features, and voice, with a taste for literature and a large faculty of acquisition, he was a slave to the meanest vices. A Secretary of State at thirty-two, no man probably ever entered upon public life with brighter prospects, and the secret of all his failures was due to the want of character. ‘Few people,’ says Lord Hervey, ‘ever believed him without being deceived or trusted him without being betrayed; he was one to whom prosperity was no advantage, and adversity no instruction.’
It is said that his genius as an orator was of a high order and this we can believe the more readily since the style of his works is distinctly oratorical. In speech so much depends upon voice and manner that it is possible for a shallow thinker to be an extremely attractive speaker; Bolingbroke’s speeches have not been preserved, and we may therefore continue, if we please, to hold with Pitt, that they are the most desirable of all the lost fragments of literature; his writings, far more showy than solid, do not convey a lofty impression of intellectual power. Obvious truths and well-worn truisms are uttered in high-sounding words, but in no department of thought can it be said that Bolingbroke breaks new ground. Much that he wrote was for the day and died with it, and if his more ambitious efforts, written with an eye to posterity, cannot justly be described as unreadable, they contain comparatively little which makes them worthy to be read.
His defence of his conduct in A Letter to Sir William Windham, written in 1717, but not published until after the author’s death, though worthless as a defence, is a fine piece of special pleading in Bolingbroke’s best style. It could deceive no one acquainted with the part played by the author before the death of Queen Anne, and afterwards in exile, but it afforded him an opportunity for attacking his former colleague, Oxford, with all the weapons available by an unscrupulous and powerful assailant. He declares in this letter that he preferred exile rather than to make common cause with the man whom he abhorred. Writing of Oxford as a colleague in the government of the country he observes in a skilfully turned passage:
‘The ocean which environs us is an emblem of our government; and the pilot and the minister are in similar circumstances. It seldom happens that either of them can steer a direct course, and they both arrive at their port by means which frequently seem to carry them from it. But as the work advances the conduct of him who leads it on with real abilities clears up, the appearing inconsistencies are reconciled, and when it is once consummated, the whole shows itself so uniform, so plain, and so natural, that every dabbler in politics will be apt to think he could have done the same. But on the other hand the man who proposes no such object, who substitutes artifice in the place of ability, who, instead of leading parties and governing accidents, is eternally agitated backwards and forwards by both, who begins every day something new, and carries nothing on to perfection, may impose awhile on the world: but a little sooner or a little later the mystery will be revealed, and nothing will be found to be couched under it but a thread of pitiful expedients, the ultimate end of which never extended farther than living from day to day. Which of these pictures resembles Oxford most you will determine.’
It has been said with somewhat daring exaggeration, that Burke never produced anything nobler than this passage, and the writer regards the whole composition of the Letter to Windham as almost faultless.
That it is Bolingbroke’s masterpiece may be readily admitted, but in this Letter, as elsewhere, the merits of Bolingbroke’s style are those of the popular orator who conceals repetitions, contradictory statements, and emptiness of thought under a dazzling display of rhetoric. That he had splendid gifts and exhibited an extraordinary ingenuity of resource was acknowledged by friend and foe. At one time taking a distinguished part in European affairs, at another artfully intriguing, sometimes posing as a moralist and philosopher while a slave to debauchery, and at other times affecting a love of retirement while a slave to ambition — Bolingbroke acted a part which made him one of the most conspicuous figures of the time. He knew how to fascinate men of greater genius than he possessed, and how to guide men intellectually his superiors. The witchcraft of his wit and the charm of his manners no longer disturb the judgment. As a statesman Bolingbroke is now comparatively despised, as a man of letters he is generally regarded as a brilliant pretender, and if his name survives in the history of literature it is chiefly due to the friendship of Pope. Unfortunately the memory of this celebrated friendship is associated with one of the most ignoble acts of Bolingbroke’s life. When Pope lay dying, Bolingbroke wept over his friend exclaiming, ‘O great God, what is man!’ and Spence relates that upon telling his lordship how Pope whenever he was sensible said something kindly of his friends as if his humanity outlasted his understanding, Bolingbroke replied, ‘“It has so! I never in my life knew a man that had so tender a heart for his particular friends or a more general friendship for mankind. I have known him these thirty years, and value myself more for that man’s love than” — sinking his head and losing himself in tears.’ His sorrow was speedily changed to anger. Pope, no doubt in admiration of his friend’s genius, had privately printed 1,500 copies of his Patriot King, one of Bolingbroke’s ablest but most sophistical works. The philosopher had only allowed a few copies to be printed for his friends, and the discovery of Pope’s conduct roused his indignation. In 1749 he put a corrected copy of the work i
nto Mallet’s hands for publication with an advertisement in which Pope is treated with contempt. He had not the courage to assail the memory of his friend openly, and hired an unprincipled man to do it. The poet had acted trickily, after his wonted habit, though in all likelihood with the design of doing Bolingbroke a service. It was a fault to be forgiven by a friend, but Bolingbroke, after nursing his anger for five years, gave vent to it in this contemptible and underhand way. He died two years afterwards, and in 1754 the posthumous publication of Bolingbroke’s Philosophical Writings by Mallet, aroused a storm of indignation in the country, which his debauchery and political immorality had failed to excite. Johnson’s saying on the occasion is well-known:
‘Sir, he was a scoundrel and a coward; a scoundrel for charging a blunderbuss against religion and morality; a coward because he had not resolution to fire it off himself, but left half-a-crown to a beggarly Scotchman to draw the trigger after his death.’
The most noteworthy estimate of Bolingbroke’s character made in our day comes from the pen of Mr. John Morley, who describes as follows his position as a man of letters. ‘He handled the great and difficult instrument of written language with such freedom and copiousness, such vivacity and ease, that in spite of much literary foppery and falsetto, he ranks in all that musicians call execution, only below the three or four highest masters of English prose. Yet of all the characters in our history Bolingbroke must be pronounced to be most of a charlatan; of all the writing in our literature, his is the hollowest, the flashiest, the most insincere.’ This is true. By his ‘execution,’ consummate though it be, he is unable to conceal his insincerity and shallowness. ‘Bolingbroke,’ said Lord Shelburne, was ‘all surface,’ and in that sentence his character is written.
‘People seem to think,’ said Carlyle, ‘that a style can be put off or put on, not like a skin, but like a coat. Is not a skin verily a product and close kinsfellow of all that lies under it, — exact type of the nature of the beast, not to be plucked off without flaying and death?’
Two years after the publication of the Philosophical Writings, Edmund Burke, then a young man of twenty-four, published A Vindication of Natural Society, in a Letter to Lord —— . By a late noble writer, in which Lord Bolingbroke’s style is imitated, and his arguments against revealed religion applied to exhibit ‘the miseries and evils arising to mankind from every species of Artificial Society.’ So close is the imitation of Bolingbroke’s style and mode of argument in this piece of irony, that it was for a time believed to be a genuine production, and Mallet found it necessary to disavow it publicly.
Of Bolingbroke’s Works, the Dissertation on Parties appeared in 1735. Letters on Patriotism, and Idea of a Patriot King, in 1749; Letters on the Study of History, in 1752; Letter to Sir W. Windham, 1753, and the Philosophical Writings, as already stated, in 1754. Chronologically, therefore, he would belong to the Handbook which deals with the latter half of the century, were it not that his most important works were posthumous, and that Bolingbroke’s intimate relations with Pope place him among the most conspicuous figures belonging to Pope’s age.
George Berkeley (1685-1753).
Among the men of high intellect who flourished in the age of Pope, George Berkeley is one of the most distinguished. Born in 1685 of poor parents, in a cottage near Dysert Castle, in Kilkenny, he went up to Trinity College, Dublin, in 1700, and there, first as student, and afterwards as tutor, he remained for thirteen years. In the course of them he was ordained, and gained a fellowship. In 1709 he published his Essay on Vision, and in the following year the Principles of Human Knowledge, works which thus early made him famous as a philosopher, and a puzzle to many who failed to understand his ‘new principle’ with regard to the existence of matter.
In 1712 Berkeley visited England, probably for the first time, and was introduced to the London wits. Already in these youthful days there was in him much of that magic power which some men exercise unconsciously and irresistibly. Swift felt the spell, called Berkeley a great philosopher, and spoke of him to all the Ministers; while Atterbury, upon being asked what he thought of him, exclaimed: ‘So much understanding, so much knowledge, so much innocence, and such humility, I did not think had been the portion of any but angels till I saw this gentleman.’ An incident occurred, it is conjectured during the course of this visit, which led to memorable results. He dined once with Swift at Mrs. Vanhomrigh’s, and met her daughter Hester. Many years later, Vanessa destroyed the will she had made in Swift’s favour, and left half of her property to Berkeley. While in London the future bishop was warmly welcomed by Steele, and wrote several essays for him in the Guardian against the Freethinkers, and especially against Anthony Collins (1676-1729), whose arguments in his Discourse on Freethinking (1713) are ridiculed in the Scriblerus Memoirs. Collins, it may be observed here, wrote a treatise several years later on the Grounds of the Christian Religion (1724) which called forth thirty-five answers. During this visit Berkeley also published one of his most original works, Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, a book marked by that consummate beauty of style for which he is distinguished.
In November, 1713, the Earl of Peterborough was sent on an embassage to the King of Sicily, and on Swift’s recommendation took Berkeley with him as his chaplain and secretary. Ten months were spent on this occasion in France and Italy. Another continental tour followed, in the course of which Berkeley wrote to Arbuthnot of his ascent of Vesuvius, and to Pope of his life at Naples. Five years were spent abroad, and he returned to England to learn of the failure of the South Sea Scheme. In his Essay towards Preventing the Ruin of Great Britain (1721), the main argument is the obvious one, that national salvation is only to be secured by individual uprightness. He deplores ‘the trifling vanity of apparel’ which we have learned from France, advocates the revival of sumptuary laws, considers that we are ‘doomed to be undone’ by luxury, and by the want of public spirit, and declares that ‘neither Venice nor Paris, nor any other town in any part of the world ever knew such an expensive ruinous folly as our masquerade.’
In the summer of this year he was again in London, and Pope asked him to spend a week in his ‘Tusculum.’ One promotion followed another until Berkeley became Dean of Derry, with an income of from £1,500 to £2,000 a year. He did not hold this dignified position long, having conceived the magnificent but Utopian idea of founding a Missionary College in the Bermudas — the ‘Summer Isles’ celebrated in the verse of Waller and of Marvell — for the conversion of America.
And now Berkeley exhibited his amazing power of influencing other men. The members of the Scriblerus Club laughed at the Dean’s project, but so powerful was his eloquence, that ‘those who came to scoff remained to subscribe.’ Moreover, with Sir Robert Walpole as Prime Minister, he actually obtained a grant from the State of £20,000 in order to carry out the project, the king gave a charter, and to crown all, Sir Robert put his own name down for £200 on the list of subscribers. ‘The scheme,’ says Mr. Balfour, ‘seems now so impracticable that we may well wonder how any single person, let alone the representatives of a whole nation, could be found to support it. In order that religion and learning might flourish in America, the seeds of them were to be cast in some rocky islets severed from America by nearly six hundred miles of stormy ocean. In order that the inhabitants of the mainland and of the West Indian colonies might equally benefit by the new university, it was to be placed in such a position that neither could conveniently reach it.’ Berkeley, who had recently married, left England for Rhode Island, where he stayed for about three years and wrote Alciphron (1732), in which he attacks the freethinkers under the title of Minute Philosophers. Then on learning from Walpole that the promised money ‘would most undoubtedly be paid as soon as suits public convenience’ which would be never, he returned to England, and through the Queen’s influence was made Bishop of Cloyne. In that diocese eighteen years of his life were spent. In the course of them he published the Querist (1735-1737), an Essay on the Social State of Ire
land (1744), and, in the same year, Siris, which contains the bishop’s famous recipe for the use of tar water followed by much philosophical disquisition. The remedy, which was afterwards praised by the poet Dyer in The Fleece, became instantly popular. ‘We are now mad about the water,’ Horace Walpole wrote; ‘the book contains every subject from tar water to the Trinity; however, all the women read it, and understand it no more than if it were intelligible.’ Editions of Siris followed each other in rapid succession, and it was translated into French and German. The work is that of an enthusiast, and it should be read not for its argument, but for its wealth of suggestiveness, and for what Mr. Balfour calls ‘a certain quality of moral elevation and speculative diffidence alien both to the literature and the life of the eighteenth century.’ Berkeley had himself the profoundest faith in the panacea which he advocated. ‘From my representing tar water,’ he writes, ‘as good for so many things, some, perhaps, many conclude it is good for nothing. But charity obligeth me to say what I know, and what I think, howsoever it may be taken. Men may conjecture and object as they please, but I appeal to time and experience.’
In his latter days Berkeley, feeling his health failing, desired to resign his bishopric and retire to Oxford, and there — while still bishop of Cloyne, for the king would not accept his resignation — the philosopher, who was blest, to use Shakespeare’s fine epithet, with a ‘tender-hefted nature,’ passed away in 1753, leaving behind him one of the most fragrant of memories.
That Berkeley was a philosophical thinker from his earliest manhood is evident from his Commonplace Book published for the first time in the Clarendon Press edition of his works (vol. iv., pp. 419-502).
He delighted in recondite thought as much as most young men delight in action, and as a philosopher he is said to have commenced his studies with Locke, whose famous Essay appeared in 1690. Of Plato, too, Berkeley was an ardent admirer, and the spirit of Plato pervades his works. His Essay towards a New Theory of Vision contains some intimations of the famous metaphysical theory which was developed a little later in the Treatise on Human Knowledge.
Alexander Pope - Delphi Poets Series Page 192
