The Art of Politicks — Edition Insights

Bramston had in mind.) When the aspiring orator is urged not to "join with silver Tongue a brazen Face" (p. 24), Walpole is again present by innuendo, for "brazen-face" was another of his nicknames. On the other hand, Bramston also makes fun of the "everlasting Fame" that results from quibbling on Sir Robert's name (p. 6). Bramston perhaps has it both ways here; while ridiculing commonplace puns, he also invites us to remember that "Robin" does indeed sound very much like "robbing."

Sometimes he is more subtle and ironic. This subtlety caused difficulty for at least one contemporary reader, and may do the same for us. Consider the following passage, which parallels Horace's advice always to show Achilles wrathful, Orestes mourning, and the like:

To _Likelihood_ your _Characters_ confine; Don't turn _Sir Paul_ out, let _Sir Paul_ resign. In _Walpole_'s Voice (if Factions Ill intend) Give the two _Universities_ a Friend; Give _Maidston_ Wit, and Elegance refin'd; To both the _Pelhams_ give the _Scipios_ Mind; To _Cart'ret_, Learning, Eloquence, and Parts; To _George_ the _Second_, give all _English_ Hearts. (p. 13)

One of Bramston's early readers found his poem very faulty, and many of his complaints were directed against the passage just quoted.

Such artless art did ever mortal see, Or politicks so void of policy?

What bard but this could Pelham's train compare To Roman Scipio's thunder-bolts of war? Did e'er their wars enrich their native isle, With foreign treasures and with Spanish spoil? But hark! and stare with all your ears and eyes! Walpole is friend to Universities!

Hail politician bard! we ask not whether A whig or tory; thou art both and neither. Poultney and Walpole each adorn thy lays, Which one for love, and one for money praise. Alike are mention'd, equally are sung Will. Shippen staunch, and slight Sir Wm. Young. Bromley and Wyndham share the motley strain, With Cart'ret, Maidstone, and the Pelhams twain.[F]

This critic finds two main faults in the poem: misinformation and confusion about particular individuals and, more generally, an inability to distinguish Whigs from Tories and give each their due. This last complaint of course mocks Bramston's lament at the beginning of the poem about the current lack of distinction between parties.

To what extent is this critique justified? What is Bramston trying to do in this passage? There is no problem with the second line: Sir Paul Methuen did indeed resign his office, and one gets the impression from Hervey (pp. 101-2, 250) that he never let anyone forget that he resigned. Thus we have here the most conventional of truisms. Walpole is more difficult. He was certainly no friend of the universities, which were Tory hotbeds. On the other hand, he was reluctant to try to reduce their privileges or bring them more closely under government control, for fear of rousing them to keener opposition. Nowhere else did he follow so faithfully his policy of letting sleeping dogs lie.[G] In a certain sense, then, he might be called a friend of the universities. I have been unable to determine whom Bramston means by "Maidston"--perhaps one of the Finches, the most prominent family in the area of Maidstone, Kent. Bramston's critic is certainly right about the Pelhams: they have nothing whatever in common with the Scipios. Scipio Africanus Major (236-184/3) was one of the most illustrious Roman heroes, consul during the Second Punic War and an outstanding military tactician. Scipio Africanus Minor (c. 185-129) was not only a consul and a military hero but a great patron of letters whom Cicero considered the greatest Roman of them all.[H] Thomas Pelham-Holles, Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1693-1768), Walpole's chief election manager, was notoriously muddle-headed, nervous, embarrassed, swamped in petty detail, suspicious, fretful, pompous, and indecisive.[I] His brother, Henry Pelham (1695?-1754), was much less well known; reserved and withdrawn, he preferred to work in the background, and his tactical and organizational abilities were not recognized until considerably later.[J] As far as their public image was concerned, then, no two men could be less like the Scipios. Most contemporaries agreed with Bramston's praise of John Carteret, Earl Granville (1690-1763), though many of them also mention other, less admirable traits.[K] As for George II, it depends on whose hearts you consult. An anonymous journalist:

What an Assurance has the Kingdom already given of an unfeigned Affection to their Majesties Persons and Government? How do the People shew that none are acceptable to them, but those that are so to their Majesties? How can Subjects give stronger Proofs of the high Esteem they have their Sovereign in, for Penetration and Wisdom, than those who entirely rely upon the Royal Discerning, and regulate their Conduct by the King's Direction?[L]