Excerpts from Horace's "Art of Poetry"

The Augustan Reprint Society

[JAMES BRAMSTON]

THE
ART of POLITICKS

(1729)

Introduction by
William Kinsley

PUBLICATION NUMBER 177

WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY

Universiy of California, Los Angeles

 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
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, Princeton University Samuel H. Monk, University of Minnesota Everett T. Moore, University of California, Los Angeles Lawrence Clark Powell, William Andrews Clark Memorial Libr James Sutherland, University College, London H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., University of California, Los Angeles Robert Vosper, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

 CORRESPONDING SECRETARY
Beverly J. Onley, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

[Transcriber's Note:
In the original, the text is arranged so that each stanza in "The Art of Politicks" corresponds to a section in Horace's "The Art of Poetry". The excerpts from "The Art of Poetry" are given as footnotes, in the original Latin.]

INTRODUCTION

The meagre information known about James Bramston's life has been ably summarized by F. P. Lock in his introduction to The Man of Taste (ARS 171). For our present purposes, we need only add that Bramston seems to have been acquainted with Pope, who saw The Art of Politicks before it was printed and thought it "pretty". [A] Bramston quite likely met Pope through John Caryll, whose Sussex estate, Lady-Holt, was in the neighborhood of Bramston's parishes.

The Art of Politicks, Bramston's first English poem, was published anonymously in 1729 and advertised in the Monthly Chronicle of 8 December. Several reimpressions followed, as did another London edition, one from Edinburgh, and two from Dublin, all dated 1729, and a London edition of 1731. [B] It was reprinted in Robert Dodsley's Collection of Poems, by Several Hands (1748), where it was attributed to Bramston, and in John Bell's Classical Arrangement of Fugitive Poetry, Volume 5 (1789), with a few notes. [C] Horace Walpole's copy of Dodsley's Collection, with a few rather uninformative manuscript notes, is now in the British Library (C.117.aa.16).

It seems likely that the poem was completed in the summer of 1729. The most recent events that Bramston alludes to are Thomas Woolston's trial for blasphemy of 4 March (p. 27) and Sir Paul Methuen's resignation as Treasurer of the King's Household, which was reported in May (p. 13). [D]

Horace's Ars Poetica was one of the most fertile sources for eighteenth-century imitations and adaptations. Some were completely serious attempts to marry one art to another or to show that all arts share the same fundamental principles; an example of this type is John Gwynn's Art of Architecture (1742; ARS 144). Others, like William King's Art of Cookery (1708) are downright burlesques.

Bramston's usual method falls somewhere between these extremes. He often uses the dignity of poetry to show up the indignity of politics or political writing, as on pp. 5-6 where Horace's advice on choice of subject is transformed into advice to "Weekly Writers of seditious News," or on page 7, where the rise and fall of South Sea stock fills the place of Horace's famous comparison of archaic and new-coined words to the leaves of the forest. But Bramston's poem more often aspires to the same level as its model; in this respect it resembles Absalom and Achitophel more than Mac Flecknoe.

Several factors help to bring Ars Poetica and The Art of Politicks together. Perhaps most important, Bramston conceives of politics primarily as a verbal art, the use of speech to persuade others to a course of action. Bribes and other crasser incentives appear in the poem, of course, but they are clearly the result of declining standards. For Bramston, rhetoric should govern politics; the House of Commons is a reincarnation of a Roman senate or courtroom. Bramston's inclusion of political writing as well as politics itself in his poem also helps to keep him in Horace's orbit. On Horace's side, his conception of poetry is basically rhetorical and persuasive; it should instruct and delight, move to laughter or tears. Horace's readiness to digress into literary history gives Bramston many opportunities to bring in political history. The Ars Poetica is very much concerned with the world of men; poets are seen in their social roles, and Horace's standards of literary decorum are usually based on social norms: young men in plays should behave the way young men are observed to behave in real life. The Ars Poetica also contains several sharp satiric darts; Horace's contrast between the eloquence of ancient Greece and the commercial arithmetic of modern Rome slides easily into a contrast between Elizabethan learning and Hanoverian place-hunting (pp.32-33). Finally, Horace's urbane and chatty style is as suitable for other subjects as it is for poetry. To appreciate Horace's adaptability, one need only imagine the difficulty of writing an art of politics in imitation of Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica" or Aristotle's Poetics.

Though he does not pretend to Pope's image of himself as a new Horace bringing the whole weight of Roman tradition to bear on contemporary society, Bramston is very clever on the local level at transposing Horace for his own purposes. Horace recounts the increasing complexity and sophistication of theatrical music, Bramston the increasingly elaborated musical celebrations of victorious candidates (pp. 22-23), and Horace's implication that the sophistication of taste is really a decline—"an impetuous style brought in an unwonted diction" (217)—constitutes an unspoken comment on Bramston's subject. [E] Bramston's page 27 corresponds to Horace's brief history of the theatre, from Thespis's tragedies that he staged on wagons to the silencing of the excessively outspoken chorus of Old Comedy (275-84). Bramston replaces Thespis with Defoe, and the wagon-mounted stage with the cart and pillory. Instead of deploring the silencing of the chorus, Bramston applauds the silencing of Woolston. The contrast between Thespis and Defoe is clearly mock-heroic, but Bramston implies that Woolston's similarity to an ancient satyr is a decline from the character expected of a modern clergyman.

Sometimes the mere fact of changing from a poetic to a political context produces the satire or humour. What is praiseworthy in a poet—the ability to mingle fact and fiction skillfully (151)—becomes highly ironic when applied to a politician who

Horace's "ut pictura poesis" (361) produces this bland but destructive couplet:

More humourous than satirical is the relation between Horace's declaration that there's no place for a mediocre poet (372-73) and Bramston's

The conclusion of the poem involves a somewhat more complex transformation. Horace closes with a humourously self-deprecating description of the "poetic itch": the afflicted poet stumbles into ditches as he babbles his verses aloud; people flee from him, and with good reason; if he catches anyone, he hangs on like a leech and reads his victim to death. Bramston describes another "sort of itch," parliamenteering. Sir Harry Clodpole knows better than to make speeches to the electors; he solicits their votes by feasting them, and they run towards him (or his table), not away. They, not he, are the leeches; "they never leave him while he's worth a groat" (p. 45).

Bramston—it seems an excessive refinement to speak of a persona or narrator—presents himself as a rather simple, naive political observer who yearns for clear-cut distinctions between parties; he wants to know where politicians stand on issues. The confusion, the blurring of old party lines, in present-day England is like the monster in the frontispiece. Though simple, he is also well informed. He seems to have a good knowledge of British history since the Restoration, referring casually to the Exclusion Crisis of 1680-81 (p. 15), the Kentish Petition of 1701 (p. 10), and the South Sea Bubble of 1720 (p. 7). All these past events are used to reinforce present lessons. He is up-to-date, as shown by his reference to the recent events in the careers of Methuen and Woolston. He professes familiarity with the characters of the leading politicians and also knows something about what is going on in the constituencies. He knows, or claims to know, how different kinds of listeners will react to different kinds of speeches.

For a son of Christ Church, one of the most Tory Colleges of Tory Oxford, he seems remarkably non-partisan, though his Opposition biases do show through. When he says that "Addison's immortal Page" shows us how "to screen good Ministers from Publick rage" (p. 9), he is clearly aiming at Walpole, known as the "Screenmaster General" since his success in shielding many of the perpetrators of the South Sea Bubble in 1720. (I have not been able to discover the passage of Addison that 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:

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

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. [J] 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. [K] 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. [M] 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? [N]

William Pultney:

The Queen is hated, the King despised, their son both the one and the other, and such a spirit of disaffection to the family and general discontent with the present Government is spread all over the Kingdom, that it is absolutely impossible for things to go on in the track they are now in. [O]

By now Bramston's method should be clear: he is praising everyone, but the praise fits the Opposition (such as Carteret) much better than it does the Government (the Pelhams). There is perhaps room for doubt about Walpole and George II, but Bramston's critic's failure to see the irony in the comparison of Pelhams to Scipios must be the result of sheer obtuseness. The rationale for Bramston's technique becomes clearer if we look again at Horace and recall that the basis of his advice is to follow conventional opinion. The conventional opinions that Bramston is by implication urging his pupil to follow are those of the politician's supporters and dependents. It just happens that Bramston has chosen his examples so that the Opposition conventions are closer to reality than the Government conventions. [P]

All this is fun, but it is quite inoffensive. There's no animus, no vehemence, no bite. Politics do not really engage any of Bramston's strong convictions. The self-portrait he offers us on pages 29-30 would be for many political satirists of the period a transparent facade of mock-innocence, but it seems to fit Bramston very accurately:

By contrast to the increasing acrimony of most political satire of the late 1720's, this attitude is at least refreshing.

NOTES TO THE ART OF POLITICKS

Given the topical nature of The Art of Politicks, the best use of my remaining space is probably to annotate the poem. From what I have learned about its background—and many mysteries remain—I have tried to choose what seems most relevant. In the interests of saving space, and since full annotation is not possible anyway, I have kept documentation to a minimum, especially where the information comes from easily available sources like the DNB or, conversely, has been pieced together from several sources. Some works are occasionally referred to by abbreviation or author's name; the ones not mentioned in the Notes to the Introduction are the following: [Q]

Cobbett: William Cobbett, The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 (London: T. C. Hansard, 1806-20).

Ellis: Jonathan Swift, A Discourse of the Contests and Dissentions between the Nobles and Commons in Athens and Rome, ed. Frank H. Ellis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967).

Grey: Anchitel Grey, Debates of the House of Commons from the Year 1667 to the Year 1694 (London, 1763).

Thomas: Peter D. G. Thomas, The House of Commons in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971).

Realey: Charles B. Realey, The Early Opposition to Sir Robert Walpole 1720-1727 (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1931).

[Transcriber's Note:
 The paragraph and line numbers in bold,which begin the footnotes, i.e. P. 1, line 1.
 are referenced to the original text, they do not correspond to the computerized version.]

UniversitÉ de MontrÉal

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

The facsimile of The Art of Politicks (1729) is reproduced by permission from a copy of the first edition (Shelf Mark: *PR3326/B287A8; Foxon B383) in the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library. The total type-page (p. 19) measures 152 x 93 mm.

— RISUM TENEATIS AMICI ?

THE
ART of POLITICKS,
In Imitation of
HORACE's
ART of POETRY.

THE
ART of POLITICKS,
In Imitation of
HORACE's
ART of POETRY.