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 deathbed 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 tyrannize."ROCHESTER.
Footnotes(1) Tipperary.
(2) An obscene oath.
(3) See "Muses' Library," pp.86, 87.London, 1738.
(4) Genteel with them seems to be synonymous with Gentile and Gentoo; if so, the manner in which it has been applied for ages ceases to surprise, for genteel is heathenish.Ideas of barbaric pearl and gold, glittering armour, plumes, tortures, blood-shedding, and lust, should always be connected with it.
Wace, in his grand Norman poem, calls the Baron genteel:-"La furent li gentil Baron," etc.
And he certainly could not have applied the word better than to the strong Norman thief, armed cap-a-pie, without one particle of truth or generosity; for a person to be a pink of gentility, that is heathenism, should have no such feelings;and, indeed, the admirers of gentility seldom or never associate any such feelings with it.It was from the Norman, the worst of all robbers and miscreants, who built strong castles, garrisoned them with devils, and tore out poor wretches' eyes, as the Saxon Chronicle says, that the English got their detestable word genteel.What could ever have made the English such admirers of gentility, it would be difficult to say; for, during three hundred years, they suffered enough by it.Their genteel Norman landlords were their scourgers, their torturers, the plunderers of their homes, the dishonourers of their wives, and the deflourers of their daughters.Perhaps, after all, fear is at the root of the English veneration for gentility.
(5) Gentle and gentlemanly may be derived from the same root as genteel; but nothing can be more distinct from the mere genteel, than the ideas which enlightened minds associate with these words.Gentle and gentlemanly mean something kind and genial; genteel, that which is glittering or gaudy.Aperson can be a gentleman in rags, but nobody can be genteel.
(6) The writer has been checked in print by the Scotch with being a Norfolk man.Surely, surely, these latter times have not been exactly the ones in which it was expedient for Scotchmen to check the children of any county in England with the place of their birth, more especially those who have had the honour of being born in Norfolk - times in which British fleets, commanded by Scotchmen, have returned laden with anything but laurels from foreign shores.It would have been well for Britain had she had the old Norfolk man to dispatch to the Baltic or the Black sea, lately, instead of Scotch admirals.
(7) As the present work will come out in the midst of a vehement political contest, people may be led to suppose that the above was written expressly for the time.The writer therefore begs to state that it was written in the year 1854.
He cannot help adding that he is neither Whig, Tory, nor Radical, and cares not a straw what party governs England, provided it is governed well.But he has no hopes of good government from the Whigs.It is true that amongst them there is one very great man, Lord Palmerston, who is indeed the sword and buckler, the chariots and the horses of the party; but it is impossible for his lordship to govern well with such colleagues as he has - colleagues which have been forced upon him by family influence, and who are continually pestering him into measures anything but conducive to the country's honour and interest.If Palmerston would govern well, he must get rid of them; but from that step, with all his courage and all his greatness, he will shrink.Yet how proper and easy a step it would be! He could easily get better, but scarcely worse, associates.They appear to have one object in view, and only one - jobbery.It was chiefly owing to a most flagitious piece of jobbery, which one of his lordship's principal colleagues sanctioned and promoted, that his lordship experienced his late parliamentary disasters.
(8) A fact.
