tag="{http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml}a">[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 [J] His brother, Henry Pelham (1695?-1754), was much less well known; reserved and withdrawn, he preferred to work in the background, and his tactical and organizational abilities were not recognized until considerably later.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.]