r. Gerard's recent revelations, there might have been no
European war.
Mr. Whibley, it is only fair to say, is concerned with Swift as a man of
letters and a friend, rather than with Swift as a party politician. The
present book is a reprint of the Leslie Stephen lecture which he delivered
at Cambridge a few months ago. It was bound, therefore, to be
predominantly literary in interest. At the same time, Mr. Whibley's
political bias appears both in what he says and in what he keeps silent
about. His defence of Swift against the charge of misanthropy is a defence
with which we find ourselves largely in agreement. But Mr. Whibley is too
single-minded a party politician to be able to defend the Dean without
clubbing a number of his own pet antipathies in the process. He seems to
think that the only alternative to the attitude of Dean Swift towards
humanity is the attitude of persons who, "feigning a bland and general
love of abtract humanity ... wreak a wild revenge upon individuals." He
apparently believes that it is impossible for one human being to wish well
to the human race in general, and to be affectionate to John, Peter and
Thomas in particular. Here are some of Mr. Whibley's rather wild comments
on this topic. He writes:
We know well enough whither universal philanthropy leads us. The
Friend of Man is seldom the friend of men. At his best he is
content with a moral maxim, and buttons up his pocket in the
presence of poverty. "I _give_ thee sixpence! I will see thee
damned first!" It is not for nothing that Canning's immortal words
were put in the mouth of the Friend of Humanity, who, finding that
he cannot turn the Needy Knife Grinder to political account, give
him kicks for ha'pence, and goes off in "a transport of Republican
enthusiasm." Such is the Friend of Man at his best.
"At his best" is good. It makes one realize that Mr. Whibley is merely
playing a game of make-believe, and playing it very hard. His indictment
of humanitarians has about as much, or as little, basis in fact as would
an indictment of wives or seagulls or fields of corn. One has only to
mention Shelley with his innumerable personal benevolences to set Mr.
Whibley's card-castle of abuse tumbling.
With Mr. Whibley's general view of Swift as opposed to his general view of
politics, I find myself for the most part in harmony. I doubt, however,
whether Swift has been pursued in his grave with such torrent
|