« AnteriorContinuar »
promise which allures in a prospectus arrests | attention in him; but he does not perform what he promises. He has aspiration but no inspiration; ambition, but no creative power. In his poems, in his novels, and in his speeches, you see that he means something great, but has not the force to originate it. If epics could spring up out of the mere desire to imbody the spirit of the time, then would he be the great national poet; if grandiloquence were eloquence, then would he stir the hearts of thousands and "teach wisdom to monarchs and to multitudes." So if statesmanship were only the perception of the incapacity of others, and the recognition of the necessity for a statesman to have large and distinct views, then would he be the "Coming Man" whose advent he proclaims. But it is not so. Prospectuses will not do the work of books. They may serve to gull a list of subscribers and gain a fleeting notoriety; that is the utmost they can do. They have done that for D'Israeli.
We before remarked that his position in literature was analogous to his position in politics, modified by the enormous difference of the arena, and his combatants in that arena. Now in literature this prospectus brilliancy counts for really very little; accordingly those works in which he has trusted to his intrinsic value have been lamentable failures. No one would accept his " Revolutionary Epick;" no one would act his "Alarcos.' The prose run mad of "Alroy" was too extravagant even for the Minerva press. The philosophico-poetico"psychological Romance" of "Contarini Fleming" was unendurable to men and boys. "Henrietta Temple" and "Venetia" could not stand even beside Mrs. Gore and Mr. James. We all saw what was meant in these works; but we also saw what was done. "Vivian Grey" and the " Young Duke" amused by their portraits of public men, and by a certain dashing coxcombry and vivacity. Coningsby," "Sybil," and "Tancred" were political manifestoes spiced with personalities, and had the facile success such things achieve. But if you look into any of these works you will be struck with their utter worthlessness, which no cleverness of the author can disguise. They are adroitly "got up" for effect; but they remain prospectuses. Examine them, and you will see a complete absence of all sterling excellence. They are written with astonishing command of language, and yet the style is ungrammatical, inelegant, inaccurate. In descriptions splendid words are made to
stand for distinct pictures. In characterization the mere outside is presented insight into character, analysis of motives, the dynamic operation of passions, are not to be met with. The development of a plot is unattempted. Sketchy chapters changing from discussion to satire, from idle dialogues to grandiloquent rhapsodies, fill up the three volumes through which they have hurried the reader.
Whoever is at all conversant with our lighter literature will understand how, with the majority of readers, this prospectus prodigality succeeds for a time. People see a sketch of social life, and accept it as true. They see the author means to be eloquent and witty, and they take the will for the deed. They see .he means to be profound and sagacious, and they believe in him. Who stops to think during a hand gallop through three volumes? It all looks very brilliant, and very solid. Whether it be gilt or gold, troubles them not. It is only readers of another class who see through the pretension.
In politics is it otherwise? Is he not the prospectus of a statesman? He sees clearly enough the necessity for ideas, and pretends to have them, though he has only the idea that there ought to be ideas. This is something; nay, in opposition, it is considerable. Owing to the state of political knowledge, any man who only seems to have ideas has power. There are two classes of politicians. One accepts the traditionary policy handed down by predecessors, "the wisdom of our ancestors," or the policy painfully shaped out by the irresistible progress of events. These are men without political ideas, working upon established formulas. They cannot, even in theory, construct a policy which shall in any way embrace the life of a nation; but shroud their incapacity under delusive metaphors, such as "The institutions of a country must grow," as if, because a man must grow, his career must also be one, not of intelligent action, but of derived vegetation. The aphorism may be set aside by a continuation of the metaphor ; if they must grow, they must also decay, and thus the "wisdom of our ancestors" becomes the decrepitude of our times! These men, the best of them, seem incapable of looking beyond the step they are to take next. Instead of viewing political life as a whole, they read only pages of history, and propose measures in place of comprehensive schemes. They are not leaders, but subalterns; the captains, not the generals of
the army. Take, as a striking example, our present ruler, and our present terrible problem-Lord John Russell and Ireland. The Whig minister over and over again declares that Ireland cannot be treated by any scheme, but only by measures from time to time applicable to the occasion. This is a confession of incapacity. Specific application is the philosophy of quacks; general treatment, the practice of physicians. Lord John is a man who has read history, written history, and lived history; but he has not understood history. He can pick out authorities and precedents, and apply them with admirable ingenuity, but with what effect? He will quote a passage from Burke to settle a question of our day, not discriminating between eternal principles and the transient plans and incidents of an age. Burke is a great writer, and his page is luminous; but there has been a context added to it since the French Revolution, which strangely alters its significance. Quote Burke by all means; but to overlook the
He reasons with his imagination. Thus also in his interpretation of Venetian polity, which is ingenious, and quite in the spirit of Venetian history and its most characteristic statesmen, even back to Dandolo, we see the same oversight of determining influences. Content with grouping and classifying the facts of history, assigning to each group or class its function, he neglects to inquire into its origin. He does not see how the strict aristocracy of Venice was aided by the lackland condition of its nobles, the absence of primogeniture, and other things which repaid the proud nobles for merging the individual in the class; a condition that could scarcely exist beyond the Langoons.
Fanciful or sound, he has larger views of statesmanship than the vast majority of the Commons, and this gives him a position of superiority. It is the bitterest sarcasm on the House and its efficiency, that D'Israeli should have succeeded more by its viciousness than by his own powers. For no one will deny that he owes his success partly to this semblance of statesmanship, but principally to his satirical recklessness and pungency. He has always been attacking somebody, but Peel was the antagonist who elevated him. He began by a tilt against the Whigs in general, but he showed more animus than power. He attacked O'Connell, but was scornfully told by the arch-agitator that he was descended from the impenitent thief who died upon the cross-an elegance of invective in which O'Connell alone could indulge. But his attack on Peel was so timed as to raise him into instant importance.
There is another class, which looks upon history as the life of a nation, which regards polity as the dynamics of national progression, which takes into view the action of one nation upon another, and which, inducting the future, attempts to construct large schemes that are national in their scope, and historic in their basis. This class is small in numbers at least, in the House-and D'Israeli is of them. But here also he is only a prospectus. He is aware of the necessity for such views, but has himself only figments. Realities are reflected in a mirage to him. Let us glance at his political history. If ever he attempted to execute his prospec- After his splendid failure as an orator, he tus, he would doubtless make a failure as saw that the House was not to be swayed by egregious as the "Revolutionary Epick." picturesque sentences, and set himself to Meanwhile, he has this much of strength work at a specific object. He paid great athe does see beyond Bills. His prospectus tention to foreign affairs, to which his dispois not humdrum. As an antagonist to the sition to view things in broad masses naturhumdrum spirit, he is decidedly powerful; ally inclined him, and at this period he bebut we have no desire to see him placed stowed great pains on displaying a minute in a position where he may experiment. knowledge of social and personal matters His great notion of reviving a paternal aris- abroad. It was manifest that he was aiming tocracy, with a cherished peasantry dancing at a diplomatic appointment of some sort. It round Maypoles-this Young-Englandism, is generally understood that he applied to about which so much discussion and pleas- Peel for official employment, which was reantry arose, to be forgotten so quickly-fused. Peel was not the man to tolerate was pretty enough as a white-waistcoat philosophy to adorn novels and historic fancies, but as a political idea it partook of D'Israeli's besetting sin, the fantastic. It was worse than an anachronism. It overlooked, as D'Israeli is apt to overlook, the influence of surrounding conditions.
what he probably considered as the aping emptiness of D'Israeli; but in his refusal he turned a very useful ally into a formidable, because bitter enemy. It is but right to state that D'Israeli in one of his attacks, asserted that he had never made any application to Peel for official employment; and
this assertion Peel left uncontradicted. This would seem to be conclusive, were it not known that Peel can, if he choose, preserve unbroken silence against any amount of temptation or exasperation; so that the general impression still is that the cause of the sudden rupture was this refusal. But what ever the motive, the attacks upon Peel were exquisitely relished by the House, and those who despised the assailant cheered him on, for some of them disliked the minister, and all enjoyed seeing him baited. There is an ignoble tendency in the mass of men, which causes them to rejoice at every degradation of one who has proved himself their superior; and whoever panders to this tendency is sure of a disgraceful success. Hence the success of "slashing" articles. The "Quarterly Review" owed its prodigious influence to its reckless disregard of all the decencies of honor coupled with the high religious and moral tone which it assumed. In the great "Rigby" days, it was a moot point whether a political adversary were better crushed by the accusation of atheistical principles, or of having pimples on his face; and no logic seemed so conclusive as that which, insinuating that a man lived unhappily with his wife, or that a woman wore a wig, proved triumphantly that a poem must be worthless, and that an argument was false. This evil has happily cured itself. We have revolted against such literature as worthy only of the kennel. Those critics are shamed into silence. But the coarse, ungenerous feeling which permitted such an evil, is not extinct. We still love to see a man baited, as our forefathers loved to bait a bear. The astonishing effect of D'Israeli's attacks on Peel sprang from this feeling. Not that he ever outraged the sense of decency. We will do him the justice to say that his sarcasm was exquisitely polished; there was no virulence, no coarseness, no Billingsgate. The point of his sarcasm, like the sting of the wasp, was ne ver seen, never suspected, till the writhings of the victim betrayed its presence.
It is still a question whether this quarrel has not been unfortunate for both. It certainly damaged Peel; it assuredly damaged D'Israeli. Had Peel been less supercilious, had he managed himself so as to have overcome his personal distaste for the author of "Coningsby," he might have attached a valuable partisan. Had D'Israeli been to him what he was to Lord George Bentinck, he would have facilitated and adorned with gayety Peel's course. His own brilliant qualities would have shone with increased
splendor attached to the solidity of Peel; and might have been as the gilding on the long enduring walls of some fine cathedral, instead of being thrown away upon some transitory pageant. This is one view; but there is another. Perhaps the quarrel gave D'Israeli an eminence which he never could otherwise have attained. It is the adventurer's old trick, that of attacking an eminent man, who is feared and hated by a powerful body; and the fact that D'Israeli's position was enormously increased by his assault on Peel, is beyond a question.
For one thing it threw him into the Protectionist party, which he had never heartily espoused before. Free trade became an entity when Peel adopted it; and because Peel adopted it, D'Israeli attacked it. to himself, he doubtless would have taken the enlightened conservative view of free trade. But he had to reconcile his own tendencies that way with his antagonism to Peel; and his mode of doing it was adroit. Free trade, he said, was the policy of the Tories as paternal rulers of the peoplethose great families who had always cared more for the humble, the poor, &c. than Whigs or middle-class liberals ever did. Peel was a deserter from the Tories to the hard-hearted Liberals of Manchester-those cotton-lords who are supercilious without being magnanimous. Therefore Peel was not the man who had the right to decree free trade. He was doing it badly, inopportunely, and ineffectively; and therefore his proposition was altogether bad, dishonest, unwarranted, and untimely.
The Protectionists are a compact band brought out by Peel's free trade policy, which they refused to follow. But, though compact, the band is feeble. For what do the Rutlands, Richmonds, Buckinghams, and their followers count? Really for very little. The party wants men. They have Lord Ashley, but he has more honesty than ability-and George Smyth, who has more ability than honesty; Augustus Stafford, well informed, adroit, witty, but deficient in weight, and power of sustained thought-a drawing-room statesman of the smartest and most agreeable gentlemanly kind-but more
brilliant over a dessert table than in the house; Lord George Bentinck is gone; Lord Yarborough, who has grown feebler since his elevation to the peerage; Herries, and a few superannuated officials, Protectionists by habit; Stanley alone remains to be named-an overrated man, but a man of power. In such a party D'Israeli really is
a man of mark and likelihood. His effective, powers of sarcasm, his statesmanlike sense of the necessity for large views; his historical knowledge, and his power of massing details, give him a strength which, though derivable rather from the weakness of his colleagues than from any positive greatness of his own, does nevertheless mark him out for a minister, if Stanley should come in. Vivian Grey a minister! That would be a sight to make the most frivolous ponder; but it is a sight which we may not improbably see. Why not? Do the Jews rule the world? Is not the unmixed Caucasian race entitled to rule it? Sidonia will demonstrate to you that the Jews are the greatest and grandest specimens of the human race, and, by prescriptive right divine, must and will rule it.
"Do you think that the quiet, humdrum persecution of a decorous representative of an English university can crush those who have successively baffled the Pharoahs, Nebuchadnezzar, Rome, and the feudal ages? The fact is, you cannot destroy a pure race of the Caucasian organization. It is a physiological fact-a simple law of nature, which has baffled Egyptian and Assyrian kings, Roman emperors, and Christian inquisitors. No penal laws, no physical tortures, can effect that a superior race should be absorbed in an inferior, or be destroyed by it. The mixed persecuting races disappear; the pure persecuted race remains. And at this moment, in spite of centuries, of tens of centuries, of degradation, the Jewish mind exercises a vast influence on the affairs of Europe. I speak not of their laws, which you still obey; of their literature, with which your minds are saturated; but of the living Hebrew intellect.
"You never observed a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews; that mysterious Russian diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe, is organized and principally carried on by Jews; that mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is as yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolize the professional choirs of Germany. Neander, the founder of spiritual Christianity, and who is Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Berlin, is a Jew. Benary, equally famous, and in the same university, is a Jew. Wehl, the Arabic Professor of Heidelberg, is a Jew. Years ago, when I was in Palestine, I met a German Student who was accumulating materials for the history of Christianity, and studying the genius of the place a modest and learned man. It was Wehl; then unknown, since become the first Arabic scholar of the day, and the author of the life of Mahomet. But for the German professors of this
race, their name is Legion. I thing there are more than ten in Berlin alone.
to interpose when affairs of state were on the "I told you just now that I was going up to carpet. Otherwise, I never interfere. I hear of town to-morrow, because I always made it a rule peace, of war in newspapers, but I am never alarmed, except when I am informed that the sovereigns want treasure, then I know that monapplied to by Russia. Now, there has been no archs are serious. A few years back we were friendship between the Court of St. Petersburg have generally supplied it, and our representations and my family. It has Dutch connections which in favor of the Polish Hebrews, a numerous race, but the most suffering and degraded of all the tribes, have not been very agreeable to the Czar. However, circumstances drew to an approximation between the Romanoffs and the Sidonias.
I resolved to go myself to St. Petersburg. I had, on my arrival, an interview with the Russian Minister of Finance, Count Cancrin; I beheld the son of a Lithuanian Jew. The loan was on repairing to Spain from Russia. I travelled connected with the affairs of Spain; I resolved without intermission. I had an audience immediately on my arrival with the Spanish Minister, Senor Mendizabel; I beheld one like myself, the consequence of what transpired at Madrid, I went son of a Nuevo Christiano, a Jew of Arragon. In straight to Paris to consult the President of the French Council; I beheld the son of a French Jew, a hero, an imperial marshal, and very properly so, for who should be military heroes if not those who worship the Lord of Hosts?
"And is Soult a Hebrew ?'
the most famous; Massena, for example; his "Yes, and others of the French marshals, and real name was Manasseh, but to my anecdote. The consequence of our consultations was, that some Northern power should be applied to in a friendly and meditative capacity. We fixed on Prussia, and the President of the council made tended a few days after our conference. Count an application to the Prussian Minister, who atArnim entered the cabinet, and I beheld a Prussian Jew. So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages to what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.'
"You startle, and deeply interest me.'
Pure races of Caucasus may be persecuted, but "You must study physiology, my dear child. they cannot be despised, except by the brutal ignorance of some mongrel breed, that brandishes fagots and howls extermination, but is itself exterminated without persecution by that irresistible law of nature which is fatal to curs.'
destiny: and your race is sufficiently pure. You
"But so favored by nature, why has not your race produced great poets, great orators, great
"Favored by nature and by nature's God, we produced the lyre of David; we gave you Isaiah and Ezekiel; they are our Olynthians, our Philippics. Favored by nature we still remain; but in exact proportion as we have been favored by nature, we have been persecuted by Man. After a thousand struggles; after acts of heroic courage that Rome has never equalled; deeds of divine patriotism that Athens, and Sparta, and Carthage, have never excelled; we have endured fifteen hundred years of supernatural slavery, during which, every device that can degrade or destroy man has been the destiny that we have sustained and baffled. The Hebrew child has entered adolescence only to learn that he was the Pariah of that ungrateful Europe that owes to him the best part of its laws, a fine portion of its literature, all its religion. Great poets require a public; we have been content with the immortal melodies that we sung more than two thousand years ago by the waters of Babylon, and wept. They record our triumphs; they solace our affliction. Great orators are the creatures of popular assemblies; we were permitted only by stealth to meet even in our temples. And as for great writers, the catalogue is not blank. What are all the schoolmen, Aquinas himself, to Maimonides? and as for modern philosophy, all springs from Spinoza.'
"But the passionate and creative genius, that is the nearest link to divinity, and which no human tyranny can destroy, though it can divert it; that should have stirred the hearts of nations by its inspired sympathy, or governed senates by its burning eloquence, has found a medium for its expression, to which, in spite of your prejudices and your evil passions, you have been obliged to bow. The ear, the voice, the fancy teeming with combinations, the imagination fervent with picture and emotion, that came from Caucasus, and which we have preserved unpolluted, have endowed us with almost the exclusive privilege of music; that science of harmonious sounds which the ancients recognized as most divine, and deified in the person of their most beautiful creation. I speak not of the past, though, were I to enter into the history of the lords of melody, you would find it the annals of Hebrew genius. But at this moment even, musical Europe is ours. There is not a company of singers, not an orchestra in a single capital, that is not crowded with our children, under the feigned names which they adopt to conciliate the dark aversion which your posterity will some day disclaim with shame and disgust. Almost every great composer, skilled musician, almost every voice that ravishes you with its transporting strains, spring from our tribes. The catalogue is too vast to enumerate; too illustrious to dwell for a moment on secondary names, however eminent. Enough for us that the three great creative minds to whose exquisite inventions all nations at this moment yield; Rossini, Meyerbeer, Mendelssohn, are of Hebrew race; and little do your men of fashion, your muscadins' of Paris, and your, dandies
of London, as they thrill into raptures at the notes
This plaidoyer in favor of his race, and,
Nay,' said the stranger; for life in general there is but one decree. Youth is a blunder; manhood a struggle; old age a regret. Do not suppose,' he added, smiling, that I hold that youth is genius; all that I say is, that genius, when young, is divine. Why the greatest captains of ancient and modern times both conquered Italy at five-and-twenty! Youth, extreme youth, overthrew the Persian empire. Don John "of Austria won Lepanto at twenty-five-the greatest battle of modern times; had it not been for the jealousy of Philip, the next year he would have been Emperor of Mauritania. Gaston de Foix was only twenty-two when he stood a victor on the plain of Ravenna. Every one remembers Condé and Rocroy at the same age. Gustavus Adolphus died at thirty-eight. Look at his captains; that wonderful Duke of Weimar; only thirty-six when he died. Banier himself, after all his miracles, died at forty-five. Cortes was little more than thirty when he gazed upon the golden cupolas of Mexico. When Maurice of Saxony died at thirty-two, all Europe acknowledged the loss of the greatest captain and the profoundest statesman of the age. Then there is Nelson, Clive-but these are warriors, and perhaps you may think there are greater things than war-I do not: I worship the Lord of Hosts. But take the most illustrious achievements of civil pru