Criticism -- Great Britain; English literature -- History and criticism
Sometimes the quarrel between two princes is to decide which of
them shall dispossess a third of his dominions, where neither of
them pretends to any right. Sometimes one prince quarrelleth with
another for fear the other should quarrel with him. Sometimes a war
is entered upon because the enemy is too strong, and sometimes
because he is too weak. Sometimes our neighbours want the things
which we have, or have the things which we want; and we both fight
till they take ours or give us theirs. It is a very justifiable
cause of a war to invade a country after the people have been
wasted by famine, destroyed by pestilence or embroiled by factions
among themselves. It is justifiable to enter into war with our
nearest ally, when one of his towns lies convenient for us, or a
territory of land that would render our dominions round and
complete. If a prince sends forces into a nation, where the people
are poor and ignorant, he may lawfully put half of them to death or
make slaves of the rest, in order to civilize and reduce them from
their barbarous way of living.
There you have "Kultur" wars, and "white man's burden" wars, and wars for
"places of strategic importance," satirized as though by a
twentieth-century humanitarian. When the _Morning Post_ begins to write
leaders in the same strain, we shall begin to believe that Swift was a
Tory in the ordinary meaning of the word.
As for Swift's Irish politics, Mr. Charles Whibley, like other
Conservative writers, attempts to gloss over their essential Nationalism
by suggesting that Swift was merely a just man righteously indignant at
the destruction of Irish manufactures. At least, one would never gather
from the present book that Swift was practically the father of the modern
Irish demand for self-government. Swift was an Irish patriot in the sense
in which Washington was an American patriot. Like Washington, he had no
quarrel with English civilization. He was not an eighteenth-century Sinn
Feiner. He regarded himself as a colonist, and his Nationalism was
Colonial Nationalism. As such he was the forerunner of Grattan and Flood,
and also, in a measure, of Parnell and Redmond. While not a Separatist, he
had the strongest possible objection to being either ruled or ruined from
London. In his _Short View of the State of Ireland_, published in 1728, he
preached the whole gospel of Colonial Nationalism as it is accepted by
Irishmen like Sir Horace Plunkett to-day. He declared that one of the
causes of a nation's thriving--
... is by being governed only by laws made with their own consent,
for otherwise they are not a free people. And, therefore, all
appeals for justice, or applications for favour or preferment, to
another country are so many grievous impoverishments.
He said of the Irish:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account