Are these Things So? (1740) The Great Man's Answer to Are These things So: (1740)

In Short

This volume presents two 18th-century verse satires that function as a public debate between an anonymous critic and the dominant political figure of the era, Sir Robert Walpole. Writing from the persona of a secluded, virtuous "Englishman in his Grotto"—a deliberate nod to the poet Alexander Pope—the author attacks the corruption, foreign policy failures, and nepotism of the Whig ministry. The work remains a vital historical document, preserving the visceral, high-stakes atmosphere of a parliamentary system struggling with its own integrity and the encroaching inevitability of conflict with Spain.

The Story

The narrative begins with an "Englishman in his Grotto," a man who has retreated from the world to pursue a life of quiet contemplation and moral clarity. Despite his desire for isolation, he finds himself haunted by the state of Britain. He observes a nation once proud and powerful now humiliated by its inability to protect its trade interests against Spain. In a series of pointed questions, the speaker challenges the "Great Man" at court—Sir Robert Walpole—to defend his administration. The speaker accuses the minister of treating the country as a private enterprise, surrounding himself with sycophants and family members, and trading national honor for a fragile, dishonorable peace that leaves Britain’s naval and commercial power to rot.

The critique is not merely rhetorical; it is deeply personal. The poet demands that if the minister is innocent of these charges of bribery, moral decay, and incompetence, he should stand and defend his record with the clarity of a martyr. The speaker even suggests a list of potential replacements—men like Carteret, Pulteney, and Chesterfield—who might restore the country to its former strength and dignity.

Following this initial assault, the second part of the volume shifts to the "Great Man’s Answer." Here, the minister confronts his accuser. Rather than offering a humble defense, Walpole appears as a cynical, unrepentant pragmatist. He dismisses the poet’s moralizing as the work of a "factious Malecontent" and frankly admits that the political game is played through influence and interest. He scoffs at the idea of "fame," viewing it as poor sustenance, and openly boasts of his control over the machinery of government.

The tension escalates into a direct, volatile confrontation. When the minister tries to bribe the poet with promises of pensions, titles, and influence, the accuser decisively rejects him, tearing up the offer and casting it aside as evidence of the minister’s own corruption. The debate ends in an irreconcilable impasse. The minister, emboldened by his own perceived security and his belief in the malleability of public opinion, leaves the grotto, effectively warning that his power will continue regardless of his critics. The poet is left alone, having successfully challenged the minister's integrity but remaining powerless to stop the ongoing decay of the state.

How It Unfolds

The challenge from the grotto The poem opens with the speaker lamenting the state of his country while asserting his own distance from political gain. He addresses a series of grave questions to the minister, focusing on the decline of Britain’s maritime prestige and the perceived cowardice of the government’s diplomatic maneuvers.

The call for accountability The poet invites the minister to step into the light and answer for the corruption that has infested the cabinet. He frames this as an opportunity for the leader to vindicate his name, or else be exposed as the architect of Britain's ruin.

The minister’s unapologetic response The second part introduces the minister, who mocks the poet’s idealism and defends his own actions as necessary for the survival of the state. He views public support as something to be bought, not earned, and laughs at the notion of shame in a practical political world.

The final confrontation The two figures reach a breaking point when the minister offers the poet a series of bribes to silence his satire. The poet’s final rejection closes the dialogue, leaving the minister to continue his rule while the poet remains a solitary, defiant voice of moral opposition.

The People

The Englishman in his Grotto serves as the moral center of the work. He is an idealized figure, using his solitude to cultivate an uncorrupted perspective. He is not seeking power for himself, but rather a restoration of national honor; he stands as a symbol for the "Patriot" opposition, driven by a fierce, protective love for his country.

The Great Man—a transparent stand-in for Sir Robert Walpole—is portrayed as the antithesis of the poet. He is worldly, cynical, and deeply entrenched in the mechanics of power. He does not see his actions as criminal, but rather as the inevitable requirements of governing a nation. His motivation is self-preservation and the maintenance of his influence; he sees the state as an extension of his own household and views those who object to his policies as foolish or naive.

John the servant, appearing briefly, acts as a witness to the exchange. His presence serves to ground the high-flown political debate in a domestic setting, emphasizing the intrusion of the corrupt political world into the poet's private sanctuary.

In Its Own Voice

The poet establishes his persona by emphasizing his detachment from the corrupt world of court politics and his commitment to a simple, virtuous life.

My sole Ambition o'er myself to reign, / My Avarice to make each Hour a Gain; / My Scorn--the Threats or Favours of a Crown, / A Prince's Whisper, or a Tyrant's Frown; / My Pride--forgetting and to be forgot; / My Lux'ry--lolling in my peaceful Grot.

The minister dismisses the poet’s talk of national honor, revealing his own cynical view that political morality is merely a matter of price.

Our Age more Prudent, and Sincere is grown, / The Hire they wisely take, they bravely own; / Laugh at the Fool, who let's his Conscience stand, / To barr his Passage to the promis'd Land.

What It's Really About

At its core, the work is a profound meditation on the conflict between political pragmatism and moral idealism. It explores the question of whether a government can survive without the patronage and "corruption" that often grease the wheels of a parliamentary system. The author asks if a leader’s duty is to the public interest or to the stability of his own power. Beneath the specific grievances—the excise taxes, the foreign treaties, and the naval skirmishes—lies the eternal tension of whether a citizen has the right to demand integrity from those in command, and what happens when that demand is met only with contempt.

Why Read It Today

Readers who enjoy historical political satire will find this volume fascinating, as it captures the specific, acidic tone of 18th-century polemics. There is a distinct thrill in seeing a contemporary writer, likely James Miller, effectively "trolling" the most powerful man in Britain by hiding behind the literary mask of Alexander Pope. It is a reminder that the language of political scandal and the accusation of "cronyism" are not modern inventions, but have deep, well-worn roots in the English tradition.

However, the book requires patience. The text is heavily reliant on 18th-century allusions—references to specific treaties, long-dead admirals, and parliamentary schemes—that may feel opaque without the provided editorial notes. The verse itself follows the rigid, formal structure of the era, which can feel repetitive to the modern ear. Furthermore, the period's attitudes toward power and hierarchy are starkly different from our own. Yet, for those willing to engage with the period, the reward is a clear, unfiltered view of a society in the midst of a nervous breakdown. The sensation of reading it is like finding a series of angry, eloquent emails preserved from a crisis that determined the trajectory of an empire. It stays with you as a testament to the power of the written word to challenge the seemingly untouchable.