That so witty a work, so strong in typical freehand character drawing of permanent validity and remembrance, should be unread and its author forgotten except by scholars, is too curious a fact not to have a deep cause in its own character.  The cause is not hard to find:  it is one of the books which try to turn the world’s current backward, and which the world dislikes as offending its ideals of progress.  Stripped of its broad humor, its object, rubbed in with no great delicacy of touch, was to uphold the most extreme and reactionary Toryism of the time, and to jeer at political liberalism from the ground up.  Its theoretic loyalty is the non-resistant Jacobitism of the Nonjurors, which it is so hard for us now to distinguish from abject slavishness; though like the principles of the casuists, one must not confound theory with practice.  It seems the loyalty of a mujik or a Fiji dressed in cultivated modern clothes, not that of a conceivable cultivated modern community as a whole; but it would be very Philistine to pour wholesale contempt on a creed held by so many large minds and souls.  It was of course produced by the experience of what the reverse tenets had brought on,—­a long civil war, years of military despotism, and immense social and moral disorganization.  In ‘John Bull,’ the fidelity of a subject to a king is made exactly correspondent, both in theory and practice, with the fidelity of a wife to her husband and her marriage vows; and an elaborate parallel is worked out to show that advocating the right of resistance to a bad king is precisely the same, on grounds of either logic or Scripture, as advocating the right of adultery toward a bad husband.  This is not even good fooling; and, its local use past and no longer buoyed by personal liking for the author, the book sinks back into the limbo of partisan polemics with many worse ones and perhaps some better ones, dragging its real excellences down with it.

In 1714 the famous Scriblerus Club was organized, having for its members Pope, Swift, Arbuthnot, Gay, Congreve, Lord Oxford, and Bishop Atterbury.  They agreed to write a series of papers ridiculing, in the words of Pope, “all the false tastes in learning, under the character of a man of capacity enough, but that had dipped into every art and science, but injudiciously in each.”  The chronicle of this club was found in ’The Memoirs of the Extraordinary Life, Works, and Discoveries of Martinus Scriblerus,’ which is thought to have been written entirely by Arbuthnot, and which describes the education of a learned pedant’s son.  Its humor may be appreciated by means of the citation given below.  The first book of ‘Scriblerus’ appeared six years after Arbuthnot’s death, when it was included in the second volume of Alexander Pope’s works (1741).  Pope said that from the ‘Memoirs of Scriblerus’ Swift took his idea of ‘Gulliver’; and the Dean himself writes to Arbuthnot, July 3d, 1714:—­