[Transcriber’s Note:

This text uses utf-8 (unicode) file encoding. If the apostrophes andquotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, make sure yourtext reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode(UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font. As a lastresort, use the latin-1 version of the file instead. 

Other than footnotes and anchors, bracketed text is in the original. ]

 The Augustan Reprint Society

 TWO POEMS AGAINST POPE:

 _ONE EPISTLE_ _TO MR. A. POPE_

 Leonard Welsted (1730)

 _THE BLATANT BEAST_

 Anonymous (1740)

 _INTRODUCTION_ by JOSEPH V. GUERINOT

 [Decoration]

 Publication Number 114 William Andrews Clark Memorial Library University of California, Los Angeles 1965

GENERAL EDITORS

 Earl R. Miner, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Maximillian E. Novak, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Lawrence Clark Powell, _Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library_

ADVISORY EDITORS

 Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_ John Butt, _University of Edinburgh_ James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_ Ralph Cohen, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_ Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_ Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_ Everett T. Moore, _University of California, Los Angeles_ James Sutherland, _University College, London_ H. T. Swedenberg, Jr. , _University of California, Los Angeles_

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

 Edna C. Davis, _Clark Memorial Library_

INTRODUCTION

I. 

_One Epistle To Mr. Pope_, complained Pope to Bethel, “contains as manyLyes as Lines. ” But just for that reason it is not, as Pope also says inthe same letter, “below all notice. ”[1] _The Blatant Beast_, publishedtwelve years later, is another attack on Pope almost as compendious andquite as virulent. They are here presented to the modern student of Popeas good examples of their kind. The importance of the pamphlet attackson Pope for a full understanding of his satiric art is universallyadmitted, but the pamphlets themselves were cheap and ephemeral, and copies are now rare and not easily come by. Both in thecomprehensiveness of their charges and in the slashing hatred whichinforms them (however feeble the verse), _One Epistle_ and _The BlatantBeast_ offer as fair a sample as any two such pamphlets can of thecalumny, detraction, and critical misunderstanding Pope endured, for themost part patiently, from the publication of his _Essay on Criticism_ tothe year of his death. “Welcome for thee, fair Virtue! all the past, ”(_Epistle to Arbuthnot_, l.  358) he exclaimed in his role as Satirist. 

It was this public proclamation of Virtue that confused and enraged theDunces. We have again learned to read satire as something quite otherthan an expression of personal malice and misanthropy. What the presentpamphlets amply testify to is that most of the Dunces were no more ableto read satire properly than were Pope’s nineteenth-century critics. They were, as Pope quite properly kept pointing out, very bad writersand very dull men. The _ethos_ of the satiric _persona_ was somethingthey could not understand. Although some of the Dunces knew theirclassics well and although all of them, we may presume, read the Romansatirists, one did not, typically, in Grub Street consult one’s Horacewith diurnal hand; one consulted the public. Literature to them wassold. They were not deeply concerned about absolute standards ofright and wrong, about works of imagination which justify an entirecivilization, about the problem of tradition and the individual talent. Accordingly, they explained satire, with the only vocabulary they had, as the expression of ingratitude, purely personal malice, and demonicpride, the product of a diseased heart and a misshapen body. 

It would be misleading to suggest a narrow definition of Pope’s Dunces. Some were critics of worth, such as Dennis and Gildon; some were notdespicable minor poets, such as Welsted and Cooke. But if we leave theseaside, as well as his aristocratic enemies, Lady Mary and Lord Hervey, some valid generalizations emerge. The very persistency of the Dunces’attacks on Pope (I have located over one hundred and fifty publishedduring Pope’s lifetime) and the large number of anonymous pamphlets thatwe cannot definitely ascribe to anyone Pope ever mentioned suggest thatthe Battle of the Dunces is best seen economically and sociologically. They were, for the most part, hack-writers, who were attempting thecommercialization of literature that Pope recognized and deplored. Since they were authors to be let, they were neither fastidious aboutstandards of taste nor filled with reverence for the Word. Yet Popehad succeeded in doing what they could not do--he had made himself amoderately rich man entirely by writing poetry. No theme recurs moreinsistently and suggestively in Popiana than Pope’s wealth. Faced withthe nasty fact that if one wrote well enough, there was a public tosupport one, they could only accuse Pope monotonously of venality andavarice. 

In all of this there is a strong element of class antagonism. The Dunceswere middle-class and Whiggish, their spirit capitalist. Pope, thoughmiddle-class by birth, was aristocratic in his sympathies, Tory ina loose sense, and firmly anti-Walpole. Perhaps verse satire isessentially aristocratic. Perhaps wit is, too. Certainly they never seemat home in a middle-class society. Wit comes to savor of indecency andblasphemy; satire in its incessant defence of moral value and centersof order comes to seem the expression of an arrogant disdain and adisquieting unease. His poise and verbal brilliance and hieraticcommitment to the venerable tradition of classical and Christian ethicalthought set the Satirist coolly apart from the _profanum vulgus_. HadPope never mentioned one of the Dunces, although they would have doneso less frequently, they would still have cried out against him. 

II. 

_One Epistle To Mr. A. Pope, Occasion’d By Two Epistles LatelyPublished_ appeared, according to the _Daily Journal_, on 28 April1730. [2] Pope’s mention of it in Appendix II to _The Dunciad A_, his“List of Books, Papers, and Verses, in which our Author was abused”which is our best guide to Popiana, is somewhat confusing and made moredifficult because the first part dates from 1729, the second from 1735:“_Labeo_, A Paper of Verses written by Leonard Welsted. [1729 a-d], which after came into One Epistle, and was publish’d by James Moore. 4to. 1730. Another part of it came out in Welsted’s own name in 1731, under the just Title of _Dulness and Scandal_, fol. [1735a]. ”[3]

The _Labeo_ reference is mysterious. Pope in his note on Welsted to _TheDunciad A_ II. 293 had said in a sentence omitted in all editions from1735a, “The strength of the metaphors in this passage is to express thegreat scurrility and fury of this writer, which may be seen, One day, ina Piece of his, call’d (as I think) _Labeo_. ”[4] Since no _Labeo_ hasever turned up, it seems reasonable to conclude with Fineman that, though Welsted may have toyed with the idea of writing one, “he eithernever did enough with it to warrant its publication, or discarded itentirely in favor of writing the collaborative _One Epistle to Mr. Pope_that appeared in 1730. Naturally, he would not broadcast his plans, andas a result the enemy camp continued to believe--or at any rate, tosay--that Welsted would retaliate with a _Labeo_. ”[5] This was in 1729;by 1735 Pope had realized no _Labeo_ would appear and deciding, apparently on no evidence, that it had been incorporated into Welsted’s_One Epistle_ and _Of Dulness and Scandal_ (1732), made the appropriatechanges in _The Dunciad_. 

Pope did not at first realize that _One Epistle_ was by Welsted. Ithad been announced as early as 1 Feb. 1729 in _The Universal Spectator_“as the due Chastisement of Mr. Pope for his _Dunciad_, by James MooreSmythe, Esq; and Mr. Welsted. ” The poem must have been circulatedprivately before publication at least by October, 1729 at which timePope believed it to be Lady Mary’s, since we find Lady Mary writing toDr. Arbuthnot twice in October 1729 denying Pope’s accusation that shehad written it. [6] There is no evidence that she was not telling thetruth, but on 21 May 1730 _The Grub-Street Journal_ reported that LadyMary had “some hand in the piece. ”

Like most Pope attacks, the poem was published anonymously. The preface, a defence of the Dunces, is, with probably intentional ambiguity, written in the first person singular but ends by referring to “theWriters of the following Poem” (p.  viii). One hand seems responsible forthe preface, but we can only conclude that a Dunce collaborating withother Dunces produced the poem. Four days after its publication Popewrote to Broome that it was “by James Moore and others, ” and a few weekslater wrote to Bethel that “James Moore own’d it but was made by threeothers, and he will disown it whenever any man takes him for it. ”[7] Itwas Moore Smythe who was attacked in _The Grub-Street Journal_ forseveral months as the poem’s chief author. [8]

A letter from Welsted to Dodington, however, shows that though the poemwas a collaborative effort and though others may have made suggestionsand additions, Welsted felt himself responsible for the poem. [9] In 1735Pope attributed _One Epistle_ finally to Welsted, with Moore Smythe aspublisher, and in 1737 _The Memoirs of Grub-Street_ said of Moore Smythethat he “reported himself author” of _One Epistle_, “but was only apublisher; it being written by Mr. Welsted and others. ”[10]

As to the “others” we should remember Mallet’s caution that it would bevain, To guess, ere _One Epistle_ saw the light, How many brother-dunces club’d their mite. [11]

Welsted himself had begun his quarrel with Pope with an attack on _ThreeHours after Marriage_, that amusing and much-abused play, in _PalaemonTo Caelia at Bath; Or, The Triumvirate_ (1717). Pope is said to havecollaborated with Gay not only in _Three Hours_, a play “so lewd, / Ev’nBullies blush’d, and Beaux astonish’d stood” (Second Edition, p.  11), but in _The Wife of Bath_ and _The What D’Ye Call It_. Welsted also hitsat _God’s Revenge Against Punning_, the _First Psalm_, praises Tickell, and finds Pope’s versification flat. All of these charges (except theone that Pope collaborated in _The Wife of Bath_) had appeared in printbefore, but Pope was to remember _Palaemon To Caelia_ and include it ina note to _The Dunciad A_ II. 293, where it is neatly described as “meantfor a Satire on Mr. P. And some of his friends. ”

In 1721 Welsted’s name appears in the title of a pamphlet containing anattack on Pope’s Homer, _An Epistle To Mr. Welsted; And A Satyre on theEnglish Translations of Homer_, by that engagingly inept Dunce, BezaleelMorrice. In 1724 in the “Dissertation concerning the Perfection of theEnglish Language” prefixed to his _Epistles, Odes, &c. _, Welsted quoted(not quite correctly) and criticized Pope’s “And such as _Chaucer_ is, shall _Dryden_ be” (p.  x). The anonymous author of _Characters of TheTimes_ (1728) thought that Welsted would have been spared Pope’s abuseif he had not in his “Dissertation” “happen’d to cite a low and falseline from Mr. P[o]pe for the meer Purpose of refuting it, withoutseeming to know, or care who was the Author of it” (p.  24). [12]

In the _Peri Bathous_ Pope included Welsted as a didapper and an eel. Pope then put him into _The Dunciad_ in II. 293-300 and, more memorably, in III. 163-166:

 Flow Welsted, Flow! like thine inspirer, Beer, Tho’ stale, not ripe; tho’ thin, yet never clear; So sweetly mawkish, and so smoothly dull; Heady, not strong, and foaming tho’ not full. 

Unable to leave well enough alone, Welsted continued his attack on Popewith _One Epistle_ and then again in January 1732 with _Of Dulness andScandal_, which ran to three editions. The half-title of _One Epistle_had promised that it was to be continued, and the writer of the prefacehad said that he intended “in the preface to the next Epistle . .. Tostate several Matters of Fact, in Contradiction to the Notes of the_Dunciad_” (p.  viii). _Of Dulness and Scandal_, however, has no prefaceand is an independent attack. Its main charge is Pope’s ingratitude tothe Duke of Chandos as shown in the _Epistle to Burlington_, a famouscharge frequently to be repeated, [13] but it claims as well that a ladynamed Victoria died as a result of reading Pope’s Homer and attacks oncemore _The Rape of the Lock_ and the _First Psalm_. 

In February 1732 Welsted published his last attack on Pope, _Of FalseFame_, in which he attacks _Windsor Forest_, _The Rape of the Lock_, Pope’s edition of Shakespeare, _The Dunciad_, and the _Epistle toBurlington_. Pope then mentioned him in the _Epistle to Arbuthnot_, atfirst in l.  49, although he altered this to “Pitholeon, ” and then inl.  375, where most twentieth-century college students first meet hisname. 

The charges in _One Epistle_ are unusually comprehensive, but almostnone of them is original. To help the reader to evaluate the moreimportant, the following notes may be helpful. The denial in the prefaceof Pope’s statement that no one is attacked in _The Dunciad_ “who hadnot before, either in Print or private Conversation, endeavour’dsomething to his Disadvantage” (p.  v) is a reference to _The Dunciad_, p.  203, where, however, conversation is not mentioned. This sentence ofPope’s annoyed many of the Dunces. [14] What the preface says about Swiftand Arbuthnot and the _Peri Bathous_ (p.  vii) may well be true. [15]Welsted’s charge that Pope wrote the Prologue to _Cato_ and then “thePlay decried” (p.  12) is simply Dennis’s old charge first made in_A True Character of Mr. Pope (1716)_ and repeated in _Remarks Upon . .. The Dunciad_ (1729) that Pope had teased Lintot into publishing Dennis’sattack on _Cato_. The charge rests only on Dennis’s authority. [16] Theobscenity of _The Rape of the Lock_ was an old story. [17] So was thenotorious _First Psalm_. [18] Welsted’s attacks on the _Pastorals_, theHomer, the _Peri Bathous_, and _The Dunciad_ are simply the commonplacesof Popiana. The charge that he libeled Addison only after the greatman’s death is also familiar[19] (Welsted seems to have been the first, though, to mention the libel on Lady Mary) and long since disproved bySherburn and Ault. That Pope was a plagiarist is an idea that turns upconstantly. [20]

Welsted’s other charges are more interesting. He seems to be the onlyDunce who objected (p.  12) to Pope’s mentioning Bishop Hoadly in _TheDunciad A_ II. 368. It may just possibly be true that Gildon wasdismissed by Buckingham because of Gildon’s dislike of Pope (p.  22). [21]

The most curious of the charges is that Pope, . .. From the Skies, propitious to the Fair, Brought down _Caecilia_, and sent _Cloris_ there. (p.  11)

Welsted apparently means that Pope debased St. Cecilia in his _Ode forMusick on St. Cecilia’s Day_ and glorified a suicide in his _Elegy tothe Memory of an Unfortunate Lady_. He is not saying, as did _The Lifeof the late Celebrated Mrs. Elizabeth Wisebourn_ (1721), that theheroine of the _Elegy_ died of her unrequited love for Pope. Pope’snote to l.  375 of the _Epistle to Arbuthnot_ accusing Welsted of having“had the Impudence to tell in print, that Mr. _P. _ had occasion’d aLady’s death, and to _name_ a person he never heard of” refers not toCloris but to Victoria in Welsted’s _Of Dulness and Scandal_ who diedfrom reading Pope’s _Illiad_. [22]

The _Grub-Street Journal_ for 21 May 1730 invited “any Person of Creditand Character to stand forth and attest any of the following Facts. .. . ”

 That the late Duke of Buckingham paid any Pension to Charles Gildon, which he took from him since his acquaintance with Mr.  P. 

 That the present Archbishop of Canterbury hath past any Censure on Mr.  P. 

 That Mr. F[ento]n and he ever were at distance on variance with each other. 

 That the Rev. Mr. Br[oo]me ever asserted or complain’d, he was not gratify’d with a competent Sum for his Share in the Odyssey; nay did not own that he thought himself highly paid. 

 That Mr. Addison or any other but Mr. P. Writ, or alter’d, one line of the Prologue to Cato. 

 Who will name any young Writer, allow’d to have Merit, that hath been personally discourag’d by him; or who hath not received either actual Services, or amicable Treatment from him?

III. 

_The Blatant Beast_ appeared in December 1742, according to _The LondonMagazine_; its authorship remains unknown. Pope had published _The NewDunciad_ in March 1742, and Cibber had published his famous _A LetterFrom Mr. Cibber, To Mr. Pope_ in July. Five other pamphlets attackingPope appeared in August, obviously capitalizing on the Cibber attack. 

_The Blatant Beast_ is pro-Cibber, of course, but it criticizesspecifically only a few lines from _The New Dunciad_. The writer’s chiefinterest is in a general attack. The criticisms of the Shakespeare, of_Three Hours_ and the _Epistle to Burlington_, and of Pope’s plagiarismare perfectly conventional. More interesting is the accusation (p.  6)that Pope wrote (as, of course, he did) his Homer on the backs ofpersonal letters. Also interesting is the reference to Pope’sinscription on the Shakespeare monument in Westminster Abbey (p.  5). Pope was, with several others, responsible for the Latin inscription;it does not seem that he had anything to do with the lines from _TheTempest_ IV.  i.  152-156, which were added several months later. Theselines are given in the first note to _The Dunciad B_ I. And, in slightlydifferent form, in _The Gentleman’s Magazine_, XI,  276. The last linereads, “Leave not a wreck behind. ” Pope’s version of the lines in bothhis 1725 and 1728 editions of Shakespeare (Griffith 149 and 210) doesnot commit the errors of the inscription and prints, “Leave not a rackbehind!”[23] The bantering note about the monument which begins _TheDunciad B_ may have been prompted by this passage in _The Blatant Beast_as well as by the comment of Theobald which Sutherland refers to. 

But it is the shrill personal abuse of Pope’s deformity and moralobliquity, The Morals blacken’d when the Writings scape; The libel’d Person, and the pictur’d Shape

 (_Epistle to Arbuthnot_, ll. 353-353)

which is most impressive. The writer shows a talent for invective, butthere is a good deal of evidence that he was well-read in other Popeattacks. The phrase, Pope’s “Mountain Shoulders, ” (p.  5) recalls Pope’s“Mountain Back” in _The Difference Between Verbal and Practical Virtue_, p.  5, published in August 1742. The image of the wasp (pp. 6, 10) hadappeared in Hervey’s and Lady Mary’s _Verses Address’d to the ImitatorOf . .. Horace_ (1733), p.  7, [24] as had the metaphor of Pope as Satan(pp.  5-6) with which _The Blatant Beast_ opens. [25]

Pope had already been pictured as a mad dog (p.  7) in _TheMetamorphosis_ (1728), attributed by Pope to Smedley and one of theleast pleasant of the pamphlets. Pope as Aesop’s toad bursting withspleen (p.  12) had been used in _Codrus_ (1728), p.  12, attributed byPope to Curll and Mrs. Thomas. Cibber’s prevention of Pope from peoplingthe isle with Calibans (p.  9) is a reference, of course, to Cibber’sfamous anecdote about rescuing Pope in the bawdy-house; but in _Mr. Taste, The Poetical Fop_ (1732) where Pope figures as the monkey-likepoetaster Taste, the servant-maid who was to have married him isdelighted the marriage is broken off, “for fear our children should haveresembled Baboons, Ha, ha, ha!” (p.  73). Stern anti-sentimentalistssometimes point out that we react too squeamishly to the abuse of Pope’sdeformity. I doubt it myself. The eighteenth century was probably acoarser and more outspoken age than ours, but scurrilous attacks on thephysical appearance of distinguished poets do not otherwise seem to havebeen a prominent feature of the Augustan literary scene. 

It is hoped that both these pamphlets will prove useful to those whohave little first-hand knowledge of what his enemies said of Pope andwill help to warn the novice of the fatal ease with which we can read“with but a Lust to mis-apply, / Make Satire a Lampoon, and Fiction, Lye”(_Epistle to Arbuthnot_, ll. 301-302). 

_One Epistle_ was reprinted by John Nichols in his edition of _TheWorks in Verse and Prose of Leonard Welsted_ (London, 1787). Nicholsnormalizes the text, spells out several names in full, and adds severalunimportant notes. It is here reproduced from the copy in the SterlingLibrary, Yale University. _The Blatant Beast_ has never been reprintedand is reproduced from the copy in the Huntington Library. 

 _Hunter College_

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION

1. Pope to Bethel, 9 June 1730, _The Correspondence of Alexander Pope_, ed. George Sherburn (Oxford, 1956), III, 114. 

2. Robert W. Rogers, _The Major Satires of Alexander Pope_ (Urbana, 1955), p.  139. The two epistles of the title are Edward Young’s _TwoEpistles To Mr. Pope_ which had appeared in January 1730 and whichpraised Pope warmly. See _One Epistle_, p.  22. 

3. _The Twickenham Edition of the Poems of Alexander Pope_, GeneralEditor, John Butt, 6 vols. (London, 1939-1961), W, 211-212. Citationsfrom Pope’s poetry in my text are from this edition. 

4. Savage in _An Author To Be Lett_ (1729), which appeared nine daysafter _The Dunciad A_, says, “I have extracted curious Hints to assist_Welsted_ in his new Satire against _Pope_, which was once (he told me)to have been christen’d _Labeo_. ’Tis yet an Embrio, and there aredivers Opinions about the Birth of it” (pp.  5-6). He seems clearly tohave been Pope’s informant about the unpublished _Labeo_. See RichardSavage, _An Author To be Lett_, ed. James Sutherland, The AugustanReprint Society, Number 84 (Los Angeles, 1960), p.  ii. For Labeo seePersious 1.  4. 

5. Daniel Fineman, _Leonard Welsted, Gentleman Poet of the Augustan Age_(Philadelphia, 1950), p.  190. 

6. _Correspondence_, III, 59-60 and n. 

7. _Ibid. _, III, 106, 114. Dr. Arbuthnot, for the abuse he received inthe poem, is reported to have flogged Moore Smythe (_ibid. _, III, 106, n.  2, and 114, n.  1)

8. For a convenient summary of these references from 14 May to 23 July1730 see James T. Hillhouse, _The Grub-Street Journal_ (Durham, N. C. , 1928), pp. 58-63. On 14 May 1730 it printed a letter supposedly by MooreSmythe in which he says of himself and his collaborators in _OneEpistle_, “we . .. Call our selves _Gentlemen_ which sure no body willdeny, because one of is the Son of an _Alehouse-keeper_ Thoms Cooke?, one the Son of a _Foot-man_, and one the Son of a ____. ”

9. Fineman, p. 192. 

10. Hillhouse, p.  64, n. 19. 

11. David Mallet, _Of Verbal Criticism_ (1733), p.  14. He added thenote: “See a Poem published some time ago under that title, said to bethe production of several ingenious and prolific heads; One contributinga simile, Another a character, and a certain Gentleman four shrewd lineswholly made up of Asterisks. ”

12. See also Pope’s quotation from the “Dissertation” in _TheDunciad A_, p.  26. 

13. For the Duke’s protestation against Welsted’s attack see GeorgeSherburn, “‘Timon’s Villa’ and Cannons, ” _The Huntington LibraryBulletin_, VIII (1935), 140. 

14. See, for example, Giles Jacob’s _The Mirrour_ (1733), p.  6, althoughoddly enough Jacob (like Welsted) had begun the quarrel with his _TheRape of the Smock_ (1717). 

15. _Twickenham_, V. Xvi. For _The Progress of Dulness_ (pp. Vi-vii) see_ibid. _ xvii. , n.  2; xxi-xxii. 

16. See the full discussion in George Sherburn, _The Early Career ofAlexander Pope_ (Oxford, 1934), pp. 105-106. 

17. See _Twickenham_, II. 90, n. 1. 

18. See, _inter alia_, _A Letter from Sir J____ B____ to Mr. P_____(1716), p.  1; _The Female Dunciad_ (1728), p.  4; and the carefuldiscussion in Norman Ault, _New Light on Pope_ (London, 1949), pp. 156-162. 

19. See _Cythereia_ (1723), pp. 92-93; _Characters of The Times_ (1728), p.  29. 

20. See Eliza Haywood, _Memoirs Of The Court of Lilliput_ (1727), p.  17;_A Collection Of Several Curious Pieces_ (1728), pp. 4,  6; James Ralph, _Sawney_ (1728), pp. 5-8. 

21. See _Twickenham_, V. 440-441. 

22. See Daniel A. Fineman, “The Case of the Lady ‘Killed’ by AlexanderPope, ” _MLO_, XII (1951), 137-149. Sutherland in his continuation ofPope’s note confuses the two charges. 

23. For the debate over the Latin inscription see _Twickenham_, VI. 395-396, and _The Gentleman’s Magazine_, XI, 105. 

24. See Pope’s note to l. 319 of the _Epistle to Arbuthnot_. 

25. Dennis, as far back as 1716, in _A True Character of Mr. Pope_, pp. 10-11, had used the metaphor. So had _An Epistle To the Egregious Mr. Pope_ (1734), pp. 15-16. 

 * * * * * * * * *

[Transcriber’s Note:

The consecutive title pages are as in the original, as are the lines ofclosely spaced asterisks in the poem. 

Format of notes reproduces the original as closely as possible. Longnotes, marked with lower-case letters (a-l), were collected at the endof the text. Footnotes are here shown between stanzas. Markers areunchanged, except where a symbol has been doubled (**, ††) because itoccurs twice in one stanza. ]

 ONE

 E P I S T L E

 TO

 Mr. _A. P O P E_, Occasion’d By

 Two Lately Publish’d. 

 [To be Continued. ]

 ONE

 E P I S T L E

 TO

 Mr. _A. P O P E_, Occasion’d By

 Two Epistles Lately Published. 

 _Spiteful he is not, tho’ he writ a Satire, For still there goes some Thinking to Ill-Nature. _ DRYDEN. 

 _L O N D O N_:

 Printed for J. ROBERTS, in _Warwick-Lane_. 

 [Price One Shilling. ]

 [Decoration]

 THE

 PREFACE. 

_The indecent Images, and the frequent and bad Imitations of theClassics in the _Dunciad_, have occasioned several just Observationsupon so new and coarse a Manner of Writing: I shall wave this Topic atpresent, and only regard the most plausible Insinuation in Favour ofthis Author; which is, that he never begun an Attack upon any Person, who had not before, either in Print or private Conversation, endeavour’dsomething to his Disadvantage. _

_This Assertion is by no means true, as I shall immediately shew; ifit were true, it might indeed bear some Weight, but however with thisDistinction, that the Reports of private Conversation, brought to him bysuch Emissaries, as belong to him, are not always to be believed, andthat no Attack in Print upon a Man’s Poetical Character, ought to berepaid by Lampoon and Virulence upon the Moral Character of hisAntagonist: Every Person has a Right to determine upon the Talents ofWriters, particularly of one, who appears in Publick only to gratifythe two worst Appetites, that disgrace Human Nature, I mean Malice andAvarice; and sure no Man deserves a violent Injury to his Reputation, as a Gentleman, because perhaps at a Distance of several Years sincehe might have said, that Mr. _Pope_ had nothing in him Original as aWriter, that Mr. _Tickel_ greatly excelled him in his Translation of_Homer_, and many of his Contemporaries in other Branches of Writing, and that he is infinitely inferior to Mr. _Phillips_ in Pastoral: Andyet such Arguments or Apologies as these have been used by himself, or his Tea-Table Cabals, for calling Gentlemen Scoundrels, Blockheads, Gareteers, and Beggars, : If he can transmit them to Posterity undersuch Imputations, he is a bad Man; if he cannot, he is a bad Writer:I believe, that he would rather suffer under the first Character, thanthe last: But before I have done with him, I will make a very strictInquiry into both. _

_In the mean time I shall shew the Reader, in general, the Falshood ofhis main Pretence, that he has meddled with no one, that had not beforehurt him, and in this View, tho’ I should be ashamed of being tooserious in a Controversy of this Sort, I think it proper to acquaint theTown with the original Design of the _Dunciad_, and the real Reasons ofits Production. This Piece, which has been honour’d by Booksellers ofQuality, contains only the Poetical Part of Dulness, extracted from aLibel, call’d, _The Progress of it_, and which included several otherBranches of Science, and perhaps some of those Gentlemen, who have inthe warmest Manner asserted the Cause of the _Dunciad_, might have seena Publication of a Work, upon the Death of this Writer, in which no pastFriendship could have screen’d them from Lampoon for any Pretences toexcel in any Science whatever: It appears, therefore, that he was teaz’dinto a Publication of these Cantos, which regarded the Writers of theAge, by some Attacks, that were made upon him about that Time: We mustrefer to a Miscellany of Poems published by Him and _Swift_, to whichis prefix’d, _An Essay on the Profund_, to consider if those Attackswere justifiable; Mr. Dean _Swift_ never saw the _Profund_, till madepublick, and Dr. _Arburthnot_, who originally sketch’d the Design of it, desired that the Initial Letters of Names of the Gentlemen abused mightnot be inserted, that they might be _A_ or _B_, or _Do_ or _Ro_, or anything of that Nature, which would make this Satire a general one uponany dull Writers in any Age: This was refused by _Pope_, and he choserather to treat a Set of Gentlemen as Vermin, Reptiles, _&c. _ at a Timewhen he had no Provocation to do so, when he had closed his Labours, finish’d his great Subscriptions, and was in a fashionable Degree ofReputation: Several Gentlemen, who are there ranked with the dullestMen, or dullest Beasts, never did appear in Print against him, or sayany thing in Conversation which might affect his Character: SomeReplies, which were made to the _Profund_, occasioned the Publication ofthe _Dunciad_, which was first of all begun with a general Malice to allMankind, and now appears under an Excuse of Provocations, which he hadreceived, after he himself had struck the first Blow in theabove-mentioned Miscellanies. _

_I cannot indeed say much in Praise of some Performances, which appear’dagainst him, and am sorry that Voluntiers enter’d into the War, whom Icould wish to have been only Spectators: But the Cause became sogeneral, that some Gentlemen, who never aim’d at the Laurel, grew Poetsmerely upon their being angry: A Militia, in Case of publick Invasion, may perhaps be thought necessary, but yet one could always wish foran Army of regular Troops: I should not have touched upon thisCircumstance, but to obviate some Imputations, which he had suggested, of my Writing several Pieces, which I never heard of, till I saw themwith the rest of the Town: But these Suggestions shall be considered inthe Preface to the next Epistle, in which, among other Things, I intendto state several Matters of Fact, in Contradiction to the Notes of the_Dunciad_, particularly as they concern the Writers of the followingPoem. _

 [Decoration]

 [Decoration]

 One

 E P I S T L E

 to

 Mr. _A. P O P E_, Occasion’d By

 Two Lately Publish’d. 

 If noble _B----m_, (a) in Metre known, With Strains has grac’d thee, humble as thy own; Who (b) _G--l--n_’s Dullness did for thine discard, A better Critick, for as bad a Bard! Not unregarded let this Tribute be, Tho’ humble, just; well-bred, tho’ paid to Thee. 

 _Parnassian_ Groves, and _Twick’nam_ Fountains, say, What Homage to the Bard shall _Britain_ pay! The Bard! that first, from _Dryden’s_ thrice-glean’d Page, Cull’d his low Efforts to Poetic Rage; Nor pillag’d only that unrival’d Strain, But rak’d for Couplets * _Chapman_ and _Duck-Lane_, Has sweat each Cent’ry’s Rubbish to explore, And plunder’d every Dunce that writ before, Catching half Lines, till the tun’d Verse went round, Complete, in smooth dull (c) Unity of Sound; Who, stealing Human, scorn’d Celestial Fire, And strung to _Smithfield_ Airs the † _Hebrew_ Lyre; Who taught declining (d) _Wycherley_ to doze O’er wire-drawn Sense, that tinkled in the Close, To lovely _F----r_ impious and obscene, To mud-born _Naiads_ faithfully unclean; Whose raptur’d Nonsense, with Prophetick Skill, First taught that Ombre, which fore-ran Quadrille; Who from the Skies, propitious to the Fair, Brought down _Cæcilia_, and sent ** _Cloris_ there, Censur’d by _W--ke_, by _A------ry_ blest, Prais’d _Sw----t_ in Earnest, and sung Heav’n in Jest, Here, mov’d by Whim, and there by Envy stung, Would flatter _Ch----s_, or would libel ‡ _Y----ge_, By _F----n_ left, by Reverend Linguists hated, Now learns to read the _Greek_ he once translated. 

 [Footnote *: A Translator of _Homer_. ]

 [Footnote †: Burlesque of the first _Psalm_, more profest than _Sternbold’s_. ]

 [Footnote **: See Verses, in _P--pe_’s Poems, to the Memory of an unfortunate young Lady. ]

 [Footnote ‡: _Sir W. Y. _]

 Oh say, to him what Trophies shall be rais’d, That unprovok’d will strike, and fawn unprais’d! Each fav’rite Toast who marks, or rising Wit, To sketch a Satire, that in Time may fit; Still hopes your Sun-set, while he views your Noon, And still broods o’er the closely-kept Lampoon; The lurking Presents o’er the Tomb he paid, And thus atton’d our _British Virgil_’s Shade, A Mushroom * Satire in his Life conceal’d, Since chang’d to Libel, and in Print reveal’d; Who lets not † Beauty base Detraction ’scape, And mocks Deformity with _Æsop_’s Shape; Who _Cato_’s Muse with faithless Sneers belied, The Prologue father’d, and the Play decried, On ‡ _H----y_’s learned Page, dull-sporting trod, Betray’d his Patrons, and lampoon’d his God; Translator, Editor, could far out-go In _Homer_ _Ogleby_, in _Shakespeare_ _R----_ O! how burlesqu’d, great _Dryden_, is thy Strain, When little _Alexander_ ‖ _slays the Slain_!

 [Footnote *: Libel on Mr. _Addison_ in _P--pe_ and _Sw--t_’s Miscellanies. ]

 [Footnote †: Lady _M. W. M. _]

 [Footnote ‡: Lord B----p of _Salisbury_. ]

 [Footnote ‖: See _Dryden_’s Ode on St. _Cæcilia_’s Day. 

 ------Fought all his Battles o’er again; ------And thrice he _slew the Slain_. ]

 On, mighty Rhimer, haste new Palms to seize, Thy little, envious, angry Genius teize; Let thy weak wilful Head, unrein’d by Art, Obey the Dictates of thy flatt’ring Heart; Divide a busy, fretful Life between Smut, Libel, Sing-song, Vanity, and Spleen; With long-brew’d Malice warm thy languid Page, And urge delirious Nonsense into Rage; Let bawdy Emblems, now, thy Hours beguile; Now, Fustian Epic, aping _Virgil_’s Stile; To _Virgil_ like, to _Indian_ Clay as _Delf_, Or _Pulteney_, drawn by _Jervase_, to Herself: Rheams heap’d on Rheams, incessant, mayst thou blot, A lively, trifling, pert, one knows not what! Form thy light Measures, nimbler than the Wind, Whilst heavy lingring Sense is left behind; With all thy Might pursue, and all thy Will, That unabating Thirst, to scribble still, Giv’n at thy Birth! the Poetaster’s Gust, False and unsated as the Eunuch’s Lust!

 Illustrious Fops, mean time, o’er-rate thy Lays, And blooming Critics, as they spell thee, praise: Blest Coupleteer! by blooming Critics read, At Toilets _ogled_, and with Sweetmeats fed: See, lisping Toilers grace thy _Dunciad_’s Cause, And scream their witty Scavenger’s Applause, While powder’d Wits, and lac’d Cabals rehearse Thy bawdy _Cento_, and thy _Bead-roll_ Verse; Gay, bugled Statesmen on thy Side debate, And libel’d Blockheads court thee, tho’ they hate. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Fools of all Kinds their Suffrages impart, The Fools of Nature, and the Fools of Art. 

 These in thy threadbare Farce shall Beauties show, Shall praise thy ribald Mirth, and maudlin Woe; Praise ev’n thy imitating _Chaucer_’s Tales, And call that merry * Temple, Fame’s _Versailles_: Thy ‡ Shepherd-Song with Rapture they shall see, Which rivals _Philips_, as _Banks_ rivals _Lee_; Thy † _Guernsey_ and _Barbados_ Wreath shall own, Where _Durfey_ ne’er was read, nor _Settle_ known; That Wreath, that Name, which thro’ both Worlds is gone, Which Doctor (e) _Y----_ applauds, and _Prestor John_. 

 [Footnote *: Temple of Fame by _P----_]

 [Footnote ‡: _P----pe_’s Pastorals. ]

 [Footnote †: See the Original Preface to the _Dunciad_. ]

 Lo! as _Anchises_, to the Goddess-born, So I the Worthies, that thy Page adorn, Point out to Thee. ----See ‖ here * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Prelate! next, exil’d by cruel Fates, Who plagues all Churches, and confounds all States; With Treasons past perplex’d, and present Cares; A Fop in Rhime, and Bungler in Affairs. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * And here! a Groupe of Brother Quill-men see, Co-witlings all, and Demi-bards like Thee; Such whom the Muse shall pass with just Disdain, Nor add one Trophy to thy mottly Train: But Quack _Arb----t_ shall Oblivion blot, That puzzling, plodding, prating, pedant _Scot_! The grating Scribler! whose untun’d Essays Mix the _Scotch_ Thistle with the _English_ Bays, By either _Phœbus_ pre-ordain’d to Ill, The Hand prescribing, or the flattering Quill, Who doubly plagues, and boasts two Arts to kill!

 [Footnote ‖: The Characters left out here may perhaps be inserted in some future Edition of this Poem. ]

 ’Midst this vain Tribe, that aid thy setting Ray, The Muse shall view, but spare ill-faced _G--y_: Poor (f) _G--y_, who loses most when most he wins. And gives his Foes his Fame, and bears their Sins; Who more by Fortune than by Nature curst, Yields his best Pieces, and must own _Thy_ worst. 

 Thus prop’d, thy Head with _Grub-street_ Zephyrs tainted, By (g) _Rich_ recorded, and by _J----_ painted; _J----!_ who so refin’d a Rake is reckon’d, He breaks all (h) _Sinai_’s Laws, except the Second: Thus prais’d, thus drawn, t’extend thy Projects try, Leave the _Blue * Languish_, and the Crimson Sigh; Leave the gay Epithets that Beauty crown, White ** _Whitylinda_, and _Brownissa_ Brown; Forget awhile (i) _Belinda_ and the Sun; Forget the _Fights of Stand_, and Flights of Run: No more let _Ombre_’s Play inspire thy Vein, Nor strow with Captive Kings the † _Velvet Plain_; Omit awhile the _Silver Peal_ to ring, } Nor talk dulcissant, nor mellifluous sing, } Nor _hang suspended_, nor _adherent cling_. } But haste to mount Immortal Envy’s Throne, To crush all Merit, that disputes thy own; For thou wert born to damp each rising Name, And hang, like Mildews, on the Growth of Fame; Fame’s fairest Blossoms let thy Rancour blast, Bane of the modern Laurel, like the past; While stupid Riot stands in Humour’s Place, And bestial Filth, Humanity’s Disgrace, Low Lewdness, unexcited by Desire, And all great †† _Wilmot_’s Vice, without his Fire. 

 [Footnote *: The Phrases distinguished here in _Italics_, are truly quoted from _P----pe_; and the others in Company with them, ought to be in no other Company. ]

 [Footnote **: See _Dunciad_. _Nigrina_ Black. ]

 [Footnote †: Here a Card Table; in _P--pe_, a Field of Grass. ]

 [Footnote ††: _Wilmot_, Earl of _Rochester_. ]

 At length, when banish’d _Pallas_ shall withdraw, And Wit’s made Treason by the _Popian_ Law; When minor Dunces cease, at length, their Strife, And own thy Patent to be dull for Life; By Tricks sustain’d, in Poet-craft compleat, Retire triumphant to thy _Twick’nam_ Seat; That Seat! the Work of (k) half-paid drudging _Br----me_, And call’d by joking _Tritons_, _Homer_’s Tomb: There to stale, stol’n, stum Crambo bid adieu, And sneer the Fops, that thought thy Crambo new; There, like the _Grecian_ Chief, on whom thy Song Has well reveng’d unhappy _Priam_’s Wrong; Waste, in thy hidden Cave, the Festive Day, With mock _Machaon_, and _Patroclus G----_ _Sleep_, (l) _Sleep in Peace_ the Works, for _Wapping_ born! No more thy Cuckoo Note shall wake the Morn; In Ease, and Avarice, and aukward State, _The Fool of Fortune_, shalt thou hail thy Fate; Slumbring in Quiet o’er Lampoons half writ, Which, ripe in Malice, only wait for Wit. 

 So when _Vanessa_ yielded up her Charms, The blest _Cadenus_ languish’d in her Arms; High, on a Peg, his unbrush’d Beaver hung, His Vest unbutton’d, and his God unsung; Raptur’d he lies; Deans, Authors are forgot, _Wood_’s Copper Pence, and _Atterbury_’s Plot; For her he quits the Tythes of _Patrick_’s Fields, And all the Levite to the Lover yields. 

 [Decoration]

 [Decoration]

NOTES

On the Foregoing

POEM. 

(a) _If Noble _B------m_, _

The late Duke of _Buckingham!_ who made that fine Alteration of theTragedy of _Julius Cæsar_ from _Shakespeare_, and who is said by Mr. _Pope_ to have bestow’d the finest Praise upon _Homer_ that he everreceived, in the following Lines;

 Read _Homer_ once, and you need read no more; For all Things else will be so mean and poor, Verse will seem Prose: Yet often on him look, And you will never need another Book. 

 D---- of B----’s Essay on Poetry. 

He has also printed a Copy of Verses in Praise of _Pope_, which werereturned by another in Praise of his Grace. There is so great aSimilitude in the Stile of these Writers, that the Reader, I think, neednot doubt their Sincerity in admiring each other. 

 ’Tis great Delight to laugh at some Mens Ways; But ’tis much greater to give Merit Praise. 

 D---- of B----. 

 _Sheffield_ approves, consenting _Phœbus_ bends, And I and Malice from this Hour, am Friends. 

 Pope. 

(b) _Who _G------n_’s Dulness------_

_Charles Gildon_, dismiss’d from the D----’s Pension and Favour, onAccount of his Obstinacy in refusing to take the Oaths to _P--pe_’sSupremacy. 

(c) _Smooth dull Unity of Sound. _

_P--pe_’s Reputation for versifying is a vulgar Error, founded only ondiscreet Theft: Half a Line from Mr. _Dryden_’s _Conquest of Mexico_, and another from his Translation of _Virgil_, have seemingly madetolerable Music, when join’d in his Works; but Music of the _Morocco_Kind, which has but one Note. 

(d) _Who taught declining _Wycherley_------_

Mr. _Wycherley_ subscribed to a Compliment (some say, before his Death)upon _P--pe_’s Pastorals, in which he says, his _Arcadia speaks theLanguage of the Mall_, but does not explain, whether he means at Noon orNight. I do not agree with what Mr. _Wycherley_ is supposed to have writof him, but I do with what he certainly said of him, _viz. _ _That he wasnot able to make a Suit of Cloaths, but could perhaps turn an old Coat. _

(e) _Which Doctor _Y------__

The Reverend Doctor _Edward Young_, who, in this Quarrel of the greatcontending Powers in Poesy, has been courted by all Sides: But some lateIncidents give a Suspicion, that he has privately acceded to the _Treatyof Twickenham_. 

(f) _Poor _G----_, who loses most----_

Mr. _Gay_, not thought to be the entire Author of the _Beggar’s Opera_, and ordered to own _Three Hours after Marriage_. 

(g) _By _Rich_ recorded------_

_Gilbert Pickering Rich. _ A great Admirer of _P--pe_, eminent for hisTranslation of _Horace_, which can be equall’d by nothing but _P--pe_’stranslating of _Homer_. He concludes the first Ode by giving (_sublimiferiam sidera vertice_) in these Words;

 I’ll bound, I’ll spring, I’ll strike the weaken’d Pole, I’ll knock so hard, I’ll knock thro’ it a Hole. 

(h) _------Breaks all _Sinai_’s Laws except the Second. _

Second Commandment: “Thou shalt not make the Likeness of any Thing inHeaven above, or on the Earth beneath, or the Waters under the Earth. ”

(i) _Forget awhile _Belinda_ and the Sun. _

In the _Rape of the Lock_, _Belinda_ and the Sun are very often said tobe very much alike, which occasion’d two Lines in Praise of that Poem, written by a Friend of Mr. _Pope_;

 Here, like the Sun, _Belinda_ strikes the Swain, In the same Page like the same Sun again. 

Monsieur _Boileau_, speaking of the Poetasters of his Nation, in a Poemto the King, makes this Comparison the Consummation of Dulness;

 _Et enfin te compare au Solœil. _

And in the End he compares your Majesty to the Sun. 

(k) _------Half-paid drudging _B----me_. _

The Reverend Mr. _B----me_, who translated a great Part of _Homer_, andconstrued the Rest: _N. B. A half-paid Poet_ is oftentimes the Occasionof an _unpaid Taylor_. 

(l) _Sleep, Sleep in Peace------_

These Lines are a Parody of a famous Passage in the Tragedy of _Phædra_and _Hyppolitus_. 

 Sleep, Sleep in Peace, ye Monsters of the Wood: No more my early Horn shall wake------

 _So when bright _Venus_ yielded up her Charms, The blest _Adonis_ languish’d in her Arms; His idle Horn on flagrant Myrtle hung, His Arrows scatter’d, and his Bow unstrung; Obscure in Covert lay his dreaming Hounds, And bay’d the fancy’d Boar with feeble Sounds: For nobler Sports he quits the savage Fields, And all the Hero to the Lover yields. _

FINIS. 

 [Decoration]

 * * * * * * * * *

[Transcriber’s Note:

Footnotes are here shown between stanzas. The labels (a, b, c) areunchanged. ]

 The

 _BLATANT-BEAST. _

 a

 POEM. 

 What is that Blatant-Beast? Then he reply’d. It is a Monster bred of hellish Race, Then answered he, which often hath annoy’d Good Knights and Ladies true, and many else destroy’d. SPENCER’s Fairy Queen, Book VI. Canto I. 

 No Might, no Greatness in Mortality Can Censure ’scape: Back-wounding Calumny The whitest Virtue strikes. What King so strong, Can tye the Gall up in sland’rous Tongue? SHAKESPEAR. 

 [Decoration]

 _LONDON:_

 Printed for J. ROBINSON, at the _Golden Lyon_ in _Ludgate-street_. 

 MDCCXLII. 

 [Decoration]

 The

 _BLATANT-BEAST_

 a

 POEM. 

 Beauty, the fondling Mother’s earliest Pray’r, Nature’s kind Gift to sweeten worldly Care. Beauty the greatest Extasy imparts, Steals thro’ our Eyes, and revels in our Hearts; Adds Lustre to a Crown, gives Weight to Sense, The Orator assists in Truth’s Defence. The very Fool our Hearts resistless warms, And while we curse the Tongue, the Figure charms. If Beauty be the Subject of our Praise, A rude, mishapen Lump Contempt must raise. 

 When _Lucifer_ with Angels held first Place, Seraphic Beauty sparkled in his Face. By Pride and Malice tempted to rebel, Vengeance pursu’d him to the lowest Hell: Not sulph’rous Lakes suffic’d, nor dreary Plains; Deformity was join’d t’ improve his Pains. 

 Paint then the Person, and expose the Mind, Who rails at others, to his own Faults blind. Sly _Sancho_’s Paunch, meagre _Don Quixot_’s Love, The Satyr and the Ridicule improve. So when fam’d _Butler_ wou’d Rebellion paint, He lasht the Traitor and the Mimic Saint. Sir _Hudibras_ he sung; the crumpled Wight, Contempt and Laughter ever will excite. 

 The Blatant-Beast once more has broke his Chains, Disperses Falshoods, and remorseless reigns. Scornful of all thy Verses dare design, (Where useless Epithets crowd ev’ry Line, ) The Blatant-Beast shall be afresh pursu’d, Nor cease my Labours till again subdu’d. 

 Distorted Elf! to Nature a Disgrace, Thy Mind envenom’d pictur’d in thy Face; Malice with Envy in thy Breast combines, And in thy Visage grav’d those ghastly Lines. Like Plagues, like Death thy ranc’rous Arrows fly, At Good and Bad, at Friend and Enemy. To thy own Breast recoils the erring Dart, Corrupts thy Blood, and rankles in thy Heart. There swell the Poisons which thy Breast distend, And with the Load thy Mountain Shoulders bend. Horrid to view! retire from human Sight, Nor with thy Figure pregnant Dames affright. Crawl thro’ thy childish Grot, growl round thy Grove, A Foe to Man, an Antidote to Love. In Curses waste thy Time instead of Pray’r, (a) And with thy Breath pollute the fragrant Air. There doze o’er _Shakespear_; then thy Blunders fell (b) At mighty Price; this Truth let _Tonson_ tell. Then frontless intimate, (oh perjur’d Bard!) Thy Labours were bestow’d without Reward. On that immortal Author wreak thy Spite, (c) And on his Monument thy Nonsense write. Should _Theobald_ thy presumptuous Errors shew, Be thou to _Theobald_ an invet’rate Foe. _Cibber_ shall foremost in thy Satyrs stand; His Plays succeed, and thine was justly damn’d. But _Colley_ call him, when thou would’st declame; Great is the Jest that lies in _Colley_’s Name. 

 [Footnote a: It is surely allowable to treat a Man after this manner who abuses all others, and to make this just Reflexion, since in his new _Dunciad_ he not only calls _Mummius_ a Fool, but uses this filthy Expression--who stinks above the Ground. ]

 [Footnote b: See this farther explained in the ingenious Dialogues of _Sawney_ and _Colley_. ]

 [Footnote c: Tho’ he was informed that Wreck was improper, yet he was resolv’d it should be inscrib’d, because the Nonsense was in his Edition of _Shakespear_. ]

 Beware all ye, whom he as Friends carest, How ye entrust your Secrets to his Breast. (a) On Backs of Letters was his _Homer_ wrote, All your Affairs disclos’d to save a Groat. He valu’d not to whom he gave Offence; He sav’d his Paper, tho’ at your Expence. 

 [Footnote a: When he sent his _Homer_ to his Acquaintance for their Emendations, it was written on the Back of the Letters of his Correspondents, whether of Business, Complement or Secrecy. A shameful Instance of Avarice and Treachery!]

 But shall a low-born Wretch the best traduce, And call it Poetry, because Abuse? The Heav’n-born Muse, by Truth and Justice sway’d, To false Aspersions ne’er vouchsafes her Aid. When unprovok’d, not vengeful Wasps molest, Nor dart their Stings, when undisturb’d their Nest. Thy Muse, by _Virgil_’s Harpies taught to write, Scatters her Ordure in her screaming Flight; Sacred Religion and her Priests defames, And against Monarchs saucily exclames. (a) The Fathers, of our Church the surest Guides, As a poor Pack of Punsters she derides. But chief O _Cam!_ and _Isis!_ dread her Frown, (b) Chain’d to the Footstool of the Goddess’ Throne. No Order, no Degree escapes her Rage, And dull, and dull, and dull swells ev’ry Page. Thirsty, she Poison draws from ev’ry Flow’r, Like Satan, seeks whom next she may devour. 

 [Footnote a: _Vide_ Notes on the new _Dunciad_. ]

 [Footnote b: Goddess of Dullness. ]

 So have I seen a Dog distracted roam; He bites, he snaps at all, disgorging Foam. The frighten’d Passenger the Danger flies, And sees the Poison flashing from his Eyes. Till some stout Dray-man dashes out his Brains, And his corrupted Blood the Kennel stains. 

 Thy Notes pedantic shall no more engage; _Arbuthnot_’s Wit enlivens not the Page. Thy Muse, that Prostitute abandon’d Jade, Now flounders in the Mire without _Swift_’s Aid. Thy base Invectives Men no more regard; With just Disdain thy Scare-Crow Muse is heard. 

 So when the latent Seeds their Fruits display, And gain fresh Vigour from a genial Ray: The careful Hind a monst’rous Figure frames; From various Rags unwonted Terror streams. The feather’d Choristers in Flocks retreat, And at a Distance view the tempting Bait. At length grown bold, they perch upon his Head, And with their Meute bedawb what late they fled. 

 _B-ns-n_ abuse for raising _Milton_’s Bust, And impiously molest learn’d _Johnston_’s Dust. Religious, he the Psalms in _Latin_ sung, From hence the Malice of the Deist sprung. While with a just Derision we survey, Thy wretched Epitaph on poor _John Gay_. 

 Had _Peter_, _Charters_ thee with Gold supply’d, _Peter_ and _Charters_ had been deify’d. But ev’ry Lord, each gen’rous Friend implore, And by Subscriptions meanly swell thy Store. When to the Town by sordid Int’rest led, Mump for a Dinner, flatter for a Bed. Then to thy Grot retire, indulge thy Spite, And rail at those who for Subsistence write. Summon thy Rags, invoke thy scurril Muse, With keenest Malice _Addison_ abuse. Sculking, the Scandal privately disperse, (a) Then own in Prose the Baseness of thy Verse. 

 [Footnote a: He writ a vile Lampoon on Mr. _Addison_, and then in a Preface owns, he deserves Respect from every Lover of Learning. ]

 So e’re _Arachne_ to her Cell repairs, Insidiously she weaves her glewy Snares. Sullen, she meditates on Deaths to come, And meliorates the Poison in her Womb. (b) Should hapless _Clarion_ thither take his Flight, He falls her Prey, mindful of ancient Spite. 

 [Footnote b: _Vide_ _Spencer_’s Fate of the Butterfly. ]

 With Malice swoll’n, Pride, Envy, Avarice, Ingratitude attends this Train to Vice. Yet one remains untold; with Lust endu’d, Behold the Fribler lab’ring to be lewd. Kind _Cibber_ interpos’d, forbad the Banns, He’d peopled else this Isle with _Calibans_. 

 (a) The noble _Timon_, in thy waspish Strains, A Proof of thy Ingratitude remains. Courteous to all, munificent, humane, Subject of others Praise, to thee of Pain. Exalted far above thy groveling State, The Object of his Pity, not his Hate. He smiles at Scandal so unjustly thrown, And at thy Malice he disdains to frown. 

 [Footnote a: _Vide_ a Poem on Taste. ]

 Thus oft we see a currish, Mungrel Crew, A stately Mastiff eagerly pursue. They swarm around, they yelp, they snarl, they grin, Bold in Appearance, timerous within: With such mean Foes he deigns not to engage, But lifts his Leg, and pisses out their Rage. 

 How dar’st thou, Peasant, give thy Pen this Loose? Becomes it thee thus madly to traduce? The Great, the Low, the Virtuous, and the Base, Alike are grown thy Subject of Disgrace. Safe in thy Weakness, thou defi’st a Foe; E’en (b) _Cibber_’s Cudgel scorn’d to stoop so low. The Mercy of the Law restrains thy Fears; _Coventry_’s Act secures thy Nose and Ears. Yet there remains, to fill thy Soul with Care, A Blanket to curvet thee in the Air. 

 [Footnote b: _Vide_ _Cibber_’s Letter to _Pope_. ]

 O wretched Life consum’d in restless Pains, Where Dread of Punishment incessant reigns! Poor Self-Tormentor! in whose gloomy Breast The Vulture dwells, inhospitable Guest. Be to my Foe no greater Curse assign’d! Than a malignant Heart and envious Mind. 

 Thrice happy he! that’s with Good Nature blest, Love of his Species rules his tender Breast; Nor there confin’d: The Brute Creation share His kind Beneficence and gen’rous Care. No base malicious Thoughts his Peace annoy: Are others happy? he partakes their Joy. Chearful and innocent the Day he spends, And Silver Sleep his quiet Nights attends. 

 But thou, a Stranger to this Peace of Mind, Search where thou may’st conspicuous Merit find: There strive to blacken with thy utmost Art, And rail the more, the greater the Desert. 

 Is there a Man, an Honour to the Age, Unsully’d by the keenest Party-rage; By Vice untainted; who, from early Youth, Firmly adher’d to Honour, Justice, Truth; Whom no unruly Passions e’re cou’d blind, Nor ruffle his Serenity of Mind; His Country’s Good, the Patriot’s noblest View, Unbrib’d, unaw’d, does stedfastly pursue; Polite in Manners, and rever’d his Sense, And long in Senates fam’d for Eloquence; But if to these Endowments of the Mind, A graceful Figure happily is join’d, Then flows thy Gall, then raves thy half-form’d Clay, Then frets thy putrid Carcass to Decay. 

 So when the croaking Toad the Ox beheld, His envious Heart with Indignation swell’d. Vainly the Reptil thought he could extend His bloated Form, and Nature’s Error mend. He drew his Breath; he swell’d--he burst; he dy’d A Victim to his Arrogance and Pride. 

_FINIS. _

 * * * * * * * * *

The Augustan Reprint Society

WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY

University of California, Los Angeles

PUBLICATIONS IN PRINT