POPE
This selection begins with the second paragraph of the fourth lecture on the “English Poets.”
[P. 118.] The question whether Pope was a poet. Hazlitt had written a paper in answer to this question in the Edinburgh Magazine for February, 1818 (Works, XII, 430-432), from which the following paragraphs down to “Such at least is the best account” are copied. The question had been previously answered by Dr. Johnson with the same common sense as by Hazlitt: “It is surely superfluous to answer the question that has once been asked, Whether Pope was a poet? otherwise than by asking in return, If Pope be not a poet, where is poetry to be found? To circumscribe poetry by a definition will only shew the narrowness of the definer, though a definition which shall exclude Pope will not easily be made.” (“Life of Pope,” ed. B. Hill, III, 251). In their edition of Pope (II, 140), Elwin and Courthope express the opinion that the doubt which both Johnson and Hazlitt felt called upon to refute “was never maintained by a single person of reputation.” Yet there is something very close to such a doubt implied in the utterances of Coleridge: “If we consider great exquisiteness of language and sweetness of metre alone, it is impossible to deny to Pope the character of a delightful writer; but whether he was a poet, must depend upon our definition of the word.... This, I must say, that poetry, as distinguished from other modes of composition, does not rest in metre, and that it is not poetry, if it make no appeal to our passions or our imagination.” (Works, ed. Shedd, IV, 56.) Pope’s verse was made the occasion of a long-winded controversy as to the relative value of the natural and artificial in poetry, lasting from 1819 to 1825, with William Bowles and Lord Byron as the principal combatants. Hazlitt contributed an article to the London Magazine for June, 1821, “Pope, Lord Byron and Mr. Bowles” (Works, XII, 486-508), in which he pointed out the fallacies in Byron’s position and censured the clerical priggishness of Bowles in treating of Pope’s life. The chief points in the discussion are best summed up in Prothero’s edition of Byron’s “Letters and Journals,” Vol. V, Appendix III.
If indeed by a great poet we mean. Cf. Introduction, p. 1.
[P. 120.] the pale reflex. “Romeo and Juliet,” iii, 5, 20.
[P. 121.] Martha Blount (1690-1762), the object of Pope’s sentimental attachment throughout his life.
In Fortune’s ray. “Troilus and Cressida,” i, 3, 47.
the gnarled oak ... the soft myrtle. “Faërie Qu.,” II, ii, 116-117.
calm contemplation. Thomson’s “Autumn,” 1275.
[P. 122.] More subtle web. “Faërie Queene,” II, xii, 77.
[P. 123.] from her fair head. “Rape of the Lock,” III, 154.
Now meet thy fate. Ibid., V, 87-96.
[P. 124.] Lutrin. The “Lutrin” was a mock-heroic poem (1674-1683) of the French poet and critic, Nicolas Boileau Despreaux (1636-1711), the literary dictator of the age of Louis XIV.
’Tis with our judgments. “Essay on Criticism,” I, 9.
Still green with bays. Ibid., I, 181.
[P. 125.] the writer’s despair. Cf. Ibid., II, 278:
“No longer now that Golden Age appears,
When Patriarch-wits survived a thousand years:
Now length of fame (our second life) is lost,
And bare threescore is all ev’n that can boast:
Our sons their fathers’ failing language see,
And such as Chaucer is shall Dryden be.”
with theirs should sail, “attendant sail.” “Essay on Man,” IV, 383-6.
[P. 126.] There died. “Eloisa to Abelard,” 40.
[P. 127.] If ever chance. Ibid., 347.
Bolingbroke. Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751). “The Essay plainly appears the fabric of a poet: what Bolingbroke supplied could be only the first principles; the order, illustration, and embellishments must be all Pope’s.” Pope’s Works, ed. Elwin and Courthope, II, 264.
[P. 128.] he spins, “draweth out.” “Love’s Labour’s Lost,” v, 1, 18.
the very words. Cf. “Macbeth,” i, 3, 88: “the selfsame tune and words.”
Now night descending. “Dunciad,” I, 89.
Virtue may choose. “Epilogue to the Satires,” Dialogue I, 137.
[P. 129.] character of Chartres. “Moral Essays, Epistle III.”
his compliments. See p. [322].
Where Murray. “Imitations of Horace, Epistle VI,” 52. William Murray (1705-1793), Chief Justice of England, created Lord Mansfield in 1776.
Why rail. “Epilogue to Satires,” Dialogue II, 138.
Despise low joys. “Epistle to Mr. Murray,” 60.
[P. 130.] character of Addison. “Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot,” 193-214.
Buckingham. George Villiers, second duke of Buckingham (1628-1687), statesman, wit, and poet.
Alas! how changed. “Moral Essays,” III, 305.
Arbuthnot, John (1667-1735), physician and man of letters, whom Thackeray introduced in attendance at the death-bed of Francis Esmond. “He had a very notable share in the immortal History of John Bull, and the inimitable and praiseworthy Memoirs of Martinus Scriblerus.... Arbuthnot’s style is distinguished from that of his contemporaries, even by a greater degree of terseness and conciseness. He leaves out every superfluous word; is sparing of connecting particles, and introductory phrases; uses always the simplest forms of construction; and is more a master of the idiomatic peculiarities and internal resources of the language than almost any other writer.” “English Poets,” Lecture VI.
Charles Jervas (1675-1739) gave Pope lessons in painting. He is also known as a translator of “Don Quixote.”
Why did I write. “Epistle to Arbuthnot,” 125.
[P. 131.] Oh, lasting as those colours. “Epistle to Mr. Jervas,” 63.
who have eyes. Psalms, cxv, 5; cxxxv, 16, etc.
It will never do. Hazlitt was fond of mimicking this phrase with which Jeffrey so unfortunately opened his well-known review of Wordsworth’s “Excursion.”
I lisp’d in numbers. “Epistle to Arbuthnot,” 128.
Et quum conabar scribere. Cf. Ovid’s “Tristia,” IV, x, 26: “Et, quod tentabam dicere, versus erat.”