FullReads

One senses the foregoing critical assumptions about satire behind much of the early comment on The Dunciad. Most of the critics, to be sure, were anything but impartial; in many instances they were smarting from Pope’s satire and sought any critical weapons available for retaliation. But it will not do to dismiss these men or their responses to The Dunciad as inconsequential; they had the weight of numbers on their side and, more important, the authority of long-established attitudes toward satire.

Although it is frequently impossible to determine exactly which critics Harte was answering in his Essay, brief illustration of two prominent types of attack can indicate what he had to vindicate The Dunciad against. One of those types resembled Blackmore’s objection to a mixing of genres. If satire should be barred from heroic poetry, the reverse, for some critics, was also true, and Pope should not have used epic allusions and devices in The Dunciad. Edward Ward, for one, thought the poem an incongruous mixture “against all rule.”[13] Pope’s violation of “rule” seemed almost a desecration of epic to Thomas Cooke; of the mock-heroic games in Book II of The Dunciad, he complained that “to imitate Virgil is not to have Games, and those beastly and unnatural, because Virgil has noble and reasonable Games, but to preserve a Purity of Manners, Propriety of Conduct founded on Nature, a Beauty and Exactness of Stile, and continued Harmony of Verse concording with the Sense.”[14]

The other kind of attack accused Pope of wasting his talents in The Dunciad, but palliated blame by reminding him of his demonstrated ability in more worthy poetical pursuits. This was one of Ward’s resources; perhaps disingenuously, he professed amazement that a poet with Pope’s ” sublime Genius,” born for “an Epick Muse,” “sacred Hymns,” and “heav’nly Anthems,” would lower himself to mock at ” trifling Foibles ” or “the Starvlings of Apollo’s Train.”[15] More concerned with Pope’s potentialities than with his recent ignominy, George Lyttelton nevertheless made essentially the same point: Pope could never become the English Virgil if he “let meaner Satire … stain the Glory” of his “nobler Lays.”[16] And Aaron Hill wrote an allegorical poem to show Pope the error of The Dunciad and to suggest means of escape from entombment “in his own PROFUND.”[17] In such censure we perhaps glimpse an opinion attributable to the still influential genres theories: a poet of ” sublime Genius ” should work in a more sublime poetic genre than satire.

In opposing this low view of satire, Harte drew upon ideas more congenial to his purposes and far more congenial to The Dunciad. Originating with the Renaissance commentaries on the formal verse satire of the Romans, their lineage was just as venerable as that of the low view. These critical concepts were probably just as influential too, for they continued to be reiterated by commentaries down to and beyond Pope’s time.

Whatever their quarrels, the Renaissance commentaries were virtually united in regarding satire as exalted moral instruction and satirists as ethical philosophers. Casaubon’s choice for this sort of praise was Persius; Heinsius and Stapylton likened their respective choices, Horace and Juvenal, to Socrates and Plato; and Rigault considered all three satirists to be philosophers, distinguished only by the different styles which their different periods required. The satirist might disguise himself as a jester, but only to make his moral wisdom more easily digestible; peeling away his mask, “we find in him all the Gods together,” ” Maxims or Sentences, that like the lawes of nature, are held sacred by all Nations .”[18]