After the publication of his ‘Homer’, Pope limited himself exclusively to satiric and didactic poetry. Being a poetical prodigy whose development was affected by his circumstances, his emotions, very unfortunately took the form of extreme bitterness.
Pope took offence at every scorn and sneer of his deformity and the four books of the Dunciad is chock full of his wrath.
It is very remarkable to note that the pain given by Theobald's ‘Shakespeare Restored’, in which he could not perceive the justice he received, the censure, hastened the writing and publications of ‘The Dunciad’. In effect, the publication shows the most complex of Pope's manoeuvres.
In 1728, this tome appeared unanimously as he was nervous about acknowledging his attack on a man of writers. Emboldened by the success of this edition, he brought about a more elaborate form in 1729. Now names appeared in full, whereas previously only initials had been used.
Though ‘The Dunciad’ takes hints from Dryden's ‘Mac Flecknoe’, the plan is puffed-up. This tome is four times its length and though principally attacking Theobald, it arsons whole of his enemies battalions.
Professing an attack of wit against the dunces it is fundamentally a staunch attack against reviewers and critics. Thus, The Dunciad seems to have fared the poorest as it is "least dignified for it is the least authentic to the poets own higher conception of satire." Thus, he marred his satire by making it a vehicle of personal animosity.
When the first edition was published, it was presented to the King and Queen. While the ridiculed authors tried to stop its sale, booksellers made hard efforts to sell it.
The 'Dunces' in fact held weekly meetings to plan their revenge. They burnt his effigy and even complained to the government. False editions bearing an owl or an ass on the front piece appeared. There was general uproar. Pope was exultant and was indifferent to the invectives piled against him.
However, he was, by his own admission, the aggressor. He was proud that royalty and nobility had read his books, a quality he affected to loathe.
The second edition was even more popular as the common man could point out names and delight in the shafts of malice which earlier had been shot in the air.
The end result was that he created a host of rivals by ridiculing his contemporaries. Thus began the war of the 'Dunces' a history of attacks and counter-attacks.
However, generally, though his dunces must have been dull, it is shockingly unjust. His mockery of the Grub-street writers lacks bigheartedness -- a poem aiming to lash at irrelevant and dull writers seems to have no moral aim.
Pope seems to insist on the poverty of his dunces. However grand the rhetoric of the poem, it has faded into obscurity as it no longer interests the modern reader.
Obviously, an element of unfairness may be permitted in satire, but his choice of Theobald was biased, as he seems to have been infuriated by the superiority of his Shakespearean criticism.
Pope claims that he had overwhelmed his victims and that they could no longer obtain employ ment, seems farfetched and ridiculous. He is being ruthless and unfair to Cibber who appears as Bard. We even fail to make Bentley look ridiculous.
‘The Dunciad’ is inferior to his earlier mock-heroics. Most of the passages seem superfluous. It is a merely a stylish illustration of a ludicrously pompous satire. Though it has grand rhetoric, there is grossness of images, impure ideas, petulance and malignity. However the beauty of the satire cannot be desired, "the formation and dissolution of Moore, the account of The Traveller, the misfortune of the florist and the crowded thoughts and stately numbers which dignify the concluding paragraphs".
The poem has been inspired by personal bitterness rather than principles of literature. However, though he claimed, that he attacked in the interests of all honest men, must be rejected, it must be conceded that it is not moreover a thirst of malice. In the later parts, there is a chastisement of literary vices, without enduring personal malice.
Pope wrote ‘The Dunciad’ to regain his lost honour is full of spite. His unjust attack an Theobald, petty satire of Bentley fails to make his victims appears ridiculous. In fact, being a personal satire, it is an illustration of his vindictive nature. He sought to take revenge on all critics and writers at whose expense he aimed to please.
Satirical criticism when credible and just, is cherished. Being a powerful indictment of dullness and intellectual pretentiousness, ‘The Dunciad’ fails to rectify errors, improve judgement and refine public taste. Satire should be balanced and significant - the satirist should be sincere, logical, and cool. Emotions cloud his intellect it fails in its purpose.
Two on five.