IS£I 
 
 HZ4Z 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 ’! 
 
 I* 
 
 ■<1 
 
 • ^ 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 s ■ 
 
 I 
 
 « 
 
 
 L--/ 
 
 
 , - . , ' 
 
 'V 
 
 ' , . ' 7^‘t# " 
 
 / 
 
THE REPUTATION OF ALEXANDER POPE FROM 1750 TO 1800 
 
 BY 
 
 MINNIE FRANCES HARRIS 
 A. B. Cartha(^e College, 1920 
 
 THESIS 
 
 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the 
 
 Degree of 
 
 MASTER OF ARTS 
 IN ENGLISH 
 
 IN 
 
 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 1921 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/reputationofalexOOharr 
 
^Er 2 1 
 
 \^1\ 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 
 
 i 
 
 A y 
 
 .191;^ 
 
 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY 
 
 SUPERVISION BY . 2^ 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 A' / Q^- 
 
 BE ACCEPTED AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 
 
 
 Head of Department 
 
 Recommendation concurred in* 
 
 Committee 
 
 on 
 
 Final Examination* 
 
 *Required for doctor’s degree but not for master’s 
 
 4; ^ j L- / 3 
 
r A 
 
 
 
 ‘ » -k ' : . jif. 
 
 iJssfc; r,-x^"'j 9 t 4 :rri' ‘ 
 
 W ' • 
 
 
 Vs . I 
 
 
 I 
 
 arovtr jai ho . YT iaaa v i wu 
 
 W"T- 
 
 >V 
 
 . . JOOH3& BTAkUaAflO nm 
 
 *iW' 
 
 ■'^';f .,' .' '■ V . '■' 
 
 ‘ . •«* '> ^ '5 v; ’ ■ . . ^ ' 
 
 ., . ■ 'v 
 
 ifciTt'V; ■*■•>>;• 
 
 li 
 
 >! ' 
 
 A 
 
 , ■ Is _» 
 
 < . ^V ,;1 
 
 
 fM « 5 KlW 3 HT. 1 VHT Cr/ 13 >/MOa?!H YH 3 <r 2 IM I V 
 
 ^ ^ ■V.S I ‘. '‘v Hi 
 
 a3JTJT’Jl5l| 
 
 .V 
 
 
 
 ■-- ^V. ^ 
 
 i> * * , 
 
 ■' ii,* 
 
 
 V *> 1 
 
 
 ; ^ 
 
 
 f 
 
 Ekiaj ’ I i usk -S -rf™* .-r-» ^*p!WS *ni noh«b^i»fiira«y»{9 
 
 . . .i-, ■ 
 
 » 
 
 • 4 ilt(n<no 0 
 
 •.ioimiikrtiix3 IwriH 
 
 ^4S,Vf *S3B v’; ■' isIlT 
 
 <1 ' 1 , I ^ 
 
 ^ /V - -% 
 
 .r* 
 
 ,/»'J 
 
 / • • !•»**« m) »fi« *014 wK*! «N«H46 *4 
 
 f. 
 
COKTENTS 
 
 page 
 
 Introduction ...1 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 Joseph Wart on's "Essay on the Genius and Writings 
 
 of Tope. "•••••• 5 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 Owen Ruffhead's "Life of Pope" 20 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 Hear the Close of the Century 34 
 
 Conclusion 54 
 
 Bibliography 56 
 

 
 
 !■ / . , ■♦i 
 
 .■•f > 
 >. * 
 
 *f 
 
 ,87riiv 
 
 A*- 
 
 ■i-.i 
 
 .V * ' 
 
 X. ^ * .col^’ocv.bita^ 
 
 wyxMii* fiax5 Hutat^ oif* iro vaasiP %’iito^‘xall x1q«i»o^C 
 
 e ^.9in\ ft> 
 
 S h'VV * 
 
 ■■ ' —'rt 
 
- 1 - 
 
 THE REPUTATION OP ALEXANDER POPE PROM 1750-1800, 
 
 The works of Alexander Pope have given rise to a more var- 
 ied criticism than perhaps those of any other poet. Some critics 
 place him as one of our master poets; while others scarcely give 
 him the title of poet. Some placed him near the level of Shake- 
 speare and Milton, while Joseph War ton in '*Essays and Writings of 
 Pope” said, ”The sublime and the pathetic are the two chief nerves 
 of all genuine poesy. But what is there transcendently sublime or 
 pathetic in Pope?” 
 
 To account for this wide divergence in opinion we have 
 only to notice the different times when these statements were made. 
 If we take the criticisms of Pope during the Classical Age, or 
 v/hat is more often termed the ”Age of Pope,” we get a far different 
 result than upon taking the criticisms of his works in the latter 
 half of the Eighteenth century, 
 
 ''' No author ever had so much fame in his own life-time as 
 did Pope, unless it be Voltaire, Milton never had great popularity 
 nor an age of his own as Pope did. Although Dryden and Pope wrote 
 in much the same style, it was lope who brought the methods of 
 Dryden to great perfection and was accepted sovereign of the epoch 
 
.coal -0.^71 apjTH aio^i %o .m^ATursa 
 
 ■>'’v 
 
 ;v i '’-j 
 
 -tjBv o:coiii 4 nai-x /xeylg c*f/srf 'teJba^;>lA io sjLv>^ 0 ^ 
 
 ensioe . t<5o<t *i9ii^o ^0 ^aod& e<ftidr^'i aac'J taoZoi^lio !b»l: 
 BriT^ \It»ox»ca erarfdo to^»«ci ^iro lo a«o 3 ^ 
 
 -eolaifti "to It>val o<lt •xijQa wlrf 5ooaX^ ,tao^ lo ocCJ^.flcrlrf 
 
 ’to iaB' axoa^l* SLt oc^'ui^W iff^^eoL ^Xtilw laottllK fitta eido^c 
 
 .s6*noii lolxfo 00^ od^“ axa oXtc’riXAq ham BtaltdoB ^dT ,Mb8 
 
 •X.0 mnllduB Btadf fil ^advi ^bH .xaa^l ooltJiioS IJa-rJo 
 
 ’'?oqx>f al 
 
 DYBCi 9W XtO^flUqO ttjt 6 Oii 03 ^ 9Vi:li Ofcia Sirf^ *10^ ^£IX>000 jS 
 
 ■ J> . ^ 
 
 oiiofr Qj-iXQOToXsile adaitf ajdii Ijiciolxlfi diw oel^Ofr 
 
 -to >sA XaOi>eedIO anif ^sitirX oqc^ to anjaXolifi-co ectt %J 
 
 » ■u. • ■' ■ ■ ' '-^ 4 y ■ 
 
 f zB tolliJih 0 tog »w V<?^i lo i>gA*' orftf toarrot nano ertoa sl 
 
 'loi’taX orf? 3l, aaC-row ai^ to '8«eXoltlto arft galatat aoqii :ustiJ tiffs'^ 
 
 * -•*■ ■■■;»« ■•’, ■^' * ' '■ • ‘ 
 
 * ‘ .Xxutjctoo rf;fao«t/fgXa orit lo 
 
 *’'S ” 
 
 Bii 
 
 " % 
 
 
 affl£t~otXX flwo oli tfl «aj»t d^c' 0 ^ i$a^, -lovo cR 
 
 '-p^#;, . > - iiAA' 
 
 TtXxaXu'Toq tBoa-g ioii -jevoot aotllXJ .®xXatXo 7 &<f tX aaoXtur (O^o*! 
 f' W' 
 
 r ©tO'tT. ofoj fcoft.floJ&XTO ngiioxftXA .r»A‘ eqoX bb tiwo *^'eXtf to ob, ■totr 
 
 ■ ' ’ V’ V-, ' 
 
 ‘ to ai/Ofl'Xect erft trigi&oid’ orfw oq:ot 8Bw ti orft .doi/ffl 
 
 i(00^8 Odt io XtgX6T®V08 Xot^OOBB OBW fciW XIOl^ OOl'tlK^ tAOtg Ot rteiXXO 
 
- 2 - 
 
 of connoisseurs and critics. Pope, perhaps, held a higher place 
 in literature in his ovm day than Lord Tennyson has held in ours, 
 for Tennyson had nohle rivals and friends who came near to him in 
 fame, while Pope, until the publication of Thompson’s ’’Seasons” 
 in 1730, stood alone in poetical reputation. 
 
 This with Thomas TTarton’s ’’Observations on the ’Pairy Q,ueen’,” 
 and ”Essays and Writings of Pope” by Joseph Warton night be said 
 to be the first works of importance that led to the roraantio move- 
 ment. With the coming of this movement we cannot help but recog- 
 ni?:e the waning in Pope’s influence.^ 
 
 This decrease in the power of Pope is most obviously seen 
 in the editions of his works. Of the collected works of Pope there 
 were eleven editions before 1750* Prom 1751 to 1770 there v/ere 
 fourteen editions, and each publication was comprised of from four 
 to ten volumes; the greater majority being taken from Mr. Warburtonfe 
 edition, which appeared in 1751. Between 1770 and 1800 there were 
 no editions of Pope’s collected works’, but three of his poetical 
 works (incomplete) and two of hie complete poetical works appeared. 
 Many of his poems were published in "British Poets" (1773) and 
 "Poets of Great Britain" (1782) by Bell; "The Works of the English 
 Poets" (1779) by Johnson; and "A Complete Edition of the Poets of 
 Great Britain" (1793) by Anderson. Of the editions that contained 
 two or more of Pope’s poems there were nine edited before 1754, and 
 six edited between 1754 and 1800. Thus we see the decline in the 
 editions of his works from the first half of the Eighteenth century 
 to the last half, but the greatest decline of his collected v/orks 
 
10 
 
 ■[ t b£'?"i , njaJ'j . * . tirta " i., • - 
 
 , i. ^Xo.’I ; . roT’ ‘>:r. siwt lin ::i art' ■^'zc -j :i !*■ 
 
 ni .ui:l r:* rx? Jiu^ dlMiVtrg 'm;oo.i ;.,-■'{ x<' .'■ ,:<j7 T^-' 
 
 ” an :• .'.’ /i aT *^o .1 * ooilU'Uq -•‘••''t fl-f-ar , _r'i *j £! jv 
 
 . 7 M >'. .» L'cjs 1 To a i j*© 0 f X O'T ) I .- u c 0 + % , r: ' 
 
 -C'- • •■’'■ ' ■•- ••JO c -r flies Vi; ffrfO*» 
 
 rtjD:' L"'' :!'s/e*£xi7? ;'i«;U'''L Tcf '‘e» lO 14 1'l'* ■uy;-‘'-'S jl*’ “? i; 
 
 - •v.jn cl^•:-i.4iIO^■ ©.'i'-t oe f-o.: t 5 0:r3.>‘to::xr»i; ':o jytTcrr- iR'xi’! 0 : .: wc' “* 
 .ilsr' Ivijnro e v -r-^irt x : ;,ni.i' j<j ©li^ • ••-.■ 
 
 I':... ■: . ni ' 
 
 .'r©f'U vI^^ufolToTo V-or* 3x ‘ '^w> -roTyg-v^ or(t 3 - -cLfT 
 
 ’ V'i'j 'fS^o^ 'I ' a>(‘iorv J>3e':aiIco o,-M "^0 . Xl')yf si,’ Jo i'xoi:' 1‘ '4 r 
 
 . . 9%o '4 O.VKL o4 r oi--? , OC .' f ©‘tolucT -TOli:*: C. 'It-vo C3 >j •• 
 
 liJCi ". ■: ntiq^OQ ,aaw rlosi*-j z. ^ •;TOJ:eib0 
 
 {not'xr:f*r v-i •■-ojL'j: najfai Ito ; 303i.^'-C■T ;fc:> 0 
 
 •'.. -j.,- aZBui 0C*‘*I >.-Xii OV7X ::x.-j' ' ■ . 12 VX £tl bat^sfiq.^ ££&••' _ 
 
 C.i-olvloo^- \.:.r: " .. ; ■ ..v bo: :-CCoo 'i'" onoi + Iixf on 
 
 .:^9'zzoizz Jjcoieaoq . ; i<’ ^.0 b::^ (aJ-sI t^xn c rt 1 ) 
 
 finiT 1 } ’* art©o*I ‘ff'^:,!:;M'rS*' ni l»«ifdi.Xd‘y':i o*t©*.r emt ■ ai.i ■■. ■ " 
 
 ofjl ri-rc-^ adT** ixlsK ' •; ir-r: '^o. ce^o-:*’ 
 
 ■lo ae6o*J Dili Jo noielf^ Oj a A" . 
 
 .’srfixsA.'rOf) t*:ne a.iotJKbts ^ii4 ’Vf- . i vcf ' «nh.x; xia 
 
 ^^: .'xTr aTcxC’-f b:.‘-^i:-. oxxirt. 910W ote.Cv ■■ ’ ;.^o5, •*’A "^-iors ■ 'io 0- 
 
 rl'^ .it ©:'Tiri5©£> vxr 9,7 -01U. .no.'ll br:c >7'? I Saeibr V: 
 
 ie ;t;r>e-i ■•' IH Jo Jlxai ^'d’xiJ -y' A n:cT't Pixor 'iri Jo . 
 
 •::r: :■. aiiioc'r't’ "xx lo o'.lr;>©5 ^y . :)»"'■ :«?-£i AasI »rfA c.: 
 
-3- 
 
 was from 1770 to 1800 when there were no publications. 
 
 The “Dunciad” had great popularity in the first half of the 
 century but not so in the latter half. In 1728 there were four ed- 
 itions, nine editions in 1729, eight in 1742, and one in German in 
 1747. Eetv;een 1725 and 1735 there v/ere over a dozen books of essays 
 and criticisms v.Titten on the "Dunciad." This shows to what an 
 extent it was being read and discussed. But after 1747 to the end 
 of the century there was but one edition that appeared and that was 
 in French. 
 
 Of ”Eloisa and Abelard" there appeared but one edition in 
 English betv/een 1770 and 1805. There v/as an edition in English, 
 French, and Italian in 1791; one in English and French in 1796; 
 
 1795, one in French; and in 1780 one in German, but was only one 
 in English. 
 
 Of the "Essay on Criticism" there was an English and German 
 edition in 1745, and four Italian editions before 1760. Of English 
 editions there were three before 1750, one in 1751, eind that was 
 all for a hundred years. 
 
 Of all of Pope’s works, the "Essay on Man" had more editions 
 from 1750 to 1800 than any of his other works. Before 1750 there 
 had appeared eleven editions in English; one in French and English; 
 in the English and German there was one; one in French and German; 
 two in French. After 1750 there appeared fourteen English editions; 
 two French; one English and German edition; one in German; one in 
 English and Italian; two in Dutch; three in Italian; and two in 
 Latin. We see there were not only more English editions in the 
 last of the century, but more foreign editions as well. This, 
 

-4- 
 
 howerer, is unusual and is the only instance where it occurs. 
 
 The ’’Rape of the Lock” had fewer editions in the last half 
 of the century than any of Pope’s other important works. Before 
 1750 there were six English editions; two in French; two in Ital- 
 ian; and one in German. But after 1750 there were only two 
 English editions and one foreign edition in Butch. This is peculiar 
 since it, more than any of his works, shows romantic tendencies. 
 
 Not only in the more noted works of Pope is this decrease 
 in publications shown, hut also in his minor works. Before 1750 
 there were two editions of ”¥indsor Forest,” hut not another until 
 one in 1794. Of ’’Imitations of Horace” there were eleven editions 
 before 1750, hut there were none after that, nor were there any of 
 ”0de on St. Cecilia’S Bay” after 1750. 
 
 Because there were few editions of Pope’s works during the 
 last half of the century in comparison to the first half, does not 
 necessarily mean that Pope’s influence was entirely gone. However, 
 it does show us that, although there were enough editions to supply 
 the people that read Pope, there was not a demand for Pope’s works 
 as there had been previously, nor were the public in general read- 
 ing Pope. 
 

 "■ *iirf i&al f • ' :^^ v'. '•..•jK ".load o/-'’ "!o ''q.sfi’’ dffT 
 
 ^''CO". . ‘'^' W strtfi^T. ir/"' c 'I •’i o \' 'ijs. r ;-'.':t vtr^.v-jo i 
 
 -'..‘I ,-:a t»w ; rr. \jyri ; nri'>r^ it»t> ; a?X 5 .r<!;i '?". 8 r t <;C^ " 
 
 err* ^frio 02? X 'XOj'tfl JirS . ..„,sX^ r?i ©ao \(W‘ 
 
 eX" aiiJ"' . tait r;X i' 9rro blUi • a c It its iii»j^,ni 
 
 ♦ rois^ :•••'• ■ i r.ii 9T0f , 'to v^ii; ni><’w ©*£ ' , * * o-'-li. 
 
 ain^ ^rX ' Tc'^r ::? -.oc? oifvt 42 •■ 
 
 *■ 
 
 C. 'I j'ro’:-^" . -Ztow f-iif" yX ) -,■ Xi/T /":i!'oKa 
 
 '‘id’rrij 'isrr^cr.'i .• t. •'; Xacf ■.Xas'r;*^ 'xooeriJWF** •'?■' s.; jX* ?• "* &:or 
 
 eaci;! :_>£? f;»-v3lc "cos^fcil I0 s*t *^0 , r r?i r.cic 
 
 ?c v-rn,' o"£-3i:t voX^T-:* s.'Y'.'ii . j*'is?r 010 iXt X ero^iW 
 
 . c’', X ^ -O efcO” 
 
 'i 
 
 liili'ivb iJ>:*-:c’V Oc vV.? vajjnooS 
 
 -'.•••• ' 
 Ct'j.t ■‘X' ifnZJ t>di 0^- i-ton Xxaqr*.;^ t or.X ': • ‘i ."Kr: 
 
 ■ '7' ' ' ” * 
 
 , . •,] fST W ffd ■ • ? O’ ioi/ .rSta i <. * ■*<;? 0*1 j‘:‘"n'X 
 
 ■'•' •ucliil ' \yf'<-:w a*if i xtaori* Xa , ' t'" ea -.''C/Ii 
 
 S 5 ''C“- ' ‘ *3l> fi ierr ajsr/ G'.::"''- , ' Xiij'x X.a.Xi o’X£^..o<|: 
 
 , • 
 
 :^‘ion'jy. '.‘.1 ::^"-:':'X ©tsr '£'^' . ‘ 4 , . ao-7.c c. 
 
 * 
 
-5- 
 
 CHAPTSR Om. 
 
 Joseph Warton’s ’’Essay on the Genius and Writings of Pope.” 
 
 In the present day there is still much discussion as to 
 which of the criticisms written by the Wartons, dealt- the greatest 
 blows to the classical standards of poetry. The criticisms set 
 forth by Thomas Warton in his ’’Observations on the ’Eairy i^ueen’ ” 
 were considered by many to hare held this place.^ Although his 
 work may have been of great historical value, yet it was not as 
 direct a criticism on Pope, nor was it so opposed to the conventicns 
 of the age as was Joseph’s ”Sssay on Pope.” 
 
 This ’’Essay” published in 1756, was the first severe crit- 
 icism made upon the reputation of this idolized poet. Hitherto 
 the public had lauded him almost unanimously. The discussions 
 concerning his works had for the most part been those of commenda- 
 tion, with the exception of attacks made by Dennis and Addison, 
 which were the results rather of personal enmity than a disapproval 
 of his works. Under these conditions it was only to be expected 
 that the appearance of this unusual and startling criticism should 
 create a furor in the minds of the people. 
 
 Although the ’’Essay” contains much incidental praise of Pope, 
 it depreciates the order of poetry of which Pope was the most 
 "^3:*illisnt representative. It seems to be ?7arton’s desire to over- 
 throw the school of Pope and to substitute Spenser, Shakespeare, 
 
 1 ’’Thomas Warton" by Clarissa Rinaker. 
 

 -.vW -tiJ j: 'I:n 
 
 .. : ..«. ••: i;.:£^.;’cislf-> ^ j,':eaf. 7 q ^ 
 
 » Du»i'- . ^''£ 15 ^ au OXOi^.^'Ip •if:^ 
 
 ■}o,i U1 ni. '■- i,V’.'Ca fc.-.'* . ,.-* ‘PC' « r*-':'! '.a.: £o orf^ 
 
 «_ »:-i?5L-iv V- •:/;‘g;'» .. L;.. rcaccfO'’ IL' ^'i. cc;^-i.-r C.u\i^crrr -^cf 
 
 G . ^*vcc;{^ XA •' . ^o:^£z • • iri~ ^i:c»u "’v;: . • vtf ;c 
 
 .c-thlOP f?r q L>t tPiii'qqij '-' e jX C.jW 'iC t 
 
 il .-ro ^ s j 
 
 
 s/jr 35 ? £ <U ’’xca?::” 
 
 cd’V'- :i* ’■•^* ,w9 >'- -S.'*’. -tI f'.jf»i^ s.ti..- *1- rrol^iP-^^flo'i - 
 
 a."v.:..;«.vP8i6 S-' . •, . ^«o«i,Dr n;i:l fee '?W‘' C r.-r 
 
 ;. CV ■!•••. yncr:.t ,iW:* -"Ir ^ 3 icv ' x J gn "'r:cr' , o 
 
 ■• ■:■ .-r. "1 0 :tolicooK'^ 
 
 :.'»U*f Vc' X-i-’IS iO '■£ wf^f?'X £■. J 9 'Id ' ' - 
 
 *V:- 
 
 ' ■ T ■ « 
 
 ■t vx-o cx>?ir -^k,r- K-^Ucrca t- on? . ’'x 
 
 j-.X^.'^^rr KX* j. cX Jr i. '5 r.'^'‘:"ftXL isftx, , <’x$i'*’itfrtX' t;ir{\f oorr.^'G'''- _ _ sr.» X'- -5 
 
 .■ xqooc 0,£i -'-» afenir - rti 'text 
 
 to Jj- tr. 9 i'.f:cc< I nom t^.^i-SJ^froo ♦’Y>v;aL” p;fi r*,,, 
 
 ■;or 3 0 £i: 
 
 J »V* 
 
 •» . ', *r*i' ^ 
 
 I;-. 
 
 ... t',- ..‘xe-- a.!' i.} (a:r.-r# ..-j;#r.»-')<*?%C»» ■rislXn^ ' 
 
 coq ^ *ro.*“'.aO e'''{i}’ 
 
 ./• . ." < 
 
 ?■ v X--.c*nq* r.'.^ r'VX o 
 
 . .- .fv-'m ALOixi.-X? ^ix^Tor-rr’* ‘X 
 
 '' racflOMMm 
 
 P»v -Jfr 
 
- 6 - 
 
 and Milton as models for the young poets. The tendency is to hrealc 
 away from the classical standards to the freer spirit of a new 
 romanticism. 
 
 The central purpose of Warton’s work is to distinguish the 
 kinds of poetry and their relative values, and to establish Pope’s 
 rank by assigning him to his kind. ^ Until this book appeared, Pope 
 had been considered supreme among living English writers, and it 
 was hardly questioned that he ranked among the greatest poets of 
 all ages. Warton disagreed with this prevalent opinion. He 
 placed Pope rather among secondary authors and reserved first place 
 for Spenser, Shakespeare, and Milton. 
 
 These older authors had long been greatly criticized and 
 underrated by leaders in the Augustan age. The pseudo-classical 
 critics believed that definite rules should be followed in writing. 
 Spenser, Shakespeare, and Milton they believed were unfortunate in 
 not having sound principles by which to be guided. Had they lived 
 in the classical age and imitated the models rather than turning 
 to nature, their reputation would not have suffered as it did. 
 Dryden thought to improve Milton’s "Paradise Lost" by making it 
 conform to the conventions of the age, and he did rewrite it using 
 the heroic-couplet. Addison in the "Spectator" praises Milton 
 in some respects, but on the whole is apologetic, and complains 
 because he did not end his fable with satisfaction. Pope himself 
 looked down on the Eli^abethian Age of dramatists , and although 
 he considered Shakespeare a genius, yet he thought him greatly hin- 
 dered by having no principles to go by, and also by the "Barbarous" 
 age itself, in which he lived. 
 
o :o' 'li > J ^ (?5rr :' fi 
 
 c a '4. f 
 
 / 'i 0'^ « fC: ^ Da 
 
 h - T.l# 
 
 tft. 
 
 . • 4 
 
 c 
 
 
 rftii ff”;: ; J a tZ; ci; i w s *4 *iW '4 v JUJIC* 'dv 
 
 r-.'i-^qo'T .■:ai:MP.t..t' -'t t , Ts*! Iw4. iw 
 
 V, ' ■ :^' 3 C<Tfi 5iw'-‘Q' . •. i;i' J?iif in irf _i,f- i;r.-;i eSB VoT ; 
 
 , -i: 'iniviJ • -ia :-moo tso-j ■ 5b 
 
 ’10 , * .aiiDCB ,&C'::.iUT; .•.: * b^y. j' Sijg \,Lbit:^r -i8*,’ 
 
 • ‘J 
 
 f . j.yif'jO w':'?' .!'.’/ Te''-* y‘. t f>oc'j ' • . ^’r* 
 
 C'" ia*xi'j r ■v'‘:w • I - ~ 'zm -if» D.fC‘ ^ 
 
 b'ti' bosiotit^io ri9j'' \ iqZ a’sc.'.-ii- ■i. -'. 
 
 ‘ i'..:o: ■ii’-'Ip- .’.^^'ssc on'l' , o': 1 :ri .:-: T '.cT bo^^'rtc- 'L’’ 
 
 *7 ITT* i-rJt bsrol/ol ^i'•o;k' v '/■^vfiixocf ^ -.:^4*xo - 
 
 a-ifirfA' i-cclnJU' ^'xow Ifci* v,d.'*w fro;^ ::oDwr.-i'5 , •?© ncte^. 3 
 
 ^•jSfevi ; Vtsvy bli-y 9--S X**r rr brrvce 
 
 v"'--*:' - (.F.'j *14 iJ'i:*r fxciB t»^' ^:c.I';^ei:Xo -S 4 ^ 
 
 3 1. 
 
 . •■ ■ :*“ :. ::« . -'0 wOK i>rifcv Tfsxi^ , ‘ -r v. 
 
 c» ! ^fTr'^LLiT V ’’-^■ OvI 9fii.bxuu. ■'■ 4 ’' -.'aIO^X^:: *rc'icr-\t :*i; 
 
 V •■.?:. < 54 : Si bib Oi{ » • sni 1c axtbiy^ruvr* '. c 9K- oS eno7,'cr. 
 
 r:oi.’ j.M ©fij .iu rrc^ibb-^ . : . r :'-'f o-olo'xtp. ©Hi ; 
 
 .*i*r.l- : '’qzjiOD bfi-u ,. ' 6X*i xrc Sir'f , 3 ioeq. 6ir-.ou rri 
 
 I.''- iiiv ^1*^1 :iij' ^tXL ccd "Xb ©f'^ft^ixjui'oo 
 . H'-.i/cHv Xfl - . :’> t*3A t».'i iio rifob r.-j-'' >X 
 
 1 • ’ . ■ 
 
 -v’i.*7 vj'i*'?-?';’: ■ . t'i i.iri:cr{;’ ©:£ J^\;. , - '!aC'V 53-xfl&qeM9aCic.‘:3 bc'robtaxrco 
 .. ♦ ' •• • 
 
 "ni;o-:. d'X.'.ri*’ • i \;J OS Cb ftrtr , ; *■ og. oi et r^i ic;/ I'x-.: ccr ^rr ^rp.- •'•n'tO'- 
 
 b-rtvil sH x,fGl- \7 ifi ' ,1-Xe>«i - f 
 
- 7 - 
 
 The apologetic attitude toward these writers had been prev- 
 alent all through the Augustan Age. For Joseph Warton to place 
 them at the head of all poets was a startling and unheard of class 
 ification. He placed them there because their works were imagin- 
 ative and were filled with the ’’sublime and the pathetic", while 
 the poetry of Pope had neither *of these. He had none of the 
 passionate sense of the beauties of nature, nor was he a poet of 
 strong imagination or of great enthusiasm. He lacked the deep 
 insight into the heart of man which was so characteristic of the 
 other three. The "sublime and pathetic" which ’barton declared 
 were the two chief nerves of all genuine poetry, were not to be 
 found in the works of Pope. Thus the reason for placing him below 
 the supreme poets. 
 
 Men of less poetic tendencies, but who excelled in the 
 rhetorical and didactic were placed in the second group. Of this 
 group, composed of Pryden, Prior, Addison, Cowley, Waller, Garth, 
 Fenton, Gay, Penhaun, and Parnell, Pope was considered by Warton as 
 the best, because his genius was particularly turned to the didac- 
 tic and the moral, and because he gave the best work of this kind. 
 He even excelled Pryden, who was very good in this species of 
 writing and far surpassed all other writers in this class. As a 
 wit, a critic, a man of observation and of the world, he judged 
 others by his own feelings and standards. His quick tact for 
 thought and manners as established by the forms and customs of 
 society, is evidenced throughout his ^vorks. He was a poet of art, 
 but not of nature. It was not the manner in ^ich Pope wrote that 
 

 
 
 '..t 
 
 
 : -7-'’. r " :'. 
 
 jj 43 ' 
 
 
 n:rrf'-' 
 
 
 < ■ 
 
 -/ ( V“ 4 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 ;‘hi . 
 
 si: " ^ 
 
 ' r Xfc* *' ? ' 
 
 : 1 
 
 - r s ^ 4 
 
 •‘-'•tr-tMummiHmUiim 
 
 
 ; ( 
 
 *:} 
 
 V\ 
 
 I ; 
 
 a 
 
- 8 - 
 
 Warton objected to, but it was the kind of poetry he disliked. 
 
 In the third rank Warton placed Butler, Swift, Rochester, 
 Donne, Dorset, and Oldham. These are men of wit, haring excellent 
 taste and fancy in describing familiar life, but not the higher 
 scenes of poetry. 
 
 In the fourth group he placed Pitt, Sandys, Pairfax, Broome, 
 Buckingham, and Lansdown. They were ”mere rersifiers, however 
 smooth and mellifluous some of them may be thought to have been.” 
 This enumeration was not intended as a complete classification of 
 writers, and in their proper order, but to mark out mainly the 
 different species of our celebrated writers. 
 
 By way of adverse criticism, Warton speaks of Pope’s facile 
 method in copying from other authors, and it is quite true that 
 the ideas of other authors do predominate in his works. This is 
 obvious in his "Temple of Pame." This hint he received from 
 Chaucer’s "BEouse of Pame” though the design is really improved by 
 the hand of Pope. His "Rape of the Lock" which is the best heroic- 
 ’ comic poem, shows the influence of the three following works; 
 
 "Rape of the Bucket" by Alessandro Tassoni, the "Lutrin" by 
 Boileau, and Garth’s "Dispensary." ' The imaginative element that 
 exists in this work is mainly founded on the sylphs of Boileau and 
 Garth; although Pope did not create them he has used them with 
 great judgment and skill. 
 
 Pope himself declared that all that remained for him to do 
 was merely to polish and perfect what his predecessors had written. 
 
j Taj;*' T.‘"C'/ 
 
 
 T»i.i r 
 
 Td' -gr; , ,X 
 
 : (V.' itl. ^ , •■* *•?*-■ 
 
 trf'!T : ■ ; I tn.9 i 
 
 V* • -’If ,i8‘. '‘ ' 
 
 , ;.* Li<‘« ‘ I' t V 
 
 T.'-r , :u-’i‘x'f , t ’ '■.'I ''?rr 
 
 ‘ii ’/'ir?'. , .' * ifiT .0 . 'WC'bSrt^t , 
 
 - c - ^ 
 
 Cc. X’TE.'OP A '*i.G ■'C'.'t ri’- :» c kO‘rti“nxx#::s - 
 
 i* 
 
 r ; '• f‘:7l/^£T ^'^0 ^ , ?' 'v ^o^w-.r t rtf 1: , . ' -T7T 
 
 iiSJ'iS-L J$>x ©0 -ao I-'': i:e- T,-;- ' oi. ’ 
 
 — ' * ^ ti. . 
 
 / '^fT'cd' ‘■.'i'.i.'i ■ d -'.. , ■■' ' ’t0p'fo’i yrriv*; I'-o r-i Jbs. 
 
 . ;; 0 V - iit r.i ■■"'i bQZ-~: . 2'i0;idi-r a©^d’’-' 
 
 flfOi 'C ' l O o©*t* ©f( '' ":■ • ', ?*; . 
 
 ■i X; 
 
 l*< ■ 
 
 f/S— .rt'iKi xr--,o-z i.:.'. •'.:,.:.aa»h ^:^UonJ ”f^..ru,c l : ».%-s:vO«^ 
 
 Cl d e©c( ■ *'’ ■■ ct ir .-. 0"*\ • j;'? c •/;••' " ei;' . i • \ a;.d 
 
 J..tl£>-c ' :,? ;<c;’X-J *:c '^OriDJJ n ■’-'■t 0170;-’ C£3'-ru 
 
 V.' T*" jiu :, ‘. ' c-rtoioa© :,/i ••. d ';.<9 
 
 vc» ©■’ id"' . . vTwan’oa’Ri'T''^ 3*Jd'''xr: ■'.!*> ^ 
 
 . oc^'d .io V: .': ■''t.w :'r: „is4 ^ 
 
 r;«r' '**■• c -f.-z-ct doii f'i'- .,; ; ,‘t^-O 
 
 ,. [:i.: ■■: ' dnt., 
 
 
 c: 
 
 . 1 . . , ' -r 
 
 Vafi; rXB ii. j 6r'i "09ti I "c ' ' i/i srq-j" 
 
 i A>f ‘'.viCf t‘ 
 
 ^^1CI c f,\' 't' iw 
 
 . - , I 
 
 ih '.-J; oit 
 
- 9 - 
 
 Warton discountenanced this attitude. He thought, this equivalent 
 to stealing from other authors; and his estimation of the poet*s 
 writings was much lowered "because of his lack of originality and in- 
 itiative. He said concerning the ’’Pastorals”, that ’’there was not 
 a single rural image that was new, and the descriptions were trite 
 and common.” Although Pope improved what he "borrowed from other 
 writers, yet Warton thought that his works were not original and 
 contained nothing new. 
 
 Warton admits that in some of the works of Pope is seen 
 the tender and pathetic feeling, "but not in many instances. In a' 
 few cases where this spirit is o"bserved it is clearly a result of 
 the occasions when the feelings came from the heart. Thus we find 
 this inspiration predominating in ’’The Elegy to the Memory of 
 an Unfortunate Lady." Here the occasion for the work was real 
 and this reality seemed to "bring out the inward emotions of his 
 soul. The very response of Pope’s emotions at this time seemed to 
 "bear out Warton's maxim; ’’That nature is more powerful than fancy; 
 that we can always feel more than we can imagine; and that the most 
 artificial fiction can give way to truth.” 
 
 Another fault that Warton found in the poetry of Pope, and 
 in poetry of that time, . was excessive description. Throughout 
 the classical age, description was general and not specific, was 
 indefinite, gave no vivid picture, and nothing was mentioned by 
 its common or even its technical name. Poets might choose the 
 simplest of ideas and even these were accepted, providing they were 
 
jc.' e*'-' ' s f c ' 'r-orrC'C' ^ :c .dII 
 
 / 
 
 • .V’tJ' sxdur arr w ' ^1 »; I L 0 , • t caw S>c ; •. ; ...i .x « r ^ 
 
 v-.;-:*- ?r? ' / ■ ’'•eT. 
 
 *:{c ,?>r. jr.'ti ancsv i\:c ’ -j':.' 
 
 ^ ii ,. ' "'■■'I - V rti';‘ '■ ■ ■ 
 
 jj :i . . VI 5 y<Tj’" r:'; i’orr i'U'/ 
 
 '; o::vi :A ^ 
 
 . if 
 
 ,:; eticN •■ 
 
 ^ '*« 
 
 T .1 - ' 'fer::' ‘ ■-< ‘ 
 
 ' ■* ri'=3^'t. a y.Ltc^.'‘o fc-^ ‘'"Tx-eotfc ’»■ ii :> r ■■. : >.• , -I 
 
 'j.'r '’ "yw Oi/ir” .■‘Ti!srl r;,-.-" i-5:* 3 ; .Lr.?:>’'. e<i« m . r "-•'■; 1 i^vS;' 'uli 
 
 x^-uar^ tvi'-^ -‘CT” rri rvcli' ..i. ..;i 
 
 A-or.- .'lid? Tvt !^ ifi^ccc ef>t ert^H - ' . . • ^ rra-v* rolrfO 
 
 r;i<' .; ; IV' .’ :• 'icf' c;t i Olr ' ' v;:; 
 
 Oi't iy vi'. ■jrT m oas6%p5', ■ 'v' OiJT . '!.;’ce 
 
 VI 
 
 ?■-'* , .:-H to v-tJ .4 '■ "-.f::'- 
 
 • '•, : : . •' -1 ’ X'i' 
 
 •. 5 y : c.fi'* a ' ?• i.r: 'j' :,:; 
 
 X'- t L • T D i -J /i i> '■•T CJS"/' gfi ii':: i c r: £f>, 
 
 , ?rfy •.•■ Toc .'vo Jtx^JU 
 tv,’ yi>r:j 'J.tifclTOl ...Ow'q^JDOfi 
 
 '(.'z-’i 0 . ■ , ',>»< w -^6 xT-t ^wiy 
 
 \Hw nrci^qx' ■?* 
 
 ' 'i. ’'-■*• on €?*" , ' ‘ '-•-•^nA. 
 
 r 
 
 . ■ ,^-r -^4; tv.'Ye Tio Vra'ii •' ' ‘: 
 
 f oiii>~:' ..evo 'i;;£ fcanfi' *lc ii,e u< 
 
 ( 
 
 f 
 
- 10 - 
 
 told in an elegant manner and were put upon a high and lofty plane, 
 above the comprehension of the average reader. This artificial 
 description was not written unintentionally, but in accordance with 
 the aim and theory of all poets striving to follow the example 
 given them by inferior models* 
 
 Warton held opposite views concerning description. He be- 
 lieved, before Wordsworth, in drawing with the eye upon the object. 
 He censured Pope because in "Windsor Pores t" he described rural 
 beauty in general and not the beauties peculiar to that forest. 
 
 Pope lived very near to this forest and had every cpportunity to 
 describe the beauties that he actually saw there; but he purposely 
 avoided exact and specific description because he had an erroneous 
 conception of the superiority of a generalized and abstract beauty. 
 Warton, owing to specific description in poetry, thinks the juven- 
 ille descriptive poems of Milton are more exalted than any of 
 Pope's, but adds that they are more incorrect. Warton had ideas 
 contrary to those of the classical poets and believed in giving a • 
 clear, vivid picture and in referring to objects by their real 
 names , 
 
 An essential quality of good poetry is the adapting of sound 
 to the sense. Milton and Spenser, as well as the poets that felt 
 their influence, achieved this virtue, but Pope, different as he 
 was, did not maintain this quality. Consequently his lines 
 lacked to a great degree, the harmony of their verse. A poet 
 judges the harmony of his 'verse by trying them on his ear, the 
 
 ( 
 

 . i . ! .larofi^'Lqr;: f ■:■'>■* f'. ’ 
 
 >e I.." 
 
 jCx^ici^Lit 
 
 eor:«i>*xc;'C^. ‘ .’ ,’ /affc/ic * ' ' 
 
 4 
 
 oicrfwr* '■■’ J wo 1, ..ot ot r.'.vri*ij aJoc " ; . /'.'.-i? c ijb 
 
 ' . ‘vrf 
 
 -tVi -2'f> :_, ■ O.’C'J i:V,- ’**• 
 
 o-'*- .. : :.: >-:S ' -'T '.t« ‘ ' , 
 
 j 
 
 ■ Xr’*: ’■ ^o ■' '. *i3R£)s^ ‘tv'bbfi .'Tf •'^ •! eciUjRai)- '•• 'if t- r" 
 
 . lij'rolt .■* '*.* M'v i. Tx;y®-> sir;-:?':. ■ 5 '^r e •':? icn .trrc rtj. v,i’'br ' 
 
 Uv \*lr ■ -'■^ v‘iS'^«' *.v\f ifiib 0^ Tn?'" fcar' 6^( 
 
 r<y • *? ■r?'‘r'»:9 att C-'r;,' r.-: ^^;ji .^o i.*:.' ^•.' .Nt£' ^cu--'K5> b9tl( 
 
 vyi if.--.r *r,>. it Hf/f ^•'' r i; ’'ilg. ■•'1 £ '■ • v:^i’*rr ?:'r ^qjLra '•■.’ J" ’to aci 
 
 ni . rtox.‘ j ’S :^n‘- , jibV' 
 
 *■ V w £i 9 :f '‘cxg O-T-O"; 9 T:^ ’tc 
 
 
 ““•ftbl ■iv^o-rs’-'’ . ‘ eiw' \v 
 
 >• -i. r. * 
 
 1 - 
 
 r’ * 
 
 n Ir nx ^ vf* ! ^e-‘. 
 
 »i ■ 
 
 fXo a:^+4;iP-. &vv'f-J c;‘ *xco‘ 
 
 f.aiv*r '£[•■-'■- c:? -f.i'f ai bnfi ■ ':: , 
 
 :'-j : ' ■' ' *'-;f:b.: -?n^ «il 
 
 ^ r*'!’. j-.-t'."'- '.r^-. 6 q' &a £.kJ'‘ 
 
 \ 
 
 ni; ' ■ ,■>;*». c<! Hi'S , 
 
 ■ I'iif 
 
 ocji '^0 ■ ^'y S‘ ' i '• 
 
 , *16 Wf f' '’l 2 ■^■;f a ;t r w r i; ' 
 
 ■* - 4 '*^ 1 . 
 
 0 ^;* .-? 
 
 
 *e *'. >1 ,J. xl'.ri* 
 
 j . I C. • -J. • « 
 
 • Iv e:\rfv* fc-jTgl/: '' , ,] 
 
 . ' ^ ■ao.? t 
 
 /ri 2 r: ,, 0 -:,b 9 / *: o« ' 
 
 J -I »4>*x- •'•'.* .:xv “^0 zad e ’*■ • 
 
 r*?-' 
 
 ^ . ' 
 
 :> if 
 
 MMMHpi 
 
 ’ - ’ 
 
 , 1 ' Xl .. 
 
 
-11 
 
 tendency being to set them all to the same tune, and this was 
 Pope's error. He has in general , though not always, intermixed the 
 pauses, but he has not varied sufficiently the swell and movement 
 of his lines. He profited very little by the musical versification 
 that had been given to him as an example by Spenser, who was more 
 awake to the beauty of nature than almost any other writer. In 
 imitation of this supreme poet his stanzas have disagreeable and 
 disgusting sounds; and one would almost think that they were a 
 contrast or burlesque of the exquisite stanzas in the ”Pairy 
 ^ueen.” Warton cites the ”Rambler” as having clearly demonstrated 
 that Pope did fail in this endeavor to adapt sound to the sense. 
 
 For many years the one accepted form of verse had been the 
 heroic-couplet. Dryden used it most successfully. Rarely has 
 Pope written in other than heroic couplet, and when he made other 
 attempts it was without much success. This form was still being 
 used during the nineteenth century, yet it was far from being the 
 most favored, and was replaced rather decisively by Keats and 
 other romanticists in their use of the run-over couplet. 
 
 Since the models of the Age of Pope used herioc-couplet 
 almost exclusively, it is only natural that other authors followed 
 in their foot steps. Practically all poets used this verse until 
 the romantic writers began to copy from Spenser and Milton. 
 
 It is true that Warton thought rhyme was more proper for 
 shorter pieces; for lyric and satiric poems; for pieces where 
 closeness of expression and smartness of style are shown, but it 
 is unusual at this time for anyone to sanction the use of blank 
 

 ' " 0 ,.','.. ('i XJ/» SS^f> ' .'■ r 
 
 r-‘ .i ar.r-' . ‘ r oJk H&i . ■ 
 
 i ’ ' .r. •' >"0 ■ XJ.UTW 3 V X^i/TB i '4 -fS'.'l .'V j or {Kta' ' ^ 
 
 'jii) bt 9 
 
 , , . r’P i c ri:. r u 
 
 ^X'rv -j-ai/X'’ ■,. : . " ■'i^' Z^:- ■: *!; 0 '^vX‘” 0 '^ u ' 
 
 oviv' o#'' -r"c?>. ain' ^ . z: •xstjz *i-o - ::.^ :i;«. 
 
 . o »- ’,' ';■ ■ f i-Z • ' X : / : 1 ’. J fa 0ti\ r « 
 
 ■i 
 
 ii C J - 
 
 •rrn f- :X- ; ^feiiu< ^ i: ...fOL’^wXd 
 A ' i ■ " - -*) J ‘:<B tt px© Z. , ori^Ufi Z’zuJ i:c i a.si f'T^- 
 
 vr*' Si- fc.’: '^^rv**‘^E£:.'I’‘ e.’C? -wi+t.cjW ". tss-i;; 
 
 o.’vf uj- f '.TOi,'' vf ■'.■'T-pofrrtsi r.-i X ■■*•■: Mi) o 
 
 Qd;i irje . 5 ' ?* or- 9 ’:iq «.K:f 'i 
 
 u.'rf ,v. ^ '.'.;eoo<;a J^ioa .coi)^C- • ' ■* 
 
 “IV ©rf v' XciT'irf iLSi'iv* 'UpS* Z -' ,'Sw"-X^’ f'.T 3 ‘t 
 
 ■■^.JU fXii^ 3 £-; nri?> r;.t.'? . ' i. 9 OJJ R mm. if: .Sin. 
 
 ■ V , ■ '■ 
 
 Cn’j rfi :* . , z./Su 9Q sf-:--t9--SrzLl-i jirrl'xi'' b ^ ^■ 
 
 ’^-C? X ,£'</8'X fi.“u .bf^’zovhJ ^ao'ir 
 
 1 ':?si:oi;;‘ajer:on 
 
 . ;■ i> I.qSf! Cv *1 1 V C f LTX a ^'1 ' -' j X A 9 If ^ 
 
 ir/j ■■ r.-i' >• ‘ boejL^ oqc^ I*.. -V- -' Sl'S-^c ' 
 
 , ^_r*vi . vl 5 iX« isrrrXo 
 i . 
 
 6 #f^OXIoT -i*-.-;?' J-/' ef xXnc si 
 
 ‘ ]:.:.>/?«■ .3 ■.*i. 5 v - &®sir ££&., ::ia jt- o*! c* 
 
 . V- r.'. 'n 7 .s*.««a^ .ac*;! 'u-'od .--i rrjB?i©;r 
 
 1 o'.ccv.t e«r- Jn'..;.* 0 i 4 %? ■•Ow’x^Vf + '•' ai -f’*- 
 
 v 7 D>. ; 'V :. .-r fHta' oiT:X -i;'^ ; 3 -o£iu ' i-oda 
 
 & ■, 
 
 lo t ^.■-. •'zrr.B “iff 3 !'•: ' ■•:oXc 
 
 •• 
 
 0 3 .'.' ©.'•? i'f< XJ-Oilil* Ov 9 fi 0 ( 7 «fc 
 
 iili j'*. rr 
 
- 12 - 
 
 verse in any kind of writing. Thus it was an ext roard inary 
 statement for Warton to say, "For subjects of a higher order, ^ 
 where emotion and enthusiasm is seen, or for longer poems blank 
 verse is certainly preferable.” 
 
 Warton also finds fault with Pope on the score that his 
 poems do not show enough of nature and passion, which our author 
 believes to be eternal, while ”wit and satire are only transitory.” 
 This view apparently was not shared by Pope, or perhaps he readily 
 forgot it; at least he seldom wrote of nature, and rarely in 
 passionate strains. Consequently, we may expect that his works 
 will not live as long or remain as popular as the works of the 
 '•sublime and pathetic” poets. The only instance of the pathetic 
 that Pope has given us is to be found in "Bloisa to Abelard” and 
 "Elegy tq_the Memory of an Unfortunate Lady." Warton believes 
 that the reputation of Pope in later times will be principally 
 based on”Windsor Forest”, "Rape of the Lock," and his "Eloisa to 
 Abelard” for they are endowed with the more lasting qualities. 
 
 ^ Pope, although he was the great poet of reason, and the 
 first of ethical authors in verse, held to describing modern man- 
 ners; and those manners because they were familiar, artificial, 
 and polished, were in their very nature unfit for the high and 
 lofty plane in which Milton and Spenser wrote. He did not' allow 
 himself to be carried away by the subject, and what poetical en- 
 thusiasm he really possessed was stifled and withheld. Granting 
 that Pope was one of the most correct and exact of poets, he still 
 

 '.’iteL'S 'i*?srrp 
 
 n 
 
 * L -iu: . . , ■: ■;•.•■ '. : 
 
 • • 0.:;. 'Xol" ,';;5::. rj- 't-j'.: .?;; • .9^xjjd 
 
 ■' . ■ , 1 'Uj'.tVae :’ ■ 
 
 ^ . •: X':fr*5:>xC‘T>; • di »e*r*T- 
 
 ■; Cl*'-, ■ iiwir t ocija 
 
 . Ijl'., il'u :;o xif' C'';.^.'5 't 'tc rvu-j'^.-> 
 
 
 . ; . X j arfj^w' -'in S'l.-:*::* Xai" < !*' ■‘•'•■9 
 
 vX f frj sxsv,* \X,-'- '>'^sa:rA 7.-'^ oi/'T, 
 
 ■ ■* . *MX‘ . - ' . ' 
 
 fT' \;Xt‘':t''2 .■TofcX^K oxf J’Gjbc'X .‘ ■ ; •^ ‘ 
 
 aX'Tor r-X.'t i .'div :^ v£-ar , r r'l,-:; . '■' ■;■- •■ . N‘t «jr:v iaeu<j^ 
 
 ^ o -‘r* “I : r un 
 
 ~X:-:To/'‘ j.’ X rrl-arsi -r-: 'i-ioX a° eviC SJlw 
 
 '••_ L \'S Xq aaruSv 
 
 X£f c e<. uci S' 0 i 0 '-i -I ^nc/^ &£r: X •* 
 
 >*:/: '*?'•!££; oJ aX s*-' px rt^ri 9<in^’ , 
 
 GevfllXo -’■ '•■'- ■I . *nr:-I : ?c v-rcrroiT o;f? * 'aeX??* 
 
 'X f>- jlisy ■'.■ X '. :.' i. t '.-rf;S 
 
 . Oc BSioia" x.'i b:-* ", oo^I sx..*- ^o jaf»;i3fl , •'-•i:/': loaXxrTi' ''■ .c ' 
 
 . :'>Jt^ iliii/f T>r/e eTJ? x-eriJ 'ic^ ’ 
 
 fnX rvf«»' , '•■• uSC-'-X ''•Xt' sus'r od d"i-Oii* S‘- , '"T'^^'T »•■ 
 
 , >ist!Liv:M- , c- .1; rixar.*!’: f^Tsw ti.::r/y.ood:- [encf 
 
 .'5:r- 'f Jil'ij;; ;:-xjLX”r^ --/i' v fisri'cS r'*! ban 
 
 wo • ,iT ' 1: . X' ‘x;''''.i'Tn'q'S f •£! ' uOiriw .ti a'Tfil'T 'C'"* ' 
 
 ?'■ 
 
 -,r<' $ndvt ^:t3< ■ ‘Xor ^ f'si’X'S/J o c Cw T.. - ’ 
 
 . 'j.:.'. i ''.^'ix .* h:ta i- 'a:-- 'BClj' ^ rf irari ^ 
 
 ' i , ■ -■ Jcx'-jca io^TL'xori iniT- od^ I''* ■•re afi-*,' o-xo*^ :;t",rx 
 
 
- 13 - 
 
 lacked in ‘brilliancy, since he seldom succeeded in transporting 
 his reader, and our minds are not affected "by his lines with the 
 strong, fine emotions we experience when following the thoughts of 
 Milton and Homer. 
 
 In judging- Pope’s works we are apt to forget that his were 
 "by far the "best and the most copied of any during his time. In 
 criticizing poetry, he gave his own personal opinions, in which he 
 rarely took into consideration the environment and, the conditions 
 under which the work was produced. But Joseph Warton set forth 
 a new idea concerning criticism in his "Essay on Pope" similar to 
 the one Thomas Warton conveys in his "O'bservations on the ’Pairy 
 i^ueen* ", and Richard Hurd in his "Letters of Romance and Chivalry." 
 Warton claimed that it was only giving an author due consideration 
 to judge his works in relation to his purpose and his time. If it 
 had ‘been the aim of the poet to instruct and to teach a moral, 
 that work would at once differ from a poem that was merely to en- 
 tertain and amuse. The country from which he came should not fail 
 to "be taken into account. For instance, how a'bsurd it was for 
 Spenser to introduce wolves into England. Culture differs greatly 
 in distinct localities and would undou'btedly influence the writer. 
 Not only the country, "but the age in which he lived plays a dom- 
 inant part in the style and manner of a poet’s writing. The poetry 
 written in the classical period differs in many respects from that 
 produced in the age of romanticism, and the differences are largely 
 due to the opposite standards of the age. 
 
 Warton concludes, that after criticism has "been extensive 
 ll&V0 
 
 and the rules of writin^oeen established, there has never appeared 
 
- fr ' ■ ^ ; ■•'' •' ■ :'^r fj'.-.'cusX’ 
 
 i{* ly : ^jL-ri %v ijy.'CL'I*. ' ; o'ijs 
 
 '^0 .!■ ?■'.:/ ,l£o1 .ip .'v »o:t»i'i6<;[xs i.w t • ■*■' • 
 
 - . i.T. . " ’ ''iM 
 
 ?'C£*i«r- u Lrf ^ -' Tfl O'!;,' ^w .’.‘r-rc ■ ' ' * 
 
 . '■ ' si-’f v'':.'? lo' : cs '* ' il^ ■ ‘i;. ‘ -f- ' 
 
 .>:•' ■ f':oi!.' •? 'tj: ■ , rt. ■ 9 . no vzoVi nw^ #r/ , It -3 
 
 ^roi j’ i^rroo «rf- ,jbc'ii tIv/t!? f'^lai.^c o n.^ .' jTwu*; ij 
 
 :t£>a :v f{fj oQC - <i . ryeoi/ftc’s:''. *’• t 
 
 li Ts.r: .’.'S H9 - i .'•BiDiii'xo rrfirrteorrco "-on ft 
 
 f 
 
 Of:-> lu 5 ■ oi^*tvT’^ ^v<fO'* jtt*: 9s:e',:.-o orto ^ .5- ||)p 
 
 -V, c '-'V L": '..re !5ori£noS ia'isi*';fdvl’’ sli^ nJ. &'TUii ' 'rr.rfoiH ., " . ’xiO'ji/p " 
 
 ' {’'■.*?> t ■' ixB '=%*■! i'v. I ^ \X- ’^ • ‘■r i'.i. d“-vri^ ,fc?© >:?.' Ii>’ rrOwt-T 
 
 f.: ', . .li.;}’ eAi’' i;:f ' ©eo«i*tL'Cj' <3^r* iTc. J:^.: Jit .ii -iCtvv- ■ .. 'X'i, w* 
 
 , Tiitoir B c.* t'l.a .+ii.rxi;ini cJ - oq e.ai 'ic ix-i.' '’'•''i' 'yi^- 
 
 - le OiJ Sj&W J’>. J r-'!^ _ ^ i> V.M OOilO f bi? 
 
 X.st .‘oa or.jes «jr; r.otl ytc^^ac•o .'-oLccia feat.'’ gj 
 
 ^Tr. -i;:n VC : 1. to**- . - nctfi sr' .. J 
 
 V •;,?■ rx«f.: .EjfxsJstS o.’J.''! svii'Imv jrrbctv^sri. c* tr'ctov^u 
 
 . ;. ; : f iivczfn'.Ctai- • ftc'-fTtr £> Ci’-ciV,’ soii I £ficoX '-JI- »ti 
 
 £rv2X e.' ti ©'\£J t- 5>''J yrn"> J-c" 
 
 : , /- . ‘ttJiVff .» +« oi3f T. ••: ' •■• aXt^^a s. ri l ?■-• t* 
 
 Ji!:..’ r.vt': t** t,,ii '■ vltr.M:': -j -.v-ri ti 
 
 :‘. vr.*j C'JX rib 31(0 bt/ , - - --xr t ‘Jo ' •• 
 
 '.t r:£'.c.^Ji>’' 'v r. !>i ,''’ ’Jo : qo - .i.? i Qpb 
 
 €.v 7:0 •‘lej^d’ *■<;. i ■■•■'f.to t?#4V> tri. ' , ''.r.o.-.. 
 
 f; 'nn . 
 
 ’Or(T4l ana ©••■■■•..J , ‘ is iXv'B-i^'"! .tooa .;, ■' £Tf lo 
 
 > »• 
 
- 14 - 
 
 any very excellent work. This remarkable fact might be accounted 
 for in several different ways. Either the natural powers are con- 
 fined by caution, which arises from a rigid regard to the dictates 
 of art; or reason has destroyed sentiment and caused our poets to 
 write from the head rather than from the heart; or succeeding writ- 
 ers in striving to surpass the models became forced and affected 
 in their diction and thoughts, 
 
 AlthoUtgh Warton cannot definitely account for this state- 
 ment, he has observed that it has been true in the past and cites 
 examples - in the case in Greece, in Rome, and in France , after 
 Aristotle, Horace, and Boileau, had written their "Arts of Poetry." 
 In England the rules of the drama were perhaps never more complete- 
 ly understood than in the middle of the Eighteenth Century. Yet 
 what uninteresting, though faultless , tragedies have been seen. The 
 works produced by the three supreme poets was at a time when there 
 was no strict conformation to standards. 
 
 How different is this belief from the Ideas held by Pope 
 and other classical writers. They believed that a work was only 
 excellent when it adhered to certain guiding principles and strict- 
 ly conformed to the rules. When a poet did deviate from the 
 standards of the time he was severely criticized and his work had 
 little value. Pope advised that the short cut for a new poet was 
 to consult the critics, who had already drawn up their principles. 
 
 Thus in looking at each of Pope’s works it is quite evident‘s 
 that those which are satiric, didactic, and moral, outnumber those 
 

 ,frr : ' 
 
 . -* - i 
 
 
 'T f ^ 
 
 r . 
 
 ■ ■' - ibbiiL^ a -. .j ; o:' 
 
 r;^ '■j.;^^ 'f^-'r . , ■ '. ' '.: '/• ^rrirrrJ 
 
 , 3 Oj .i., .^.) ■ .. . ' .'■ '"T^r Oi 
 
 w r* ~r :;vii’*J' .’; ':i' ’ ,>.' 
 
 ''~t ). 's - ■•• ■ ■_ . ^ i; x> *0 "vf’:* 
 
 w ■• cM .Ifill— -fAPr 
 
 ■C-, •• ^ 0 .' . " ■ . 
 
 ,„ /cf'-: - n.-'’ .- '\ • ' :? * ' '' ' 'i- 
 
 -.< ** t •to.'fj I'V'- * t5s s ;'. . . .'■.' 
 
 h-7.'^ uu’v 5 
 
 i.^ 
 
 ■'V ' JU- 
 
 it. ^ 
 
 
 
 ■ <r* . ' !C Br 
 
- 15 - 
 
 with the more natural and pathetic emotions. Because of this, 
 they are not of the most excellent poetry . Nevertheless, there 
 is much to he said for his characteristics of good sense and judg- 
 ment which undoubtedly were his best. His traits of fancy and 
 imagination, though not entirely lacking as we have observed in 
 "Eloisa to Abelard” and "Rape of the Lock", were indeed not his 
 outstanding personalities. In practicing the leads of French 
 models and especially that of Boileau, of whom he was a most 
 earnest student, he became more than ever, a firm adherent to 
 strict rules. As a result his pieces were polished with utmost 
 care, while he himself came to be known as one of the most exact 
 and correct poets that ever wrote. 
 
 Joseph War ton was a learned scholar in his day, and in his 
 "Essay on Pope" we see an exhibition of his knowledge and his 
 appreciation of poetry. To us many of his passages seem trite, 
 but to the reader of his day they would appear original and sugg- 
 estive. Much which seems to us familiar and obvious might not 
 have been so evident when the essay was written. 
 
 This young author was the first to attempt putting Pope 
 in his proper place, and since it was so long ago and the romantic 
 tendencies are so firmly established, we are liable to forget how 
 much we really owe him. 
 
 His first volume was published in 1756, but was so in op- 
 position to the opinions of the time, that it was received with 
 universal disfavor. It was not until twenty— six years later. 
 
^ in 
 
 X ’ .T 
 
 K -s’ 
 
 I j,‘ i. (^oa^ 
 
 • • 
 
 1 *:c sfiiKs^ ’../riJiC* 
 
 JliiroJ , 
 
 ' :!-:U'itS5T u. 
 
 rv* % 
 **- • 
 
 * J 
 
 v< ' K 
 
 .'ir; 
 
 •»* . • T * C •, 
 
 ■C ; > i:J; 
 
 
 ..'7 ■' 
 
 *r>i 3 
 
 
 <a^ 
 
 
 . 1 ’:. f--. , 
 
 
 
 W Iv 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 t 
 
 t 
 
 
 
-16- 
 
 in 1782, that the second volume of his most noteworthy work 
 appeared. It was dedicated to Young, who held in common with 
 Warton, many of the romantic tendencies. 
 
 Warton*8 first volume, although it was liberally received, 
 was quite generally disputed by the literary men of his time. 
 ITevertheless , his volumes on Pope have been commended for being 
 judicious in their remarks, which were delivered with an air of 
 candor and liberality. The “Critical Review”^ recommends the 
 first of the works “to the public notice with pleasure” because 
 “it breathes the spirit of true criticism, unbiased by sordid 
 prejudice or partiality.” Warton was received somewhat as a sen- 
 sation because he dared to attack so great a reputation that 
 of Pope. Those who criticize his first volume speak guardedly 
 concerning it. They think that Warton was too severe in many in- 
 stances in his criticisms of some of Pope*s most beautiful lines, 
 while he is too profuse in his praise of others. He is not jus- 
 tified in some of the criticisms which he makes of the “Pastorals.” 
 In contrast to the opinion of Warton, they think the sound of some 
 lines of Pope is admirably adapted to the sense, notwithstanding 
 the demonstration of the “Rambler" which was so convinci-ng to our 
 author. They contend that Warton *s assertion, that the sciences 
 cannot exist in a republic, favors too much of the “wild spirit 
 of a democratic enthusiasm, which some people have imbibed from 
 the writings of the Greeks.” This spirit, although at first no 
 more than a mere affectation of singularity and superior knowledge, 
 
 1 “Critical Review" 1756:— Page 226; Volume l; London, 1756; 
 
-17- 
 
 may gradually grow into principle and habit, and may daily gain 
 strength until ultimately it would betray the possessor into all 
 the absurdities of an ’’overheated imagination.”^ They received 
 it, however, because it contains a great number of curious and 
 entertaining anecdotes of literature, and because it is ’’fraught 
 ^vith a world of erudition, almost too ostentatiously displayed.”^ 
 The ’’Critical Review” pronounced the essay^, ”a work of taste and 
 learning, animated with many strokes of manly criticism, replete 
 with knowledge, and diversified with a number of amusing incidents 
 and observations.” One scholarly and very capable critic remarks 
 that the ’’Essay on the Genius and Writings of Pope” is on the 
 whole ”a most entertaining and useful miscellany of literary know- 
 ledge and candid criticism, containing censure without acrimony, 
 and praise without flattery, and abounding with incidents little 
 known concerning celebrated writers, with remarks upon their 
 characters and works,” ^ 
 
 that 
 
 Thus it seemed throughout the age, ^ they admired Warton’s 
 audacity, his candor, and style; but they clearly hesitated to 
 
 agree with his statements, and generally opposed his views con- 
 
 s 
 
 earning the stability of Pope’s poetry. Dr. Johnson seemed some- 
 what indifferent to the essay; yet he immediately took issue with 
 Boswell when the latter remarked that Warton had made the most of 
 his cause, for Johnson believed the cause to be of Warton’s own 
 making. He even expected that after the first volume Warton would 
 not continue, since he had not been able to convert the world to 
 
 1 ”Critical Review”--! 756 ; Page 266; Vol’ome I; London, 1756. 
 
 2 ’’Memoirs of Joseph Warton”— Page 33, by Wooll , John ;London, 1806 . 
 
1 
 
-18- 
 
 his ideas of Pope.^ This helief was erroneous because in 1782 
 
 the second volume appeared. In fact, it had long been expected 
 
 and even called for by the public; and when it came afforded much 
 
 2 
 
 entertainment and instruction. 
 
 One writer, Ruffhead, even openly attempted to overthrow 
 \arton’s stand, when a few years following the publication of the 
 volume, he wrote of Pope under the patronage of Warburton. His 
 purpose clearly was to defeat Warton’s statements and to correct, 
 as he said, Warton*s misrepresentations. Ruffhead places the 
 purpose of our author as a design to diminish the lustre of Pope’s 
 reputation, to degrade him from his rank as a great poet, to deny 
 him any degree of invention, and to set him lower in the eyes and 
 estimation of his admiring readers. But, Ruffhead, though he 
 labored hard, could not depreciate the veracity and sincerity of 
 Warton, nor could he render the critical decisions disputable.^ 
 Webbe in a letter to Warton agrees that Ruffhead had added noth- 
 ing new in his work, but had rather lowered his own reputation, 
 and had almost made himself out to be a fool. 
 
 Prom the volumes themselves it is apparent that Warton was 
 so far from engaging in so ungenerous, so fruitless, and impotent 
 an attempt to lower Pope’s reputation, that he has used the most 
 scrupulous caution in speaking on so delicate a subject. And thus 
 AThile Warton gives due credit to the classical school of writers 
 and duly praises Pope for his satire and fancy, he still remains 
 firm and unshaken in his general contention that the highest art 
 
 1 'Boswell’s Life of Johnson;' Volume Il;Hill, Georgs; Oxford, 1887 
 
 2 "Critical Review" 1782; London, 1872; 
 
 3 "Memoirs of Joseph Warton" , --Pages 35 and 36; by Wooll. John; 
 
 T.orfdnn 1 AHA • 
 

 
 t '■ rjf.. uf; '/ I' •' 
 fiS’ li,.' . *■ srj 1 .•fs."'*v 
 
 •-.•» ’V** 
 
 ■vo’iv'^ -t'.'vo Cv .' ■? ' 'oX.:*.-?© :'i t , 
 
 »i- 1' : i*JS ij ! "^r. i’ -ivO j!Xo^ m ij:i.t\ yv-i m 
 
 Hi , -[ ' i'Ui I'W': 'y oJ.t egro^ . .. ^ 
 
 - 
 
 • “ 'lit- . i 'i: » a^■^ru*:.!^V: *d?*^s£) Gj Sfia 
 
 o.<i r-’^iO; -.r'- *r :; ;t '■'f 
 
 , ' f*’r.' 3 r.C pxl^ iw* . , .;i * ' • c ,6 •scj:' . 
 
 --i t'-f: : t i.~ ^ /-jtii fcfp 
 
 ?"rC ^ * 
 
 '• iJ -3 ' 
 
 ■< - 1», !, n + ■' 
 
 a •«! S3 2D5«lt £('i inc'il s^id o;u'’?:i,3L .. 
 
 
 ’ 3 'T /j .i. j^', 
 
 
 ’■■■a,’ ti.-.- >Tir 4 »» ai'i 
 LdJ' iS^^jDd:i»*eii iTi ' . 
 
 ufirqt tinci oii '' '"so'l'j;-. -jr.* • .■ /; ;j, 
 
 iw^s>i 2 ?' r/c.^T 
 
 r 
 
 , i- (- -i^ ' • 
 
 ,;•■'• .'-.‘a;., 'I’ ITT',' S’’'' •■ TSdim 5 /j/i •** , . r'j; *'fr . -ri: 
 
 • . '■.'Ol f'r sd “••-'.■’31 tv .tr-"-' 
 
 * • ' ' • 
 
 -I'v r;o.‘ - i:(v ■-•/■> :>t 5'i eev “ '‘'••l' i.^Xcv :; d^ ii 
 
 .i-j - ! .- ^ , .‘»X,» \ -.!:'^ '^iJJ Ofi '-r n’ ;;,-v I-OV* 04 
 
 - - "-.t , •’'OiJjs T^si<|o^- -•'~r I : ^ .* 
 
 . *' . . d' ■ 0 fi tr*Lj::i r^i^) OK fTO jjfr -'1 0 rri -it: v. 
 
 jL-- ^ :r^ ' ^ ^. 00 [ 
 
 ' ' *^* r 
 
 prlr-^>yi c 
 
 * • • it . •- * ’X •• ' * . 
 
 V r , 
 
 
 
-19 
 
 of poetry could be brought about only by the love and sympathy 
 which the poet has with nature. 
 

 
 "I 
 
 MO/ Of'-* ■ »L'o.'- 'ii^L/orrcf :--r 
 
 .' •'' jr ! BC.'f JsO" 
 
 ■'Hr ^ ’ 
 
 i 
 
 
 ^ f 
 
 .n 
 
 9 
 
 ~d‘ 
 
 4 
 
- 20 - 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Owen Ruffhead’s "Life of Pope." 
 
 With the passing of the half-century mark came the grad- 
 ual decline in Pope’s popularity. A few of his staunch friends, 
 hovrever, strove to stem this outgoing tide. Ruffhead in all en- 
 thusiasm and sincerity endeavored to defend him from the attacks 
 which Warton made upon him in the "Essay." The "Life of Pope" 
 in which Ruffhead discusses at great length the criticisms made hy 
 Warton, appeared in 1769. 
 
 In this work he explains that the purpose of his history 
 is to relate without "bias the incidents of the poet’s life. He 
 follows Pope’s life history, interweaving it with his writings, 
 and does not omit any just commendations that occassionally appear. 
 Ruffhead boasts that from the criticisms of other authors he will 
 form a general and reliable standard whereby. the "nature, force, 
 and extent of Pope.’s genius" may be measured. He, however, failed 
 to fulfill this boast, and his work has never been considered a 
 standard one. 
 
 To gain a clear conception of the genius of Pope, Ruffhead 
 engaged himself in the study of his biography. Eor, as he said, 
 the life of a personality is depicted within the vn^itings of a 
 
1 ,' 
 
 ► 
 
 
 \ 
 
 \ t 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 t 
 
 . 0 
 
 -0 
 
 . : ' RHr -• 
 
 U-l ^0 6 
 
 1 . . >. # ^ -5 
 
 
 ■ Lu-'"; r».'l 
 
 S" ::. 
 
 '4 -*-* 
 
 i^SVi.df^croC’ 'j'l'TC i 'T.: :>'f . .*' C^:/ 
 
 r ,!» - . ./Cf C 9 T’ “ A XJ^K 9 rf..' a ) ■.? 
 
 'ii)i ■'" ^ itx ' ■" . 
 
 '• 0 : j; . ^-*; + ,vtiog>j'. . 1 £.;f :r. 5 .*? i.' ; ,w- + . ,i '&w 
 
 • J 
 
 • ‘-t’ "Ct* ' i «' * ^ r "• idb IS vi'- > ' . .;s;.ia'7tft 
 
 ''c'fv'’! “ ■¥-*'■ ■•.I* ertX *’ . ■ ;"R~ <?•'£■ :i e.l ^ 'j-- '.'-ir-'-r; ' 
 
 T 9 :' J* •> ' y£- :u;-' /ioLiw f«i 
 
 *▼ 
 
 
 :J 3 X ■' • 
 
 
 :.r.v.M Id ; v*v<^ e'* '/x^- 
 
 . "f 9 : ' 1 - -.i'l'- '. .; '" -"• 
 
 V'; >■ 
 
 , ' . 71 '^ ^':.' . s'.\r ff- 3 ‘^ir s' os-^. f" , tt ^y' i : 
 
 ■ W‘ . 
 
 .[rt'uici .: ’' >t-. Ccf -i;;>x?i>fcrf'j'. : d - s ^Lmo i&i 
 
 ^ ■ ,•'■;■ ’ y 7 : K’j't :I:J.’'r'' -:‘ : 
 
 ^ :-?i 
 
 
 ' . o ’ i>£v^ 
 
 ■ ■ rj 
 
 , \;VX:')air =) fVv U»: t/' .> v.: *. 19 ^ ■/' 
 
 It ' eXTiro’ 
 ; 9 hi 45 rr 
 
 . ib?T:j icx'io ^cT * 3 U/X ..;'3 ’ 
 
 <fc 4 
 
 tm^Tjs 
 
 i 19^11 luii J.10W 4Z.i O . , ' 3C';d UC'i'^ 
 
 
 '\ -I- -^r > 
 
 '• 'i **; ;;oi t.i[c ci'i'.'o XiicT^ m itIj?-;, o'" 
 
 , ' ,v '7/-'- . tr 3nli r,}'. *. t 
 
 ./ 
 
 ?< f 
 
 f. ■ 
 
 ,'o‘rxfe'i A In 0 J.lI 
 
- 21 - 
 
 man, BO that it is indeed difficult to discriminate hetween the 
 
 history of Pope, the man, and Pope, the author. It is a generally 
 
 conceded principle that the personality of a good writer permeates 
 his works. Thus it is that Ruffhead intended to substantiate 
 his ideas of the greatness of Pope, and thus it was that he in- 
 tended to refute the derogatory treatise, which had been put forth 
 
 by War ton. 
 
 One of the chief objections which Warton had found to 
 Pope’s works was that he imitated and copied other authors. But 
 Ruffhead believed that Warton was biased in his opinions, and 
 that it was Warton 's purpose to prejudice Pope’s reputation. Ruff- 
 head resented this attitude, and took it upon himself to labor 
 arduously to refute the statements of Warton. 
 
 Ruffhead declared that Pope's practice of imitating re- 
 sulted from his modesty rather than his vanity. Pope perceived 
 how defective his own productions were, and endeavored to mend his 
 composition. Thus he came to be a close follower of the masters, 
 and it was his habit to copy after the "capital strokes of both 
 the ancients and the moderns.” 
 
 Warton maintained there was nothing new in the "Pastorals." 
 Ruffhead asserted it was no more than Pope had premised, when he 
 said with all modesty and sincerity in his own justification of 
 imitation, "But after all, if there is anything of merit in the 
 ’Pastorals’, it is to be attributed to some good old authors, 
 whose works as I had leisure to study, so I hope I have not want- 
 ed care to imitate." 
 
f } 
 
 
 ■ m 
 
 5v« 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 ■ ’ • */.•V•‘^':^^ 'wi'i'i ^1 *L c« , ',r.r, 
 
 ! X :• t ,tr .'£^. ;V. • • . : ■ , -.in r. '* , '■- lo v*' : ' L.i 
 
 i' .• ■ '1 C I-Lt” rcoji Ji j ^,. ‘ ’ d.CQ ’’0 
 
 .- 1 m’:: I i‘* I ‘ V ^ ”.v r. - :riT . ‘•’U.n: ■’;i.-\ 
 
 5,-f .■ - le^.' ir ■T3U'.V- , u-1 ’ i::rri.'»:i'^^ *^c' :j& 6 • I'ri 
 
 ..';.'4 rrOOtf '‘>a' .-jI '* 9£f- .^t 
 
 t bL‘.i rT-..^'r«ir ;r' IrS q.t: i ^ . 3 tair.'r e *io ^ ic- 
 
 , • :i‘i--' r-Jfiij t^ir<'- .'■' ' *Wt -i*:?,’' «’ - r 
 
 , 3 '»'>i t*''r ■ *‘l 1 ’: >o-t:r J.;f .1 ■• i’-? 
 
 . 1 fisJnfiBi 'I .• : ?j*u' (•. ri^'r 0^ 9 soj*xl'.x .* * .*1 ii 
 
 '.)■■.•£. :;•" *):■- .t'J'li' 'I ’■ f»:r , + 
 
 c'^i’ £ 
 
 • v\*- or{:t 9iAii:is'X ^Xaw;;ft«Ji' 
 
 - -■ r*. 
 
 .. i 
 
 ■?. :;. TO. -'iT E*9C|e. ‘‘ /.J i>'*Tv: J ■ S'. ^ 
 
 - 
 
 
 .i!i-r. »I.H 'i-s+S.tr;'i v-:;f ’io 6^- * -'oi 
 
 * r> 
 
 .or ed I ^ 
 
 :\7 ift.o o': ^5 iroif 
 
 'V-.H ' Xol t'ftofd e.r C> t ' » ti ' 
 
 • ' • . 1 i -‘S^ieo'^ < r. t " C." - -. 
 
 * * . ;5'^ 
 
 Sv'i • 5'*-K?r ;• S bnr 
 - ■■ - ■:; : -I?:-'- a*' 
 
 •-'■'• ,r ' ^ 
 
 ^ ■ ' '''OT'st i./^.iS‘ .■'TO- ■i >' i y '■>*.* v'*i0a o«3 his^ ',i'5I 
 
 '.'5 ■ ovii 'S' y k •,*vi-i»a ' ' . '.& '■' 3 •^'^* IX* 
 
 ■i fl-u:. '..:• o. ,XI.- . vi/€" , i ' : * :• 
 
 _• ■-,*' •. i' bO 05 S.t *y<(i'xfS'JS •i'i oi ' ui *1 »' i {!“*; 0 ‘ * 
 
 ,, • 1 c ' *■ I o , ) ft^S- T tt« O'/ic." , 
 
 « . ' t:ai * 
 
 • I o 
 
- 22 - 
 
 It was the opinion of Ruffhead that although Pope did 
 openly imitate the ancient v/riters in his “Pastorals”, yet he 
 did so with the result of ameliorating their works. In some few 
 instances, however, he has not imitated, hut has literally trans- 
 lated from the original. It was his delight to imitate those 
 stories or passages which particularly pleased him, hut he did it 
 in such a way as to make them peculiarly his own. Not only did 
 he improve the passages he imitated hut gave many that may he 
 justly deemed original. 
 
 Ruffhead found fault with Warton because he unjustly 
 accused Pope of lacking in the qualities of invention and imagin- 
 ation. He censured him for not considering more carefully the 
 meaning of these two words before passing criticism on Pope. 
 
 Warton *E statements that Pope was "an excellent improver, if no 
 inventor" and "that Pope showed more imagination in his ’Rape of 
 the Lock’ than in all his other works taken together", were most 
 exasperating to our author. But, although he criticized Warton 
 on these declarations , he does not in any substantial way recon- 
 struct the poet’s reputation. 
 
 He endeavored to belittle Warton *s methods in this way, 
 perhaps , purposing to defend Pope. He ridiculed Warton for fail- 
 ing to define his words concisely, and seemed unable to take issue 
 with him because he did not understand their meanings. However, 
 Ruffliead was hesitant in making his attack. He excused himself 
 on the plea, that although defining words and terms was dangerous 
 
t n 
 
 >f, --n •io y- 
 
 - :* : X j*!:o>;^iull*i'' mii #i *’ I *?^co 
 
 ": "' . ' :c'. > J Cc/nenr ‘ ' •» . 
 
 i ^i^ o. ':■/ .1. ’ ‘rSMA'c/ '. fr .' -Cf/ox ' I '^q r ahJv uot^-. ' “ ^;ot# 
 
 - : '' , .’ 'o': , -• ir. '::■ ^- ■■:; :■• " -. • r.-ji. i.l 
 
 .'•.'■'t v*T'^" 9V.*3 -'•i;^'' (;.•?.■*.'■;'].■■' tt.'f »<ii’ ‘rf, 
 
 . : 'i X-'f. 
 
 vr.‘.. •''. i? ■ naujso&J [iv iw ^ : >. ■ ■ 
 
 .' ;*.:',i-*.:?v,^! 7 * . - ' ‘>'rr'»‘« i>eruDDJ» 
 
 3ii »'•' ,-Xf joi i'? *>urf r.': .': 
 
 .*T ‘ :r . ‘ " r q o Jj't •f, a ‘id 3 c 
 
 o*f 
 
 
 V 
 
 in: 
 
 V .,* 
 
 t '. 
 
 
 .ix:" ^ c'io^ ♦* 
 
 
 7. .;‘;.T9*>i: 2. X ’ crOw 
 
 .7’ ni asii.‘'..-Tc7 
 
 ■ X *>f»wri{a ;; 
 
 ^0^ - 
 
 fi" liiX? ‘’<X.>^.TLX' r 
 
 :tOX 
 
 ■w .i.V'f?w -^r 
 
 i . :c- 
 
 iri :l>: '-ji-o.: 
 
 !W' - 
 
 •” b'lXilr. ti'i'r ■ 
 
 
 ■> *r *r 
 
 ■>4. -V 
 
 ;;:; o’.^ /•• r f.xo 
 
 j't. ■ /-i"'’* -.^7^ Ci 7' w' 
 
 ''ii -- •. i. 7 af? ■'■ ■' 'b 
 
 , l .-'f . 
 
 i S •* ' . ' '■ c -9 *:' • • r . { 0 
 
 
 . -. t. X 
 
 • , \.' *i V 
 
 j i>*. r*-; 
 
 'iVv*9<‘ : ?r:t xax/'i-li 
 
 • '. ' • ci uf^C.‘.d'or: '^■* ull 
 
 It <•: ♦•: ..c*r . * -^rtxacwr-fq , ri«/^-xtq 
 
 ij ,~ 
 
 . ,.-t: :..r»r ’ brtrJ, 
 
 t>t oi' , . > '•X' i : 
 
 ;. •■* Tf*.‘ brris aMcw 
 
 ,, :%'■ V I c)«o c ' ? '.'. - ^ ■ .'^ di: i '• 1 , 
 
 “tjtfv'* M* ft ' ?>|j||fclid 0 fi'i cf 
 
 ^ v.r:-;.:r>'.- .•’: + .,■ i t*;w .' ---r 
 
 ir-r * • *■ 
 
- 23 - 
 
 in writing, yet one who criticized and disputed an established 
 reputation, should and ought to proceed, only after designating 
 the meanings of the terms he employed. 
 
 Invention and imagination themselves are very closely 
 allied, but are, nevertheless, some\7hat different in form. 77riters 
 often find it difficult to discriminate between them. Ruffliead 
 thinks that Warton confused their meanings and that he attributed 
 the power of creating to the imagination, when it rightfully be- 
 longed to invention. Thus Ruffhead disputed barton’s conception 
 of the meaning of the word invention. He also arduously endeav- 
 ored to refute the stand which the critic took on Pope*s claim 
 to originality and invention. 
 
 In discussing the "Essay on Man", Warton began by denying 
 Pope the power of invention. This indeed is opposed to Ruffliead ’s 
 conception. The ability of the poet to improve a borrowed thought 
 until it became practically original was rated by Ruffliead as the 
 quality of invention. He believed where there was "a just draw- 
 ing, an artful grouping, and a strong expression," in a well 
 chosen subject, it was evidence of a strong pretense to the qual- 
 ity of invention. Therefore, Pope should be attributed with the 
 power of invention, since he was a just claimant to these qual- 
 ities . 
 
 There was in his works so much concise and logical reason- 
 ing, and so much of poetic foresight that he seemed quite originsd . 
 His images too, which he used to illustrate passages, were unique 
 and striking. The air of novelty does indeed permeate every 
 sentiment; and human art is so excellently displayed that Pope 
 

 ,gft ; -^r . i 'le 
 
 
 X>4< 
 
 " ' Cw I/O hj.h ; « . l . ’ 
 
 . ' ..r / ;.t;5 i:'-coS o:<^ To X "'r mi 
 
 - a»v£#ii^: ri:)ii^rr *'^'Txr. .". I ' : ' -iwnl 
 
 .■'•f 15 u-t ’ .^i 1. 
 
 , ed iadJ *■:: <1 Zx-^'.'r: u . :ldi 
 
 -■ (ji •-'* , IJ 
 
 
 
 L- i; 1 ; 0 D'J <>Q « ’ ■ ■' :; ,> -T oV,' *> - i’/.' ; ^ 
 
 .' '. jj/i ;* 
 
 ..Vi.: { 
 
 • V. v£?-J Qt!b^^a O0la or; . roitru"? ! >Iv.’' 
 
 ’ yi rz /rc^ -> 11 ;-^^' . 5 a^:e 7 . 
 
 I !c» vf( 
 
 v' ' 
 
 ; : ttf an \*6/^ S' J t '; ', t:S'j.';<iif> itT 
 
 '■>or,: :rc hI ,f ’ ’’I 'ai.cT' .ao^^nciTv i ':o :v.-c': lav ( 
 
 • S-, 
 
 i'Ca-jCC'i 
 
 r b 
 
 ovo’X-'Jffi 
 
 X ?■■ 1 v*^ tl 
 
 9 
 
 tie ' : vll '/C-. .-.T 
 
 
 'ja- 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 X .o'a^jsa 
 
 / 17 X^'; : 
 
 •- . • !■ 
 .! ,.l* 
 
 •xo . •,•.-• 
 
 ; ^• 
 
 .k‘ .^ t 
 
 •i. 
 
 #• 
 
 .' '.'©niX 
 
 
 *?V3 
 
 1 Joef «•] . '^'.. 
 
 "•fin 
 
 X^SSr 
 
 /: n ^ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 :e 
 
 ,-a-;:/:;i-b‘r 'rMzf 
 
 « 
 
 
 c'i S'. 
 
 
 .t'f 
 
 ■j’tiQ ■*' t' 
 
 :) 0 
 
 ;■ ■ •5.:v': , '■ l.iu-' 
 
 ’ * . -nc 
 
 >'•*’7. Jt i;e-t T;;l4u*C £■/• i 
 
 r 
 
 V.‘ li:- lO i rs 
 
 } 
 
 '■ 1 v<-„ z>'''zr, 
 
 Air^vr; o tcsvp^ 
 
 . .ci:i 
 
 V- r:'t^e(' 
 
 
 i . 
 
 iv;.' Locsc/a cr’ iadi .' > ‘t ;V'i t. 
 
 fi 
 
 '.' jif ,-^'rr ‘A,.:'timA A . -' 5t'Ou’ o^i rfoi .r , ';t.j ^ ! 
 
 r<:fi:0£r.ar' i fx»oi;a'.i: '.006 \,iX0l^X-' 'l^'- 'XiiS' 
 
 :•- .V-* »'0V/. :'.ei5 v:r^.js/£n-ev:s 'tfv* a« ' ' ' n il 
 
 '•!» , 
 
 il.'a 5. 
 
 Pf|l> » ffc!» 
 
 a V* 
 
 
 
- 24 - 
 
 seems rightfully entitled to the attribute of originality. 
 
 Particularly is this true in the sylphs, which, according 
 to Ruffhead*s assertion, were first brought into poetical machin- 
 ery by Pope. He gives the poet the first honors in discovering 
 the relation between imaginary things of the air and "light fan- 
 tastic objects he intended" to ridicule. And because he distinct- 
 ly believed such a power to be a trait of invention, he is 
 surprised that Warton denied him that quality. 
 
 There is a decided difference in the opinions of Ruffhead 
 and Warton regarding the description of Pope. Warton criticized 
 the descriptions of Pope as being too general and indistinct; 
 but even if this be true, Ruffhead argues, it does not lessen 
 Pope *8 superiority when all circumstances are considered. Por 
 when Pope describes a scene he writes as he finds or conceives; 
 and if the region of which he writes is barren and extensive, 
 so then \vould his lines contain but meager and indistinct words 
 of description. Purthermore, he maintains that descriptive 
 poetry is but a subordinate in the rank of poetical excellence; 
 so he finds it unnecessary to defend Pope's inability to describe 
 vividly. 
 
 Warton himself said that the office of description was 
 to "brighten and adorn good sense." To employ it then merely as 
 a brilliant coloring in a poetic setting is to waste an agency 
 which can be made to represent an3 illustrate nature's most 
 wonderous beauties. Our poet himself thought that mere descrip- 
 tive poetry contained nothing substantial, and he humorously 
 

 yAXi^tfiooi 'tdotifV orii nl t?it4* nb f «X v'f^ OrcltiaS:' 
 
 i-<i.t/i0JB3i XuoiVooc P^ni 
 
 3 flI'A»r-j 08 i^ irl ctotSQti ©a'^ ^9oq 9it<t %tvia t?l .aijo^ 
 
 *rJ3.tX* ftrtB tls dK^* .'ffcorr^^f no.^d'i; •’a^ ©:ft 
 
 '%■ '** 
 
 ©rr ©«/«o©jf ftnA ’ .oiX^oiMi /oc^ •^a6R*^i i %f ^Sb^ltSc ^ 
 
 bI 9if: lo' £> acf e JoVM t^'rbi^^d 
 
 i^iSt Sid feaittJi 'iaaJtaq'Xiia 
 
 ,1© iartcJtfrX^o cii^ ai i?> t>aJ!>ip85 ^ eipifT .<S^ 
 
 to -^' ■ ■ . . *' V 
 
 . »q0^ 1o nrAX4tx^aeJ!> od& s^ib’Kv'^ik dfo^xfV JNie 
 
 ■“ ,- rt -3 
 
 ixa»4;9X ibii' s90^ :fi ,3«i.-3!r3 8cf oixitf rtST© ^y<f 
 
 1 
 
 jco? .ft«?Te6l8itoo ©TA »s*i ,»iai!uio*xJto JU© n^dw trc 
 
 -.v^-'’ ^ ■ ' .. X-'' . " 
 
 :ibviacfi©o TO sftr.il’orf na^^i^nr aK ar»o« » o?lo^ rfdxl*r 
 
 o 
 
 f ' * Ot - *S* 
 
 t^TisisoJ^xo X'ruBi ^:e■3:•xi^^f iii «»i^jTir itd do Jti'hr Jo'^ibcl^ot t>sfX bttB 
 
 ^ ' ] J 
 
 ^ud aJLBtdco eiif ^iOror rraiii oe 
 
 ‘ ^ aviteXTaoeB <4i:is^Kia«r iff .noi^giT&fi^ '^'o . 
 
 I ;BO*3©XXi>cqjH> /xoi,*ooq Ri ^eirXfcTOtfi/a a e,i 
 
 ®d‘!to»o» vrXXirfml a'dio^ ftno'laB ^aafioanrfy i-x iiArri^^o^'e^ . 
 
 -■ f* _, .^t .%jnbifiv 
 
 
 fW 
 
 (Sdr fxrliqi'xosab polJJo ^d& iBdb 6i«s ‘*jfea©TLi 
 
 * < , 
 
 'P'8ipr'«X&T€>«j aarTi il xpXqtna ot •.sanaa Bopg UTofer hafi rjc^rial?^*’ 
 
 * ' ■ . ■< ‘V •■ ' 
 
 '*■ _ r*’ pj'. 
 
 iis »:f9£rf o* a'i gnl^dhea oOvoq- © ffx fifriToXpo iftAiXXi'Xcf © 
 
 ,’v - a'dTyXaxt aiar^ayXf i Cn#' 5;t«^T9^W aXaicr ocf xtat .‘aixfw 
 
 -olToaaX oToitr ^ocm tj/ 0 auoTaJhfiow ; 
 
 t \XayoToicv£f Bttjfi , Xaltrtatfe<f«8 j^JUiier: tvit 
 
 t. 
 
 iMwarvimnaBaqiwii 
 
 
 >^a p> i w> g 
 
 ar 
 
 •V 
 
 »mu. i > n B 
 
 S 
 
- 25 - 
 
 compared these efforts to the absurdity of a "feast of sauces." 
 And as an effect of his belief we find in "Windsor Forest" that 
 he has observed description by making it the coverin,g for good 
 sense. Often where one is expecting to see only the paintings 
 and beautiful colorings, the backgrounds are seen to be moral 
 sentences and instructions. Thus we are often surprised by 
 virtue, and things please us where they are least expected. 
 
 But Ruffhead does admit that Warton was justified in 
 saying that a few of the images introduced were not applicable 
 to any place in particular. They are rather descriptive of 
 beauty in general, than of the peculiar beauties of "Windsor 
 Forest." On the other hand, it must be remembered that the for- 
 est at that time afforded but few images which were peculiarly 
 characteristic of it. There were no magnificent lakes and cas- 
 cades there for him to describe, nor were there the beauties 
 which have since become a famous attribute of the forest. But 
 those few beauties which were peculiar to it have been described; 
 and the descriptions of the other images which were not charac- 
 teristic of the forest alone, have been admirably done. Ruffhead 
 considered them to be indeed excellent in their kind, and that 
 they proved Pope to be possessed of a prominent talent of 
 descriptive poetry. 
 
 In one instance Warton preferred a Greek image to that 
 of Pope, because of the "pastoral wildness, delicacy, and un- 
 commoness of thought" it contained. Such a choice seemed strange 
 to Ruffhead, for he believed that the perfection of pastoral 
 
la Ji 10 9^;f oi ^asdS f'^ic^Dnoo,^ 
 
 "iT'O'lvrtT •spMUiiW^ lii Mil w l&ixod %lii 10 rps ^ foiA. 
 
 * ■' 
 
 bo {>3 ref ^i*ipv<No 9d/ il -' 41 ^ Jxol^^i:r!>;i9b te-rwotfo nasi &d^ 
 
 xJ^^ eaa 0 $ aJt •«» aradw rmlio '.9aaaa,< 
 
 ‘ ' ■•* ^ t 
 
 Xoiv^ri 0 ^ r ep*. PX*B uftavor^ead msii .oiaatriolop ortJi ' 3 > 
 
 • ■ • • . 'V ^ 
 
 * 0 Cf, boaJtic?!it-c rre^lo p*i-i wrr sjjii? , artoiJ^ouTcie^ti .’jntc »eotte^rtp« 
 
 " 1 ^ . ^aael a*x^ \3d& e^dif^ Oti •e/ieXq tao. ,t#oii 2 v 
 
 ^ "li 
 
 " £fi SictM !ie<»b MorC?^^ iiJil 
 
 '■•/'•■ ■ ~ • • ft . 
 
 elrfisoljD^^ro cJoft 9*5 ow oosnoi ?irfi In t '*1 jb 
 
 >'•',* . ■ i •-> ■ 
 
 lo T£tfi4^4TC ••£* :<;OiiT «i ec«Xl o^„ 
 
 '' V ■ . - 
 
 TtvBXwiW** lo «el^w»wf rSXIfsooq «*r»* Ic* norf^^ ,Xi 5 *i»tHoa xri 
 
 -^1 beT'sMfifjl^cre'r o^oT rwrfio e#{;f nO ".K*©3o1t,_ 
 
 ■■ ■ ■' ' ^ '■ 
 
 ’iXxt i-Ci/o«<l 0 ^ 0 # noi^bf' 8 ©Sj| 6 ti;' if^l. botyrtlfA ac^iiif 
 
 -8 U& Mj* ^e02£6l #r0Oilin?)^ oa. ©tow ©tojff? .oi/fel^ofi/irriirfaV 
 
 .t. ' . .± '' " ■' . .- ►-,« • . -:ViHiB'*’-'i 
 
 , ^ . ■ IP '' ' 
 
 t0« ,©<Jito9&b ^oit. aradJ aaJbQO' 
 
 - >9 
 
 F S.K! 
 
 .iaifrof 9ti4, fq:k9'iudlr^H tiui^mf m ©cicoof ©ocio ersd dctrlw^: 
 
 
 ^;5od'lxp^«b ^wod ovat’ o*t ix^iXKio©^ o aw dp^ste salJu^ad ©?»or£i .,i 
 
 T< ’ . ■» '* J f!.' , ^ ■• ,: <3 
 
 ■ «08t-*rfo ioit 010V rioJtiiv xoifrto'oxii *woilqitci90> «ii| ba«-j 
 
 
 2, 
 
 ^4tJ0 iOonO ^a-axpf 94^ 1© oi^ vi"S©^' s 
 
 ■'\S^ 
 
 Mu ^bniiL rlarif i/ToXJIooxo SeeMi ^ 0^ croni fiwteblocoo * 
 
 ' '■'f. 
 
 r^t,-T ;7 r- 
 
 t .!i, * f6,.iTi0SM^f iaaaU! 
 
 »«Jtr/c?iq ^ iiW^ooovvr 99 - 9 f bvfant v#£j!^ ^ 
 
 '~^ ** •* *1^ 
 
 ■ i ■» .tx^ooq ovi^qiio-oefc F 
 
 oi >©84Jri X 0 oiD A J>9^irpf9tti ci0-«itfV ©«o xit 
 
 ■ -ri 
 
 ' VI 
 
 . ?•* 
 
 -,iv* feci#’ fAloJec^x" lo ecaeo©^ ,eqo^ lO 
 
 :• ■■' ' V* ' ' ‘ '-. ’ ^« ■ ■ • '■ 
 
 ©atwiXa l)«ii,©«e ooiertoa ' .MfliisMoa vti ^dd^uotii lo »«®f?njwop; 
 
 *>9V0iI©pf 9d roj ihaadffufi oi 
 
 **" . *" " ' ■ r'- 
 
 ■ , ■■' ' . Jl 
 
 
 
 ■SMW 
 
 ■eFanflei 
 
- 26 - 
 
 images was to be simple and quite natural. Pope’s image was of 
 this type, but, nevertheless , plaintive and pathetic, and expressed 
 with beauty and harmony of numbers. 
 
 With evidence in so many instances which Warton himself 
 has applauded, it must be left with the reader to determine the 
 correctness of the declaration that ”deBcriptivs poetry was by no 
 means the shining talent of Pope.” It seemed to Ruffliead that 
 Warton would have displayed his fairness and ability as a critic 
 far better had he declared instead, "that the studious cultivation 
 of descriptive poetry was far below the poet’s comprehension and 
 sublime genius." 
 
 A prevalent criticism which Warton found against Pope 
 was based on the fact, that the poet did not excel in the sublime 
 and pathetic species of poetry. He said for this reason Pope 
 could not be rated in the first class of Poets. Huffhead admits 
 that these qualities have been classed as most excellent. He 
 believes this is due to their appeal being more universal. But 
 often sublimity and pathos are overworked and become unnatural. 
 
 Ruffhead feels that true art must accomplish a designated 
 moral purpose; that it should do more than merely excite the 
 emotions.^ for a man is after all a creature constituted of 
 certain reasoning powers, as well as of passions. Both of the 
 attributes of man must therefore be played to. It should be the 
 aim of all poetry then to enlarge the understanding and to increase 
 the mentality of the reader, as well as to play upon the emotions. 
 

 
 I 
 
 
 :,i : * 
 
 
 i . .A 
 
 
 
 
 o ■ 9, ^ 
 
 L ‘ . 
 
 t 1 w » 
 
 Jf! \ 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 > 
 
 r 
 
 • >«# 
 
 X f :■ 
 
 If 
 
 
 
 
 .♦ 
 
 0 iv 
 
 iio 
 
 * Q 
 
 • *6^ 
 
 
 /B 
 
 1*).;.^ QGO.'^ 
 
 
 rr 
 
 -rii 
 
 Lvo 
 
 Bw. r 
 
 f , » 
 
 t 
 
 Cr{,+ .+ .• .•**’ 
 
 f* . 
 
 t . A* 
 
 .-.'Ti* 
 
 to 
 
 itirto 
 
 ,.'9' ~ 
 
 ■ C 
 
 -i 
 
 ’ " (V 
 
 wo'X 
 
 
 v> ' ' 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 LO'f £f .>;^*^iir‘ 
 
 '* ' 1#' ' 
 
 ^ • 
 t* 
 
 
 e.':) 
 
 iS.f 
 
 
 KC 
 
 ic>i ^^^ 
 
 :‘'>o<T 
 
 • 
 
 
 - ■' 
 
 " -■- 9’£ 
 
 0 : 
 
 
 ir:t '• ■*. c 
 
 
 9ilF:bF. 
 
 fc-' 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 O'? To 03^ 'w 
 
 
 
 . -*r 
 
 9 f To 
 
 ry:5» 
 
 A 
 
 JCfTT: ■ ;•• '■ 
 
 - ■ .- ■■ 
 
 V r 
 
 <r 
 
 . "i w 
 
 •f •. i 
 
 
 
 ca ••'^4or‘‘ 
 
 
 ’ 
 
 •-' 
 
 
 :- or. 
 
 ooef^ 
 
 
 
 f. 
 
 
 if»b 
 
 r, 
 
 ? Cqi::o 
 
 » • * • 
 
 ‘XiJ ' 
 
 ‘«JTT ^ 
 
 . i r' 
 
 £r " 1 /. ■' i/'^. tii-tl- oat 
 
 -•• -Y.:if fc:; c-r/ tc "TfiV 
 
 Te' jl, 
 
 a 
 
 ‘.j-j ifiiodire oxo? 
 
 '> "i- io * f ^’-O'y 
 
 "ft'!?' 9i^?' 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 :i* 
 
 « * 
 
 >0 
 
 ‘XiJ &J-’'?:t :^"uv ^ v*r! ,rr 
 
 o.'-v * i vTat#®' ■^dlr e^‘* x s>» ' - .-yH ■> 
 
 .‘W ' -• — 
 
 • * '*"-W '*'-- ? 
 
 *! (,' .^: i t s: ffic I :-. 'i'"-t':A (li'-r . .,*v;.!. r- 
 
 
 r C9'»r «r , c:-; 
 
 i ^r.--!-* fq v< 4.-7 .'•'*♦■ r, -*., - ‘ -' -JCt 
 
 
 ’.■'fd't't* * I* 
 
 V- 
 
 ...•j" ^.i. .'.t b/tii ? X.:.' t .> [^ ‘*; I X V ' “ X '^t^ooq fXc isifi 
 
 CaX rfoqy ^aXc' .i ofl J is'V i3r * . X 
 
 Hir., 
 
-27- 
 
 Ruffhead states that imagination pictures things more 
 wonderful than they actually exist, and maintains that the sub- 
 lime and pathetic are well adapted to imaginative writing. But 
 he believes it is fairly easy to write imaginative poetry, --to 
 employ the sublime and pathetic; but it is a very difficult 
 task to describe nature as the eye sees it, --to disregard the 
 sublime and pathetic, and yet make the verses pleasing. 
 
 Poetry is allowed more liberty in the use of imaginative 
 affectation than any other form of composition. But disregarding 
 this, Huffliead still firmly believes that the poem must do more 
 than delight the imagination alone. It must be directed to some 
 worthy purpose, either moral or intellectual. Unless it is so 
 purposed the composition cannot be esteemed of the highest order . 
 
 Assuming, however, that these qualities are the most 
 
 excellent species of poetry, Ruffhead questions whether Pope’s 
 
 excellence in the sublime and pathetic can be denied. He again 
 
 endeavors to cast reflections upon Warton’s ’’Essay” by suggesting 
 
 defects in the criticism of the essayist. He accuses Warton of 
 
 judging Pope’s ability as a poet by using the opening of ’’Epistle 
 
 on the Characters of Men.” It is quite unpoetical to exhibit 
 
 much spirit at the start, and it should not be expected at the 
 
 very outset of a poem. The beginning should rather be ’’sedate, 
 
 1 
 
 unornamental, and unfigurative. ” Here, again, Ruffhead confuses 
 
 his line of argument, for immediately following his criticism 
 
 of Warton’s selection of an example, he himself cites the open- 
 ing passage of a poem to exhibit the talent of Pope, which is at 
 
 1. Critical Review, 1769; Vol.XXVII; London, 1769. 
 

 ^ .'q 
 
 e-r w irtiji *: ' . ‘ * . 
 
 Ic^iTfr 
 
 ^ CT ^ ee*.. ‘ ' '-.-"i' ;r 
 
 V.f ,' :r'^ '.,: u-.vi:us \f : i / 
 
 1 j iXoVk’ &4to :. -V* &i:.j ti'? i 
 
 ili:OLrZ-b \'itr £ c? >‘Jt iutf icI^torTA^ \C>L 
 
 s>i\i •'rt/ p.aioii:!. qc^c b\*> .j. ^ auB ^ e::- t» J>.*jc f b r^auitf 
 
 . :.,lu: eXa oa«*v ' ar-U*' :fsx BuriL ,Dii©i vJBq bn: 
 
 aviijGfii^xsaat be $'%' ■’»^ ; i bti-v-IlB ai ',"i .' i o-I ^ 
 
 ..-.oi^ir-: . oq 1 o C X tf l ' roi ' c^obTI* 
 
 • 5 ' 
 
 a'rourr e-ft i’tu/rt iTTr>-:-. i^:Li 3 f>v«.i f**>:f Xfli© 
 
 srjca < * ©X vSiC! /X ,f uXa .'fOivVaij^Ljx/. ©r;^ 
 
 03 
 
 >©jTl 3 ;tr*^ 1 ; S':l\- 'ZSSi.*i‘ 
 
 .vnij.',-; vV^trcjr 
 
 , -©bio Ic t£';ae?>^ a '’ ^ . r,olS i'ioqnc:> ©n'? '»' :qiu<^ 
 
 Jt.oc ©r:w et« «6 i.-r I Xnij-f e®orr^ «A;;i;f , . ’••*:rc, * , ■;:f trjuta* 
 
 s’eqo- rcr '^'T'^T 
 
 n *'•: ©iX fiJCD ol ■tsrrj'/sq brtf. or:iXdv.r. enV rr: rx©r^?> 
 
 3TT %' * V ,© -i '’ -i ’ ’ .t;f7 rr-.'^iJ o«Xle*jf ^slpo o* dic-'vahi'^^ 
 
 '!•: c^. o:. . ■' -* ’5*’ meioi^XlS 0^^ ’fi. s^ra'rcb 
 
 -j ^ :cjZ*’-lO ^n.^^*o.': o ivoct m i c*4>-.-S. ;5b:r^ 
 
 tv^ ixai^90q:iw ui . . SC *!; -' ' OA;-tJBn'' “' . 
 
 .- - wii »cf ^•'in ft tnf ••• ^ ' ’.*' ;q« 
 
 . . 'jc .-toni-ij x^ar 
 
 aosi 'ii'C'O br.Lv. '*-'* ^ , I :x , :iorrr 
 
 eiri giriTroXCC" ■*>' xb©-;x .t ^ 0 ^ , .\:*j 3TU5‘X0 lo erri r ah*f 
 
 ©.''d 3«j-i5 ? r^amLX ? : Cc;>^^£JC© rtt lo noifoe’ 1 •■ ."d”i£V 1< 
 
 X-' el Kcidr dneXc^ & X oi c©'. ; /- Sf-^ 
 
 \abos" ©'.1 tea a''v;o/:3 . r : rntX'.oX aisiw 
 
 X. 
 
 » 5 rft 
 
 :r. fov ,7 '' 7 *;I r. 
 
-28. 
 
 once dramatic and startling. Again, to show Warton*s partiality 
 in criticizing the poet, Ruffhead argues that it was almost 
 burlesque to challenge a comparison between one of Pope's fam- 
 iliar poems and two of the most finished epic pieces. He says 
 it was most unfair, but does not support his statement in any 
 way. The "Critical Review" agreeing with Warton's view, sub- 
 stantiates the comparison of the essayist, and believes he was 
 quite justified in employing such examples. This^ it says, 
 
 was the only available means since ^ope had no epics which could 
 have been used. Moreover, barton chose one of the pieces in 
 which^"Atterbury and Bolingbrolce declared his chief strength and 
 talents pecu3.iarly lay." 
 
 Ruffhead appeared to be confused with Warton's criticisms. 
 He found no basis for the statement made by the critic, that Pope 
 had none of the sublime and pathetic. To be sure, the poet wrote 
 nothing which possessed those qualities throughout. But yet 
 within the works of Pope, there are a "thousand passages in 
 which the sublime and pathetic are carried out in thar utmost 
 force and perfection." These may be found in "Windsor Porest", 
 some of which Warton himself commended. He further cites numer- 
 ous passages of sublimity in "The Sssay on Man", and the fourth 
 book of the "Dunciad." The verses to the "Memory of an 
 Unfortunate Lady," and his "Eloisa to Abelard" particularly 
 show the tender and pathetic feelings. The "Ode on St. Cecilia's 
 Day" has been esteemed the most sublime of his lesser composi- 
 tions. If Pope had given no other example of the sublime, the 
 
 1. Critical Review, 1769; Vol XXVII; London, 1769. 
 
( 
 
 'It : : '■> : . ' ' ' rf 0 j »o<c • 
 
 iiiLw Jl 
 
 - O • *ic f 'o ru^*- 
 
 ■■ V*' c ' -• 
 
 '^Ti* nt ^ trf t 
 
 -cfLf" , -v r* * t*’ 
 
 J,:': fc,»- , 
 
 .t'Vit'i . ‘ 
 
 bf'JC'yi Qtjliiti at fvi ■• 
 
 , . .. '» I oDno 
 
 • " , ; 0 ‘f> 
 
 -O' ■ -r*.":' '■>; .’0 oi- ®r;/tejC*i«f 
 
 tl jcof ■' ' <r^ hrui uvoc-T ^ 
 
 ’vO. cxi'Q cf*.,-: «eofc ^j - ' , ' ialtm/ t tot’ ' — *i 
 ':?rl4»o'r£j3 :^dc iiO** ®d .vnr 
 
 ^5>dao ©r:** : •'c oli/ujjcncj 2>iii i:^nzs^| 
 
 5«»X» '. r/s * :. p 
 
 eorla ol /i-vo \L:.. 9/f 
 
 ni ?:ia '"m &.:o *ro;i< ' .■ n«f 4 ^ 
 
 X 
 
 •X' . 'is-'io Co?: i^.u* . -"A** .-oMw 
 
 " , * 4 ^ ' ^ ‘)c r.'TtXijJ', 
 
 2 : i^>‘lo •^’ .: ' 'r^ it ‘ c aJ .':-'■ 'if • s; .<■■> ‘■•to.- 
 
 .- T 
 
 ..' i: . i*rO ■- .'i ' t 4 ' ■ ' • r. tizt n -j e ? ’ * ; e i &i .■ 
 
 - tr 
 
 f).v -.t,' J-r.;>fj 5 r.*t:' , 
 
 ' '>? . b:sR s 3 rxX<Xif 3 lo on 5 " fe&I 
 
 V • • . tr - i,.. ; . : :>iii ' ir*ijp yeoi/;? ^i*aoo«?.o't i' ’ .*^ nnid^ort 
 
 r -a 
 
 .• ' .;-‘55 I r*.^r. 1 } $*:5 oioiTj , I '?'■• 
 
 X X- nii'A ni ^tr- s'C-e ■ oi^oix- N": . ...- .-ciiT^ 
 
 , . *roa£v ;:v7” / : : nOl a ^ y,£.tr; o latiT . iv-*c;o!:nj»<t bfts 
 
 • -*se»CTa;i ' .io •:dixuTi , {'.:ii. t r e. *'. j'e ../ J;.^ .' '.nf-r.* v* .:ei;*v 'io 9.-.' 3 
 
 “ - ' . : -"■ ,”m:. to v-.'iC'* ix c »j*, ■ a : c- 
 
 i»^ iO ^ ' 2.'^ ' .^ ti-j "fr *^nA. . ^ :/co-j 
 
 . T" '■•‘C J ^'.:.-rq "i'.'ixi.XO'fA • »irt. e ;‘.>‘ln!J 
 
 ■»' \ nc DtO^’ sr ' rtX^'^’r • U'r ./ SQ fcii£ 0 / ^ rc ia 
 
 -tc-rrvoc te uir- ^0 ^rlXXiJa 3.-:^ f55i:'0&;? *0 ii- ■■ ei 
 
 , s^. t '■*■;■ s “io nXqiTOX- on ' vir^ L&l- ' . , , ott 
 
 ;l. ivx 
 
 c?: Xi’' ;?:jx ,w»iv»H 
 
-29 
 
 "Messiah” sdone would hare proTen the sublimity of his genius. 
 
 Ruffhead is indefinite also as to another probable reason 
 for Pope not excelling in these qualities. Warton, he said, may 
 hare considered too seriously the fact that Pope made use of 
 sublimity and pathos only occassionally . But this would, in the 
 mind of Ruffhead, prove to strengthen a poet’s claim for the 
 talent. He contended that it was sufficient for a poet to ex- 
 hibit his genius in a mode of composition such as description, 
 the sublime and pathetic, only when the occassion arose. 
 
 The fact that Pope himself has given his reasons for not 
 writing in the sublime and pathetic species furnished Ruffhead 
 another argument. He said, the poet ’s "strong sense and moral 
 cast of mind” inclined him rather to the didactic and moral 
 compositions. As a result many critics have confined his ability 
 to those, and have inferred that he did not excel in other types. 
 
 With all this discussion by Ruffhead concerning Warton *s 
 criticism of Pope; that the essayist frequently only selected 
 detached passages, and chose openings as good examples of the 
 poet’s work, we still feel that he has not proved his point. 
 
 Por there are good reasons for every supposed defect considered 
 by Ruffhead. He further tried to subdue the essayist when he 
 complained that "a mind with a set opinion seizes only those 
 particulars which favor its rash conclusions." But obviously 
 this argument does not hold, for it is conceded that Warton was 
 not of an invincible opinion concerning Pope. The critic did, 
 however, question Pope’s right to the title of poet, but he did 
 

 ; . - -f 
 
 n . 
 
 
 i-vai • r^'.’rfcT . •* . . : -. J5 V'4ii« v‘ i. : ■caallL.'-t 
 
 .:•. ,•*». ■ , -■•J'jMT . . l^2X*-cp t. ’i t' •.»:•' :70<J tu^ 
 
 : (ft fML, " a."‘l 7-^ 7 •' ''.•r 7 ^ ‘ m 
 
 : ' , ' <:yr JjL'K . v£.“.' jT^i “v >‘oc xZno ^.Tc 
 
 e tdI: r-i-£lo 'V^‘?a< ^ :i st.'T' ,:•/:«> tia 
 
 -:cv : let icr9^ ':tiJ a c.'. 'r t i bfit^neir ' c^' . *. « Tjbv 
 
 , 7v i pr ‘ i uo-irroo '‘o aijon b .r. Siflrr? - 
 
 f * 
 
 .QC07^: -If; *: " 'c TV \iTro ^ t * ''rL*- sTlSrfLS ex£i 
 
 .;'' t. 7 r n.cn 6U>**f *'a‘-nlr{ >* ;o«l s.- ^ 
 
 '■■’• '''•t/ 'j .'il’ TMt *i^ :c^icrji aiisr.txr': f>5fc " lire :<rJ Hi 3 r;-‘ xr 
 
 ,r>‘' XOi!r t>d‘ ^\:X9B , oH . 70ft?03^. 
 
 
 ,.• Oii: 
 
 N T *, 
 
 . ‘ 0 
 
 9 .' . ' 7 ? 7 ir. li* 6 ftrrxx-i.': 
 
 •*',':'h:T to 
 
 cin ft,, 
 
 i'.iZ.noo 
 
 ft '•;?■.'■ 
 
 ft’D,': J I70 ’• f?v : /5 
 
 «^v 
 
 . U tF.oqXQQ 
 
 . f;orsj^ 't ? ,/*■.■.• 
 
 ;:.' £a'j' 
 
 ■ft ■.. 
 
 
 ijVj; ; 
 
 }\ tr- ,ft«- ; 
 
 
 -’ 
 
 ^‘■:yl/'■■i 'Ijff '<o*u^. 
 
 irc^ri xrlrro IXiJ 
 
 i X*’' 
 
 f-a;.' 
 
 : '■• '"-1' 
 
 '■ ''.r-vo v.r:t.'9(7pv'.c^ >'! 
 
 
 creXoiv fxo 
 
 
 t^i 
 
 :5i" , ; 00 ;:. «#j ■•' "■ 
 
 . i. . »- 1 . 1 . .. ■ 
 
 ■- •; r '■ Cl :"cf; 
 
 - ' 
 
 '■ /"J '»■ 
 
 sXr: b&vo*x^i ^Ofr'ftF-rr c-»;-: *r:r.t 
 
 
 , *■ ( d ' tOfirr 
 
 
 i 
 
 ■ h^rCQiUlVti vTviTe 7*-* 
 
 Td..'JX>Bt boo; 
 
 ■-' —:s % % 
 
 *-r 
 
 ■. O 'V/ 
 
 .•'■ :- .'. '! c- hit ft it jo n V c j s i ' 
 
 r< -f ^ .,. . ,»v 
 
 ^ W -« «w> * * V " w* ‘ 
 
 . ... Z^Lii \S 
 
 :’.3c.r j v£7o rl'e:: nuxsxXqo « ;{^hr 6rri‘: : ■* t>9H te£qz:cr. 
 
 '-.;joivo'o l£t^ , ai 0 .ht>.' ;of:oo . cic«x ai X •- *;:'3 ; : ’. fw \ 1 . 
 
 ■.' ; •? In ^ t.‘Ob6xrcr) et .1 7 ./^ , hi J7/i ^n^rrxr^xx' «JLri:f 
 
 ,£:£*; oX:titC5 Oil'' . ,v.'^ j ai«^orro; ■.: 'j rrri ''(0 o icflr.ulvni nn tc *oa 
 
 ^!* ‘- -■' ,,■* :•■[ 3 fli ci t.tii'X tiCv' 3 , . ..‘V^vor, 
 
- 30 - 
 
 so with an unprejudiced and unbiased mind. Then Ruffhead en- 
 deavored to combat the mind of barton by defining the attributes 
 of a good poet, and showing Pope's adaptability to such qualities. 
 
 It was in the "Rape of the Lock" that Pope appeared to be 
 a real poet* He did, to be sure, attain some reputation by the 
 style of his "Essay on Man" in which he displayed "such an un- 
 common compass of learning, such extensive knowledge of human 
 nature, and such strength of judgment," but the full force of 
 his poetic genius was not known, nor felt, until it was observed 
 in this celebrated poem. Ruffhead said that all the powers of 
 his talents were there displayed. His "beauty of description, 
 richness of invention, and the glow of his imaginative powers 
 display themselves" in the "most exquisite harmony of numbers." 
 
 Ruffhead earnestly believed that if the writers whom 
 Warton commended for their wit and good sense had had the harmony 
 of numbers which Pope possessed, there would have been no doubt 
 as to their right to the title of true poets. Since Pope had 
 all of these qualities, his title of poet could not justly be 
 denied by any one. 
 
 Our author considered Pope's versification a magic which 
 never failed to charm the reader to a degree of fascination. In 
 his works there is a genius of style, which is an indispensable 
 factor in the most excellent poetic composition. And it is to 
 these qualities that Pope owes his superiority'’. He particularly 
 possessed a ready supply of expression, and a diction always 
 correct and splendid. Here does Pope truly show himself to be a 
 
' ’rnu nM uwr 
 
 .'/a CO ci Sv'SOT*®^, 
 
 
 
 li > r r * /■ 
 
 *<• w # ^ 
 
 to/* JL’KiWz «7 oe ' 
 
 iS oj'.-t** o it Jiiw J 
 
 , .. -2 
 
 J . 
 
 
 I , - & Av 
 
 - V . *♦ »•> M ". 4 ^ r'r / •• 
 
 ~cr 
 
 :s .o iu&ma, 
 
 1 
 
 -'^tr rff- .. '" ? ’V *i:. ^^ o:£ 'ci.in -ri ” 
 
 MCiUr ". \o ^ T ; ■ rz - isiij . 
 
 'iv r I ': ii;-’’ 
 
 f:»\n;;2£Kfo'‘-P«t,- "J* rii.t^oq 
 
 ,z,.- y.i b ' ' . [90 ii :l 
 
 , li'l '. < \':';;'V' s.1 , ., ■■".*• 'j ■ti?-'i* e»T'V iijl 
 
 ■ ' ' o<i 9Viifsi 3dc .i *lo •»rcXi ■»-•- « Air.€-:r *r^ ^ 
 
 “ . •iv-frjL'rr r' T': '‘' ? I :r v* -iOT " 5^-i- U* ' ; ' C .J \>' ^'TOIu. 
 
 ) 
 
 fcJCGir ■•■*■ ■? * - i :i ' *> - ..' * "! vXi A s. ; ' 
 
 'ft'. cr^ i?";! r**}"! af’rra . t s '♦? i' Tti^a^ tc.^' •’ ' . -J’lsiW 
 
 ■r .'::l>fj O:; .:D:ii -SfT/^/ - ';V • v : ". i , ^ ^ '. 1< *1 C 
 
 f>-vi-ri:c . ■‘•c 'm. * r1 ' . ’ iltuii c<f ut 
 
 -■• ' vri vC'' •I’vVI. 8i."' ,ov irl^L'L •-“■r'f fLa 
 
 ;. t.-'i '? C M C' Of'J 0& bf , •" 
 
 ■ u^o%sify' t r ■■ : ,• 'x-‘ ‘ - xrrv £ ai sTe- • vif t ’w 
 
 oi b: . i^i.u^trcc ocii- . :aoi‘^oxe ^5or ‘^1 tc.c‘o>:' 
 
 .v[':'y rxo i •.■•-•i.'iru hb.T^ ai*r o aqo-r .-r-'j t.i ‘ 9h,9cii 
 
 y^&r:£m r(r .j ;.^» r ? , ^ !:i'ac*x iX/» : \N.az y ^2 'P?>CQoq 
 
 ''"Li iJ aq *'''! 39 c?i T -. 3 .!, 
 
— 31 — 
 
 great poet. Por the style, rather than the matter, is the true 
 ’’distinguishing characteristic of poetry.” 
 
 Ruffhead tried to leave the impression that Pope’s merit 
 was so high above the average standard of writers, that it was 
 beyond all adverse criticism by the learned world. The poet, he 
 said, was one of the few whose fame was so firmly rooted as not 
 ”to need the prop of partiality to support it, or to be in danger 
 
 of being shakened or undermined by prejudice or caprice.” And 
 
 of these few Pope was capitally distinguished. But even so, 
 
 our poet suffered the adversities and fates of every man who 
 
 started from the common crowd of life. His rising fame, however, 
 soon soared above the reach of the ignorance and envy of those 
 who “waged war against his merits.” And his talents, fostered by 
 his benign and ingenious friends, daily became greater and strong 
 er, until he excelled in almost all species of poetical compos- 
 ition. 
 
 The “Life of Pope” seemed to be unfortunate in its 
 appearance. The book was received almost wholly with ill-grace. 
 In a characteristic statement, Johnson expressed himself very 
 strongly;^ “Rufrnead kno-'.'TS nothing of Pope nor of poetry.” Of 
 course such a statement must be taken liberally, nevertheless, 
 there were numerous criticisms which seemed to effuse from fair 
 minds, that designated Ruffliead’s work as somewhat of a nonentity 
 One critic has said, "there are very few material facts in the 
 ’Life of Pope’, but what may be found either in the notes of 
 bishop Warburton, or in Warton’s "Essay”. It is remarked in the 
 
 1. "Memoirs of War ton;” 
 
 Wooll , John: London, 1806. 
 

 ■ jT rmt — . 
 
 
 L'T.?. o-'.: 
 
 « T U.T't 'izit’t' " ,'•'*■ * ' •. <■ * 
 
 
 -j'vaor .'.i/j. 
 
 ”.■*•£ i *» a7 :,;t ii . .* fMr 'j; '■ V 
 
 ■- T*V‘ { I’lf 
 
 . ( 
 
 '- • a-i r -r ■•r'-'* *1;- oc''J utir- .iijaep^ 
 
 , ' ‘ * viiC^l^xaq 3L^ *:( c* 
 
 i. .'9 .‘ 1 i’j. , ro.Mir 'c ft: > 
 
 fto tTJ»« C ad:t •., ' a:ftlol^iTO arTi v^a cf 
 
 ‘»>.j a; iJHj'v'. 
 
 ■ ■. '.. r> ^ 
 
 ' ;:A . / 'tc[viu - _. >i. v;/ befrisnaiKtU %C pa a esij^r-.s. 
 
 , n: 'IOT9 . -3 -ii*- •<..■* ■> .' . ir vc!: 
 
 'w oBc. -.iPTa ^ 0 ' a .‘i uai;? 1 ^ <':r 
 
 , :..r; ii'T i< ' K . ■;•. n ii mci'' 
 
 . :^ •-; •.'«» ; r'tif.'^'ir ' ,! © . = 0*'^*. f:’. ? fvc-’a >r*:.=joa r:ocfl 
 
 ^.•>:IbvwC . , qJ;:! LtiA '. . iCii * or^ 
 
 ftt-- •! . : p'.'?, o.'iic::-: ^ ■'f J:*!* ^ * . .'.:to S ‘ir’ 
 
 *:. *?o Z^r. :t r>? > ... '•alia ora r.,:‘ .t^- 
 
 s*'. :'ri 
 
 ,- '■-’ .-\‘x v'^J'.'.hy "fc i- Ti ; a»Jir kO^.’J 
 
 ^ ’ m 
 
 ’Ctev ' i^r.cn ,f.. «i-“?^;TX© i j rtr^cZ , ' ,»*£t R tU^-ftlTL . ^ _ ..0 ^ /=■ 
 
 tc rca b^icM \ 
 
 . -.c**.’' (f^terc . ' i.^'ij.1 ^TO.'oJ ^£:j2i . (.':■;>*?»: o 
 
 •rl: r:.»i •:.':o:. v; .. e ::i i: 14 ’.\n oiiLZtnssn 0 »-- 
 
 ’•••f:' .0,T *0 4afvKrc.. -yp, s ' hr cl: 4i , h;:?^ 
 
 o:.^ ;t- a.*c..j^ £^i-r wo*t ’C'rc*v cifa • ttr, .. " ,6ii#y ;ifiri 
 
 >o "a:* ;£T *:;.■? ni: ►irti/o'Y ©d" >»V v'-'^ ,’oqc. “^c. 
 
 .* 1 :*i: *- . a’fTv^'iaT nJt .aA-J-u >'tjsV' qoftaid 
 
 . '5/ ,rfofi 
 
 ' ,XXooir * : *r.p^ eziont 
 
-32- 
 
 ’’Memoirs of Warton” that the T>rork is^ ”a performance in which 
 censure hecoraes harsh and at times trivially minute;” a work 
 which is^ ’’deunned with faint praise.” 
 
 The ”Monthly Review” also discussed the work in a terse 
 manner. Ruffhead 'believed that people ‘became curious at the 
 successes of the few who attained heights “by their talents, 
 and that the pu'blic desired to learn of their history. He said 
 that nature endowed men with equal faculties. These declarations 
 are, in the opinion of the ’’Review,” somewhat far fetched. It 
 contended that very few have adopted the ”notion that the fac- 
 ulties of men are all equal.” It claimed that very few people 
 would "become interested enough in Pope's history to “be stimulated 
 to the study of the ’’Life” in order that they might 'become poets. 
 In all pro'ba'bili ty they would read it primarily through curiosity. 
 
 Another angle of criticism which came very close to 
 censure appeared in the ”Critical Review.” Ruffhead, it said, 
 thought that Warton's ’’Essay” stood in the way of his own work, 
 and rendered his own undertaking superfluous. This was a verit- 
 a'ble truth, for the "Review” impartially stated that hard as 
 Ruffhead had ^^rorked, he did not "depreciate the well received 
 "Essay", nor did he "render it’s critical decisions disputable." 
 
 It is evident that many of Ruffhead 's efforts were mis- 
 directed, or in fact, very often 'became analogous to those of 
 'barton. The essayist said that Pope excelled in the moral, 
 satiric, and didactic species of composition. Ruffhead declared 
 that Pope 's "strong sense and moral cast of mind inclined him 
 
 1. "Memoirs of Warton." Wooll, John; Lnndon, 1806; 
 
 2. "Critical Review;" London, 1775. 
 
yc l:'-. I i X07 c’ 
 
 • f 
 
 * • f .-*•/•> - 
 I > w *# • ; >*>« 
 
 ^ *Ja «ioe 
 
 ‘ 3 :T-iJ /jv.--’;:' ■ .,''; 3 (f S'Stfi • c 
 
 _- :. .‘ P r^ ^ '('. t; ^.iv bo'-.' c.'-!* i'*;.'! ■, ' ,' : ' ** 
 
 0;^^ j^U-<.::7UC QLMIC' ■ i^T-inor ;/Ji . ;. 
 
 .C*> if '•<: •' f ’."*r •.. "v vr?" • «*.;i -'^O ’•. •'wO 
 
 i>i‘Ja .-'. . v;to^ ?X' i lit ••■ ^ ■■• o ^ 7f o/ ''I x/'t v<v 1 -Xo 
 
 .S': ' "-TCi; -:>u- 9 riT . ^ .■;r:- CO ' ~ . y'' " I; .N?rt wJSXi^ 
 
 . j.'Oit-'T lsr?fT!>CJ©K ' .vxfver,'’ v ■ ‘ 
 
 ■ . n 
 
 •*•-' ■.’! ?>ri* ib ‘j* r:-: i-; ?TJb • pI m*!:’* .■!■• ' 't .:c» 
 
 *V .«?C V'ftl vKXfCf ..'■V.': i»Xo ^7 •* . X'XX". 
 
 i -diwi-' .' ' O.**' \70 i-.tif : ■ 0«r;-»i 'li rC^JL'ect^ .*>9t 
 
 5i 
 
 
 ^ tJ." 
 
 i.'J 
 
 - 
 
 1; ■’ 
 
 r;cT/ 
 
 
 f» *^- 
 
 V 
 
 ft' 
 
 V w 
 
 <: ■■ 
 
 
 ?'. ' i,T:<. ^ibcrr ’^arfv* v;? i li t'.t'rfor'r ' ‘’i cfX 
 
 ■■'* d'- ’t •..•'••■v lo f).rr:'T.'‘ *"::':*rv.-:A 
 
 t ■ ' 1)3 ‘‘y y'. t ~mD” oJr bb";-*: /c ©"urCitda, 
 
 -. ■ ^ ' 
 , 'TC'jr ' 5i;< *tc V/-?^ r.t i." . ^** p ’ : .. irfgycjf^ 
 
 a r^rv ''.h'iT .X ri'x3t?3t/i!9 ;g/T^>^%:^*^. ; .i . ccwr 
 
 f* ^':f■..". ^o:ri>.w 0 ' ’cXi"' ■ •'w'’ c V ■ J;ra5!^ ■ ea'j- 'xc' oX«/*i 
 
 bffirie'': 't [tw a.’..- Q* lOt'Z lK->u*' .fo,- .■;'*I0^- '-iift bcon'^*- ’ 
 
 . i;.. :. OL '• J.i':-l:‘i'ir: 3’vi ua •* 
 
 -euT '.- '.‘vr *^0 '<,.• 'ii.'T • ii! .t ' 
 
 lb bjoJJ" oJ* ::ujc«j‘'- T»*rLi orsoea . m*1o ..‘Os'! fti: if , •" cpixb 
 
 , Xisn '•. ©,fy .'•Ti bi>T'ooy.f) :*r> ‘i f, 2 i u ’ . c^i£V 
 
 r' hf''}*<^‘tvK . .oii QO lo ‘"p Oi\+o/iirb fer:: 
 
 (iilr; .‘aitiioni: '.'f bf lo v3j3o X-ei c:'; tiii/ ' J' ' . 10 1 - c'k t a” a * oq o'! 
 
 ' \ 'AOJ 0 , rioo-^ ■»'»•:<*''.’ '. •a.k" .: 
 
 . ,;r , Xj?f^r:^2*x'0'’ . ' 
 
 — 
 
 V 
 
- 33 - 
 
 principally to cultivate the didactic and moral.” 
 
 The critics of Ruffhead would even advise him to study 
 the art of ^7ritihg poetry, notably Horace's ”Art of Poetry,” 
 before he endeavored to write another critical work. They ex- 
 pressed their disappointment in his history, and implied that he 
 was ill qualified as a biographer. 
 
 Then too, they are dissatisfied in the unfair way he 
 treated Wart on. He should not have maintained such an acrimon- 
 ious attitude toward him, whom he lauds in the opening of the 
 ”Life of Pope,” and in whose footsteps he so closely followed 
 throughout his work. They censured Ruffhead for his many su- 
 perficial arguments and his pettj^ exclamations, such as: ”What 
 
 various beauties are comprehended in these lines,” and "the 
 following lines are inimitably fine." And, almost as a climax, 
 they advised Ruffhead to wait until Warton could at least give 
 his classification of Pope in a second volume, before he endeav- 
 ored to establish his reputation. 
 
 Thus from the arguments, the statements and declamations 
 which Ruffhead presented in defense of Pope, we draw rather an 
 unconscious reflection upon his own reputation. And from the 
 reviews and references made to Ruffhead 's work, we gather the 
 attitude of the people as being not hostile toward Pope, but 
 rather lethargetic. Ruffhead 's "Life of Pope” was received more 
 as a spent bullet, hitting, rebounding, and doing no damage. 
 
 Ifor did it in the least stop the ebbing of Pope's reputation. 
 

 c 
 
 Arr 
 
 
 .' • r 
 
 . s * 
 
 i^ C>f3 
 
 
 r r 
 
 JB" 
 
 
 'ri\( 
 
 b..< 
 
 
 •!: f.J L’k'J 
 
 •vr'^ioK lo 4 ^: * a'c-.€*ioH vT'' - , : *. ■ f rJ 4 
 
 ■> '■.'' . V:' C rtil^OrjL .‘I Of i rT~’j.®cr 
 
 fr<^j:rfi*r . , - . ^*'- .orx -.'^1 '. 'a;." l>#ics'*x^ 
 
 f-:- ^ 2£ ' . ill-lB/ ;. ffjt 
 
 dri *<c^ir s>r'f s I - *-«t -!£iB \» j , vJ 
 
 •ccriiod rts r(ot/a ^a; eyn.i -ca bxkiO:'^ ‘ 
 
 ■-•^4 *^0 :;-ixrf^q.. Jii'r n: :buaf/od i. --- fi-jrrcJ- f>:j^'4i44z ..^' £ 
 
 / 
 
 h^rc£loj. vXosc. r'? ©c ex! </» ^eort^ ni ec c^T '. -i tI/.i* 
 
 •O’- V.:-:: Jbae.’tl^ufl oc ci/enec C6r w ^Li 
 
 ■-TP" : ae .'ci'.- . ino £ln,r.v zii* bni* a^.jeajx^aif 
 
 c:'" L rs '* , 30.xi ^ r: ' tb’ :£jrle-iq|noo ' u:h''/ad" bucX^a’^ 
 
 v.*io i J/- w‘ V' ^^ 4 J:^:la^ ^exiir i 'x.vcIZq' 
 
 y 
 
 3 ix f»r - n rr o^hSjoK' I I -{.li; ? U-^r ' ::‘jz :rt^. \sSf 
 
 < 
 
 ■ }-i'' y^y ‘♦ic'*'- , •. vie V '.’■loots b •/ >7 "I * o aoi f JteaaXo ei: 
 
 .!• > ' l«v - iff rf j ilcfcJae o ‘ lozo 
 {Musis’ iobl *v; ton©;eto f ! , ."xfj.-i.'j-'jc i«r." fToa': 4i!-iT 
 
 
 • i j - rc ‘ 7S1 b i* 
 
 , '' r- “io T)»< rv'. 
 
 
 
 ■ 0 xov 
 
 :.’ ■' f 
 
 ;a -Ti’i j.-aA. . : 
 
 ■i .■ •'e.'^x .'W' : z.l.i 
 
 . 1 - - r>. . 4 C ^ w vO J * 
 
 '■-iocajani/ 
 
 i^/.f 
 
 V- , • 
 
 .7- 0 ’ ■-'.., ^.:*nx*Sf r! 
 
 oOliJ J©r> :o '‘O 
 
 Irrfc ...• 
 
 ; Ir^z 
 
 * , rr.voi eII.‘*«o.{ as 0 bii 1j 
 
 .! ^arioaei aow "©.j-jI . r ^ 'S 3 i& 'i 9;Iv«. 
 
 ’S 0:1 ■• '* ^>a , ^ ' ' t'lJ x’ 
 
 . r. .C' ‘o /rf '10 i-rtiX'#© S.{^ -Cfra .+ * -.ol -i vi oXb *I0'' 
 
 J 
 
 1 
 
 » 
 
 ■t ..^■ 
 f 
 
-34- 
 
 CHAPTKR III. 
 
 Near the Close of the Century. 
 
 As early as the Age of Pope, tendencies away from 
 Classicism had unconsciously crept in. The younger generation 
 of poets reverted to the early English writers for inspiration 
 and imitation. In following Hilton and Spenser they soon re- 
 placed the heroic-couplet "by blank verse and the Spenserian 
 stanza. The rational temper of the Augustans , in time gave way 
 to the emotional qualities as displayed by writers of the Grave- 
 yard school and of the Gothic school of romance. The revival of 
 interest in the middle ages appeared in various forms such as; 
 Walpole’s ’’Strawberry Hill Castle.” and ’’Castle of Otranto,” 
 the "Rowley Poems” of Chatterton, Macpherson’s "Ossian,” and 
 Percy’s "Reliques.” The earlier romantic T^nriters did not pur- 
 posely rebel against the classical school, but they were so filled 
 with the love for "landscape effects in poetry” and a passion for 
 "elemental forces of nature” that they unconsciously wrote ro- 
 mantic poetry. 
 
 Just as the Age of Pope was not wholly pseudo-classical, 
 so was the period from 1750 to 1800 not entirely given over to 
 romanticism. This movement made great progress in the latter 
 half of the eighteenth century, but there remained such men as 
 

 •'.u* ^0 f-' ’■>. .t 
 
 
 ';0 -Citj!' f’ 
 
 < 
 
 o;A ©rtV 
 
 r< 
 
 
 - ■ .- ■ • V r) r 
 
 
 
 ■ \ 1- 
 
 .. Vj .;:x 
 
 ‘i:' V '7': ^ ' ■ T' 
 
 . ;- 
 
 
 -'4 , ^ 
 
 • A V *• M 
 
 ’nli ' 
 
 I' i , ,• 
 
 ' O' 
 
 ricw,;'*’ 7.>-7 
 
 f 
 
 
 vT &i ; '■ 
 
 ■ ;:i*s\ :(rf+ * Vc/ i©£c; '’;j- 
 
 ,rr' •»*": 
 
 
 • uA 
 
 A/ J 'to 1. '3^ 
 
 
 -frvr.'tr' 
 
 yi'i 
 
 Z>« 
 
 f ^ G7-: i 
 
 Li X .r p( 
 
 r.'.vir-'T: «• 
 
 . ^ ^ A; . Cl 
 
 ^>0 
 
 
 
 
 j .;; 7/ X/'** 
 
 'ft> 
 
 
 
 *' , M* f»','’.'f :*C 
 
 ft 
 
 n ■ -O'' 
 
 0;;* 
 
 ►, tr xi-'"* -> 1. i. A < 
 
 
 t 
 
 ■ - ^ 
 
 1 b 
 
 r ‘ ( • -.4 ) »■--- 
 
 aa- 
 
 
 » • I V. -/ fc ^ i 
 
 U '..X w 3 
 
 , Lr ^ lO’ *’--^8tC*t '/>'-c'':" t:‘f 
 
 :'T3 
 
 ,: i %w -J : 
 
 :j T' ; 
 
 7 or?? 
 
 wp i X'jJ. *' . ’ 
 
 b*7 £ *•'■' A . V9tii 
 
 ■tJjA , r 
 
 v'Ciic:: j'--uJ-^aXr> 
 
 ♦ • 
 
 "r yi 1 :7.i 3.- • ■•■ *'T3 
 
 
 
 t ■' A-7 If'' 
 
 -.. T 7..‘7'r>" VT'':.. 
 
 t' .^rcO‘‘-: 
 
 
 7 £T , *J'" 
 
 
 . 7-w. T cld-r 
 
 /•i-6 ‘ .. .i.-.ru-<.>^': ' ,■': V r r^'’’ 
 
 o\- a .' _-'x '-y^'A j*»>aL-' 
 
 1 
 
 ol ':«)V0 "^Oit OC'M '■ Oj-Va -■ orf’^ r- ti*'-?: u/y".* 
 
 ••t,«.‘ " ■ " : ■ ■ 'Gv'v:'. .i J'ro-r.- m'-.’-vcw’ i/T . . j' n i'i'vIAt.' '•'f 
 
 I 
 
 ■ Mr*’ ri-i'i.. 1*’^ c-i^r-'^ii . 7* "r C' tie*"' 
 
-35- 
 
 Charles Churchill, Ccaaian, Ruffhead, VThitehead, John V/ilcot, 
 
 William Gifford, James Pye, and Johnson, v/ho defended Pope and 
 
 Classicism. However, these men were of small importance compared 
 
 with Young, Cov/per, Gray, Burns, Bowles, Wordsworth, Coleridge, 
 
 Southey, and other romantieis ts . They did, however, have their 
 
 place; Johnson was one of the hig men of his time. 
 
 Johnson was the chief advocate of Pope and was called 
 
 the ’’watchdog of classicism.” Boswell said,””The Life of Pope” 
 
 v;as v.rritten hy Johnson con amore, hoth from the early possession 
 
 which that writer had taken of his mind, and from the pleasure 
 
 which he must have felt in forever silencing all attempts to 
 
 lessen his poetical fame, hy demonstrating his excellence, and 
 
 pronouncing that he was a poet." 
 
 Johnson was the combatant of the old Augustan school 
 
 of Pope. His arguments and sympathies were continually in favor 
 
 of loftiness and conformance to rules. He believed in adhering 
 
 to all the conventions of classical technique, and it was his 
 
 desire that the poets should submit to the old discipline, and 
 
 imitate the acknowledged models. The style and versification of 
 
 Pope were greatly admired by Johnson. He once said, "Sir, a 
 
 thousand years may elapse before there shall appear another man 
 
 vdth a power of versification equal to that of Pope. That power 
 
 must undoubtedly be allov;ed its due share in enhancing the value 
 
 2 
 
 of his captivating composition.” The ’’Pastorals” he considered 
 but "poor things," but thought the versification was excellent. 
 
 1. Boswell’s "Life of Johnson;” Hill, George B; Vol . IV’,-og.46 ; 
 Oxford 1887; 
 
 2. Boswell’s ’’Life of Johnson;” Hill, George B; Vol . IV. og . 46 : 
 
 Oxford 1887; ^ » 
 
( 
 
 t 
 
 ( 
 
 < > , 
 \ 
 
 O ■ . .‘V 
 
 
 
 ( 
 
 e-‘ 
 
 J 
 
 
 w* ^ r *■’ 
 
-36- 
 
 other writers could perhaps produce new images and sentiments, 
 hut it seemed to Johnson not only unwise, hut a folly to attempt 
 any further improvement of versification. Like Goldsmith, he 
 disliked the "erroneous innovation," the "disgusting solemnity" 
 of blank verse, and used all of his influence against it. In 
 conversing with Boswell concerning Dr. Adam Smith, Johnson said, 
 "Sir, I was once in company with Smith, and we did not take to 
 each other; hut had I knoivn that he loved rhyme as much as you 
 tell me he does, I would have hugged him.^" 
 
 Johnson praised Pope because of his almost exclusive 
 use of the heroic-couplet, and his manner was such as to expose 
 him to few attacks. It was the method of Pope to correct, beau- 
 tify, and polish his verses. With such faculties, Johnson 
 asserted, he excelled every other writer in "poetical prudence." 
 
 It seemed almost incomprehensible to Johnson that 
 Joseph Warton should question Pope's title to poet. It was Dr. 
 Johnson's statement, "After all this, 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 def- 
 inition, will only show the narrowness of the definer; though a 
 definition which shall exclude Pope will not easily be made. 
 
 Let us look around upon the present time, and back upon the past; 
 
 let us inquire to whom the voice of mankind has decreed the wealth 
 
 of poetry; let their productions be examined, and their claims 
 
 stated, and the pretensions of Pope will be no more disputed. " 
 
 1. Boswell's Life of Johnson; Hill, George B; Oxford, 1887; 
 
 2. Boswell's Life of Johnson; Hill, George B; Oxford, 1887* 
 
 Vol.IV, Page 46; 
 
, - rJl£ 
 
 of J» , 
 
 -vS.'r.i ii ' ft.'i tfi'i ' C'H a*. t.-.“ ‘ . 
 
 •'. :,?v ^ ^r; 4fd«:tr;o’ c ‘ ;.c »o». +1 
 
 . « i i 
 
 . T-'f -^n 
 
 r-' 
 
 
 ;:or 
 
 
 . 7o 
 
 :* *T"r;©vr 
 
 ■r iri rs?.. 
 
 ‘•v.-'i. 
 
 i<y "^: 
 
 
 . :-. ; t " 9 . ' , 
 
 . - J. J -1 
 
 , • • r “ ‘ : 
 
 
 t * 
 
 .fj fn 
 
 • ^ r- *r 
 
 ‘ 0 o.'ioa r ■' ■? 
 
 ^4. *;r 
 
 Siv: ■ 
 
 , - 
 
 f, >fle 
 
 ::c -'li'ic 
 
 t 
 
 
 4) - 1 '"T '.» jt»‘i 1 3- 
 
 :r<tx r 
 
 ■'V iw :. 
 
 a. 
 
 -. joj V n 
 
 
 \ * ' ' ’ '■ 
 
 :• ;iflr >C«BC2^0 ll 
 
 ■=»0:fc' J-n 
 
 •- J 
 
 « ._ * !7 ' 
 
 £j8 
 
 '-ever '* 
 
 ■i y.rJ n^'C 
 
 r\ ':. .^7 
 
 ■* t ^ 
 
 4. *-: 9T6-( 
 
 >-'i7 
 
 sri 
 
 
 : c. C-- j ; n :,'i.. Ct* Ji j(?c . -■r: --'; on;f.(cL 
 
 oac.:j^^; c,.^ '. .'r-: ‘irrt , f' asL 
 
 , .Jt-v-j of- ’‘ 3 rwd-^ia: “i'."" . yS .'ffc 7roJ of r'i. 
 
 'to^rTi^oX. < 8!i ' V iJL't j 9'?. 'ay^? . Jsi-iT&v ai:> ^ ,;^JLv. 
 
 '* . r-: ■ iJ'.':r'i.,J ; iq " fii ':»j TLorifo .’'3 ’ ;9 0:<:t* : -’ .^ftv3v('T.r 
 
 Tjosniic "0 Ovt *:ic-,:j. fc*c-es ■ ' ' 
 
 . •/: 'aar .fl ."‘ Oc^ oi B»Osro‘X ;ic.iw' uf.T •' '* ■ -fo ac:**r«V - 
 
 Rv:,y-^'i-i^qy 3 vre-yi .>i :. ' :r : .--.'rt 
 
 3IT!' r:^o'I , ’ ''"2* ' '■'’ 'C «:’ .'■ £joi c? •' OiJp - • w ' ' ; C’i 
 
 jb f^‘;{ V'i •>r-'/‘ '.i X;cf ar;tv» <•,■ J , 'i” o Vit'-'il 2^ 
 
 ii ' 'f O' 5>‘r ^!-.rri;c‘3t Qf /1v+b<j :j a I c 
 
 '■ ■•c:-i ; 'fo. r ■’ 'v 'aBSrfp. v*r'‘?j8t*T «.-t- ”‘0/Cs* X>^tO X T f' ' - i 
 
 . ^ .71 •. -^ v.fxr.jCB ^Off /XiH- 8.':^^ ob,v/o;i& i:aiih .ioL^rr iioiJ-iiii’let 
 0:-<.t KOCi;. ::o.fyJ ‘litK ,r-ri^ ;frti»fi®'xq orlt rcc 'y vf cy frl 
 
 fC-tr.;.,v ©.-i^ L'oftTiosf, axff fv'' j-trri.-i:.: ‘to otiov 9df . a-x-i/ptil av 
 
 ,7aar ,iVxo’ 
 
 a»T .^a^r^vr- 
 
 9'f 
 
 :• i'l rsf^^OTtq ti !•>.■+ fo'. 
 
 ; •,‘i^eo' 
 
 ©if IXJ-- ' 
 
 y 
 
 1 O' •- !■.• -'xq 
 (■ 
 
 t , 
 
 
 . f ri« 
 
 ; ffc snri 0 7» ■ '5 c ©■'i i J a ' 
 
 
 
 ./..ri'- 
 
 ;;.^o«a^^c- :a o' t:’ 
 
 : r*. iV- 
 
 
 
 
 , . . rov 
 
 •« r, * .-, 
 
-37- 
 
 Johnson greatly respected Pope “because of the latter^s 
 strong adherence to Augustan ideas. He was especially fond of Ih e 
 didactic side of Pope and this he strove to imitate. Johnson, 
 like Pope, possessed the same idea of loftiness in poetry. Neither 
 writer appreciated natural scenery, while on the other hand, both 
 possessed a deep love for the city. Pope's dislike for the 
 country is obvious when he said in a letter to Mrs. J. Cowper, 
 
 "I wish you may love the town (which the author of these lines 
 cannot immoderately do) these many years. It is time enough to 
 like, or affect to like, the country, when one is out of love 
 with all hut one's self.^" Johnson is still continuing the idea 
 of Pope when, about sixty years later, he said that the best sight 
 for a Scotchman's eyes was the road that led to London? 
 
 Dr. Johnson not only appreciated Pope’s style and 
 ideas, but his vrorks as well. He considered Pope's "Essay on 
 Criticism," though an early work, as one of his greatest produc- 
 tions. In selection of material, and novelty of arrangement, it 
 was a most excellent work of didactic composition. Had he 
 written nothing else it would have placed him", in the opinion of 
 Johnson, among the leading critics and poets. 
 
 "Eloisa to Abelard" was especially favored by Johnson. 
 He doubted whether in all the world there could be found a work 
 in which there were so many good qualities. He received more en- 
 joyment from "The Rape of the Lock" than from any of Pope's other 
 v;orks, because it was "the most airy, the most ingenious, and the 
 
 1. Pope's Works: El win and Courthope. Vol IV,pg. 20 ’.London, 1886. 
 
 2. Phelps, William Lyons ; The Beginnings of the English Romantic 
 Movement; Page 13; Boston, 1893; 
 
-Vf- 
 
 -? 
 
 9 ’io r"' V . ’’i' I'DtiO c«t ' Q»rir . »*‘i mcf jjA otf ® 5 fr©*tdrfi». "^au^iSj 
 
 ,:. .. ,. • wl:.;,f, 0 ^ 9 V 3 "^- “ "f Bihj’ 1 0 . oJtJoaKli 
 
 . T0<t at •bt/Sv 9 :ir ^seaoat 
 
 c 
 
 <*, 
 
 ilw 
 
 :* « »xl^ ifo o.'-ii” ,>:^«n»os ^»^t?io•*x<Iqfi 
 
 1 '’: ?>:UX;ixfo « • . * j b*'-' t ^ ~rS j- : 
 
 ,-r . i. :M Cv X*. ai ^!-:e rtorirr i. vzJ^moo 
 
 > > i 
 
 pfiir B«e.;cf "Vo tor:L .c. oa^ :fx inr r»rCv Ofic. 'tcX uc\; .(ciw Ij* 
 '■:•• rl 8 ^om' asril '1 , ai. • - ao* .:• ( cb ’/•X'j^xjiobcaaji ■" 
 
 X 'o tj?o «i: one fterir ,\/': *":iJ'J0 *■ " , .. x;. o^ vto*'}’-!^ ' , iiX. 
 
 ,:X 
 
 
 ^■'OhneJ 0 * 'i 9 l i>ttirx 
 
 ajVs^ :xfj iati Ji'^o Xiii- at- aoev-ioL ;i’t»tic Xi;i XTr attw 
 
 i>i>',i:6 ifidf bisa «<-' ti/cd'- .rfi^w “Jo 
 
 ^ 89 .*,-■ 3**f««!!r. c^c?) - f.o^ 
 
 ,V /3 »V'>^^c'i‘ r I'j!*’xqqa ’’Ctw' rroBm^ - .^r 
 
 <► 
 
 iv o €:I; . X^B^' -vi: -X v.-: ij, ■' , xudebt 
 
 -.rabo’x x ^ *jx:v to o..^' vl’^ ■ > lua d^ljodt ” < ■'OioxJ'i'iO' 
 
 ^ ^ -L .._ ... v.iXftTO^x S;'i« , C^iii'tcrr ^o jioi * 3»«>Xec rrl . rf ,l-t 
 
 .. os!i . rot^/«o..i;c 3 oii'Oi^bi b 'lo XX*^-© £, aa^ 
 
 "'V -'C-T.l'o 3nt f ’'ifn^:£z ‘jr>\-; bjf/ow s'i Ta -rid:*-::: .lotjiTvr 
 
 \ 
 
 * 0^ ■'.'-'Ta -Toi-tlin r^iti'M.^l 9 iii srr'cct : ,itb«rf.<oXr 
 
 * ... 3f:,XoT. v.cf bo'cev*”^ ■.‘X.raiob:©':* ' 'rr^Xacr/ *5ii:c£K‘ 
 
 ^toi? a bfiao^t 00 f'Xij' iO f>Xto*r ''iii' iX» « ’ ioat^f^iiir,’ oK '. 
 
 ••,-T’» O'^'cn hi.Ti' ^et . 31 - ;.^i ■■. ;•;? 6003- ’cnisai u-x 9 iU 'loiitw ai 
 
 •r-» fto Iw cj."; aq.efl f;<T" 
 
 , .:iH«#iAnx cvac.'i r-rtia c^eoci c.nr Si 9dut/Xi'^z .oatotr 
 
 . f* , OvI;OS . r'?! X '' . iii^’.C^ : ajiioW y’s -r'l .1 
 
 ots,'<r-*r.o:: /[«'. ^%r:rr 
 
 , i .; f/Tx-fOX ; riaovl *; ,r,i f ' "*' r.^ 
 
 ' ; ■' 0 ? r , ; .V/ ‘' T ;?;x 95c'’' ; w^iou 
 
-38- 
 
 most delightful of all his compos i tions , 
 
 As a result of this sincere admiration and high re- 
 gard, Johnson became a strong defender of Pope’s reputation. ITo 
 one could speak slightingly of him without being sharply refuted 
 by Johnson, ’"nien Ramsay commented that the poetry of Pope was 
 more highly admired in his life-time than after his death, John- 
 son replied; ’’Sir, Pope's poetr3* been as much admired since 
 his death as during his life; it has orJy not been so much talked 
 of, but that is ovring to its being nov; more distant, and people 
 
 having other things to talk of. In order to be in fashion, better 
 
 o 
 
 works are neglected for \^ant of time. ” 
 
 When" Pope was accused of simply 
 putting the ’’Essay on Man” into verse, which was really com- 
 posed by Lord Bolingbroke , Johnson’s defense was, ’’Pope may have 
 gotten something from Bolingbroke, but we are sure that the 
 poetical imagery vrhich makes a great part of the poem, vras Pope’s 
 cvm.^” Thus it was when Boswell mentioned the vulgar saying 
 that Pope’s ’’Homer” was not a good representation of the original. 
 Ee at once refuted, "It was the greatest v'ork of its kind that 
 
 4 
 
 had ever been produced. ” 
 
 Johnson’s ardent admiration for Pope is excellently 
 
 expressed in the following lines written by Lev;is. These Johnson 
 
 praised highly and repeated them with enthusiasm. 
 
 1: Johnson’s Lives of the English Poets; Hill, George B; Vol.III, 
 Page 228: Oxford: 1905. 
 
 2. Boswell's Life of Johnson; Hill, George B; Vol.III, Page 256: 
 Oxford; 1887. 
 
 3. Bosivell’s Life of Johnson; Hill, George B; Vol.III, Page 402; 
 Oxford: 1887. 
 
 4. Boswell’s Life of Johnson; Kill, George B; Vol.III, Page 256: 
 Oxford: 1887. 
 
-’J' - 
 
 
 t i n- rco -'id lO^Jc 'o t:»f> Js, 
 
 - rCj^lrf brt« ;:: i t -T '•< ‘ ? o .* ^U 3 ^>*£ i»A 
 
 . , ;-i .}/ ;. -»t» 1 
 
 
 
 "'9* /5©'t ^ iuOi:a ;.v.' .1.^’ v.'.'^rriiT c .' j ti-.:oz :>zo 
 
 new ‘ J 50 ^' vr,*r,.>.: ■* .:T . i^” 
 
 -n.:* . 9 i.i * 
 
 i)--' ') j;n . • ^ 
 
 a Lt c 0 tj br [3 , f f 4 ? ■• 4 i > 
 t« ^:^T 4 ' i ^'isa^ 'r. 1 : * 
 
 - !0 0 ';/:.a 9 ';: tfoiffv 
 
 ■ irv' . •? ». . 
 
 '■.* 0 .::o'{ 
 
 . 
 
 • r .. ’ 
 
 .*> » r ;»i.. .; : 
 
 ': '> t I ' h 
 
 
 !8L 
 
 • r • ,'( ^ A < 
 
 ■ *- J 
 
 • 0 
 
 V 
 
 :ruo 
 
 cjb.* Si ;mr uirf 
 
 JM?: :v 7 
 
 i 
 
 r 
 
 ■:-i ■' iii -.7 
 
 
 
 r :lT . r " 
 
 p -it ■ ■>.; 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 ‘, 3^0 0 C; 
 
 itO 
 
 • '.i ' 
 
 ’:' Hoi V^qX 
 
 
 ne£^ 3 rf< . ’'j 
 
 trr.' - 5 * so: 
 
 * 
 
 aY:-: 
 
 o-.Y t 
 
 ■: .^.11I' 
 
 i . 
 
 1 _i V 
 
 vYa:t • 
 
 :5 nf,**'* 
 
 iS 
 
 .".ra' 
 
 ■rSi.’’'- P!: 
 
 
 .raavj;»'f .t>: :.T. 
 
 r V orf 
 
 
 S ^ j ■' 
 
 a«Tir 
 
 4 ■ «t 
 
 
 " . *- l '^ 0 'X 3 ; ar’-?'/ 'X?T 9 .b#^i- 
 
 'V'rfov ••'ife- '" . ’‘--•J v.a -f? '.^tv a.'^rul 3 .^r’, 7 .'’C'fTG'i i '• f>o * 3 -.'*iqXi 
 
 f aiij A ■. '■< :\'u: , X)i><JXA'XC 
 
 . I.XD ; 
 
 : ■ 01 * ■ , 
 
 ,, ;i(s^ 4 ’tc:rt .r.;! C!cvci!S- ' ■'•> 00 Yi.; .’'tc^TiA - : 
 
 . ■*ix:' : ' -;.7 o' . ^ 
 
 . '<V , T’K ; r Iv f. ’fXa^-Hw' . 
 
 ■T . ■: . ■; ; ixioli Ic o:xa 
 
 ’ . ;;x •>; •- . , 'I'- ; Yi. >;;rjxfo'^ • *' 7 ^ ’ ff'.i'rJic.* . 
 
 . r : ^ 1 x 0 
 
-39- 
 
 
 "While malice, Pope, denies they page 
 Its omi celestial fire 
 V/hile critics, and while hards in rage 
 Admiring, v/on’t admire. 
 
 VThile wayward pens thy worth assail, 
 
 And envious tongues decry; 
 
 These times, though many a friend bewail. 
 These times bewail not I. 
 
 But when the world’s loud praise is thine. 
 And spleen no more shall blame; 
 
 VThen with thy Homer thou shalt shine 
 In one established fame I 
 
 When none shall rail, and every lay 
 Pevote a wreath to thee; 
 
 That day (for come it will) that day 
 Shall I lament to see.^" 
 
 Lord Chesterfield v;as another representative of 
 Classicism in the eighteenth century. Many of his views coin- 
 cided with those of Johnson. Sven though they had mutual admir- 
 ation for Pope, Chesterfield v/as disliked by Johnson. It was 
 once said by Pr. Johnson, ’’This man, I thought had been a lord 
 among wits, but I find he is only a wit among lords,” and of 
 his letters, "they teach the morals of a courier, and the manners 
 
 O 
 
 of a dancing master.'^” 
 
 Chesterfield was personally acquainted with Pope and 
 knew his bad, as well as his good qualities. He believed that 
 the deformity of Pope’s body caused his satire and thus it should 
 be excused. He admitted that Pope was unnatural in his conver- 
 sation, and always attempted, humor and wit. Q,uite frequently 
 the poet used it unsuccessfully and out of season. 
 
 1. Boswell’s Life of Johnson: Hill, Beorge B; VolJH;Page 256: 
 Oxford: 1887, 
 
 2. Bosv/ell’s Life of Johnson: Hill, George B; Vol.I;Page 266: 
 Oxford: 1887. 
 
>■ 
 
 ■J 
 
 ' 0 . 
 
 . ■ •'.T- ! 
 
 , si:i T 
 
 *■ ■ I. - , • -?; 7 ij.r>A 
 
 , ' .• c-r 
 
 ;v-£r/ 0 '^ ..^lv,'2i ba>\ 
 
 , / i^wof ^:'‘JJ■*t*^ X. :; r:.: airo-.T 
 
 Jd C1«- t o :t-* j60 •”' 
 
 i o:l&iq, 'yi'^j. _ J ’To!{;r '.. 
 
 ; ■' ■ 
 
 ■' ^ TO . ,: '* Irr 
 
 I or el ;v •' ' • v ^ ■ T 
 
 ".'. ■ 'Cic-:‘s ::~rr^ ,'£^'i T 
 
 ; V. wJ* ■ .* y . ■ -■ • “ 73 1 
 
 ..!> t rx*v/ •■' ■'■ 
 
 ij l i' ue-.-'C' v*oJ 
 
 
 r;T«i.V -'ir\ lo 'iliiS' 
 
 T-0 A©3 c::* rii. seioi«0-*'£b 
 
 
 •■ * • f A 
 
 < 1 ,* ■ f J 
 
 ;r:. r.,*j.r v«J:^ 
 
 .ir r 
 
 3 V:'! 
 
 ’n; 1 - J q 0 3 v>r 
 
 •4 » 4 V . 
 
 -W 1 ^ . 
 
 b^ht 3 
 
 
 if . 
 
 . jir/icL \<^ 
 
 bf: 'J. C 
 
 .1 > •' c •■ 
 
 ;u"? 
 
 
 ^' 1 : 0 '/ 
 
 r» 
 
 
 C i ^ 
 
 
 
 •: Z b \ I 
 
 ' ia;’C 
 
 *'0 
 
 
 ” i jib'ic Z ', ■ -^ 
 
 ** r ^ ^ X 
 
 , (? at 
 
 •ft 'n :21 
 
 i 
 
 3 rtCh■'^''. 
 
 ’wSX! 
 
 
 ':.v' , -:a^ 
 
 ) a i J •' 
 
 ':■■'[ -X" 
 
 
 
 .cl c i .'l 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .r:i:,o-tJ!<i!> .’ I** 
 
 - orro'^f 1 ' 
 
 . 17 ,, r, , 4 -.. • , . . 
 
 • ' ♦, '...>•) 
 
 
 < ■ :'•■ ■.! q ■ - Cti i'^T' 'i 
 
 
 
 ■ -.,-f 
 
 E>ev-. 
 
 ; ff) , 
 
 ,), > i ^.^^L'l-' 
 
 £»oo 7 ' iil:: 
 
 
 , 1 ^' L 
 
 
 -t-r^iTw 0 . 3 ?i{ :ji X/’Xfi^ . ‘or'' •-"* . 9 i/!>xo 
 
 •;£a tsiiipD*:! r-'l . . .'■ Vv •')::£ To^JifC *' 5 ' *» • -rX' ‘ ■. , T^i .’ -t' 
 
 ' .Krc^ fc:;js' v frx-l'tJ-.’.oaCi, t. f' it T>'. u;.- ».v 
 
 : *• r^-v ;’: --roy' , : "'I' : ;■. - *;<> ' ■>' T.fo i . '' 
 
 . 'Jt>u. • *X- 
 
 ; . ;i ^ : : -;.i.'V::o 'al i I Q ' rio 
 
 . ,; • r ; , ._lxC 
 
 
-40- 
 
 Lord Chesterfield "believed that Pope, along v.dth 
 other great leaders, helped to rcake the English language. It was 
 his opinion that, "Pope’s works spoke sufficiently for themselves; 
 they v;culd live as long as letters and taste should remain in 
 that country, and "be more and more admired, as envy and resent- 
 ment should subside.^” 
 
 Oliver Goldsmith possessed a similar appreciation of 
 Pope. He expressed a disgust for his contemporaries who formed 
 the romantic school. Although he was a follower of Classicism, 
 often romanticism unconsciously appeared in his v.'orks . Johnson 
 kept a strict eye on him, and ”he sometimes seems to have written 
 
 p 
 
 as if Lr. Johnson were looking over his shoulder. ” 
 
 His admiration for Pope \ms sincere, for he believed 
 the poet had a deep insight into the human heart. His attitude 
 tovra.rd Pope's "Eloisa to Abelard” was for the most part favorable. 
 This is clearly evidenced by his words. ”The harmony of numbers 
 in this poem is very fine. It is rather dravm out to too 
 tedious a length, although the passions vary with great judg- 
 ment. It may be considered as superior to anything in the 
 epistolary vray; and the many translations which have been made 
 of it into the modern languages are in some measure a proof of 
 this.'” Of his "Bap e of the Lock” , Goldsmith stands in accord 
 with Johnson and Chesterfield, in pronouncing it Pope’s most 
 excellent work. He praised it even more enthusiastically than 
 
 1. Maty,M.: Miscellaneous Works of Chesterfield: Vol.I; Pg.l4; 
 London; 1778. 
 
 2. Perry, Thomas Sergeant: English Literature in the Eighteenth 
 
 Century; Page 396: Hew York; 1S83. 
 
 3. Goldsmith, Oliver : Beauties of English Poetry. (i«ioulton, 
 
 Charles}: Library of Literary' Gri ticism."^/"ol . Ill .Pg.l68 ; Hew 
 York;1910. 
 
-41- 
 
 the radical Johnson in this statement. ’’This seems to he Mr. 
 
 Pope’s most finished production, and is perhaps the most perfect 
 in our language. It exliihits stronger powers of imagination, 
 more harmony of numbers, and a greater knowledge of the world, 
 than any other of this poet's work; and it is probable if our 
 country were called upon to show a specimen of their genius to 
 foreigners, this v;ould be the work here fixed upon.^" 
 
 Gray, like Young and Cov/per, in his early life was 
 classical, but changed to a romanticist in his later years. 
 
 Prom his youth he had imitated Pryden, v;hile at the same time 
 he liad conceived Pope a,s being one of the finest writers we ever 
 had. 
 
 In 1742 Gray ^vrote three odes, all of which shov;ed 
 the Augustan spirit. But even at this early stage of his career 
 he wTOte a sonnet which was markedly a romantic form of poetry. 
 
 In the middle of the century his ”Elegy(^^a Country Church-yard” 
 appeared. Influences of other vrarks were manifest in this piece; 
 notably Brown’s ”Urn Burial,” Parnell’s "Pight Piece,” Blair’s 
 "Grave,” and Young’s "Night Thoughts.” The "Elegy" was the 
 climax of the Grave-yard school, and although it was not en- 
 tirely romantic, might be termed the turning, point in that direc- 
 tion . 
 
 His "Progress of Poesy,” a Pindaric ode, a.ppeared in 
 1754. It was the most imaginative of all Gray's poetry, and 
 marked him as a romanticist. Of it there were numerous criti- 
 cisms. Johnson said concerning iti. "He who could do nothing 
 
 1. Goldsmith, Oliver: Beauties of English Poetry: (Moulton: 
 
 Library of Literary Criticism: Vol.III. Page 161; New York, 1910) 
 

 • V 
 
 ? ■ 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 c 
 
 1 
 
 < 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 i - 
 
 ' 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
-42- 
 
 
 else could ivrite like Pindar^’” 
 
 Gray constantly grew farther away from Qlassicisra, 
 and in romantic tendencies surpassed his age. He cultivated an 
 interest in foreign peoples, using Horse and Welsh themes, which 
 had not heen characteristic of Augustan writers. 
 
 His writings not only 116001116 romantic, hut his sym- 
 pathies as well. He liked Walpole’s ’’Castle of Otranto;” v^as a 
 warm friend of Hurd’s; and he himself said he had ’’gone mad” about 
 ’’Ossian.” His feeling for nature was exceptionally deep. He 
 preferred country to city life, loved melancholy, and appreciated 
 wild and romantic scenery. 
 
 The world, in the main, has heen kind to Gray, hut he 
 was criticized unjustly hy Johnson. It v;as I)r. Johnson’s opinion 
 that Gray did not ranlv high as a poet. He called him a ”raecha,n- 
 ical poetf” and with his usual franloiess compared his odes to, 
 ’’forced plants raised in a hot hed; and they are poor plants; 
 they are hut cucumbers after all . ” When Boswell suggested 
 Gray might he dull in company hut not in poetry, Johnson replied, 
 ’’Sir, he was dull in company, dull in his closet, dull every- 
 where. He was dull in a new way that made many people think him 
 grea-o. ” 
 
 In spite of all these harsh rebukes, Gray has ”in- 
 fluenced his age more than the age influenced him. ” He should 
 
 1. Beers, Henry A: History of English Romanticism in the Eighteenth 
 Century;Page 54: Hew York:i9I0. 
 
 2. Boswell’s Life Of Johnson :Hill , George B: Vol . II ,Pg.327 lOxford ,1887 
 
 3. Boswell's Life Of Johnson :Hill , George B: Vol . IV,Pg.l3 : Oxford, 1887 
 
 4. Boswell’s Life Of Johns on: Hill , George B:Vol .II ,Pg.327 :0xford,1887 
 
 5. Phelps , William Lyons : The Beginnings of the English Romantic 
 Movement: Page 170: Boston: 1893. 
 
-43- 
 
 hold a more important place in the romantic movement than is 
 usually assigned to him, for according to Edmund Gosse, Gray 
 was the most important poetical figure between Pope and \7ord8- 
 worth . 
 
 Although Horace Walpole was one of the first novelists 
 to advance romanticism, he v.-as at heart an Augustan. He con- 
 sidered Pope his favorite writer; and in his own verses used a 
 style similar to that of the poet. He regarded the works of Pope 
 as excellent and praised them highly. The "Dunciad,” he said, 
 is blemished by the offensive image of the games; but the poetry 
 appears to be admirable; and although the fourth Book has ob- 
 scurities, I prefer it to the three others; it has descriptions 
 not surpassed by any poet that ever existed, and which surely a 
 writer merely ingenious will never equal. In one of his 
 letters to Bentley he remarked concerning the ’’Rape of the Lock," 
 "besides the originality of a great part of the invention; it is 
 
 9 
 
 a standard of graceful vnritingT" He spoke of Pope’s rich English 
 and at the poet’s death remarked, "Pope and poetry are dead.^" 
 
 He had great respect for Gray but did not approve of 
 his romantic vTitings. He expressed disgust for "Ossian;" was 
 contemptuous of Spenser; and considered Shakespeare’s "Midsummer 
 Bight’s Bream" "forty times more nonsensical than the worst 
 
 4 
 
 translation of any Italian Opera-books. " Notwithstanding all 
 
 1. Toynbee, Mrs. Paget :Letters of Horace Walpole: Vol .XIII ,Pg. 283 ; 
 Oxford: 1905. 
 
 2. Toynbee, Mrs .Paget :Letters of Horace Walpole: Vol .XIII :Pg. 284 ; 
 Oxford: 1905. 
 
 3. Toyhbee, Mrs .Paget :Letters of Horace V/alpol e: Vol . II : Pg. 18; 
 
 Oxford: 1903. 
 
 4. Toynbee, Mrs .Paget :Letters of Horace Walpole : Vol . Ill : Pg.288; 
 
 Oxford, 1903. 
 
-44- 
 
 his opposition to romantic tendencies and his great respect for 
 Pope, Walpole unconsciously furthered romanticism. 
 
 William Cowper (1731-1800) showed a mixture of class- 
 ical and romantic tendencies in his literature, hut in the main 
 he was an anti-classicist. He used the heroic-couplet to a small 
 extent, lA-hile hlank-verse he employed abundantly. His antagonism 
 for Johnson was personal and intense; he had high admiration for 
 Milton. Having so great a fondness for blank verse and so high 
 a regard for the poetry of Milton, it was not surprising that he 
 censured Pope for ’’making poetry a mere mechanic art^” Gray and 
 Johnson lauded Pope’s ”Homer,” but when Cowper and a friend com- 
 pared Pope’s translation with the original they soon discovered 
 that there was ’’hardly a thing in the world of which Pope was 
 
 p 
 
 so utterly destitute as a taste for Homer. Cowper considered 
 Pope a disgusting letter writer, and except in very few cases, 
 
 3 
 
 ’’the most disagreeable maker of epistles he ever met with. ’* 
 
 He did allow him the title of poet, but much preferred Dryden. 
 Cowper was an important figure betv;een Pope and Words v/orth, and 
 did much to further romanticism. 
 
 George Crabbe (1754-1832) came at a time when the 
 reputation of Pope was ’’hanging in the balance.” The new liter- 
 ary taste of romanticism was gradually growing, and it was ques- 
 tionable whether the severe standards of the Augustan age could 
 satisfy it. A distinct division can hardly be made between the 
 
 1. Beers, Henry A: History of English Romanticism in the Eighteenth 
 Century; Page 53: Hew York: 1910. 
 
 2. Boswell’s Life of Johnson: Hill, George B:Vol.III. Page 257: 
 
 Oxf 0 rd , 1 887 . 
 
 3. Wright, Thomas: Correspondence of William Cowper: Vol . I :Pg .196 ; 
 Hew York; 1904 . 
 
ud 
 
 
 
 • ‘ 'C ' .* ' • V 
 
 •) j f ^ <»WO£f« OGf' 
 
 •...? •'; , ' 2 / . '.r< rt 2 
 
 V ;'’ .ir(^ . 
 
 V W* 
 
 • on :•, > ; 
 
 ' 
 
 t“i>- ~p 
 
 
 'V ,MI 
 
 IT 
 
 
 MCTi 
 
 ft.tA’ ’d 
 
 * 
 
 'T.-t «Mrl 
 
 • if* ‘M r . 1 
 
 
 ’ *w it 
 
 < c ^ \ar‘ 
 
 •' ti^nix " /o * 'i I : _ :.. arr’ 
 
 
 
 TO. 
 
 
 to: 
 
 r >■ I* 
 
 
 < 4 w'. 
 
 '0 -* 
 
 ior 0 1 
 
 ' *■*-,•* ’ 
 
 i u^isi ; 
 
 f ;, ^ jTi 
 
 •f:'^ 
 
1 " 
 
 -45- 
 
 Old and the new movement; hut Crahhe seems to come between the 
 two ages . 
 
 In the new school of poetry the works of Crahhe gave 
 
 the first evidences of the realistic movement. In his earlier 
 
 work he preceded Cowper and Wordsworth, ■^e discarded the use of 
 
 conventional imagery and strictly attended to the realities of 
 
 scenery. Throughout his life he had a keen sense of observation, 
 
 and he pictured life as he saw it. He gave only the hare truths 
 
 without fancy. His conception of life tends toward pessimism, 
 
 and, as Francis Palgrave said, "nature mth him is seen in her 
 
 hare simplicity, --aus tere often, sometimes ugly in her nakedness!" 
 
 Hazlitt criticized him because he vncote about the country and the 
 
 country life, "only to take the charm out of it, and to dispel the 
 
 illusion, the glory, and the dream, which have lowered over it in 
 
 2 
 
 golden verse from Theocritus to Cowper. " 
 
 Crahhe had a depth of feeling and a genuine pathos which 
 Pope did not possess. In description Crahhe wrote what he saw; 
 Pope described the outstanding things. The satire in his works 
 is also distinctive from Pope’s. He had a clear understanding of 
 human nature and a sympathetic feeling for the frailties of man. 
 Because of these conceptions of life he did not satirize his per- 
 sonal enemies as Pope did; hut he aimed his criticism at mankind 
 in general. Crahhe’s satire has no similiarity with the "fiercely 
 personal and hitter attacks" of Pope, except in style. 
 
 1. Palgrave, Francis: Landscape in Poetry .( Charles Moulton: 
 
 Library of Literary Criticism^Vol . V;Pg.l77 : Hew York, 1910; 
 
 2. Waller and Glover :Hazlitt ’s Collected Works :Vol . TV, Pg .351 : 
 London, 1902. 
 
0/ ' 1 • - v-.i. c 8<’ yH.\* ; 'f'j _m''- \Z^. 
 
 ir ■ f'l: r . iS' , v)Vv. ■ ' i' ' j-x 9. i ■ f 
 
 ■ t: i;f» 'j ^ . j.'sfTOTT'SA-i: s teiptO^ t^h»a i r •• ’ :-rrCA- 
 
 t’;. * (.V I«rri' : 'firTOi *;<ovnr'^ 
 
 ; .'■ . ’’ 0 - . • a h 0 i s'* ■•■ ',» ' ' . 
 
 ; «'a / Jw : f;: '.■vr.j; o! »*ilf: i>i< 
 
 , -:b ■ q V• ::^ ; r ‘-:-j?JtCO a.'i . {£' J ■- ’w.j 
 
 't-j;: : rr^'- . 2 :uLi n"X^- *7 ‘ ' '■* : ''C'iufy.\ € ' 
 
 ; »tO:i .:.:r -.*• , ■' - . »V ^ / i?'; •- -••• , .^ -t 0. ‘i i J *'T. 
 
 Vi * •'.•■. ■:'it . ,0 0 Dp.'i :‘ . T." 0^ • ■ -;i, '■os.icltx'xo Ji'i.C ::* 
 
 c.;* I'.* ‘ !.' , J J: Ic v-vo ; :£ac' ^ni :i' 'c Lic , '^ ,-•1 v'l.tjfs/c :■ 
 
 : ( ;1 c < ■' . ^L';:-o:..r ••rnr; liciti':- a**- tTSdii. , a .l-i*.' C \2; ■ 
 
 ‘’qwoO .- 0 X 03 
 
 rici.i'" '-’i. " .. . o' c :2«?qs>ib .''' vt- 
 
 ;vc-^ o. v-jilvv” « ''■•:-•• ' ■ 2 , .'x :i : .;? off- 
 
 ■1 ,> ;•.* r. o./’T . tini e- bod’lTP^iafs 
 
 j'o / i / , 'v ooo' s .'cTx, 
 
 
 . . . n 
 
 ' : ]’• 0 - ' 
 
 .. - . /j 'o- &' 
 
 TV* 'O': ■’.-. :;n 
 
 r'r 0 j*£ ;: 
 
 r ' • ^ 
 
 f--‘ • r ' ‘ 
 
 i ‘■ooi :rr;- 0 !■ 
 
 ^1 ^ 1 ' '.-/ c-fSL 
 
 ' ■ ' /{o”' s X 0 ki .'.'1 ■ 
 
 .■ '., : 'vv&ffi 1 0 o r + • , 
 
 , ;L;^ ; u,: 
 
 r^^cfc 
 
 ' " os ; .rv .:* , 
 
 • ., , V - ^.-. 
 
 .-. i -- J . -1-. • 
 
 i'l .. .'! ro: 
 
 
 . ■ '. i 
 
 
 
 , <) T C“T '‘0 ** 
 
 r.i, * ^ ■ 
 
 • Xi:T>3»i( 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 • I' o'' to • ^*€t -^.'T ' ' 
 
 . _ ' >0'I f!i ‘ 
 
 ' ;o inlo, . , 
 
 
 • ' r '•* -■• ' ; 
 
 
 . oV^.^oXo'’; 
 
 
 ■■■/to'. ' '. 
 
 . • * • . . - 
 
 
 .^j>fX._6L: f;* 
 
 1, orv 
 
 T?!, 
 
 *< C ..li 
 
- 46 - 
 
 Unlike his differences in realism and satire, Crahhe’s 
 style shows a predominant influence of Pope. His verses were 
 written in the heroic-couplet, and in some of his early poems he 
 adopted the didactic method. He was not only a faithful disciple 
 of the couplet, hut was also an adherent to the "shut” couplet. 
 Later in his life he did deviate somewhat from the standards of 
 Classicism, conmitting errors which Pope would have severely con- 
 demned. But on the whole, Crahhe consistently followed the 
 heroic-couplet, and Pope governed the meter of his verse through- 
 out his life. 
 
 So it was that Crahhe , influenced hoth hy classicism and 
 romanticism, stood “peculiarly alone in his generation.” He 
 successf’ully combined the characteristics of the Augustan Age 
 and those of the Lake school, and was very important at this 
 turning point in English literature. 
 
 With the influx of revolutionary forces in the latter 
 part of the eighteenth century came new impulses in the literary 
 movement. To these the English poets frequently responded. Es- 
 pecially was this new spirit apparent in the works of Robert Burns- 
 almost to the degree of enthusiasm. Some writers have been ad- 
 mired for their polish; others respected for their philosophy; 
 Robert Burns was loved for his whole-hearted, “blood— warm” verses. 
 The Scotch bard sang in an unrestrained tune and with unsuppressed 
 emotion. His poetry was distinctive in its fervor, and in its 
 striking simplicity. 'IThen we compare the dignified and polished 
 verses of Pope with the spontaneous outbursts of Burns, the 
 

 
 n ' 0 
 
 W W »-• r .It 
 
 ■ r- .:. < o '; 
 
 j''’^' i?y :>': ' 
 
 ‘jr-i 'ifTtiy.* air 
 
 o ■ .■ •' li/" ■• 
 
 ,ti.. 
 
 <' ?i 
 
 •» r£ c 
 
 1 r 
 
 0-j 
 
 iil £ •. S' ‘ 
 
 '.'iw* ■_ '. IJ3T : ■ , -Xi;cci j .v^ h 
 
 j •: t r:o - ': - uVft^Cc i'--. '■> ' i ■' >r! ‘T ii •-f.'i ftX X^tg 
 -r j") ■ /J'i-yT.o •'■: r**'-’ :’ .*’• >. ;i/.' ■ ‘: 
 
 :*.{j ^D-v' ■':-^ r'C': .• d". 
 
 JC-'t;'* 1' 5..,^ 
 
 ■’•r'..- :.;. £ ,*£’axr . . ix? £. 
 
 X %. 
 
 cl < l 
 
 'X 
 
 rin 1 0 .! r; r « r n \;cf 
 
 Jtf 
 
 '■>oc V 1 ,€ ■ 1 •.'?;'l' •' 
 
 «4 • * 
 
 <. ' . 
 
 t 
 
 • ;i y.:of 
 
 33'* - 
 
 V ::. i • -r.? 
 
 lo 
 
 col,- .■ij.''^OIs3 -^'''^ OJ'f 
 
 v“ ' - 
 
 'llKcf ‘ * 'O'*’ ■' 
 
 ^ V 
 
 L'“V '</ r ^ ‘'.L, ya 
 
 £•:■>-. j, ?>i. 
 
 
 
 * *£ Jl ^ ^ T 
 
 • : 
 
 ^ r 
 
 
 •..j* . 
 
 
 A ■> 1 ' if-: '*' ■ - 
 
 ■ 
 
 : '/C?-;! C' . -’ 
 
 A&. ■'. ti-'l 
 
 • ^ , ^ .-.-r ■:■ 
 
 
 c X'l 
 
 ‘ fiO!) 
 
 •. ^ A 
 
 , \ 
 
 
 •v^> : ' 1 
 
 T,-. : 
 
 
 « 4 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 »• - 
 
 t 
 
 ■'■• ; , /a* 
 
 t * . ‘ 
 
 : T . . .i' f C:^ iar 
 
 
 V j'."' ? O'* i, '';/ ' ’ ■* 
 
 ’. '5 n« ■ 
 
 :rc : , 
 
 <4' 
 
 : vi : . 
 
 \ 'i 
 
 „,L:' ^C1 ■• 1 ■; , 
 
 ::t 
 
 S ' " u'r,; iq'" ■ 0 aw r. 
 
 0 *■ 
 
 , 'CCi^Ofi.TC-X 
 
 
 - .£ ; 
 
 >■ •,-•-)■ 
 
 ij*': It : a 'MXL'fJ 
 
 
 
 1 — ^ '■* 
 
-47- 
 
 classical works seem almost "cold and pedantic.” Burns loved 
 nature. He was concerned in the common things of life. Because 
 of these interests he described life as it actually appeared to 
 him; he depicted nature in the most realistic manner. 
 
 In the world of literature Cowper is often termed the 
 
 ”dawn” of a new era 5 Burns is termed the ’’sunrise.” In his 
 
 poetry the Sco tollman bred the naturalness and conviviality of his 
 
 personality. His impulsive nature seemed to fling aside the 
 
 standards set by the Augustan writers. Hone of the reformers 
 
 as yet had dared to be passionate in their i^ritings. Cov;per had 
 
 attempted no passion but that of ’’religious despair.” Crabbe's 
 
 passion was limited to a ’’grim contemplation of the miseries and 
 
 1 
 
 disappointments of life; ” while all the passion of Blake ’’had 
 conveyed itself into the channel of mystical dreaming. Burns was 
 the premier in passionate writings. He gave vent to the ’’passion 
 of war, passion of conviviality,” and above all to the ’’passion 
 of love. ” In voicing passion he has never been surpassed by 
 the greatest poets. This emotional warmth of verse was one of 
 his marked contributions to the age. 
 
 Hot only did his freedom loving nature rebel against 
 oppression, but it caused him to disregard the conventions and 
 rules which had been established by the Augustan leaders. His 
 verse did not conforra to the models; it took on a new form of 
 freedom. In his verse form he depended on his Scotch predecess- 
 ors in preference to the classical models. He imitated freely 
 
 1. Saints Dury , George ; A History of nineteenth Century Literature; 
 
 Page 17; Hew York: 1909. 
 
 2. Saintsbury , George : A History of nineteenth Century Literature; 
 
 Page 15; Hew York: 1909. 
 
-48- 
 
 frora Hamilton and Fergusson, Tout particularly did he take from 
 Ramsay. In following these men he wrote with ease, for he was 
 a master in the vernacular — a style which was innate. The 
 
 superiority of his Scotch over his English works proved him the 
 "better in his own tongue. TVhen he attempted to write in the 
 heroic- couplet the product was clumsy and was "sprinkled with 
 touches of natural oToservation" - quite foreign to ^Pope. His 
 spirit of freedom seemed to prevent him from succ-essfuly imitating 
 the Augustan writers. 
 
 Thus the dissention from the reign of classicism can o"b- 
 viously he traced. The offerings of the Scotch hard seemed to 
 satisfy a desire in the mind of the age for something different; 
 and, at least for a time, the free, passionate, and unrestrained 
 poetry of "Bohhie" Bums abounded in popularity. 
 
 William Lisle Bowles (1762-1350) was as much an anti- 
 Augustan as Cowper and Bums had been. His "Fourteen Sonnets, 
 written chiefly on Picturesque Spots during a Journey" show that 
 Bowles had little sympathy with Pope, because the style in itself 
 is reactionary. Wordsworth and Coleridge were both fascinated 
 with this v;ork, and in the latter poet it aroused a wild enthu- 
 siasm. All the poetical works of Bowles were simple, earnest, 
 and true, pervaded throughout with a warm and tender sentiment. 
 
 The mild qualities of his poetry are a great contrast to the 
 sincerity and pugnacity of his prose. 
 
 Bowles is not remembered for his poetic works, but like 
 Boswell to Johnson, he is known through his edition of Pope, 
 
: 07’^ ■■ 
 
 
 , • ; . L> f • *TX‘ 7 
 
 > •* * 
 
 •f 1 . 
 
 ■ Jlr; f»;^c'rr ? ■ 
 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 . . j. ^ \ 
 
 
 • / 
 
 • i . • V 
 
 .1 ' * - . ,. , A 
 
 * r :• • • p::* * ‘i o f 
 
 A J ’J* ■ 
 
 -- .f:'* i r. 
 
 . - •/;' r-r';;/ 
 
 * 
 
 . ci j:luf - 
 
 -4 *. ?. 
 
 .» 1 
 
 
 :q‘C. . .r“^ 
 
 • - r j 
 
 i c 1 a 3 . 
 
 
 ' ■ 
 
 * ./ • 4 * ' 'i ' O 1 ^-4 4 gk « 
 
 * (^•y^ • 
 
 - ; t: • . a 
 
 “I A ^j}/i ?>r;i 
 
 . ? » .V ^ 
 
 , . . i ■ M ^ 
 
 '•'X •;.; : 
 
 ... . 
 
 
 t ’ 
 
 :; ; p: i 
 
 -i. - ' 
 
 
 . ;v 
 
 V f *, ^.- 
 
 . '.iov * " 
 
 i. ' ..JOftcT 
 
 . .‘i’ v'C:.' 
 
 a " .• ",v:»/X. 'Ll 
 
 -rr>*Xfr{* 
 
 :9»ii tti 
 
 r £v-^ 0 9 
 
 . ^ i>ts , 
 
 
 1 : :.: 
 
 V.' f’i 
 
 - !d 
 
 b"'-’' i? ■- 
 
 'xa Si Svo'^ T 
 
 •*• J-, . '-r 
 
 « . ‘*J* i J 
 
 * ^ ** 
 
 : ' ::.. ';c;u" 't 
 
 . :■. • ■ ■ 
 
 ■ • ' • p ?r 
 
 . ‘ ■- v; £ "J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . >c':. 
 
 : i; 
 
 « •. '■ oi.^»>ocr eirf TfOt 
 
 
 
 ■ :.n 'X'.Si 
 
-49- 
 
 This edition (1806) appeared in ten voluTnes, with a sketch of 
 his life and criticisms on his poetry. Buffhead and Johnson had 
 written a Life in praise of Pope; Joseph Warton, with Bowles 
 following in his footsteps, wrote in criticism of the poet. The 
 Life prefixed to this edition brought about a violent controversy 
 on the question of Pope’s title to poet. Bowles placed him in 
 the same class to which Warton had assigned him, --at the head of 
 the second rank poets, Bowles stood alone in this controversy 
 against Campbell, Byron, Roscoe, Octavi’os Gilchrist, and the 
 "Ciuarterly Review," until later when Southey, Hazlitt, and *Biack- 
 woodb Magazine’ aided him. William Clark Russel gives a very 
 concise account of this quarrel. "Mr. Bowles wrote a book upon 
 Pope. Mr. Campbell abused Mr. Bowler’s book upon Pope. Mr. 
 
 Bowles wrote an answer to Mr. Campbell’s abuse of Mr. Bowles’s 
 book on Pope. Lord Byron wrote a letter to certain stars in 
 Albermarle street in an answer to Mr. Bowles’s answer to Mr. 
 Campbell’s abuse of Mr. Bowles’s book on Pope. Jeremy Bentham, 
 Esq., wrote a letter to Lord Byron about Lord Byron’s letter to 
 certain stars in Albermarle street, in answer to Mr. Bowles’s 
 answer to Mr. Campbell’s abuse of Mr. Bowles’s book on Pope. Here 
 the controversy ended, leaving each disputant more thoroughly 
 satisfied with his own judgment.^" 
 
 Although it has often been urged that Bowles was biased 
 against Pope, it is quite agreed that he was thoroughly versed 
 in his subject.. His doctrine indeed did not waver under the 
 
 1. RusseB, William Clark: The Book of Authors (Moulton, Charles; 
 
 Library of Literary Cri ticism: )Hew York: 1910. 
 
** 1 
 
 
 i I 
 
 V 
 
 • Jl 
 
 n 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 •t i: a- ■ •' 
 
 
 
 
 Wjf iTT ^ssg^ 
 
-50- 
 
 attacke of his opponents. And ultimately Bowles maintained his 
 purpose in establishing his three contentions, that ”Pope was 
 only at the head of the second rank of poets-- that, as a man, 
 he was guilty of many meannesses, and had a prurient imagination 
 and pen--and that the objects of artificial life are, per se, 
 less fitted for the purposes of poetry than those of nature, and 
 than the passions of the human heart. Throughout the entire 
 edition an extreme anti-Augustan attitude v/as prevalent, and the 
 vjork was a strong factor in the decline of Pope’s reputation* 
 
 V/illiam V/’ords'v^'orth (1770-1850) had little sympathy v;ith 
 the school of Pope. He did not agree vdth the Augustans in regard 
 to diction, to the purpose of poetry, nor to their conception of 
 realism. The Classical writers considered it the purpose of 
 poetry to instruct, and quite late in the eighteenth century 
 Samuel Johnson held strict didactic views-. They wrote for the 
 higher classes rather than for all mankind. These ideas of Pope 
 and his imitators were quite different from those held by Words- 
 worth. The peet laureate believed the object of poetry was to 
 please; to amuse not only conventional, man, but universal men. 
 
 In speaking of the purpose of poetry Wordsworth said, ’’The poet 
 ^^^rites under one restriction, namely, the necessity of giving 
 immediate pleasure to a human Being, possessed of that information 
 which m^3^ be expected from him, not as a lawyer, a physician, a 
 mariner, an astronomer, or a natural philosopher, but as a man.^” 
 
 1. Gilfillan, George: Political Works of William Lisle Bowles: 
 Vol.II: Page 15; Edinburgh: 1855. 
 
 2. George, A.J: Wordsworth’s Prefaces and Essays on Poetry: 
 
 Page 16; Boston: 1892. 
 
-51- 
 
 mien Wordsworth first began to write he had a tendency 
 to imitate the models. Soon, however, he rebelled against mere 
 forms and conventions. He went so far as to say, "my purpose is 
 to imitate, and, as far as possible, to adopt the vei^^ language 
 of men — have taken as much pains to avoid v/hat is usually 
 called poetic diction as others ordinarily take to produce it.^" 
 V;"ordsworth followed this conception as closely as was possible. 
 Simplicity is one of the main characteristics of his poetry. 
 
 Among the poets of England, Wordsworth has been rightly 
 called "nature’s great interpreter." His admiration for nature 
 was BO high, his understanding so deep and sympathetic, that 
 perforce he would describe it truly and accurately. Wordsworth 
 disliked the poetry’ of Pope because it possessed no traces of 
 emotion and imagination, but it was the poet's artifical descrip- 
 tion of nature which was particularly disgusting to him. He 
 sho?/ed this disapproval ?7hen he said, "To what a law state know- 
 ledge of the most obvious and important phenomena had sunk, is 
 evident from the style in which Pryd.en has executed a description, 
 of Eight in one of his Tragedies, and Pope his translation of the 
 celebrated moonlight scenes in the "Illiad." A blind man in the 
 habit of attending accurately to description might easily depict 
 
 O 
 
 these appearances with more truth. 
 
 A different phase of the romantic movement was presented 
 by the works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834.) His was 
 the fanciful, supernatura.1 , imaginative poetry, and his romances 
 
 Vv'ere written out of "such stuff as dreams are made of." 
 
 1. George, A.J: Wordsworth’s Prefaces and Essays on Pcctry:Pame 8:* 
 Boston:l892. > 
 
 Worosworth, billiami Poetry as a Study • (^lioul ton, Chari es i Library 
 
 ■■ n-. T.-. t.-tn-iRrr,. Vnl T T T » P.-.' , T ^ 
 

C-1 to 
 
 -52- 
 
 He disliked the pseudo-classical school. He said, 
 
 "From the common opinion that the English style attained its 
 greatest perfection in and about Q,ueen Anne’s reign, I altogether 
 dissent.^*' Because of this prejudice, Coleridge did not consider 
 himself a competent judge of the Augustan school. "I was not 
 blind to the merits of the school,” he said, ”yet as from inex- 
 perience of the world, and consequent want of sympathy with the 
 general subjects of these poems they gave me little pleasure, I 
 doubtless undervalued the kind, and with the presumption of youth 
 mthheld from the masters the legitimate narue of poets. 
 
 Haslitt evidently recognized the critical ability of Coleridge for 
 
 he said. ”Mr, Coleridge threv; a great stone into the standing 
 
 pool of criticism, which splashed some persons with the mud, but 
 which gave a motion to the serr^ice and a reverberation to the 
 neighboring echoes, v;hich has not since subsided. ” Although 
 Coleridge modestly believed himself to be no fair judge of class- 
 ical poetry, his reputation as a critic of the eighteenth century 
 rates him with Ben Johnson and Bryden — the best critics of the 
 Seventeenth century. He was one of the most important romantic 
 crii/ics, and the fact that the poetry of Pope held little pleasure 
 for Coleridge showed a decline in Pope’s reputation. 
 
 The name of Robert Southey (1774—1845) is usually 
 connected v;ith those of Wordsworth and Coleridge. He is classed 
 in this group because he was closely associated in friendly rela- 
 tions, and was quite as romantic. Saintsbury speaks of him as a 
 
 1. Professor Shedd: Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleride*e: 
 Vol.iy’;Pg.341 ; Hew York;i868. 
 
 • Coleridge, Se.muel : EiograjJhia Literaria: Vol.I.Pg.ll: Oxford, 1007. 
 . V/aller and Glover: The Collected Works of William Hazlitf 
 Vol.IV: Pg.212: Hew York: 1902. 
 
-53- 
 
 poct ’’ranking lower than either Vfordsworth or Coleridge, hut hav- 
 ing done far more to popularise the general theory of romantic 
 poetry than either.^” Like Wordsworth and Coleridge he rebelled 
 against poetic conventions; he considered the poetry of the class- 
 ical school no special evidence of genius, ’’The art of poetry”, 
 he said, ”or rather the art of versification, v;hich was now the 
 same thing, \vas made easy to the meanest capacity,^” 
 
 Southey’s chief poems were romantic and adventurous. He 
 experimented in forms of verse, and had a v;ide range of subjects. 
 His studies in foreign literature added much tc the romantic ma- 
 tei'ial. This third member of the Lake school v^as enthusiastic, 
 extreme, revolutionary— a man, ’’not cast in the mould of other 
 men’s opinions, not shaped on any model, a,nd bov/ing to no author- 
 ity, ” Southey did not, hesitate to attack the works of Pope, 
 and boldly gave his opinion of him, ’’The age of Pope was the 
 golden age of poets, --but it was the pinchbeck age of poetry, The^'’ 
 flourished in the sunshine of public and private patronage; the 
 art meantime was debased, and it coiitinued to be as long as Pope 
 continued lord of ascendant. More injury was not done to the 
 taste of his countrymen by Marino in Italy, ncr by Congor in Spain, 
 than by Pope in England, The mischief was effected not by his 
 satirical and moral pieces, for these entitle him to the highest 
 place among poets of his class; it was by his Homer. There have 
 been other versions as unfaithful; but none v/ere ever so well ex- 
 
 1, Saintsburj’’, George: History of nineteenth Century Literature; 
 
 Page 69: Hew York: 1909, 
 
 2, Southey, Robert: Life and Works of William Cowper: Vol.II.Pg.i42* 
 
 London: 1636, a ^ 
 
 3, Waller and Glover: The Collected Works of William Hazlitt: 
 Vol.IV, Pg.265: ITew York: 1902, 
 
-54- 
 
 ecuted in as tad a style; and no other work in the English lan- 
 guage so greatly vitiated the diction of English poetry. Coimnon 
 readers (aind the majority must always he such) will always he 
 taken hy glittering faults, as larks are caught hy hits of looking 
 glass, and in this raereticious translation, the passages that 
 V7ere most unlike the original, which were most untrue to nature, 
 and therefore most false in taste, were precisely those which 
 were most applauded, and on which critic after critic dwelt with 
 one cuckoo note of admiration.^"” With a nature so free and un- 
 restrained; a nature that loved freedom and hated conventions, it 
 is only natural that ^Southey, should have a strong dislike for 
 Pope and his imitators. 
 
 COHCLUPIOIT. 
 
 Alexander Pope reigned supreme in the Augustan age, hut 
 in the latter half of the eighteenth century his influence began 
 to wane. This decline in his popularity was evident in the de- 
 crease of the editions of his works. Joseph Warton was the first 
 writer to openly criticize him. Ruffhead wrote a "Life of Pope" 
 to dispraise V/arton’s volumes, and to re- establish the fame of 
 Pope. This hook was practically a failure. During the last years 
 of the centur;}" and the beginning of the nineteenth century, there 
 were a few writers who staunchly defended Pope; some followed 
 him in their first years and later deviated from him; others 
 admired him and yet unconsciously followed romantic tendencies; 
 
 1* Southey, Robert: Life and Works of Williara Cowner: Vol II: 
 
 Page 141: London, 1836. 
 
-■V ^ 'Hif 
 
 
 :^rr .£ - 
 
 . : v--'./ f 
 
 4 ... » 
 
 t ‘ •' 
 
 nc :• • ■• ' . 
 
 ! : 
 
 ' ^ & a 
 
 ^ fj^T, ■ : ■ : 
 
 ,• \ • • •' < ' * '■^ 
 
 ‘ J . ** 
 
 '.'tv i'io 
 
 -:t>‘ •' uJ w v.:":; 
 
 
 
 i-Jk f- 
 
 tis i fr 
 
 \ iV-*;* 
 
 ^ ■; i: ‘‘ : 11' ':- :c 
 
 
 
 ’ J t ' f. 
 
 ffi: :-:tu[--r^ 
 
 
 .. 
 
 (• .•n'^ 
 
 ,-:JO' 
 
 4 
 
 3;._< v(jtf;r;4 .i'v •'• j.\ ' :• 
 
 ; , \ " :.f» ' r-' •’».*> 
 
 ; c m ’c : ' rt r 
 
 r -<•. i O'X •..‘{>rx-..--- \XHP<ito‘2-r--^ ' • 
 
 r- « 
 
 ' : ‘v'-i • iix 1 |;X?- .V 
 
 
 
 ■Ni-' 
 
 
- 55 - 
 
 Tidnile a few outwardly attacked him. Oh the v/hole, the defendants 
 of Pope hecame fewer and fewer, and the established standards of 
 classicism were gradually replaced by the liberties of romanticism. 
 

 ,^Ia.i4^* a/itf frJ ,tti/l f>^a^o^^Ji^ w»l « | 
 
 
 “to r 7»f{p: r£'iJfiC5 ,^/t# ',*ts;y«* 6‘f«' iwot wcaoosf ^ 
 
 ’*. ,r- ,.5 
 
 iry5oii\^0*l lo i?iJt»'/fi: 6rf^ 'Cif feonal^d** ^££4HiH\^ ^tvrr FOjtoiatifx 
 
 ** \ 
 
 
 m 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 > * i / 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 ^ ■* ' 
 
 
 
 
 <} 
 
 
 
 
 
 ". t ' 
 
 ^ , 
 
 ’ m ’X 
 
 '■:'4 i 
 
 
 IB 
 
 I 
 
 ■ . i '^ . * ' 
 
 
 > . ' 'M^mf ia « >*»tjji Ji ' 
 
-56- 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 Ainger, Alfred; CrabLe: London: 1903. 
 
 Beers, Henry A; History of English Konanticisrn in the Eighteenth 
 
 Centuri*: ITew York; 1910. 
 
 History of English Romanticism in the nineteenth 
 Century: Rev/ York; 1910. 
 
 Boswell's Life of Johnson; Hill, George B. VI Volumes; 
 
 Oxford: 1887. 
 
 Clark, J. Scott; A Study of Englisli and American Poets: 
 
 ITev; York; 1900. 
 
 Coleridge, Samuel: Eiographia Literaria I: Oxford: 1907. 
 
 George, A. J ; Wordsworth’s Prefaces and Essays on Poetry; 
 
 Boston; 1692. 
 
 Gilfillan, George: Poetical Works of William Lisle Bowles II; 
 
 Edinburgh; 1855. 
 
 Gosse, Edmund; Some Biversions of a Kan' of Letters ; London;1919. 
 
 Two Pioneers of Romanticism; Joseph and Thomas 
 Warton : Oxford : 1915. 
 
 Gray’s Works: London: 1884, 
 
 Historj’’ of Eighteenth Centuri*- literature: 
 
 London; 1907. 
 
 Harper, George; 
 Henley, W.E: 
 Herford, C.H: 
 Huchon, Rene; 
 Johnson’s Lives 
 
 William Wordsvrarth I: Hew York; 1916. 
 
 Burns; Edinburgh; 1898. 
 
 The Age of Wordsworth; London; 1909. 
 
 George Crabbe and .His Times: Hew York; 1907. 
 
 of the EnglishPoets : Hill, George E.III. 
 
 Oxford; 1905. 
 

 i. 
 
 » 
 
-57- 
 
 Kebbel, T.E.: Life of George Crabbe: London: 1888. 
 
 Ker, William Paton: Thomas Warton: London: 1910. 
 
 Magnus, Laurie: English Literature in the Nineteenth Centui-y: 
 
 Few York: 1909. 
 
 Maty, M: Miscellaneous Works of Lord Chesterfield: 
 
 London: 1778. 
 
 Morley, John: English Men of Letters: XXII Volumes: 
 
 Few York: 1907. 
 
 Moulton, Charles: Library of Literary Criticism; VIII Volumes; 
 
 Fev; York: 1910, 
 
 Feilson, W,A. : Burns and How to Know Him: Indianapolis: 1917; 
 
 Ficoll and Seccombe :His tcry of English Literature: Few York: 1907. 
 
 Perry, Thomas Sergeant: English Literature in the Eighteenth 
 
 Century: Few York: 1883, 
 
 Phelps, William Lyon: Beginnings of the English Romantic Move- 
 ment: Boston: 1893. 
 
 Pope’s Works: Elwin and Courthope IV: London: 1886. 
 
 Rinaker, Clarissa- Thomas TTarton, A Biographical and Critical 
 
 Study. Third Chapter of the complete Thesis 
 reprinted from the Publications of the "Modern 
 Language Association of America, XXX: 
 Baltimore: 1915. 
 
 Ruf fhead , Owen : 
 Saintsbury, George: 
 
 Shedd, Professor: 
 Southey, Robert: 
 
 Life of Alexander Pope: London: 1769. 
 
 A History of Criticism, III : Few York: 1904. 
 
 A History of Nineteenth Century Literature: 
 Few York: 1909, 
 
 Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. IV: 
 Few York: 1868. 
 
 Life and Works of William Co\7per,II: London; 
 
 Stephen and Lee: 
 
 Dictionary of National Biography , XXI Volumes; 
 Few York: 1908. 
 
) 
 
 
-58- 
 
 Toynbee, Mrs. Paget: 
 
 Waller and Glover: 
 Ward, Thomas Humphrey 
 War ton, Joseph: 
 
 Wooll, John: 
 
 Wright, Thomas: 
 
 Wylie, Laura Johnson: 
 Critical Review I: 
 
 Letters of Horace Walpole, II, III, XIII: 
 Oxford: 1903 and 1905. 
 
 Hazlitt's Collected Works, IV: London: 1902. 
 
 :The English Poets, III, IV: Hew York: 1907; 
 
 Essay on the Genius and Writings of Pope, 
 
 I, II: London: 1806. 
 
 Memoirs of Joseph Warton: London: 1806. 
 
 Correspondence of William Cowper I: 
 
 Hew York: 1904. 
 
 Social Studies in English Literature: 
 
 Boston: 1916. Periodicals. 
 
 London: 1756: LIII: London: 1782: XXVII: 
 
 London: 1769.