But I have pa.s.sed over another work which has sometimes been regarded as his masterpiece. A Lord Petre had offended a Miss Fermor by stealing a lock of her hair. She thought that he showed more gallantry than courtesy, and some unpleasant feeling resulted between the families.
Pope"s friend, Caryll, thought that it might be appeased if the young poet would turn the whole affair into friendly ridicule. n.o.body, it might well be supposed, had a more dexterous touch; and a brilliant trifle from his hands, just fitted for the atmosphere of drawing-rooms, would be a convenient peace-offering, and was the very thing in which he might be expected to succeed. Pope accordingly set to work at a dainty little mock-heroic, in which he describes, in playful mockery of the conventional style, the fatal coffee-drinking at Hampton, in which the too daring peer appropriated the lock. The poem received the praise which it well deserved; for certainly the young poet had executed his task to a nicety. No more brilliant, sparkling, vivacious trifle, is to be found in our literature than the _Rape of the Lock_, even in this early form. Pope received permission from the lady to publish it in Lintot"s Miscellany in 1712, and a wider circle admired it, though it seems that the lady and her family began to think that young Mr. Pope was making rather too free with her name. Pope meanwhile, animated by his success, hit upon a singularly happy conception, by which he thought that the poem might be rendered more important. The solid critics of those days were much occupied with the machinery of epic poems; the machinery being composed of the G.o.ds and G.o.ddesses who, from the days of Homer, had attended to the fortunes of heroes. He had hit upon a curious French book, the _Comte de Gabalis_, which professes to reveal the mysteries of the Rosicrucians, and it occurred to him that the elemental sylphs and gnomes would serve his purpose admirably. He spoke of his new device to Addison, who administered--and there is not the slightest reason for doubting his perfect sincerity and good meaning--a little dose of cold water. The poem, as it stood, was a "delicious little thing"--_merum sal_--and it would be a pity to alter it. Pope, however, adhered to his plan, made a splendid success, and thought that Addison must have been prompted by some mean motive. The _Rape of the Lock_ appeared in its new form, with sylphs and gnomes, and an ingenious account of a game at cards and other improvements, in 1714. Pope declared, and critics have agreed, that he never showed more skill than in the remodelling of this poem; and it has ever since held a kind of recognised supremacy amongst the productions of the drawing-room muse.
The reader must remember that the so-called heroic style of Pope"s period is now hopelessly effete. No human being would care about machinery and the rules of Bossu, or read without utter weariness the mechanical imitations of Homer and Virgil which were occasionally attempted by the Blackmores and other less ponderous versifiers. The shadow grows dim with the substance. The burlesque loses its point when we care nothing for the original; and, so far, Pope"s bit of filigree-work, as Hazlitt calls it, has become tarnished. The very mention of beaux and belles suggests the kind of feeling with which we disinter fragments of old-world finery from the depths of an ancient cabinet, and even the wit is apt to sound wearisome. And further, it must be allowed to some hostile critics that Pope has a worse defect.
The poem is, in effect, a satire upon feminine frivolity. It continues the strain of mockery against hoops and patches and their wearers, which supplied Addison and his colleagues with the materials of so many _Spectators_. I think that even in Addison there is something which rather jars upon us. His persiflage is full of humour and kindliness, but underlying it there is a tone of superiority to women which is sometimes offensive. It is taken for granted that a woman is a fool, or at least should be flattered if any man condescends to talk sense to her. With Pope this tone becomes harsher, and the merciless satirist begins to show himself. In truth, Pope can be inimitably pungent, but he can never be simply playful. Addison was too condescending with his pretty pupils; but under Pope"s courtesy there lurks contempt, and his smile has a disagreeable likeness to a sneer. If Addison"s manner sometimes suggests the blandness of a don who cla.s.ses women with the inferior beings unworthy of the Latin grammar, Pope suggests the brilliant wit whose contempt has a keener edge from his resentment against fine ladies blinded to his genius by his personal deformity.
Even in his dedication, Pope, with unconscious impertinence, insults his heroine for her presumable ignorance of his critical jargon. His smart epigrams want but a slight change of tone to become satire. It is the same writer who begins an essay on women"s characters by telling a woman that her s.e.x is a compound of
Matter too soft a lasting mask to bear; And best distinguished by black, brown, or fair,
and communicates to her the pleasant truth that
Every woman is at heart a rake.
Women, in short, are all frivolous beings, whose one genuine interest is in love-making. The same sentiment is really implied in the more playful lines in the _Rape of the Lock_. The sylphs are warned by omens that some misfortune impends; but they don"t know what.
Whether the nymph shall break Diana"s law, Or some frail china jar receive a flaw; Or stain her honour or her new brocade, Forget her prayers or miss a masquerade; Or lose her heart or necklace at a ball, Or whether heaven has doom"d that Shock must fall.
We can understand that Miss Fermor would feel such raillery to be equivocal. It may be added, that an equal want of delicacy is implied in the mock-heroic battle at the end, where the ladies are gifted with an excess of screaming power:--
"Restore the lock!" she cries, and all around "Restore the lock," the vaulted roofs rebound-- Not fierce Oth.e.l.lo in so loud a strain Roar"d for the handkerchief that caused his pain.
These faults, though far from trifling, are yet felt only as blemishes in the admirable beauty and brilliance of the poem. The successive scenes are given with so firm and clear a touch--there is such a sense of form, the language is such a dexterous elevation of the ordinary social twaddle into the mock-heroic, that it is impossible not to recognize a consummate artistic power. The dazzling display of true wit and fancy blinds us for the time to the want of that real tenderness and humour, which would have softened some harsh pa.s.sages, and given a more enduring charm to the poetry. It has, in short, the merit that belongs to any work of art which expresses in the most finished form the sentiment characteristic of a given social phase; one deficient in many of the most enn.o.bling influences, but yet one in which the arts of converse represent a very high development of shrewd sense refined into vivid wit. And we may, I think, admit that there is some foundation for the genealogy that traces Pope"s Ariel back to his more elevated ancestor in the _Tempest_. The later Ariel, indeed, is regarded as the soul of a coquette, and is almost an allegory of the spirit of poetic fancy in slavery to polished society.
Gums and pomatums shall his flight restrain While clogg"d he beats his silken wings in vain.
Pope"s Ariel is a parody of the ethereal being into whom Shakspeare had refined the ancient fairy; but it is a parody which still preserves a sense of the delicate and graceful. The ancient race which appeared for the last time in this travesty of the fashion of Queen Anne, still showed some touch of its ancient beauty. Since that time no fairy has appeared without being hopelessly childish or affected.
Let us now turn from the poems to the author"s personal career during the same period. In the remarkable autobiographic poem called the _Epistle to Arbuthnot_, Pope speaks of his early patrons and friends, and adds--
Soft were my numbers; who could take offence When pure description held the place of sense?
Like gentle f.a.n.n.y"s was my flow"ry theme, A painted mistress or a purling stream.
Yet then did Gildon draw his venal quill-- I wish"d the man a dinner, and sat still.
Yet then did Dennis rave in furious fret; I never answer"d,--I was not in debt.
Pope"s view of his own career suggests the curious problem: how it came to pa.s.s that so harmless a man should be the b.u.t.t of so many hostilities? How could any man be angry with a writer of gentle pastorals and versified love-letters? The answer of Pope was, that this was the normal state of things. "The life of a wit," he says, in the preface to his works, "is a warfare upon earth;" and the warfare results from the hatred of men of genius natural to the dull. Had any one else made such a statement, Pope would have seen its resemblance to the complaint of the one reasonable juryman overpowered by eleven obstinate fellows. But we may admit that an intensely sensitive nature is a bad qualification for a public career. A man who ventures into the throng of compet.i.tors without a skin will be tortured by every touch, and suffer the more if he turns to retaliate.
Pope"s first literary performances had not been so harmless as he suggests. Amongst the minor men of letters of the day was the surly John Dennis. He was some thirty years Pope"s senior; a writer of dreary tragedies which had gained a certain success by their Whiggish tendencies, and of ponderous disquisitions upon critical questions, not much cruder in substance though heavier in form than many utterances of Addison or Steele. He could, however, snarl out some shrewd things when provoked, and was known to the most famous wits of the day. He had corresponded with Dryden, Congreve, and Wycherley, and published some of their letters. Pope, it seems, had been introduced to him by Cromwell, but they had met only two or three times. When Pope had become ashamed of following Wycherley about like a dog, he would soon find out that a Dennis did not deserve the homage of a rising genius. Possibly Dennis had said something of Pope"s Pastorals, and Pope had probably been a witness, perhaps more than a mere witness, to some pa.s.sage of arms in which Dennis lost his temper. In mere youthful impertinence he introduced an offensive touch in the _Essay upon Criticism_. It would be well, he said, if critics could advise authors freely,--
But Appius reddens at each word you speak, And stares, tremendous, with a threatening eye, Like some fierce tyrant in old tapestry.
The name Appius referred to Dennis"s tragedy of _Appius and Virginia_, a piece now recollected solely by the fact that poor Dennis had invented some new thunder for the performance; and by his piteous complaint against the actors for afterwards "stealing his thunder," had started a proverbial expression. Pope"s reference stung Dennis to the quick. He replied by a savage pamphlet, pulling Pope"s essay to pieces, and hitting some real blots, but diverging into the coa.r.s.est personal abuse.
Not content with saying in his preface that he was attacked with the utmost falsehood and calumny by a little affected hypocrite, who had nothing in his mouth but truth, candour, and good-nature, he reviled Pope for his personal defects; insinuated that he was a hunch-backed toad; declared that he was the very shape of the bow of the G.o.d of love; that he might be thankful that he was born a modern, for had he been born of Greek parents his life would have been no longer than that of one of his poems, namely, half a day; and that his outward form, however like a monkey"s, could not deviate more from the average of humanity than his mind. These amenities gave Pope his first taste of good savage slashing abuse. The revenge was out of all proportion to the offence.
Pope, at first, seemed to take the a.s.sault judiciously. He kept silence, and simply marked some of the faults exposed by Dennis for alteration.
But the wound rankled, and when an opportunity presently offered itself, Pope struck savagely at his enemy. To show how this came to pa.s.s, I must rise from poor old Dennis to a more exalted literary sphere.
The literary world, in which Dryden had recently been, and Pope was soon to be, the most conspicuous figure, was for the present under the mild dictatorship of Addison. We know Addison as one of the most kindly and delicate of humourists, and we can perceive the gentleness which made him one of the most charming of companions in a small society. His sense of the ludicrous saved him from the disagreeable ostentation of powers which were never applied to express bitterness of feeling or to edge angry satire. The reserve of his sensitive nature made access difficult, but he was so transparently modest and una.s.suming that his shyness was not, as is too often the case, mistaken for pride. It is easy to understand the posthumous affection which Macaulay has so eloquently expressed, and the contemporary popularity which, according to Swift, would have made people unwilling to refuse him had he asked to be king.
And yet I think that one cannot read Addison"s praises without a certain recalcitration, like that which one feels in the case of the model boy who wins all the prizes, including that for good conduct. It is hard to feel very enthusiastic about a virtue whose dictates coincide so precisely with the demands of decorum, and which leads by so easy a path to reputation and success. Popularity is more often significant of the tact which makes a man avoid giving offence, than of the warm impulses of a generous nature. A good man who mixes with the world ought to be hated, if not to hate. But whatever we may say against his excessive goodness, Addison deserved and received universal esteem, which in some cases became enthusiastic. Foremost amongst his admirers was the warm-hearted, reckless, impetuous Steele, the typical Irishman; and amongst other members of his little senate--as Pope called it--were Ambrose Philips and Tickell, young men of letters and sound Whig politics, and more or less compet.i.tors of Pope in literature. When Pope was first becoming known in London the Whigs were out of power; Addison and his friends were generally to be found at b.u.t.ton"s Coffee-house in the afternoon, and were represented to the society of the time by the _Spectator_, which began in March, 1711, and appeared daily to the end of 1712. Naturally, the young Pope would be anxious to approach this famous clique, though his connexions lay in the first instance amongst the Jacobite and Catholic families. Steele, too, would be glad to welcome so promising a contributor to the _Spectator_ and its successor the _Guardian_.
Pope, we may therefore believe, was heartily delighted when, some months after Dennis"s attack, a notice of his _Essay upon Criticism_ appeared in the _Spectator_, December 20, 1711. The reviewer censured some attacks upon contemporaries--a reference obviously to the lines upon Dennis--which the author had admitted into his "very fine poem;" but there were compliments enough to overbalance this slight reproof. Pope wrote a letter of acknowledgment to Steele, overflowing with the sincerest grat.i.tude of a young poet on his first recognition by a high authority. Steele, in reply, disclaimed the article, and promised to introduce Pope to its real author, the great Addison himself. It does not seem that the acquaintance thus opened with the Addisonians ripened very rapidly, or led to any considerable results. Pope, indeed, is said to have written some _Spectators_. He certainly sent to Steele his _Messiah_, a sacred eclogue in imitation of Virgil"s _Pollio_. It appeared on May 14th, 1712, and is one of Pope"s dexterous pieces of workmanship, in which phrases from Isaiah are so strung together as to form a good imitation of the famous poem, which was once supposed to ent.i.tle Virgil to some place among the inspired heralds of Christianity.
Pope sent another letter or two to Steele, which look very much like intended contributions to the _Spectator_, and a short letter about Hadrian"s verses to his soul, which appeared in November, 1712. When, in 1713, the _Guardian_ succeeded the _Spectator_, Pope was one of Steele"s contributors, and a paper by him upon dedications appeared as the fourth number. He soon gave a more remarkable proof of his friendly relations with Addison.
It is probable that no first performance of a play upon the English stage ever excited so much interest as that of Addison"s _Cato_. It was not only the work of the first man of letters of the day, but it had, or was taken to have, a certain political significance. "The time was come," says Johnson, "when those who affected to think liberty in danger affected likewise to think that a stage-play might preserve it."
Addison, after exhibiting more than the usual display of reluctance, prepared his play for representation, and it was undoubtedly taken to be in some sense a Whig manifesto. It was therefore remarkable that he should have applied to Pope for a prologue, though Pope"s connexions were entirely of the anti-Whiggish kind, and a pa.s.sage in _Windsor Forest_, his last new poem (it appeared in March 1713), indicated pretty plainly a refusal to accept the Whig shibboleths. In the _Forest_ he was enthusiastic for the peace, and sneered at the Revolution. Pope afterwards declared that Addison had disavowed all party intentions at the time, and he accused him of insincerity for afterwards taking credit (in a poetical dedication of _Cato_) for the services rendered by his play to the cause of liberty. Pope"s a.s.sertion is worthless in any case where he could exalt his own character for consistency at another man"s expense, but it is true that both parties were inclined to equivocate.
It is, indeed, difficult to understand how, if any "stage-play could preserve liberty," such a play as _Cato_ should do the work. The polished declamation is made up of the plat.i.tudes common to Whigs and Tories; and Bolingbroke gave the one to his own party when he presented fifty guineas to _Cato_"s representative for defending the cause of liberty so well against a perpetual dictator. The Whigs, said Pope, design a second present when they can contrive as good a saying.
Bolingbroke was, of course, aiming at Marlborough, and his interpretation was intrinsically as plausible as any that could have been devised by his antagonists. Each side could adopt _Cato_ as easily as rival sects can quote the Bible; and it seems possible that Addison may have suggested to Pope that nothing in _Cato_ could really offend his principles. Addison, as Pope also tells us, thought the prologue ambiguous, and altered "Britons, _arise_!" to "Britons, _attend_!" lest the phrase should be thought to hint at a new revolution. Addison advised Pope about this time not to be content with the applause of "half the nation," and perhaps regarded him as one who, by the fact of his external position with regard to parties, would be a more appropriate sponsor for the play.
Whatever the intrinsic significance of _Cato_, circ.u.mstances gave it a political colour; and Pope, in a lively description of the first triumphant night to his friend Caryll, says, that as author of the successful and very spirited prologue, he was clapped into a Whig, sorely against his will, at every two lines. Shortly before he had spoken in the warmest terms to the same correspondent of the admirable moral tendency of the work; and perhaps he had not realized the full party significance till he became conscious of the impression produced upon the audience. Not long afterwards (letter of June 12, 1713), we find him complaining that his connexion with Steele and the _Guardian_ was giving offence to some honest Jacobites. Had they known the nature of the connexion, they need hardly have grudged Steele his contributor.
His next proceedings possibly suggested the piece of advice which Addison gave to Lady M. W. Montagu: "Leave Pope as soon as you can; he will certainly play you some devilish trick else."
His first trick was calculated to vex an editor"s soul. Ambrose Philips, as I have said, had published certain pastorals in the same volume with Pope"s. Philips, though he seems to have been less rewarded than most of his companions, was certainly accepted as an attached member of Addison"s "little senate;" and that body was not more free than other mutual admiration societies from the desire to impose its own prejudices upon the public. When Philips"s _Distressed Mother_, a close imitation of Racine"s _Andromaque_, was preparing for the stage, the Spectator was taken by Will Honeycomb to a rehearsal (_Spectator_, January 31, 1712), and Sir Roger de Coverley himself attended one of the performances (_Ib._, March 25) and was profoundly affected by its pathos. The last paper was of course by Addison, and is a real triumph of art as a most delicate application of humour to the slightly unworthy purpose of puffing a friend and disciple. Addison had again praised Philips"s Pastorals in the _Spectator_ (October 30, 1712), and amongst the early numbers of the _Guardian_ were a short series of papers upon pastoral poetry, in which the fortunate Ambrose was again held up as a model, whilst no notice was taken of Pope"s rival performance. Pope, one may believe, had a contempt for Philips, whose pastoral inanities, whether better or worse than his own, had not the excuse of being youthful productions. Philips has bequeathed to our language the phrase "Namby-pamby," imposed upon him by Henry Carey (author of _Sally in our Alley_, and the clever farce _Chrononhotonthologos_), and years after this he wrote a poem to Miss Pulteney in the nursery, beginning,--
"Dimply damsel, sweetly smiling,"
which may sufficiently interpret the meaning of his nickname. Pope"s irritable vanity was vexed at the liberal praises bestowed on such a rival, and he revenged himself by an artifice more ingenious than scrupulous. He sent an anonymous article to Steele for the _Guardian_.
It is a professed continuation of the previous papers on pastorals, and is ostensibly intended to remove the appearance of partiality arising from the omission of Pope"s name. In the first paragraphs the design is sufficiently concealed to mislead an unwary reader into the belief that Philips is preferred to Pope; but the irony soon becomes transparent, and Philips"s antiquated affectation is contrasted with the polish of Pope, who is said even to "deviate into downright poetry." Steele, it is said, was so far mystified as to ask Pope"s permission to publish the criticism. Pope generously permitted, and accordingly Steele printed what he must soon have discovered to be a shrewd attack upon his old friend and ally. Some writers have found a difficulty in understanding how Steele could have so blundered. One might, perhaps, whisper in confidence to the discreet, that even editors are mortal, and that Steele was conceivably capable of the enormity of reading papers carelessly. Philips was furious, and hung up a birch in b.u.t.ton"s Coffee-house, declaring that he would apply it to his tormentor should he ever show his nose in the room. As Philips was celebrated for skill with the sword, the mode of vengeance was certainly unmanly, and stung the soul of his adversary, always morbidly sensitive to all attacks, and especially to attacks upon his person. The hatred thus kindled was never quenched, and breathes in some of Pope"s bitterest lines.
If not a "devilish trick," this little performance was enough to make Pope"s relations to the Addison set decidedly unpleasant. Addison is said (but the story is very improbable) to have enjoyed the joke. If so, a vexatious incident must have changed his view of Pope"s pleasantries, though Pope professedly appeared as his defender. Poor old Thersites-Dennis published, during the summer, a very bitter attack upon Addison"s _Cato_. He said afterwards--though, considering the relations of the men, some misunderstanding is probable--that Pope had indirectly instigated this attack through the bookseller, Lintot. If so, Pope must have deliberately contrived the trap for the unlucky Dennis; and, at any rate, he fell upon Dennis as soon as the trap was sprung. Though Dennis was a hot-headed Whig, he had quarrelled with Addison and Steele, and was probably jealous, as the author of tragedies intended, like _Cato_, to propagate Whig principles, perhaps to turn Whig prejudices to account. He writes with the bitterness of a disappointed and unlucky man, but he makes some very fair points against his enemy. Pope"s retaliation took the form of an anonymous "Narrative of the Frenzy of John Dennis."[5] It is written in that style of coa.r.s.e personal satire of which Swift was a master, but for which Pope was very ill fitted. All his neatness of style seems to desert him when he tries this tone, and nothing is left but a brutal explosion of contemptuous hatred. Dennis is described in his garret, pouring forth insane ravings prompted by his disgust at the success of _Cato_; but not a word is said in reply to Dennis" criticisms. It was plain enough that the author, whoever he might be, was more anxious to satisfy a grudge against Dennis than to defend Dennis"s victim. It is not much of a compliment to Addison to say that he had enough good feeling to scorn such a mode of retaliation, and perspicuity enough to see that it would be little to his credit.
Accordingly, in his majestic way, he caused Steele to write a note to Lintot (August 4, 1713), disavowing all complicity, and saying that if even he noticed Mr. Dennis"s criticisms, it should be in such a way as to give Mr. Dennis no cause of complaint. He added that he had refused to see the pamphlet when it was offered for his inspection, and had expressed his disapproval of such a mode of attack. Nothing could be more becoming; and it does not appear that Addison knew, when writing this note, that Pope was the author of the anonymous a.s.sault. If, as the biographers say, Addison"s action was not kindly to Pope, it was bare justice to poor Dennis. Pope undoubtedly must have been bitterly vexed at the implied rebuff, and not the less because it was perfectly just.
He seems always to have regarded men of Dennis"s type as outside the pale of humanity. Their abuse stung him as keenly as if they had been ent.i.tled to speak with authority, and yet he retorted it as though they were not ent.i.tled to common decency. He would, to all appearance, have regarded an appeal for mercy to a Grub-street author much as Dandie Dinmont regarded Brown"s tenderness to a "brock"--as a proof of incredible imbecility, or, rather, of want of proper antipathy to vermin. Dennis, like Philips, was inscribed on the long list of his hatreds; and was pursued almost to the end of his unfortunate life.
Pope, it is true, took great credit to himself for helping his miserable enemy when dying in distress, and wrote a prologue to a play acted for his benefit. Yet even this prologue is a sneer, and one is glad to think that Dennis was past understanding it. We hardly know whether to pity or to condemn the unfortunate poet, whose unworthy hatreds made him suffer far worse torments than those which he could inflict upon their objects.
By this time we may suppose that Pope must have been regarded with anything but favour in the Addison circle; and, in fact, he was pa.s.sing into the opposite camp, and forming a friendship with Swift and Swift"s patrons. No open rupture followed with Addison for the present; but a quarrel was approaching which is, perhaps, the most celebrated in our literary history. Unfortunately, the more closely we look, the more difficult it becomes to give any definite account of it. The statements upon which accounts have been based have been chiefly those of Pope himself; and these involve inconsistencies and demonstrably inaccurate statements. Pope was anxious in later life to show that he had enjoyed the friendship of a man so generally beloved, and was equally anxious to show that he had behaved generously and been treated with injustice and, indeed, with downright treachery. And yet, after reading the various statements made by the original authorities, one begins to doubt whether there was any real quarrel at all; or rather, if one may say so, whether it was not a quarrel upon one side.
It is, indeed, plain that a coolness had sprung up between Pope and Addison. Considering Pope"s offences against the senate, his ridicule of Philips, his imposition of that ridicule upon Steele, and his indefensible use of Addison"s fame as a stalking-horse in the attack upon Dennis, it is not surprising that he should have been kept at arm"s length. If the rod suspended by Philips at b.u.t.ton"s be authentic (as seems probable), the talk about Pope, in the shadow of such an ornament, is easily imaginable. Some attempts seem to have been made at a reconciliation. Jervas, Pope"s teacher in painting--a bad artist, but a kindly man--tells Pope on August 20, 1714, of a conversation with Addison. It would have been worth while, he says, for Pope to have been hidden behind a wainscot or a half-length picture to have heard it.
Addison expressed a wish for friendly relations, was glad that Pope had not been "carried too far among the enemy" by Swift, and hoped to be of use to him at Court--for Queen Anne died on August 1st; the wheel had turned; and the Whigs were once more the distributors of patronage.
Pope"s answer to Jervas is in the dignified tone; he attributes Addison"s coolness to the ill offices of Philips, and is ready to be on friendly terms whenever Addison recognizes his true character and independence of party. Another letter follows, as addressed by Pope to Addison himself; but here alas! if not in the preceding letters, we are upon doubtful ground. In fact, it is impossible to doubt that the letter has been manipulated after Pope"s fashion, if not actually fabricated.
It is so dignified as to be insulting. It is like a box on the ear administered by a pedagogue to a repentant but not quite pardoned pupil.
Pope has heard (from Jervas, it is implied) of Addison"s profession; he is glad to hope that the effect of some "late malevolences" is disappearing; he will not believe (that is, he is strongly inclined to believe) that the author of _Cato_ could mean one thing and say another; he will show Addison his first two books of Homer as a proof of this confidence, and hopes that it will not be abused; he challenges Addison to point out the ill nature in the _Essay upon Criticism_; and winds up by making an utterly irrelevant charge (as a proof, he says, of his own sincerity) of plagiarism against one of Addison"s _Spectators_.
Had such a letter been actually sent as it now stands, Addison"s good nature could scarcely have held out. As it is, we can only a.s.sume that during 1714 Pope was on such terms with the clique at b.u.t.ton"s, that a quarrel would be a natural result. According to the ordinary account the occasion presented itself in the next year.
A translation of the first Iliad by Tickell appeared (in June, 1715) simultaneously with Pope"s first volume. Pope had no right to complain.
No man could be supposed to have a monopoly in the translation of Homer.
Tickell had the same right to try his hand as Pope; and Pope fully understood this himself. He described to Spence a conversation in which Addison told him of Tickell"s intended work. Pope replied that Tickell was perfectly justified. Addison having looked over Tickell"s translation of the first book, said that he would prefer not to see Pope"s, as it might suggest double dealing; but consented to read Pope"s second book, and praised it warmly. In all this, by Pope"s own showing, Addison seems to have been scrupulously fair; and if he and the little senate preferred Tickell"s work on its first appearance, they had a full right to their opinion, and Pope triumphed easily enough to pardon them.
"He was meditating a criticism upon Tickell," says Johnson, "when his adversary sank before him without a blow." Pope"s performance was universally preferred, and even Tickell himself yielded by antic.i.p.ation.
He said, in a short preface, that he had abandoned a plan of translating the whole Iliad on finding that a much abler hand had undertaken the work, and that he only published this specimen to bespeak favour for a translation of the Odyssey. It was, say Pope"s apologists, an awkward circ.u.mstance that Tickell should publish at the same time as Pope, and that is about all that they can say. It was, we may reply in Stephenson"s phrase, very awkward--for Tickell. In all this, in fact, it seems impossible for any reasonable man to discover anything of which Pope had the slightest ground of complaint; but his amazingly irritable nature was not to be calmed by reason. The bare fact that a translation of Homer appeared contemporaneously with his own, and that it came from one of Addison"s court, made him furious. He brooded over it, suspected some dark conspiracy against his fame, and gradually mistook his morbid fancies for solid inference. He thought that Tickell had been put up by Addison as his rival, and gradually worked himself into the further belief that Addison himself had actually written the translation which pa.s.sed under Tickell"s name. It does not appear, so far as I know, when or how this suspicion became current. Some time after Addison"s death, in 1719, a quarrel took place between Tickell, his literary executor, and Steele. Tickell seemed to insinuate that Steele had not sufficiently acknowledged his obligations to Addison, and Steele, in an angry retort, called Tickell the "reputed translator" of the first Iliad, and challenged him to translate another book successfully. The innuendo shows that Steele, who certainly had some means of knowing, was willing to suppose that Tickell had been helped by Addison. The ma.n.u.script of Tickell"s work, which has been preserved, is said to prove this to be an error, and in any case there is no real ground for supposing that Addison did anything more than he admittedly told Pope, that is, read Tickell"s ma.n.u.script and suggest corrections.
To argue seriously about other so-called proofs, would be waste of time.
They prove nothing except Pope"s extreme anxiety to justify his wild hypothesis of a dark conspiracy. Pope was jealous, spiteful, and credulous. He was driven to fury by Tickell"s publication, which had the appearance of a compet.i.tion. But angry as he was, he could find no real cause of complaint, except by imagining a fict.i.tious conspiracy; and this complaint was never publicly uttered till long after Addison"s death. Addison knew, no doubt, of Pope"s wrath, but probably cared little for it, except to keep himself clear of so dangerous a companion.
He seems to have remained on terms of civility with his antagonist, and no one would have been more surprised than he to hear of the quarrel, upon which so much controversy has been expended.
The whole affair, so far as Addison"s character is concerned, thus appears to be a gigantic mare"s nest. There is no proof, or even the slightest presumption, that Addison or Addison"s friends ever injured Pope, though it is clear that they did not love him. It would have been marvellous if they had. Pope"s suspicions are a proof that in this case he was almost subject to the illusion characteristic of actual insanity.
The belief that a man is persecuted by hidden conspirators is one of the common symptoms in such cases; and Pope would seem to have been almost in the initial stage of mental disease. His madness, indeed, was not such as would lead us to call him morally irresponsible, nor was it the kind of madness which is to be found in a good many people who well deserve criminal prosecution; but it was a state of mind so morbid as to justify some compa.s.sion for the unhappy offender.
One result besides the ill.u.s.tration of Pope"s character remains to be noticed. According to Pope"s a.s.sertion it was a communication from Lord Warwick which led him to write his celebrated copy of verses upon Addison. Warwick (afterwards Addison"s stepson) accused Addison of paying Gildon for a gross libel upon Pope. Pope wrote to Addison, he says, the next day. He said in this letter that he knew of Addison"s behaviour--and that, unwilling to take a revenge of the same kind, he would rather tell Addison fairly of his faults in plain words. If he had to take such a step, it would be in some such way as followed, and he subjoined the first sketch of the famous lines. Addison, says Pope, used him very civilly ever afterwards. Indeed, if the account be true, Addison showed his Christian spirit by paying a compliment in one of his _Freeholders_ (May 17th, 1716) to Pope"s Homer.
Macaulay, taking the story for granted, praises Addison"s magnanimity, which, I must confess, I should be hardly Christian enough to admire. It was however a.s.serted at the time that Pope had not written the verses which have made the quarrel memorable till after Addison"s death. They were not published till 1723, and are not mentioned by any independent authority till 1722, though Pope afterwards appealed to Burlington as a witness to their earlier composition. The fact seems to be confirmed by the evidence of Lady M. W. Montagu, but it does not follow that Addison ever saw the verses. He knew that Pope disliked him; but he probably did not suspect the extent of the hostility. Pope himself appears not to have devised the worst part of the story--that of Addison having used Tickell"s name--till some years later. Addison was sufficiently magnanimous in praising his spiteful little antagonist as it was; he little knew how deeply that antagonist would seek to injure his reputation.
And here, before pa.s.sing to the work which afforded the main pretext of the quarrel, it may be well to quote once more the celebrated satire. It may be remarked that its excellence is due in part to the fact that, for once, Pope does not lose his temper. His attack is qualified and really sharpened by an admission of Addison"s excellence. It is therefore a real masterpiece of satire, not a simple lampoon. That it is an exaggeration is undeniable, and yet its very keenness gives a presumption that it is not altogether without foundation.