Pope felt, or seemed to feel, entire
indifference as to these assaults. On some of them, indeed, he could
afford to look down with contempt, on account of their obvious _animus_
and gross language. Others, again, were neutralised by the fact, that
their authors had provoked reprisals by their previous insults or
ingratitude to Pope. Many, however, were too obscure for his notice; and
some, such as Aaron Hill and Bentley, did not deserve to be classed with
the Theobalds and Ralphs. To Hill, he, after some finessing, was
compelled to make an apology. Altogether, although this production
increased Pope's fame, and the conception of his power, it did not tend
to shew him in the most amiable light, or perhaps to promote his own
comfort or peace of mind. After having emptied out his bile in "The
Dunciad," he ought to have become mellower in temper, and resigned
satire for ever. He continued, on the contrary, as ill-natured as
before; and although he afterwards flew at higher game, the iron had
entered into his soul, and he remained a satirist, and therefore an
unhappy man, for life.
In 1731 appeared an "Epistle on Taste," which was very favourably
received; only his enemies accused him of having satirised the Duke of
Chandos in it,--a man who had befriended Pope, and had lent him money.
Pope denied the charge, although it is very possible, both from his own
temperament, and from the frequent occurrence of similar cases of
baseness in literary life, that it may have been true.
Pages:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32