Mr. POPE to the Hon. J. C. Efq; June 15, 1711. Send you Dennis's remarks on the * Ef ticifms and fine Railleries: The few obfervations in my hand in the margins, arc what a morning's leifure permitted me to make, purely for your perufal. For I am of opinion, that fuch a Critic as you. will find him by the latter part of his book, is but one way to be properly anfwer'd, and that way. I wou'd not take after what he informs me in his preface, that he is at this time perfecuted by Fortune. This I knew not before; if I had, his name had been fpar'd in the Effay, for that only reafon. I can't conceive what ground he has for fo exceffive a refentment; nor imagine how thofe † three t lines can be call'd a reflection on his Perfon, which only defcribe him fubject a little to Anger on fome occafions. I have heard of combatants fo very furious, as to fall مشهد *On Criticism. But Appius reddens at each word you speak, down · Mr. POPE, &ð. down themfelves with that very blow which they defign'd to lay heavy on their anta. gonifts. But if Mr. Dennis's rage proceeds only from a zeal to difcourage young and unexperienc'd writers from fcribling, he fhou'd frighten us with his Verfe not Profe: for I have often known, that when all the precepts in the world would not reclaim a finner, fome very fad example has done the bufinefs.* Yet to give this man his due, he has objected to one or two lines with reafon, and I will alter 'em in cafe of another edition; I will make my enemy do me a kindness where he meant an injury, and fo ferve inftead of a friend. What he obferves at the bottom of page 20th of his reflections, was objected to by yourfelf, and had been mended but for the hafte of the prefs: Tis right Hibernian, and I confels it what the English call a Bull in the expreffion, tho' the fenfe be manifeft enough: Mr. Dennis's Bulls are feldom in the expreffion, they are always in the sense. I fhall certainly never make the leaft reply to him, not only because you advise me, but because I have ever been of opinion, that if a book can't answer for itself * This Thought we find afterwards put into Verfe in the Dunciad, Book 1. to to the publick, 'tis to no fort of purpose for its author to do it. If I am wrong in any fentiment of that Effay, I proteft fincerely, I don't defire all the world should be deceiv'd (which wou'd be of very ill Millo confequence) meerly that I my felf may be thought right, which is of very little cont fequence.) I'd be the firft to recant, for the benefit of others, and the glory of my felf for (as I take it) when a man owns himself to have been in an error, he does! but tell you in other words, that he is wifer than he was. But I have had an advantage by the publishing that book of D—s's, which otherwife I fhould never have known: It has been the occafion of ma king me friends, and open abetters, of feveral gentlemen of known fenfe and wit ; and of proving to me what I have till now doubted, that my writings are taken fome notice of by the world in general, or I fhould never be attack'd thus in particular. I have read that 'twas a cultom among the Romans, while a General rode in triumph, to have common foldiers in the streets that rail'd at him and reproach'd him to put him in mind, that tho' his fervices were in, the main approved and rewarded, yet he had faules enough to keep him humble. You will fee by this, that whoever fets up for wit in thefe days, ought to have the conftancy of a primitive Chriftian, and be prepar'd to fuffer martyrdom in the caufe of it. But fure this is the first time that al Wit was attack'd for his Religion, as you'll find I am most zealoufly in this treatife t and you know, Sir, what alarms I have had from the oppofite fide on this account.s Have I not reason to cry out, with the poor fellow in Virgil, Quid jam mifero mihi denique reftat? rots Cui neque apud Danaos ufquam locus, & fuper ipfi Dardanidæ infenfi panas cum Sanguine pofcunt! 'Tis however my happiness that you, Sir, are impartial, Seb won Jove was alike to Latian and to Phrygian, to For you well know, that Wit's of no Religion. The manner in which Mr. D. takes to pieces feveral particular lines, detach'd from their natural places, may fhew how eafy it is to a caviller to give a new fenfe, or * See the exfuing Letters. a new a new nonfenfe to any thing. And indeed his conftructions are not more wrefted from the genuine meaning, than theirs who objected to the heterodox parts, as they call'd 'em. Our friend the Abbè is not of that fort, who with the utmost candour and freedom, has modeftly told me what others thought, and fhewn himself one (as he very well expreffes it) rather of a Number than a Party. The only difference between us in relation to the Monks, is, that he thinks moft forts of learning flourish'd among 'em, and I am of opinion that only fome fort of learning was barely kept alive by 'em he believes, that in the most na tural and obvious fenfe, that line (A fecond deluge Learning over-run) will be understood of Learning in general; and I fancy 'twill be understood only (as 'tis meant) of politeLearning, Criticifm,Poetry,&c. which is the only learning concern'd in the subject of the Effay. It is true, that the Monks did preferve what learning there was, about Nicholas the Fifth's time; but those who fucceeded fell into the depth of Barba rifin, or at least stood at a stay while others rose from thence, infomuch that even Eraf mus and Reuchlin could hardly laugh them out of it. I am highly oblig'd to the Abbè's zeal in my commendation, and good nefs |