The Dunciad

Though they are divided into several different parts, the introductory materials, or prolegomenon, primarily serve the same purpose: to identify the previously obscured identities of the Dunces and defend the author’s choice to make fun of their bad writing. No one really knew who was specifically being insulted in the first edition, which led to speculation that was often incorrect. Pope had enough enemies already and did not wish to make new ones out of people he hadn’t even written about in the first place, so subsequent editions named names. Since he was releasing another edition anyway, he decided to also defend The Dunciad’s criticism of bad writing—using quotes from the very people he criticized.

William Cleland’s “A Letter to the Publisher…”—probably written by Pope himself—is the first place where we see the author’s cunning at work. One of the complaints that his enemies made about the first edition was that it was unnecessary to target inferior writers in such a manner. Everyone was making money putting out quick and dirty writing, so why ruin the fun? Fully aware of the hypocrisy of these complaints, Pope sought out examples of this hypocrisy in print, quoting several of his critics defending, in other contexts, the very sins they accuse Pope of committing: “I cannot but think it the most reasonable thing in the world, to distinguish good writers, by discouraging the bad,” wrote critic and playwright John Dennis (“A Letter to the Publisher”). Theobald himself was included: “Attacks may be levelled, either against Failures in Genius, or against the Pretensions of writing without one” (“A Letter to the Publisher”).

Pope uses another pseudonym in “Testimonies of Authors,” deploying irony and an arch tone to defend himself and undermine his critics. Countless pages were printed and sold in response to The Dunciad that attempted to attack Pope as a writer. This was done less because the authors actually felt this way about Pope and more because they were angry at having been called out so brazenly. They also knew the criticisms would sell copies. Rather than shy away from the insults, “Martinus Scriblerus,” who was really either Pope or one of his friends, confronted each one in turn, with citations:

We purposed to begin with his Life, Parentage, and Education: But as to these, even his contemporaries do exceedingly differ. One saith, he was educated at home; another, that he was bred at St. Omer’s by Jesuits; a third, not at St. Omer’s, but at Oxford; a fourth, that he had no University education at all. […] Finding, therefore, such contrariety of opinions, and (whatever be ours of this sort of generation) not being fond to enter into controversy, we shall defer writing the life of our Poet, ‘till authors can determine among themselves what Parents or Education he had, or whether he had any Education or Parents at all (“Testimonies of Authors”).

Scriblerus claims to turn aside from considering personal insults against Pope and to focus on the attacks on Pope’s writing, but at this point he has already thoroughly undermined the credibility of Pope’s critics, showing through irony that they contradict each other to such a degree that none can be trusted. Throughout, Scriblerus assumes an innocent tone and always appears to assume the best of the authors, letting the words speak for themselves.