For contrary objects must either excite contrary affections, or no affections at all. So that he who loveth good men, must at the same time hate the bad; and he who hateth not bad men, cannot love the good; because to love good men proceedeth from an aversion to evil, and to hate evil men from a tenderness to the good.« From this delicacy of the Muse arose the little Epic, (more lively and choleric than her elder sister, whose bulk and complexion incline her to the flegmatic) and for this some notorious Vehicle of vice and folly was sought out, to make thereof an example. An early instance of which (nor could it escape the accurate Scriblerus) the Father of Epic poem himself affordeth us. From him the practice descended to the Greek Dramatic poets, his offspring; who in the composition of their Tetralogy, or set of four pieces, were wont to make the last a Satyric Tragedy. Happily one of these ancient Dunciads (as we may well term it) is come down to us amongst the Tragedies of Euripides. And what doth the reader think may be the subject? Why truly, and it is worth his observation, the unequal Contention of an old, dull, debauched, buffoon Cyclops, with the heaven-directed Favourite of Minerva; who after having quietly born all the monster's obscene and impious ribaldry, endeth the farce in punishing him with the mark of an indelible brand in his forehead. May we not then be excused, if for the future we consider the Epics of Homer, Virgil, and Milton, together with this our poem, as a complete Tetralogy, in which the last worthily holdeth the place or station of the satyric piece?

Proceed we therefore in our subject. It hath been long, and alas for pity! still remaineth a question, whether the Hero of the greater Epic should be an honest man? or, as the French critics express it, un honnête homme1; but it never admitted of any doubt but that the Hero of the little Epic should not be so. Hence, to the advantage of our Dunciad, we may observe how much juster the Moral of that Poem must needs be, where so important a question is previously decided.

But then it is not every Knave, nor (let me add) Fool, that is a fit subject for a Dunciad. There must still exist some Analogy, if not Resemblance of Qualities, between the Heroes of the two Poems; and this in order to admit what Neoteric critics call the Parody, one of the liveliest graces of the little Epic. Thus it being agreed that the constituent qualities of the greater Epic Hero, are Wisdom, Bravery, and Love, from whence springeth heroic Virtue; it followeth that those of the lesser Epic Hero, should be Vanity, Impudence, and Debauchery, from which happy assemblage resulteth heroic Dulness, the never-dying subject of this our Poem.

This being confessed, come we now to particulars. It is the character of true Wisdom, to seek its chief support and confidence within itself; and to place that support in the resources which proceed from a conscious rectitude of Will. – And are the advantages of Vanity, when arising to the heroic standard, at all short of this self-complacence? Nay, are they not, in the opinion of the enamoured owner, far beyond it? »Let the world« (will such an one say) »impute to me what Folly or weakness they please; but till Wisdom can give me something that will make me more heartily happy, I am content to be GAZED AT.«2 This we see is Vanity according to the heroic gage or measure; not that low and ignoble species which pretendeth to Virtues we have not, but the laudable ambition of being gazed at for glorying in those Vices which all the world know we have. »The world may ask (says he) why I make my follies publick? Why not? I have passed my time very pleasantly with them3.« In short, there is no sort of Vanity such a Hero would scruple, but that which might go near to degrade him from his high station in this our Dunciad; namely, »Whether it would not be Vanity in him, to take shame to himself for not being a wise man?4«

Bravery, the second attribute of the true Hero, is Courage manifesting itself in every limb; while, in its correspondent virtue in the mock Hero, that Courage is all collected into the Face. And as Power when drawn together, must needs be more strong than when dispersed, we generally find this kind of courage in so high and heroic a degree, that it insults not only Men, but Gods. Mezentius is without doubt the bravest character in all the Æneis; but how? His bravery, we know, was an high courage of blasphemy. And can we say less of this brave man's, who having told us that he placed »his Summum bonum in those follies, which he was not content barely to possess but would likewise glory in,« adds, »If I am misguided, 'TIS NATURE'S FAULT, and I follow HER.«5 Nor can we be mistaken in making this happy quality a species of Courage, when we consider those illustrious marks of it, which made his Face »more known (as he justly boasteth) than most in the kingdom,« and his Language to consist of what we must allow to be the most daring Figure of Speech, that which is taken from the Name of God.

Gentle Love, the next ingredient in the true Hero's composition, is a mere bird of passage, or (as Shakespear calls it) summer-teeming Lust, and evaporates in the heat of Youth; doubtless by that refinement it suffers in passing through those certain strainers which our Poet somewhere speaketh of. But when it is let alone to work upon the Lees, it acquireth strength by Old age; and becometh a standing ornament to the little Epic. It is true indeed, there is one objection to its fitness for such an use: For not only the Ignorant may think it common, but it is admitted to be so, even by Him who best knoweth its nature. »Don't you think (saith he) to say only a man has his Whore, ought to go for little or nothing? Because defendit numerus, take the first ten thousand men you meet, and I believe you would be no loser if you betted ten to one, that every single sinner of them, one with another, had been guilty of the same frailty.«6 But here he seemeth not to have done himself justice: The man is sure enough a Hero, who has his Lady at fourscore. How doth his Modesty herein lessen the merit of a whole well-spent Life: not taking to himself the commendation (which Horace accounted the greatest in a theatrical character) of continuing to the very dregs, the same he was from the beginning,

 

–– Servetur ad IMUM

Qualis ab incepto processerat ––

 

But let us farther remark, that the calling her his whore, implieth she was his own, and not his neighbour's. Truly a commendable Continence! and such as Scipio himself must have applauded. For how much Self-denial was necessary not to covet his Neighbour's whore? and what disorders must the coveting her have occasioned, in that Society, where (according to this Political Calculator) nine in ten of all ages have their concubines?

We have now, as briefly as we could devise, gone through the three constituent Qualities of either Hero. But it is not in any, or all of these, that Heroism properly or essentially resideth. It is a lucky result rather from the collision of these lively Qualities against one another. Thus, as from Wisdom, Bravery, and Love, ariseth Magnanimity, the object of Admiration, which is the aim of the greater Epic; so from Vanity, Impudence, and Debauchery, springeth Buffoonry, the source of Ridicule, that »laughing ornament,« as he well termeth it7, of the little Epic.

He is not ashamed (God forbid he ever should be ashamed!) of this Character; who deemeth, that not Reason but Risibility distinguisheth the human species from the brutal. »As Nature (saith this profound Philosopher) distinguished our species from the mute creation by our Risibility, her design MUST have been by that faculty as evidently to raise our HAPPINESS, as by OUR os sublime (OUR ERECTED FACES) to lift the dignity of our FORM above them.«8 All this considered, how complete a Hero must he be, as well as how happy a Man, whose Risibility lieth not barely in his muscles as in the common sort, but (as himself informeth us) in his very spirits? And whose Os sublime is not simply an erect face, but a Brazen head, as should seem by his comparing it with one of Iron, said to belong to the late king of Sweden!9

But whatever personal qualities a Hero may have, the examples of Achilles and Æneas shew us, that all those are of small avail, without the constant assistance of the GODS: for the subversion and erection of Empires have never been judged the work of Man. How greatly soever then we may esteem of his high talents, we can hardly conceive his personal prowess alone sufficient to restore the decayed empire of Dulness. So weighty an atchievement must require the particular favour and protection of the GREAT: who being the natural patrons and supporters of Letters, as the ancient Gods were of Troy, must first be drawn off and engaged in another Interest, before the total subversion of them can be accomplished. To surmount, therefore, this last and greatest difficulty, we have in this excellent man a professed Favourite and Intimado of the Great.