It does occasionally occur, while in the midst of some ancient text, the feeling that one had to be there. The off-hand gags in Aristophanes, or the unreadable jokes in Shakespeare: it is often the low (and very rarely the high) material that becomes indistinct in these later years; or worse: just not funny. These points make no claim to the universal in themselves; they do not look to explain what is, in that instant, so blitheringly obvious. Alexander Pope seems especially vulnerable to this direction of attack. On first reading The Dunciad I was bewildered by the sheer account of names – it seems Pope was in perpetual war with nearly the entire literary establishment – and this bewilderment soon morphed into alienation. A long, winding diss-track, whose targets I have never heard of (in almost every case), wound about increasingly daedal biblical and classical parodies. At a certain point I began to glaze, and the remainder was read in rigid obligation. I could concede: indeed I would trumpet the voices that state Pope is much less the poet than his faded reputation might suggest. It looked rather like a once hearty man, whose blush had diminished in each intervening century. Now he looks to be a corpse, though a corpse we could accept – based on all the context – was once a bold and merry fellow. Similar, if less harsh feelings fall upon Pope’s other famous poem: The Rape of the Lock. There are degrees of distancing: immediate familiarity with the persons in question; an impersonal familiarity; a general understanding that, at some point, such things occurred; and then the generations in whom social concord was of such a make as to find in The Rape of the Lock some degree of mutual feeling. All these possibilities have now expired. It is trivia that The Rape of the Lock is based on a true event: the thing becomes wholly fictive. But I did not take Pope at his first, absent blush. I struck again into The Dunciad (which, in concept, is so attractive), but on the second attempt I did not read the version of this edition, but rather the free Gutenberg text online. This has a distinct advantage: the inclusion of Pope’s notational apparatus totally cut from what is a slim and somewhat compromised selection. In taking the text carefully, in understanding not the whole nature of these endless names but at the least their representative features (and at the very least their occupation), the text is suddenly set aflame. Certainly it cannot be so bright, and much less fierce – here it is contained and observed – as in its day, but there is a magnificence that emerges in this poem. A universal stupidity that begins as a series of names to be tossed off bridges (particularly in the Second Book), but then ends in far less personal, far more allusive terms: a kind of Hieronymus Bosch in which the whole universe is consumed by Dulness, all things take their inverted course, and all the literati have been rendered not merely pompous and moronic, but the agents of a cultural force set to destroy all things bright and pleasant. Perhaps there is a bleakness here that somewhat overwhelms itself; perhaps all eras need a similar signal of downfall. Certainly: it is proof that stupidity in content need not equal stupidity in lampoon; it seems almost that the poetic force of the extended joke is born in-process – much as the Lock grew in process – and a unique artefact is ushered out of so much bile. The Rape of the Lock itself also benefitted from a revisit; it is perhaps the less satisfying and the less complete of the pair, in that its narrative and structure flits more frequently and does not necessarily fulfil its every promise – I think to the long introduction of the Sylphs, who largely vanish by the ending; or the failure to introduce in any major role the other to Rosicrucian beings; or the quite unfortunate insistence of using Nymph and the uncapitalized nymph as two conceptually separate ideals. But it is, most of all, a supreme commitment to the bit: a work whose own improper scale seems to justify itself by its impropriety. The more grandiose, the more long, the more expansive this poem is, the more it must become inherently funny. (And while The Dunciad is frequently funny in its own horrible procession, The Rape of the Lock is perhaps funnier as an object in total rather than line for line; though it is not without its moments.) These revisits then, as some small kernel of me suspected, restore Alexander Pope to previous heights. My own disquisition against the man is cured in a second innings. He remains, it should be reiterated, diminished in these works: they must necessarily be diminished. But perhaps in the irrelevance of so many of the participants my eyes are better able to peel back its other substance; in whatever case, they have no other choice. What of the other selections? Certainly this can be said: while Pope’s star does not shine so brightly, the vestige of his sun has burnt well the English language. His quotations survive as commonplaces, though of which ever attributed finding origin in Shakespeare or the Bible: I should expect he would have had something very funny to say of that. ‘An Essay on Criticism’ is, in general, an excellent poem, and one littered with at least three of English’s most repeated phrases. ‘To a Lady’ is perhaps thrown up by changing social mores, and certainly it seems a rabid and zig-zag affair, but contains in it one of the great couplets of English poetry, which has again found a life of its own quite outside the context of gender evaluation. I find the redux Horace satires a little limp, but then I didn’t think altogether too much of the originals: a satire which is largely concerned with justifying satire is not unlike poetry that spends every line in praise of poetry: be that I agree, where is the thing itself? His poems on wealth are both sharp; ‘Windsor Forest’ is suddenly too earnest; ‘Abelard and Heloise’ is wonderful, straight-faced, tragic – in much of Pope’s comedy he occasional veers into abstract or striking beauty, and here he dedicates to it his full power. It would be remiss to not mention the rhythmic inevitabilities: a body of work in which the heroic couplet is the only means of communication. Pope is not the only poet so bitten by that asp, but he is bitten the same. I say this having read – and much enjoyed! – his Iliad; but if a poem begins to try the patience, the endless singsong of pentameter rhymes is surely to kill what remains of goodwill. But it seems mine is not easily slain. In the marble block, a block that appears a long list of forgotten names, can be found the poet.