The Poetical Works of Alexander Pope, Volume 2 by Alexander Pope
page 16 of 478 (03%)
page 16 of 478 (03%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
crucifixion to his foe. This wit, when exasperated into satire, is very
formidable, for, like Addison's, it does its work with little noise. Pope whispers poetic perdition--he deals in drops of concentrated bitterness--he stabs with a poisoned bodkin--he touches his enemies into stone with the light and playful finger of a fairy--and his more elaborate invectives glitter all over with the polish of profound malignity. His knowledge of human nature, particularly of woman's heart, is great, but seems more the result of impish eavesdropping than of that thorough and genial insight which sympathy produces. He has listened at the keyhole, not by any "Open Sesame" entered the chamber. He has rather painted manners than men. His power of simulating passion is great; but the passion must, in general, be mingled with unnatural elements ere he can realise it--the game must be putrid ere he can enjoy its flavour. He has no humour, at least in his poetry. It is too much of an unconscious outflow, and partakes too much of the genial and the human nature for him. His fancy is lively and copious, but its poetical products often resemble the forced fruits of a hothouse rather than those of a natural soil and climate. His description of Sporus, lauded by Byron as a piece of imagination, is exceedingly artificial and far-fetched in its figures--a mere mass of smoked gumflowers. Compare for fancy the speeches of Mercutio, in "Romeo and Juliet," the "Rape of the Lock," if we would see the difference between a spontaneous and artificial outpouring of images, between a fancy as free as fervid, and one lashing itself into productiveness. His power of describing natural objects is far from first-rate; he enumerates instead of describing; he omits nothing in the scene except the one thing needful--the bright poetical gleam or haze which ought to have been there. There is the "grass" but not the "splendour"--the "flower" but not the "glory." In depicting character, it is very different. His likenesses of men and women, so far as manners, external features, and the contrasts produced by the |
|