An intriguing article, Pope truly was ahead of his times. Though a few quibbles. James II was deposed mainly because of his Catholicism, his other measures would largely have been accepted had he been an Anglican. As Corp and Miller have noted. Also, the Tories by and large were for the Church of England and for the Stuarts, the Whigs were for the dissenters and for Hanover. The seditious libel case was in 1606, with the Star Chamber having been abolished in 1640.
Also, the execution of Charles II happened in 1649 more than half a century before the date given in the article for the seditious libel case, hardly less than a generation.
Wasn’t it Charles I who was beheaded? Charles II, off course, should have been hanged, drawn, castrated and quartered (not necessarily in that order) for signing the Secret Treaty of Dover, and selling out to Louis XIV.
At my prep school in the 70’s I learnt off by heart the dates for all the monarchs from 1066 onwards, and my Charles II mistake was just a typo. Having said which, I didn’t know about the seditious libel case until reading about it a couple of days ago as a result of this article.
Thank you Mary. I’m afraid Alexander Pope was just a name to me, so I was glad to make his acquaintance today and learn what a strong- willed and gifted man he was. From what I know of the early 18th. Century he was probably a rare voice in reminding his society of its moral roots. The Bishops who should be expected to speak truth to power and to the people were largely silent. Apart from Samuel Butler and George Berkeley they were all nonentities with little prospect of influencing their society. Thank God for John Wesley who was a light in the darkness. We see something similar today. For Alexander Pope write Peter Hitchens,Melanie Phillips and Jordan Peterson and very few others. As far as our contemporary Bishops are concerned they tend to be gently disposed toward culturally acceptable left of centre politics and generally try to avoid saying anything which may offend wokedom. In the meantime people suffer greatly as a result of the moral breakdown in society, not least the children suffering from broken families, and the ethical chaos and confusion caused by identity issues. But I do not agree that a moral reformation will come about by “a new poetics of order”. There are I believe two alternatives. Either we go the route of a great spiritual awakening/revival based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ which impacts countless people through the power of the Holy Spirit. Or it comes by the introduction of sharia law rigourously applied when/if Islam becomes the dominant religion in this country through the demographics sometime after 2050.
Tony Conrad
3 years ago
We are certainly back to those days but cannot see it. We think we have progressed instead of sinking. The revival in Britain was mainly due to the Wesley brothers leading to us ruling the waves and more. How the mighty have fallen.
Andrew Baldwin
3 years ago
Did Mary choose the title for this piece? The last paragraphs seemed to contradict it. The 18th century licentiousness gave way to a primmer, more proper Victorian London, i She seems to be saying that looser and tighter morals run in cycles in London society, rather than having always been loose, which makes sense to me. As R.H. Bruce Lockhart wrote: “The most dangerous of all historical aphorisms is the catch-phrase; ‘plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose'”. Be skeptical whenever you hear it.
I’m not sure about the popular myth of prim and proper Victorians, it seems to me to be more a product of the 20th century imagination than having much basis in reality. Admittedly Victoria’s persona after Albert’s death was prim and disapproving of licentiousness, which had an influence on the aspirational middle classes, but London was as dissolute and seemy as it ever was underneath, perhaps more so; prostitution, opium dens, body snatching, mugging including garotting, laudanum addiction commonplace, adultery, murder.
Drahcir Nevarc
3 years ago
Four years ago, I wrote and had published a Bristolian homage to the Dunciad, a 620 line poem in heroic couplets. Google “The Montpeliad by Richard Craven”.
How interesting. I gather it is fairly uncomplimentary about Bristol which was very prescient given the recent trouble there over BLM and the Coulston statue.
Thank you! Yes, disparaging Bristol in iambic pentameter is very much my stock in trade. Incidentally, about an hour ago I blocked our mutual antagonist N.Yerbizness.
And I must thank you for introducing me to William Dunbar. I’d heard of him but knew nothing about him except for “Timor mortis conturbat me”. Now I’ve looked him up and discovered what a wealth of material he left bequeathed us.
In Scottish gaelic, ciad means first or an obsolete meaning of ciad is opinion or impression. https://en.m.wiktionary.org…
Maybe dunciad means first haven or impressions from a place of refuge.
This got me thinking about the yugas, with the first effectively being the perfect age of heaven on Earth. From here, humans progressively move through three other yugas which are increasingly sinful and then back to the perfect age. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/…
robert scheetz
3 years ago
If this is meant for reassurance, it’s grossly ingenuous. Walpole + “The Butcher of Culloden” + open sewers appear prelapsarian by comparison.
Sean L
3 years ago
All antagonisms are binary, resolving themselves into two sides. Even where there multiple mutually antagonistic protagonists as there invariably are, the fiercest rivalries always being among those closest, people eventually have to choose sides. Proximity guarantees rivalry: put any number of children in a room with the same number of identical toys, as soon as one child reaches for a toy another will contend for it. ‘Toy’ could symbolise *any* rivalry. The antagonism is mimetic and has nothing to do with the value of the ‘toy’ itself. As Rene Girard puts it, we become “doubles”: the ostensible cause of the conflict dropping out of consideration as we become fascinated with our rival.
An intriguing article, Pope truly was ahead of his times. Though a few quibbles. James II was deposed mainly because of his Catholicism, his other measures would largely have been accepted had he been an Anglican. As Corp and Miller have noted. Also, the Tories by and large were for the Church of England and for the Stuarts, the Whigs were for the dissenters and for Hanover. The seditious libel case was in 1606, with the Star Chamber having been abolished in 1640.
Also, the execution of Charles II happened in 1649 more than half a century before the date given in the article for the seditious libel case, hardly less than a generation.
I’m sure it was a slip of the key but it was Charles I who was executed in 1649. Charles II, his son was restored to the throne in 1660.
Wasn’t it Charles I who was beheaded? Charles II, off course, should have been hanged, drawn, castrated and quartered (not necessarily in that order) for signing the Secret Treaty of Dover, and selling out to Louis XIV.
Charles I was executed in 1649, his son was restored to the throne in 1660. The seditious libel case happened in 1606.
At my prep school in the 70’s I learnt off by heart the dates for all the monarchs from 1066 onwards, and my Charles II mistake was just a typo. Having said which, I didn’t know about the seditious libel case until reading about it a couple of days ago as a result of this article.
Ah cool 🙂
Thank you Mary. I’m afraid Alexander Pope was just a name to me, so I was glad to make his acquaintance today and learn what a strong- willed and gifted man he was. From what I know of the early 18th. Century he was probably a rare voice in reminding his society of its moral roots. The Bishops who should be expected to speak truth to power and to the people were largely silent. Apart from Samuel Butler and George Berkeley they were all nonentities with little prospect of influencing their society. Thank God for John Wesley who was a light in the darkness.
We see something similar today. For Alexander Pope write Peter Hitchens,Melanie Phillips and Jordan Peterson and very few others. As far as our contemporary Bishops are concerned they tend to be gently disposed toward culturally acceptable left of centre politics and generally try to avoid saying anything which may offend wokedom. In the meantime people suffer greatly as a result of the moral breakdown in society, not least the children suffering from broken families, and the ethical chaos and confusion caused by identity issues. But I do not agree that a moral reformation will come about by “a new poetics of order”. There are I believe two alternatives. Either we go the route of a great spiritual awakening/revival based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ which impacts countless people through the power of the Holy Spirit. Or it comes by the introduction of sharia law rigourously applied when/if Islam becomes the dominant religion in this country through the demographics sometime after 2050.
We are certainly back to those days but cannot see it. We think we have progressed instead of sinking. The revival in Britain was mainly due to the Wesley brothers leading to us ruling the waves and more. How the mighty have fallen.
Did Mary choose the title for this piece? The last paragraphs seemed to contradict it. The 18th century licentiousness gave way to a primmer, more proper Victorian London, i She seems to be saying that looser and tighter morals run in cycles in London society, rather than having always been loose, which makes sense to me. As R.H. Bruce Lockhart wrote: “The most dangerous of all historical aphorisms is the catch-phrase; ‘plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose'”. Be skeptical whenever you hear it.
I’m not sure about the popular myth of prim and proper Victorians, it seems to me to be more a product of the 20th century imagination than having much basis in reality.
Admittedly Victoria’s persona after Albert’s death was prim and disapproving of licentiousness, which had an influence on the aspirational middle classes, but London was as dissolute and seemy as it ever was underneath, perhaps more so; prostitution, opium dens, body snatching, mugging including garotting, laudanum addiction commonplace, adultery, murder.
Four years ago, I wrote and had published a Bristolian homage to the Dunciad, a 620 line poem in heroic couplets. Google “The Montpeliad by Richard Craven”.
well that was a wasted two minutes I’ll never get back.
How interesting. I gather it is fairly uncomplimentary about Bristol which was very prescient given the recent trouble there over BLM and the Coulston statue.
Thank you! Yes, disparaging Bristol in iambic pentameter is very much my stock in trade. Incidentally, about an hour ago I blocked our mutual antagonist N.Yerbizness.
Iambic pentameter reminds me of the redoubtable William Dunbar and his amusing reference to VD.
Many thanks for seeing off Nun, he wasn’t really up to it, poor chap.
And I must thank you for introducing me to William Dunbar. I’d heard of him but knew nothing about him except for “Timor mortis conturbat me”. Now I’ve looked him up and discovered what a wealth of material he left bequeathed us.
Yes, he was a very interesting chap. Fortunately the ‘fear of death’ doesn’t afflict me (yet).
“…most music is about getting laid.”
Same as it ever was, “Carmina Burana” 11th century.
“…king’s divine right to abolish Parliament and govern centrally via decree.”
The Conservative Party’s wet dream only replace the monarch with OZ The Great and Powerful.
In Scottish gaelic, dun means hillfort or place of refuge, haven.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/…
https://www.teanglann.ie/en…
In Scottish gaelic, ciad means first or an obsolete meaning of ciad is opinion or impression.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org…
Maybe dunciad means first haven or impressions from a place of refuge.
This got me thinking about the yugas, with the first effectively being the perfect age of heaven on Earth. From here, humans progressively move through three other yugas which are increasingly sinful and then back to the perfect age.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/…
If this is meant for reassurance, it’s grossly ingenuous. Walpole + “The Butcher of Culloden” + open sewers appear prelapsarian by comparison.
All antagonisms are binary, resolving themselves into two sides. Even where there multiple mutually antagonistic protagonists as there invariably are, the fiercest rivalries always being among those closest, people eventually have to choose sides. Proximity guarantees rivalry: put any number of children in a room with the same number of identical toys, as soon as one child reaches for a toy another will contend for it. ‘Toy’ could symbolise *any* rivalry. The antagonism is mimetic and has nothing to do with the value of the ‘toy’ itself. As Rene Girard puts it, we become “doubles”: the ostensible cause of the conflict dropping out of consideration as we become fascinated with our rival.