ABSTRACT

This article, based on Bakhtinian dialogism, explores the disparity between Nature proposed in Alexander Pope’s An Essay on Criticism on the one hand and his practices of criticisms on the other, a disparity brought about by the use of dialogue and heterogeneous voices. Pope assumes that Nature, the universal and transcendental standard, guides literary creativity and criticism; to understand Nature demands the laborious study of the classics and of the critical rules developed from ancient times by European critics. However, irreconcilable voices are found in Pope’s discourses, which render ridiculous his self-assumed, taken-for-granted unity between Nature and criticism. The heterogeneity of his discourse is demonstrated in three aspects: (1) the ambiguous state of Nature: Popean Nature is never universally accepted, clearly defined, and faithfully practiced, but represents his monologic voice surrounded by many others; (2) the critical rules and tradition: tradition is too polyphonic and heterogeneous to be synthesized in a systematic, monologic discourse, whereas Pope’s imitation of the classics and his endorsement of critical rules display the dialogue between the ancient and modern—the ancient can offer some examples for the modern, while the modern can reinterpret the classics in a new light; (3) Pope’s dialogue with his contemporaries: in the Essay he apparently speaks as an authority, but he also paid painful attention to the response of contemporary readers and would revise his poetry accordingly—with the intention not to follow Nature but to retaliate. Thus, Pope’s criticisms manifest the gist of Bakhtinian dialogism to some extent. Pope’s discourses, incorporating ancient and modern voices, demonstrate the inevitability of polyphony and heterogeneity.

KEYWORDS: Alexander Pope, Mikhail Bakhtin, An Essay on Criticism, dialogism, Nature, tradition