Moral Essays (also known as Epistles to Several Persons) is a series of four poems on ethical subjects by Alexander Pope, published between 1731 and 1735.
The four poems were first published under the name Moral Essays by William Warburton (PopeâÂÂs literary executor) in 1751, not in the chronological order in which they were first written, but in the order:
Along with An Essay on Man, which was written during the same period, they were inspired by PopeâÂÂs affection for Bolingbroke, and it seems (from what Pope told his friend Jonathan Swift) that he intended the entire work to be part of his âÂÂopus magnumâÂÂ, a âÂÂsystem of ethics in the Horatian wayâÂÂ. It was Pope himself who described them as Epistles to Several Persons.
The subtitle of this poem, initially Of False Taste, was changed to Of the Use of Riches. It covers the subject of the use of wealth in both a tasteless and a proper manner, and particularly deals with landscaping, gardens and architecture, specific interests of Lord Burlington, who had been a friend of Pope since about 1715.
The key to good taste when designing an estate, Pope says, is to âÂÂConsult the Genius of the Place in allâ (l. 57), a precept followed by Bathurst and others, but not by the superficial, ostentatious landowner identified as âÂÂTimonâÂÂ. Although his description of TimonâÂÂs villa is a synthesis of details from different sites, it was soon widely criticised as an attack on the Berkshire estate of the Duke of Chandos, damaging PopeâÂÂs own reputation and career. This also put an end to any relationship between him and Sir Robert Walpole, BolingbrokeâÂÂs main political opponent.
Like Burlington, this epistle is subtitled Of the Use of Riches. It deals with the use of money, arguing that both greedy and wasteful people misapply it, and so derive no happiness from it, though its target is more the rising commercial class, rather than the ruling aristocracy as in Burlington. Pope presents a series of satirical portraits of wasteful or parsimonious characters, but in particular he describes âÂÂThe Man of Rossâ (John Kyrle), who was generous with his wealth, and âÂÂSir BalaamâÂÂ, whose riches lead him into penury.
The Man of Ross had given generously to the town of Ross-on-Wye, though Pope may have exaggerated his benevolence. After suggesting that Bathurst might ask what vast means he had to achieve all this, the poet replies: âÂÂOf debts and taxes, wife and children clear, This man possest â five hundred pounds a year.â (ll. 275-80) Though this is disclosed as if some remarkable achievement, that amount might be well into six figures in current terms, and at a time when workmenâÂÂs wages were very meagre. Nonetheless, the point was made.
Sir Balaam, by contrast, is a religious, sober (but parsimonious) tradesman of the City of London where âÂÂLondonâÂÂs column, pointing at the skies Like a tall bully, lifts its head and lyesâÂÂ. (ll. 339-40) - PopeâÂÂs famous attack on the blame falsely cast on Catholics for starting the Great Fire of London by the inscription on The Monument.
Balaam in the Bible was corrupted from his pious conduct by bribery, as PopeâÂÂs readers would have known, and so Sir Balaam, having risen to great wealth and success, subsequently overreaches himself, commits various offences and crimes, and is eventually hanged. The poemâÂÂs conclusion requires no moral additional to: âÂÂThe Devil and the King divide the prize, And sad Sir Balaam curses God and dies.â (ll. 401-2)
Addressing this poem to Viscount Cobham, Pope considers the knowledge and personality of various people, discussing the difficulty in reading the character of men. He visited CobhamâÂÂs house at Stowe in the summer of 1733, shortly after its owner had been dismissed by Walpole for writing a protest about Government policy. He then produced the poem, praising independence of mind as a fine public virtue.
Pope points out that books do not assist in reading character, while observation is misled, and our judgements are influenced by our own prejudices and tastes. Even a personâÂÂs actions may derive from something other than actual intention. He concludes that the best way to assess character is by discovering a âÂÂruling passionâ (an idea previously found in An Essay on Man), which may appear most significantly at a personâÂÂs death, and which âÂÂclue once found unravels all the restâ (l. 178). The ideal of this is, predictably, the recipient of the poem: âÂÂAnd you! Brave COBHAM, to the latest breath Shall feel your ruling Passion strong in death:â (ll. 262-3)
Martha Blount was one of two sisters who had been friends of Pope since 1707. Like him, she was from a Catholic background, and over the years he had visited the family frequently. His poem looks into the characters of women, in particular by describing four, supposedly pseudonymous, portraits. In three cases, however, the identity was fairly clear. Philomodé was Henrietta, Duchess of Marlborough, and Atossa was either HenriettaâÂÂs mother, Duchess Sarah, or else Catherine, Duchess of Buckingham, the illegitimate daughter of James II, while Cloe was the Countess of Suffolk, George IIâÂÂs mistress.
The poem starts by apparently quoting Martha Blount: âÂÂNothing so true as what you once let fall, âÂÂMost Women have no characters at all.âÂÂâ (ll. 1-2)
In fact, that view is disputed, first by reference to different portraits painted of ladies, and more importantly by varied aspects of female personality: âÂÂLadies like variegated Tulips show; âÂÂTis to their Changes half their charms we owe.â (ll. 41-2) Philomedé talks of romance, but does not act it out. Atossa is angry and violent, but is eventually: âÂÂSick of herself throâ very selfishness!â (l. 146) Cloe is the converse of this, a woman who âÂÂwants a HeartâÂÂ, and hides in the formal social code, âÂÂContent to dwell in Decencies forever.â (l. 164)
Martha herself, in contrast, is of a finer character altogether. God, he concludes, has given her âÂÂSense, Good-humour, and a Poetâ (l. 292) to immortalise her.
It was not until 1744, when Pope died, that the portrait of Atossa was included in the published epistle, and it was alleged by Bolingbroke that Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, had sought to suppress it, paying Pope ã1,000 (perhaps ã250,000 in current value).