The purpose of this paper is to investigate Pope's treatment of Lewis Theobald and Colley Cibber in their roles as the king of dunces in the Dunciad. After an introductory chapter that treats the battles between Pope and Theobald and Pope and Cibber, the second chapter gives a short factual biography of Theobald emphasizing the events relating to his battle with Pope. The third chapter analyzes the caricature of Theobald in the Dunciad Variorum, showing its variations from fact. By comparing Theobald and Cibber, the fourth chapter investigates the extent and effectiveness of the changes made in the Dunciad of 1743 to accommodate the change from Theobald to Cibber as the king of dunces. This paper attempts to demonstrate that Theobald and Cibber were treated unfairly by Pope, whose decision to enthrone both was based on a desire for personal revenge.

In this project, I examine the impact of early literary criticism, early literary history, and the history of knowledge on the perception of the laureateship as it was formulated at specific moments in the eighteenth century. Instead of accepting the assessments of Pope and Johnson, I reconstruct the contemporary impact of laureate writings and the writing that fashioned the view of the laureates we have inherited. I use an array of primary documents (from letters and journal entries to poems and non-fiction prose) to analyze the way the laureateship as a literary identity was constructed in several key moments: the debate over hack literature in the pamphlet wars surrounding Elkanah Settle’s The Empress of Morocco (1673), the defense of Colley Cibber and his subsequent attempt to use his expertise of theater in An Apology for the Life of Colley Cibber (1740), the consolidation of hack literature and state-sponsored poetry with the crowning of Colley Cibber as the King of the Dunces in Pope’s The Dunciad in Four Books (1742), the fashioning of Thomas Gray and William Mason as laureate rejecters in Mason’s Memoirs of the Life and Writings of William Whitehead (1788), Southey’s progressive work to abolish laureate task writing in his laureate odes 1813-1821, and, finally, in Wordsworth’s refusal to produce any laureate task writing during his tenure, 1843-1850. In each case, I explain how the construction of this office was central to the consolidation of literary history and to forging authorial identity in the same period. This differs from the conventional treatment of the laureates because I expose the history of the versions of literary history that have to date structured how scholars understand the laureate, and by doing so, reveal how the laureateship was used to create, legitimate and disseminate the model of literary history we still use today.