The more costly, though equally unsubstantial, honour of a monument, was projected by Montague; and loud were the acclamations of the poets on his generous forgiveness of past discords with Dryden, and the munificence of this universal patron.  But Montague never accomplished his purpose, if he seriously entertained it.  Pelham, Duke of Newcastle, announced the same intention; received the panegyric of Congreve for having done so; and having thus pocketed the applause, proceeded no further than Montague had done.  At length Pope, in some lines which were rather an epitaph on Dryden, who lay in the vicinity, than on Rowe, over whose tomb they were to be placed,[5] roused Dryden’s original patron, Sheffield, formerly Earl of Mulgrave, and now Duke of Buckingham, to erect over the grave of his friend the present simple monument which distinguishes it.  The inscription was comprised in the following words:—­J.  Dryden.  Natus 1632.  Mortuus I Maii 1700.  Joannes Sheffield, Duxx Buckinghamiensis posuit, 1720.[6]

In the school of reformed English poetry, of which Dryden must be acknowledged as the founder, there soon arose disciples not unwilling to be considered as the rivals of their muster.  Addison had his partisans, who were desirous to hold him up in this point of view; and he himself is said to have taken pleasure, with the assistance of Steele, to depreciate Dryden, whose fame was defended by Pope and Congreve.  No serious invasion of Dryden’s pre-eminence can be said, however, to have taken place, till Pope himself, refining upon that structure of versification which our author had first introduced, and attending with sedulous diligence to improve every passage to the highest pitch of point and harmony, exhibited a new style of composition, and claimed at least to share with Dryden the sovereignty of Parnassus.  I will not attempt to concentrate what Johnson has said upon this interesting comparison:—­

“In acquired knowledge, the superiority must be allowed to Dryden, whose education was more scholastic, and who, before he became an author, had been allowed more time for study, with better means of information.  His mind has a larger range, and he collects his images and illustrations from a more extensive circumference of science.  Dryden knew more of man in his general nature, and Pope in his local manners.  The notions of Dryden were formed by comprehensive speculation, and those of Pope by minute attention.  There is more dignity in the knowledge of Dryden, and more certainty in that of Pope.

“Poetry was not the sole praise of either; for both excelled likewise in prose; but Pope did not borrow his prose from his predecessor.  The style of Dryden is capricious and varied, that of Pope is cautious and uniform.  Dryden obeys the motions of his own mind, Pope constrains his mind to his own rules of composition.  Dryden is sometimes vehement and rapid; Pope is always smooth, uniform, and gentle.  Dryden’s page is a natural field, rising into inequalities, and diversified by the varied exuberance of abundant vegetation; Pope’s is a velvet lawn, shaven by the scythe, and levelled by the roller.