Contemporary Political Lessons from an 18th-Century Feud
30/07/25
Embedded Files
ALEXANDER POPE, IMAGE: JONATHAN RICHARDSON
What can a bitter 18th-century interpersonal conflict teach today’s politics? More than you might initially suspect. History, as is often remarked, is cyclical, and both the present and the future are often learnt by facing chronologically backwards. No history is meritless in its lessons, especially when it comes to politics, power, and personality. With that in mind, let’s learn lessons from a seemingly inconsequential but intriguing feud from long ago.
This tale begins in 1678, with the birth of Thomas Hearne, or Thomas Hearnius, for the Latin-officianados. Hearne, from a young age, excelled at academics, leading to a career at Oxford University as an antiquarian. He preserved several texts of significant influence, meriting him plaudits for the preservation of knowledge in great, if sometimes overbearing, detail. Hearne did have one major opponent, however.
Alexander Pope is better known than Hearne. A poet and playwright, Pope is famous for the coining of several influential and much recited phrases, including “damning with faint praise”, as well as translating Homer and authoring several notable essays. While certainly a name that holds poignancy amongst particular circles, this poignancy amongst those in the know cannot be overstated. In his book on the man, Alexander Pope in the Making, Joseph Hone declares Pope “the most important poet of the eighteenth century”. Hone portrays Pope as a terrifyingly powerful force, wielding not a sword, but a pen and parchment; an immense literary stature, impressively depicted.
Yet, for the praises sung of Pope, contemporary knowledge of him does often centre around the odd, but certainly passionate, hatred he developed for Hearne. Pope despised him. He dismissed his works as of little quality, describing them as “monkish”, and he abhorred Hearne’s solid academic standing. Hearne preserved antiquated texts and knowledge, which Pope saw as too obscure to be worth the merit he received.
It has to be stated that Pope’s loathing of Hearne is somewhat challenging to truly depict. The best example of it is Pope’s significant literary correspondence, frequently with Lord Lansdowne, which constitutes around 60 pages outlining his myriad reasons for hating the Oxford librarian. Some of the lines Pope wrote highlight both his unadulterated hatred of Hearne and his incredible ability to wield the power of the written medium.
THOMAS HEARNE, IMAGE: ANTHONY WOOD
In the correspondence, Pope suggests Hearne’s work is perhaps only worth publishing because of the labour he put into it, but not because of the actual product, going on to point out every mistake he could find in Hearne's work. It is implied that Hearne turns away from the truth for the sake of his own personal convictions, and that he offered nothing other than purposeless history (if such a thing exists). The concluding lines, penned shortly after Hearne’s death, offer the finest indication of Pope’s scathing view of Hearne:
“Thus after wasting, not employing, a Life of Fifty odd Years, on the Tenth Day of June 1735, this Studier and Preserver of Monkish-Trumpery gave up the Ghost. He was a most sordid poor Wretch; had an universal Mistrust of the Generality of Mankind; lived in a slovenly, niggardly Manner, and died possessed of what he had not the Heart to enjoy”.
The entire correspondence is available here. Of course, the 60 pages of damning criticism of Hearne were not enough to satisfy Pope’s expression of resentment. In one of Pope’s most famous plays, The Dunciad, the character of Wormius, an irritating, know-it-all, pseudo-intellectual, is supposed to represent Hearne. The representation is painfully apparent, given that Hearne’s name in Latin is Hearnius.
It is odd that a writer of such high standing as Pope would have such incredulous anger as to go to these extreme lengths. Pope is a well-regarded and known writer, yet he allowed himself to be consumed so intensely by his hatred of someone whom he clearly perceived as a scandalous foe, despite no clear indication of what truly provoked this. Hearne’s work was so offensive to Pope that he, “the most important poet of the eighteenth century”, became consumed by pure, bitter hatred, which, although comedic, hardly seems productive or remotely constructive. Perhaps a man of such talents could have focused less on Hearne, who, aside from some slights in his diary, never seemed half as concerned with Pope, and instead produced more to add to his impressive literary array.
While this narrative is in its own right entertaining and revealing, it can also teach us a lesson for contemporary politics. Sometimes, focusing on your disdain for others distracts from more fruitful activities. On that note, we return to the present-day politics. In Britain, even our Parliament is designed with a focus on argument, rather than debate. There is no innate issue with this structure; sometimes, a tribal, gladiatorial conflict is the best way to settle a dispute, but the modern obsession with eroding others rather than building one’s own position is troubling.
Take the leader of the Conservatives. As discussed by Will Lloyd in his article, Kemi Badenoch isn’t working; the Tory elites thought the world of Badenoch nine months ago when she assumed the role as their leader and leader of the opposition. Yet, the most notable Conservative plans today are not policy-oriented, but instead, schemes for a coup d'état, with understandable desires to oust Badenoch as soon as possible. The Tories have been so concerned with attacking the newly elected Labour Party that they are lacking direction, which is, unsurprisingly, failing to merit beneficial outcomes. Prioritising one-liners in PMQs (which typically falter as a result of Babenoch’s poor delivery) is producing no benefit. A serious platform to stand for would serve her and her Party far better than their current belief structure, which is effectively to support whatever Starmer doesn’t.
KEMI BADENOCH, IMAGE: UK GOVERNMENT
Many recent politicians have, like Badenoch, faltered as a result of their obsession with their opposite numbers. Before stepping back to allow for Harris (although she shared in this shortcoming), the 2024 Democratic ticket for President, Joe Biden, relied too heavily on being ‘not Trump’ and failed to inspire Americans. Returning to the UK, Ed Miliband’s coinage of the term ‘One Nation Labour’ mimicked Conservative branding to achieve success as opposed to creating a notable alternative, while Theresa May’s whole premiership was consumed by placating opponents - even those within her own Party - as opposed to enacting on any particular personal platform or vindications.
It is an issue which has been plaguing modern politics for a while: often, those who shout the loudest have nothing to say. While attacking opponents will always be a part of politics, being driven by personal merits and not merely the perceived shortcomings of others brings far greater utility. To repeat some of the opening of this article, no history is meritless in its lessons, especially when it comes to politics, power, and personality, and the intriguing, baffling, yet amusing, tale of Pope and Hearne teaches us one vital lesson: be less consumed by your disdain for others, for if you are, your legacy may well be defined by it.
Google Sites
Report abuse