ten on
Cibber: "It cannot be doubted, that, at the time, the contest
was more painful to Pope than to Cibber. But Pope's satire is
immortal, whereas Cibber's sarcasms are no longer read.
_Cibber may therefore be represented to future times with less
credit for abilities than he really deserves_; for he was
certainly no dunce, though not, in the higher sense of the
word, a man of genius. _His effrontery and vanity_ could not
be easily overcharged, even by a foe. Indeed, they are
striking features in the portrait drawn by himself." Dr.
Aikin's political morality often vented its indignation at the
successful injustice of great power! Why should not the same
spirit conduct him in the Literary Republic? With the just
sentiments he has given on Cibber, it was the duty of an
intrepid critic to raise a moral feeling against the despotism
of genius, and to have protested against the arbitrary power
of Pope. It is participating in the injustice to pass it by,
without even a regret at its effect.

As for Cibber himself, he declares he was _not impudent_, and
I am disposed to take his own word, for he _modestly_ asserts
this, in a remark on Pope's expression,

"'Cibberian forehead,'

"by which I find you modestly mean _Cibberian impudence_, as a
sample of the strongest.--Sir, your humble servant--but pray,
sir, in your 'Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot' (where, by the way, in
your ample description of a great Poet, you slily hook in a
whole hat-full of virtues to your own character) have not you
this particular line?

'And thought a _Lie_, in verse or prose, the same--'"

Cibber laments it is not so, for "any accusation in smooth
verse will always sound well, though it is not tied down to
have a tittle of truth in it, when the strongest defence in
poor humble prose, not having that harmonious advantage, takes
nobody by the ear--very hard upon an innocent man! For suppose
in prose, now, I were as confidently to insist that you were
an _honest_, _good-natured_, _inoffensive creature_, would my
barely saying so be any proof of it? No sure. Why then, might
it not be supposed an equal truth, that both our assertions
were equally false?