To begin discussing Dryden and Pope's take on wit I think I must first discuss structure. While both are considered major touch stones in 18th century poetry I do believe there is a fundamental difference in the construction of the works which according to J.M. Robertson is essential to understanding the work. The fact that the Dunciad was written and edited over the course of Pope's lifetime both influences and may change the meaning of the work. Dryden's Mc Flecknoe was not written in such a way. Dryden spoke as an authority on wit, his opinion did not seemingly evolve over time. His opinion being that vulgarity and aggressiveness was not needed to convey true wit. From my understanding of Pope, I believe he would disagree, kind of. Pope seems to be of the opinion that the works impact and critics play a part in determining what a work will mean over time. The work itself can be anything. It does not necessarily have to follow any pre-prescribed formula or pattern to be deemed great or of proper wit. This seems to be evidenced by the following lines written in An Essay on Criticism:

Some beauties yet no precepts can declare,
For there's a happiness as well as care.
. . .
Some lucky license answers to the full
The intent proposed, that license is a rule.
Thus Pegasus, a nearer way to take,
May boldly deviate from the common track
Great wits sometimes may gloriously offend
And rise to faults true critics dare not mend: