and Rochester.  The last of these is taxed with cowardice, and a thousand odious and mean vices; upbraided with the grossness and scurrility of his writings, and with the infamous profligacy of his life.[19] The versification of the poem is as flat and inharmonious, as the plan is careless and ill-arranged; and though the imputation was to cost Dryden dear, I cannot think that any part of the “Essay on Satire” received additions from his pen.  Probably he might contribute a few hints for revision; but the author of “Absalom and Achitophel” could never completely disguise the powers which were shortly to produce that brilliant satire.  Dryden’s verses must have shone among Mulgrave’s as gold beside copper.  The whole Essay is a mere stagnant level, no one part of it so far rising above the rest as to bespeak the work of a superior hand.  The thoughts, even when conceived with some spirit, are clumsily and unhappily brought out; a fault never to be traced in the beautiful language of Dryden, whose powers of expression were at least equal to his force of conception.  Besides, as Mr. Malone has observed, he had now brought to the highest excellence his system of versification; and is it possible he could neglect it so far as to write the rugged lines in the note, where all manner of elliptical barbarisms are resorted to, for squeezing the words into a measure “lame and o’erburdened, and screaming its wretchedness”?  The “Essay on Satire” was finally subjected by the noble author to the criticism of Pope, who, less scrupulous than Dryden, appears to have made large improvements; but after having undergone the revision of two of the first names in English poetry, it continues to be a very indifferent performance.

In another point of view, it seems inconsistent with Dryden’s situation to suppose he had any active share in the “Essay on Satire.”  The character of Charles is treated with great severity, as well as those of the Duchesses of Portsmouth and Cleveland, the royal mistresses.  This was quite consistent with Mulgrave’s disposition, who was at this time discontented with the ministry; but certainly would not have beseemed Dryden, who held an office at court.  Sedley also, with whom Dryden always seems to have lived on friendly terms, is harshly treated in the “Essay on Satire.”  It may be owned, however, that these reasons were not held powerful at the time, since they must, in that case, have saved Dryden from the inconvenient suspicion which, we will presently see, attached to him.  The public were accustomed to see the friendship of wits end in mutual satire; and the good-natured Charles was so generally the subject of the ridicule which he loved, that no one seems to have thought there was improbability in a libel being composed on him by his own laureate.