plant, was reached in that era which extended from the publication of Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel (Part I.) in 1681 to the issue of Pope’s Dunciad in its final form in 1742.  During these sixty years appeared the choicest of English satires, to wit, all Dryden’s finest pieces, the Medal, MacFlecknoe, and Absalom and Achitophel, Swift’s Tale of a Tub, and his Miscellanies—­among which his best metrical satires appeared; all Defoe’s work, too, as well as Steele’s in the Tatler, and Addison’s in the Spectator, Arbuthnot’s History of John Bull, Churchill’s Rosciad, and finally all Pope’s poems, including the famous “Prologue” as well as the “Epilogue” to the Satires.  It is curious to note how the satirical succession (if the phrase be permitted) is maintained uninterruptedly from Bishop Hall down to the death of Pope—­nay, we may even say down to the age of Byron, to whose epoch one may trace something like a continuous tradition.  Hall did not die until Dryden was twenty-seven years of age.  Pope delighted to record that, when a boy of twelve years of age, he had met “Glorious John”, though the succession could be passed on otherwise through Congreve, one of the most polished of English satirical writers, whom Dryden complimented as “one whom every muse and grace adorn”, while to him also Pope dedicated his translation of the Iliad.[14] Bolingbroke, furthermore, was the friend and patron of Pope, while the witty St. John, in turn, was bound by ties of friendship to Mallet, who passed on the succession to Goldsmith, Sheridan, Ellis, Canning, Moore, and Byron.  Thereafter satire begins to fall upon evil days, and the tradition cannot be so clearly traced.

But satire, during this “succession”, did not remain absolutely the same.  She changed her garb with her epoch.  Thus the robust bludgeoning of Dryden and Shadwell, of Defoe, Steele, D’Urfey, and Tom Brown, gave place to the sardonic ridicule of Swift, the polished raillery of Arbuthnot, and the double-distilled essence of acidulous sarcasm present in the Satires of Pope.  There is as marked a difference between the Drydenic and the Swiftian types of satire, between that of Cleiveland and that of Pope, as between the diverse schools known as the “Horatian” and the “Juvenalian”.  The cause of this, over and above the effect produced by prolonged study of these two classical models, was the overwhelming influence exercised on his age by the great French critic and satirist, Boileau.  Difficult indeed it is for us at the present day to understand the European homage paid to Boileau.  As Hannay says, “He was a dignified classic figure supposed to be the model of fine taste",[15] His word was law in the realm of criticism, and for many years he was known, not alone in France, but throughout a large portion of Europe, as “The Lawgiver of Parnassus”.  Prof.  Dowden, referring to his critical authority, remarks:—­