“The genius of Boileau was in a high degree intellectual, animated by ideas.  As a moralist he is not searching or profound; he saw too little of the inner world of the heart, and knew too imperfectly its agitations.  When, however, he deals with literature—­and a just judgment in letters may almost be called an element in morals—­all his penetration and power become apparent.  To clear the ground for the new school of nature, truth, and reason was Boileau’s first task.  It was a task which called for courage and skill ... he struck at the follies and affectations of the world of letters, and he struck with force.  It was a needful duty, and one most effectively performed....  Boileau’s influence as a critic of literature can hardly be overrated; it has much in common with the influence of Pope on English literature, beneficial as regards his own time, somewhat restrictive and even tyrannical upon later generations."[16]

Owing to the predominance of French literary modes in England, this was the man whose influence, until nearly the close of last century, was paramount in England even when it was most bitterly disclaimed.  Boileau’s Satires were published during 1660-70, and he himself died in 1711; but, though dead, he still ruled for many a decade to come.  This then was the literary censor to whom English satire of the post-Drydenic epochs owed so much.  Neither Swift nor Pope was ashamed to confess his literary indebtedness to the great Frenchman; nay, Dryden himself has confessed his obligations to Boileau, and in his Discourse on Satire has quoted his authority as absolute.  Before pointing out the differences between the Drydenic and post-Drydenic satire let us note very briefly the special characteristics of the former.  Apart from the “matter” of his satire, Dryden laid this department of letters under a mighty obligation through the splendid service he rendered by the first successful application of the heroic couplet to satire.  Of itself this was a great boon; but his good deeds as regards the “matter” of satiric composition have entirely obscured the benefit he conferred on its manner or technical form.  Dryden’s four great satires, Absalom and Achitophel, The Medal, MacFlecknoe, and the Hind and the Panther, each exemplify a distinct and important type of satire.  The first named is the classical instance of the use of “historic parallels” as applied to the impeachment of the vices or abuses of any age.  With matchless skill the story of Absalom is employed not merely to typify, but actually to represent, the designs of Monmouth and his Achitophel—­Shaftesbury. The Medal reverts to the type of the classic satire of the Juvenalian order.  It is slightly more rhetorical in style, and is partly devoted to a bitter invective against Shaftesbury, partly to an argument as to the unfitness of republican institutions for England, partly to a satiric address to the Whigs.