THE RISE OF FORMAL SATIRE IN ENGLAND

UNDER CLASSICAL INFLUENCE.

There are two ways in which satire may be considered—as a mode, and as a form. Undoubtedly it is from the former point of view that it is most interesting. It may then be traced through all literary forms-lyrical verse, the drama, prose fiction, and the essay. Its varieties of expression and application, due to different historical conditions, are practically unlimited in number and scope. Its relations to wit and humor, to emotional expression, to the fine arts, and to the particular literary forms in which it may appear, are well worth study. But the very conditions which would make such study interesting, would demand an enormous accumulation of material, and the strongest possible basis of scholarship and intellectual insight.

Formal

The study of formal satire is a more modest task. satire arose comparatively late in the history of literature, and has always taken one of a few easily distinguishable forms. Its identity is generally proved at once by its own professions; for while not always sincere, it is one of the most self-conscious of literary forms. Dealing usually only with the faults and follies of mankind, its subject-matter is not pleasant to dwell upon, for one who would preserve his optimism intact. The optimistic student, however, may do something toward clearing away the merely formal and traditional charges made against the defendant, and explaining the more just remainder by historical conditions. Satire, again, because of its large dependence on such temporary or local conditions, is of all forms of literature one of the most ephemeral. Its authors have very seldom been able to associate with it elements of beauty,

or even of permanent and universal truth. On the other hand, it is surprising to find how little the main elements of its subject-matter have changed from age to age. The procession of its characters, like that of the heroes of tragedy, is fairly uniform and never passes the given point. It is in this revelation of human life that its interest, like that of all literature, must be sought.

The greatest English satirist, John Dryden, quotes for a definition of satire (evidently meaning formal satire thereby) that of Heinsius in his Dissertations on Horace:

"Satire is a kind of poetry, without a series of action, invented for the purging of our minds; in which human vices, ignorance, and errors, and all things besides, which are produced from them in every man, are severely reprehended; partly dramatically, partly simply, and sometimes in both kinds of speaking ; but, for the most part, figuratively, and occultly; consisting in a low familiar way, chiefly in a sharp and pungent manner of speech; but partly also, in a facetious and civil way of jesting; by which either hatred, or laughter, or indignation is moved."1

To this Dryden objects that the description "is wholly accommodated to the Horatian way," since it makes the fault of Horace, his "low familiar way of speech," "the virtue and standing rule" of this order of poetry. It is probable that most critics would agree rather with Heinsius than with Dry'den, not only in easily pardoning Horace's "familiar " style, but also in recognizing such a style as one of the common characteristics of satire. Certainly there are passages in Dryden's own satire which are not to be defended according to the standard of a "majestic way" which he sets up. The definition of Heinsius, while cumbersome and now obsolete in phraseology, will in reality stand remarkably well the test of detailed examination and of comparison with the great number of examples of formal satire. I shall have occasion hereafter to call attention more particularly to its elementary distinctions.

1 Essay on Satire. Scott-Saintsbury edition of Dryden, vol. xiii. p. 107.

Whatever may have been the relation of satire among the Romans to so-called satire among the Greeks (a matter disputed in Dryden's time, and still imperfectly understood), it is universally agreed that formal satire, in the sense already indicated, began in Latin literature. No less certainly, wherever it has appeared in modern literature it has been under Latin influence. As has already been said, it is a self-conscious form, and requires for its full development a selfconscious and self-critical age. The first age of this kind in England was that of Elizabeth, when the beginnings of all formal and conscious literary modes took shape.1 When to this is joined the fact that it was an imitative age, and the further fact that it followed close upon the revival of classical learning, it is clear enough why formal satire should have arisen in England just when it did. We may conveniently look for its beginnings where we look for those of nearly all other exotic forms, in the middle of the sixteenth century; and we shall find that, like the other forms, it had passed through a period of development and decline by the time of the accession of Charles the First, and was ready for new development under the new influences of the seventeenth century. It is the purpose of the present study to trace its rise during the period thus defined.

Some preliminary clearing of the ground will be necessary. It will first be in order to consider rapidly the appearances of satire, in the broader sense of the word, in English literature previous to the period of classical influence, in order to be able to recognize new elements by comparison with the old. It must next be inquired just what the classical satirists did, and how they came to be imitated on the continent and in England. We shall then be in a position to reach some general conclusions as to the relations of native English and classical elements. The particular satirists of the period chiefly under consideration will then be taken up in detail. 1 See Warton: History of English Poetry, Hazlitt ed., vol. iv. p. 362.