amples of classical poetry from the satires of Pope. Yet it can be shown that such an assumption is due to a lack of discrimination, and that satire is not to be so disposed of in the lump. If we examine some typical specimens of satirical poetry from various periods we shall find that, while not infrequently both content and form show the appropriateness of the classical label, a considerably larger proportion of it is more accurately described as realistic. A vast deal of satire is little more than the transcribing, with the purpose of ridicule, of a succession of characteristics directly copied from the fact. The presence of more or less exaggeration does little to give classical quality, though it lessens the literal truth. And, at the risk of anticipation, it may be noted here that much satire is successful, not by virtue of any poetical quality whatsoever, but from an exuberance of humor and wit; and is thus outside of our immediate scope. This is true, for example, of a great part of the comedies of Aristophanes.

Some illumination may be gained from a consideration of so prominent a figure in the history of English satire as Ben Jonson. Compare for a moment his Volpone with his Bartholomew Fair. Both are beyond question satire; both are highly effective. The former is an exposure of the vice of greed, and the method is the exhibition of half a dozen or more types of men, each with a well-marked characteristic, which, however, is mastered by the love of money. The father of an only son disinherits his child, a jealous husband risks the virtue of his wife, a fashionable lady endangers her reputation, a lawyer perjures himself, a judge would let justice miscarry, - all for financial gain; while the Fox himself, the incarnation of cunning used to satisfy unscrupulous greed, dupes them all. Apart from the qualities involved in the central idea of the play, local and individual details are almost completely absent; the conception stands out bold and clear in outline, admirable in balance and proportion, an ideal example of the fitting of means to ends, a masterpiece of classical art, and at the same time a scathing satire on human nature.

Bartholomew Fair is a picture of life among the citizens of London in Jonson's own time. The canvas is crowded with minute local, temporal, and personal detail; and the satire is mainly on the hypocritical sensuality of the Puritans of that place and time. Jonson was too great an artist to leave this without permanent and universal elements: the vices of the Puritans are such as have been exemplified in many ages; the squalor of the Fair is reproduced in such popular carnivals in any country. But the emphasis is on the individual and local fact, not on the typical element; and the result is an almost unsurpassed Hogarthian picture of a bit of Elizabethan London. It is a masterpiece of realistic art, and again a scathing satire on human

nature.

It is hardly necessary to argue further the necessity of discriminating in satire between the classical and the realistic. The criteria are to be found in the emphasis in classical satire on the typical in content, and on parsimony and relevance of detail in form; in realistic satire on truth to the individual and local in content, achieved by abundance and multiplicity of detail in form.

When a student turns from the comedies of Shakespeare to those of Molière, he is struck by a kind of thinness in the French dramatist which, at first, contrasts unfavorably with the superabundant richness, both in characterization and in incident, of the Englishman. But,

after longer study, he becomes aware of a fundamental distinction in method and aim, and sees that Molière is seeking to present a series of permanent types with a critical purpose, and that these would be clouded and obscured by excess of detail; while Shakespeare is presenting dramatically an interesting story, the hold of which is increased by the intimacy of our knowledge of the individual characters or by their ideal charm. Shakespeare's method is sometimes romantic, sometimes realistic, Molière is a master of classical satire.

When we come to the great satiric period in England, that of Dryden, Swift, and Pope, we find it more difficult to classify either men or works in as clear cut a fashion as this; for we constantly see both kinds exemplified not only by the same writer in different poems, but by the same poem in different passages. It appears further that in excessive realism lies a chief danger of satire regarded as poetry; for while it is hard to find an example of this form in which the author is in danger of losing sight of the actual, instances are abundant where the literal transcript of personal or local vices and follies is left untouched either by the imaginative insight that sees the universal in the individual, or by the more deliberate process of rational generalization.

Examples have already been quoted from Pope in which he rose above literal personalities, and created a typical portrait like that of Atticus, which by perfection of formal expression, as well as by the universality of the attributes, retains for posterity its significance and interest. But it is hardly necessary to cite those endless passages crammed with obscure names and forgotten allusions, which footnotes may make intelligible but which nothing can ever again make interesting. In these dreary wastes the river of poetry is dissipated and lost in the sands of realistic detail.

How the case stands with Byron's satire, some indication was given in the previous chapter. The Hints from Horace and English Bards and Scotch Reviewers, often witty and pungent, are prevailingly individual and local: the motive is personal animus; no burning indignation against vice and folly in general raises him above pure description or caricature; and his art, as we have noted, is too careless and haphazard to attain to classical form. Hardly more permanent in their appeal are