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