The plan of the satire was not new to the public.  A Catholic poet had, in 1679, paraphrased the scriptural story of Naboth’s vine-yard and applied it to the condemnation of Lord Stafford, on account of the Popish Plot.[4] This poem is written in the style of a scriptural allusion; the names and situations of personages in the holy text being applied to those contemporaries, to whom the author assigned a place in his piece.  Neither was the obvious application of the story of Absalom and Achitophel to the persons of Monmouth and Shaftesbury first made by our poet.  A prose paraphrase, published in 1080, had already been composed upon this allusion.[5] But the vigour of the satire, the happy adaptation, not only of the incidents, but of the very names to the individuals characterised, gave Dryden’s poem the full effect of novelty.  It appeared a very short time after Shaftesbury had been committed to the Tower, and only a few days before the grand jury were to take under consideration the bill preferred against him for high treason.  Its sale was rapid beyond example; and even those who were most severely characterised, were compelled to acknowledge the beauty, if not the justice, of the satire.  The character of Monmouth, an easy and gentle temper, inflamed beyond its usual pitch by ambition, and seduced by the arts of a wily and interested associate, is touched with exquisite delicacy.  The poet is as careful of the offending Absalom’s fame, as the father in Scripture of the life of his rebel son.  The fairer side of his character is industriously presented, and a veil drawn over all that was worthy of blame.  But Shaftesbury pays the lenity with which Monmouth is dismissed.  The traits of praise, and the tribute paid to that statesman’s talents, are so qualified and artfully blended with censure, that they seem to render his faults even more conspicuous, and more hateful.  In this skilful mixture of applause and blame lies the nicest art of satire.  There must be an appearance of candour on the part of the poet, and just so much merit allowed, even to the object of his censure, as to make his picture natural.  It is a child alone who fears the aggravated terrors of a Saracen’s head; the painter, who would move the awe of an enlightened spectator, must delineate his tyrant with human features.  It seems likely, that Dryden considered the portrait of Shaftesbury, in the first edition of “Absalom and Achitophel,” as somewhat deficient in this respect; at least the second edition contains twelve additional lines, the principal tendency of which is to praise the ability and integrity with which Shaftesbury had discharged the office of lord high chancellor.  It has been reported, that this mitigation was intended to repay a singular exertion of generosity on Shaftesbury’s part, who, while smarting under the lash of Dryden’s satire, and in the short interval between the first and second edition of the poem, had the liberality to procure admission for the poet’s son upon