s, Elizabethan satirists likewise
strove to be as rough, harsh, and licentious as possible.[6] Despite
the objections to the satire-satyr etymology stated by Isaac
Casaubon,[7] scurrilous satire, especially as a political weapon, was
a recognizable subspecies in England at least to 1700. The anonymous
author, for instance, of _A Satyr Against Common-Wealths_ (1684)
contended in his preface that it is "_as disagreeable to see a Satyr
Cloath'd in soft and effeminate Language, as to see a Woman scold and
vent her self in_ Billingsgate _Rhetorick in a gentile and
advantageous Garb_." But as Harte certainly realized, _The Dunciad_
differed greatly from unvarnished abuse, and thus required different
standards of critical judgment.

Harte also rejected the critical habit of giving satire a relatively
low rank in the scale of literary genres. This habit can be traced to
Horace, who belittled the literary status of his own satires,[8] and
it was prominent in the Renaissance. The place of satire in a
hierarchical list of Julius Caesar Scaliger is perhaps typical: "'And
the most noble, of course, are hymns and paeans. In the second place
are songs and odes and scolia, which are concerned with the praises of
brave men. In the third place the epic, in which there are heroes and
other lesser personages. Tragedy together with comedy follows this
order; nevertheless comedy will hold the fourth place apart by itself.
After these, satires, then exodia, lusus, nuptial songs, elegies,
monodia, songs, epigrams.'"[9] Similar rankings of satire frequently
recurred in the neo-classical period,[10] as did the Renaissance
supposition that each genre has a style and subject matter appropriate
to it. This supposition discouraged any "mixing" of the genres: in
Richard Blackmore's words, "all comick Manners, witty Conceits and
Ridicule" should be barred from heroic poetry.[11] The influence of
the genres theories even after Pope's death may be shown by the fact
that Pope, for the very reason that he had failed to work in the major
genres, was often ranked below such epic or tragic poets as Spenser,
Shakespeare, and Milton.[12]

One senses the foregoing critical assumptions about satire behind much
of the early comment on _The Dunciad_. Most of the critics, to be
sure, were anything but impartial; in many instances they were
smarting from Pope's satire and sought any critical weapons available
for retaliation. But it will not do to dismiss these me