The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes (1907–21).
Volume VIII. The Age of Dryden.
§ 5. His Powers and Influence as a Satirist
The four satires have little intricacy of design. In the first, the ghost of Garnet, the Jesuit instigator of the Gunpowder plot, addresses a kind of diabolic homily to the Jesuits in conclave after Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey’s murder. The second merely inveighs against the Society in the author’s own person. In the third, the dying Loyola gives his disciples a rule of concentrated villainy. In the fourth, his image relates the frauds supposed to be worked in Roman Catholic worship. When we come to examine the poetic qualities of these satires in detail, we are at once struck by the harshness of the verse. This shows itself not so much in the monotonous energy of the rhythm, although it would seem that it was this which moved contemporary criticism most, as in the extreme uncouthness of the rimes. Oldham could rime “enroll’d,” “rul’d” and “spoil’d,” together; and this is not an exception, but an instance of his regular practice. In fact, he was unaware of the cacophony, and, when his verse was criticised, took occasion to show that he could write smoothly by the translation of two Greek pastorals, Bion and The Lamentation for Adonis. But, in these pieces, his bad rimes recur with little less frequency, and the lack of range in his melody is brought out the more by the comparison of the refrain in Bion, apparently due to Rochester—
To Oldham’s lack of dramatic instinct must be attributed his want of variety. His only ways of creating an effect were to lead up to a climax, to pile up the agony. In their use, indeed, he was a master. Incredible blood and thunder fill the scene; but they, at least, make a real clamour and smell raw. There is an expansive energy and exaltation in such a passage as that on Charles IX and Bartholomew’s day:
These lines testify to Oldham’s power of finding repeatedly a vivid, impressive phrase, not merely by a verbal ingenuity, but largely through a keen realisation of the ideas which entered his narrow range of thought. He loves to obtain his effects by the jarring juxtaposition of incompatibles, in true rhetorical Latin taste. There is a fierce contempt in his “purple rag of Majesty,” and a curious sinister dread in the reference to virtue “with her grim, holy face.” But we should search in vain for the epigrammatic wisdom of Juvenal in his short-lived disciple. Oldham did not care enough for truth, for one thing, nor, perhaps, was his fiery temperament sufficiently philosophic. It was not through sage reflection, not through fancy or delicacy, that he gained his reputation, but by means of a savage vigour and intensity of passion which could make even his melodramatic creations live. Further, a real artistic feeling, not borrowed from his master Juvenal, is shown in the internal coherence of each satire and in the omission of trivialities, for which his tendency to generalisation was, in part, responsible. Besides, although, no doubt, he looked on the plot panic as a splendid opportunity for his peculiar talent, there is a real sincerity and magnanimity in his attitude, which disdains petty scandal and personal abuse. In this way, in his satires, he avoids both the mouthing scurrility of Marston, who had earlier attempted a satiric indignation, and, also, to an unusual degree, the characteristic obscenity of the restoration era.
The remaining works of Oldham consist of some original poems, some translations and two prose pieces. The last have little interest. One, The Character of an Ugly Old Priest, consists of dreary abuse of some unknown parson; it belongs to a species of writing which had some vogue at the time, and, perhaps, aped, in prose, Butler’s and Cleiveland’s fanciful railing; but it must be pronounced a failure. The other, A Sunday-Thought in Sickness, is an unimpressive religious composition, of which the most striking passage seems influenced by the final speech in Marlowe’s Faustus. Nevertheless, it would not be difficult to believe that the soliloquy does, in fact, represent a personal experience; it is sufficiently natural and matter-of-fact. We known from one of his private letters that, at one time, he had led a rakish life, but that “experience and thinking” had made him “quit that humour.” As to his verse, only one lyric possesses any attractiveness, The Careless Good Fellow, a really jovial toper’s song, which raises the suspicion that some other ballads ought to be ascribed to its author among the mass of contemporary anonymous work. A Satyr concerning Poetry, to which Spenser’s ghost furnishes a clumsy mise-en-scène, gives a melancholy description of the lot of professional poets under Charles II; but it lacks the spirit of the attacks on the Jesuits and owes its interest to its account of Butler’s latter days. Far more important is A Satyr address’d to a Friend that is about to leave the University, for it is the most mature of Oldham’s poems and that which most reflects the man himself. He passes the possible professions of a scholar in review. There is schoolmastering—“there beat Greek and Latin for your life”—but, in brief, it is an underpaid drudgery. Then, a chaplaincy is a slavery of the most humiliating kind: “Sir Crape” is an upper-servant who has been educated, and who must buy the benefice given him for “seven years’ thrall” by marrying the superannuated waiting-maid. Freedom at any price is to be preferred; but Oldham’s aspiration, as a poet, at least, is a “small estate,” where, in retirement, he could “enjoy a few choice books and fewer friends.”
The translations have considerable merit. They are by no means servile, and bear obvious traces of the author’s own life. The Passion of Byblis from Ovid has the coarse vigour of his early work. The Thirteenth Satyr of Juvenal is noteworthy from the characteristic way in which the note is forced. The lighter portions of the original are abbreviated, the gloomy are expanded. The guilty horrors of the sinner, impressive in the Latin, are tricked out with details of vulgar fancy and become incredible. Into Boileau’s Satire touching Nobility are interpolated the significant and creditable lines:
Yet, poor stuff as these compositions might be, they exercised an undoubted influence on the events they illustrate. They were written chiefly, it would seem, for the coffee-house haunter. One Julian, a man of infamous reputation and himself a libeller, would make a stealthy round of those establishments and distribute the surreptitious sheets; the more dangerous libels could only be dropped in the streets by porters, to be taken up by chance passers-by. Not merely was the public made intensely eager for pamphlets and squibs of all kinds in the electric political atmosphere of the last twenty years of the seventeenth century; but, in 1679, the Licensing act, under which anti-governmental publications were restrained expired, for a time. Although a decision of the judges soon gave the crown as complete powers of suppressing unwelcome books and pamphlets as before, the previous licensing fell into disuse, and the limitation of the number of master-printers lapsed. The consequences of even a partial unmuzzling of the press were almost immediately seen in a swarm of libels, of which a vigorous complaint was made by Mr. Justice Jones in 1679: “There was never any Age, I think, more licentious than this, in aspersing Governors, scattering of Libels, and scandalous Speeches against those that are in authority.” And the judge is confirmed by a ballad, The Licentiousness of the Times, in the same year:
The output of popular satire was more vitally affected by changes in public feeling. After a prelude of compositions on the Popish plot, poems and ballads come thick and fast during the agitation for and against the Exclusion bill, which was to deprive James, duke of York, of the succession and bring in “king Monmouth.” A series of triumphant tory productions exult over Shaftesbury and the other whig leaders in the time of the Rye-house plot and of the government’s campaign against corporations. There succeeds a lull, although Monmouth’s rebellion, in 1685, was the occasion of a renewed outburst; but the second period of satiric pamphlets dates from the beginning of James II’s unpopularity about the year 1687, and reaches its fever-heat in the years of revolution, after which a subsidence of satiric activity begins, until a less perfervid time draws near with the peace of Ryswick.