ctices were open to ridicule, and
the Royalists, in revenge for their defeat, began to use ridicule without
mercy. During the early years of the Restoration doggerel verses ridiculing
Puritanism, and burlesque,--that is, a ridiculous representation of serious
subjects, or a serious representation of ridiculous subjects,--were the
most popular form of literature with London society. Of all this burlesque
and doggerel the most famous is Butler's _Hudibras_, a work to which we can
trace many of the prejudices that still prevail against Puritanism.

Of Butler himself we know little; he is one of the most obscure figures in
our literature. During the days of Cromwell's Protectorate he was in the
employ of Sir Samuel Luke, a crabbed and extreme type of Puritan nobleman,
and here he collected his material and probably wrote the first part of his
burlesque, which, of course, he did not dare to publish until after the
Restoration.

_Hudibras_ is plainly modeled upon the _Don Quixote_ of Cervantes. It
describes the adventures of a fanatical justice of the peace, Sir Hudibras,
and of his squire, Ralpho, in their endeavor to put down all innocent
pleasures. In Hudibras and Ralpho the two extreme types of the Puritan
party, Presbyterians and Independents, are mercilessly ridiculed. When the
poem first appeared in public, in 1663, after circulating secretly for
years in manuscript, it became at once enormously popular. The king carried
a copy in his pocket, and courtiers vied with each other in quoting its
most scurrilous passages. A second and a third part, continuing the
adventures of Hudibras, were published in 1664 and 1668. At best the work
is a wretched doggerel, but it was clever enough and strikingly original;
and since it expressed the Royalist spirit towards the Puritans, it
speedily found its place in a literature which reflects every phase of
human life. A few odd lines are given here to show the character of the
work, and to introduce the reader to the best known burlesque in our
language:

He was in logic a great critic,
Profoundly skilled in analytic;
He could distinguish, and divide
A hair 'twixt south and southwest side;
On either which he would dispute,
Confute, change hands, and still confute;
He'd undertake to prove, by force
Of argument, a man's no horse;
He'd run in debt by disputation,
And pay with ratiocination.
For he was of that stubborn crew
Of errant