task--several of Arbuthnot's writings having been
produced in connection with Swift, Pope, and Gay. So indifferent was he
to literary fame, that his children are said to have made kites of
papers in which he had jotted down hints that would have furnished good
matter for folios. His most famous work is _The History of John Bull_
(1713), which Macaulay considered the most humorous political satire in
the language. It was designed to help the Tory party at the expense of
the Duke of Marlborough, whose genius as a military leader was probably
equal to that of Wellington, while he fell far below the 'Great Duke' in
the virtues which form a noble character. The irony and dry humour of
the satire remind one of Swift, and, like Arbuthnot's _Art of Political
Lying_, is so much in Swift's vein throughout that M. Taine may be
excused for attributing both of these pieces to the Dean of St.
Patrick's.

The _History of John Bull_ is not fitted to attain lasting popularity.
It will be read from curiosity and for information; but the keen
excitement, the amusement, and the irritation caused by a brilliant
satire of living men and passing events can be but vaguely imagined by
readers whose interest in the statecraft of the age is historical and
not personal. Arbuthnot, like Swift, belonged to the Tory camp, and both
did their utmost to depreciate the great General who never knew defeat,
and to promote the designs of Harley. When Arbuthnot produced his
satire, all the town laughed at the representation of Marlborough as an
old smooth-tongued attorney who loved money, and was said by his
neighbours to be hen-pecked, 'which was impossible by such a
mild-spirited woman as his wife was.' That an 'honest plain-dealing
fellow' like John Bull the Clothier, should be deceived by such wily men
of business as Lewis Baboon of France, and Lord Strutt of Spain, and
also that other tradesmen should be willing to join John and Nic Frog,
the linen-draper of Holland, in the lawsuit, provided that Bull and
Frog, or Bull alone, would bear the law charges, is made to appear
likely enough; and Scott says truly that 'it was scarce possible so
effectually to dim the lustre of Marlborough's splendid achievements as
by parodying them under the history of a suit conducted by a wily
attorney who made every advantage gained over the defendant a reason for
protracting law procedure, and enhancing the expense of his client.' In
this long lawsuit everybody is represe