was not written by
Montague in conjunction with Prior, answered, "Yes; as if I, seated in
Mr. Cheselden's chaise drawn by his fine horse, should say, _Lord!_ how
finely we draw this chaise!" Indeed, although the parody was trite and
obvious, the satirists had the public upon their side; and it now seems
astonishing with what acclamations this attack upon the most able
champion of James's faith was hailed by his discontented subjects.
Dryden was considered as totally overcome by his assailants; they deemed
themselves, and were deemed by others, as worthy of very distinguished
and weighty recompence;[13] and what was yet a more decisive mark, that
their bolt had attained its mark, the aged poet is said to have
lamented, even with tears, the usage he had received from two young men,
to whom he had been always civil. This last circumstance is probably
exaggerated. Montague and Prior had doubtless been frequenters of Will's
coffee-house, where Dryden held the supreme rule in criticism, and had
thus, among other rising wits, been distinguished by him. That he should
have felt their satire is natural, for the arrow flew with the wind, and
popularity amply supplied its deficiency in real vigour; but the reader
may probably conclude with Johnson, that Dryden was too much hackneyed
in political warfare to suffer so deeply from the parody, as Dr.
Lockier's anecdote would lead us to believe. "If we can suppose him
vexed," says that accurate judge of human nature, "we can hardly deny
him sense to conceal his uneasiness."

Although Prior and Montague were first in place and popularity, there
wanted not the usual crowd of inferior satirists and poetasters to
follow them to the charge. "The Hind and the Panther" was assailed by a
variety of pamphlets, by Tom Brown and others, of which an account, with
specimens perhaps more than sufficient, is annexed to the notes on the
poem in this edition. It is worth mentioning, that on this, as on a
former occasion, an adversary of Dryden chose to select one of his own
poems as a contrast to his latter opinions. The "_Religio Laici_" was
reprinted, and carefully opponed to the various passages of "The Hind
and the Panther," which appeared most contradictory to its tenets. But
while the Grub-street editor exulted in successfully pointing out the
inconsistency between Dryden's earlier and later religious opinions, he
was incapable of observing, that the change was adopted in consequence
of the same