Knows more than Budgel writes, or Roberts prints. (p. 10)
These lines hit at a new readers' digest, The Bee: or, Universal Weekly Pamphlet. Containing Something to Hit Every Man's Taste and Principles, which was edited by Budgell and published by Roberts. The first number came out in February 1733. There is a similar mixture of past and current with the musical satire (p. 13). Handel's Esther and the novelty of oratorio were as recent as 1732; Heidegger's ugliness ("Prince Phyz!") was proverbial, and his renaming of the masquerade a decade old.
This mixture is confusing, but certainly intentional, since it would have made the Man of Taste more ridiculous to a contemporary audience. There is also a vertical mixture of the tastes of different levels of society; the writer in the Weekly Register for February 1731, already quoted above, makes this distinction: "The gaming-table, and the royal diversion at Newmarket, are the ambition of the majority; and the rest prefer Senesino to Shakespear, as the highest proof of modern politeness."[8] Bramston's Man of Taste is a concertina-brow, enjoying Senesino, gaming, and Newmarket (pp. 13, 15, 17).
The usefulness of notes for a full understanding of Bramston's satire was recognized as early as 1733, when a few were added to Faulkner's Dublin reprint. Faulkner's notes are remarkable for their xenophobic bias, for apart from those on Mrs. Oldfield ("Ophelia," p. 9), they mostly call attention to evils of continental origin: Pasaran's recommendation of suicide (p. 9); Heidegger's role as corrupting entertainer (p. 13); the imposter Count D'Ughi (the "Di'mond Count," p. 16); and Misaubin (p. 17), "famous for curing the venereal Disorders." These men were Italian, Swiss, Italian, and French respectively. This xenophobia is a remarkably constant feature of eighteenth-century satire on "taste."
The Man of Taste (together with The Art of Politicks) was included in Dodsley's Collection; in the 1782 edition, notes (unsigned, but by Isaac Reed) were added, identifying many allusions which no longer passed current. These are often helpful, but sometimes miss the point—as they do with the Budgell-Roberts joke, discussed above. But although notes are useful for a complete understanding of all Bramston's satiric points, a familiarity with the world of Pope and his victims removes most of the difficulties for a modern reader. Only occasionally does Bramston sound a more personal note, as in the list of doctors (p. 17), where he includes two of his contemporaries at Christ Church; and even here, Arbuthnot is a sufficient signpost.
Bramston is a minor poet, but there is no need to apologize for The Man of Taste. It is a lively and amusing poem in its own right, and its association with Pope and its place in the corpus of eighteenth-century satire on "taste" raise its claim to the attention of students of the period.
University of Queensland
Brisbane
NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION
1. New Bearings in English Poetry (1932; new ed., London: Chatto & Windus, 1950), p. 11.