All these citations refer more or less directly to the cause--the reason or motive for satirical utterance--but have some bearing on the effect--the tangible result of it,--since the two are to a certain extent inseparable. They are, however, also distinct, and particularly so in this case; as cause is a psychological and hidden thing, and effect is more external and visible. In turning from the first to the second we pass from deductive argument to inductive. The logic of the former is an Idol of the Tribe, particularly of the British tribe, unable to rest until everything has been drafted under the ethic flag and brought into the moral fold. We pass also from spacious promise to rather cramped and meager performance. Satiric intent looms as large as the imposing first appearance of the giant of Destiny, in Maeterlinck’s _Betrothal_; satiric accomplishment shrinks to the size of his exit as the babe in arms. And while the assertion of inexorability and omnipotence is continued bravely to the end, albeit in a voice of quavering _diminuendo_, a counter voice is also heard, repudiating extravagant claims. Both attitudes are expressed in turn by an eighteenth century satirist. In his _Epistle to William Hogarth_ Churchill exclaims, “Can Satire want a subject, where Disdain, By virtue fired, may point her sharpest strain? Where, clothed in thunder, Truth may roll along, And Candour justify the rage of song?” But in _The Candidate_, he announces reform of his former practices, in a series of rhetorical “Enoughs,” coming to a climax in-- “Enough of Satire--in less hardened times Great was her force, and mighty were her rhymes.” In his own degenerate days, however,-- “Satire throws by her arrows on the ground, And if she cannot cure, she will not wound. Come, Panegyric,” * * * In _The Author_ he asks, “Lives there a man whom Satire cannot reach?” And the author of _English Bards and Scotch Reviewers_ declares that vice and folly will-- “More darkly sin, by Satire kept in awe, And shrink from ridicule, though not from law.” But Marston and Defoe, already quoted on the other side, have their dubious moments. Says the former,[23] “Now, Satire, cease to rub our galled skins, And to unmask the world’s detested sins; Thou shalt as soon draw Nilus river dry As cleanse the world from foul impiety.” And the latter[24] would be sanguine if he could: “If my countrymen would take the hint and grow better-natured from my ill-natured poem, as some call it, I would say this of it, that though it is far from the best satire that ever was written, it would do the most good that ever satire did.” Gifford[25] also, though a believer in the mission of satire, admits that “to laugh at fools is superfluous, and at the vicious unwise.” Cowper[26] allows minor accomplishments: