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