Sidor som bilder

his fancy dictates. For he makes no difficulty to mingle hexameter with iambick trimeters; or with trochaick tetrameters ; as appears by those fragments which are yet remaining of him: Horace has thought him worthy to be copied ; inserting many things of his into his own satires, as Virgil has done into his Æneid.

Here we have Dacier making out that Ennius was the first satirist in that way of writing, which was of his invention ; that is, satire abstracted from the stage, and new modelled into papers of verses, on several subjects. But he will have Ennius take the ground work of satire from the first farces of the Romans, rather than from the formed plays of Livius Andronicus, which were copied from the Grecian comedies. It may possibly be so; but Dacier knows no more of it than I do. And it seems to me the more probable opinion, that he rather imitated the fine railleries of the Greeks, which he saw in the pieces of Andronicus, than the coarseness of his old countrymen, in their clownish extemporary way of jeering.

But besides this, it is universally granted, that Ennius, though an Italian, was excellently learned in the Greek language. His verses were stuffed with fragments of it, even to a fault: and he himself be. lieved, according to the Pythagorean opinion, that the soul of Homer was transfused into him ; which Perfius observes, in his fixth fatire: poftquam deftertuit elle Mæonides. But this being only the private opinion of so inconsiderable a man as I am, I leave it to the farther disquisition of the critics, if they think it worth their notice. Most evident it is, that whether he imitated the Roman farce, or the Greek comedies, he is to be acknowledged for the first author of Roman satire, as it is properly so called, and distinguished from any sort of stage-play.

Of Pacuvius, who succeeded him, there is little to be said, because there is so little remaining of him: only that he is taken to be the nephew of Ennius,


his sister's fon; that in probability he was instructed by his uncle, in his way of satire, which we are told he has copied; but what advances he made we know nat.

Lucilius came into the world, when Pacuvius flourished most; he also made fatires after the man. ner of Ennius, but he gave them a more graceful turn; and endeavoured to imitate more closely the vetus comædia of the Greeks ; of the which the old original Roman satire had no idea, till the time of Livius Andronicus. And though Horace seems to have made Lucilius the first author of satire in verse amongst the Romans, in these words, Quid cum eft Lucilius ausus primus in hunc operis componere carmina morem : he is only thus to be understood, that Lucilius had given a more graceful turn to the satire of Ennius and Pacuvius; not that he invented a new satire of his own: and Quintilian seems to explain this passage of Horace in these words : Satira quidem tota noftra eft, in qua primus insignem laudem adeptus eft Lucilius,

Thus, both Horace and Quintilian give a kind of primacy of honour to Lucilius, amongst the Latin fatiritts. For as the Roman language grew more rekned, so much more capable it was of receiving the Grecian beauties in his time: Horace and Quintilian could mean no more, than that Lucilius writ better than Ennius and Pacuvius : and on the same account we prefer Horace to Lucilius: both of them imitated the old Greek comedy; and so did Ennius and Pacuvius before them. The polishing of the Latin tongue, in the fucceffion of times, made the only difference. And Horace himself, in two of his fatires, written purposely on this subject, thinks the Romans of his age were too partial in their commendations of Lucilius; who writ not only loosely, and muddily, with litile art, and much less care, but also in a time when the Latin tongue was not yet suficiently purged from the dregs of barbarism; and many significant and founding words, which



the Romans wanted, were not admitted even in the times of Lucretius and Cicero, of which both complain.

But to proceed, Dacier juftly taxes Casaubon, faying, that the satires of Lucilius were wholly different in specie, from those of Ennius and Pacuvius. Casaubon was led into that mistake by Diomedes the grammarian, who in effect says this : satire among the Romans, but not among the Greeks, was a biting invective


made after the model of the ancient comedy, for the reprehenfion of vices : such as were the poems of Lucilius, of Horace, and of Perfius. But in former times, the name of satire was given to poems, which were composed of several sorts of verses; such as were made by Ennius and Pacuvius ; more fully expressing the etymology of the word satire, from fatura, which we have observed. Here it is manifeft, that Diomedes makes a specifical distinction betwixt the fatires of Ennius and those of Lucilius. But this, as we say in English, is only a distinction without a difference; for the reason of it is ridiculous, and absolutely false. This was that which cozened honest Casaubon, who relying on Diomedes, had not sufficiently examined the origin and nature of those two satires: which were entirely the same, both in the matter and the form. For all that Lucilius performed beyond his predecessors, Ennius and Pacuvius, was only the adding of more politeness, and more salt ; without any change in the substance of the poem: and though Lucilius put not together in

1 the same satire several sorts of verses, as Ennius did; yet he composed several fatires, of several sorts of verses, and mingled them with Greek verses : one poem confifted only of hexameters; and another was entirely of iambicks; a third of trochaicks; as is visible by the fragments yet remaining of his works. In short, if the satires of Lucilius are therefore said to be wholly different from those of Ennius, because he added much more of beauty and polishing to his own poems, than are to be found in those be



fore him ; it will follow from hence, that the fatires of Horace are wholly different from those of Lucilius, because Horace has not less surpassed Lucilius in the elegancy of his writing, than Lucilius furpassed Ennius in the turn and ornament of his. This passage of Diomedes has also drawn Dousa, the fon, into the same error of Casaubon, which I say, not to expose the little failings of those judicious men, but only to make it appear, with how much diffidence and caution we are to read their works ; when they treat a subject of so much obscurity, and so very ancient, as is this of satire.

Having thus brought down the history of satire from its original to the times of Horace, and shewn the several changes of it; I should here discover some of those

graces which Horace added to it, but that I think it will be more proper to defer that undertaking, till I make the comparison betwixt him and Juvenal. In the mean while, following the order of time, it will be necessary to say somewhat of another kind of satire, which also was descended from the ancients : it is that which we call the Varronian fatire, but which Varro himself calls the Menippean; because Varro, the most learned of the Romans, was the first author of it, who imitated, in his works, the manner of Menippus the Gadarenian, who professed the philosphy of the Cynics.

This fort of satire was not only composed of feveral sorts of verse, like those of Ennius, but was also mixed with profe; and Greek was sprinkled amongst the Latin. Quintillian, after he had spoken of the satire of Lucilius, adds what follows;

". There " is another and former kind of satire, composed

by Terentius Varro, the most learned of the Ro

mans : in which he was not satisfied alone with “ mingling in it several sorts of verse.” The only difficulty of this passage is, that Quintilian tells us, that this satire of Varro was of a former kind. For how can we possibly imagine this to be, since Varro who was contemporary to Cicero, but must confe

quently quently be after Lucilius ? Quintilian meant not, that the satire of Varro was in order of time before Lucilius; he would only give us to understand, that the Varronian satire, with mixture of several forts of verses, was more after the manner of Enning and Pacuvius, than that of Lucilius, who was more fevere and more correct; and gave himself lefs liberty in the mixture of his verses, in the same poem.

We have nothing remaining of those Varronian satires, excepting some inconsiderable fragments, and those for the most part much corrupted. The titles of many of them are indeed preserved, and they are generally double: from whence, at least, we may understand, how many various subjects were treated by that author. Tully, in his Academics, introduces Varro himself giving us fome light concerning the scope and design of those works. Wherein, after he had fhewn his reasons why he did not ex profeso write of philosophy, he adds what follows. Not. withstanding, says he, that those pieces of mine, wherein I have imitated Menippus, though I have not translated him, are sprinkled with a kind of mirth and gaiety: yet many things are there inferted which are drawn from the very intrails of philosophy, and many things severely argued : which I have mingled with pleasantries on purpose, that they may more easily go down with the common fort of unlearned readers. The rest of the sentence is so lame, that we can only make thus much out of it; that in the composition of his fatires, he fo tempered philology with philosophy, that his work was a mixture of them both. And Tully himself confirms us in this opinion ; when a little after he addresses himself to Varro in these words. “And you your“ felf have composed a moft elegant and compicat “poem; you have begun philosophy in many places: “ sufficient to incite us, though too little to inftru& “ us.” Thus it appears, that Varro was one of those writers whom they called otydavadobon, studious of laughter;, and that, as learned as he was, his busi


« FöregåendeFortsätt »