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; inferting many things of his into his own fatires, as Virgil has done into his Æneid.

Here we have Dacier making out that Ennius was the first fatirift in that way of writing, which was of his invention; that is, fatire abftracted from the ftage, and new modelled into papers of verses, on feveral fubjects. But he will have Ennius take the ground work of fatire from the firft farces of the Romans, rather than from the formed plays of Livius Andronicus, which were copied from the Grecian comedies. It may poffibly be fo; 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 faw in the pieces of Andronicus, than the coarseness of his old countrymen, in their clownish extemporary way of jeering.

But befides this, it is univerfally granted, that Ennius, though an Italian, was excellently learned in the Greek language. His verfes were stuffed with fragments of it, even to a fault: and he himself believed, according to the Pythagorean opinion, that the foul of Homer was transfufed into him: which Perfius obferves, in his fixth fatire: poftquam deftertuit effe Maonides. But this being only the private opinion of fo inconfiderable a man as I am, I leave it to the farther difquifition 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 firft author of Roman fatire, as it is properly fo called, and distinguished from any sort of stage-play.

Of Pacuvius, who fucceeded him, there is little to be faid, because there is fo little remaining of him: only that he is taken to be the nephew of Ennius,

his

his fifter's fon; that in probability he was inftructed by his uncle, in his way of fatire, which we are told he has copied; but what advances he made we know

not.

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

Thus, both Horace and Quintilian give a kind of primacy of honour to Lucilius, amongst the Latin fatirifts. For as the Roman language grew more refined, fo 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 fame account we prefer Horace to Lucilius: both of them imitated the old Greek comedy; and fo 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 fubject, thinks the Romans of his age were too partial in their commendations of Lucilius; who writ not only loosely, and muddily, with little art, and much less care, but also in a time when the Latin tongue was not yet fufficiently purged from the dregs of barbarifm; and many fignificant and founding words, which

the

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

But to proceed, Dacier juftly taxes Cafaubon, faying, that the fatires of Lucilius were wholly different in fpecie, from those of Ennius and Pacuvius. Cafaubon was led into that mistake by Diomedes the grammarian, who in effect fays this: fatire among the Romans, but not among the Greeks, was a biting invective poem, made after the model of the ancient comedy, for the reprehenfion of vices: fuch as were the poems of Lucilius, of Horace, and of Perfius. But in former times, the name of fatire was given to poems, which were compofed of feveral forts of verfes; fuch as were made by Ennius and Pacuvius; more fully expreffing the etymology of the word fatire, from fatura, which we have obferved. Here it is manifeft, that Diomedes makes a fpecifical distinction betwixt the fatires of Ennius and thofe of Lucilius. But this, as we fay in English, is only a diftinction without a difference; for the reason of it is ridiculous, and abfolutely falfe. This was that which cozened honeft Cafaubon, who relying on Diomedes, had not fufficiently examined the origin and nature of those two fatires: which were entirely the fame, both in the matter and the form. For all that Lucilius performed beyond his predeceffors, Ennius and Pacuvius, was only the adding of more politeness, and more falt; without any change in the fubftance of the poem and though Lucilius put not together in the fame fatire feveral forts of verfes, as Ennius did; yet he compofed feveral fatires, of feveral forts of verfes, and mingled them with Greek verses: one poem confifted only of hexameters; and another was entirely of iambicks; a third of trochaicks; as is vifible by the fragments yet remaining of his works. In short, if the fatires 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

fore him; it will follow from hence, that the fatires of Horace are wholly different from thofe of Lucilius, because Horace has not lefs furpaffed Lucilius in the elegancy of his writing, than Lucilius furpaffed Ennius in the turn and ornament of his. This paffage of Diomedes has alfo drawn Doufa, the fon, into the fame error of Cafaubon, which I fay, not to expofe the little failings of thofe judicious men, but only to make it appear, with how much diffidence and caution we are to read their works; when they treat a fubject of fo much obfcurity, and fo very ancient, as is this of fatire.

Having thus brought down the hiftory of fatire from its original to the times of Horace, and fhewn the feveral changes of it; I fhould here difcover fome of thofe 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 neceffary to fay fomewhat of another kind of fatire, which also was descended from the ancients: it is that which we call the Varronian fatire, but which Varro himself calls the Menippean; becaufe 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 profeffed the philofphy of the Cynics.

66

66

This fort of fatire was not only compofed of feveral forts of verfe, like thofe of Ennius, but was alfo mixed with profe; and Greek was fprinkled amongst the Latin. Quintillian, after he had fpoken of the fatire of Lucilius, adds what follows; There " is another and former kind of fatire, compofed by Terentius Varro, the most learned of the Ro66 mans in which he was not fatisfied alone with "mingling in it several forts of verfe." The only difficulty of this passage is, that Quintilian tells us, that this fatire of Varro was of a former kind. For how can we poffibly imagine this to be, fince Varro who was contemporary to Cicero, but must confe

quently

quently be after Lucilius? Quintilian meant not, that the fatire of Varro was in order of time before Lucilius; he would only give us to underftand, that the Varronian fatire, with mixture of feveral forts of verfes, was more after the manner of Ennius 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 fame poem.

We have nothing remaining of thofe Varronian fatires, excepting fome inconfiderable fragments, and thofe for the most part much corrupted. The titles of many of them are indeed preferved, and they are generally double: from whence, at leaft, we may understand, how many various fubjects were treated by that author. Tully, in his Academics, introduces Varro himself giving us fome light concerning the fcope and defign of thofe works. Wherein, after he had fhewn his reafons why he did not ex professo write of philofophy, he adds what follows. Notwithstanding, fays he, that thofe pieces of mine, wherein I have imitated Menippus, though I have not tranflated him, are sprinkled with a kind of mirth and gaiety: yet many things are there inferted which are drawn from the very intrails of philofophy, and many things feverely argued which I have mingled with pleasantries on purpose, that they may more eafily go down with the common fort of unlearned readers. The reft of the fentence is fo lame, that we can only make thus much out of it; that in the compofition of his fatires, he fo tempered philology with philofophy, that his work was a mixture of them both. And Tully himself confirms us in this opinion; when a little after he addreffes himself to Varro in these words. "And you yourfelf have compofed a moft elegant and compleat poem; you have begun philofophy in many places: "fufficient to incite us, though too little to inftru&t "us." Thus it appears, that Varro was one of those writers whom they called dayñoño, ftudious of laughter; and that, as learned as he was, his bufi

66

nefs