is expreffed in the beginning of that dialogue, which is called Nexvoμaría. But Varro, in imitating him, avoids his impudence and filthinefs, and only expreffes his witty pleafantry.

This we may believe for certain, that as his fubjects were Various, so most of them were tales or ftories of his own invention. Which is alfo manifeft from antiquity, by thofe authors who are acknowledged to have written Varronian fatires, in imitation of his: of whom the chief is Petronius Arbiter, whofe fatire, they fay, is now printed in Holland, wholly recovered, and made compleat: when it is made public, it will eafily be seen by any one fentence, whether it be fuppofititious, or genuine. Many of Lucian's dialogues may alfo properly be called Varronian fatires; particularly his True Hiftory: and confequently the Golden Afs of Apuleius, which is taken from him. Of the fame ftamp is the Mock Deification of Claudius, by Seneca and the Sympofium, or Cæfars of Julian the Emperor. Amongst the moderns we may reckon the Encomium Moria of Erafmus, Barclay's Euphormio, and a volume of German au thors, which my ingenious friend Mr. Charles Killigrew once lent me. In the English I remember none, which are mixed with profe, as Varro's were: but of the fame kind is Mother Hubbard's Tale in Spencer; and (if it be not too vain to mention any thing of my own) the poems of Abfalom and Mac Flecno.

This is what I have to say in general of fatire: only as Dacier has obferved before me, we may take notice, that the word fatire is of a more general fignification in Latin, than in French, or English. For amongst the Romans it was not only used for thofe difcourfes which decried vice, or expofed folly; but for others alfo, where virtue was recommended. But in our modern languages we apply it only to the invective poems, where the very name of fatire is formidable to those perfons, who would appear to the world, what they are not in themselves. For in English, to fay fatire, is to mean reflection, as we use that word in the worst fenfe; or as the French call it, more properly, Medifance. In the criticism of fpelling, it ought to be with i, and not with y, to diftinguish its true derivation from fatura, not from Satyrus. And if this be fo, then it is falfe fpelled throughout this book; for here it is written fatyr. Which having not confidered at the first, I thought it not worth correcting afterwards. But the French are more nice, and never fpell it any other way than fatire.

I am now arrived at the moft difficult part of my undertaking, which is, to compare Horace with Juvenal and Perfius. It is obferved by Rigaltius, in his preface before Juvenal, written to Thuanus, that these three poets have all their particular partifans, and favourers: every commentator, as he has taken pains with any of them, thinks himself obliged to prefer his author to the other two: to find out their failings, and decry them, that he may make room for his own darling. Such is the partiality of mankind, to fet up that intereft which they have once efpoufed, though it be to the prejudice of truth, morality, and common juftice: and especially in the productions of the brain. As authors generally think themselves the beft poets, because they cannot go out of themselves to judge fincerely of their betters; fo it is with critics, who, having first taken a liking to one of these poets, proceed to comment on him, and to illuftrate him: after which, they fall in love with their own labours, to that degree of blind fondness, that at length they defend and exalt their author, not so much for his fake as for their own. It is a folly of the fame nature, with that of the Romans themfelves, in their games of the Circus; the fpectators were divided in their factions, betwixt the Veneti and the Prafini: fome were for the charioteer in blue, and fome for him in green. The colours themselves were but a fancy; but when once a man had taken pains to fet out thofe of his party, and had been at the trouble of procuring voices for them, the cafe was altered: he was concerned for his own labour; and that fo earnestly, that difputes and quarrels, animofities, commotions, and bloodshed, often happened: and in the declenfion of the Grecian empire, the very fovereigns themfelves engaged in it, even when the barbarians were at their doors; and itickled for the preference of colours, when the fafety of their people was in queftion. I am now, myself on the brink of the fame precipice; I have spent fome time on the tranflation of Juvenal and Perfius; and it behoves me to be wary, left, for that reafon, I fhould be partial to them, or take a prejudice against Horace. Yet, on the other fide, I would not be like fome of our judges, who would give the cause for a poor man, right or wrong for though that be an error on the better hand, yet it is fill a partiality and a rich man unheard, cannot be concluded an oppreffor. I remember a faying of king Charles II. on Sir Matthew Hales, (who was doubtlefs an uncorrupt and upright man) That his Lervants were fure to be caft on a trial, which was heard before

him not that he thought the judge was poffible to be bribed; but that his integrity might be too fcrupulous: and that the caufes of the crown were always fufpicious, when the privileges of fubjects were concerned.

It had been much fairer, if the modern critics, who have embarked in the quarrels of their favourite authors, had rather given to each his proper due; without taking from another's heap, to raise their own. There is praise enough for each of them in particular, without encroaching on his fellows, and detracting from them, or enriching themselves with the spoils of others. But to come to particulars: Heinfius and Dacier are the most principal of thofe, who raise Horace above Juvenal and Perfius. Scaliger the father, Rigaltius, and many others, debafe Horace, that they may fet up Juvenal: and Cafaubon, who is almoft fingle, throws dirt on Juvenal and Horace, that he may exalt Perfius, whom he understood particularly well, and better than any of the former commentators; even Stelluti, who fucceeded him. I will begin with him, who, in my opinion, defends the weakeft caufe, which is that of Perfius; and labouring, as Tacitus profeffes of his own writings, to divest myself of partiality, or prejudice, confider Perfius, not as a poet whom I have wholly tranflated, and who has coft me more labour and time than Juvenal; but according to what I judge to be his own merit; which I think not equal, in the main, to that of Juvenal or Horace; and yet in fome things to be preferred to both of them.

First, then, for the verfe, neither Cafaubon himself nor any for him, can defend either his numbers, or the purity of his Latin. Cafaubon gives this point for loft; and pretends not to juftify either the measures, or the words of Perfius: he is evidently beneath Horace and Juvenal, in both.

Then, as his verfe is fcabrous, and hobbling, and his words not every where well chofen, the purity of Latin being more corrupted, than in the time of Juvenal, and confequently of Horace, who writ when the language was in the height of its perfection; fo his diction is hard; his figures are generally too bold and daring; and his tropes, particularly his metaphors, infufferably ftrained.

In the third place, notwithstanding all the diligence of Cafaubon, Stelluti, and a Scotch gentleman (whom I have heard extreamly commended for his illuftrations of him ;) yet he is ftill obfcure: whether he affected not to be understood, but with difficulty; or whether the fear of his fafety under Nero, com

F

pelled him to this darkness in some places; or that it was occafioned by his close way of thinking, and the brevity of his ftyle, and crowding of his figures; or laftly, whether after fo long a time, many of his words have been corrupted, and many cuftoms, and ftories relating to them, loft to us; whether fome of thefe reasons, or all, concurred to render him fo cloudy; we may be bold to affirm, that the best of commentators can but guefs at his meaning, in many paffages: and none can be certain that he has divined rightly.

After all, he was a young man, like his friend and contemporary Lucan: both of them men of extraordinary parts, and great acquired knowledge, confidering their youth. But neither of them had arrived to that maturity of judgment, which is neceffary to the accomplishing of a formed poet. And this confideration, as on the one hand it lays fome imperfections to their charge: fo on the other fide, it is a candid excufe for those failings, which are incident to youth and inexperience; and we have more reason to wonder how they, who died before the thirtieth year of their age, could write fo well, and think for ftrongly than to accuse them of thofe faults, from which human nature, and more especially in youth, can never poffibly be exempted.

To confider Perfius yet more closely: he rather infulted over vice and folly, than expofed them, like Juvenal and Horace. And as chafte and modeft as he is efteemed, it cannot be denied, but that in fome place he is broad and fulfom, as the latter verfes of the fourth fatyr, and of the fixth, fufficiently witneffed. And it is to be believed that he who commits the fame crime often, and without neceffity, cannot but do it with fome kind of pleasure.

To come to a conclufion, he is manifeftly below Horace because he borrows most of his greatest beauties from him: and Cafaubon is fo far from denying this, that he has written a treatife purposely concerning it; wherein he fhews a multitude of his tranflations from Horace, and his imitations of him, for the credit of his author, which he calls Imitatio Horatiana.

To these defects, which I cafually obferved, while I was tranflating this author, Scaliger has added others: he calls him, in plain terms, a filly writer, and a trifler; full of oftentation of learning; and after all, unworthy to come into competition with Juvenal and Horace.

After fuch terrible accufations, it is time to hear what his pa-. tron Cafaubon can alledge in his defence. Inftead of answering, he excuses for the most part; and when he cannot, accufes others of the fame crimes. He deals with Scaliger, as a modest scholar with a master. He compliments him with so much reverence, that one would fwear he feared him as much at least as he refpected him. Scaliger will not allow Perfius to have any wit; Cafaubon interprets this in the mildeft fenfe; and confeffes his author was not good at turning things into a pleatant ridicule; or in other words, that he was not a laughable writer. That he was ineptus, indeed, but that was non aptiffimus_ad jocandum. But that he was oftentatious of his learning, that, by Scaliger's good favour, he denies. Perfius fhewed his learning, but was no boafter of it; he did oftendere, but not oftentare; and fo, he fays, did Scaliger: where, methinks, Cafaubon turns it handfomely upon that fupercilious critic, and filently infinuates that he himself was fufficiently vain-glorious, and a boaster of his own knowledge. All the writings of this venerable cenfor, continues Cafaubon, which are xpucéra, more golden than gold itself, are every where fmelling of thyme, which, like a bee, he has gathered from ancient authors: but far be oftentation and vain-glory from a gentleman, fo well born, and fo nobly educated as Scaliger. But, fays Scaliger, he is fo cbfcure, that he has got himself the name of Scotinus, a dark writer: now, fays Cafaubon, it is a wonder to me that any thing could be obfcure to the divine wit of Scaliger; from which nothing could be hidden. This is indeed a strong compliment, but no defence. And Cafaubon, who could not but be fenfible of his author's blind fide, thinks it time to abandon a post that was untenable. He acknowledges that Perfius is obfcure in fome places but fo is Plato, fo is Thucydides, fo are Pindar, Theocritus, and Ariftophanes, amongst the Greek poets; and even Horace and Juvenal, he might have added, amongst the Romans. The truth is, Perfius is not fometimes, but generally obfcure; and therefore Cafaubon, at last, is forced to excufe him, by alledging that it was fe defendendo, for fear of Nero; and that he was commanded to write fo cloudily by Cornutus, in virtue of holy obedience to his mafter. I cannot help my own opinion; I think Cornutus needed not to have read many lectures to him on that fubject. Perfius was an apt fcholar; and when he was bidden to be obfcure in fome places, where his life and fafety were in quefiion, took the fame counsel for all his books; and never afterwards wrote ten lines together clearly.