*

things severely argued; which I have mingled with pleasantries on purpose, that they may more easily go down with the common sort 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 satires, he so 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 yourself have composed a most elegant and complete poem; you have begun philosophy in many places; sufficient to incite us, though too little to instruct us." Thus it appears, that Varro was one of those writers whom they called doyenoto, studious of laughter; and that, as learned as he was, his business was more to divert his reader, than to teach him. And he entitled his own satires-Menippean; not that Menippus had written any satires, (for his were either dialogues or epistles,) but that Varro imitated his style, his manner, his facetiousness. All that we know farther of Menippus and his writings, which are wholly lost, is, that by some he is esteemed, as, amongst the rest, by Varro; by others he is noted of cynical impudence, and obscenity: that he was much given to those parodies, which I have already mentioned; that is, he often quoted the verses of Homer and the tragic poets, and turned their seri

* The original runs thus: "Et tamen in illis veteribus nostris qua Menippum imitati, non interpretati, quadam hilaritate conspersimus, multa admis a ex intima philosophia, multa dicta dialectice, quæ quo facilius minus docti intelligerent jucunditate quadam ad legendum invitati; in laudationibus, in iis ipsis antiquitatum proæmiis, philosophice scribere voluimus si modo consecuti sumus.' --Academic. lib. iii. sect. 2. The sense of the last clause seems to be, that Varro had attempted, even in panegyrics, and studied imitations of the ancient satirists, to write philosophically, although he modestly affects to doubt of his having been able to accomplish his purpose.

وو

ous meaning into something that was ridiculous whereas Varro's satires are by Tully called absolute, and most elegant, and various poems. Lucian, who was emulous of this Menippus, seems to have imitated both his manners and his style in many of his dialogues; where Menippus himself is often introduced as a speaker in them, and as a perpetual buffoon; particularly his character is expressed in the beginning of that dialogue, which is called NexuOMarría. But Varro, in imitating him, avoids his impudence and filthiness, and only expresses his witty pleasantry.

This we may believe for certain,—that as his subjects were various, so most of them were tales or stories of his own invention. Which is also manifest from antiquity, by those authors who are acknowledged to have written Varronian satires, in imitation of his; of whom the chief is Petronius Arbiter, whose satire, they say, is now printed in Holland, wholly recovered, and made complete: when it is made public, it will easily be seen by any one sentence, whether it be supposititious, or genuine. Many of Lucian's dialogues may also properly be called Varronian satires, particularly his True History; and consequently the "Golden Ass" of Apuleius, which is taken from him. Of the same stamp is the mock deification of Claudius, by Seneca: and the Symposium or " Cæsars" of Julian, the Emperor. Amongst the moderns, we may reckon the "Encomium Moria" of Erasmus, Barclay's "Euphormio," and a volume of German authors, which my ingenious friend, Mr Charles Killegrew, once lent me. In the English, I remember none which

* This pretended continuation of Petronius Arbiter was published at Paris in 1693, and proved to be a forgery by one Nodot, a Frenchman.

+ Perhaps the Satires of Raübner.

are mixed with prose, as Varro's were; but of the same kind is "Mother Hubbard's Tale" in Spenser ; and (if it be not too vain to mention any thing of my own,) the poems of " Absalom" and "Mac Flecnoe."*

This is what I have to say in general of satire: only, as Dacier has observed before me, we may take notice, that the word satire is of a more general signification in Latin, than in French, or English. For amongst the Romans it was not only used for those discourses which decried vice, or exposed folly, but for others also, where virtue was recommended. But in our modern languages we apply it only to invective poems, where the very name of satire is formidable to those persons, who would appear to the world what they are not in themselves; for in English, to say satire, is to mean reflection, as we use that word in the worst sense; or as the French call it, more properly, medisance. In the criticism of spelling, it ought to be with i, and not with y, to distinguish its true derivation from satura, not from satyrus. And if this be so, then it is false spelled throughout this book; for here it is written SATYR: which having not considered at the first, I thought it not worth correcting afterwards. But the French are more nice, and never spell it any other way than SATIRE.

I am now arrived at the most difficult part of my undertaking, which is, to compare Horace with Juvenal and Persius. It is observed by Rigaltius, in his preface before Juvenal, written to Thuanus,

* From this classification we may infer, that Dryden's idea of a Varronian satire was, that, instead of being merely didactic, it comprehended a fable or series of imaginary and ludicrous incidents, in which the author engaged the objects of his satire. Such being his definition, it is surprising he should have forgotten Hudibras, the best satire of this kind that perhaps ever was written; but this he afterwards apologizes for, as a slip of an old man's memory.

*

that these three poets have all their particular partisans, 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 set up that interest which they have once espoused, though it be to the prejudice of truth, morality, and common justice; and especially in the productions of the brain. As authors generally think themselves the best poets, because they cannot go out of themselves to judge sincerely of their betters; so it is with critics, who, having first taken a liking to one of these poets, proceed to comment on him, and to illustrate 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 sake as for their own. It is a folly of

the same nature, with that of the Romans themselves, in the games of the Circus. The spectators were divided in their factions, betwixt the Veneti and the Prasini; some were for the charioteer in blue, and some for him in green. The colours themselves were but a fancy; but when once a man had taken pains to set out those of his party, and had been at the trouble of procuring voices for them, the case was altered; he was concerned for his own labour, and that so earnestly, that disputes and

Horatii Persiique Satyras Isaacus Casaubonus et Daniel Heinsius certatim laudibus extulere, ac Persium ille suum tantopere adornavit, ut nihil Horatio, nihil Juvenali præter indignationem reliquisse videatur; hic verò Horatium curiosè considerando tam admirabilem esse docuit, ut plerisque jam in Persio nimia Stoici supercilii morositas jure displiceat. Juvenalis ingenium ambo quidem certè laudaverunt, sic tamen ut in eo sæpe etiam Rhetorica arrogantiæ quasi lasciviam, ac denique declamationem potiùs quàm Satyram esse pronunciaverunt.

quarrels, animosities, commotions, and bloodshed, often happened; and in the declension of the Grecian empire, the very sovereigns themselves engaged in it, even when the barbarians were at their doors; and stickled for the preference of colours, when the safety of their people was in question. I am now myself on the brink of the same precipice; I have spent some time on the translation of Juvenal and Persius; and it behoves me to be wary, lest, for that reason, I should be partial to them, or take a prejudice against Horace. Yet, on the other side, I would not be like some 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 still a partiality: and a rich man, unheard, cannot be concluded an oppressor. I remember a saying of King Charles II. on Sir Matthew Hale, (who was doubtless an uncorrupt and upright man,) that his servants were sure to be cast on a trial, which was heard before him; not that he thought the judge was possibly to be bribed, but that his integrity might be too scrupulous; and that the causes of the crown were always suspicious, when the privileges of subjects were concerned.

*

* North has left the following account of this great lawyer's prejudices. "He was an upright judge, if taken within himself; and when he appeared, as he often did, and really was, partial, his inclination or prejudice, insensibly to himself, drew his judgment aside. His bias lay strangely for, and against, characters and denominations; and sometimes, the very habits of persons. If one party was a courtier, and well dressed, and the other a sort of puritan, with a black cap and plain clothes, he insensibly thought the justice of the cause with the latter. If the dissenting, or anticourt party was at the back of a cause, he was very seldom impartial; and the loyalists had always a great disadvantage before him. And he ever sat hard upon his lordship, in his practice, in causes of that nature, as may be observed in the cases of Cuts and Pickering, just before, and of Soams and Bernardiston elsewhere, related.