Horace; and yet, in some things, to be preferred to both of them.

First, then, for the verse, neither Casaubon himself, nor any for him, can defend either his numbers, or the purity of his Latin. Casaubon gives this point for lost; and pretends not to justify either the measures, or the words of Persius: he is evidently beneath Horace and Juvenal, in both.

Then, as his verse is scabrous, and hobbling, and his words not every where well chosen, the purity of Latin being more corrupted than in the time of Juvenal, and consequently of Horace, who writ when the language was in the height of its perfection; so his diction is hard; his figures are generally too bold and daring; and his tropes, particularly his metaphors, insufferably strained.

them, the case was altered: he was concerned for his own labour; and that so earnestly, that disputes and 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 au errour on the better hand, yet it is still a partiality: and a rich man un- In the third place, notwithstanding all the diliheard, cannot be concluded an oppressor. I re- gence of Casaubon, Stelluti, and a Scotch gentlemember a saying of king Charles II. on sir man (whom I have heard extremely commended Matthew Hales, (who was doubtless an uncorrupt for his illustrations of him), yet he is still obscure! and upright man) that his servants were sure to whether he affected not to be understood, but with be cast on a trial, which was heard before him: difficulty, or whether the fear of his safety under not that he thought the judge was possible to be Nero compelled him to this darkness in some bribed; but that his integrity might be too scrupu- places; or, that it was occasioned by his close lous; and that the causes of the crown were alway of thinking, and the brevity of his style, and ways suspicious, when the privileges of subjects crowding of his figures; or, lastly, whether, after were concerned. so long a time, many of his words have been corrupted, and many customs, and stories relating to them, lost to us; whether some of these reasons, or all, concurred to render him so cloudy; we may be bold to affirm, that the best of commen tators can but guess at his meaning, in many passages: and none can be certain that he has divined rightly.

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: Heinsius and Dacier are the most principal of those, who raise Horace above Juvenal and Persius. Scaliger the father, Rigaltius, and many others, debase Horace, that they may set up Juvenal: and Casaubon, who is almost single, throws dirt on Juvenal and Horace, that he may exalt Persius, whom he understood particularly well, and better than any of the former commentators; even Stelluti, who succeeded him. I will begin with him, who, in my opinion, defends the weakest canse, which is that of Persius; and labouring, as Tacitus professes of his own writings, "to divest myself of partiality, or prejudice," consider Persius, not as a poet whom I have wholly translated, and who has cost me more la-possibly be exempted. bour 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 VOL. XIX,

After all, he was a young man, like his friend and contemporary Lucan: both of them men of extraordinary parts, and great acquired knowledge, considering their youth. But neither of them had arrived to that maturity of judgment, which is necessary to the accomplishing of a formed poet. And this consideration, as on the one hand it lays some imperfections to their charge: so on the other side, it is a candid excuse 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 so well, and think so strongly; than to accuse them of those faults, from which human nature, and more especially in youth, can never

To consider Persius yet more closely: he rather insulted over vice and folly, than exposed them, like Juvenal and Horace. And as chaste and

I i

modest as he is esteemed, it cannot be denied, | Scaliger; from which nothing could be hidden but that in some places he is broad and fulsome, This is indeed a strong compliment, but no deas the latter verses of the fourth satire, and of the fence. And Casaubon, who could not but be sensixth, sufficiently witnessed. And it is to be be-sible of his author's blind side, thinks it time to lieved, that he who commits the same crime often, abandon a post that was untenable. He acknowand without necessity, cannot but do it with some ledges that Persius is obscure in some places: but so is Plato, so is Thucydides, so are Pindar, Theokind of pleasure.

To come to a conclusion: he is manifestly be-critus, and Aristophanes, amongst the Greek poets; low Horace, because he borrows most of his greatest beauties from him: and Casaubon is so far from denying this, that he has written a treatise purposely concerning it; wherein he shows a multitude of his translations from Horace, and his imitations of him, for the credit of his author, which he calls Imitatio Horatiana.

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

After such terrible accusations, it is time to hear what his patron Casaubon can allege in his defence. Instead of answering, he excuses for the most part; and when he cannot, accuses others of the same crimes. He deals with Scaliger, as a modest scholar with a master. He compliments him with so much reverence, that one would swear he feared him as much at least as he respected him. Scaliger will not allow Persius to have any wit: Casaubon interprets this in the mildest sense; and confesses his author was not good at turning things into a pleasant ridicule; or, in other words, that he was not a laughable writer. That he was ineptus, indeed, but that was non aptissimus ad | Jocandum. But that he was ostentatious of his learning, that, by Scaliger's good favour, he denies. Persius showed his learning, but was no boaster of it; he did ostendere, but not ostentare; and so, he says, did Scaliger: where, methinks, Casaubon turns it handsomely upon that supercilious critic, and silently insinuates that he himself was sufficiently vain-glorious, and a boaster of his own knowledge. All the writings of this venerable | censor, continues Casaubon, which are gurou Xeurósiga, more golden than gold itself, are every where smelling of thyme, which, like a bee, he has gathered from ancient authors: but far be ostentation and vain-glory from a gentleman, so well born, and so nobly educated, as Scaliger. But, says Scaliger, he is so obscure, that he has got bimself the name of Scotinus, a dark writer: now, says Casaubon, it is a wonder to me that any thing could be obscure to the divine wit of

and even Horace and Juvenal, he might have
The truth is, Per-
added, amongst the Romans.
sius is not sometimes, but generally obscure; and
therefore Casaubon, at last, is forced to excuse
him, by alleging, that it was se defendendo, for
fear of Nero; and that he was commanded to
write so cloudily by Cornutus, in virtue of holy
obedience to his master. I cannot help my own
opinion; I think Cornutus needed not to have read
inany lectures to him on that subject. Persius
was an apt scholar; and when he was bidden to
be obscure in some places, where his life and
safety were in question, took the same counsel for
all his books; and never afterwards wrote ten lines
Casaubon, being upon this
together clearly.
chapter, has not failed, we may be sure, of mak-
"If
ing a compliment to his own dear comment.
Persius," says he, "be in himself obscure, yet
my interpretation has made him intelligible.”
There is no question but he deserves that praise,
which he has given to himself; but the nature of
the thing, as Lucretius says, will not admit of a
Besides many examples
perfect explanation.

which I could urge, the very last verse of his last
satire, upon which he particularly values himself
in his preface, is not yet sufficiently explicated.
It is true, Holiday has endeavoured to justify his
construction; but Stelluti is against it: and for
my part, I can have but a very dark notion of it.
As for the chastity of his thoughts, Casaubon de-
nies not but that one particular passage, in the
fourth satire, At si unctus cesses, &c. is not
only the most obscure, but the most obscene, of
all his works: I understood it; but, for that rea-
son, turned it over. In defence of his boisterous
metaphors, he quotes Longinus, who accounts them
as instruments of the sublime; fit to move and
stir up the affections, particularly in narration.
To which it may be replied, that where the trope is
farfetched, and hard, it is fit for nothing but to
puzzle the understanding; and may be reckoned
amongst these things of Demosthenes which Es-
chines called faúpara not paqe, that is, pro-
digies, not words. It must be granted to Casau-
bon, that the knowledge of many things is lost in
our modern ages, which were of familiar notice to

the ancients; and that satire is a poem of a difficult nature in itself, and is not written to vulgar readers. And, through the relation which it has to comedy, the frequent change of persons makes the sense perplexed, when we can but divine who it is that speaks; whether Persius himself, or his friend and monitor; or, in some places, a third person. But Casaubon comes back always to himself, and concludes, that if Persius had not been obscure, there had been no need of him for an interpreter. Yet when he had once enjoined himself so hard a task, he then considered the Greek proverb, that he must xλavis Qaysir i μù Qayiv, either eat the whole snail, or let it quite alone; and so he went through with his laborious task, as I have done with my difficult translation.

fully, will carry the palm from his two antagonists. The philosophy in which Persius was educated, and which he professes through his whole book, is the stoic: the most noble, most generous, most beneficial to human kind, amongst all the sects, who have given us the rules of ethics, thereby to form a severe virtue in the soul; to raise in us an undaunted courage, against the assaults of fortune; to esteem as nothing the things that are without us, because they are not in our power; not to value riches, beauty, honours, fame, or health, any farther than as conveniences, and so many helps to living as we ought, and doing good in our generation. In short, to be any ways happy, while we possess our minds with a good conscience, or free from the slavery of viccs, and conform our actions and conversations to the rules of right reason. See here, my lord, an epitome of Epictetus; the doctrine of Zeno, and the education of our Persius. And this he expressed, not only in all his satires, but in the manner of his life. I will not lessen this commendation of the stoic philosophy, by

Thus far, my lord, you see it has gone very hard with Persius: I think he cannot be allowed to stand in competition, either with Juvenal or Horace. Yet, for once, I will venture to be so vain, as to affirm, that none of his hard metaphors, or forced expressions, are in my translation: but more of this in its proper place, where I shall say somewhat in particular of our general perform-giving you an account of some absurdities in their ance, in making these two authors English. In the mean time, I think myself obliged to give Persius his undoubted due, and to acquaint the world, with Casaubon, in what he has equalled, and in what excelled, his two competitors.

doctrine, and some, perhaps, impieties, if we consider them by the standard of Christian faith: Persius has fallen into none of them; and therefore is free from those imputations. What he teaches might be taught from pulpits, with more profit to the audience, than all the nice speculations of divinity, and controversies concerning faith: which are more for the profit of the shepherd, than for the edification of the flock. Passion, interest, ambition, and all their bloody consequences of discord and of war, are banished from this doctrine. Here is nothing proposed but the quiet and tranquillity of the mind: virtue lodged at home, and afterwards diffused in her general effects, to the improvement and good of human kind. And therefore 1 wonder not that the present bishop of Salisbury has recommended this our author, and the tenth satire of Juvenal, in his Pastoral Letter, to the serious perusal and practice of the divines in his diocese, as the best.com

A man who is resolved to praise an author, with any appearance of justice, must be sure to take him on the strongest side, and where he is least liable to exceptions. He is therefore obliged to choose his mediums accordingly; Casanbon, who saw that Persius could not laugh with a becoming grace, that he was not made for jesting, and that a merry conceit was not his talent, turned his feather, like an Indian, to another light, that he might give it the better gloss. Moral doctrine, says he, and urbanity, or well-mannered wit, are the two things which constitute the Roman antire. But of the two, that which is most essential to this poem, and is, as it were, the very soul which animates it, is the scourging of vice, and exhortation to virtue. Thus wit, for a good rea-mon-places for their sermons, as the store-houses son, is already almost out of doors; and allowed only for an instrument, a kind of tool, or a weapon, as he calls it, of which the satirist makes use, in the compassing of his design. The end and aim of our three rivals, is consequently the same. By what methods they have prosecuted their intention, is farther to be considered. Satire is of the nature of moral philosophy, as being instructive: he, therefore, who instructs most use

and magazines of moral virtues, from whence they may draw out, as they have occasion, all manner of assistance for the accomplishment of a virtuous life, which the stoics have assigned for the great ead and perfection of mankind. Herein then it is, that Persius has excelled both Juvenal and Horace. He sticks to his own philosophy: he shifts not sides, like Horace, who is sometimes an Fpicurean, sometimes a Stoic, sometimes an Ec.

lectic, as his present humour leads him; nor de- | panion for the retired hours and privacies of a So that, upon claims, like Juvenal, against vices, more like an favourite, who was first minister. orator, than a philosopher. Persius is every where the whole matter, Persius may be acknowledged to be equal with him in those respects, though the same; true to the dogmas of his master. What If the he has learnt, he teaches vehemently; and what better born, and Juvenal inferior to both. he teaches, that he practises himself. There is a advantage be any where, it is on the side of Hospirit of sincerity in all he says: you may easily race; as much as the court of Augustus Cæsar discern that he is in earnest, and is persuaded of was superior to that of Nero. As for the subjects that truth which he inculcates. In this I am of which they treated, it will appear hereafter, that opinion, that he excels Horace, who is commonly Horace writ not vulgarly on vulgar subjects, nor His style is constantly acin jest, and laughs while he instructs: and is always chose them. equal to Juvenal, who was as honest and serious as commodated to his subject, either high or low: Persius, and more he could not be. if his fault be too much lowness, that of Persius is the fault of the hardness of his metaphors and obscurity and so they are equal in the failings of their style; where Juvenal manifestly triumphs over both of them.

Hitherto I have followed Casaubon, and enlarged upon him; because I am satisfied that he says no more than truth; the rest is almost all frivolous. For he says, that Horace, being the son of a taxgatherer, or a collector, as we call it, smells every where of the meanness of his birth and education: his conceits are vulgar, like the subjects of his satires; that he does plebeium sapere; and writes not with that elevation which becomes a satirist : that Persius being nobly born, and of an opulent family, had likewise the advantage of a better master; Cornutus being the most learned of his time, a man of the most holy life, the chief of the stoic sect at Rome; and not only a great philosopher, but a poet himself; and, in probability, a coadjutor of Persius. That, as for Juvenal, he was long a declaimer, came late to poetry, and has not been much conversant in philosophy.

nuous.

It is granted, that the father of Horace was Libertinus, that is, one degree removed from his grandfather, who had been once a slave: but Horace, speaking of him, gives him the best character of a father, which I ever read in history; and I wish a witty friend of mine, now living, had such another. He bred him in the best school, and with the best company of young noblemen. And Horace, by his gratitude to his memory, gives a certain testimony that his education was ingeAfter this, he formed himself abroad, by the conversation of great men. Brutus found him at Athens, and was so pleased with him, that he took him thence into the army, and made him tribunus militum, a colonel in a legion, which was the preferment of an old soldier. All this was before his acquaintance with Maecenas, and his introduction into the court of Augustus, and the familiarity of that great emperor; which, had he not been well-bred before, had been enough to civilize his conversation, and render him accomplished and knowing in all the arts of complacency and good behaviour; and, in short, an agreeable com

But

The comparison betwixt Horace and Juvenal is more difficult; because their forces were more equal: a dispute has always been, and ever will continue, betwixt the favourers of the two poets. Non nostrum est tantas componere lites. I shall only venture to give my opinion, and leave it for better judges to determine. If it be only argued in general, which of them was the better poet, the victory is already gained on the side of Horace. Virgil himself must yield to him in the delicacy of his turns, his choice of words, and perhaps the purity of his Latin. He who says that Pindar is inimitable, is himself inimitable in his odes. the contention betwixt these two great masters, is for the prize of satire: in which controversy, all the odes and epodes of Horace are to stand excluded. I say this, because Horace has written many of them satirically, against his private enemies: yet these, if justly considered, are somewhat of the nature of the Greek Silli, which were invectives against particular sects and persons. But Horace has purged himself of this choler, before he entered on those discourses, which are more properly called the Roman satire: he has not now to do with a Lyce, a Canidia, a Cassius Severus, or a Menas; but is to correct the vices and the follies of his time, and to give the rules of a happy and virtuous life. In a word, that former sort of satire, which is known in England by the name of lampoon, is a dangerous sort of weapon, and for the most part unlawful. We have no moral right on the reputation of other men. It is taking from them what we cannot restore to them. There are only two reasons, for which we may be permitted to write lampoons; and I will not promise that they can always justify us: the first is revenge, when we have been affront

ed in the same nature, or have been any ways notoriously abused, and can make ourselves no other reparation. And yet we know, that, in Christian charity, all offences are to be forgiven, as we expect the like pardon for those which we daily commit against Almighty God. And this consideration has often made me tremble when I was saying our Saviour's prayer; for the plain condition of the forgiveness which we beg, is the pardoning of others the offences which they have done to us for which reason I have many times avoided the commission of that fault, even when I have been notoriously provoked. Let not this, my lord, pass for vanity in me; for it is truth. More libels have been written against me, than almost any man now living: and I had reason on my side, to have defended my own innocence: I speak not on my poetry, which I have wholly given up to the critics; let them use it as they please; posterity, perhaps, may be more favourable to me for interest and passion will lie buried in another age; and partiality and prejudice be forgotten. I speak of my morals, which have been sufficiently aspersed; that any sort of reputation ought to be dear to every honest man, and is to me. But let the world witness for me, that I have been often wanting to myself in that particular; I have seldom answered any scurrilous lampoon, when it was in iny power to have exposed my enemies: and, being naturally vindicative, have suffered in silence, and possessed my soul in quiet.

Any thing, though never so little, which a man speaks of himself, in my opinion, is still too much; and therefore I will wave this subject, and proceed to give the second reason, which may justify a poet, when he writes against a particular person: and that is, when he is become a public nuisance. And those, whom Horace in his satires, and Persius and Javenal have mentioned in theirs, with a brand of infamy, are wholly such. It is an action of virtue to make examples of vicious men. They may and ought to be upbraided with their crimes and follies: both for their own amendment, if they are not yet incorrigible, and for the terrour of others, to hinder them from falling into those enormities, which they see are so severely punished in the persons of others. The first reason was only an excuse for revenge; but this second is absolutely of a poet's office to perform: but how few lampooners are there now living, who are capable of this duty! When they come in my way, it is impossible sometimes to avoid reading them. But, good God! how remote they are, in common justice, from the choice of such

persons as are the proper subject of satire! and how little wit they bring, for the support of their injustice! The weaker sex is their most ordinary theme; and the best and fairest are sure to be the most severely handled. Amongst men, those who are prosperously unjust, are entitled to panegyric; but afflicted virtue is insolently stabbed with all manner of reproaches; no decency is considered, no fulsomeness omitted; no venom is wanting, as far as dulness can supply it for there is a perpetual dearth of wit; a barrenness of good sense and entertainment. The neglect of the readers will soon put an end to this sort of scribbling. There can be no pleasantry where there is no wit: no impression can be made, where there is no truth for the foundation. To conclude, they are, like the fruits of the earth in this unnatural season: the corn which held up its head,

spoiled with rankness; but the greater part of the harvest is laid along, and little of good income and wholesome nourishment is received into the barns. This is almost a digression, I confess to your lordship; but a just indignation forced it from me. Now I have removed this rubbish, I will return to the comparison of Juvenal and Horace.

I would willingly divide the palm betwixt them, upon the two heads of profit and delight, which are the two ends of poetry in general. It must be granted by the favourers of Juvenal, that Horace is the more copious and profitable in his instructions of human life: but in my particular opinion, which I set not up for a standard to better judgments, Juvenal is the more delightful author. I am profited by both, I am pleased with both; but I owe more to Horace, for my instruction; and more to Juvenal, for my pleasure. This, as I said, is my particular taste of these two authors: they who will have either of them to excel the other in both qualities, can scarce give better reasons for their opinion, than I for mine; but all unbiassed readers will conclude, that my moderation is not to be condemned; to such impartial men I must appeal: for they who have already formed their judgments, may justly stand suspected of prejudice; and though all who are my readers, will set up to be my judges, I enter my caveat against them, that they ought not so much as to be of my jury: or, if they be admitted, it is but reason that they should first hear what I have to urge in the defence of my opinion.

That Horace is somewhat the better instructor of the two, is proved from hence, that his instructions are more general: Juvenal's more limited,