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.[23] 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 Moriæ" of Erasmus, Barclay's "Euphormio," and a volume
of German authors, which my ingenious friend, Mr Charles Killegrew,
once lent me.[24] In the English, I remember none which 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."[25]
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, 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.[26] 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
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.[27]
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,[28]
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 his former commentators; even Stelluti, who succeeded him. I
will begin with him, who, in my opinion, defends the weakest cause,
which is that of Persius; and labouring, as Tacitus professes of his
own writing, to divest myself of partiality, or prejudice, consider
Persius, not as a poet whom I have wholly translated, and who has cost
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 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,[29] 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.
In the third place, notwithstanding all the diligence of Casaubon,
Stelluti, and a Scotch gentleman,[30] whom I have heard extremely
commended for his illustrations of him, yet he is still obscure:
whether he affected not to be understood, but with difficulty; or
whether the fear of his safety under Nero compelled him to this
darkness in some places; or that it was occasioned by his close way of
thinking, and the brevity of his style, and crowding of his figures;
or lastly, whether, after 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 commentators can but
guess at his meaning, in many passages; 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,
considering their youth:[31] 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 possibly be exempted.
To consider Persius yet more closely: he rather insulted over vice and
folly, than exposed them, like Juvenal and Horace; and as chaste and
modest as he is esteemed, it cannot be denied, but that in some places
he is broad and fulsome, as the latter verses of the fourth Satire, and
of the sixth, sufficiently witnessed. And it is to be believed that he
who commits the same crime often, and without necessity, cannot but do
it with some kind of pleasure.
To come to a conclusion: he is manifestly below 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 shews a multitude of his translations from Horace, and
his imitations of him, for the credit of his author; which he calls
_Imitatio Horatiana_.[32]
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 his 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 shewed 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
#chrysou chrysotera#, more golden than gold itself, are every where
smelling of that 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 himself 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 Scaliger, from which nothing could
be hidden. This is indeed a strong compliment, but no defence; and
Casaubon, who could not but be sensible of his author's blind side,
thinks it time to abandon a post that was untenable. He acknowledges
that Persius is obscure in some places; but so is Plato, so is
Thucydides; so are Pindar, Theocritus, and Aristophanes, amongst the
Greek poets; and even Horace and Juvenal, he might have added, amongst
the Romans. The truth is, Persius is not sometimes, but generally,
obscure; and therefore Casaubon, at last, is forced to excuse him,
by alledging that it was _se defendendo_, for fear of Nero; and that
he was commanded to write so cloudily by Cornutus,[33] in virtue of
holy obedience to his master. I cannot help my own opinion; I think
Cornutus needed not to have read many 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
together clearly. Casaubon, being upon this chapter, has not failed,
we may be sure, of making a compliment to his own dear comment. If
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 perfect explanation. Besides many
examples 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, Holyday 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 denies 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
reason 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 far fetched and hard, it is
fit for nothing but to puzzle the understanding; and may be reckoned
amongst those things of Demosthenes which Æschines called #thaumata#,
not #rhêmata#, that is, prodigies, not words. It must be granted to
Casaubon, 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 #chelônes phagein ê mê phagein#, 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.
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 performance, 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.
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 chuse
his mediums accordingly. Casaubon, 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 satire; 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 reason, 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.
But 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 usefully, 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
Stoick; 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
conveniencies, and so many helps to living as we ought, and doing good
in our generation: in short, to be always happy, while we possess our
minds with a good conscience, are free from the slavery of vices, 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 Stoick philosophy, by giving you an account of
some absurdities in their 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. Passions, 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 I wonder not that the present Bishop of Salisbury[34] 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 common-places for their sermons, as the
store-houses 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 stoicks have assigned
for the great end 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
Epicurean, sometimes a Stoick, sometimes an Eclectic, as his present
humour leads him; nor declaims like Juvenal against vices, more like an
orator, than a philosopher. Persius is every where the same; true to
the dogmas of his master. What he has learnt, he teaches vehemently;
and what he teaches, that he practises himself. There is a spirit of
sincerity in all he says; you may easily discern that he is in earnest,
and is persuaded of that truth which he inculcates. In this I am of
opinion that he excels Horace, who is commonly in jest, and laughs
while he instructs; and is equal to Juvenal, who was as honest and
serious as Persius, and more he could not be.
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 tax-gatherer,
or a collector, as we call it, smells every where of the meanness of
his birth and education: his conceipts 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 Stoick 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.
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.[35] 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 ingenuous.
After 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 Mecænas, 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
companion for the retired hours and privacies of a favourite, who
was first minister. So that, upon the whole matter, Persius may be
acknowledged to be equal with him in those respects, though better
born, and Juvenal inferior to both. If the advantage be any where,
it is on the side of Horace; as much as the court of Augustus Cæsar
was superior to that of Nero. As for the subjects which they treated,
it will appear hereafter, that Horace writ not vulgarly on vulgar
subjects, nor always chose them. His style is constantly accommodated
to his subject, either high or low. 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.