Part 10

[22] The original runs thus: "_Et tamen in illis veteribus nostris quæ Menippum imitati, non interpretati, quadam hilaritate conspersimus, multa admis admista 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.

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

[24] Perhaps the Satires of Raübner.

[25] 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.

[26] _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 Rhetoricæ arrogantiæ quasi lasciviam, ac denique declamationem potiùs quàm Satyram esse pronunciaverunt._

[27] 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 anti-court 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. It is said he was once caught. A courtier, who had a cause to be tried before him, got one to go to him, as from the king, to speak for favour to his adversary, and so carried his point; for the Chief Justice could not think any person to be in the right, that came so unduly recommended." _Life of Lord Keeper Guilford_, p. 61.

[28] Casaubon published an edition of "Persius," with notes, and a commentary. Francesco Stelluti's version was published at Rome in 1630.

[29] This is a strange mistake in an author, who translated Persius entirely, and great part of Juvenal. The satires of Persius were written during the reign of Nero, and those of Juvenal in that of Domitian. This error is the more extraordinary, as Dryden mentions, a little lower, the very emperors under whom these poets flourished.

[30] David Wedderburn of Aberdeen, whose edition of "Persius," with a commentary, was published in 8vo. at Amsterdam, 1664.

[31] Persius died in his 30th year, in the 8th year of Nero's reign. Lucan died before he was twenty-seven.

[32] Casaubon's edition is accompanied, "_Cum Persiana Horatii imitatione_."

[33] A Stoic philosopher to whom Persius addresses his 5th Satire.

[34] The famous Gilbert Burnet, the Buzzard of our author's "Hind and Panther," but for whom he seems now disposed to entertain some respect.

[35] Dryden alludes to the beautiful description which Horace has given of his father's paternal and watchful affection in the 6th Satire of the 1st Book. Wycherley, the friend for whom he wishes a father of equal tenderness, after having been gayest of the gay, applauded by theatres, and the object of a monarch's jealousy, was finally thrown into jail for debt, and lay there seven long years, his father refusing him any assistance. And, although in 1697, he was probably at liberty, for King James had interposed in his favour and paid a great part of his debts, he continued to labour under pecuniary embarrassments untill his father's death and even after he had succeeded to his entailed property.

[36] The abuse of personal satires, or lampoons, as they were called, was carried to a prodigious extent in the days of Dryden, when every man of fashion was obliged to write verses; and those who had neither poetry nor wit, had recourse to ribaldry and libelling. Some observations on these lampoons may be found prefixed to the Epistle to Julian, among the pieces ascribed to Dryden.

[37] Wycherley, author of the witty comedy so called.

[38] The precise dates of Juvenal's birth and death are disputed; but it is certain he flourished under Domitian, famous for his cruelty against men and insects. Juvenal was banished by the tyrant, in consequence of reflecting upon the actor Paris. He is generally said to have died of grief; but Lepsius contends, that he survived even the accession of Hadrian.

[39] The learned Barten Holyday was born at Oxford, in the end of the 16th century. Wood says, he was second to none for his poetry and sublime fancy, and brings in witness his "smooth translation of rough Persius," made before he was twenty years of age. He wrote a play called "Technogamia, or the Marriage of the Arts," which was acted at Christ Church College, before James I., and, though extremely dull and pedantic, was ill received by his Majesty. Holyday's version of Juvenal was not published till after his death, when, in 1673, it was inscribed to the dean and canons of Christ Church. As he had adopted the desperate resolution of comprising every Latin line within an English one, the modern reader has often reason to complain, with the embarrassed gentleman in the "Critic," that the interpreter is the harder to be understood of the two.

[40] Sir Robert Stapylton, a gentleman of an ancient family in Yorkshire, who followed the fortune of Charles I. in the civil war, besides several plays and poems, published a version of Juvenal, under the title of "The manners of Men described in sixteen Satires by Juvenal." There are two editions, the first published in 1647, and the last and most perfect in 1660. Sir Robert Stapylton died in 1669. His verse is as harsh and uncouth as that of Holyday, who indeed charged him with plagiary; though one would have thought the nature of the commodity would have set theft at defiance.

[41] I presume, this celebrated finisher of the law, who bequeathed his name to his successors in office, was a contemporary of our poet. In the time of the rebellion, that operator was called Gregory, and is supposed, with some probability, to have beheaded Charles I. See the evidence for the prisoner in Hulet's trial after the Restoration. _State Trials_, Vol. II. p. 388.

[42] This is a strange averment, considering the "Reflections upon Absalom and Achitophel, by a Person of Honour," in composing and publishing which, the Duke of Buckingham, our author's Zimri, shewed much resentment and very little wit. See Vol. IX. p. 272.

[43]

_Persius exclamat, Per magnos, Brute, deos te Oro, qui regis consueris tollere, cur non Hunc Regem jugulas? Operum hoc mihi crede tuorum est._

HOR. Satire 8. Lib. I.

[44] This gentleman, who was as great a gambler as a punster, regaled with his quibbles the minor class of the frequenters of Will's coffee-house, who, having neither wit enough to entitle them to mix with the critics who associated with Dryden, and were called _The Witty Club_, or gravity enough to discuss politics with those who formed the Grave Club, were content to laugh heartily at the puns and conundrums of Captain Swan.

[45] Mr Lewis Maidwell, the author of a comedy called "The Generous Enemies," represented by the Duke's company 1680. In the prologue, as Mr Malone informs us, there is an allusion to Rochester's mean assault on Dryden:

Who dares be witty now, and with just rage Disturb the vice and follies of the age? With knaves and fools, satire's a dangerous fault; They will not let you rub their sores with salt: Else _Rose street ambuscades_ shall break your head, And life in verse shall lay the poet dead.

It is only farther known of this gentleman, that he was a friend of Shadwell, who gave him the epilogue for his comedy, and that he taught a private school.

[46] The Roman exclamation of high contentment at a recitation, like our _bravo! bravissimo!_

[47] Dryden, in his Epistle to Sir George Etherege, has shewn, however, how completely he was master even of a measure he despised.

[48] Scarron's _Virgile Travesti_.

[49] Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh was lord advocate for Scotland, during the reigns of Charles II. and his successor. His works are voluminous, and upon various subjects, but chiefly historical and juridical. He left, however, one poem called "Cælia's Country-house," and some essays on moral subjects. The memory of Sir George Mackenzie is not in high estimation as a lawyer, and his having been the agent of the crown, during the cruel persecution of the fanatical Cameronians, renders him still execrated among the common people of Scotland. But he was an accomplished scholar, of lively talents, and ready elocution, and very well deserved the appellation of a "noble wit of Scotland."

[50] In illustration of Holyday's miserable success in his desperate attempt, we need only take the lines with which he opens:

Shall I be still an auditor, and ne'er Repay that have so often had mine eare Vexed with hoarse Codrus Theseads? shall one sweat While his gownd comique sceane he does repeat, Another while his elegies soft strain The reader? and shall not I vex them again? Shall mighty Telephus be unrequited, That spends a day in being all recited? Or volume-swoln Orestes, that does fill The margin of an ample booke; yet still, As if the book were mad too, is extended Upon the very back, nor yet is ended.

THE

FIRST SATIRE

OF

JUVENAL.

THE ARGUMENT.

_The Poet gives us first a kind of humorous reason for his writing: that being provoked by hearing so many ill poets rehearse their works, he does himself justice on them, by giving them as bad as they bring. But since no man will rank himself with ill writers, it is easy to conclude, that if such wretches could draw an audience, he thought it no hard matter to excel them, and gain a greater esteem with the public. Next, he informs us more openly, why he rather addicts himself to satire than any other kind of poetry. And here he discovers, that it is not so much his indignation to ill poets as to ill men, which has prompted him to write. He, therefore, gives us a summary and general view of the vices and follies reigning in his time. So that this first satire is the natural ground-work of all the rest. Herein he confines himself to no one subject, but strikes indifferently at all men in his way. In every following satire he has chosen some particular moral which he would inculcate; and lashes some particular vice or folly, (an art with which our lampooners are not much acquainted). But our poet being desirous to reform his own age, and not daring to attempt it by an overt-act of naming living persons, inveighs only against those who were infamous in the times immediately preceding his, whereby he not only gives a fair warning to great men, that their memory lies at the mercy of future poets and historians, but also, with a finer stroke of his pen, brands even the living, and personates them under dead men's names._

_I have avoided, as much as I could possibly, the borrowed learning of marginal notes and illustrations, and for that reason have translated this satire somewhat largely; and freely own, (if it be a fault,) that I have likewise omitted most of the proper names, because I thought they would not much edify the reader. To conclude, if in two or three places I have deserted all the commentators, it is because I thought they first deserted my author, or at least have left him in so much obscurity, that too much room is left for guessing._