comedy of the Grecians; and out of all these sprung two several branches of new Roman satire, like different cions from the same root: which I shall prove with as much brevity as the subject will allow.

A year after Andronicus had opened the Roman stage with his new dramas, Ennius was born; who, when he was grown to man's estate, having seriously considered the genius of the people, and how eagerly they followed the first satires, thought it would be worth his pains to refine upon the project, and to write Satires not to be acted on the theatre, but read. He preserved the groundwork of their pleasantry, their venom, and their raillery on particular persons and general vices; and by this means, avoiding the danger of any ill success in a publick representation, he hoped to be as well received in the cabinet, as Andronicus had been upon the stage. The event was answerable to his expectation. He made Discourses in several sorts of verse, varied often in the same paper; retaining still in the title, their original name of Satire. Both in relation to the subjects, and the variety of matters contained in them, the Satires of Horace are entirely like them; only Ennius, as I said, confines not himself to one sort of verse, as Horace does but taking example from the Greeks, and even from Homer himself, in his MARGITES, which is a kind of satire, as Scaliger observes, gives himself the licence, when one sort of numbers comes not easily, to run into another, as his fancy dictates.

1

For he makes no difficulty to mingle hexameters with iambick trimeters, or with trochaick tetrameters; as appears by those fragments which are yet remaining of him. Horace has thought him worthy to be copied, inserting many things of his into his own Satires, as Virgil has done into his Eneids.

Here we have Dacier making out-that Ennius was the first satirist in that way of writing which was of his invention; that is, satire abstracted from the stage, and new-modelled into papers of verses on several subjects. But he will have Ennius take the groundwork of satire from the first farces of the Romans, rather than from the formed plays of Livius Andronicus, which were copied from the Grecian comedies. It may possibly be so; but Dacier knows no more of it than I do. And it seems to me the more probable opinion, that he rather imitated the fine railleries of the Greeks, which he saw in the pieces of Andronicus, than the coarseness of his own countrymen in their clownish extemporary way of jeering.

But besides this, it is universally granted, that Ennius, though an Italian, was excellently learned in the Greek language. His verses were stuffed with fragments of it, even to a fault; and he himself believed, according to the Pythagorean opinion, that the soul of Homer was transfused into him; which Persius observes, in his sixth satire : -postquam destertuit esse Mæonides. But this being only the private opinion of so inconsiderable

a man as I am, I leave it to the farther disquisition of the criticks, if they think it worth their notice. Most evident it is, that whether he imitated the Roman farce, or the Greek comedies, he is to be acknowledged for the first author of Roman satire, as it is properly so called; and distinguished from any sort of stage-play.

Of Pacuvius, who succeeded him, there is little to be said, because there is so little remaining of him; only that he is taken to be the nephew of Ennius, his sister's son; that in probability he was instructed by his uncle in his way of satire, which we are told he has copied : but what advances he made, we know not.

Lucilius came into the world, when Pacuvius flourished most. He also made satires after the manner of Ennius; but he gave them a more graceful turn, and endeavoured to imitate more closely the vetus comedia of the Greeks, of the which the old original Roman Satire had no idea till the time of Livius Andronicus. And though Horace seems to have made Lucilius the first author of Satire in verse amongst the Romans, in these words,

Quid? cum est Lucilius ausus

Primus in hunc operis componere carmina morem,he is only thus to be understood; that Lucilius had given a more graceful turn to the satire of Ennius and Pacuvius, not that he invented a new satire of his own: and Quintilian seems to explain this passage of Horace, in these words: Satira

quidem tota nostra est; in quâ primus insignem laudem adeptus est Lucilius.

Thus, both Horace and Quintilian give a kind of primacy of honour to Lucilius amongst the Latin Satirists. For as the Roman language grew more refined, so much more capable it was of receiving the Grecian beauties, in his time. Horace and Quintilian could mean no more, than that Lucilius writ better than Ennius and Pacuvius; and on the same account we prefer Horace to Lucilius. Both of them imitated the old Greek comedy; and so did Ennius and Pacuvius before them. The polishing of the Latin tongue, in the succession of times, made the only difference; and Horace himself, in two of his Satires, written purposely on this subject, thinks the Romans of his age were too partial in their commendations of Lucilius; who writ not only loosely and muddily, with little art, and much less care, but also in a time when the Latin tongue was not yet sufficiently purged from the dregs of barbarism; and mány significant and sounding words, which the Romans wanted, were not admitted even in the times of Lucretius and Cicero; of which both complain.

But to proceed.-Dacier justly taxes Casaubon, for saying, that the satires of Lucilius were wholly different in specie from those of Ennius and Pacuvius. Casaubon was led into that mistake by Diomedes, the grammarian, who in effect says this: "Satire amongst the Romans, but not amongst

the Greeks, was a biting invective poem, made after the model of the ancient comedy, for the reprehension of vices; such as were, the poems of Lucilius, of Horace, and of Persius. But in former times, the name of satire was given to poems which were composed of several sorts of verses, such as were made by Ennius and Pacuvius; more fully expressing the etymology of the word satire, from satura, which we have observed." Here it is manifest, that Diomedes makes a specifical distinction betwixt the Satires of Ennius, and those of Lucilius. But this, as we say in English, is only a distinction without a difference; for the reason of ́it is ridiculous, and absolutely false. This was that which cozened honest Casaubon, who relying on Diomedes, had not sufficiently examined the origin and nature of those two satires; which were entirely the same, both in the matter and the form for all that Lucilius performed beyond his predecessors, Ennius and Pacuvius, was only the adding of more politeness and more salt, without any change in the substance of the poem. And though Lucilius put not together in the same satire several sorts of verses, as Ennius did, yet he composed several satires of several sorts of verses, and mingled them with Greek verses: one poem consisted only of hexameters, and another was entirely of iambicks; a third of trochaicks; as is visible by the fragments yet remaining of his works. In short, if the satires of Lucilius are therefore said to be wholly different from those

:*