It is Merit enough for a Writer on a Subject that has been often canvass'd, if he can reduce into a short Compass whatever hath been said before, and add something material of his own. Whether I have done this in the present Case, must be submitted to the Judgment of the Audience; I am sure I shall make it my Endeavour, not only to represent my own Sentiments in an advantageous Light, but those of others; for I have a large Field of Writers before me, on this Subject; not only Horace, Quintilian, and the rest of the Ancients, but the learned Casaubon, Scaliger, Vossius, Dacier, and some others.

A Difficulty occurs upon our first Entrance; for a Doubt has been made about the Name of Satire, and the Orthography of it: The Reason of which Doubt will appear, from the uncertain History we have of this Kind of Poem. It cannot be denied, but that the Grecian Satire differ'd from the Roman; but yet the Difference seems not so great, as some are apt to imagine: The former was of the dramatic Kind, a Sort of Interlude annex'd to Tragedy, to remove from the Audience too melancholy Impressions. It is Horace's Observation,

The Scene was laid in the Country, the Persons Satyrs, and rural Deities. Sometimes Peasants and Rustics were mix'd with them. The Subject was jocose, and full of Sneer and Banter; the Style a Medium between Comedy and Tragedy. This, as I said, was the satirical Poetry of the Grecians; but Satire, as we now have it, is entirely Roman, if we may believe Quintilian, who says[312], Satira quidem tota nostra est; or Horace[313], who styles Ennius the Inventor of a Poem unknown to the Grecians, meaning Satire, according to the Opinion of most of his Interpreters. Scaliger, however, expresly denies it to be of Roman Original; and there is Reason, indeed, as we shall see hereafter, to understand those Expressions of Quintilian and Horace with some Abatement. Those that will not allow it to be deriv'd from the Grecians, but entirely Roman, maintain, that Satira should be writ with an i, not a y; and that it is not deriv'd from Satyrus, but Satur; Satira, therefore, is the same as Satura, as Maximus anciently Maxumus. Now Satur signifies full of a Mixture of Things, as Lanx Satura, a Dish full of Varieties; and, as Dacier observes[314], "those Laws were call'd Leges SaturÆ[315], which contain'd several Heads and Titles under them; as the Julian-Papian-PoppÆan Law, which was otherwise call'd the Miscella, which is but another Word for Satura. Hence that Expression, per Saturam legem ferre, when the Votes of the Senators were not taken in Order, or counted, but were given together promiscuously. And this is properly per Saturam sententias exquirere, which is an Expression Sallust makes use of after LÆlius. Nor is this all; some Books anciently bore this Title; as Pescennius Festus left Historias Saturas, or per Saturam." Thus far Dacier. Satire, then, when applied by a Metaphor to Writing, is a Miscellaneous Poem, full of Variety of Matter: According to that of Juvenal,

But however various the Matter of it is, it ought always to have somewhat of Keenness and Invective, to expose the Vices and Follies of Mankind with Raillery, or chastise them with Severity. Before Plays were brought to Rome, the Saturnine and Fescennine Verses were much in Vogue: They were a Sort of rude and unpolish'd Compositions, at best, full of Contumely, and often of Ribaldry. Whence Horace,

Afterwards, as the Romans grew more polite, these kind of Verses refin'd in Proportion: But they retain'd, still, their Jibes and Banter and kept so far to their first Institution, as to make the Follies of human Life the Object of their Ridicule. From hence proceeded Satire, so call'd from the Farrago and Variety of Matter it contain'd. It was improv'd, likewise, with Music and Dancing, which, considering its being carried on in Dialogue, made it resemble somewhat of the dramatic Kind; nor had the Romans any Thing, yet, that came so near the Drama as this did. Afterwards, when they had receiv'd both Tragedy and Comedy from the Grecians, they were so taken with the Novelty, that Satire, for some Time, lay neglected. But coming again into Esteem, it was added, as a Kind of Exodium, to Comedy. Thus Things went on for some Years, till Ennius arose, endu'd with Wit, and true poetic Fire, who observing how fond the People were of seeing the Vices of Mankind expos'd upon the Stage, thought a Poem on the same Subject, without the Decoration of Scenes and Action, might have the same Effect. Accordingly, he attempted Satires in the same Form we now see them, only he did not confine himself to the Hexameter, but made use of all Sorts of Measure. The Remains we have of this Poet, are noble Indications of the Strength of his Genius; and Horace and Virgil have shewn what Opinion they had of his Writings, by borrowing so much from them. After Ennius, succeeded Pacuvius; but his Works are all lost, excepting some Fragments, and those of uncertain Authority. Next came Lucilius, of whom, likewise, we have only some Fragments remaining. But his Excellencies and Imperfections are very amply set forth by Horace, whose Words I have no Occasion to cite here. I would observe, however, that those Lines,

are not so to be understood, as if he was the first that attempted Satire; which both Ennius and Pacuvius, as we just now observ'd, had done before him: But that Lucilius improv'd it so far as to give it that new Face, under which it appear'd in Horace's Time: For that his Satires were of the same Form with Horace's, is maintain'd by Monsieur Dacier against Casaubon[319]. It must be allow'd, however, that one Species of Satire owes its Perfection to Horace, as another does to Juvenal; both which we shall hereafter speak of separately. A third Kind was the Varronian or Menippean Satire, so call'd from Menippus, a Cynic Philosopher, among the Grecians, whose Doctrine Varro follow'd. It was a Sort of Medley, consisting not only of all Kinds of Verse, but of Verse and Prose mix'd together; a Specimen of which we have in Petronius's Satyricon[320]. We have none of Varro's poetical Works remaining, except some small Fragments; which is the more to be lamented, considering the Character Quintilian gives of him, That he was the most learned of all the Romans.

The Word Satire was anciently taken in a less restrain'd Sense than it is at present, not only as denoting a severe Poem against Vice, but as consisting of Precepts of Virtue, and the Praises of it: And even in the Satires, as they are call'd, of Horace, Juvenal, and Persius, &c. which are principally levell'd against the Weakness, the Follies, or Vices of Mankind; we find many Directions, as well as Incitements to Virtue. Such Strokes of Morality, Horace, particularly, is full of; and in Juvenal they occur very frequently. Thus,

And afterwards:

All of them sometimes correct Vice, like Moralists, I may say, like Divines, rather than Satirists: What less can we say of this of Persius?

Sentiments, these, one would think, were fetch'd from true Religion, not from unassisted Reason; and which we might expect from the Christian, more than the Stoic.

Notwithstanding the learned Arguments which Casaubon, Dacier, and others have urg'd, for the Etymology of the Word Satire, I can't but think their Opinion has more Probability in it than Truth; nor can any sufficient Reason be assign'd, why it may not be as well deriv'd from Satyrus, a Satyr, as from Satur, full. There's certainly too much Reason to think that some Things in Horace, Juvenal, and Persius, were borrow'd from the suppos'd Manners and Customs of Satyrs; and I cannot but lament, that Writers so deserving in all other Respects, should reprove some Vices in such a Manner, as to teach them; and that while they are recommending Virtue, they should throw in some Expressions so injurious to it. This Controversy, then, about the Name of Satire, (which, it must be own'd, is the more material, because it in a great Measure defines its Nature) I shall leave in Uncertainty, with Vossius, rather than determine upon it positively with Dacier.

For I cannot but be surpriz'd to see this last Author so confidently assert[324], "That Satire is a Species of Poetry unknown to any but the Romans, and has no Relation to the satirical Compositions of the Grecians, as some learned Men, by Mistake, have thought[325]. Now, I'll be bold to say, that not only some, but most, if not all the Learned, have thought so, and still think the same; and even Mons. Dacier himself, I reckon among the Number, how much soever he seems here to have forgot himself. I appeal not only to what I have before said upon this Subject myself, but to what I have cited from him, whether it does not appear that the Roman Satire had some Affinity with the Grecian, and, particularly, that it ow'd its Rise to it.[326] Vossius, speaking of the Grecian, tells us, "That the Discourse was agreeable to the Characters of the Speakers; full of Ribaldry, Ridicule, and Scurrility. The Failings of Men were the Objects of their Scoffs, and to excite Laughter the Aim of them. Horace, in his Art of Poetry,

Now will any one say, the Grecian and Roman Satire had nothing of this in common between them? Are Lasciviousness, Ridicule, and Banter, the exposing Vice, and the exciting Laughter, Properties in which the Roman Satire had no Share? We readily grant, indeed, that as it appear'd in a different Form, it was not the very same Kind of Poem with the Grecian: But surely there was some, nay, a great deal of Affinity between them; and the one, particularly, owes its Rise to the other.

Thus much for the Etymology, the History of the Rise and Progress of Satire. With Respect to the Nature and different Species of it, I can by no means subscribe to Vossius's Opinion, who observes[328], "That, as the Vices of Mankind may be corrected either publickly, or in private, the latter Method is much the more suitable to Satire: And that Juvenal and Persius, setting aside the Metre, have deviated more from the true Nature of it, than Lucian in his Dialogues, or Julian in his CÆsars. For the former shew their ill Nature more than their Wit, and don't so much put Vice out of Countenance, as themselves out of Temper; whereas the latter always keep up their Humour, and mix their Reproof with Facetiousness[329]. According to this, the Horatian Satire is the only true one; and the Writings of Juvenal and Persius have no Pretence to that Title. But the truer State of the Case is this: Satire in general, is a Poem design'd to reprove the Vices and Follies of Mankind: It is twofold; either the jocose, as that of Horace, or the serious. like that of Juvenal. The former hidden, the latter open. That generally makes Sport with Vice, and exposes it to Ridicule: This probes it to the Bottom, and puts it to Torture: And so far is it from not deserving the Title of Satire, that, in my Opinion, it is the more noble Species of it; and the genteel Jokes of Horace, how ingenious soever, are less affecting than the poetic Rage, and commendable Zeal of Juvenal. I shall speak to both Kinds, as Persius has well distinguish'd them, where he describes the Difference between Lucilius and Horace's Way of Writing:

Vossius still erring upon the same String, says, "It is not so much the Business of Satire to reprove all Sorts of Vice, as those that are the proper Subjects of Laughter[331]. If this Maxim is true, Juvenal will scarce find a Place among the Satirists: For tho' he may sometimes laugh, he is, for the Generality, serious; and shews the Lash much more than his Teeth. Nay, his Smiles are very different from those of Horace; they are not the genteel ones of a Courtier, but mix'd with Gall and ill Nature; such as Virgil describes:

The Argument which Vossius cites for his Opinion, makes against it, rather than for it. He urges[332], "that those Vices are the proper Subjects of Satire, that were so of the ancient Comedy: Hence Horace;

I ask, then, are Thieves, Whoremasters, and Robbers, guilty of those less Crimes which are only to be expos'd to Ridicule?

But the same learned Writer goes on: "The Diction of Satire, says he[334], ought to resemble Prose rather than Poetry, and appear with as much Ease as if it flow'd Extempore. Juvenal has had little Regard to this Rule, whose Style is Epic[335]; and Persius still less, who is swelling, and lofty. Whereas nothing is so great an Ornament to Satire, as an Appearance of Truth and Simplicity, with which bold Metaphors are very inconsistent." Here he takes for granted that there is only one Kind of Satire, such as Horace writ; which is begging a Question, that can by no means be granted him. All he says may be very true, in respect to that one Kind, but not at all applicable to the rest; and to blame Juvenal for not writing in the familiar Style, is the same Absurdity, as if he should arbitrarily lay it down as an universal Rule, that every Dramatic Piece ought to be writ so too; and then very gravely tell us, That Sophocles has had little Regard to this Maxim. For, to say the Truth, there is scarce less Difference between the two Kinds of Satire, than there is between Comedy and Tragedy. But I cannot conceive what possess'd this Writer, when, to prove his Position, that Satire ought to be writ in the low Style, he urges this of Horace[336]:

"Here, says he, it is evident, that the Character of a Satirist is not to affect Ornament, but Strength and Propriety." Now, not to observe that Horace is not speaking of the Satire of his own Time, but of the satirical Drama that was us'd as an Interlude in Tragedy; to pass by, I say, the Occasion of the Words, the Sense of them is so far from favouring the Opinion they are brought for, that they directly overthrow it: He says, that in this Kind of Writing he does not chuse ONLY Words of common Use, proving therefore that Satire may be writ in a sublimer Style. Vossius, I suppose, here took non for nihilo[337].

In the same Discourse he observes[338], "That it is the Business of the Satirist not so much to correct the Manners of past Times, as of the present. Persius, says he, often transgresses this Rule; for he taxes few of his own Age, and those only under general Names; such as Titius, or MÆvius. His Poems, therefore, scarce deserve to be call'd Satires, because they affect no one particularly. And Juvenal sometimes deviates from this indubitable Rule." I cannot help making a few Remarks on these Assertions, which will not a little serve to illustrate the Subject before us. In the first Place, I can't see why it is the Business of a Satirist to correct Mankind in Individuals, rather than in general. He may chuse, indeed, either Way, and it is hard to say which is more peculiarly his Province. But if any Difference is to be made, I should take the Side against Vossius, and avoid reproving Particulars. It is undoubtedly fairer to aim our Shafts against the Vice, rather than the Man. The latter, indeed, is sometimes justifiable, against some notorious Monsters, that deserve to be the Butts of Mankind: But even here the Poet does not point them out by their real Names, but under fictitious Characters; which is another Particular I have been oblig'd to observe against the foremention'd Author; who, for what Reason I know not, makes it essential to Satire to characterise by Name; a Property which I should much rather leave to the Libeller, than the Poet. Horace and Juvenal, it is true, sometimes assume this Liberty; but, for the Generality, 'tis Vice they reprove in the Abstract; and when they seem to mention Names, it is to be observ'd, that we, at this Distance of Time, know not whether they are real or borrow'd ones. The other Observation of Vossius's, That it is the Business of a Satirist not so much to correct the Manners of past Times, as of the present, I readily assent to; and is so evident a Proposition, that it is needless to assert it. The Living, not the Dead, are capable of Amendment; the latter are accidentally only, brought upon the Stage, that the former, through their Sides, may receive the more advantageous Wound. To this End, we often see Juvenal's Example follow'd:

Which, by the Way, is a Confirmation of what we before alledg'd against Vossius's Opinion, viz. That, in Juvenal's at least, the Living ought to be noted in Satire under their real Names. But it is Time we should now return to the two different Species of it which I before mention'd.

They both agree in being pungent and cutting; yet are distinguish'd by very evident Marks: The one is pleasant and facetious; the other angry and austere: The one smiles; the other storms: The Foibles of Mankind, are the Object of the one; greater Crimes, of the other: The former is always in the low Style; the latter generally in the Sublime: That abounds with Wit only; this adds to the Salt Bitterness and Acrimony. Horace's Satires are of so fine and delicate a Turn, as may much easier be conceiv'd, than express'd: They are rightly term'd Discourses, for some of them are scarce reducible under either Species of Satire. Juvenal's are all true Satires, except the fifteenth, which is of uncertain Authority. So far is Vossius from being in the right, when he makes Horace almost the only Satirist, and scarce admits Juvenal to the Title of one.

It is not very clear, then, why Horace should say of himself,

or who they were that thought so. I cannot, indeed, come into the Opinion of others whom he mentions:

But surely too much Warmth was never his Fault; he ought sometimes, perhaps, to be condemn'd for the Want of it.

Either Kind of Satire may be writ in the Dialogue or Epistolary Manner, and we have Instances of both Forms in Horace, Juvenal, and Persius. As some of Horace's, which are call'd Satires, are as truly Epistles; so many of his Epistles might as well be call'd Satires. For Example,[342]Qui fit MecÆnas, &c. might, with equal Reason, be reckon'd among the Epistles; and[343]Prima dicte mihi, &c. among the Discourses or Satires, if the Author or Editor had so thought fit.

The distinguishing Nature of Juvenal cannot be better known, than from the very Beginning of his Satires:

At the first Onset, he declares open War, and gives sufficient Intimation of the Strength of his Spirit, and what the Reader may expect from it. He first sharpens his Style against the scribbling Poets of his Age; and when he had, in a sarcastical Manner, mention'd the Reasons that induced him to write,

He sallies forth, a few Lines after, into a more extensive Field of Satire, and with no less Wit than Gall, tells us the Reasons why he chose this Kind of Writing:

In these, and the Lines that follow, he lays down the chief Heads of Satire he design'd to treat of; this he does in an elegant and poetical Manner, not by proposing them in general Terms, but by Particulars. Afterwards, having weigh'd the Reasons his Friend alledges to dissuade him from so dangerous an Attempt, he replies, with a Quickness and Vivacity Worthy of a Satirist:

What a Poignancy in the Words, and how swift a Turn in the Thought?

I agree with Vossius, but for a different Reason from his, that Persius scarce deserves a Place among the Satirists. He has dropp'd, indeed, many fine Expressions in describing the Beauty of Virtue, and the Deformity of Vice: But he wants Poignancy and Sting; he never laughs, and strikes but seldom: He does not correct Faults so much, as find them; his Reproof, at best, is too mild, and more like the Evenness of a Philosopher, than the Severity of a Satirist.

To come now to our own Times. There are few Kinds of Writing, in which the Moderns, of our own Country especially, are less exceeded than in this[348]; I mean in that Species of it in which Juvenal writ: For the Horatian Satire is but little affected among us. That Author, particularly[349], who not long since attack'd the Jesuits, tho' his Works, either through want of Care, or Judgment, or, more probably, considering his Youth, for want of both, are not so correct as might have been wish'd; yet his shewn a true poetical Vein, and a Fire not unworthy Juvenal himself. No one can be a Stranger to Dryden, who, as he exceeds others in every Kind of Poetry, so, in this, exceeds himself. But to pass by the rest of our own Countrymen whom I might mention, that deservedly celebrated French Poet[350] has so happily blended Horace and Juvenal together, that he seems to have found out a beautiful Species of Satire between both. He claims the poetical Laurel, but in Satire more particularly, from all the Writers of this Age, by universal Consent; and that is an Authority, to which I shall never think fit to oppose my private Judgment, whatever it is.