a few passages, the Satires are as free from difficulty as most of Juvenal's'.

They were much admired by the ancients, and have been abundantly quoted by Grammarians, by Fathers of the Church, and mediæval writers. If certain passages are less familiar to modern ears than their fitness for quotation might lead us to expect, it is from the difficulties of the poetry, which have deterred men of our day from reading it as it deserves. The subject of the first Satire, which deals with the vicious poetical taste of the day, and has many quotations from, or imitations of, the verses of contemporary writers, would be more interesting and intelligible when it was first published than it is to us, and this Satire alone would create a large demand for the volume. The Epistle to Macrinus comes more home to ourselves as dealing with the worship of God, the selfish or worldly abuse of which is common to all ages. The introduction I have prefixed to the third Satire may perhaps lead some to read it with curiosity, and they will not be disappointed. The more I read it, the more I admire it. Self-ignorance is a large subject, which might be better handled than it is in the fourth Satire; and the folly of running after and hoarding money to be squandered by one's heirs is not done as much justice to in the sixth as it probably would have been if the poet had finished it. The fifth is generally considered the best in the book, though I myself prefer the third. In the fifth there is that tribute to the goodness of Cornutus which proves the goodness of the writer and the gracefulness with which he could write. It also shows more of the philosophical school in which Persius had been trained, without however introducing any thing more new than the Stoic doctrine that the only free man is the sage, with which Cicero and Horace had before made their readers familiar. There are more imitations of Horace in this Satire than in any other.

A writer of satire may be 'ferus et violens' with his pen, and yet very amiable in manners, as the Grammarian describes Persius to have been. He may also in those days have been chaste and modest, and yet have used language for the exposure of vice which now cannot be used, or even read without discomfort. There is nothing in Persius' style to contradict the pleasing description given of him by his biographer, which probably was quite true. More than one gem now in existence has

Jul. Scaliger thought Persius wrote obscurely on purpose that fools might admire him. He is very severe on Persius. (See Scal. Poet. vi. c. 6, iii. c. 97.)

Quintilian (x. 1. 94) says, "Multum et verae gloriae, quamvis uno libro, Persius meruit." Martial (iv. 29) says,

66

Saepius in libro numeratur Persius uno

Quam levis in tota Marsus Amazonide."

been supposed to represent the handsome features attributed to Persius, but they may be any body, and we must be content with the Grammarian's testimony to his beauty.

THE publishers of this edition of Juvenal and Persius, having determined to reprint the book, asked me to correct the sheets. Though very busy about other things, I could not refuse to perform this slight service for the work of my departed friend. It is to me a cause of great regret that Mr. Macleane did not live to revise this volume. His tastes and his abilities particularly qualified him to be an editor of Juvenal and Persius; and as a first edition of such a book must be imperfect, he would certainly have improved it, if he had lived long enough. His knowledge of the world, his strong sense, quick perception, and sound judgment, applied to a second edition, might have produced a work that would have satisfied the readers of Juvenal and Persius for some time. What he has done however is well worth preserving, and I believe that future editors, and in due time they will appear,-may find in the Introductions, Arguments, and Notes, much matter that will help them towards the meaning of the Satirists. I do not think that Mr. Macleane has

often missed the sense of his authors, and he has certainly seized it sometimes where other editors have not. He possessed one quality in a striking degree-a bold and independent judgment, without which an editor is in danger of being confused and misled by a great variety of opinions. His notes show the character of his mind. He often expresses his opinion very positively, and sometimes perhaps in a way that may offend; but he had a sincere respect for good sense and sound knowledge in others; he had none of the feeble conceit which often goes with what is termed learning, and he had some reason to feel confidence in his own judgment, for few men were so quick in detecting an absurdity or went so straight to the meaning of a thing. The introduction to the thirteenth Satire of Juvenal is an evidence of his large and liberal views on a subject on which many who belong to his profession, and even others who do not, have uttered and still utter their wretched commonplaces.

I have not altered the text of this edition, and in only a few places the punctuation. I have added a collation of this text of Juvenal with that of Jahn, whose useful edition is now generally

considered the best. I have not made the collation myself, but I have examined it and I hope it is sufficient. This collation does not show the differences in orthography, where the words are the same, nor the differences in punctuation except in some cases where these differences affect the sense. I have examined all the passages in which these two texts differ, and I find a great many in which Macleane's text is better than that of Jahn, who has introduced some bad readings. I have observed a few passages in which I should prefer Jahn's text, but on the whole I think the Englishman has shown more good sense and judgment than the German.

I have added in the notes nearly all the variations of Ribbeck's text. Many of Ribbeck's variations are the same as Jahn's, but he has some of his own, and most of them seem to me bad. Some of his transpositions

improve the text, but most of them do not.

He has handled the sixth

Satire so freely as to the transposition and omission of verses, that it would require much time and study to pass a just judgment on his labour; but it will be generally allowed that the matter of this Satire, as it stands in the common texts, is not well arranged.

I have made many small corrections in Mr. Macleane's notes, where there was some slight error or mis-statement, but I have omitted nothing and altered nothing which I believe the editor would not have omitted or corrected. He would probably have changed his opinion on some points, and would both have omitted and altered much more than I have done, for my business was not to edit Juvenal and Persius, but to preserve the work of my friend. The references in this volume are very numerous, and the causes of errors in the figures of such references are various. I have corrected a great many wrong references, and though I cannot hope that I have corrected all, I believe that the errors which remain are not many. In the references to the MSS. I have discovered a few slight errors since this book was printed, but they are not such as to require any particular notice. I have added a little in the notes here and there, where I thought it necessary. All the additions which

I have made are marked thus [ ].

Ribbeck has published an essay on Juvenal ("Der Echte und der Unechte Juvenal, Berlin," 1865), which is to some extent a justification of his text. After briefly stating how much we learn from Juvenal of Roman manners from the time of Tiberius to Trajan and Hadrian, he adds that this knowledge is got exclusively from the first nine Satires and the eleventh; that the tenth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth supply scarcely any information of the kind. They contain mere allusions to well-known names and persons, or introduce characters of various kinds, which are not marked by any individuality. The genuine Juvenal is a follower of Lucilius, and though he did not lash his con

b

temporaries, the personages on whom he pours out his indignation are those with whom he and his contemporaries were well acquainted, and they are those of whom mention is made by Tacitus, Suetonius, the younger Pliny, and Martial. In the spurious Satires, on the contrary, which are the work of a Declamator, as Ribbeck calls him, the few names which may belong to contemporaries of Juvenal are with some exceptions totally unknown. These Satires also give us little information on manners or events in Rome, while nearly every line of the genuine Satires contains instructive matter. The Declamator abounds in allusions to Greek and Roman history and to mythical legends. Even Moses is introduced to us. It is true that the writer of the genuine Satires shows that he was well acquainted with Greek and Roman history; but he handles his matter like a man of sense, who knows the world, while the Declamator writes like a pedant.

The Declamator, who tells us little about Rome, treats us with a great deal about foreign parts, and in the fifteenth Satire he even takes us into Egypt; and yet, as Ribbeck maintains, he does not even know that Canopus (xv. 44, and the note) is in Egypt.

It has been observed also, he adds, that the Declamator has a turn for philosophy, but the genuine Juvenal scarcely indicates any taste for such speculation. He never uses the word Sapientia, which the Declamator prizes highly, and, following the Stoic doctrine, declares that Nature and Philosophy teach the same thing (xiii. 189). He seems also to have collected some of his philosophical matter from other writers; for instance, Sat. x. 28, &c., greatly resembles a passage in Seneca De Tranquillitate Animi, c. 15, 'Democritum potius;' and the matter of a passage in Sat. x. 346 may have been derived from Valerius Maximus, vii. 2, Ext. 1 (see the note on that passage).

From this brief statement the reader may collect the nature of the general objections to the genuineness of the five Satires which Ribbeck attributes to an unknown Declamator. He supports his general conclusion by an examination of many passages, and he employs a chapter of three-and-seventy well filled pages in belabouring the unfortunate Declamator, to whom, as far as I have observed, he allows no merit at all, not even to the few lines which may be admired by those who do not value all the Declamator's poetry. Those who will take the pains to read Ribbeck's satirical remarks on the false Satirist, will be amused and instructed, if they shall not be convinced. In fact he has undertaken to prove what is often difficult to prove, and sometimes impossible; to show from a comparison of writings, attributed to the same person, that some are genuine and some are not. But he evidently has confidence in his own conclusion, and he presses it so hard that he sometimes misunderstands or affects not to understand that which others may find

no difficulty about. So far as this I admit he has proved clearly enough that there are very manifest differences between the matter and the style of the ten Satires which he assigns to Juvenal, and the five which he has handled so unmercifully. These five Satires are marred

by great faults, and contain comparatively few good lines. They are indeed feeble compositions as satires, when compared with the vigorous work of the earlier pieces, the best of which are perhaps those which cannot be read with young men. If any Satire of the five is to be excepted from this general condemnation, it is the thirteenth; but many parts even of that Satire are open to just censure. As to the famous tenth, if we do not except to the matter, we may allow that there is some merit in the manner in which the subject is treated; but even if this admission is made, it is still nothing more than a frothy declamation. Both the matter and the style of the tenth form a striking contrast to another Satire, the third, which is justly admired. It is a living picture.

The question then is, whether the same man wrote or could write all these Satires, a question which Ribbeck answers by affirming that he could not; and he labours hard to prove his assertion. But it is impossible to say what a man may do in the way of writing, for the same men have written wise books and foolish books, bad poetry and good poetry. The same difficulty exists as to some of Cicero's orations, which are so bad that some excellent critics maintain that Cicero could not have written them; but on the other hand there are critics, both old and new, who admire the spurious orations, and think they are very fine.

As to the sixteenth Satire, which is manifestly a fragment, it is admitted by Ribbeck that this may be a piece of the true Juvenal's work.

In a second chapter Ribbeck discusses the interpolations in the ten Satires. His hypothesis, he says, about the five Declamations would fare badly, if we accepted the ten Satires in their present form as the genuine work of Juvenal; for all the faults which have led him to reject the five Declamations, are found here and there in the ten Satires; and these bits of patchwork resemble so much the whole texture of the five Declamations, that if we allow them to stand where they are, we must admit that the poet could exhibit in the same Satire the skill of a master and the stupidity of a bungler. However, there is no necessity, he says, for this admission, for the ten Satires are disfigured by interpolations which have been remarked on by many recent critics; and indeed nobody who has read Juvenal with any care will deny that there are interpolated verses. Ribbeck has only increased the number of them. There are two long passages, which Ribbeck assumes