and his sympathy with Secundus Carrinas and Palaemon is, to say the least, more effusive than that which he lavishes on the unsuccessful poets, Serranus and Saleius. It is curious to find a man who was a rhetorician by training, by predilection, and to a great degree by habit of mind, and who yet failed to make his mark till he confined his oratory within the unnatural limits of the hexameter; whose unquestionable genius did not raise him to the first rank in the Forum, and yet assured him immortality in the work that he found uncongenial and never quite mastered.

It remains only to notice Juvenal's influence upon modern literature. The poet in whom he most completely lives again is Dryden, who translated five of the Satires (i, iii, vi, x and xvi). Dryden has the same vigour of expression, and a similar earnestness of tone, but seems to want the light touches which relieve Juvenal's shadows. Whenever we take a parallel passage we shall be conscious that the Roman poet, with all his austerity, is the truer artist. Dryden tells us of the Egyptian gods,

'Such savoury deities must needs be good

As served at once for worship and for food.'

Juvenal remarks with quiet scorn,

'O sanctas gentes, quibus haec nascuntur in hortis
Numina.'

Compare again the coarse positivism of the description of

'Bull-faced Jonas who could statutes draw To mean rebellion, and make treason law'

with the incomparable picture of

'Saevior illo

Pompeius tenui iugulos aperire susurro.'

On the other hand, Juvenal has shown no capacity for limning such exquisite portraits of character as Dryden has left us in the descriptions of Achitophel and Zimri. In matters of that sort, Dryden was the dramatic poet, thinking out the man in his innermost thoughts and extravagant caprices, while Juvenal was nothing more than the moralist declaiming against an incarnate vice. Just the half-finished sketches of Crispus and Catullus

remain to attest a power upon which its possessor never really drew; but Crispinus, Oppia, Sejanus, Messalina pass before us as shadowy and unsubstantial as the personified miseries of Vergil's hell, 'Metus et malesuada Fames et turpis Egestas.'

While Dryden, as a satirist, was the Juvenal of an English court, Boileau, with less real power and even less literary art, was paraphrasing some of the best Satires, the third, the sixth, and the eighth. By cutting up the third into two (1 and 6) and separating the description of the corruptions of town life from that of its discomforts, Boileau throws into strong and exaggerated relief the trivial scenes which in Juvenal serve as a foil to the intensity of moral declamation. It is however in the imitation of the eighth (Sat. v.) that Boileau's weakness is best seen. Boileau tells us in fourteen tedious lines (57 sqq.) that were you the descendant of Hercules and withal a man of no account, the ancestral honours are 'mere chimaeras;' 'I see nothing in you but a coward, an impostor, a traitor, a villain, a deceiver, a liar, a fool whose fits resemble madness, and a rotten branch of a very illustrious trunk.' Bathos can hardly go further, and the general feebleness is not redeemed even by the comparative vigour of one couplet :

'Et tout ce grand éclat de leur gloire ternie Ne sert plus que de jour à votre ignominie.' Juvenal is better than Boileau at his best in the parallel passage:

'Incipit ipsorum contra te stare parentum

Nobilitas claramque facem praeferre pudendis.'

But above all Juvenal's fertility is conspicuous. He does not amass epithets, but he multiplies pictures of patrician degeneracy, and calls up vivid illustrations of what the real nobles had been by whom the greatness of Rome grew. Even where Boileau is at his happiest he never rises to the nervous energy of his model.

'Je ne puis rien nommer, si ce n'est par son nom;

J'appelle un chat un chat, et Rolet un fripon' (Sat. i. 51)

is wittier but scarcely so powerful as the

'Quid Romae faciam? mentiri nescio,'

from which it is expanded. Where Boileau has the advantage is in dealing with the lighter and more sportive aspects of human weakness. To Juvenal it was sufficiently comic, that the learned lady should weigh Homer and Vergil in the balance'. Boileau by a charming refinement makes his 'précieuse' compare Vergil and Chapelain, remark a great many defects in Vergil, and find no fault in Chapelain, except that it is impossible to read him. Then again Boileau, the contemporary of Molière, had the advantage of living in an age which had detected, though it did not create, the religious hypocrite, and his description of the priest-governed woman is not only deeper and more vivid than Juvenal's of the votary of Isis, but opens up a new world in the human heart.

On the whole it is surely justifiable to say that Juvenal with all his faults stands in the very front rank of satirists, and was the one true poet of his own day.

CHARLES H. PEARSON.

Satire ix.

2 Ne trouve en Chapelain, quoi qu'ait dit la Satire,
Autre défaut, sinon qu'on ne le saurait lire,

Et pour faire goûter son livre à l'Univers

Croit qu'il faudrait en prose y mettre tous les vers.'

PECULIARITIES OF JUVENAL'S

STYLE.

THE peculiarities of Juvenal's style seem to be those of a rhetorician intent on producing an effect upon his audience. In addressing the ear even more than the eye it is the part of the author to remember that he must be both vivid and intelligible. The effect of vividness can be produced among other means, by that of striking usages in language, such as similes, metaphors, transferred epithets, &c.: to be intelligible, a reciter or speaker must employ amplifications and repetitions.

The most striking of Juvenal's stylistic mannerisms seem to be the following 1:

I. Frequent use of transferred epithets: cf.

i. 57 vigilanti stertere naso.

ii. 170 mores praetextati.

iii. 275 fenestrae vigiles.
v. 158 plorante gula.
x. 113 sicca morte.
xiii. 32 vocalis sportula.

II. Enumerations, which when listened to might prove effective, but seem somewhat tedious when read, cf. ii. 153-155; iii. 69, 70, 75, 76, 79, 99, 120, 138, 216-220; vi. 39, 40; vii. 190192; xiii. 23-25.

III. Sententiae or general maxims, many of which it was the custom to condemn as spurious, but which are now generally admitted into the text. Cf. vi. 50, 51, 112, 562, 626; vii. 145; viii. 124; x. 112, 113, 187; xi. 99; xiii. 166.

1 Cf. Smit, Annotatio in Saturas, Dotecomiae, 1886. Juvénal, Etude par M. Guérin, Paris, 1887.

IV. Rhetorical questions, which (a) sometimes suggest their own natural answer, (b) and sometimes are answered by the poet. Both of these are so common that it seems needless to enumerate many illustrative passages: but cf. as instances of (a) i. 1–6, 63 ; iv. 69; of (b) v. 24, 156, 157.

V. Tautologies (a) in sentiments, cf. i. 113, 114; iii. 23, 24; vii. 48, 49; (b) tautologies consisting in the repetition of a single word, ii. 34; iii. 3, 135, 136; xi. 143.

VI. The very frequent use of periphrases, many of which suggest the object or person by a literary allusion; cf. i. 20 Auruncae alumnus, 51 Venusina digna lucerna; iii. 25 fatigatas ubi Daedalus exuit alas; v. 45 iuvenis praelatus Iarbae; xvi. 6 et Samia genetrix quae delectatur harena.

VIII. The undue development of one portion of his subject in which the accessory idea is dwelt upon, to the detriment of the effect of the whole. Cf. Sat. xiv. 240, where the word Thebes suggests a legend connected with its name, but adding little to the force of the passage. Cf. too Sat. xii. 91, where the ten verses that follow hecatomben seem useless as far as the thought goes.

IX. The constant use of diminutives. These have been treated of in Mayor's edition in a note on Sat. x. 173, where a list of them is given. As instances we may take Sat. i. 11 pellicula; iii. 102 igniculus; iv. 98 fraterculus gigantis; v. 75 improbulus. See Roby's Grammar, i. §§ 319-330.