HOrace entitles his two Books of Satyrs indifferently, Sermones, and Satyrae; And since these two Names give different Ideas; for certain Reasons it is necessary to explain what the Latins understood by the [Page] Word Satyr. The Learned Casaubon is the first, and only Man that has with Success at­tempted to shew what was the Satyrical Poesie of the Greeks, and the Satyr of the Romans. His Book is an inestimable Treasure, and I con­fess I have had great Helps from it; which is the use we ought to make of the Works of those extraordinary Men, who have only gone before us to be our Guides, and serve us as Torches in the thick Darkness of Antiquity. But you must not have your Eyes so continually fixt on them, as not to regard whither they lead you; for they deviate sometimes into Paths, where you cannot safely follow them. This Rule I my self have observ'd, in forsaking my Guides, and past that Way which no Body before me has done, as the following Dis­course will convince you.

Satyr is a kind of Poesie, only known to the Romans, being not at all related to the Satyrical Poesie of the Greeks, as some learned Men have pretended. Quintilian leaves us no Doubt up­on this Point, when he writes in Chap. 10. Satira quidem tota nostra est. The same Reason makes Horace call it in the last Satyr of Book 1. Graecis intactum Carmen. The Natural and true Etymology is this: The Latins called it SATVR, quasi plenum, to which there was [Page] nothing wanting for its Perfection. Thus Satur color, when the Wool has taken a good Dye, and nothing can be added to the Per­fection of it. From Satur they have made Satura, which they wrote sometimes with an i, Satira; They used in other Words, the same Variation of the Letter u into i, as in Maxumus, Maximus, optumus, optimus. Satura, is an Adjective, which has reference to a Sub­stantive understood; for the Ancient Romans said Saturam, understanding Lancem. And Satura Lanx, was properly a Bason fill'd with all sorts of Fruit, which they offer'd every Year to Ceres, and Bacchus, as the First Fruits of all they had gathered. These Offerings of different things mixt together, were not un­known to the Greeks, who call'd 'em [...], a Sacrifice of all sorts of Fruit, [...] & [...], an Offering of all sorts of Grain, when they offer'd Potherbs. The Grammarian Diomedes has perfectly describ'd both the Cu­stom of the Romans, and the Word Satura, in this Passage Lanx referta variis multis (que) primi­tiis, sacris Cereris inferebatur, & a copia & Saturitate rei, Satura vocabatur: cujus generis lancium & Virgilius in Georgicis meminit, cum hoc modo dicit, ‘Lancibus & pandis fumantia reddimus exta▪ and—lances (que) & liba feremus.’ [Page] From thence the Word Satura was apply'd to many other Mixtures, as in Festus: Satira cibi genus, ex variis rebus conditum. From hence it past to the Works of the Mind; for they call'd some Laws Leges Saturas, which con­tain'd many Heads, or Titles, as the Iulian, Papian and Popean Laws, which were called Miscellas, which is of the same Signification with Satura: From hence arose this Phrase, Per Saturam legem ferre, when the Senate made a Law, without gathering, and counting the Votes in haste, and confusedly all together, which was properly call'd, Per Saturam sen­tentias exquirere, as Salust has it after Lelius. But they rested not here, but gave this Name to certain Books, as Pescennius Festus, whose Histories were call'd Saturas, or per Saturam. From all these Examples, 'tis not hard to sup­pose, that these Works of Horace took from hence their Name, and that they were call'd, Saturae quia multis & variis rebus hoc carmen re­fertum est, because these Poems are full of a great many different Things, as Porphyrius says, which is partly true. But it must not be thought it is immediately from thence; for this Name had been used before for other things, which bore a nearer resemblance to the Satyrs of Horace; in explanation of which a Method is to be follow'd, which Casaubon [Page] himself never thought of, and which will put things in so clear a Light, that there can be no Place left for Doubt.

The Romans having been almost four hun­dred Years without any Scenical Plays, Chance and Debauchery made them find in one of their Feasts the Saturnian, and Fescennine Verses, which for six score Years they had instead of Dramatic Pieces. But these Verses were rude, and almost without any Numbers, as being made extempore, and by a People, as yet but barbarous, who had little other Skill, than what flow'd from their Joy, and the Fumes of Wine. They were filled with the grossest sort of Rai­leries, and attended with Gestures and Dances. To have a livelier Idea of this, you need but reflect upon the honest Peasants ▪ whose clown­ish Dances are attended with extempore Verses, in which, in a wretched manner they jeer one another, with all they know. To this Horace re­fers in the first Epistle of his second Book,

This Licentious and Irregular Verse, was succeeded by a sort more correct, filled with a pleasant Railery, without the Mixture of any thing scurrilous, and these obtain'd the Name of Satyrs, by reason of their Variety, and had [Page] regulated Forms, that is, regular Dances, and Music, but undecent Postures were banish'd. Titus Livius has it in his seventh Book. Ver­naculis artificibus, quia Hister Tusco verbo Lu­dio vocabatur, nomen Histrionibus inditum, qui non sicut ante Fescennino versu similem compositum temere, ac rudem alternis jaciebant; sed imple­tas modis Satiras, descripto jam ad Tibicinem cantu, motus (que) congruenti peragebant. These Satyrs were properly honest Farces, in which the Spectators and Actors were rallied without Distinction.

Livius Andronicus found things in this po­sture, when he first undertook to make Come­dies, and Tragedies in Imitation of the Gre­cians. This Diversion appearing more noble, and perfect, they run to it in Multitudes, neglecting the Satyrs for some time, though they receiv'd them a little after; and some model'd them into a purpos'd Form to act at the end of their Comedies, as the French act their Farces now. And then they alter'd their Name of Satyrs for that of Exodia, which they preserve to this day. This was the first and most ancient kind of Roman Satyr. There are two other sorts, which tho' very different from this first, yet both owe their Birth to this, and are, as it were, Branches of it. This I shall prove the most succinctly I can.

[Page]A Year after Livius Andronicus had caus'd his first Efforts to be Acted, Italy gave birth to Ennius, who being grown up, and having all the leisure in the World to observe the eager Satisfaction with which the Romans re­ceiv'd the Satyrs, of which I have already spoke, was of Opinion, that Poems, tho' not adapted to the Theatre, yet preserving the Gaul the Railings and Pleasantness, which made these Satyrs take with so much Ap­plause, would not fail of being well receiv'd; he therefore ventur'd at it, and compos'd se­veral Discourses to which he retain'd the name of Satyrs. These Discourses were entirely like those of Horace, both for the Matter and the Variety. The only essential difference, that is observable, is that Ennius, in Imita­tion of some Greeks, and of Homer himself, took the liberty of mixing several kinds of Verses together, as Hexameters, Iambics, Tri­meters, with Tetrimeters, Trochaics or Square Verse; as it appears from the Fragments which are left us. These following Verses are of the Square kind, which Aullus Gellius has preserv'd us, and which very well merit a place here for the Beauty they contain:

[Page]I attribute also to these Satyrs of Ennius these other kinds of Verses, which are of a Beauty, and Elegance, much above the Age in which they were made; nor will the sight of 'em here be unpleasant.

Horace has borrow'd several things from these Satyrs. After Ennius came Pacuvius, who also writ Satyrs in Imitation of his Uncle Ennius.

Lucilius was born in the time when Pacuvi­us was in most Reputation. He also wrote Satyrs. But he gave 'm a new turn, and en­deavoured to imitate, as near as he could, [Page] the Character of the old Greek Comedy, of which we had but a very imperfect Idea in the ancient Roman Satyr, and such, as one might find in a Poem, which Nature alone had di­ctated before the Romans had thought of imi­tating the Grecians, and enriching them­selves with their Spoils. 'Tis thus you must understand this Passage of the first Satyr of the second Book of Horace,

Horace never intended by this to say, That there were no Satyrs before Lucilius, because Ennius and Pacuvius were before him, whose Example he fol­lowed: He only would have it understood, That Lucilius having given a new Turn to this Poem, and embellished it, ought by way of Excellence to be esteemed the first Author. Quintilian had the same Thought, when he writ, in the first Chap­ther of the tenth Book Satira quidem tota nostra est, in qua primus insignem laudem adeptus est Lucilius. You must not therefore be of the Opinion of Casaubon, who building on the Judgment of Diomedes, thought that the Satyr of Ennius, and that of Lucilius were entirely different: These are the very Words of this Grammarian, which have deceived this Judici­ous Critick. Satira est Carmen apud Romanos, non quidem apud Graecos maledicum, ad carpenda homi­num vitia, Archaeae Comoediae charactere compositum, quale scripserunt Lucilius & Horatius, & Persius. Sed [Page] olim Carmen quod ex variis Poematibus constabat, Satira dicebatur, quale scripserunt Pacuvius & Ennius. You may see plainly that Diomedes distinguishes the Satyr of Lu­cilius, from that of Ennius, and Pacuvius; the reason which he gives for this Distinction, is ridiculous, and absolutely false: The good Man had not examin'd the Nature and Origin of these two Satyrs, which were entirely like one another, both in Matter and Form, for Lucilius added to it only a little Politeness, and more Salt, almost without changing any thing: And if he did not put together several Sorts of Verse in the same Piece, as Ennius has done, yet he made se­veral Pieces, of which some were entirely Hexame­ters, others entirely Iambics, and others Trochaic's, as is evident from his Fragments. In short, if the Satyrs of Lucilius differ from these of Ennius, be­cause the former has added much to the Endeavours of the latter, as Casaubon has pretended, it will follow from thence, that those of Horace, and those of Lucilius, are also entirely different, for Horace has no less refin'd on the Satyrs of Lucilius, than he on those of Ennius, and Pacuvius. This Passage of Diomedes has also deceiv'd Dousa the Son. I say not this to expose some Light Faults of these great Men, but only to shew, with what Exactness, and with what Caution their Works must be read, when they treat of any thing so Obscure, and so ancient.

I have made appear what was the Ancient Satyr, that was made for the Theatre; I have shewn, That that gave the Idea of the Satyr of Ennius: And, in fine, I have sufficiently prov'd, that the Satyrs of Ennius, and Pacuvius; of Lucilius, and Horace, are but one kind of Poem, which has received its Perfe­ction from the last. 'Tis Time now to speak of the [Page] second kind of Satyr, which I promised to explain, and which is also derived from the Ancient Satyr; 'tis that which we call Varronian, or the Satyr of Menippus, the Cinic Philosopher.

This Satyr was not only composed of several forts of Verse, but Varro added Prose to it, and made a Mixture of Greek and Latin. Quintilian, af­ter he had spoke of the Satyr of Lucilius, adds, Al­terum illud est, & prius Satirae genus, quod non sola Car­minum varietate mistum condidit Terentius Varro, vir Romanorum Eruditissimus. The only Difficulty of this Passage is, that Quintilian assures us, that this Satyr of Varro was the first, for how could that be, since Varro was a great while after Lucilius? Quintilian meant not that the Satyr of Varro was the first in Order of Time, for he knew well enough, that in that respect he was the last: But he would give us to understand, that this kind of Satyr, so mixt, was more like the Satyr of Ennius, and Pacu­vius, who gave themselves a greater Liberty in this Composition, than Lucilius, who was more severe, and correct.

We have now only some Fragments left of the Satyr of Varro, and those generally very imperfect; the Titles, which are most commonly double, shew the great Variety of Subjects, of which Varro treated.

Seneca's Book on the Death of Claudius, Boetius, his Consolation of Philosophy, and that of Petronius Arbiter, are Satyrs entirely like those of Varro.

This is what I have in general to say on Satyr; nor is it necessary I insist any more on this Subject. This the Reader may observe, that the Name of Satyr in Latin▪ is not less proper for Discourses, [Page] that recommend Vertue, than to those which are design'd against Vice. It had nothing so formidable in it, as it has now, when a bare Mention of Satyr makes them tremble, who would fain seem what they are not, for Satyr, with us, signifies the same thing, as exposing, or lashing of some thing, or Person: Yet this different Acceptation alters not the Word, which is always the same; but the Latins in the Titles of their Books, have often had regard only to the Word, in the extent of its Signification, found­ed on its Etymology, whereas we have had respect only to the first, and general Use, which has been made of it in the beginning to mock, and deride; yet this Word ought always to be writ in Latin with an (u) or (i) Satura, or Satira, and in English by an (i) those who have wrote it with a (y) thought with Scaliger, Heinsius, and a great many others, that the Divinities of the Groves, which the Grecians call'd Satyrs, the Romans Fawns, gave their Names to these Pieces; and that of the Word Satyrus they had made Satyra, and that these Satyrs had a great affi­nity with the Satyric Pieces of the Greeks, which is absolutely false, as Casaubon has very well prov'd it, in making it appear, That of the Word Satyrus they could never make Satyra, but Satyrica: And in shewing the Difference betwixt the Satyric Poems of the Greeks, and the Roman Satyrs. Mr. Spanheim, in his fine Preface to the Caesars, concerning the Emperor Iulian, has added new Reflections to those which this Judicious Critic had advanced; and he has establish'd, with a great deal of Judgment, five, or six essential Differences, between those two Poems, which you may find in his Book. The Greeks had never any thing that came near this Ro­man [Page] Satyr, but their Silli [ [...]] which were also biting Poems, as they may easily be perceived to be yet, by some Fragments of the Silli of Timon. There was however this Difference, That the Silli of the Greeks were Parodious, from one End to the other, which cannot be said of the Roman Satyrs; where, if sometimes you find some Parodia's, you may plainly see that the Poet did not design to affect it, and by consequence the Parodia's do not make the Essence of a Satyr, as they do the Essence of the Silli.

Having explain'd the Nature, Origin and Pro­gress of Satyr, I'll now say a Word, or two of Horace in particular.

There cannot be a more just Idea given of this part of his Works, than in comparing them to the Statues of the Sileni, to which Alcibiades in the Ban­quet, compares Socrates. They were Figures, that without had nothing agreeable, or beautiful, but when you took the Pains to open them, you found the Figures of all the Gods. In the manner that Horace presents himself to us in his Satyrs, we dis­cover nothing of him at first, that deserves our At­tachment. He seems to be fitter to amuse Chil­dren than to employ the Thoughts of Men; but when we remove that, which hides him from our Eyes, and view him even to the Bottom, we find in him all the Gods together; that is to say, all those Vertues, which ought to be the continual Practice of such as seriously endeavour to forsake their Vices.

Hitherto we have been content to see only his out-side, and 'tis a strange thing, that Satyrs, which have been read so long, have been so little under­stood, or explain'd: They have made a Halt at the [Page] out-side, and were wholly busi'd in giving the Interpretation of Words. They have commented upon him like Grammarians, not Philosophers; as if Horace had writ meerly to have his Language un­derstood, and rather to divert, than instruct us. That is not the End of this Work of his. The end of any Discourse is the Action for which that Dis­course is compos'd; when it produces no Action, 'tis only a vain amusement, which idly tickles the Ear, without ever reaching the Heart.

In these two Books of his Satyrs, Horace would teach us, to conquer our Vices, to rule our Passions, to follow Nature, to limit our Desires, to distinguish True from False, and Ideas from Things, to forsake Prejudice, to know throughly the Principles, and Motives of all our Actions, and to shun that Folly which is in all Men, who are bi­gotted to the Opinions they have imbibed under their Teachers, which they keep obstinately without examining whether they are well-grounded. In a Word, he en­deavours to make us happy for our selves, agreeable, and faithful to our Friends, easie, discreet, and honest to all, with whom we are oblig'd to live. To make us under­stand the Terms he uses, to explain the Figures he employs, and to conduct the Reader safely through the Labyrinth of a difficult Expression, or obscure Parenthesis, is no great matter to perform: And as Epictetus says, there is nothing in that Beautiful, or truly worthy a wise Man. The principal, and most important Business, is to shew the Rise, the Reason, and the Proof of his Precepts, to demon­strate that those, who do not endeavour to correct themselvs by so beautiful a Model, are just like sick Men, who having a Book full of Receipts, proper to their Distempers, content themselves to read 'em, [Page] without comprehending them, or so much as know­ing the Advantage of them.

I urge not this because I have my self omitted any thing in these Annotations, which was the incum­bent Duty of a Grammarian to observe; this, I hope the World will be sensible of, and that there remains no more Difficulty in the Text. But that which has been my chief Care, is, to give an insight into the very matter, that Horace treats of, to shew the solidity of his Reasons, to discover the Turns he makes use of to prove what he aims at, and to refute or illude that which is opposed to him, to confirm, the Truth of his Decisions, to make the Delicacy of his Sentiments perceiv'd, to expose to open Day the Folly he finds in what he condemns. This is what none have done before me. On the contrary, as Horace is a true Proteus, that takes a thousand different Forms, they have often lost him, and not knowing where to find him, have grapled him as well as they could; they have palm'd upon him in several Places, not only Opinions, which he had not, but even those which he directly refutes: I don't say this to blame those who have taken Pains before me on the Works of this great Poet, I com­mend their Endeavours, they have open'd me the way; and if it be granted, that I have some little Advantage over them, I ow it wholly to the great Men of Antiquity, whom I have read with more Care, and without doubt with more Leisure. I speak of Homer, of Plato, and Aristotle, and of some other Greek and Latin Authors, which I study con­tinually, that I may form my taste on theirs, and draw out of their Writings, the justness of Wit, good Sense and Reason.

[Page]I know very well, that there are now adays some Authors, who laugh at these great Names, who dis­allow the Acclamations, which they have receiv'd from all Ages, and who would deprive them of the Crowns, which they have so well deserv'd, and which they have got before such August Tribunals. But for fear of falling into Admiration, which they look upon as the Child of Ignorance, they do not perceive that they go from that Admiration, which Plato calls the Mother of Wisdom, and which was the first that opened Mens Eyes. I do not wonder that the Celestial Beauties, which we find in the Writing of these incomparable Men, lose with them all their Attractives, and Charms, because they have not the Strength to keep their Eyes long enough upon them. Besides, it is much easier to despise than understand them. As for my self, I declare, that I am full of Admiration, and Veneration for their Divine Geniusses: I have them always before my Eyes, as Venerable and Incorruptible Judges; before whom I take pleasure to fancy, That I ought to give an account of my Writings. At the same Time I have a great Respect for Posterity, and I always think with more Fear, than Confidence, on the Judgment that will pass on my Works, if they are happy enough to reach it. All this does not hinder me from esteeming the great Men that live now. I acknowledge that there are a great many who are an Honour to our Age, and who wou'd have adorn'd the Ages pass'd. But amongst these great Men, I speak of, I do not know one, and there cannot be one, who does not esteem, and honour the Ancients, who is not of their taste, and who follows not their Rules. If you go never so little from them, you [Page] go at the same time from Nature and Truth; and I shall not be affraid to affirm, that it wou'd not be more difficult to see without Eyes, or Light, than 'tis impossible to acquire a solid Merit, and to form the Understanding by other means, than by those, that the Greeks, and Romans have trac'd for us. Whether it be that we follow them by the only force of Natural Happiness, or Instinct, or that Art, and Study have conducted us thither. As for those who thus blame Antiquity, without knowing of it, once for all I'll undeceive them, and make it appear, that in giving all the advantage to our Age, they take the direct Course to dishonour it; for what greater Proofs can be of the Rudeness, or rather Barbarity of an Age, than in it, to hear Ho­mer called dull, and heavy, Plato tiresome, and tedi­ous, Aristotle ignorant, Demosthenes and Cicero, vul­gar Orators, Virgil a Poet without either Grace, or Beauty, and Horace an Author unpolished, languid, and without force? The Barbarians who ravag'd Greece, and Italy, and who laboured with so much fury to destroy all things that were fine and noble, have never done any thing so horrible as this. But I hope that the false taste of some particular Men with­out Authority, will not be imputed to the whole Age, nor give the least Blemish to the Ancients. 'Twas to no purpose that a certain Emperor de­clar'd himself an Enemy to Homer, Virgil and Titus Livius. All his Efforts were ineffectual, and the Oppsition he made to Works so perfect, serv'd on­ly to augment in his History the number of his Follies, and render him more odious to all Po­sterity.