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;
[333] "Si quis dignus erat describi, quod malus, aut fur, Aut mœchus foret, aut sicarius, aut alioqui Famosus, multa cum libertate notabant."
If they were to describe a vile, unjust, And cheating Knave, or scourge a lawless Lust, Or other Crimes; regardless of his Fame, They shew'd the Man, and boldly told his Name. Creech.
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]:
"Non ego inornata, & dominantia nomina Solum, Verbaque, Pisones, satyrorum scriptor amabo."
You must not think that a satiric Style Allows of scandalous and brutish Words. Roscom.
"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:
[339] —Experiar, quid concedatur in illos, Quorum Flaminia tegitur cinis atque Latina.