[23] This pretended continuation of Petronius Arbiter was published at Paris in 1693, and proved to be a forgery by one Nodot, a Frenchman. [24] Perhaps the Satires of Raübner. [25] From this classification we may infer, that Dryden's idea of a Varronian satire was, that, instead of being merely didactic, it comprehended a fable or series of imaginary and ludicrous incidents, in which the author engaged the objects of his satire. Such being his definition, it is surprising he should have forgotten Hudibras, the best satire of this kind that perhaps ever was written; but this he afterwards apologizes for, as a slip of an old man's memory. [26] _Horatii Persiique Satyras Isaacus Casaubonus et Daniel Heinsius certatim laudibus extulere, ac Persium ille suum tantopere adornavit, ut nihil Horatio, nihil Juvenali præter indignationem reliquisse videatur; hic verò Horatium curiosè considerando tam admirabilem esse docuit, ut plerisque jam in Persio nimia Stoici supercilii morositas jure displiceat. Juvenalis ingenium ambo quidem certè laudaverunt, sic tamen ut in eo sæpe etiam Rhetoricæ arrogantiæ quasi lasciviam, ac denique declamationem potiùs quàm Satyram esse pronunciaverunt._ [27] North has left the following account of this great lawyer's prejudices. "He was an upright judge, if taken within himself; and when he appeared, as he often did, and really was, partial, his inclination or prejudice, insensibly to himself, drew his judgment aside. His bias lay strangely for, and against, characters and denominations; and sometimes, the very habits of persons. If one party was a courtier, and well dressed, and the other a sort of puritan, with a black cap and plain clothes, he insensibly thought the justice of the cause with the latter. If the dissenting, or anti-court party was at the back of a cause, he was very seldom impartial; and the loyalists had always a great disadvantage before him. And he ever sat hard upon his lordship, in his practice, in causes of that nature, as may be observed in the cases of Cuts and Pickering, just before, and of Soams and Bernardiston elsewhere, related. It is said he was once caught. A courtier, who had a cause to be tried before him, got one to go to him, as from the king, to speak for favour to his adversary, and so carried his point; for the Chief Justice could not think any person to be in the right, that came so unduly recommended." _Life of Lord Keeper Guilford_, p. 61. [28] Casaubon published an edition of "Persius," with notes, and a commentary. Francesco Stelluti's version was published at Rome in 1630. [29] This is a strange mistake in an author, who translated Persius entirely, and great part of Juvenal. The satires of Persius were written during the reign of Nero, and those of Juvenal in that of Domitian. This error is the more extraordinary, as Dryden mentions, a little lower, the very emperors under whom these poets flourished.