induce them to despise, with indignation, the hypocritical preaching of methodists, the success of whose endeavours advances in proportion to the ignorance of their auditors. It is, indeed, high time, that England should cast off all occasion for that rational reproach with which its continental neighbours load it, when they speak of the barbarity and prejudices of its lower rank of people.-And, in a country where liberty is indulged, an institution which forces one part of its inhabitants from the shackles of ignorance, which unfolds their privileges both religious and political, and which promotes the ultimate end of society-civilisation should be esteemed with no common regard, and patronised with no common ardour.

.

THE TRIFLER, No. 32, January 3, 1789,

He who willingly extends his credulity to the belief of calumnies, is a wicked man or foo).

THAT sacred weapon, satire, so seldom falls into

hands able to wield it with fortitude and discretion, that if we examine the characters of those who have arrogated to themselves the office of stigmatising vice, the result of our labours will oftentimes prove disappointment and regret.

Yet, as not every disappointment is without some useful lesson, it may not, perhaps, be quite unprofitable to offer a few cursory remarks upon some of those writers who have passed through the world under the denomination of satirists.

To fix a period from which satire may be supposed to have had its beginning, is to date the origin of that whose existence is coeval with the nature of man. The manners of all times have furnished materials for the pen of the satirist; and writers of all nations have dis

covered either their integrity in the proper use of it, or their malevolence in the prostitution of it. That Homer gave sufficient proofs of his abilities to become a powerful satirist, we have heard in his Margites, and we have seen in his character of Thersites.

The different regulations of the Greek comedy have been accurately and frequently stated to us; it is, therefore, unnecessary to give a very minute account of what every one is, or may be; so minutely acquainted with.-In consequence of the licentious satire produced into public by Cratinus and Eupolis, it was decreed that no one should name another on the stage. Under these restrictions wrote Menander and Philemon; with the chastity of whose style, and the purity of whose sentiments, we have reason to lament that we cannot be more intimately acquainted. To them succeeded Aristophanes, upon whom his biographical panegyrist has been able to heap no other commendation, than such as is due to the misapplication of abilities which might have been serviceable to his country, and creditable to himself.

Let the reader of Aristophanes divest himself of his inclination to become acquainted with the customs of the Greeks, and the niceties of their language, and he will find little in that

author tending to make him a wiser or a better

man. While ribaldry is considered as the perfection of wit, so long shall we look for a model in Aristophanes: while the malicious exercise of superior abilities be commendable, so long shall Aristophanes be commended. The humour of this writer is generally low, and frequently obscene; his ridicule, from being misapplied, rather disgusts his reader, than vilifies his object; and that odium, which, in the wickedness of his heart, he would heap upon another, falls with justice upon himself. When we consider the reputed elegance, even to a proverb, of the Athenians, it is not without astonishment that we mark the consequence of his plays; scarce less than infatuation seems to have actuated the minds of his audience. By means of his worthless ribaldry, the finger of scorn was pointed against Æschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles; and to his too efficacious calumny, Socrates paid the tribute of his life. Plutarch, in his comparison between Aristophanes and Menander, observes of the former, "that his language is tumid, full of stage-trick and illiberality, which is never the case with Menander. The man of science is offended, and vulgarity delighted. He, however, obtained popularity by exercising his wit against the tax

gatherers; he is remarkable (adds he) for having so distributed his speeches, that there is no difference whether a father speaks, or a son, a rustic or a deity, an old man or a hero. In Menander it is directly opposite." But the violence with which Plutarch' condemns the writings of Aristophanes may discover that his judgment was somewhat biassed by his indignation against the author. Thus far, however, on all sides, will be readily granted, that could the fate of Menander and Aristophanes have been reversed, it is probable, comedy would have found a standard of taste instead of a precedent for licentiousness, and, using such example, would have proved herself the mirror of truth, instead of the vehicle of calumny. The reader who has discretion enough to look upon. Aristophanes as the skilful advocate in a bad cause, may be entertained by his writings, and not prejudiced by his opinions. But we are too apt to subscribe, without examination, to the dictates of acknowledged abilities:-there is little trouble in this, but much danger.

Of the Roman satirists we may speak more favourably than, perhaps, of any set of writers, who have adorned any country. The habits of their lives, in general, gave a sanction to the gravity of their doctrines. The conduct of