the artfulness and delicacy with which it touches female foibles. I
may add, that the imitations of Horace by Pope, and of Juvenal by
Johnson, are preferable to their originals in the appositeness of
their examples, and in the poignancy of their ridicule. Above all, the
Lutrin, the Rape of the Lock, the Dispensary and the Dunciad, cannot
be parallelled by any works that the wittiest of the ancients can
boast of: for, by assuming the form of the epopea, they have acquired
a dignity and gracefulness, which all satires delivered merely in the
poet's own person must want, and with which the satirists of antiquity
were wholly unacquainted; for the Batrachomuomachia of Homer cannot be
considered as the model of these admirable pieces.

Lucian is the greatest master of Burlesque among the ancients: but the
travels of Gulliver, though indeed evidently copied from his true
history, do as evidently excel it. Lucian sets out with informing his
readers, that he is in jest, and intends to ridicule some of the
incredible stories in Ctesias and Herodotus: this introduction surely
enfeebles his satire, and defeats his purpose. The true history
consists only of the most wild, monstrous, and miraculous persons and
accidents: Gulliver has a concealed meaning, and his dwarfs and giants
convey tacitly some moral or political instruction. The Charon, or the
prospect, (Greek: epischopoyntes) one of the dialogues of Lucian, has
likewise given occasion to that agreeable French Satire, entitled,
"_Le Diable Boiteux_," or "The Lame Devil;" which has highly improved
on its original by a greater variety of characters and descriptions,
lively remarks, and interesting adventures. So if a parallel be drawn
between Lucian and Cervantes, the ancient will still appear to
disadvantage: the burlesque of Lucian principally consists in making
his gods and philosophers speak and act like the meanest of the
people; that of Cervantes arises from the solemn and important air