not observe in the whole one passage that could possibly raise a laugh."
It was for this reason, no doubt, that Cæsar spoke of him as only "half
a Menander," and as deficient in comic force. Ingenious complexity is so
exclusively his aim, that we have neither the coarseness nor the sparkle
of earlier writers. He was the first to introduce Comedies, which were
not comic, and whatever humour he introduces is that of situation.

We now come to consider a kind of humour of which the Romans claim to
have been the originators, and which they certainly developed into a
branch of literature. Satire first signified a basket of first fruits
offered to Ceres; then a hotchpot or olla podrida, then a medley; and so
the name was given to poems written without any definite design. We
might therefore conclude that they possessed no uniform character, but
merely contained a mixture of miscellaneous matter. But we find in them
no allusions to politics or war, and but few to the literature and
philosophy of the day--their variety being due to their social
complexion. One feeling and character pervades them all--they were
called forth by a scornful indignation at the degeneracy of the age as
represented by the rich and powerful, or even by certain leading
individuals. The appearance of such a kind of literature denoted greater
activity in society, an increase of profligacy among some, and of moral
sensibility among others. Satire was a social scourge. It was not a
philosophical investigation into the nature and origin of vice, but a
denunciation of it as inimical to the interests of society. It was
practical not theoretical--and sought to bring vice into contempt, by
making it both odious and ridiculous. In the latter attempt, the
satirists may have had more success than we credit them with, for in our
day such virulent attacks would be distasteful, immorality being
regarded as essentially a matter for grave and serious condemnation.
Satire differs from abuse, not only in being declamatory, but in being