and upright man), that his servants were sure to be cast on any
trial which was heard before him; not that he thought the judge was
possibly to be bribed, but that his integrity might be too
scrupulous, and that the causes of the Crown were always suspicious
when the privileges of subjects were concerned.

It had been much fairer if the modern critics who have embarked in
the quarrels of their favourite authors had rather given to each his
proper due without taking from another's heap to raise their own.
There is praise enough for each of them in particular, without
encroaching on his fellows, and detracting from them or enriching
themselves with the spoils of others. But to come to particulars:
Heinsius and Dacier are the most principal of those who raise Horace
above Juvenal and Persius. Scaliger the father, Rigaltius, and many
others debase Horace that they may set up Juvenal; and Casaubon, who
is almost single, throws dirt on Juvenal and Horace that he may
exalt Persius, whom he understood particularly well, and better than
any of his former commentators, even Stelluti, who succeeded him. I
will begin with him who, in my opinion, defends the weakest cause,
which is that of Persius; and labouring, as Tacitus professes of his
own writing, to divest myself of partiality or prejudice, consider
Persius, not as a poet whom I have wholly translated, and who has
cost me more labour and time than Juvenal, but according to what I
judge to be his own merit, which I think not equal in the main to
that of Juvenal or Horace, and yet in some things to be preferred to
both of them.

First, then, for the verse; neither Casaubon himself, nor any for
him, can defend either his numbers or the purity of his Latin.
Casaubon gives this point for lost, and pretends not to justify