excuses for the most part; and when he cannot, accuses others of the
same crimes. He deals with Scaliger as a modest scholar with a
master. He compliments him with so much reverence that one would
swear he feared him as much at least as he respected him. Scaliger
will not allow Persius to have any wit; Casaubon interprets this in
the mildest sense, and confesses his author was not good at turning
things into a pleasant ridicule, or, in other words, that he was not
a laughable writer. That he was ineptus, indeed, but that was non
aptissimus ad jocandum; but that he was ostentatious of his
learning, that by Scaliger's good favour he denies. Persius showed
his learning, but was no boaster of it; he did ostendere, but not
ostentare; and so, he says, did Scaliger (where, methinks, Casaubon
turns it handsomely upon that supercilious critic, and silently
insinuates that he himself was sufficiently vain-glorious and a
boaster of his own knowledge). All the writings of this venerable
censor, continues Casaubon, which are [Greek text which cannot be
reproduced] (more golden than gold itself), are everywhere smelling
of that thyme which, like a bee, he has gathered from ancient
authors; but far be ostentation and vain-glory from a gentleman so
well born and so nobly educated as Scaliger. But, says Scaliger, he
is so obscure that he has got himself the name of Scotinus--a dark
writer. "Now," says Casaubon, "it is a wonder to me that anything
could be obscure to the divine wit of Scaliger, from which nothing
could be hidden." This is, indeed, a strong compliment, but no
defence; and Casaubon, who could not but be sensible of his author's
blind side, thinks it time to abandon a post that was untenable. He
acknowledges that Persius is obscure in some places; but so is
Plato, so is Thucydides; so are Pindar, Theocritus, and Aristophanes
amongst the Greek poets; and even Horace and Juvenal, he might have
added, amongst the Romans. The truth is, Persius is not sometimes,