nature which are offered them, are not without their secret anguish.
I have often observed a passage in Socrates's behaviour at his death
in a light wherein none of the critics have considered it. That
excellent man entertaining his friends a little before he drank the
bowl of poison, with a discourse on the immortality of the soul, at
his entering upon it says that he does not believe any the most
comic genius can censure him for talking upon such a subject at such
at a time. This passage, I think, evidently glances upon
Aristophanes, who writ a comedy on purpose to ridicule the
discourses of that divine philosopher. It has been observed by many
writers that Socrates was so little moved at this piece of
buffoonery, that he was several times present at its being acted
upon the stage, and never expressed the least resentment of it.
But, with submission, I think the remark I have here made shows us
that this unworthy treatment made an impression upon his mind,
though he had been too wise to discover it.

When Julius Caesar was lampooned by Catullus, he invited him to a
supper, and treated him with such a generous civility, that he made
the poet his friend ever after. Cardinal Mazarine gave the same
kind of treatment to the learned Quillet, who had reflected upon his
eminence in a famous Latin poem. The cardinal sent for him, and,
after some kind expostulations upon what he had written, assured him
of his esteem, and dismissed him with a promise of the next good
abbey that should fall, which he accordingly conferred upon him in a
few months after. This had so good an effect upon the author, that
he dedicated the second edition of his book to the cardinal, after
having expunged the passages which had given him offence.

Sextus Quintus was not of so generous and forgiving a temper. Upon