but seducing charms of that celebrated poet.  Ovid was, undoubtedly, the greatest wit of his time; but his wit knew no bounds.  His fault was, exuberance. Nescivit quod bene cessit relinquere, says Seneca, who had himself the same defect.  Whatever is Ovid’s subject, the redundance of a copious fancy still appears.  Does he bewail his own misfortunes; he seems to think, that, unless he is witty, he cannot be an object of compassion.  Does he write letters to and from disappointed lovers; the greatest part flows from fancy, and little from the heart.  He gives us the brilliant for the pathetic.  With these faults, Ovid had such enchanting graces, that his style and manner infected every branch of literature.  The tribe of imitators had not the genius of their master; but being determined to shine in spite of nature, they ruined all true taste and eloquence.  This is the natural progress of imitation, and Seneca was well aware of it.  He tells us that the faults and blemishes of a corrupt style are ever introduced by some superior genius, who has risen to eminence in bad writing; his admirers imitate a vicious manner, and thus a false taste goes round from one to another. Haec vitia unus aliquis inducit, sub quo tunc eloquentia est:  caeteri imitantur; et alter alteri tradunt. Epist. 114.  Seneca, however, did not know that he was describing himself.  Tacitus says he had a genius suited to the taste of the age. Ingenium amoenum et temporis ejus auribus accommodatum. He adopted the faults of Ovid, and was able to propagate them.  For these reasons, the Abbe Gedoyn is of opinion, that Ovid began the mischief, and Seneca laid the axe to the root of the tree.  It is certain, that, during the remaining period of the empire, true eloquence never revived.

Section 7.

[a] Historians have concurred in taxing Vespasian with avarice, in some instances, mean and sordid; but they agree, at the same time, that the use which he made of his accumulated riches, by encouraging the arts, and extending liberal rewards to men of genius, is a sufficient apology for his love of money.

[b] Titus, it is needless to say, was the friend of virtue and of every liberal art.  Even that monster Domitian was versed in polite learning, and by fits and starts capable of intense application:  but we read in Tacitus, that his studies and his pretended love of poetry served as a cloak to hide his real character.  See History, b. iv. s. 86.

[c] Pliny the younger describes the young men of his time rushing forward into the forum without knowledge or decency.  He was told, he says, by persons advanced in years, that, according to ancient usage, no young man, even of the first distinction, was allowed to appear at the bar, unless he was introduced by one of consular dignity.  But, in his time, all fences of respect and decency were thrown down.  Young men scorned to be introduced; they forced their way, and took possession of the forum without any kind of recommendation. At hercule ante memoriam meam (majores natu ita solent dicere), ne nobilissimis quidem adolescentibus locus erat, nisi aliquo consulari producente; tanta veneratione pulcherrimum opus celebrabatur.  Nunc refractis pudoris et reverentiae claustris, omnia patent omnibus.  Nec inducuntur, sed irrumpunt. Plin. lib. ii. epist. 14.