of choice wild fowl imagined that the entertainment had been prepared for fifty epicures at the least.  Only six birds’ nests from the Nicobar islands were to be had in London; and all the six, bought at an enormous price, were smoking in soup on the board.  These fables were destitute alike of probability and of evidence.  But Grub Street could devise no fable injurious to Montague which was not certain to find credence in more than half the manor houses and vicarages of England.

It may seem strange that a man who loved literature passionately, and rewarded literary merit munificently, should have been more savagely reviled both in prose and verse than almost any other politician in our history.  But there is really no cause for wonder.  A powerful, liberal and discerning protector of genius is very likely to be mentioned with honour long after his death, but is very likely also to be most brutally libelled during his life.  In every age there will be twenty bad writers for one good one; and every bad writer will think himself a good one.  A ruler who neglects all men of letters alike does not wound the self love of any man of letters.  But a ruler who shows favour to the few men of letters who deserve it inflicts on the many the miseries of disappointed hope, of affronted pride, of jealousy cruel as the grave.  All the rage of a multitude of authors, irritated at once by the sting of want and by the sting of vanity, is directed against the unfortunate patron.  It is true that the thanks and eulogies of those whom he has befriended will be remembered when the invectives of those whom he has neglected are forgotten.  But in his own time the obloquy will probably make as much noise and find as much credit as the panegyric.  The name of Maecenas has been made immortal by Horace and Virgil, and is popularly used to designate an accomplished statesman, who lives in close intimacy with the greatest poets and wits of his time, and heaps benefits on them with the most delicate generosity.  But it may well be suspected that, if the verses of Alpinus and Fannius, of Bavius and Maevius, had come down to us, we might see Maecenas represented as the most niggardly and tasteless of human beings, nay as a man who, on system, neglected and persecuted all intellectual superiority.  It is certain that Montague was thus represented by contemporary scribblers.  They told the world in essays, in letters, in dialogues, in ballads, that he would do nothing for anybody without being paid either in money or in some vile services; that he not only never rewarded merit, but hated it whenever he saw it; that he practised the meanest arts for the purpose of depressing it; that those whom he protected and enriched were not men of ability and virtue, but wretches distinguished only by their sycophancy and their low debaucheries.  And this was said of the man who made the fortune of Joseph Addison, and of Isaac Newton.