664 P E R P E R pose as a Roman Alcibiades, is directed against the arrogant claims of a sensual youth to deal, on the ground of his hereditary distinc tion, with affairs of state and to govern men. The fifth, the most elaborate of all, illustrates the Stoical doctrine of the difference between true and false freedom, and shows the power of avarice, luxury, the passion of love, ambition, and superstition to make men s laves. It is the same subject as that which Horace treats in the third satire of the second book ; but it is treated with neither the irony nor the direct knowledge of life which Horace applies to it. The last satire is chiefly devoted to a subject which played a large part in the satire of Horace and Lucilius, the proper use of money. In all these latter pieces the subjects are the common places of satire and moral disquisition, illustrated rather by new versions of old characters than by pictures of the living men and women of the day. Though he expresses admiration for the spirit of Lucilius and the "old comedy, he seems to keep clear of all personality and detraction. He professes " ingenuo culpam defigere ludo," and, whatever may be thought of his humour, he at least always writes in the spirit of a gentleman. So far as there is real contact with life in his satires, it is with the vanity and weakness of the class to which he himself belonged that he shows familiarity. Other sketches, however, show original observation, as that of the pro vincial iudile, of the brawny centurion who laughs at all philosophers, and, the most elaborate of all, that of the man torn asunder by his avarice and his love of luxury, who shrinks from the hard roughing of a sea-voyage, to which he is prompted by his cupidity (i. 129, ii. 76-87, v. 141-150). In point of form he aims at reproducing the dialogue of the old "satura," to which Horace finally adhered. But for the dramatic vivacity of ordinary speech he substitutes the curt questions and answers of Stoical disquisition. This is a great source of the obscurity of his writing. Some of his satires take the form of a familiar epistle, but in them also there is a large intermixture of dialogue. In style, while he protests against other modes of affectation, he can not escape the perverse fashion of forced and exaggerated expression. While disclaiming imaginative inspiration and avoiding poetical ornament, he falls into the opposite extreme of excessive realism, and disguises his plain meaning under contortions of metaphor, taken from the forge, the potter s wheel, the carpenter s rule, the baker s oven, &c. He is fond, too, of the realism of physical ex pression to denote states of mind and feeling, such as "fibra," "pulpa," "gluto,"&c. ; and this tendency, combined perhaps with the wish to imitate Lucilius, has led him occasionally to disfigure the purity of his pages with unnecessary coarseness. It is only rarely, and when he is at his best, that we are not conscious of a constant strain to express his meaning with unnecessary emphasis. Though single phrases of forcible condensation can be quoted from him, yet almost every period and paragraph seems to have been made harsh and obscure with the purpose of arresting attention. In the pictures which he draws from life, as in that of the reciting poet in the first satire, he strives by minuteness and exaggeration of detail to produce a strong sensational impression ; and this is still more observable in those numerous cases where he distorts and cari catures the temperate and truthful effects of Horace s sketches. No Latin writer is less natural. His works have engaged the industry of many commentators both in ancient and modern times. None could claim less the praise which Martial claims for his own, of "pleasing grammarians without needing the aid of their interpretation." It is not, accordingly, among writers but among moralists that he holds a high place. Among the professors of Stoicism some were better writers, others were greater men ; no one was purer in all his instincts, more sincere in all his nature, or inspired with a more genuine enthusiasm for virtue. It is when he gives expression to this enthusiasm and to his single-hearted affection for his friends that he is able for a few lines to write with simple force and with impassioned earnestness. Such lines as these " Compositum ius fasque animse, sanctosqne recessns Mentis, et incoctum generoso pectus honesto" (ii. 73, 74); " Quid sumus et quidnam victuri gignimur . . . . . . qucin te ileus esse Jussit et huinana qua parte locatus es in re" (iii. 00-72), &c.; are in a strain more in accordance with the best modern ideas of man s highest duty and his true position in the world than anything to be found in the other satirists of Rome. The aim of Lucilius was to make men good citizens. He judged their life by the standard of public virtue and utility. The aim of Horace s satire was to make men happier in themselves and more agreeable in their intercourse with one another. He judged them by the standard of good sense, good feeling, and good manners. The aim of Juvenal so far as it was sincere was to raise human life from the degradation into which it had fallen. The standard by which he judged the men of his day was that of the manliness and dignity realized in the best ages of the republic. The aim of Persius was to make men live in accordance with the dictates of a pure conscience. His standard was that ideal of human conduct which has arisen out of the aspirations and convictions of an en lightened theism. The best recent editions of Persius are those of O. Jalin and of Professor Conington. The edition of Mr Pretor is also to be named. All of these con tain, in their introductions, important contributions to the critical estimate of Persius. An excellent account of his life, character, and writings is to be found in Martha s Les Moralistes Romains, and an interesting, though some what disparaging, criticism of him as a writer is contained in Nisard s Poctes Latins de la Decadence. (W. Y. S.) PERSONAL ESTATE. Strictly speaking, the term ESTATE (q.v.) is confined in English law to the extent of interest which can exist in real property. But "personal estate " is a term often conveniently, if not accurately, applied to all property that is not real property. The division of property into real and personal represents in a great measure the division into immovable and mov able incidentally recognized in Roman law and generally adopted since. " The only natural classification of the objects of enjoyment, the only classification which corre sponds with an essential difference in the subject-matter, is that which divides them into moveables and immove- ables " (Maine, Annent Law, ch. viii.). " Things personal," according to Blackstone, " are goods, money, and all other moveables which may attend the owner s person wherever he thinks proper to go" (Comm., vol. ii. p. 16). This identification of things personal with movables, though logical in theory, does not, as will be seen, perfectly express the English law, owing to the somewhat anomal ous position of chattels real. In England real property is supposed to be superior in dignity to personal property, which was originally of little importance from a legal point of view. This view is the result of feudal ideas, and had no place in the Roman system, in which immov ables and movables were dealt with as far as possible in the same manner, and descended according to the same rules. The law of personal property has developed more rapidly and freely than that of real property, as it is of more modern growth and has not been affected by the notion of tenure. The main differences between real and personal property which still exist in England are these. (1) In real property there can be nothing more than limited ownership (see ESTATE) ; there can be no estate properly so called in personal property, and it may be held in complete ownership. There is nothing correspond ing to an estate -tail in personal property; words which in real property would create an estate-tail will give an absolute interest in personalty. A life-interest may, however, be given in personalty, except in articles quse, ipso um conswmmtur. Limitations of personal property, equally with those of real property, fall within the rule against perpetuities. (See REAL ESTATE.) (2) Personal property is not subject to various incidents of real property, such as rent, dower, or escheat. (3) On the death of the owner intestate real property descends to the heir ; personal property is divided according to the Statute of Distribu tions. (4) Real property as a general rule must be trans ferred by deed ; personal property does not need so solemn a mode of transfer. (5) Contracts relating to real pro perty must be in writing by the Statute of Frauds, 29 Car. II. c. 3, s. 4 ; contracts relating to personal property need only be in writing when it is expressly so provided by statute, as, for instance, in the cases falling under s. 1 7 of the Statute of Frauds. (6) A will of lands need not be proved, but a will of personalty or of personal and real property together must be proved in order to give a title to those claiming under it. (7) Devises of real estate fall as a rule within the Mortmain Act, 9 Geo. II. c. 36 (see CHARITIES, CORPORATION); bequests of personal pro perty, other than chattels real, are not within the Act. (8) Mortgages of real property need not generally be registered ; mortgages of personal property for the most part require registration under the Bills of Sale Acts (see PLEDGE; and BILL OF SALE, vol. iii. p. 674). Personal estate is divided in English law into chattels
