A History of Roman Literature
by Harold North Fowler · English · Gutenberg #44975 · 618,785 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of A History of Roman Literature
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: A History of Roman Literature
Author: Harold North Fowler
Release date: February 22, 2014 [eBook #44975]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44975
Credits: E-text prepared by Juliet Sutherland, Turgut Dincer, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF ROMAN LITERATURE ***
Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
file which includes the original illustrations.
See 44975-h.htm or 44975-h.zip:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/44975/pg44975-images.html)
or
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44975/44975-h.zip)
Transcriber's note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Text enclosed by plus signs is in bold face (+bold+).
[Illustration: AUGUSTUS.
Bust in the Museum of Fine Arts. Boston.]
Twentieth Century Text-Books
A HISTORY OF ROMAN LITERATURE
by
HAROLD N. FOWLER, PH. D.
Professor in the College for Women of Western Reserve University
New York and London D. Appleton and Company
Copyright, 1903
By D. Appleton and Company
Printed at the Appleton Press,
New York, U. S. A.
PREFACE
This book is intended primarily for use as a text-book in schools and
colleges. I have therefore given more dates and more details about the
lives of authors than are in themselves important, because dates are
convenient aids to memory, as they enable the learner to connect his
new knowledge with historical facts he may have learned before, while
biographical details help to endow authors with something of concrete
personality, to which the learner can attach what he learns of their
literary and intellectual activity.
Extracts from Latin authors are given, with few exceptions, in English
translation. I considered the advisability of giving them in Latin, but
concluded that extracts in Latin would probably not be read by most
young readers, and would therefore do less good than even imperfect
translations. Moreover, the texts of the most important works are
sure to be at hand in the schools, and books of selections, such as
Cruttwell and Banton’s _Specimens of Roman Literature_, Tyrrell’s
_Anthology of Latin Poetry_, and Gudeman’s _Latin Literature of the
Empire_, are readily accessible. I am responsible for all translations
not accredited to some other translator. In making my translations,
I have employed blank verse to represent Latin hexameters; but the
selections from the _Æneid_ are given in Conington’s rhymed version,
and in some other cases I have used translations of hexameters into
metres other than blank verse.
In writing of the origin of Roman comedy, I have not mentioned the
dramatic _satura_. Prof. George L. Hendrickson has pointed out (in the
_American Journal of Philology_, vol. xv, pp. 1-30) that the dramatic
_satura_ never really existed, but was invented in Roman literary
history because Aristotle, whose account of the origin of comedy was
closely followed by the Roman writers, found the origin of Greek comedy
in the satyr-drama.
The greater part of the book is naturally taken up with the extant
literary works and their authors; but I have devoted some space to
the lives and works of authors whose writings are lost. This I have
done, not because I believe that the reader should burden his memory
with useless details, but partly in order that this book may be of
use as a book of reference, and partly because the mention of some of
the lost works and their authors may impress upon the reader the fact
that something is known of many writers whose works have survived, if
at all, only in detached fragments. Not a few of these writers were
important in their day, and exercised no little influence upon the
progress of literature. Of the whole mass of Roman literary production
only a small part—though fortunately in great measure the best
part—now exists, and it is only by remembering how much has been
lost that the modern reader can appreciate the continuity of Roman
literature.
The literature of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries after
Christ is treated less fully than that of the earlier times, but its
importance to later European civilization has been so great that a
summary treatment of it should be included even in a book of such
limited scope as this.
The Bibliography will, I hope, be found useful. It is by no means
exhaustive, but may serve as a guide to those who have not access to
libraries. The purpose of the Chronological Table is not so much to
serve as a finding-list of dates as to show at a glance what authors
were living and working at any given time. In the Index the names
of all Latin writers mentioned in the book are to be found, together
with references to numerous topics and to some of the more important
historical persons.
Besides the works of the Roman authors, I have consulted the general
works mentioned in the Bibliography and numerous other books and
special articles. I have made most use of Teuffel’s _History of Roman
Literature_, Schanz’s _Römische Litteraturgeschichte_, and Mackail’s
admirable _Latin Literature_.
My thanks are due to my colleague, Prof. Samuel Ball Platner, who read
the book in manuscript and made many valuable suggestions, and to
Professor Perrin, who read not only the manuscript, but also the proof,
and suggested not a few desirable changes.
HAROLD N. FOWLER.
CLEVELAND, OHIO.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I.—INTRODUCTION—EARLY ROMAN LITERATURE—TRAGEDY 1
II.—COMEDY 17
III.—EARLY PROSE—THE SCIPIONIC CIRCLE—LUCILIUS 32
IV.—LUCRETIUS 47
V.—CATULLUS—MINOR POETS 56
VI.—CICERO 65
VII.—CÆSAR—SALLUST—OTHER PROSE WRITERS 83
VIII.—THE PATRONS OF LITERATURE—VIRGIL 97
IX.—HORACE 114
X.—TIBULLUS—PROPERTIUS—THE LESSER POETS 128
XI.—OVID 143
XII.—LIVY—OTHER AUGUSTAN PROSE WRITERS 156
XIII.—TIBERIUS TO VESPASIAN 169
XIV.—THE FLAVIAN EMPERORS—THE SILVER AGE 194
XV.—NERVA AND TRAJAN 211
XVI.—THE EMPERORS AFTER TRAJAN—SUETONIUS—OTHER
WRITERS 226
XVII.—LITERARY INNOVATIONS 235
XVIII.—EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS 244
XIX.—PAGAN LITERATURE OF THE THIRD CENTURY 253
XX.—THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES 259
XXI.—CONCLUSION 278
APPENDIX I.—BIBLIOGRAPHY 285
APPENDIX II.—CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 297
INDEX 303
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FACING
PAGE
AUGUSTUS, bust in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, _Frontispiece_
CICERO, bust in the Vatican Museum, Rome 65
CÆSAR, bust in the Museum at Naples 83
VIRGIL AND TWO MUSES, mosaic in the Bardo Museum, Tunis 113
BOOK I
_THE PERIOD OF THE REPUBLIC_
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION—EARLY ROMAN LITERATURE—TRAGEDY
Importance of Roman literature—The Romans a practical people—The
Latin language—Political purpose of Roman writings—Divisions of
Roman literature—Elements of a native Roman literature—Appius
Claudius Cæcus—Imitation of Greek literature—L. Livius
Andronicus, about 284 to about 204 B. C.—Gnæus Nævius, about
270-199 B. C.—Q. Ennius, 239-169 B. C.—His Tragedies—The
_Annales_—M. Pacuvius, 220 to about 130 B. C.—L. Accius, 170 to
after 100 B. C.—The Decay of Tragedy—The Roman theatre, actors
and costumes.
[Sidenote: Importance of Roman literature.] Roman literature, while
it lacks the brilliant originality and the delicate beauty which
characterize the works of the great Greek writers, is still one of
the great literatures of the world, and it possesses an importance
for us which is even greater than its intrinsic merits (great as they
are) would naturally give it. In the first place, Roman literature has
preserved to us, in Latin translations and adaptations, many important
remains of Greek literature which would otherwise have been lost, and
in the second place, the political power of the Romans, embracing
nearly the whole known world, made the Latin language the most widely
spread of all languages, and thus caused Latin literature to be read in
all lands and to influence the literary development of all the peoples
of Europe.
[Sidenote: The Romans practical.] The Romans were a practical race,
not gifted with much poetic imagination, but with great ability to
organize their state and their army and to accomplish whatever they
determined to do. They had come into Italy with a number of related
tribes from the north and had settled in a place on the bank of the
Tiber, where they were exposed to attacks from the Etruscans and other
neighbors. They were thus forced from the beginning to fortify their
city, and live close together within the walls. [Sidenote: Attention
to political and military affairs.] This made the early development of
a form of city government both natural and necessary, and turned the
Roman mind toward political organization. At the same time, the
attacks of external enemies forced the Romans to pay attention to the
organization and support of an army. So, from the time of the
foundation of their city by the Tiber, the Romans turned their
attention primarily to politics and war. The effect upon their
language and literature is clearly seen. [Sidenote: The Latin
language.] Their language is akin to Greek, and like Greek is one of
the Indo-European family of languages, to which English and the other
most important languages of Europe belong. It started with the same
material as Greek, but while Greek developed constantly more variety,
more delicacy, and more flexibility, Latin is fixed and rigid, a
language adapted to laws and commands rather than to the lighter and
more graceful kinds of utterance. Circumstances, aided no doubt by the
natural bent of their minds, tended to make the Romans political,
military, and practical, rather than artistic.
Roman literature, as might be expected after what has just been
said, is often not the spontaneous outpouring of literary genius,
but the means by which some practical ends or purposes are to be
attained. Almost from first to last, the writings of Roman authors
have a political purpose, and the influence of political events upon
the literature is most marked. [Sidenote: Political purpose of
Roman writings.] Even those kinds of Roman literature which seem at
first sight to have the least connection with political matters have
nevertheless a political purpose. Plays were written to enhance the
splendor of public festivals provided by office holders who were at
the same time office seekers and hoped to win the favor of the people
by successful entertainments; history was written to teach the proper
methods of action for future use or (sometimes) to add to the influence
of living leaders of the state by calling to mind the great deeds
of their ancestors; epic and lyric poems were composed to glorify
important persons at Rome, or at least to prove the right of Rome to
the foremost place among the nations by giving her a literature worthy
to rank with that of the Greeks.
[Sidenote: Divisions of Roman literature.] The development of Roman
literature is closely connected with political events, and its three
great divisions correspond to the divisions of Roman political history.
The first or Republican Period extends from the beginning of Roman
literature after the first Punic war (240 B. C.) to the battle of
Actium in 31 B. C. The second or Augustan Period, from 31 B. C. to 14
A. D., is the period in which the institutions of the republic were
transformed to serve the purposes of the monarchy. The “Golden Age”
of Roman literature comprises the last part of the Republican Period
and the whole Augustan Period, from 81 B. C. to 14 A. D. The third or
Imperial Period lasts from 14 A. D. to the beginning of the Middle
Ages. The first part of this period, from 14 to 117 A. D., is called
the “Silver Age.” In the first period the Romans learn to imitate
Greek literature and develop their language until it is capable of
fine literary treatment, and in the latter part of this time they
produce some of their greatest works, especially in prose. The second
period, made illustrious by Horace and Virgil, is the time when
Roman poetry reaches its greatest height. The third period is a time
of decline, sometimes rapid, sometimes retarded for a while, during
which Roman literature shows few great works and many of very slight
literary value. Throughout the first and second periods, and even
for the most part in the third period, Latin literature is produced
almost entirely at Rome, is affected by changes in the city, and
reflects the sentiments of the city population. It is therefore proper
to speak of Roman literature, rather than Latin literature, for that
which interests us is the literature of the city by the Tiber and of
the civilization with which the city is identified, rather than works
written in the Latin language.
[Sidenote: Elements of native Roman literature.] The beginning of a
real literature at Rome was made by a foreigner of Greek birth, and
naturally took the form of an imitation of Greek works. This would
undoubtedly have been the case, even if the first professional author
had been a native Roman, for the Romans had for some time been in
close touch with the Greeks of Italy, and Greek literature presented
itself to them as a finished product, calling for their admiration
and inciting them to imitate it. Nevertheless there were in existence
at Rome in early times materials from which a native literature might
have arisen if the Greek influence had not been so strong as to prevent
their development. The early Romans sang songs at weddings and at
harvest festivals, chanted hymns to the gods, and were familiar with
rude popular performances which might have given rise to a native
drama. The words of such songs and performances were of course, for the
most part at least, rhythmical, but few if any of them were committed
to writing until much later times. The art of writing was, however,
known to the Romans as early as the sixth century B. C., for the Greek
colonies on the coast of Italy must have had trade connections with the
Romans at a very early time, and writing was thoroughly familiar to
the Greeks by the time Rome was two centuries old.
From early times the Romans kept lists of officials, records of
prodigies, lists of the _dies fasti_, i. e., of the days on which
it was lawful to conduct public business, and other simple records.
The twelve tables of the laws are said to have been written in 451
and 450 B. C., and these had some influence on Roman prose, for they
were the first attempt at connected prose in the Latin language. No
doubt other laws and probably also treaties were written in Latin and
preserved at an early date. Funeral orations called for some practise
in oratory, but probably not for careful preparation, and certainly not
for composition in writing in the early days of Rome. [Sidenote: Appius
Claudius Cæcus.] The first Roman speech known to have been written
out for publication is the speech delivered in 280 B. C., by the aged
Appius Claudius Cæcus, in which he urged the rejection of the terms of
peace offered by Pyrrhus. This speech was known and read at Rome for
two centuries after the death of its author. A collection of sayings
or proverbs was also current under the name of Claudius, and he was
actively interested in adapting more perfectly to the Latin language
the alphabet which the Romans had received from the Greeks, and in
fixing the spelling of Latin words.
All this is, however, not so much literature as the material from which
literature might have developed if Rome had been removed from the
sphere of Greek influence. Since that was not the case, these first
steps toward a national literature led to nothing, though they show
that the Romans had some originality, and help us to understand some
of the peculiarities of Roman literature as distinguished from its
Greek prototype. Still Roman literature is a literature of imitation,
and the beginning of it was made by a Greek named Andronicus, who
was brought to Rome after the capture of Tarentum in 272 B. C. when
he was still a boy. At Rome he was the slave of M. Livius Salinator,
whose children he instructed in Greek and Latin. [Sidenote: L.
Livius Andronicus.] When set free, he took the name of Lucius Livius
Andronicus, and continued to teach. As there were no Latin books which
he could use in teaching, he conceived the idea of translating Homer’s
Odyssey into Latin, thereby making the beginning of Latin literature.
His translation of the Odyssey was rude and imperfect. Andronicus made
no attempt to reproduce in Latin the hexameter verse of Homer, but
employed the native Saturnian verse (see page 7), probably because it
seemed to him better fitted to the Latin language than the more stately
hexameter. After the first Punic war, at the _Ludi Romani_ in 240 B.
C., Andronicus produced and put upon the stage Latin translations of
a Greek tragedy and a Greek comedy. In these and his later dramas he
retained the iambic and trochaic metres of the originals, and his
example was followed by his successors. He also composed hymns for
public occasions. Of his works only a few fragments are preserved,
hardly more than enough to show that they had little real literary
merit. But he had made a beginning, and long before his death, which
took place about 204 B. C., his successors were advancing along the
lines he had marked out.
Gnæus Nævius, a freeborn citizen of a Latin city in Campania, was the
first native Latin poet of importance. [Sidenote: Gnæus Nævius.] He was
a soldier in the first Punic war, at the end of which, while still a
young man, he came to Rome, where he devoted himself to poetry. He was
a man of independent spirit, not hesitating to attack in his comedies
and other verses the most powerful Romans, especially the great family
of the Metelli. For many years he maintained his position, but at last
the Metelli brought about his imprisonment and banishment, and he died
in exile in 199 B. C., at about seventy years of age. His dramatic
works were numerous, both tragedies and comedies, for the most part
translations and adaptations from the Greek, but alongside of these he
produced also plays based upon Roman legends. These were called _fabulæ
prætextæ_ or _prætextatæ_, “plays of the purple stripe,” because the
characters wore Roman costumes. In one of these plays, the _Romulus_
(or in two, if the _Lupus_ or “Wolf” is not the _Romulus_ under another
title), he dramatized the story of Romulus and Remus, and in another,
the _Clastidium_, the defeat (in 222 B. C.) of the Insubrians by M.
Claudius Marcellus and Cn. Cornelius Scipio. In his later years he
turned to epic poetry and wrote in Saturnian verse the history of the
first Punic war, introduced by an account of the legendary history of
Rome from the departure of Æneas for Italy after the fall of Troy. This
poem was read and admired for many years, and parts of it were imitated
by Virgil in the _Æneid_. Nævius also wrote other poems, called
_Satires_, on various subjects, partly, but not entirely, in Saturnian
metre. Of all these works only inconsiderable fragments remain. They
show, however, that Nævius was a poet of real power, and that with him
the Latin language was beginning to develop some fitness for literary
use. His epitaph, preserved by Aulus Gellius, will serve not only to
show the stiff and monotonous rhythm of the Saturnian verse, but also,
since it was probably written by Nævius himself, to exhibit his proud
consciousness of superiority:
_Immórtalés mortáles sí forét fas flére
Flerént divaé Caménae Naéviúm poétam.
Itáque póstquam est Órci tráditús thesaúro
Oblíti súnt Romái loquiér linguá Latína._
If it were right that mortals be wept for by immortals,
The goddess Muses would weep for Nævius the poet.
And so since to the treasure of Orcus he’s departed,
The Romans have forgotten to speak the Latin language.
Nævius had a right to be proud. He had made literature a real force at
Rome, able to contend with the great men of the city; he had invented
the drama with Roman characters, and had written the first national
epic poem. In doing all this he had at the same time added to the
richness and grace of the still rude Latin language. But great as were
the merits of Nævius, he was surpassed in every way by his successor.
Quintus Ennius, a poet of surprising versatility and power, was born
at Rudiæ, in Calabria, in 239 B. C. [Sidenote: Quintus Ennius.] While
he was serving in the Roman army in Sardinia, in 204 B. C., he met
with M. Porcius Cato, who took him home to Rome. Here Ennius gave
lessons in Greek and translated Greek plays for the Roman stage. He
became acquainted with several prominent Romans, among them the elder
Scipio Africanus, went to Ætolia as a member of the staff of M. Fulvius
Nobilior, and obtained full Roman citizenship in 184 B. C. His death
was brought on by the gout in 169 B. C.
[Sidenote: Various works of Ennius.] The works of Ennius were many and
various, including tragedies, comedies, a great epic poem, a metrical
treatise on natural philosophy, a translation of the work of Euhemerus,
in which he explained the nature of the gods and declared that they are
merely famous men of old times,[1] a poem on food and cooking, a series
of _Precepts_, epigrams (in which the elegiac distich was used for the
first time in Latin), and satires. His most important works were his
tragedies and his great epic, the _Annales_.
The tragedies were, like those of Nævius, translations of the works of
the great Greek tragedians and their less great, but equally popular,
successors. [Sidenote: His dramatic works.] The titles and some
fragments of twenty-two of these plays are preserved, from which it
is evident that Ennius sometimes translated exactly and sometimes
freely, while he allowed himself at other times to depart from his
Greek original even to the extent of changing the plot more or less.
For the most part, however, the invention of the plot, the delineation
of character, and the poetic imagery of his plays were due to the
Greek dramatists whose works he presented in Latin form. To Ennius
himself belong the skillful use of the Latin language, the ability
to express in a new language the thoughts rather than the words of
the Greek poets, and also such changes as were necessary to make
the Greek tragedies appeal more strongly to a Roman audience. It is
impossible to tell from the fragments just what changes were made, but
the popularity of the plays, which continued long after the death of
Ennius, proves that the changes attained their object and pleased the
audience. The titles of two _fabulæ prætextæ_ by Ennius are known, the
_Sabine Women_, a dramatic presentation of the legend of the Rape of
the Sabines, and _Ambracia_, a play celebrating the capture of Ambracia
by M. Fulvius Nobilior. His comedies seem to have been neither numerous
nor especially successful.
[Sidenote: The Annales.] The most important work of Ennius is his great
epic in eighteen books, the _Annales_, in which he told the legendary
and actual history of the Romans from the arrival of Æneas in Italy to
his own time. In this work, as in his tragedies, he may be said to have
followed in the way pointed out by Nævius, but the _Annales_ mark an
immense advance beyond the _Bellum Punicum_ of Nævius. The monotonous
and unpolished Saturnian metre could not, even in the most skillful
hands, attain the dignity or the melodious cadences appropriate to
great epic poems. Ennius therefore gave up the native Italian metre
and wrote his epic in hexameter verse in imitation of Homer. This was
no easy matter, for the laws of the verse as it existed in Greek could
not be applied without change to Latin, but Ennius modified them in
some particulars and thus fixed the form of the Latin hexameter, at the
same time establishing in great part the rules of Latin prosody. Only
about six hundred lines of the _Annales_ remain, and many of these are
detached from their context, yet from these we can see that Ennius had
much poetic imagination, great skill in the use of words, and great
dignity of diction. The line _At tuba terribili sonitu taratantara
dixit_ shows at once his ability to make the sound of his words imitate
the sound he wishes to describe (in this case that of a trumpet) and
his liking for alliteration. This last quality is found in many Roman
poets, but in none more frequently than Ennius.
The _Annales_ continued to be read and admired even after the time of
Virgil, though the _Æneid_ soon took rank as the greatest Roman epic.
Some of the lines of Ennius breathe the true Roman spirit of military
pride and civic rectitude, as
_Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque_,[2]
or _Quem nemo ferro potuit superare nec auro_,[3]
or _Nec cauponantes bellum sed belligerentes_.[4]
Among the existing fragments are several which seem to have suggested
to Virgil some of the passages in the _Æneid_, and there is no doubt
that Virgil found Ennius worthy of imitation.
We may learn something of the character of Ennius from a passage
of the _Annales_ in which he is said,[5] on the authority of the
grammarian L. Ælius Stilo, to be describing himself: “A man of such
a nature that no thought ever prompts him to do a bad deed either
carelessly or maliciously; a learned, faithful, pleasant man, eloquent,
contented and happy, witty, speaking fit words in season, courteous,
and of few words, possessing much ancient buried lore; a man whom old
age made wise in customs old and new and in the laws of many ancients,
both gods and men; one who knew when to speak and when to be silent.”
[Sidenote: Continued production of tragedies, but not of epics.]
Ennius was the first great epic poet at Rome. After him epic poetry
was neglected, until it was taken up again a hundred years later.
Tragedy, however the other branch of literature in which Ennius chiefly
excelled, was cultivated without interruption, for it had become usual
to produce tragedies at the chief festivals of the city and on other
public occasions, and new plays were therefore constantly in demand.
But as gladiatorial shows grew more frequent and more magnificent,
tragedy declined in popularity, though tragedies continued to be
written, and even acted. The development of Roman tragedy is, however,
contained within a few generations, the professional authors of
tragedies about whom we have any information are few, and their works
are lost, with the exception of such fragments as have happened to be
quoted by later writers. It is therefore best to continue the account
of Roman tragedy now, even at the sacrifice of strict chronological
order.
[Sidenote: Marcus Pacuvius.] The successor of Ennius as a writer of
tragedies was his nephew, Marcus Pacuvius, who was born at Brundusium
in 220 B. C., but spent most of his life at Rome. As an old man he
returned to southern Italy, and died at Tarentum about 130 B. C. He was
a painter, as well as a writer of tragedies, and it may be due to his
activity as a painter that his plays were comparatively few. The titles
of twelve tragedies are known, in addition to one _fabula prætexta_,
the _Paulus_, written in honor of the victory of L. Æmilius Paulus over
King Perseus in the battle of Pydna (168 B. C.). These plays are all
lost, and the existing fragments (about 400 lines) are unsatisfactory.
Cicero considered Pacuvius the greatest Roman tragic writer, and
Horace speaks of him as “learned.” Probably this epithet refers to
his careful use of language as well as to his knowledge of the less
popular legends of Greek mythology. The extant fragments show more
ease and grace of style than do those of Ennius, and great richness of
vocabulary. Some of the words used are not found elsewhere, and seem to
have been invented by Pacuvius himself; at any rate they did not come
into ordinary use. Of the real dramatic ability of Pacuvius we can not
judge, but his literary skill is evident even from the poor fragments
we have. We may therefore believe that Cicero’s favorable judgment of
him was in some measure justified.
[Sidenote: Lucius Accius.] The last important writer of tragedies,
and probably the greatest of all, was Lucius Accius, of Pisaurum, in
Umbria. He was born in 170 B. C., and one of his first tragedies was
produced in 140 B. C., when Pacuvius produced one of his last. Accius
lived to a great age, but the date of his death is not known. Cicero,
as a young man, was well acquainted with him, and used to listen to
his stories of his own early years. The shortness of the life of Roman
tragedy, and the rapidity with which Roman literature developed, may
be seen by observing that Cicero, the great master of Latin prose,
knew Accius, whose birth took place only thirty-four years after the
death of Livius Andronicus. Of the plays of Accius somewhat more
than 700 lines are preserved, and about fifty titles are known. The
fragments are for the most part detached lines, but some are long
enough to let us see that the poet had a vigorous and graceful style,
and a vivid imagination. Like most of his predecessors, Accius wrote
various minor poems, and was interested in the development of the
Latin language. He proposed a number of innovations, including some
changes in the alphabet, but these last were not adopted by others.
Besides his tragedies translated from the Greek, he wrote at least two
_fabulæ prætextæ_, the _Brutus_, in which he dramatized the tale of
the expulsion of the Tarquins, and _Æneadæ_, glorifying the death of
Publius Decius Mus at the battle of Sentinum in 295 B. C. Even in his
regular tragedies he departed occasionally from the original Greek so
far as to show his own power of invention, though these plays were for
the most part mere free translations. One of the longer fragments,[6]
in which a shepherd, who has never seen a ship before, describes the
coming of the Argo, may give some idea of Accius’s skill in description:
So great a mass glides on, roaring from the deep with vast sound
and breath, rolls the waves before it, and stirs up the whirlpools
mightily. It rushes gliding forward, scatters and blows back
the sea. Now you might think a broken cloud was rolling on, now
that a lofty rock, torn off, was being swept along by winds or
hurricanes, or that eddying whirlwinds were rising as the waves
rush together; or that the sea was stirring up some confused heaps
of earth, or that perhaps Triton with his trident overturning the
cavern down below, in the billowy tide, was raising from the deep
a rocky mass to heaven.
With Accius, Roman tragedy reaches its height. Contemporary with him
were C. Titius and C. Julius Cæsar Strabo (died 87 B. C.), both of whom
were orators as well as tragic poets. [Sidenote: Decay of tragedy.]
Of their works only slight traces remain. After this time tragedies
were written by literary men as a pastime, or for the entertainment of
their friends, and some of their plays were actually performed. The
Emperor Augustus began a play entitled _Ajax_, Ovid wrote a _Medea_,
and Varius (about 74-14 B. C.) was famous for his _Thyestes_, but none
of these works has left more than a mere trace of its existence. The
tragedies of Seneca (about 1-65 A. D.) were rather literary exercises
than productions for the stage. With the growth of prose literature,
especially of oratory, on the one hand, and the increased splendor of
the gladiatorial shows on the other, tragedy ceased to be a living
branch of Roman literature.
[Sidenote: The Roman theatre.] Before passing on to the treatment of
comedy, it would be well to try to picture to ourselves the Roman
theatre and the manner of producing a play. In the early days of Livius
Andronicus there was no permanent theatre building, and the spectators
stood up during the performance, but, as time went on, arrangements
for seating the audience were made, and finally, in 55 B. C., a stone
theatre was erected. Stone theatres had long been in use in Greece,
and in course of time they came to be built in all the large cities of
the Roman empire. The Roman theatre differed somewhat from the Greek
theatre, though resembling it in its general appearance. [Sidenote: The
stage.] The Roman stage was about three or four feet high, and long
and wide enough to give room for several actors, usually not more than
four or five at a time, one or two musicians, a chorus of indefinite
number, and as many supernumeraries as might be needed. These last were
sometimes very numerous, when kings appeared with their body-guards, or
generals led their armies or their hosts of prisoners upon the stage.
At the back of the stage was a building, usually three stories high,
representing a palace. In the middle was a door leading into the royal
apartments, and two other doors, one at each side, led to the rooms
for guests. At each end of the stage was a door, the one at the right
leading to the forum, the other to the country or the harbor. Changes
of scene were imperfectly made by changing parts of the decoration. In
comedies, the background represented not a palace, but a private house
or a street of houses.
In front of the stage was the semicircular _orchestra_ or _arena_, in
which distinguished persons had their seats. [Sidenote: The orchestra
and the cavea.] This semicircle was flat and level. The front of the
stage formed the diameter. From the curve of the orchestra rose the
_cavea_, consisting of seats in semicircular rows, rising from the
orchestra at an angle sufficient to enable those who sat in any row
to see over those who sat in front of them. The theatre had no roof,
but in the luxurious times of the empire, and even before the end of
the republic, a covering of canvas or silk was stretched like a tent
between the spectators and the sun.
[Sidenote: Masks and costumes.] In the early days of the Roman drama,
the actors did not wear masks, but before the end of the republic
masks were introduced. These were useful in the large theatres of the
time, as they added to the volume of the actor’s voice, and since the
expression of the actor’s face could be seen by only a small proportion
of the spectators, little was lost by hiding it with a mask. The masks
themselves were carefully made, and were appropriate to the different
characters. The costumes were conventional, kings wearing long robes
and holding sceptres in their left hands, all tragic actors wearing
boots with thick soles to raise them above the stature of the chorus,
and all comic actors wearing low shoes without heels. The actors were,
as a rule at least, slaves, but the profits of the profession were so
great that a successful actor can have had but little difficulty in
buying his freedom.
[Sidenote: Dialogue and song.] In Roman tragedies, as in their Greek
originals, the dialogue was carried on in simple metres, mostly
trochaic and iambic, and a chorus of trained singers sang between the
acts, but probably took little part in the action of the play. The
songs of the chorus were composed in more elaborate metres than the
dialogue, and were sung to the accompaniment of the flute. In Roman
comedy there was no chorus, but parts of the play were sung as solos
or duets. These were called _cantica_, while the dialogue parts of the
comedy were called _diverbia_.
[Sidenote: Brilliancy of dramatic performances.] Plays were performed
at Rome on various occasions when the people were to be entertained,
and the ædiles and other officials and public men vied with each other
in showing their wealth and in courting popularity. We must, therefore,
imagine, that when a play was performed in the latter part of the
republican period the actors, chorus, and supernumeraries were dressed
in the richest and most gorgeous costumes, and everything possible was
done to add to the spectacular effect of the performance, while the
audience, excited by the scene and the action, lost no opportunity of
cheering their favorite actors, or hissing those who failed to please.
CHAPTER II
COMEDY
Comedy imported—Plautus, about 254 to 184 B. C.—Plots of Roman
comedies—Extant plays of Plautus—Degree of originality in
Plautus—Statius Cæcilius, birth unknown, death about 165 B.
C.—Other comic writers—Terence, about 190 to 159 B. C.—Plays
of Terence—Plautus and Terence compared—Turpilius, died 103
B. C.—Fabula togata—Titinius, about 150 B. C. (?)—Titus
Quinctius Atta, died 77 B. C.—Lucius Afranius, born about 150
B. C.—Fescennine verses—Fabulæ Atellanæ—Pomponius and Novius,
about 90 B. C.—Mimes—Decimus Laberius and Publilius Syrus, about
50 B. C.
[Sidenote: Comedy an imported product.] Comedy, like tragedy, was an
imported product, not an original growth, at Rome. There had, to be
sure, been improvised dialogues of more or less dramatic nature even
before Livius Andronicus, but these, about which a few words will
be said later, have nothing to do with the origin of Roman comedy,
which is an imitation of the new Attic comedy as it existed at Athens
after the time of Alexander the Great, being at its best from about
320 to about 280 B. C. No plays of the new Attic comedy are preserved
in the original Greek, but there are fragments which supplement the
knowledge we derive from the Latin imitations. The poets of the new
comedy, Menander, Philemon, Diphilus, and others, avoided historical
and political subjects and drew their comedies from private life,
finding in petty intrigues, interesting situations, and unexpected
complications, some compensation for the general meagreness of the
plot. This kind of play was called at Rome _fabula palliata_ because
the actors wore the _pallium_, or Greek costume. Another kind of
comedy, in which Roman characters and scenes were represented, though
even in this kind of plays the plots were derived from Greek originals,
was called _fabula togata_, because the actors wore the Roman toga. Of
this latter kind of plays only a few fragments are preserved, and it
seems never to have been so popular as the _fabula palliata_.
Livius Andronicus, Ennius, and Pacuvius, all produced comedies at Rome,
as did other writers of tragedies, but of these works only scanty
fragments remain. Three writers, Plautus, Cæcilius, and Terence,
devoted themselves exclusively to comedy, and it is from the extant
plays of the eldest and the youngest of these, Plautus and Terence,
that most of our knowledge of Roman comedy is derived.
[Sidenote: T. Maccius Plautus.] Titus Maccius Plautus (Flatfoot) was
born at Sarsina, a town of Umbria, about 254 B. C. He went to Rome
while still a boy, and seems to have earned so much as a servant or
assistant of actors, that he was able to leave the city and engage
in trade at some other place. His business venture was a failure; he
lost his money, and returned to Rome, where he hired himself out to a
miller, in whose service he was when he wrote his first three plays.
His first appearance with a play was probably about 224 B. C. Further
details of his life are unknown. He died in 184 B. C., at the age of
about seventy years. He was, therefore, a younger contemporary of
Livius Andronicus and Nævius, but older than Ennius and Pacuvius.
Of the plays of Plautus twenty are extant, besides extensive fragments
of another. His total production is said to have been one hundred and
thirty plays, though some of these were probably wrongly ascribed to
him. The plots of his plays, as of those of Terence, are usually
founded upon a love affair between a young man of good family and a
girl of low position and doubtful character. [Sidenote: The plots and
characters of Roman comedies.] The young man is aided by his servant
or a parasite, but his father is opposed to his having anything to do
with the girl. The girl’s mother or mistress usually aids the lovers,
but often has to be won over by money, which the young man and his
servant have to get from his father. Sometimes the characters mentioned
are duplicated, and we have two pairs of lovers, two irate fathers,
two cunning slaves, etc. Other typical characters are the procurer,
the parasite, the boastful soldier, and a few more, who help to bring
about amusing situations, and serve as the butt of many jokes. In the
end, the lovers are usually united, and the girl turns out to be of
good birth, often the long-lost daughter of one of the older men in the
play. Sometimes other plots are chosen, as in the _Amphitruo_, which
is founded on the story that Jupiter, when he visited Alcmene, used
to take the form of her husband Amphitryon, and the fun of the play
is caused by the confusion between the real husband and the disguised
god. In a few plays the plot is less decidedly a love plot, but, as a
general rule, the Roman comedies had love stories for their foundation.
There is, however, room for considerable variety, as may be seen by a
brief sketch of the contents of the extant plays of Plautus.
[Sidenote: The extant plays of Plautus.] The _Amphitruo_, bringing the
“Father of gods and men” into comic confusion with a mortal, and under
very suspicious circumstances at that, is a burlesque, full of rather
broad fun and amusing situations, perhaps the most interesting of all
Latin comedies. In the _Asinaria_, the _Casina_, and the _Mercator_,
father and son are rivals for the affection of the same girl. Of these
three, the _Casina_ is the worst in its indecency, while the other two
lack interest. These plays, however, like all the comedies of Plautus,
are full of animal spirits, plays on words, and clever dialogue. The
_Aulularia_, or _Pot of Gold_, has a plot of little interest, but
is famous for the brilliant and lifelike presentation of the chief
character, the old miser Euclio. The _Captivi_, one of the best of the
plays, has for its subject the friendship between a master and his
slave. There are no female characters, and the piece is entirely free
from the coarseness and immorality which disfigure most of the others.
The _Trinummus_, or _Three-penny Piece_, has also friendship, not love,
as its leading motive, though it ends with a betrothal. This play also
is free from coarseness, and gives an attractive picture of the good
old days when friend was true to friend. The _Curculio_ is interesting
chiefly through the cleverness of the parasite, who succeeds in making
the rival of his employer furnish the money needed to obtain the girl.
The _Epidicus_, the _Mostellaria_, and the _Persa_, also owe their
interest to the tricks and rascalities of the parasite or the valet.
The _Cistellaria_, only part of which is preserved, contains a love
affair, but has for its chief interest the recognition between a father
and his long-lost daughter. The _Vidularia_, too, which exists only
in fragments, leads up to a recognition, this time between a father
and his son. The _Miles Gloriosus_, a play of very ordinary plot, is
distinguished for the somewhat exaggerated and farcical portrait of the
braggart soldier. So the _Pseudolus_ is a piece of character drawing,
in which the perjured go-between, Ballio, is the one important figure.
In the _Bacchides_ the plot is more intricate and interesting, and
the execution more brilliant, but the life depicted is that of loose
women and immoral men. The _Stichus_ has little plot, but several
attractive scenes. Two women, whose husbands have disappeared, remain
faithful to them, and are rewarded by having them return with great
wealth. The _Pœnulus_ is chiefly interesting on account of passages
in the Carthaginian language, which have for centuries attracted the
attention of linguists. In the _Truculentus_, a countryman comes to
the city and changes his rustic manners for city polish. The scenes
are witty and effective, but the plot is weak. In the _Menæchmi_,
twin brothers come to the town of Epidamnum, and their likeness to
each other causes most laughable confusion. This is the original of
Shakespeare’s _Comedy of Errors_ and many other modern plays of similar
plot. The _Rudens_, or _Cable_, has for its subject the restoration of
a long-lost daughter to her father and her union with her lover, but
is distinguished from the other plays of Plautus by the evident love
of nature and the fresh breath of the sea and open air that breathe
through it, making it one of the most attractive of his comedies.
[Sidenote: Degree of originality in Plautus.] How much of the plots of
these plays can be attributed to Plautus himself it is hard to tell. In
some instances nearly all the details seem to be Greek, and probably
the plays in which this is the case are simply free translations with
just enough changes to make them easily understood at Rome. In other
cases, as in the _Stichus_, the play as we have it seems to be made up
of scenes only loosely strung together, arranged apparently rather for
a Roman audience which cared chiefly for spectacular effect and stage
by-play than for a Greek audience accustomed to weigh and criticize
the excellence of the plot. In some instances, too, the Latin play
is known to be made up of scenes taken from two Greek plays and put
together in order to produce a single piece of more action than either
of the originals. The importance of the work of the Latin playwright
varies therefore considerably. There are, however, numerous passages
containing references to details of Roman life, which must be in great
measure original with the Roman writer; there are many plays on Latin
words which could not be introduced in a mere translation from a
foreign language; and in other respects also the comedies show Roman
rather than Greek qualities. We must therefore attribute to Plautus a
considerable share of originality, and the metrical form of his plays
is naturally due to him alone.
The following passage, whatever it may owe to the Greek original,
doubtless owes part of its unusual liveliness to Plautus:[7]
_Sceparnio._ But, O Palæmon, holy companion of Neptune, who art
said to be a sharer in the labors of Hercules, what’s that I see?
[Sidenote: Two shipwrecked women.] _Dæmones._ What do you see?
_Scep._ I see two women folk sitting all alone in a boat. How the
poor things are tossed about! Ah! ha! Bully for that! The current
has turned the boat from the rock to the shore. No pilot could
have done it better. I think I never saw bigger waves. They are
safe, if they have escaped those billows. Now, now’s the danger!
Oh! It has thrown one of them out. But she’s in shallow water;
she’ll swim out easily. Whew! Do you see how the water threw that
other one out? She’s come up again; she’s coming this way. She’s
safe!
A second passage[8] will give an idea of the style of some of
the dialogue of Plautus. The speakers are a boy, Pægnium, and a
maid-servant, Sophoclidisca:
[Sidenote: Bantering talk.] _Sophoclidisca._ Pægnium,
darling boy, good day. How do you do? How’s your health?
_Pægnium._ Sophoclidisca, the gods bless me! _Soph._ How
about me? _Pæg._ That’s as the gods choose; but if they do
as you deserve, they’ll hate you and hurt you. _Soph._ Stop
your bad talk. _Pæg._ When I talk as you deserve, my talk
is good, not bad. _Soph._ What are you doing? _Pæg._ I’m
standing opposite and looking at you, a bad woman. _Soph._
Surely I never knew a worse boy than you. _Pæg._ What do I
do that’s bad, or to whom do I say anything bad? _Soph._
To whomever you get a chance. _Pæg._ No man ever thought
so. _Soph._ But many know that it is so. _Pæg._ Ah! _Soph._
Bah! _Pæg._ You judge other people’s characters by your own
nature. _Soph._ I confess I am as a pimp’s maid should be.
_Pæg._ I’ve heard enough. _Soph._ What about you? Do you
confess you’re as I say? _Pæg._ I’d confess if I were so.
_Soph._ Go off now. You’re too much for me. _Pæg._ Then
you go off now. _Soph._ Tell me this: where are you going?
_Pæg._ Where are you going? _Soph._ You tell; I asked first.
_Pæg._ But you’ll find out last. _Soph._ I’m not going far
from here. _Pæg._ And I’m not going far, either. _Soph._
Where are you going, then, scamp? _Pæg._ Unless I hear first
from you, you’ll never know what you ask. _Soph._ I declare
you’ll never find out to-day, unless I hear first from you.
_Pæg._ Is that so? _Soph._ Yes, it is. _Pæg._ You’re bad.
_Soph._ You’re a scamp. _Pæg._ I’ve a right to be. _Soph._
And I’ve just as good a right. _Pæg._ What’s that you say?
Have you made up your mind not to tell where you’re going,
you wretch? _Soph._ How about you? Have you determined to
conceal where you’re bound for, you scoundrel? _Pæg._ Hang
it, you answer like with like. Go away now, since it’s
settled so. I don’t care to know. Good-by.
[Sidenote: Statius Cæcilius.] Statius Cæcilius, an Insubrian by birth,
probably came to Rome as a slave—that is, a captive—at some time not
far from 200 B. C. Here he became a writer of comedies, was set free
by his master, and lived in the same house with Ennius. He died about
165 B. C. The titles of some forty plays by Cæcilius are known; but
the extant fragments are too short to afford much information as to
his style, his ability, or the contents of his plays. As many of the
titles of his pieces are known also as titles of plays by Menander, it
is clear that Cæcilius presented plays of the Greek new comedy in
Latin form. He appears to have followed the Greek originals rather
more closely than Plautus, and to have cultivated elegance of style
rather than brilliant dialogue. [Sidenote: Other writers of comedies.]
Other comic writers of the same time were Trabea, Atilius, Aquilius,
Licinius Imbrex, and Luscius Lanuvinus, of whose works few fragments
exist, and who are mentioned here merely to show that there were
writers of comedies at Rome between Plautus and Terence. No one of
them, however, seems to have possessed the originality and exuberant
wit of Plautus, or to have attained the elegance and polish of
Terence.
[Sidenote: P. Terentius Afer.] Publius Terentius Afer, called Terence
in English, was born at Carthage and brought to Rome as a slave. He can
not have come as a captive to Rome, for his birth took place between
the second and third Punic wars, at a time when the Romans were waging
no war in Africa. He was the slave of the senator Terentius Lucanus, by
whom he was carefully educated and soon set free. From him he derived
his name Terentius, and he was called Afer on account of his African
origin. He became intimate with Scipio Africanus the younger, his
friend Lælius, and others of the most cultivated and prominent men of
Rome. It was even said by some that the plays of Terence were really
written by Scipio, while others thought Lælius was their author. This
goes to prove that Terence was intimate with Scipio, Lælius, and the
rest, and may be regarded as an indication of his age; for if he was
much older than Scipio he would hardly have been charged with passing
off Scipio’s work as his own. If he was of the same age as Scipio he
was born in 185 B. C., and in that case was only nineteen years old
when the _Andria_, his first play, was produced in 166. It is therefore
likely that he was a few years older than Scipio, and was born about
190 B. C. After he had produced six comedies he went to Greece in 160
B. C. to study, and died in the next year either on his way back to
Rome or in Greece. His popularity with the most cultivated men of Rome
testifies to his good breeding and agreeable manners. Suetonius tells
us that he was of moderate height, slender figure, and dark complexion,
that he had a daughter who was afterwards married to a Roman knight,
and that he left property amounting to twenty acres. The six plays of
Terence are all preserved to us, together with the dates of the first
performance of each.
[Sidenote: The Andria.] The _Andria_, produced at the Ludi Megalenses,
166 B. C., is adapted from the _Andria_ of Menander, with additions
from his _Perinthia_. A young man, Pamphilus, is in love with a girl
from Andros, but his father, Simo, has arranged a marriage for him
with the daughter of a neighbor, Chremes. Pamphilus’s servant, Davus,
succeeds in breaking off the match, and the girl from Andros is
finally found to be a daughter of Chremes. Pamphilus and his beloved
are united, and a second young man comes forward to marry the other
daughter.
The _Hecyra_ (Mother-in-law), first produced at the Ludi Megalenses,
165 B. C., is adapted from the Greek of Apollodorus. [Sidenote: The
Hecyra.] Pamphilus is a young man who has recently married Philumena,
for whom he has no affection. He goes on a journey to attend to some
property, and Philumena returns to her mother. Upon Pamphilus’s return,
a child born to Philumena in his absence is shown to be his, and he and
Philumena are reconciled. This play was unsuccessful, and deservedly
so, as it is the least interesting Latin comedy extant.
[Sidenote: The Heauton-Timorumenos.] The _Heauton-Timorumenos_
(Self-tormentor), after Menander’s play of the same title, was produced
at the Ludi Megalenses in 163 B. C. Menedemus has by his harshness
driven his son Clinias, who is in love with Antiphila, to take
service in a foreign army. He therefore torments himself on account
of remorse, and he confides his troubles to his friend Chremes, whose
son, Clitipho, is in love with Bacchis. When Clinias comes back from
the wars, he and Clitipho get Chremes to receive Antiphila and Bacchis
in his house, in the belief that Clinias is in love with Bacchis,
and that Antiphila is her servant. Finally Antiphila is found to be
the daughter of Chremes and is betrothed to Clinias. Clitipho gives
up the spendthrift Bacchis. The comic personage of the play is the
slave Syrus, who helps the young men to get the money they need. The
character of Chremes is well drawn, but the action of the play is weak.
[Sidenote: The Eunuchus.] The _Eunuchus_, produced at the Ludi
Megalenses in 161 B. C., is adapted from the “Eunuch” of Menander,
with additions from the “Flatterer” of the same author. The plot is
complicated and interesting, involving a love affair between Thais
and Phædria, who has a soldier as his rival, and a second love affair
between Pamphila, who had been brought up as foster sister to Thais,
and Phædria’s brother, Chærea. In order to approach Pamphila, Chærea
disguises himself as a eunuch. In the end Pamphila’s brother Chremes
appears, proclaims her free birth, and sanctions her marriage to
Chærea. The characters are well drawn, Chærea, perhaps, the best of
all, and the action is amusing.
[Sidenote: The Phormio.] The _Phormio_, first performed at the Ludi
Romani, in 161 B. C., is adapted from the Greek of Apollodorus. Two
brothers, Chremes and Demipho, have gone on a journey, leaving their
two sons, Phædria and Antipho, in charge of a slave, Geta. Antipho
marries a poor girl named Phanium, from Lesbos, and Phædria falls in
love with a slave girl, whose owner sells her to some one else, but
agrees to give her to Phædria if he brings the sum of thirty minæ in
one day. The two fathers return, and the parasite, Phormio, from whom
the play takes its name, now has to get the money for Phædria and to
secure the consent of Demipho to the marriage of Antipho and Phanium.
He gets the money from Demipho by telling him that he will himself
marry Phanium for thirty minæ, but just at the right moment Phanium is
found to be the daughter of Chremes, and her marriage with Antipho is
accepted by all parties. The plot is well carried out, and the two old
men and their sons are well portrayed.
[Sidenote: The Adelphœ.] The _Adelphœ_ (Brothers), after Menander’s
play of the same name, with additions from a play by Diphilus was
first performed at the funeral games of Æmilius Paulus, in 160 B. C.
Demea had two sons, and gave his brother, Micio, one of them, named
Æschinus, keeping the other, Ctesipho, himself. Micio is a bachelor,
and treats Æschinus with the greatest indulgence, whereas Demea is very
strict toward Ctesipho, but the result is about the same. Ctesipho
falls in love with a harpist, whom Æschinus, to please his brother,
carries off from her master. Æschinus himself is engaged in an affair
with the daughter of a poor widow. The girl is, however, of good Attic
parentage, and Æschinus has promised to marry her. In the end this
marriage takes place, Ctesipho gets his harpist and Micio is persuaded
to marry the widow.
[Sidenote: Terence and Plautus compared.] The plays of Terence are
written in a style far more advanced, more refined, and more artistic
than those of Plautus, but they show much less originality, wit, and
vigor. Plautus wrote at a time when Greek culture was already known to
the Romans, but when it was less thoroughly appreciated than later,
and he wrote not for any one class of Romans, but for the people. The
language of Plautus is therefore the language of every-day life as it
was spoken by the average Roman; his wit is of the kind that appealed
to ordinary men, and his plays have much action, that the common man
might enjoy them. Plautus took Greek plays and made them over to suit
the average Roman. The position of Terence was different. In his day
a cultivated class of Romans existed, who knew Greek literature well,
who admired and loved Greek culture, but were none the less patriotic
Romans. These men wished to introduce all that was best in Greece into
Rome. So far as literature was concerned, they wished to make Latin
literature as much like Greek literature as possible, and therefore
encouraged imitation rather than originality, purity and grace of
language rather than vigor of thought or expression. These were the
men among whom Terence lived, and whose taste influenced him most.
His plays contain few indications that they are written for a Roman
audience (except, of course, that they are written in Latin), but are
Greek in their refinement of language, gentle humor, and polished
excellence of detail. There is less variety of metre than in the plays
of Plautus, as, indeed, there is less variety of any kind, for Terence
relies for his effect, not upon variety, but upon finished elegance. He
is the earliest Latin author who tries to equal the Greeks in stylistic
refinement, and few of those who came after him were as successful as
he.
Many of the qualities of the style of Terence are lost in translation;
but something of the air of ease, naturalness, and good humor that
pervades his plays is seen in the short scene in the Phormio, in which
Demipho asks Nausistrata, the wife of Chremes, to persuade Phanium to
marry Phormio.[9]
_Demipho._ Come then, Nausistrata, with your usual good nature
make her feel kindly toward us, so that she may do of her own
accord what must be done. _Nausistrata._ I will. _De._ You’ll be
aiding me now with your good offices, just as you helped me a
while ago with your purse. _Na._ You’re quite welcome; and upon
my word, it’s my husband’s fault that I can do less than I might
well do. _De._ Why, how is that? _Na._ Because he takes wretched
care of my father’s honest savings; he used regularly to get
two talents from those estates. How much better one man is than
another! _De._ Two talents, do you say? _Na._ Yes, two talents,
and when prices were much lower than now. _De._ Whew! _Na._ What
do you think of that? _De._ Oh, of course—_Na._ I wish I’d been
born a man, I’d soon show you—_De._ Oh, yes, I’m sure. _Na._ The
way—_De._ Pray do save yourself up for her, lest she may wear
you out; she’s young, you know. _Na._ I’ll do as you tell me. But
there’s my husband coming out of your house.
[Sidenote: Turpilius.] The comedies of Plautus and Terence have served
as the originals for almost countless plays in later times, and through
them the Greek comedy has survived until our own day. There were other
Latin writers of comedies derived from the Greek after Terence, most
noted of whom was Turpilius, who died in 103 B. C., but of their works,
which were unimportant, little remains. Of the _fabula togata_, Roman
comedy in Roman dress, little need be said. It never attained great
popularity, and it lasted but a comparatively short time. [Sidenote:
Fabula togata. Titinius, Atta, Afranius.] The first writer of comedies
of this sort was Titinius. About one hundred and eighty lines of
fragments and fifteen titles of his plays are preserved, from which
we can learn little about the quality of his works. He seems to have
written a little later than Terence. Titus Quinctius Atta has left to
us the titles of eleven plays and about twenty-five lines of fragments.
Little is known of him except the date of his death, 77 B. C. Lucius
Afranius, the last and most important writer of this kind of comedies,
was born probably not far from 150 B. C. Forty-two titles and more than
four hundred lines of fragments now remain to attest his activity. The
scenes of the plays are laid in the smaller towns of Italy, and the
characters belong for the most part to the lower social classes. In
these respects Afranius seems to have differed little from Titinius and
Atta, but his plays had apparently less local color than theirs, and
thus approached more nearly the character of the _fabula palliata_ as
developed by Terence.
Three other kinds of dramatic composition deserve brief mention, though
little now remains of them and their literary importance was never very
great. [Sidenote: Fescennine Verses.] The _Fescennine Verses_, named
from the town of Fescennium in Etruria, were originally sung at rustic
festivals and weddings and consisted of jokes and sarcasms directed by
the country folk at each other.
They never became regular stage performances, and gradually lost
their dramatic qualities, until they were nothing more than wedding
songs. [Sidenote: Fabulæ Atellanæ.] The _Fabulæ Atellanæ_, named
from the Oscan town of Atella, in Campania, had some sort of plot,
carried out with more or less dramatic unity. The characters were
conventional—Maccus, the fool, Pappus, the old man, Bucco, the talker
and liar, Dossenus, the clever man and boaster, and the like—and
the whole performance was a popular burlesque comedy, somewhat like
our Punch and Judy. This sort of performance was introduced at Rome
after the conquest of Campania, in 211 B. C., and Roman youths of good
family took the parts for amusement. Somewhat later, the custom arose
of performing an Atellan piece at the end of a tragedy. The performers
were now regular actors, and presently the _Fabulæ Atellanæ_ became a
regular branch of literature, the chief writers of which were Lucius
Pomponius, from Bononia, and Novius, both of whom flourished in the
time of Sulla, about 90 B. C. Few fragments of their works remain.
The Atellan plays continued to be performed even after the beginning
of the empire, but the words became less and less important, and the
performance became mere pantomime. [Sidenote: Mimes.] Another kind of
burlesque performance was the _Mime_, which was introduced into Rome
from the Greek cities of Italy and Sicily. It had less consistent plots
than comedy, and was more popular in its character. Though doubtless
introduced at Rome as early as comedy itself, it hardly appears as
a branch of literature until about the time of Cicero, when mimes
serve as afterpieces at tragic performances. In imperial times mimes
were performed independently. The chief authors of mimes were Decimus
Laberius (105-43 B. C.), a Roman knight, and Publilius Syrus, a slave
from Antioch, both belonging to the time of Cæsar, about the middle of
the first century B. C. No mimes are extant, nor is their loss to be
greatly regretted, for their humor was generally coarse, their plots
often indecent, and their literary qualities of a low order. Some of
the fragments of the mimes of Laberius show, however, considerable
merit, and in those of Publilius so many sensible precepts and wise
utterances were embodied that a collection of his sayings was made,
part of which is preserved to us.
CHAPTER III
EARLY PROSE—THE SCIPIONIC CIRCLE—LUCILIUS
Greek influence upon Roman prose—Fabius Pictor, 216 B.
C.—Cincius Alimentus, 210 B. C.—Cato, 234-149 B. C.—Cato’s
works—Orators—Jurists—Latin annalists—Scipio Africanus the
younger, 185-129 B. C.—The Scipionic circle—Lucilius, 180(?)-126
B. C.—Satire—Satires of Lucilius—Literature in the fifty
years before Cicero—Poetry—History—Learned works—General
writers—Jurists—Oratory—Rhetoric addressed to Herennius—Great
development of prose in this period.
Tragedy and comedy began, reached their full development, and decayed
in the short period of a century and a half between the first play of
Livius Andronicus and the death of Accius. It was therefore advisable
to give a connected account of dramatic literature at Rome for this
entire period, and to reserve for separate treatment the beginnings of
prose literature, which, though less rapid in its growth, had a far
longer life and was a much truer expression of the national genius.
[Sidenote: Greek influence upon Roman prose.] The rudiments of a
strictly native prose literature, the twelve tables of the laws, the
various lists and records, and the speeches delivered on public and
private occasions, mark the lines along which Roman prose was destined
to advance—history, jurisprudence, and eloquence. But Roman prose,
like Roman poetry, came under the influence of Greek literature as
soon as the Romans began to pay any attention to literary style. It
was when the conquest of southern Italy brought Rome into closer
contact than before with the cities of Magna Græcia that Livius
Andronicus was brought to Rome, and it was in the years immediately
after the first Punic war that he produced the first Latin plays in
imitation of Greek originals. To about the same or a little later time
belong the earliest Roman prose writers. Some of these men, regarding
the Latin language as too imperfect for use in prose literature, wrote
in Greek, recording the events of Roman history for the enlightenment
of foreigners and of educated Romans. [Sidenote: Q. Fabius Pictor.]
Such was Quintus Fabius Pictor, a man of much distinction at Rome, who
was sent by the state to consult the oracle at Delphi after the battle
of Cannæ in 216 B. C. He wrote in Greek prose a history of Rome from
the days of Æneas to his own times, selecting the same subject chosen
by his contemporary Ennius for his _Annales_ in Latin verse. This work
of Fabius Pictor was very soon translated into Latin, and remained one
of the chief sources from which later historians, such as Livy,
derived their information. [Sidenote: L. Cincius Alimentus.] Lucius
Cincius Alimentus, who was prætor in command of a Roman army in the
second Punic war, wrote Roman history in Greek prose, as did also
Publius Cornelius Scipio, the son of the elder Africanus, Aulus
Postumius Albinus, and Gaius Acilius, about the middle of the second
century B. C. Their works, being in Greek, had little direct influence
on Latin literature, but show how powerful the Greek influence
was among the cultivated men at Rome in the years following the
second Punic war. [Sidenote: Greek influence.] This influence
was not confined to literature, but affected dress, manners, ways
of thinking—in short, all sides of life—especially among the
upper classes. The Greeks of this time were no longer the hardy
citizen-soldiers of the old days of Marathon and Thermopylæ, but were
now distinguished for culture, refinement, and scholarship, too often
accompanied by effeminacy, luxury, and dishonesty. Not by any means
all the Romans were ready to profit by contact with Greek
civilization, with its mixture of good and bad qualities, and there
was naturally a party at Rome which opposed everything Greek, and
wished to preserve the old Roman simplicity. The most important man of
this party was Cato.
[Sidenote: M. Porcius Cato.] Marcus Porcius Cato was born at Tusculum,
in 234 B. C., and died in 149 B. C. Throughout his life he was active
in public affairs. He was quæstor (204 B. C.), ædile (199 B. C.),
consul (195 B. C.), and censor (184 B. C.), and in all his offices
showed his honesty, efficiency, singleness of purpose, and sincere,
though somewhat narrow-minded, patriotism. He believed that the
influence of Greek art, literature, philosophy, and ways of life
was bad, though in his old age he learned the Greek language, and
studied Greek literature. In a letter to his son, he says: “I shall
speak about those Greeks in their proper place, son Marcus, and tell
what I discovered at Athens, and that it is good to look into their
literature, but not to learn it thoroughly. I shall convince you that
their race is most worthless and unteachable.”[10]
Cato was opposed to the prevailing tendencies in literature—the
tendencies which were destined to prevail—but in spite of that he was
one of the most productive literary men of his time. [Sidenote: Cato
as an orator.] His active political life gave him many occasions for
public speaking, in the senate or before the people, and he spoke
often in courts of law, either in suits of his own or as an advocate
for others. One hundred and fifty of his speeches existed in Cicero’s,
time, and some, at least, were read and admired long after Cicero.
About eighty scattered fragments now exist, some of which belong to
political, others to legal speeches. These show vigor and terseness
of expression, a sort of dry humor, and straightforward freedom of
speech, but no elegance of style.
Cato’s most important work was the _Origines_, in seven books, the
first Roman history in Latin prose. [Sidenote: The Origines.] In style
and method this work was very uneven. Sometimes events were narrated in
brief, annalistic fashion, at other times Cato devoted much space to
details. One book, from which the whole work derived its name, told of
the origins and early history of the various towns of Italy. The work
treated of Roman and Italian history from the earliest times to Cato’s
own day, and in the latter part Cato took pains to give his own actions
at least as much prominence as was their due, even inserting in his
narrative the speeches he had delivered on various occasions. In the
form of letters to his son, Cato composed treatises on agriculture, the
care of health, eloquence, and the art of war. He also wrote a series
of rules of conduct in verse, and made a collection of wise and witty
sayings.
[Sidenote: The treatise On Agriculture.] Of all his works the only
one extant is a treatise _On Agriculture_. Born and brought up in the
small town of Tusculum, and full of admiration for the simple virtues
of the early Romans, Cato saw with deep disapproval the tendency of the
men of his own day to give up agriculture for commercial and financial
occupations. “It would sometimes be better to seek gain by commerce,
if it were not so dangerous; and likewise by money-lending, if it were
so honorable. For our ancestors held this matter thus, and put it in
the laws in this way, that a thief be punished by a double fine, a
money-lender by a fourfold one. From this one can see how much worse
citizen they considered a money-lender than a thief. And when they
praised a good man, it was a good farmer, a good colonist. They thought
that a man was most amply praised who was praised in this way. Now I
think a merchant is energetic and diligent in seeking gain; but, as I
said above, he is exposed to danger and ruin. But from farmers both the
bravest men and most energetic soldiers arise, and the business they
follow is most pious and surest, and least exposed to envy; and those
who are occupied in that pursuit are least given to evil thoughts.”[11]
In other parts of the book Cato gives in short, simple sentences,
practical rules to be followed by the farmer. “Be sure to do everything
early. For this is the way with farming: if you do one thing late, you
will do all the work late.” This style of short, sharp sentences, is
characteristic of Cato. He despises all appearance of literary polish,
as if he wished to show that the arts of elegance cultivated by most
other Roman writers were unnecessary and undesirable.
Cato was one of the most famous orators of his time, but his
competitors were many, among them some of the most noted men of Rome.
[Sidenote: Other orators.] Most of these orators were men of natural
ability, whose eloquence was trained in the school of public life
and owed its effect in great measure to the weight of the speaker’s
dignity or the glory of his deeds. Their speeches are lost, and the
reputation they had survives only to remind us that during and after
the second Punic war Roman eloquence was growing in power, preparing,
as it were, for the brilliant oratory of the Gracchi in the second half
of the second century B. C., and the superb productions of Cicero in
the century to follow. Among orators of Cato’s time should be mentioned
Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator, five times consul, censor, and
dictator, the conqueror of Hannibal, then Quintus Cæcilius Metellus,
consul in 206 B. C., Marcus Cornelius Cethegus (died in 196 B. C.),
Publius Licinius Crassus (died 183 B. C.), and Scipio Africanus the
elder (died 183 B. C.).
[Sidenote: Jurists] In the field of jurisprudence there was
considerable activity in the days of Cato. Publius Ælius (consul 201,
died 174 B. C.) and his brother Sextus (consul 198 B. C.) published
the most systematic work on jurisprudence. This work was called
_Tripertita_, and was for centuries regarded with reverence as the
beginning from which grew the great system of Roman law. Scipio Nasica
(consul 191 B. C.), Lucius Acilius, Quintus Fabius Labeo (consul 183
B. C.), and Cato’s son (born about 192, died in 152 B. C.) were all
distinguished jurists whose interpretation of the Twelve Tables and
whose wisdom in regard to legal matters are mentioned with praise by
later writers. Their writings have perished, but the results of their
studies were incorporated in the later works on Roman law.
[Sidenote: Latin annalists.] The annalists who wrote in Greek, such
as Fabius Pictor, were followed, soon after the middle of the second
century B. C., by several writers whose works differed from theirs
chiefly by being written in Latin. They derived their general views and
methods, as well as some of their facts, from earlier Greek historians,
such as Ephorus and Timæus. The first of these Latin annalists was
Lucius Cassius Hemina, who wrote a history of Rome to his own time.
Somewhat more important was Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi, who was
consul in 133 B. C. His annals covered the same ground as those of
Hemina, and are said to have been written in an artless, somewhat rude
style. A similar lack of elegance seems to have belonged to the works
of the other annalists of this time. Evidently the Romans had not yet
learned to write artistic prose. Yet this is the period when, under the
guidance of Greek teachers, the Romans were paying more attention than
ever before to grammar and rhetoric, purity of language, and nicety of
expression.
[Sidenote: Scipio.] The man about whom the best literary life of the
city centred was Scipio Africanus the younger, who lived from 185 to
129 B. C. He was the son of the distinguished Lucius Æmilius Paulus,
whose victory at Pydna, in 168 B. C., had destroyed the last foreign
power capable of making serious resistance to the Roman legions, and
he had been adopted by the son of the elder Scipio Africanus. He was
himself a distinguished soldier, for as a simple officer (_tribunus
militum_) he had saved the Roman army in Africa, after which he had
been made consul and commander of the army which brought the third
Punic war to a close by the capture and destruction of Carthage (146
B. C.). It might have been expected that he would take an active part
in the government, especially as in his time the state needed the
help of her best citizens. But Scipio seems to have felt that the
internal troubles, which beset the state now that all external dangers
were over, were too serious to be cured. He used his influence for
good wherever he was able, but made no systematic attempt to correct
the abuses of the government, which led at last to the revolutionary
disorders of the days of the Gracchi (133-121 B. C.). Instead of
being a party leader, he occupied a position somewhat apart from
the aristocratic and the popular parties, lending his influence and
his eloquence to the causes that seemed to him good, and in this
way preserving a reputation for independence and good judgment. His
patriotism was undoubted, and his influence as great as that of any man
in Rome.
[Sidenote: The Scipionic circle.] Scipio had been carefully educated,
and employed his leisure in literary and intellectual pursuits. He was
not an author himself, except in so far as he published his speeches,
which were much admired, but he loved to be surrounded by men of
letters, to profit by their conversation, and lend them the support of
his social position and influence. His somewhat older friend, Gaius
Lælius, who was consul in 140 B. C., shared his literary tastes, though
he, too, refrained from publishing other works than speeches. From 167
to 150 B. C. a thousand Greeks of prominent position in their native
country were kept as hostages in Italy. Among these was the historian
Polybius, who was assigned a residence in Rome, and who became a member
of the circle of literary friends who surrounded Scipio and Lælius.
The Stoic philosopher Panætius, who afterward became the head of the
Stoic school, was another Greek belonging to the Scipionic circle. The
influence of Panætius upon Roman philosophy was great, as was that of
Polybius upon the writing of Roman history. But Latin writers also
gathered about Scipio. Among them were Terence (see page 24), the most
polished writer of comedies; Hemina and Piso, the annalists; Gaius
Fannius, a nephew of Lælius, who was consul in 122 B. C., and achieved
distinction as an orator, besides writing a history of Rome; Sempronius
Asellio, whose history of his own times was continued at least to 91 B.
C.; Lucius Furius Philus, consul in 136 B. C., orator and jurist, and
many others. Among them all, the most original genius was the father of
Roman satire, Gaius Lucilius.
[Sidenote: Gaius Lucilius.] Lucilius was born, probably in 180 B. C.,
at Suessa Aurunca, in Campania. He was a member of a wealthy equestrian
family, and when he went to live at Rome he kept himself free from the
cares of business as well as of politics, devoting himself to social
life and to literature. He lived as a wealthy bachelor, not holding
himself aloof from the pleasures of the capital, but not indulging in
excesses. Most of his life was passed in the city, but in 134 B. C. he
followed Scipio to the war in Spain, and in 126 B. C., when all who
were not Roman citizens were obliged to leave Rome, he made a journey
to Sicily, from which he did not return until 124 B. C. He died at
Naples in 103 B. C.
[Sidenote: Satire.] The name _satire_, (_satura_) may be derived from
the _lanx satura_, a dish full of all sorts of fruits, and as applied
to poems by Ennius (see p. 8), designates poems of mixed contents.
Perhaps all the poems of Ennius, except his dramas and his great epic,
may have been classed together as satires. At any rate, Lucilius is the
first writer who gave to satire the definite character it has possessed
ever since his time. He made his poems the vehicle for the expression
of sharp and biting attacks upon persons, institutions, and customs
of his day, for genial and humorous remarks about the failings of his
neighbors, and for much information about himself. Ever since Lucilius,
satire has been at once sharp and humorous, bitter and sweet. This kind
of poetry, which takes the form of dialogue, familiar conversation, or
letters, is not Greek, but is the invention of him who must be regarded
as the most original of all Roman poets.
[Sidenote: The Satires of Lucilius.] The _Satires_ of Lucilius were
contained in thirty books, each book containing several satires.
The subjects treated were of all sorts—the faults and foibles of
individuals, the defects of works of literature, the ridiculous
imitation of Greek manners and dress, the absurdities of Greek
mythology, the folly of expensive dinner parties, the author’s journey
to Sicily, Latin grammar, the proper spelling of Latin words, and
Scipio’s journey to Egypt and Asia. The personality of the writer, his
mode of life, and his views on all subjects were so clearly brought
before his readers that the _Satires_ were a complete autobiography.
They were written for the most part in hexameters, the metre which
was adopted by all later Roman satirists, but some of them were in
iambic _senarii_ and trochaic _septenarii_, others in elegiacs.[12]
They were not written at one time, but their composition was continued
at intervals through many years, for Lucilius was not a professional
poet, but a man of letters who expressed himself in verse whenever he
felt inclined. His form of expression was unconventional, resembling
conversation (in fact he called the poems _sermones_, “conversations”),
with free use of dialogue. Careful literary finish was not attempted,
and Horace, whose satires are imitations of those of Lucilius, blames
the older poet for carelessness. But the easy and natural tone of the
poems must have more than made up for any lack of polish.
[Sidenote: The extant fragments.] The extant fragments amount to
more than eleven hundred lines, but are for the most part short and
disconnected. In one,[13] Lucilius seems to accept with pleasure
an invitation to dinner “with good conversation, well cooked and
seasoned”; in another,[14] he reproves the luxury which leads to greed
of gain: “For if that which is enough for a man could be enough, it
would be enough. Now, since this is not so, how can we think that any
riches can satisfy my soul?” Again,[15] he describes a miser as one who
has no cattle nor slaves nor any attendant, but keeps his purse and all
the money he has always with him. “He eats, sleeps, and bathes with
his purse; the man’s whole hope is in his purse alone. This purse is
fastened to his arm.” One of the longest fragments[16] is a description
of _virtus_ (virtue):
Virtue, Albinus, is being able to pay the true price for the
things in and by which we live; virtue is knowing to what each
thing leads for a man. Virtue is knowing what is right, useful,
honorable for a man, what things are good, what bad likewise,
what is useless, base, dishonorable; virtue is knowing the limit
and measure in seeking anything; virtue is giving to riches their
true value; virtue is giving to honor what is really due to it; is
being an enemy and opponent of bad men and morals, on the other
hand a defender of good men and morals, regarding them as of much
importance, wishing them well, living as their friend; moreover,
considering the advantages of one’s country first, of one’s
relatives second, of ourselves third and last.
Other fragments contain direct attacks upon individuals, but these
which have been quoted serve to give an idea of the freedom of speech,
good sense, and serious purpose of the first great satirist.
[Sidenote: Literature in the fifty years before Cicero.] The life
of Lucilius fell in a period of many changes. As a boy, he saw the
Roman power established in the east, before he reached middle life
he witnessed the destruction of Carthage, then he lived through the
troublous years before and after the death of Tiberius Gracchus in
133 B. C. and that of his brother Gaius in 121 B. C., and in the year
before his death he saw the consulship in the hands of Gaius Marius. It
was not until the long struggle between Marius and Sulla was over that
any measure of tranquility returned to the Roman state. Then came the
Golden Age of Roman literature. But for fifty years before the time of
Cicero circumstances at Rome were not favorable to literary production
of every kind. Lucilius, Accius, Afranius and a few other poets lived
on until about the end of the second century B. C., but there was
little new life in poetry. Gnæus Matius translated the Iliad, and
Lævius Melissus imitated some of the lighter Greek poems. [Sidenote:
Poetry.] The epic poem of Hostius on the Istrian war and that of Aulus
Furius from Antium (Furius Antias) on an unknown subject have left
hardly any traces. It is not worth while to mention in detail the
occasional love songs and epigrams written by various authors. Aside
from Lucilius and the dramatists already mentioned, there are no poets
of note in this period.
[Sidenote: History.] In history, the production was greater and more
important. Fannius and Asellio were emulated by Cœlius Antipater,
whose history of the second Punic war was of some importance, and he
was followed by Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, who wrote a history of
Rome in at least twenty-three books, coming down to the year 82 B. C.
Another more voluminous but less trustworthy historian was Valerius
Antias, who wrote annals in at least seventy-five books. His date is
uncertain, but he seems to have lived early in the first century B.
C. Two other historians of the latter part of this period were Lucius
Cornelius Sisenna (119-67 B. C.), who wrote a history of his own
times in an antiquated style, and Gaius Licinius Macer, whose annals,
beginning with the earliest times, were probably continued until near
the date of his death (66 B. C.). The dictator Sulla (138-78 B. C.)
wrote memoirs, which must have possessed great historical value. Gaius
Sempronius Tuditanus (consul in 129 B. C.) was not only an annalist,
but also an antiquarian.[17]
[Sidenote: Jurists.] Important writers on legal subjects were Publius
Mucius Scævola (consul in 133 B. C.) and his brother Publius Licinius
Crassus Mucianus (consul in 131 B. C.), but more important than either
was Quintus Mucius Scævola (consul in 95 B. C.), whose systematic
treatment of Roman law served as the foundation for all later works on
the subject. Quintus Scævola was also distinguished as an orator.
[Sidenote: Oratory.] Throughout the period from the third Punic
war to the dictatorship of Sulla—and, in fact, until the death of
Cicero—nearly every public man at Rome was an orator, and many of them
published their speeches. In the times of the Gracchi, Rome contained,
perhaps, more excellent speakers than at any other period, among whom
none equalled in force, brilliancy and oratorical power the great,
though unsuccessful, statesman and patriot Gaius Gracchus, (154-121
B. C.), who far surpassed his elder brother Tiberius (163-133 B. C.)
in eloquence, though he, too, was an orator of distinction. After the
Gracchi the most distinguished orators were Marcus Antonius (143-87
B. C.) and Lucius Licinius (140-91 B. C.), the first of whom excelled
in vigor and liveliness of delivery, the second in wit, elegance and
variety of composition. These orators were not merely men with natural
ability to speak, but were carefully trained in accordance with the
precepts of Greek rhetoric.
Of all the works mentioned so far in this chapter, only one—Cato’s
treatise _On Agriculture_—has come down to us entire, and only the
satires of Lucilius are known to us by numerous fragments. [Sidenote:
These works lost.] The other works and their authors have left little
more than their names. There is, however, one work, now usually
ascribed to Cornificius, an author of whom nothing is known, which
is preserved entire. [Sidenote: Rhetorica ad Herennium.] This is the
_Rhetoric Addressed to Herennius_, which was preserved because it was
falsely included among Cicero’s works. The treatise goes over much
the same ground as Cicero’s youthful essay _On Invention_, which is
evidently intended to be little more than a new and improved edition of
the earlier work.
The importance of the period immediately preceding the time of Cicero
can not be judged by the extant literature, but must be estimated by
the number of works and authors mentioned by later writers and the
qualities assigned to them. [Sidenote: Great progress of prose.] It
is at once evident that poetry made little progress, while prose
writing of all kinds advanced with rapid strides. It is only natural,
therefore, that the age of Cicero should be the most brilliant period
of Latin prose, and that the highest general development of poetry
should be reserved for the Augustan age. Yet, even the Augustan age
can only equal, not surpass, the immortal poems of two of Cicero’s
contemporaries, Lucretius and Catullus.
CHAPTER IV
LUCRETIUS
The Ciceronian period—Lucretius, 99(?)-55(?) B. C.—Philosophy at
Rome—The poem of Lucretius—Its purpose, contents, and style.
It was in the dictatorship of Sulla, 81 B. C., that Cicero made his
first appearance as an orator, and almost from that time until his
death, in 43 B. C., he was the most prominent orator and man of
letters in Rome. [Sidenote: The age of Cicero a time of unrest.] It
is but right that in the history of literature this period of nearly
forty years is called the age of Cicero. In political and external
matters this was a time of great unrest. Sulla’s dictatorship, which
seemed to put an end to strife, served only to strengthen the power
of the senate, not to diminish its abuses; the increase of the slave
population of Italy still continued to drive the freeborn farmers to
Rome to swell the number of the city rabble; the slaves themselves
broke out into open war; the provinces were discontented on account
of the extortions of their governors; the Cilician pirates became
so powerful that their suppression was a matter of some difficulty;
Mithridates aroused a war in the east, and was overcome only by great
exertion; while in Rome itself the conspiracy of Catiline and the
struggle between Pompey and Cæsar clearly foreshadowed the end of the
republic.
[Sidenote: Wealth and culture. Progress of literature.] This period
was at the same time one of great material prosperity at Rome. In
spite of disturbing influences, wealth increased, interest in art and
literature was wide-spread, and there was, alongside of much vulgar
extravagance and display, a steady growth in culture and refinement.
By the beginning of this period the Latin language had become a proper
medium of expression in prose and verse, though its natural qualities
of rigidity and precision made it always better adapted to the needs
of the commander, orator, jurist, and historian than to the lighter
and more varied uses of the poet. Among the poets of the time, some
followed in the footsteps of Ennius, while others imitated the poems
of the Alexandrian Greeks, characterized by mythological learning,
elegance of execution, and emptiness of contents. Of this latter school
Catullus was the only one who rose to greatness, breathing into his
verse the fire of poetic genius, while Lucretius stands out as the one
great and commanding figure among the poets who continued the technical
traditions of Ennius.
[Sidenote: Life of Lucretius.] Of the life of Lucretius little is
known. Jerome, under the year 95 B. C., says: “Titus Lucretius, the
poet, was born, who afterwards was made insane by a love potion,
and, when he had in the intervals of his madness written several
books, which Cicero corrected, killed himself by his own hand in
the forty-fourth year of his age.”[18] Donatus, in his _Life of
Virgil_,[19] says that Lucretius died on the day when Virgil was
fifteen years old, i. e., October 15, 55 B. C. This does not agree
with the statement of Jerome. Cicero, in a letter written in February,
54 B. C.,[20] mentions the poems of Lucretius, but says nothing about
correcting or editing them. This is the only contemporary reference to
Lucretius or his work. Now the great poem of Lucretius was evidently
never entirely finished by its author, who was therefore probably dead
when Cicero wrote this letter. The date (55 B. C.) for his death is
thus corroborated. The date of his birth must remain uncertain, but it
was probably not far from 99 B. C. Jerome’s statement that Lucretius
was insane and committed suicide is not in itself improbable. His work
shows him to have been a man of passionate and intense feelings, and
gives some ground for the belief that in the course of his life he was
subjected to great emotional strain. Of his friends and his daily life
we know nothing. His poem is dedicated to Memmius, who is generally
supposed to be the Gaius Memmius who was proprætor in Bithynia in 57 B.
C.
The only work of Lucretius is a didactic poem of six books, in
hexameter verse, _On the Nature of Things_ (_De Rerum Natura_), in
which he expounds the doctrines of Epicurus. [Sidenote: Philosophy
known to the Romans.] The Romans had been for many years acquainted
with Greek philosophical teachings, especially with those of the Stoic
and Epicurean schools. The Stoic doctrines had been taught by one of
the most eminent philosophers of the second century B. C., Panætius,
the friend of the younger Scipio Africanus, and were clearly congenial
to the Roman temperament; for the Stoics taught that virtue is the
highest good, that nothing else is worth striving for, and that the
ordinary pleasures of life are mere interruptions of the philosopher’s
peace. The Epicurean doctrine, that pleasure is the highest good, was
popular only with those who wished to devote themselves to selfish and
physical enjoyment, for the higher aspects of the doctrines of Epicurus
were not understood. As early as 161 B. C. the senate had passed a
vote banishing philosophers and rhetoricians from Rome, and six years
later, when three famous philosophers—Diogenes the Stoic, Critolaus
the Peripatetic, and Carneades of the Academic school—came to Rome,
they aroused so much interest that the senate decided to remove them
from the city as soon as possible. Greek philosophy was, then, not a
new thing at Rome, but the poem of Lucretius is the first systematic
presentation of the Epicurean doctrines.
The purpose of the poem is to free men from superstition and the fear
of death by teaching the doctrines of Epicurus. [Sidenote: The reason
for writing in verse.] This is a most serious purpose, and Lucretius
is thoroughly in earnest. If he adopts the poetic form, it is in order
to make his presentation of the doctrines more attractive, in the hope
that it will thus have greater influence. This point of view, and at
the same time the poet’s sense of the difficulty of his theme and his
power to cope with it, is clearly expressed in the following passage:
Come now, and what remaineth learn and hear
More clearly. Well in my own mind I know
The doctrine is obscure; but mighty hope
Of praise has struck my heart with maddening wand,
And with the blow implanted in my breast
The sweet love of the Muses, filled with which
I wander with fresh mind through pathless tracts
Of the Pierides, untrod before
By any mortal’s foot. ’Tis sweet to go
To fountains new and drink; and sweet it is
To pluck new flow’rs and seek a garland thence
For my own head, whence ne’er before a crown
The Muses twined for any mortal’s brow.
’Tis first because I teach of weighty things
And guide my course to set the spirit free
From superstition’s closely knotted bonds;
And next because concerning matters dark
I write such lucid verses, touching all
With th’ Muses’ grace. Then, too, because it seems
Not without reason; but as when men try
In curing boys to give them bitter herbs,
They touch the edges round about the cups
With yellow liquid of the honey sweet,
That children’s careless age may be deceived
As far as to the lips, and meanwhile drink
The juice of bitter herb, and though deceived
May not be harmed, but rather in such wise
Gain health and strength, so I now, since my theme
Seems gloomy for the most part unto those
To whom ’tis not familiar, and the crowd
Shrinks back from it, have wished to treat for thee
My theme with sweetly speaking poetry’s verse
And touch it with the Muses’ honey sweet.[21]
[Sidenote: Arrangement and contents of the poem.] The arrangement
of the poem is as follows: Book i sets forth the atomic theory,
invented by Democritus and held by Epicurus, that the world consists
of atoms—infinitely small particles of matter—and void, i. e., empty
space. The theories of other Greek philosophers, such as Heraclitus,
Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, are refuted. In Book ii it is explained
how the atoms combine to form the various things in the world, because
as they fall through space they depart from a straight line and come
in contact with each other. It is also shown that the atoms, although
infinite in number, are limited in variety. In Book iii the mind and
the soul, or principle of life, are shown to be material and to die
when the body dies. Religion and the fear of death, which Lucretius
regards as a result of religion, are attacked. Since the soul dies with
the body, there is no reason to fear death, because after death we
shall feel no lack of anything, shall have no troubles, but shall be as
if we had not been born, or as if we lay wrapped in dreamless sleep:
So death to us is naught, concerns us not,
When the soul’s nature is as mortal known.[22]
Book iv shows how the impressions made upon our senses are caused by
minute images detached from the objects about us. We see, for instance,
because minute images of the object seen strike our eyes. Dreams and
love are also treated in this book. In Book v the origin of the earth,
sun, moon, and stars is described, the beginning of life is explained,
and the progress of civilization, from the time when men were savages,
is depicted. Some passages in this book anticipate in a measure the
modern doctrine of the survival of the fittest. Since our world was not
created, but came into being naturally by the combinations of atoms, it
will also come to an end at some time by the separation of the atoms.
In Book vi various striking phenomena are treated, such as thunder,
lightning, earthquakes, tempests, and volcanoes. The book ends with
a description of the plague at Athens, derived from the account of
Thucydides.
[Sidenote: Ethical doctrine.] Since the main purpose of the poem
is to free men from religion and the fear of death by showing that
all things, including the soul, came into being and are to pass
away without any action of the gods, ethical doctrines are not
systematically treated. Lucretius accepts, however, the Epicurean dogma
that pleasure is the chief good, “the guide of life,”[23] but the
pleasure he has in mind is not the common physical pleasure, but the
calm repose of the philosopher:
Oh wretched minds of men, oh blinded hearts!
Within what shades of life and dangers great
Is passed whate’er of age we have! Dost thou
Not see that nature makes demand for naught
Save this, that pain be absent from our frame,
That she, removed from care at once and fear,
May have her pleasure in the joys of mind?[24]
Again, in the splendid praise of Epicurus, which opens the fifth book,
he says that we may live without grain or wine,
But well one can not live without pure heart.[25]
The only Greek philosophers, besides Epicurus, of whom Lucretius
speaks in terms of praise are Democritus, from whom Epicurus borrowed
the atomic theory, and Empedocles. Perhaps Lucretius imitates in his
work the poem of Empedocles, which bore the same title. At any rate,
Empedocles was a man of exalted modes of thought and dignified, poetic
expression, qualities which would naturally awaken admiration in the
mind of Lucretius. [Sidenote: His reading, observation, and love of
nature.] That Lucretius was well acquainted with the great works of
Greek literature and with the writings of Nævius, Ennius, Pacuvius,
Lucilius, and Accius, is evident from direct references to them, or
imitations of them. But he was not merely a student of books. His power
of observation and his love of nature are shown in many passages, as
where he describes the raging winds and rivers,[26] the life and motion
of an army,[27] the striking features of the island of Sicily,[28] the
echo in the mountains,[29] or pleasant repose under a shady tree on the
grass by the river side.[30]
[Sidenote: Two famous passages.] The poem opens with an invocation to
Venus, which is justly famous. The first lines are:
Goddess from whom descends the race of Rome,
Venus, of earth and heaven supreme delight,
Hail, thou that all beneath the starry dome—
Lands rich with grain and seas with navies white—
Blessest and cherishest! Where thou dost come
Enamelled earth decks her with posies bright
To meet thy advent; clouds and tempests flee,
And joyous light smiles over land and sea.[31]
Another famous passage is the beginning of Book ii, which has been
translated into English hexameters as follows:
Sweet, when the great sea’s water is stirred to its depth
by the storm winds,
Standing ashore to descry one afar off mightily struggling;
Not that a neighbor’s sorrow to you yields dulcet enjoyment;
But that the sight hath a sweetness, of ills ourselves are exempt
from.
Sweet ’tis too to behold, on a broad plain mustering war-hosts
Arm them for some great battle, one’s self unscathed by the danger;
Yet still happier this: To possess, impregnably guarded,
Those calm heights of the sages which have for an origin Wisdom;
Thence to survey our fellows, observe them this way and that way
Wander amid Life’s paths, poor stragglers seeking a highway;
Watch mind battle with mind, and escutcheon rival escutcheon;
Gaze on that untold strife, which is waged ’neath the sun and the
starlight,
Up as they toil on the surface whereon rest Riches and Empire.[32]
Lucretius was perfectly aware that his subject was not an easy one to
treat in verse, but was confident of his own power. His work shows that
his confidence was justified. Yet even he could not, in explaining the
details of the philosophy of Epicurus, move always in the upper realms
of poetry. [Sidenote: Style.] The result is that the poem is uneven. In
parts it rises to heights hardly attained by any other Latin author,
but in other parts long passages are dull and monotonous. Yet even in
these parts the verses have a serious, dignified music, the language
is carefully chosen, and the subject is treated with consistency,
clearness, and vigor. In the more animated portions of his work,
Lucretius speaks almost like an inspired prophet. His thought hurries
his lines along with increasing impetus, until their flow seems almost
irresistible. Strength, rapidity, and power are the most striking
features of his style. Minor elements are frequent assonances of
various kinds, such as alliteration, repetition, the use of two or more
words from one root, and the like, elaborate similes, and occasionally
the form of direct address. With all these, the style is characterized
by an austere dignity.
In his discussion of the development of the universe, and especially
in the part dealing with living creatures, man, and the progress of
civilization, Lucretius expresses conclusions not unlike some of those
reached in our own day by modern science. [Sidenote: Anticipation of
modern science.] But his processes are not scientific. He reasons,
to be sure, from concrete facts to theories and from theories again
to concrete facts, but the method of his reasoning is unlike that of
modern science. Lucretius, like other philosophers of ancient times,
having once accepted a theory which explains certain phenomena, makes
his theory the rule by which all phenomena are to be measured and in
accordance with which they are to be understood. It is interesting to
note that Lucretius, following Democritus and Epicurus, anticipates
to a certain extent the modern atomic theory, the theories of the
evolution of species, of the survival of the fittest, and of the
continual progress of mankind from a condition of savagery to
civilization, but his conclusions are reached, not by the patient toil
of modern scientific research, but by abstract theorizing, to which his
poetic imagination gives vividness and almost convincing power.
The greatness of Lucretius as a poet has always been recognized by
critical readers; but he has never been a popular author. His subject
is too abstruse and his style too austere and dignified to appeal to
the taste of the masses, which probably accounts for the fact that his
poem has come down to us through only one copy, from which all the
existing manuscripts are derived.
CHAPTER V
CATULLUS—MINOR POETS
Catullus, about 84-54 B. C.—His life—The book of poems—The
longer poems—The shorter poems—Minor poets—Gnæus
Matius—Lævius—Sueius—Gaius Licinius Calvus, 87-47 B. C.—Gaius
Helvius Cinna—Varro Atacinus, 82 to after 37 B. C.—Publius
Valerius Cato—Marcus Furius Bibaculus—Gaius Memmius, proprætor
in 57 B. C.—Ticidas—Quintus Cornificius—Cornelius Nepos—Marcus
Tullius Cicero—Quintus Cicero.
The greatest lyric poet of the Ciceronian period is Gaius Valerius
Catullus. [Sidenote: Life of Catullus.] The exact dates of his birth
and death are uncertain. According to Jerome he was born in 87 B.
C., and died in 57 B. C., at the age of thirty years. But in one
poem[33] he refers to Pompey’s second consulship (55 B. C.), and in two
others[34] he mentions Cæsar’s expedition to Britain (55 B. C.). It is
therefore evident that his death can not have taken place in 57 B. C.
But as his poems contain no references to any event later than 55 or 54
B. C., it is reasonably certain that he died not much after the latter
date. As he is known to have died young, his birth may be assigned to
about 85 B. C., or perhaps a year or two later. His birthplace was
Verona, and his family was wealthy and of good position. He went to
Rome while still hardly more than a boy, and began to write love poems
soon after taking the _toga virilis_, that is to say, at the age of
seventeen. Rome was then a brilliant capital, in which Greek culture,
with all its intellectual vivacity and all its vices, had taken firm
root. The family connections of the young Catullus, whose father was a
friend of Julius Cæsar, introduced him to the aristocratic society of
the capital, and his personal qualities doubtless contributed to make
him a prominent figure among the gay youth of the city.
[Sidenote: Lesbia.] About 61 B. C. began his passionate love for the
brilliant but dissolute woman whom he has immortalized in his poems
under the name of Lesbia. Her real name was Clodia, and when he met
her she was the wife of Quintus Cæcilius Metellus Celer. For a time
she seemed at least to return the love of her young adorer, but almost
immediately after her husband’s death, which took place in 59 B. C.,
she is reproached by Catullus for faithlessness. In the spring of 57 B.
C., Catullus went to Bithynia as a member of the staff of the proprætor
C. Memmius, and by this time his connection with Clodia seems to have
been at an end. In the spring of 56 B. C., Catullus returned to Rome,
after visiting the tomb of his brother, who had died in the Troad. From
this time on his poems are still in part poems of love, but they lack
the passionate fire of the lines addressed to Lesbia. Most of the poems
belonging to the last years of his life, when they contain personal
allusions, are inspired rather by the political events of the time than
by love.
[Sidenote: The Book of Poems.] The poems of Catullus, as they have
been handed down to us, form a small book of 2,280 lines. They are not
arranged chronologically, but rather according to contents and style.
The first sixty are short poems in various lyric metres, and have to
do with the poet’s love, with his friends and enemies, and with the
experiences of his life. These are followed by seven longer poems in
imitation of Alexandrian originals, and the rest of the collection
consists of short pieces, all in elegiac verse. This arrangement is
doubtless due to some editor, not to Catullus himself, but gives the
book a certain artistic unity which would be lacking if the poems were
arranged in chronological order. A few quotations from Catullus which
can not be identified with passages in the extant poems are found in
the works of other writers, but they are so few as to indicate that
nearly all he ever wrote is contained in the existing book.
[Sidenote: The epithalamia.] In the longer poems Catullus shows himself
a consummate master of language and versification and a skillful
imitator of the Alexandrian poetry most popular among the younger
literary men of his time. The first epithalamium, or wedding song,
composed for the marriage of Manlius Torquatus and Vinia Arunculeia,
is written in lyric metre of short lines. It is supposed to be
sung as the bride is escorted to her new home, the first part by a
chorus of maidens, the second by youths. Such songs were traditional
among the Greeks as well as among the Romans, and there is little
originality in the subject or its general treatment, but the brilliant
versification and the charming tender passages it contains make this
the most attractive of all the longer poems of Catullus. The second
epithalamium, in hexameter verse, was apparently composed for no
special occasion. A chorus of youths and a chorus of maidens sing
responses, calling upon Hymenæus, the god of marriage, and describing
by allusion the passage of the bride from maidenhood to wifehood.
So the maidens compare her to a flower that has grown in a secluded
garden, and the youths compare her to a vine that twines about an elm.
The third of the longer poems, the sixty-third of the whole collection,
is the only existing Latin poem in the difficult and complicated
galliambic metre. It describes the madness of the youth Attis, who
mutilates himself and gives himself up to the service of the goddess
Cybele. The despair of Attis when he recovers from his madness and
yearns for his country, his friends, and his past happiness, is
depicted with admirable power, and the ecstatic worship of Cybele is
most vividly portrayed. [Sidenote: The other long poems.] The longest
poem of all describes in hexameter verse the marriage of Peleus with
the sea-goddess Thetis. This is not in any sense a lyric poem, but
an epyllion, or little epic. It contains passages of great beauty,
but offers little opportunity for the display of the peculiarly lyric
genius of Catullus, and is, on the whole, the least successful of his
poems. This is followed by _The Lock of Berenice_, a translation of a
poem of the same name by the Alexandrian Callimachus. Queen Berenice
had cut off a lock of her hair in accordance with a vow when her
husband returned safe from war. The lock disappeared from the temple
in which it had been offered, and the astronomer Conon discovered it
as a new constellation in the heavens. The lock of hair is supposed
to speak and to yearn for its former place upon the forehead of the
queen. In the preface to this poem, which is addressed to the orator
Hortensius Hortalus, Catullus speaks in beautiful lines of the death of
his brother:
Oh, is thy voice forever hushed and still?
Oh, brother, dearer far than life, shall I
Behold thee never? But in sooth I will
Forever love thee, as in days gone by:
And ever through my songs shall ring a cry
Sad with thy death, sad as in thickest shade
Of intertangled boughs the melody,
Which by the woful Daulian bird is made,
Sobbing for Itys dead her wail through all the glade.[35]
The _Lock of Berenice_ is followed by a conversation with a door, which
hints at several immoral stories. The last of the longer poems is an
elegy on the death of the poet’s brother, joined with the praises of
his friend M’. Allius and of his beloved. This poem is remarkable for
the number of digressions it contains, and in this, as in its general
tone, it is an imitation of the Alexandrian style.
The seven poems just described contain many beautiful passages, but
they show us Catullus chiefly as the learned, skillful, and successful
imitator of Alexandrian Greek models. [Sidenote: The short poems.] His
real genius appears in the shorter poems, which deal with the feelings
of his own heart. In these also he is an imitator, so far as his metres
are concerned, but the feelings are his own, and he expresses them in
words that burn. No translation can do justice to the sharp, quick
strokes of his invectives or to the passionate outpourings of his love.
One of his favorite metres is the “hendecasyllable” or eleven syllable
verse, which, by its quick movement, helps to create an impression
of great swiftness of thought and flashing outbursts of emotion. At
the same time, the numerous diminutive suffixes employed give a light
and graceful, almost playful, tone to the verse. Some of the lines
directed against those whom Catullus hated or despised, are scurrilous
and indecent; but that is the fault of the age rather than of the poet
himself. In general the thoughts and emotions expressed range from
passionate love to violent invective, while through many of the poems
there runs a vein of half satirical playfulness. Some of the qualities
of Catullus’ poetry may be made clear by translations of a few of the
short poems. The first shows at once his passionate love for Lesbia,
and something of his half-satirical humor:
My Lesbia, let us live and love,
Nor let us count it worth above
A single farthing if the old
And carping greybeards choose to scold.
The suns that set and fade away
May rise again another day.
When once has set our little light
We needs must sleep one endless night.
A thousand kisses give me, then
A hundred, then a thousand, when
I bid you give a hundred more;
When many thousands o’er and o’er
We’ve kissed, we’ll mix them, so that we
Shall lose the count, and none shall be
Aroused to evil envious hate
Through knowing that the sum’s so great.[36]
A well-known and especially attractive poem is the playful lament for
the sparrow:
Let mourning fill the realms of Love;
Wail, men below and Powers above!
The joy of my beloved has fled,
The Sparrow of her heart is dead—
The Sparrow that she used to prize
As dearly as her own bright eyes.
As knows a girl her mother well,
So knew the pretty bird my belle,
And ever hopping, chirping round,
Far from her lap was never found.
Now wings it to that gloomy bourne
From which no travellers return.
Accurs’d be thou, infernal lair!
Devourer dark of all things fair,
The rarest bird to thee is gone;
Take thou once more my malison.
How swollen and red with weeping, see,
My fair one’s eyes, and all through thee.[37]
Like most educated Romans, Catullus had a great love for the country.
His joy in returning to his country seat on the peninsula of Sirmio
forms the subject of a charming little poem:
Gem of all isthmuses and isles that lie,
Fresh or salt water’s children, in clear lake
Or ampler ocean; with what joy do I
Approach thee, Sirmio! Oh! am I awake,
Or dream that once again mine eye beholds
Thee, and has looked its last on Thracian wolds?
Sweetest of sweets to me that pastime seems,
When the mind drops her burden, when—the pain
Of travel past—our own cot we regain,
And nestle on the pillow of our dreams!
’Tis this one thought that cheers us as we roam.
Hail, O fair Sirmio! Joy, thy lord is here!
Joy too, ye waters of the Golden Mere!
And ring out, all ye laughter-peals of home![38]
Of the lesser poets of the Ciceronian period little need be said.
Their works are lost, but for scattered fragments, except in so far as
a few anonymous poems are to be ascribed to this period. The writers
of mimes, Decimus Laberius and Publilius Syrus, have already been
mentioned (p. 30). [Sidenote: Matius, Lævius, Sueius.] Gnæus Matius,
who appears to belong to this time, wrote mimiambics in the manner of
Herondas and other Alexandrian poets—lively reproductions of scenes
of ordinary life—in choliambic verse, that is, iambic trimetres, the
last foot of which is a spondee; Lævius wrote sportive love-poems
(_Erotopægnia_); and Sueius composed idylls, two of which, the
_Moretum_ and the _Pulli_, are known by name, besides a book of annals.
Matius also made a free translation of Homer’s _Iliad_.
More important in their own day were two friends of Catullus, Gaius
Licinius Calvus and Gaius Helvius Cinna. [Sidenote: Calvus and Cinna.]
Calvus, who lived from 87 to 47 B. C., was a distinguished orator and
politician, who devoted his leisure hours to poetry. His poems included
epithalamia, elegies, epigrams, and at least one mythological epyllion,
entitled _Io_. Cinna appears to have come, like Catullus, from northern
Italy, but of his life little is known beyond the fact that he was
with Catullus on the staff of Memmius in Bithynia. His chief work was
a poem entitled _Smyrna_, which, although it was of moderate length,
occupied him for nine years. The subject was the unnatural love of
the maiden Smyrna for her father and the birth of their son Adonis.
The poem was so learned and obscure as to be almost incomprehensible,
and was similar in this respect to the _Alexandra_ of the Alexandrian
Lycophron. The admiration expressed by Catullus for this work shows how
highly the younger Roman poets esteemed successful imitations of even
the worst faults of their Alexandrian models.
[Sidenote: Varro Atacinus.] A poet who continued the national
traditions of Ennius and also imitated the Alexandrians was Publius
Terentius Varro, called Varro Atacinus. He was born at Atax, in Gallia
Narbonensis, in 82 B. C. He wrote a poem in hexameters on Cæsar’s
war with the Sequani, and some satires, probably in the manner of
Lucilius, In his thirty-fifth year he is said to have turned to the
study of the Greek poets, and it is probably about this time that he
translated into Latin hexameters the _Argonautica_ of the Alexandrian
epic poet Apollonius Rhodius. A geographical poem, probably entitled
_Chorographia_, and a series of elegiac poems in the Alexandrian manner
probably belong to the time after the year 37 B. C. The few fragments
of his poems show that he was a poet of more than ordinary gifts.
[Sidenote: Valerius Cato.] The intellectual leader of the school of
poets who found their inspiration in the works of the Alexandrians was
the grammarian and teacher, P. Valerius Cato, whom Eurius Bibaculus
calls “Cato the grammarian, the Latin Siren, who alone reads and
makes poets.” Cato’s influence was exerted to lead his followers to
imitate their Greek models carefully, to perfect their Latin style,
and probably to introduce the new metres into Latin poetry. His
own writings were grammatical treatises, poems, and a revision and
correction of the works of Lucilius. The poem entitled _Diræ_, which is
contained in manuscripts of Virgil, and really consists of two distinct
poems, _Diræ_ and _Lydia_, has been ascribed with some probability to
Cato. In the first poem the writer curses a veteran named Lycurgus,
who has deprived him of his property and his beloved Lydia; in the
second he addresses a touching farewell to Lydia, who has remained in
the country. [Sidenote: Other poets.] Other poets of this period are
M. Furius Bibaculus, who wrote satirical verses, Gaius Memmius, the
proprætor of Bithynia in 57 B. C., Ticidas, Quintus Cornificius, and
Cornelius Nepos—all of whom belonged to the new school and imitated
the Alexandrians. Nepos we shall meet again among the prose writers.
Others also, whose chief activity was in other fields, wrote poetry
occasionally. Among these Cicero and his brother Quintus may be
mentioned.
The names of these lesser poets are of little importance to us, but
it is worth while to mention them to call attention to the fact that
poetry was cultivated by many of the younger men in the Ciceronian
period. Through their efforts the various styles and metres of the
Greek poets, especially those of the Alexandrian period, were made
familiar to the Romans, and thus the way was prepared for Horace,
Virgil, and Ovid in the Augustan age.
[Illustration: CICERO.
Bust in the Vatican Museum, Rome.]
CHAPTER VI
CICERO
Cicero, 106-43 B. C.—His importance—His life—Periods of
his literary activity—His works—The orations—Philosophical
works—Letters—His character.
Marcus Tullius Cicero, orator, statesman and philosopher, is the great
commanding figure of the literary period which is designated by his
name. With him Latin prose reaches a height never before attained and
never afterward surpassed. [Sidenote: Importance of Cicero.] The cooler
and more critical judgment of our northern natures and later age may
find his eloquence too exuberant, and our scholars, trained in the
study of the Greek philosophers, may deny him the title of an original
thinker, but no one can fail to appreciate the power of his utterance,
the clearness of his exposition, or the lucid elegance of his diction.
He found the Latin language the chief dialect of Italy, the speech
of a great and mighty city; he made it the language of the world for
centuries.
To write the life of Cicero in all the known details would be to
write the history of Rome during the entire period of his manhood.
The historian of literature must content himself with a mere sketch.
[Sidenote: Education and early years.] Cicero was born at Arpinum, a
small town in the hills of eastern Latium, on the third of January,
106 B. C. The town was also the birthplace of Marius, whose fame no
doubt fired the imagination of the young Cicero and helped to rouse
his ambition. His father determined to give him the best possible
education and sent him to Rome, where he knew the two great orators,
M. Antonius and L. Crassus, and also the aged M. Accius and the Greek
poet Archias. Since legal knowledge was a necessary part of an orator’s
education, he studied with the jurist Q. Scævola (p. 44), and the Augur
of the same name. He also paid attention to philosophy, studying with
the Epicurean Phædrus, the Academic philosopher Philo, who was a pupil
of Clitomachus, and the Stoic Diodotus. His teacher of rhetoric was
Molo, of Rhodes, and he also received instruction from the rhetorician
M. Antonius Gnipho and the actors Roscius and Æsopus. He acquired a
great reputation as an advocate by several speeches, especially by
his defense of Quinctius (81 B. C.) and Roscius of Ameria (80 B. C.);
but his health failed, and at the same time he wished to perfect his
education. He therefore left Rome and spent two years (79-77 B. C.) in
Greece and Asia. At Athens he studied under the Academic Antiochus, the
Epicurean Zeno, his old teacher Phædrus, and the instructor in oratory,
Demetrius. In Asia he became acquainted with the florid Asian style
of eloquence, and at Rhodes he studied again under his former teacher
Molo, who exerted himself to chasten the exuberance of his style, which
had been encouraged by the Asiatic orators. At Rhodes he also became
acquainted with the famous Stoic Posidonius.
[Sidenote: His political career.] In 77 B. C. he returned to Rome and
continued his career as an orator. It was soon after his return that
he married Terentia, a lady of noble birth, with whom he lived for
thirty-two years. In 75 B. C. he began his official career as quæstor
of Lilybæum in Sicily, an office which he filled with great credit.
He was elected ædile in 69 and prætor in 66 B. C. In 63 B. C. he was
chosen consul, with Antonius as his colleague, and truthfully claimed
that, although he was a _novus homo_, a man who had no family influence
or prestige to aid him, he had obtained each of the important offices
of the state at the earliest legally admissible age. [Sidenote: The
conspiracy of Catiline.] In his consulship the conspiracy of Catiline
occurred, which Cicero suppressed with relentless vigor, although it
was supposed to be favored by some of the most powerful men in Rome,
including Crassus and Cæsar. The conspirators were not sentenced to
death by regular legal process, but the senate decreed that the consul
should defend the safety of the state, and Cicero gave the order for
their execution. To this year belong the four speeches against Catiline.
[Sidenote: Cicero’s banishment.] In 60 B. C. the first triumvirate was
formed. The triumvirs found the influence of Cicero unfavorable to
their plans, and encouraged his enemy, P. Clodius Pulcher, who had been
adopted into a plebeian family and been elected tribune of the people,
to propose a bill that any one who had put a Roman citizen to death
without due process of law be banished. Cicero, finding that he could
not defend himself with success, withdrew from Rome, and his banishment
was decreed. He remained in exile from April, 58 B. C., until August,
57 B. C., when he was recalled and received with great honors.
[Sidenote: His later years.] In 53 B. C. he was elected to fill
the place in the college of augurs made vacant by the death of the
younger Crassus. In 51 and 50 B. C. Cicero was again absent from Rome,
as proconsul of Cilicia. On his return he found Cæsar and Pompey
in open strife. Cicero had never been a party man. He was always a
sincere patriot, full of pride in the glorious past of his country,
and more than ready to do his duty, and now, when he could not fail
to see that both parties were ruled by selfish ambition rather than
by disinterested patriotism, it was hard for him to attach himself
to either. After some hesitation, he joined the party of Pompey and
the senate, and, in 49 B. C., followed Pompey to Epirus, but was not
present at the battle of Pharsalus. After Pompey’s defeat he waited
at Brundusium until Cæsar allowed him to return to Rome in 47 B. C.
Here he lived in retirement, devoting himself to literary pursuits. In
46 B. C. he divorced his wife, Terentia, and married his young ward,
Publilia, from whom he parted the following year. The year 45 B. C.
was saddened by the death of his only daughter, Tullia. The death of
Cæsar, in 44 B. C., recalled Cicero for a short time to public life,
but he seems to have left the city in April and to have spent some
months at his various villas. In July he decided to visit Athens, where
his son was studying, but after he had reached Sicily he heard that
he was needed at Rome, gave up his plan, and returned to the capital.
Here he took a leading part in the opposition to Antony, against whom
he delivered the fourteen orations known as the _Philippics_. When the
triumvirs came to terms with one another, Cicero was included by Antony
among those whose death he demanded. [Sidenote: His death.] After
moving first to Tusculum, and then to Formiæ, he went aboard a ship at
Caeta, but turned back to land, resolved to die in his native country.
On his way between his villa and the sea he was overtaken by a party of
Antony’s soldiers and killed, on the seventh of December, 43 B. C. His
head and hands were cut off and exposed upon the rostra in the Roman
forum.
[Sidenote: Periods of Cicero’s literary activity.] Cicero’s oratorical
and literary activity falls naturally into four chronological
divisions: his earlier years, to the beginning of his career as a
political orator (81-66 B. C.); the period of his greatest power,
lasting until just before his banishment (66-59 B. C.); from his return
from banishment until his departure for Cilicia (57-51 B. C.); and from
his return from Cilicia until his death (50-43 B. C.).
To the first period belong several speeches delivered in different
kinds of lawsuits, the most remarkable of which are the seven orations
in the suit against Verres (70 B. C.) for extortion and misgovernment
in Sicily. At the earnest request of the Sicilians, Cicero undertook
the prosecution. [Sidenote: The first period.] The first speech, the
_Divinatio in Cæcilium_, was delivered to determine whether Cicero or
Q. Cæcilius Niger, who had been quæstor under Verres in Sicily, should
conduct the prosecution. The first speech in the prosecution itself
settled the case. Cicero had prepared all the evidence and summoned the
witnesses, and instead of giving the defence an opportunity for delay,
brought forward his overwhelming evidence at the beginning, after a
mere introduction. Hortensius, Verres’ advocate, gave up the defence
after hearing the evidence, and Verres was banished. The five remaining
orations, called the _Actio Secunda in Verrem_, were published by
Cicero in order that the facts might be universally known, but were
never delivered in court. They show not only that Cicero was at this
time a consummate master of eloquence, but also that his diligence
in the collection and preparation of his material was remarkable.
In addition to his speeches, Cicero wrote in this period several
translations from the Greek, which are lost, and also a handbook of
oratory, the _De Inventione_, in two books. This work was written when
the author was only twenty years old, and is based upon the treatise
addressed to Herennius (p. 45). In it Cicero treats of the various
divisions of oratory and their uses. The work is greatly inferior to
his later rhetorical writings.
[Sidenote: The second period.] The second period opens with the superb
oration _For the Manilian Law_ or _De Imperio Gnæi Pompei_ (66 B. C.),
in which Cicero advocates the appointment of Pompey with extraordinary
powers to carry on the war against Mithridates. The four brilliant and
vehement speeches _Against Catiline_ belong to the year of Cicero’s
consulship, 63 B. C. To the same year belongs the witty and able
speech _For Muræna_, in which Cicero defends Muræna against a charge
of bribery. The delightful speech _For the Poet Archias_ was delivered
in 62 B. C. in support of the poet’s claim to the Roman citizenship.
Throughout this period Cicero’s time and energy were so fully occupied
with affairs of state and with the suits in which he was engaged as
to leave him little leisure for purely literary production. In 60
B. C., however, when the troubles that led to his banishment were
thickening about him, he made a metrical version of the astronomical
poems of Aratus, portions of which are preserved in his later work
_On the Nature of the Gods_, and wrote a poem in three books _On His
Consulship_, which is lost.
[Sidenote: The third period.] The speeches of the third period were
delivered for the most part in private cases, though one of them,
_On the Consular Provinces_ (B. C. 56), urging that Cæsar retain his
proconsulship of Gaul and that Gabinius and Piso be recalled from Syria
and Macedonia, is political, while political considerations have an
important place in several others. In the year 55 B. C. the dialogue
_On the Orator_ (_De Oratore_) was written, in which the two great
orators of the generation before Cicero, Lucius Crassus and Marcus
Antonius, discuss the proper qualities of an orator. The dialogue is
supposed to have taken place shortly before the death of Crassus (91 B.
C.). The lesser parts are taken by some of the younger statesmen of the
day, and in the beginning Cicero’s teacher, the augur Scævola, appears.
This is one of the most attractive of Cicero’s works. The technical
discussions are enlivened by anecdotes and conversation, and the whole
dialogue has a grace and sprightliness not often found in Latin prose.
The dialogue _On the State_ (_De Re Publica_), in six books, was
published before 51 B. C. Only about one third of this is preserved in
a fragmentary condition, and for many centuries the entire work was
lost with the exception of the _Dream of Scipio_ (_Somnium Scipionis_),
from the sixth book. The discussion of the state was followed by a
dialogue _On Laws_ (_De Legibus_), which was begun apparently in 52 B.
C., but was never finished. In this period we find Cicero turning his
attention to technical works on rhetoric and also to philosophy.
[Sidenote: The fourth period.] The last period was for the most part
a time of quiet literary work for Cicero. Only after Cæsar’s death
did he return to public life. In 46 B. C. he thanked Cæsar, in the
oration _For Marcellus_, for allowing Marcellus, who had been consul
in 51 B. C., to return to Rome; later in the same year he pleaded the
case of Quintus Ligarius in the speech _For Ligarius_, and in 45 B.
C. he spoke in behalf of Deiotarus, tetrarch of Galicia, who had been
accused of treachery to Cæsar (_For King Deiotarus_), but these are
the only speeches of this period except the fourteen _Philippics_,
directed against Antony, all of which belong to the short time between
the second of September, 44 B. C., and the twenty-second of April, 43
B. C. In these Cicero shows his old energy and fire, but not quite his
earlier power. The name _Philippics_ was given to these speeches almost
from the very first, and was in fact authorized by Cicero himself,
who welcomed the parallel between himself, arousing and encouraging
the Romans against Antony, and Demosthenes urging the Athenians to
oppose Philip. But these orations were the work of a few months; by far
the greater part of the years after 50 B. C. was occupied with other
things. [Sidenote: Rhetorical and philosophical works.] In the three
years 46-44 B. C. appeared the rhetorical writings _Brutus_, the
_Orator_, the _Divisions of Oratory_, the essay _On the Best Kind of
Orators_, and the long series of philosophical dialogues and
treatises, the most important of which are the _De Finibus Bonorum et
Malorum_, a discussion of the different theories respecting the
highest good, in five books; the _Academics_, two books of which are
preserved; the _Tusculan Disputations_, in five books, treating of the
chief essentials for happiness; the treatise _On the Nature of the
Gods_, in three books; and the three books _On Duties_ (_De
Officiis_); to which should be added, on account of their beauty of
style and sentiment, the _Cato Maior_ (_On Old Age_) and the _Lælius_
(_On Friendship_).
Cicero’s extant works comprise fifty-seven orations and fragments
of twenty more, seven rhetorical treatises, thirteen philosophical
treatises, including those _On the State_ and _On Laws_, and about
eight hundred and sixty letters, among which are ninety addressed to
him by his correspondents. Among the lost works are a few historical
writings and several translations from the Greek.
[Sidenote: Cicero as an orator.] Cicero’s chief ambition was to be
a great orator, and he spared no pains to attain his end. Richly
endowed by nature, he was not content to employ his natural gifts
without careful cultivation. He studied the orators of earlier times,
especially the great masters of Greek eloquence, made many translations
from the Greek for the sake of perfecting his style, and was a diligent
student of rhetorical theories. His conception of the proper qualities
of the orator was high and noble. In the essay _De Oratore_, he makes
Crassus say:
Wherefore, if one wishes to define and embrace the proper power
of an orator in all its extent, that man will be, in my opinion,
an orator worthy of this great name, who can speak wisely, in
an orderly and polished manner, from memory, and even with some
dignity of action, upon whatever subject arises that needs to be
set forth in speech.[39]
And again:
I assert that by the moderation and wisdom of the perfect orator
not only his own dignity, but the welfare of very many persons and
of the entire commonwealth is preserved.[40]
In short, the orator should be, in Cicero’s opinion, not only a great
and practised speaker, but a man of varied learning, and at the same
time a man of the highest character. This was the ideal he set before
himself and strove throughout his life to attain. Certainly it was no
low ideal, nor was the man who strove to attain it a character to be
despised.
[Sidenote: Oratorical style.] Cicero’s oratorical style is always
careful and finished, but is far from that monotonous smoothness
which study often gives to the speech of those who are not by nature
gifted orators. In the narrative parts of his speeches he is clear,
straightforward, and lucid; in his arguments he is logical, incisive,
and full of force; in his appeals to the feelings of his hearers he is
vivid, quick and powerful, sometimes, according to the demands of the
occasion, violent or pathetic. [Sidenote: Irony.] The elaborate
periodic structure of his sentences is varied by many short questions
or exclamations, and the habitual dignity of his utterance is softened
and enlivened by frequent touches of wit, humor, and irony. So in his
defence of Quintus Ligarius, who had served in the senatorial army in
Africa, although he knew that Cæsar, before whom the case was argued,
was perfectly acquainted with the facts, he began his speech as
follows:
A new charge, Gaius Cæsar, and one never heard of before this day,
my relative, Quintus Tubero, has brought before you: that Quintus
Ligarius was in Africa; and Gaius Pansa, a man of excellent
character, trusting, perhaps, in his friendship with you, has
dared to confess that it is true. Therefore I know not where to
turn. For I had come prepared, since you could not know it by
yourself, and could not have heard it from any one else, to take
advantage of your ignorance for the salvation of the unfortunate
man.[41]
After this ironical introduction, which serves to make his opponents
seem ridiculous, Cicero appeals to Cæsar’s well-known clemency before
proceeding to his argument.
[Sidenote: Patriotic feeling.] In his own political life Cicero
constantly showed his reverence for the dignity of the Roman people,
the established forms of government, and the traditions and great deeds
of the earlier days of Rome. The same feeling is evident in nearly
all his orations. References to the Roman people, the majesty of the
Roman people, the Roman empire, the dignity of the senate, the customs
or institutions of the ancestors, are found on almost every page. The
oration _On the Manilian Law_ is not merely a panegyric of Pompey and
an argument for giving him new and greater powers, but at the same time
a hymn of praise to the glory of the Roman republic and the virtues of
the men of old:
Our ancestors often engaged in wars because our merchants or
ship-owners had been somewhat unjustly treated; what, pray,
should be your feelings when so many thousands of Roman citizens
have been slaughtered by one edict and at one time? Because our
envoys had been too haughtily addressed it pleased your fathers
that Corinth, the light of all Greece, be blotted out; will you
let that king go unpunished who has slain an ex-consul and envoy
of the Roman people, after subjecting him to imprisonment, and
scourging, and all kinds of torture? They did not endure it when
the liberty of Roman citizens was curtailed; will you be negligent
when their lives have been taken? They followed up the verbal
violation of the right of embassies; will you desert the cause of
an ambassador slain with all torments? Be on your guard, lest,
just as it was most honorable for them to hand down to you so
great and glorious an empire, so it be most disgraceful for you to
fail to guard and preserve what you have received.[42]
Here the orator’s effort is to arouse his hearers to maintain the
dignity and glory of the republic, whose greatness is brought home
to their minds by the references to the deeds of their ancestors.
This passage is also a good example of the effective use of repeated
contrasts.
In the speech _For the Manilian Law_ Cicero addresses the assembled
Roman people on a political question of immediate and great importance.
His tone is exalted and earnest, his eloquence stirring and inspiring.
The same qualities are found in all the political orations, and in many
of the private speeches, delivered in cases involving the life of the
accused or Cicero’s own character. [Sidenote: Gentler and more graceful
style.] In speeches dealing with less urgent matters the tone is more
gentle and the effect more graceful. Quotations from the poets are
numerous, and the rhythmical structure of the sentences is more marked
than in the stirring and excited passages of the political harangues.
The oration _For the Poet Archias_ is the best example of Cicero’s
less stirring and more graceful oratory. After establishing by a brief
statement the fact that Archias had a valid claim to the citizenship,
Cicero devotes the remainder of his speech to the praise of literary
pursuits:
These studies nourish youth, delight old age, adorn prosperity,
furnish a refuge and solace in adversity, gladden us at home, are
no hindrance abroad, spend the nights with us, are with us in our
foreign travels, and at our country seats.[43]
In this oration Cicero appears as the man of letters whose literary
interest was not bounded by the career of the politician or the orator,
and who, in spite of political successes and disappointments, was to
achieve greater fame as an author than any other writer of Latin prose.
[Sidenote: Direct address.] Few passages are more striking or
characteristic in the orations of Cicero than those in which he
turns to address directly either the opposing party in the case or
his advocate. In these passages, which vary in length from a brief
exclamation to an elaborate invective, the stinging words shoot forth
with quick and passionate directness. One of the longer passages of
this kind, in which additional force is lent to the words by the
suggestion that they are uttered by the culprit’s own father, is the
following:
Here you will even dare to say, “Among the judges, that one
is my friend, that one a friend of my father.” Is not every
one, the more closely he is connected with you in any way,
the more ashamed of you for being subject to a charge of this
kind? He is your father’s friend. If your father himself were
a judge, what, in the name of the immortal gods, could you do
when he said to you: “You, the prætor of the Roman people in
a province, when you had to carry on a naval war, excused the
Mamertines for three years from supplying the ship which they
were bound by treaty to supply; for your private use a freight
ship of the largest size was built at public expense by those
same Mamertines; you exacted money from the cities under the
pretext of the fleet; you dismissed rowers for bribes; you,
when a pirate vessel had been captured by the quæstor and the
lieutenant, removed the leader of the pirates from the sight
of all; you could put under the headsman’s axe men who were
said to be Roman citizens, who were known as such by many; you
dared to take pirates to your house, and to bring the pirate
captain to the court from your own dwelling; you, in that
splendid province, in the sight of our most faithful allies,
of most honorable Roman citizens, lay for days together on the
shore at festive banquets at a time when the province was in
fear and danger; during those days no one could find you at
your house, no one could see you in the forum; you brought to
those banquets the wives of allies and friends; among women
of that sort you placed your youthful son, my grandson, that
his father’s life might offer him examples of wickedness at
the age which is especially unsteady and lacking in fixed
principles; you, the prætor, were seen in the province in a
tunic and purple cloak; you, for the gratification of your
passion and lust, took away the command of the ships from a
lieutenant of the Roman people and gave it to a Syracusan;
your soldiers in the province of Sicily were in want of food
and grain; owing to your luxury and avarice a fleet of the
Roman people was captured and burned by pirates; in your
prætorship pirates sailed their ships in that harbor which no
enemy had ever entered since the foundation of Syracuse; and
these disgraces of yours, so many and so great, you did not
care to hide by concealment on your part, nor by making men
forget them and keep silent about them, but you tore away to
death and torture even the captains of the ships, without any
cause, from the embraces of their parents, your own friends,
nor in seeing the grief and tears of those parents did any
memory of me soften you; to you the blood of innocent men was
not only a pleasure, but even a source of profit.” If your
father should say this to you, could you ask pardon from him?
could you entreat him to forgive you?[44]
These few examples, perhaps not the most striking to be found in the
great body of his orations, may give some idea of the variety of
Cicero’s oratory. In his youth the Roman orators were divided into two
parties on the question of style; the elder men, chief among whom was
Hortensius, favored the Asian style, with its wealth of rhetorical
adornment, while the younger men, the Atticists, as they called
themselves, aimed at extreme simplicity, taking Lysias as their model.
Cicero perceived that a middle course was best. His natural tendency
was toward exuberance, but he tempered it by careful study. He does
not avoid rhetorical adornment, but he seldom uses it to excess. Like
Demosthenes, whom he regarded as the greatest of the Greek orators, he
varies his style to suit the occasion, and, like him, he stands forth
as the greatest orator of his nation.
[Sidenote: Philosophical works.] In his philosophical writings Cicero’s
purpose was to be useful to his fellow citizens by making them
acquainted with the results of Greek speculative thought. As he himself
says:
As I sought and pondered much and long by what means I could be of
use to as many men as possible, that I might never cease to care
for the welfare of the republic, nothing greater occurred to me
than if I should make accessible to my fellow citizens the paths
of the noblest learning.[45]
With this end in view he wrote his treatises, for the most part in the
dialogue form, after the manner of Plato, in which he set forth the
doctrines of the Greek philosophers on the most important subjects,
such as the chief end of life, the means of attaining happiness, duty,
the nature of the gods, and the like, laying the chief stress upon
what he believed to be true and correct. He lays no claim to great
originality of thought, but only to independence of judgment. In
general, he regards himself as a disciple of the Academic school, which
did not claim to establish absolute truth, but to show what was most
probable. He uses, however, the works of Stoic and even of Epicurean
philosophers, whenever they express views in accordance with his own,
as well as when he wishes to refute their teachings. He is not entirely
consistent in all his writings, but his high moral sense, his belief
in the divine government of the world, and his hope of immortality
are the foundations of his philosophy. His style in these writings
is, as befits his subject, dignified and serene, but enlivened by the
occasional interruptions incident to the dialogue form.
[Sidenote: Importance of Cicero’s philosophical works.] To the
professional student of ancient philosophy these treatises are of great
importance chiefly because of the information they contain concerning
the writings and doctrines of Greek philosophers whose works have
been lost; to the student of literature they offer admirable examples
of learned works in popular form, with all the charm of exquisite
literary workmanship; and their influence upon later ages was so great
that no one who is interested in the progress of human thought can
disregard them. St. Augustine, and many other writers of the early
Christian Church, acknowledge their indebtedness to them; they are the
foundation of the speculative thought of the middle ages; and it is
in great measure due to their influence that the Latin language has
remained, almost to our own day, the great medium for the expression
of philosophical and scientific speculation. Cicero made “the paths of
the noblest learning” accessible not only to his Roman fellow citizens,
but to countless generations of men of all lands. His noble purpose was
accomplished more grandly than he ever hoped or dreamed. Let those who
will, accuse him of shallowness and superficiality; mankind owes him an
immeasurable debt of gratitude.
Cicero’s orations have served as models for many generations of
orators, his rhetorical treatises may be regarded as the foundation of
nearly all later theories of style, his philosophical works exerted an
influence which permeated the thought of centuries. [Sidenote: Cicero’s
letters.] It remains to speak of his letters. These are in some
respects the most interesting of his writings, because they show the
feelings of the man as he disclosed them to his intimate friends, they
make us acquainted with the personal relations between the prominent
Romans of the time, and shed many rays of light upon the dark pages of
contemporary history. The first of the extant letters is dated in 68
B. C., the last July 28, 43 B. C. The collection was made by Cicero’s
friends, and edited probably by his freedman, Tiro, and his publisher
and most intimate friend, Atticus. They fall into four groups; sixteen
books addressed to various persons (_Ad Familiares_), three books to
Cicero’s brother Quintus (_Ad Quintum Fratrem_), sixteen books to
Atticus (_Ad Atticum_), and two books to Brutus (_Ad Brutum_). There
were originally nine books of letters to Brutus, but only the eighth
and the ninth are preserved.
The letters differ greatly in importance, in length, and in interest.
Some are mere greetings or brief introductions, while others are
carefully composed treatises; some are expressions of Cicero’s inmost
feelings to his intimate friends, while others are business notes
or occasional letters to men with whom he was on a less familiar
footing; some are addressed to the great leaders of the political
parties, others to comparatively obscure persons; some are on literary
subjects, others on private business, and still others on matters that
pertain to the history of the world. [Sidenote: Variety of contents.]
The style and language vary with the contents of the letters, but are
in general less careful than in any of Cicero’s other writings. The
language is evidently that of common speech rather than of literary
composition. In the letters written during his exile Cicero betrays
unmanly discouragement, and breaks out into pitiful lamentation, just
as in many of his orations he betrays great vanity, and extols overmuch
his own courage and patriotism in the matter of the Catilinarian
conspiracy; but these letters are the confidential utterances of
momentary feelings, not the deliberate expressions of the man’s
character, and we must not forget that Cicero was an Italian, a man
of easily aroused emotions, whose vanity might overflow or whose
grief might break forth without affecting his real earnestness or
steadfastness. One of the briefer letters to Atticus is the following,
written from Thurium, in April, 58 B. C., soon after Cicero’s
banishment began:
Terentia thanks you frequently and very warmly. That is a great
comfort to me. I am the most miserable man alive, and am being
worn out with the most poignant sorrow. I don’t know what to write
to you. For if you are at Rome, it is now too late for me to reach
you; but if you are on the road, we shall discuss together all
that needs to be discussed when you have overtaken me. All I ask
you is to retain the same affection for me, since it was always
myself you loved. For I am still the same man; my enemies have
taken what was mine, they have not taken myself. Take care of your
health.[46]
A letter to Marcus Terentius Varro, written in 46 B. C., among the
troubles of the civil war, shows Cicero consoling himself with
literature:
From a letter of yours, which Atticus read to me, I learnt what
you were doing and where you were; but when we were
likely to see you, I could gain no idea at all from the letter.
However, I am beginning to hope that your arrival is not far off.
I wish it could be any consolation to me! But the fact is, I am
overwhelmed by so many and such grave anxieties, that no one but
the most utter fool ought to expect any alleviation; yet, after
all, perhaps you can give me some kind of help, or I you. For
allow me to tell you that, since my arrival in the city, I have
effected a reconciliation with my old friends—I mean my books;
though the truth is that I had not abandoned their society because
I had fallen out with them, but because I was half ashamed to look
them in the face. For I thought, when I plunged into the maelstrom
of civil strife, with allies whom I had the worst possible reason
for trusting, that I had not shown proper respect for their
precepts. They pardon me; they recall me to our old intimacy, and
you, they say, have been wiser than I for never having left it.
Wherefore, since I find them reconciled, I seem bound to hope, if
I once see you, that I shall pass through with ease both what is
weighing me down now, and what is threatening. Therefore, in your
company, whether you choose it to be in your Tusculan or Cuman
villa, or, which I should like least, at Rome, so long only as
we are together, I will certainly contrive that both of us shall
think it the most agreeable place possible.[47]
[Sidenote: Cicero’s character.] Cicero’s letters give us a more
complete insight into his private character than could be gained from
his other writings. He was a faithful and affectionate friend, a genial
companion, a good husband and father, and a devoted patriot. In his
political career he exhibited a lack of that insight which enables the
great statesman to foresee inevitable changes, and therefore he strove
to preserve the old system of government at a time when its usefulness
had passed away. He could not sympathize thoroughly with Pompey and
his party, still less with the revolutionary policy of Cæsar. The
result was indecision and apparent fickleness, but his indecision was
not so much that of weakness as of the inability to choose between
what he must have regarded as two evils. When he saw his duty clearly
before him, as in the year of his consulship, he did not flinch, and
again, when Antony was arrayed in arms against the state, he stood
forth boldly as the defender of the republic. He showed his courage
and firmness also when, in 50 B. C., after Pompey’s flight from Italy,
he exposed himself to Cæsar’s displeasure by refusing to come to Rome
except as an avowed partizan of Pompey.[48] In all the relations of
life he was honorable and conscientious, and in the field of literature
he stands among the great men of the world.
[Illustration: CÆSAR.
Bust in the museum at Naples.]
CHAPTER VII
CÆSAR—SALLUST—OTHER PROSE WRITERS
Cæsar, 102(?)-44 B. C.—Hirtius, ?-43 B. C.—Oppius, died after
44 B. C.—Continuations of Cæsar’s Commentaries—Sallust,
86-35 B. C.—Cornelius Nepos, before 100 B. C. to after 30 B.
C.—Varro, 116-27 B. C.—Atticus, 109-32 B. C.—Hortensius, 114-50
B. C.—Calidius, died 47 B. C.—Calvus, 87-47 B. C.—Brutus,
78 (?)-42 B. C.—Cornificius, ?-41 B. C.—Quintus Cicero,
102-43, B. C.—Tiro—Nigidius Figulus, died 45 B. C.—Aurelius
Opilius—Antonius Gnipho—Pompilius Andronicus—Santra—Servius
Sulpicius Rufus.
What has been said of Cicero applies with at least equal force to
Cæsar—the story of his life belongs to the history of Rome rather than
to that of literature. We must therefore content ourselves with a brief
sketch.
[Sidenote: Cæsar’s early life.] Gaius Julius Cæsar was born, according
to the common account, in 100 B. C., but the real date is probably
two years earlier. He was of patrician birth and his family claimed
descent from Ascanius; or Iulus, the son of Æneas. Marius, his uncle
by marriage, made him a priest of Jupiter at the age of not more than
fifteen. While still little more than a boy he married Cornelia, the
daughter of Cinna, and barely escaped the proscription of Sulla when
he refused to divorce her. The young Cæsar was thus, in spite of his
patrician birth, identified with the popular party. In 67 B. C. he was
quæstor in Farther Spain, in 65 B. C. he became curule ædile, in which
office he distinguished himself by the magnificence of his public games
and exhibitions, and in 63 B. C. he was elected pontifex maximus,
thereby becoming for life the official head of the Roman religion.
[Sidenote: His government in Spain.] In 62 B. C. he was chosen prætor,
and the next year was sent as proprætor to Farther Spain. Up to this
time he was known chiefly as a dissolute man and an unscrupulous
demagogue. His extravagance had involved him in debts amounting to
more than a million dollars. But in the government of his province
he distinguished himself by military successes and excellent civil
administration, besides amassing sufficient wealth to pay his debts.
[Sidenote: The first triumvirate.] In 60 B. C. he returned to Rome,
and soon formed with Pompey and Crassus the agreement known as the
first triumvirate, by which he was assured of the consulship in 59
B. C., and the government of Gaul for the following five years. To
strengthen the alliance he married his young and beautiful daughter
Julia to Pompey. In 56 B. C. he met Pompey and Crassus at Lucca, in
the presence of a great concourse of senators and their followers, and
an agreement was made that Cæsar should continue to hold the province
of Gaul through 49 B. C., while Pompey and Crassus were to be consuls
in 55 B. C., after which Syria and Spain were to be given to Crassus
and Pompey respectively for five years. The agreement was duly carried
out, and in 54 B. C. Crassus went to Syria, where he lost his life
after the battle of Carrhæ, in 53 B. C. In the same year Pompey’s
wife, Julia, died. Pompey had not gone to Spain to take possession of
his province, but remained at Rome, and soon became openly hostile
to Cæsar. When the Gallic war was ended, the senatorial party, with
Pompey at its head, demanded that Cæsar disband his army. [Sidenote:
The civil war.] This he refused to do unless Pompey also gave up his
military command. Hereupon the civil war broke out, Cæsar crossed the
Rubicon, the boundary of his province, and Pompey fled to Greece, where
he was defeated in 48 B. C., at Pharsalus, then to Egypt, where he was
murdered. In 46 B. C. the senatorial party was finally defeated in the
battle of Thapsus, in Africa, and their leader, Cato, committed suicide
at Utica.
[Sidenote: Cæsar’s dictatorship and death.] Cæsar now returned to Rome,
where he was made _imperator_ and perpetual dictator, thus uniting
in one person all the political power of the state. Henceforth the
forms of republican government were but a thin mask disguising a real
monarchy. In the brief period of his power Cæsar accomplished the
reform of the calendar, and carried through numerous important changes
for the improvement of the government, but nothing could placate the
hatred of those who wished to restore the rule of the senate, whatever
its abuses had been. On the Ides of March (March 15), 44 B. C., he was
murdered in the senate-house by a band of conspirators headed by Brutus.
[Sidenote: Cæsar’s writings.] Cæsar’s extant writings are seven books
of _Commentaries_ on the Gallic War, covering the years 58-52 B. C.,
and three books of _Commentaries_ on the Civil War, covering the years
49-48 B. C. He also wrote some poems, a book _On the Stars_, two books
_Against Cato_, and a few grammatical or rhetorical essays, all of
which are lost, as are also his orations, which were greatly admired.
Collections of his letters existed in antiquity, but these also have
been lost, and the only extant letters of Cæsar are a few which are
preserved in the correspondence of Cicero. Cæsar doubtless intended to
publish commentaries on the years between 52 and 49 B. C., as well as
on his wars in Egypt and elsewhere, but did not carry out his intention.
Cæsar’s _Commentaries on the Gallic War_ were written apparently in
the year 51 B. C., when he was still on good terms with Pompey. The
energy of this pale, slender, delicate man sufficed not only to make
him the conqueror of the warlike tribes of the north, and afterward
of the trained armies of the republic, but also to gain him an
eminent position among the great narrative and descriptive writers
of the world. The _Commentaries_ were written rapidly,[49] for the
double purpose of showing what Cæsar had done to increase the glory
and power of Rome, and to prove to his detractors that his conquest
of Gaul had not been an act of unprovoked aggression, but had been
forced upon him by circumstances. The facts narrated are drawn, in all
probability, from the official army records, supplemented from Cæsar’s
own recollections, and perhaps from his private journals. In striking
contrast to the transparent vanity which led Cicero to extol his own
merits on all possible occasions, Cæsar keeps his personality in the
background, and writes of himself always in the third person, as if the
deeds he narrates were those of another than the writer. This gives
his narrative the appearance of great impartiality, but the careful
reader can hardly fail to notice that Cæsar’s conduct is always put
in the most favorable light, that his victories are made as important
as possible, and his reverses are more lightly passed over. The
_Commentaries_ are not to be regarded as accurate history, but rather
as a justification of Cæsar’s actions, presented in historical form.
[Sidenote: Cæsar’s style.] Cæsar’s style is clear, simple, and
unaffected, and free from all obtrusive rhetorical adornment, but the
narrative of his campaigns is varied and enlivened by the insertion
of descriptions, speeches, dialogues, and all sorts of interesting
details. He frequently takes occasion to signalize the brave deeds of
his men. So in his account of the siege of Gergovia, he describes the
heroic death of one of his centurions:
Marcus Petronius, a centurion of the same legion, in trying to
break down the gate, was overwhelmed by numbers and despaired
of his life. When he had already been wounded many times, he
said to his comrades, who had followed him: “Since I can not
save myself together with you, I will at least provide for
your safety, since through my greed for glory I have led you
into danger. When an opportunity is given you, do you look
out for yourselves.” At once he rushed into the midst of the
enemy, and after killing two, drove the rest a little away
from the gate. When his comrades tried to succour him, “In
vain,” he said, “do you try to save my life, since my blood
and my strength are ebbing away. So go away, while you have
the opportunity, and retreat to the legion.” Thus fighting he
soon fell and saved his comrades.
The history of the Gallic war was published under the unassuming title
of _Commentarii_, or “notes”; but such is the perfection of its simple
style that no one ever thought of rewriting it.
[Sidenote: The Civil War.] The three books of _Commentaries on the
Civil War_ show the same qualities as those _On the Gallic War_, but in
a less admirable degree. In one external matter they differ from the
history of the Gallic War, for in the latter each book contains the
account of a year’s campaign, while the story of the first year of the
Civil War occupies two books. The historical interest of this work is
at least as great as that of the books on the Gallic War, but it does
not compete with them in literary merit, and contains some positive
misstatements. Probably the work was written in haste and was never
revised by its author. This supposition would account for some of its
defects. It may have been prepared for publication by one of Cæsar’s
officers, perhaps by one of those who undertook to furnish histories of
the campaigns which Cæsar had left unrecorded.
Among those who continued Cæsar’s record of his wars, the best writer
is Aulus Hirtius. He was one of Cæsar’s lieutenants in Gaul, and was
sent by him to Rome as a trusted agent. In 49 B. C. he was with Cæsar
in Rome. What share he had in the civil war is not known, but he
himself says that he was not present in the Alexandrian and African
wars. [Sidenote: Continuations of Cæsar’s Commentaries.] He was prætor,
on Cæsar’s nomination, in 46 B. C., and was consul in 43 B. C., when
he was killed in the battle of Mutina, fighting against Antony. The
only work ascribed to him with certainty is the eighth book of the
_Commentaries on the Gallic War_, in which he shows himself far
inferior to Cæsar as a writer, but not without some ability. The book
is well written, in a style evidently intended to resemble that of
Cæsar. Whether the book on the _Alexandrian War_ was written by Hirtius
or by Gaius Oppius is uncertain. Oppius was a man of equestrian rank, a
supporter and agent of Cæsar at Rome. After Cæsar’s death he attached
himself to the party of Octavius, and urged Cicero to do the same. He
appears not to have lived long after 44 B. C. The _Alexandrian War_ is
written in a style similar to that of the eighth book of the _Gallic
War_. The books on the _African War_ and the _Spanish War_ are by
unknown authors. The style of the first is tasteless and turgid, while
that of the latter is hesitating and crabbed. These books possess a
certain literary interest, because they show the immense difference
between Cæsar’s literary ability and that of the average Roman of his
day.
Cæsar’s inimitable _Commentaries_ are the records of their author’s own
deeds, written from the point of view of the chief actor in the events
narrated. They are not the results of wide historical research, nor
do they attempt to give the reader a broad general knowledge of the
course of events, with all their causes and consequences. They are not,
strictly speaking, history, but a masterly presentation of the material
from which history is made. The earlier records of the past by Roman
writers, such as Valerius Antias, Cornelius Sisenna, and others (see
page 43), were mere annals, deficient alike in careful research and
literary finish. The first real historian of Rome was Sallust.
[Sidenote: Sallust.] Gaius Sallustius Crispus was born of a plebeian
family, at Amiternum, in the Sabine country, in 86 B. C. At some
unknown date he obtained the office of quæstor, and in 52 B. C. he
was tribune. In the earlier part of his life he was dissolute, and
he is said to have brought his father in sorrow to the grave. In 50
B. C. he was expelled from the senate by the censors Appius Claudius
and Lucius Piso. In the following year he was reappointed quæstor by
Cæsar and thus regained his place in the senate. In 48 B. C. he was in
command of a legion in Illyria, in the year following he was sent by
Cæsar to suppress a mutiny among the soldiers in Campania, and in 46
B. C. served as prætor in the African war. At the end of the year he
was made proconsul of Numidia, where he enriched himself by plundering
the province. He then bought a villa and gardens on the Quirinal, and
devoted himself to historical writing until his death in 35 B. C.
[Sidenote: Sallust’s works.] Sallust’s works are _The Conspiracy of
Catiline_, _The Jugurthine War_, and the _Histories_. The first two are
preserved entire, but of the _Histories_, which treated of the events
from 78 to 67 B. C., only fragments are preserved, in addition to four
speeches and two letters, which were inserted in the narrative, but
were collected and published for use in rhetorical teaching. The two
letters to Cæsar and the speech against Cicero, published under the
name of Sallust, are spurious.
[Sidenote: Character of Sallust’s works.] In his writings Sallust
appears as an opponent of the nobility and a champion of the popular
party. He depicts in glaring colors the corruption and greed of the
senate, and describes in glowing terms the successes and virtues of
the popular hero Marius. At times his political bias leads him even
to distort the truth, though the distortion is not so great as to
deprive his works of historical value. He is not content to state the
bare facts of history, but exerts himself to depict the sentiments
and motives underlying the actions of the chief persons about whom
he writes, and even of mankind in general. He prefaces his narrative
with introductions of a philosophical nature, sometimes not strictly
relevant to the subject in hand. His style is rhetorical and piquant,
and he uses many archaic words, chosen in great part from Cato’s
works. He evidently imitates the style of Thucydides, and, like him,
he introduces speeches and letters composed to suit the occasion on
which they are supposed to have been delivered or written. These
peculiarities give his works the interest of individuality, and have
caused them to be much admired, and also severely criticised, in
ancient and modern times. Some of the qualities of Sallust’s writing
may appear in translations of a few brief extracts. The opening words
of the _Catiline_ are as follows:
All men, who desire to excel the other animals, ought to strive
with all their power not to pass their lives in silence, like the
cattle which nature has made prone and obedient to their appetite.
But all our power is situated in the spirit and the body; our
spirit is more for command, our body for obedience; the one we
have in common with the gods, the other with the beasts; wherefore
it seems to me more fitting to seek glory by the resources of
the mind than by physical strength, and, since the life which we
enjoy is itself brief, to make the memory of us as lasting as
possible.[50]
His account of the terror at Rome when the greatness of the danger
from the conspiracy of Catiline became known, shows his power of vivid
description:
By these things the state was deeply moved and the face of the
city was changed. From the greatest gaiety and wantonness, which
long peace had brought forth, suddenly utter sadness came in;
people hurried, ran trembling about, had no confidence in any
place or man, neither waged war, nor were at peace; each one
measured the danger by his own fear.[51]
The beginning of the speech of Marius to the Romans exhibits Sallust’s
rhetorical style, his liking for antitheses and for descriptive
epithets:
I know, Quirites, that not by the same conduct do most men seek
power from you and use it after they have obtained it, that at
first they are industrious, humble, and moderate, but afterward
pass their lives in sloth and haughtiness. But to me the opposite
seems right, for by as much as the entire state is more important
than the consulship or the prætorship, with so much greater care
ought the former to be administered than these latter to be
sought. Nor am I ignorant how much trouble I am taking upon myself
at the same time with the greatest honor from you. To make ready
for war, and at the same time spare the treasury, to force to
military service those whom one does not wish to offend, to care
for everything at home and abroad, and to do this among envious,
opposing, seditious men, is harder, Quirites, than you think.
Artificial though the style of Sallust is, it is interesting, lively,
often concise and vivid. It had no little influence upon the style of
subsequent writers, especially upon that of Tacitus, the greatest of
Roman historians. We must remember, too, that the _Catiline_ and the
_Jugurtha_ were of much less importance than the lost _Histories_. In
this greater and more mature work Sallust may have avoided some of the
faults of style that appear in the extant treatises.
[Sidenote: Cornelius Nepos.] A much less interesting writer than
Sallust is Cornelius Nepos. Like Catullus and several other authors
of this period, he came to Rome from the north. His birthplace was
probably Ticinum, on the river Po. Little is known of his life, which
appears to have extended from a little before 100 B. C. to a little
after 30 B. C. He was a friend of Catullus and of Cicero’s friend
Atticus, probably also of other literary men at Rome. His works
were all, with the exception of some love poems, historical and
biographical. The _Chronica_, in three books, treating of universal
history, was probably written before 52 B. C. The _Exempla_, in five
books, was a history of Roman manners and customs. Three other works
were a _Life of Cato_ (the elder), a _Life of Cicero_, and a treatise
on geography. His latest work, published apparently between 35 and 33
B. C., was a great collection of biographies of distinguished men (_De
Viris Illustribus_), dedicated to Atticus. An addition to the life of
Atticus was made between 31 and 27 B. C. This work contained at least
sixteen books, and was divided into sections of two books each, so
that each section contained one book on Romans and one on foreigners.
The sections treated of Kings, Generals, Statesmen, Orators, Poets,
Philosophers, Historians, and Grammarians.
[Sidenote: Qualities of the works of Nepos.] Of all the works of Nepos,
there remain to us only the book on foreign generals, and from the book
on Roman historians the lives of Cato the elder and of Atticus, besides
fragments of the letters of Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi. The book
on foreign generals contains biographies of twenty Greek generals,
a brief sketch of kings who were also generals, and biographies of
Hamilcar and Hannibal. Nepos draws his facts from good sources, such
as Thucydides, Xenophon, Theopompus, Polybius, and the writings of
Hannibal, but is careless and uncritical, and does not employ all the
important sources of information on each subject. He makes mistakes
in matters of history and geography, arranges his material badly,
and gives to trivial anecdotes the space that might better have been
devoted to more important matters. His style, though generally clear,
is without elegance. The structure of his sentences is simple, and
his subject-matter is interesting. For these reasons, rather than on
account of any literary merit, his _Lives_ have been much used as a
text-book for beginners in Latin.
[Sidenote: Varro.] One of the most productive and learned writers of
the age of Cicero was Marcus Terentius Varro, who was born in 116 B. C.
at Reate, in the Sabine country. He studied at Rome under Lucius Ælius
Stilo, and at Athens under Antiochus of Ascalon. In 76 B. C. he was
in the army in Spain, in 67 B. C. he distinguished himself in the war
against the pirates. Perhaps he continued to serve under Pompey in the
war with Mithridates. In the civil war he was on the side of Pompey,
and was forced to surrender to Cæsar the legion under his command. He
was afterward in Epirus, at Corcyra, and at Dyrrhachium. After Cæsar’s
victory, Varro accepted the new government and was placed in charge of
the public libraries. He was proscribed by Antony after Cæsar’s death,
but his life was saved through the devotion of his friends, and he
spent his remaining years in peace, continuing his literary activity
until the end. He died in his ninetieth year, 27 B. C.
[Sidenote: Varro’s works.] Varro’s works were many and varied. Some
seventy-four titles are known, and the total number of single books
amounted to about six hundred and twenty. These included poems,
works on grammar, history, geography, law, rhetoric, philosophy,
mathematics, literary history and education, miscellaneous essays,
orations, and letters. Of all these there remain one complete work,
_On Agriculture_ (_De Re Rustica_), in three books, six (v-x) of the
original twenty-five books of the treatise _On the Latin Language_ (_De
Lingua Latino_), numerous short fragments of the _Menippean Satires_
(_Saturæ Menippeæ_), and a few fragments of some of the other works.
The collection of maxims that passes under Varro’s name is probably
spurious.
[Sidenote: Varro’s extant works.] The _Menippean Satires_ were written
in prose interspersed with verses, in imitation of the works of the
Cynic Menippus, who lived about 300 B. C., and probably belong to
Varro’s earlier years. They treat of almost all the relations of
human life in a satirical vein. The extant verses show some ability
in metrical composition and no little humor. It is evident, however,
that Varro was not a great poet, and the loss of his other poems is
little to be regretted. The three books _On Agriculture_ give, in the
form of a dialogue, a systematic treatment of agriculture proper, of
stock-raising, and of poultry, game, and fish. The dialogue is stiff,
and the arrangement of the different parts of the subject artificial.
The work is valuable for the information it contains, but its literary
form is unattractive. The extant books of the treatise _On the Latin
Language_ are chiefly concerned with the derivation of words and with
inflections. Syntax was treated in books xiv-xxv. Varro’s etymologies
are often incorrect, and his ideas concerning inflections unscientific;
but the work contains much that is of value to the student of the
Latin language and of Roman antiquities. The style is dry and often
dull. In fact, this is hardly a work of literature, but rather a
technical treatise. Varro was a man of great learning and prodigious
industry, but not a literary artist. [Sidenote: The Antiquitates and
the Imagines.] Among his lost works the most important were probably
the _Human and Divine Antiquities_ (_Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum
Humanarumque_), in forty-one books, and the _Portraits_ (_Hebdomades_,
or _Imagines_), in fifteen books. The latter work contained brief
accounts in prose and verse of seven hundred famous Greeks and Romans,
with their portraits. Varro’s works were vast treasure-houses of
information, but there is no reason to suppose that they possessed any
great literary qualities.
The remaining prose writers of this period may be passed over with a
brief mention. Many of them are little more than names to us, and the
works of all are lost. [Sidenote: Atticus.] One of the most interesting
is Titus Pomponius Atticus (109-32 B. C.), whose biography was written
by Cornelius Nepos. He was a wealthy man, who abstained from public
life and devoted himself to literature by publishing the works of
others and giving friendly aid to literary men as well as by writing.
His friendship with Cicero has already been mentioned. His works were
historical, the most important being the _Annals_ (_Liber Annalis_), a
chronological sketch of Roman history from the foundation of the city
to the year 49 B. C. His other works were biographies or genealogies,
and descriptive verses written to accompany portraits of distinguished
men.
[Sidenote: Minor orators.] The orator Quintus Hortensius Hortalus
(114-50 B. C.) is chiefly known through Cicero. He was the advocate
of Verres when Cicero conducted the prosecution, he spoke against the
Manilian Law, which Cicero supported, and in several suits he was
engaged by the same client who secured Cicero’s services. Hortensius
was the chief representative of the florid and ornamental “Asian” style
of oratory at Rome. Among the orators who adopted the simple Attic
style, the most important were Marcus Calidius, who was prætor in 57
B. C. and died in 47 B. C.; Gaius Licinius Calvus (87-47 B. C.), who
has been mentioned above (page 62) as a poet; Marcus Junius Brutus, the
leader of the conspirators who murdered Cæsar; and Quintus Cornificius,
who was also a poet (see page 64).
[Sidenote: Quintus Cicero.] Quintus Tullius Cicero (102-43 B. C.),
the brother of Marcus, was also a literary man, though far inferior
to his brother. When he was Cæsar’s lieutenant in Gaul, in 54 B. C.,
he wrote several tragedies, apparently translations from the Greek,
and he was also the author of annals and of an epic poem on Cæsar’s
expedition to Britain. The only writings of Quintus Cicero now existing
are three letters to Tiro and one to Marcus Cicero, besides an _Essay
on Candidature for the Consulship_, in the form of a letter to Marcus,
written when he was a candidate for that office in 64 B. C. This gives
some interesting information about the methods of Roman politicians,
but has little literary interest. The first of Marcus Cicero’s _Letters
to Quintus_ is a similar treatise on the government of a province,
written when Quintus was beginning his third year as proprætor of Asia,
59 B. C. [Sidenote: Tiro.] Another writer closely connected with Cicero
was his freedman and friend Tiro, who wrote Cicero’s biography, made
editions of his speeches and letters, and collected his witticisms,
besides writing on grammar and inventing a system of shorthand.
[Sidenote: Writers on special subjects.] The grammatical, theological,
and scientific works of Publius Nigidius Figulus, who was prætor in
58 B. C., and died in banishment in 45 B. C., have little to do with
literature, and are lost. Nor is it necessary to devote even a brief
space to the grammatical and rhetorical works of Aurelius Opilius,
Antonius Gnipho, Marcus Pompilius Andronicus, and others, whose
teachings helped to inform some of the great writers and orators of
the time, but whose works have not been preserved. A philologist,
historian, and poet, whose writings were considered important, was
Santra, who seems to have been somewhat younger than Varro, but we are
now unable to determine wherein their importance consisted. Among the
jurists of this period the most distinguished was Servius Sulpicius
Rufus, two letters from whom are preserved in Cicero’s correspondence
(_Ad Familiares_, iv, 5, and iv, 12). These give a high idea of his
style, but are the only remains of his writings. All branches of
knowledge, so far as they existed at that time, were treated by various
writers, but a discussion of their lost works has no place in a brief
history of literature.
The last years of the republic are made illustrious by the great names
of Lucretius, Catullus, Cicero, and Cæsar. In the Augustan age, poetry
attained a still greater height of perfection with Virgil and Horace,
but the age of Cicero is the golden age of Latin prose.
BOOK II
_THE AUGUSTAN PERIOD_
CHAPTER VIII
THE PATRONS OF LITERATURE—VIRGIL
Effect of the Empire upon literature—Augustus, 63 B. C.-14 A.
D.—Agrippa, 63-12 B. C.—Pollio, 67 B. C.-5 A. D.—Messalla, 64
B. C.-8 A. D.—Mæcenas, 70 (?)-8 B. C.—Virgil, 70-19 B. C.—His
life—The Eclogues—The Georgics—The Æneid.
[Sidenote: Effect of the Empire upon literature.] With the battle of
Actium the Roman Republic came to an end. Julius Cæsar had, to be sure,
gathered all the power of the state into his own hand, but he had
held it only a short time; Octavius—after 27 B. C., Augustus—held the
full power until his death, and left it unimpaired to his successors.
The change from a free government, whatever its corruption and decay,
to what was really an unlimited monarchy could not fail to have some
influence upon literature. Henceforth the great orator might hope to
win cases in the courts, but he could no longer change the policy of
the nation; the historian might search the records of the past and
describe the deeds of those who were no longer living, but if he wrote
of the history of his own times, he must have the fear of the master
always before his eyes; the poet could sing of love and wine and
nature without let or hindrance, but poems of national and political
importance could hardly be written except by those in sympathy with
the empire. The emperor might exert his influence to put down all
literary expression not agreeable to him without encouraging literature
of any kind, or he might encourage certain kinds of literature and
certain writers without treating with severity even those whose works
displeased him, or he might at the same time encourage some and
suppress others. Under an imperial master literary expression could not
be so free as in the days of the republic, but the degree of restraint
at any time depended upon the character of the emperor. It is due to
the enlightened liberality of Augustus that the period of his rule was
the most brilliant epoch of Roman literature.
[Sidenote: Augustus.] Augustus (63 B. C.-14 A. D.) had received a
careful education in his youth, and had a genuine and intelligent
admiration for literature. His own literary productions comprised an
epic poem entitled _Sicily_, some short epigrams, an unfinished tragedy
entitled _Ajax_, orations, memoirs, and letters. Before his death he
directed that an account of his deeds (_Index Rerum Gestarum_) should
be engraved on bronze tablets and affixed to his tomb. He probably
composed this account himself, and the copy of it found inscribed upon
the wall of the temple of Augustus and Rome at Ancyra (the _Monumentum
Ancyranum_), containing in simple and dignified language the record
of his life, his political measures, and his military activity, shows
the good taste of the first Roman emperor, for he who had become the
ruler of the civilized world was not led to praise himself or speak
in extravagant terms of any of his deeds, but composed the record of
his wonderful life in terms of simplicity so grave and dignified as to
inspire veneration. It was not, however, through his own compositions
but through his influence that Augustus made his name great in the
history of literature. He encouraged Virgil, Horace, and other poets,
he attended the recitations of authors who wished to bring their new
works before an enlightened public, and he surrounded himself with
friends who delighted in aiding and honoring those whose genius could
give glory to their patrons and add lustre to the empire.
[Sidenote: Agrippa.] Among these friends of literature was Marcus
Vipsanius Agrippa (63-12 B. C.), who caused the first map of the
world to be set up in the porticus Polæ and was himself the author of
geographical works. More important was Gaius Asinius Pollio (67 B. C.-5
A. D.), who established the first public library in Rome. [Sidenote:
Pollio.] His example was followed by Augustus, who established two
libraries, one in the porch of Octavia, the other in the temple of the
Palatine Apollo, under the care of the learned Varro. Pollio was a
soldier, statesman, and orator, but also wrote tragedies and a history
of the years 60-42 B. C., in which he criticized boldly the statements
of Julius Cæsar, the adoptive father of Augustus. Pollio was the first
to hold and encourage public and private recitations of new literary
works. [Sidenote: Mesalla.] Less closely connected with the emperor
was Marcus Valerius Messalla (64 B. C.-8 A. D.), who had originally
been a partizan of Brutus, but had made his peace with Augustus. He
was, like Pollio, an orator, but occupied himself also with
antiquarian and grammatical researches, and in his earlier years made
translations from the Greek and wrote Greek prose and verse. His house
was a gathering place for the younger poets of the period.
[Sidenote: Mæcenas.] But of all the patrons of literature under
Augustus, the most distinguished was Gaius Mæcenas, the friend of
Augustus, of Virgil, and of Horace. He was born about 70 B. C., and
died in 8 B. C. A member of an ancient and noble Etruscan family, he
had been carefully educated, and developed the most refined literary
taste. His attractive and winning personality made him of great service
to Octavius in his negotiations with Antony and Sextus Pompey, and
after the power of Augustus was established Mæcenas was the close
friend and constant adviser of the emperor. In spite of his fine
literary taste, he was without talent as a writer, and his works, both
prose and verse, were severely criticized by his contemporaries and by
later readers. It is little to be regretted that his writings, like
those of the other patrons of literature who have been mentioned, are
lost. And yet the name of Mæcenas will always occupy an honored place
in the history of literature, for it was he who made possible the poems
of Virgil and Horace.
[Sidenote: Virgil.] The greatest of Roman poets is Virgil. Publius
Vergilius Maro was born of humble parents, at Andes, a village in
the territory of Mantua, October 15, 70 B. C. His parents can not
have been poor, for they gave him a good education, first at Cremona,
then at Milan, and later at Rome. He was trained chiefly in rhetoric
and philosophy, but the only teacher whose influence seems to have
been lasting was the Epicurean philosopher Siro. For oratory Virgil
developed no taste. After the battle of Philippi (42 B. C.) the
triumvirs recompensed their veterans by a distribution of farm lands,
and Virgil’s farm was given to a new owner. At that time Asinius
Pollio, who had admired Virgil’s poetry and had encouraged him to
write the _Bucolics_ or _Eclogues_, was governor of the region beyond
the Po, and through his influence the poet was reinstated in his
property. But in the following summer a new distribution of lands was
made, and Pollio was no longer governor of the province. Virgil was
dispossessed, and had to take refuge at the villa of his teacher Siro.
Through the influence of Cornelius Gallus and Mæcenas, Augustus was led
to recompense the poet for his loss, and from this time Virgil was in
close relations to the imperial circle. Hereafter he lived at Rome and
on an estate near Naples, which he received from Augustus.
In 37 or 36 B. C. and the following years he wrote the _Georgics_ in
honor of Mæcenas, and the _Æneid_, written at the request of Augustus,
was begun in 29 B. C. When the poem was finished and the poet had
reached his fifty-first year, he went to Athens, intending to devote
three years to the final revision of his work, and then to give himself
up to the study of philosophy. But at Athens he met with Augustus,
who was on the point of returning to Rome from the East and invited
him to join the imperial party. Virgil was already ill from exposure
to the heat during a visit to Megara, but accepted the invitation. On
the voyage his illness increased, and a few days after his arrival at
Brundusium he died, September 21, 19 B. C. He was buried at Naples,
where he had passed most of his later years.
[Sidenote: Virgil’s Works.] Virgil’s undisputed works are three:
the _Eclogues_, called, on account of their pastoral nature, the
_Bucolics_; the _Georgics_; and the _Æneid_. [Sidenote: The Eclogues.]
The _Eclogues_ are a series of ten idylls in imitation of the poems
of the Greek poet Theocritus. The Greek word “idyll” means “little
picture,” and since all Virgil’s idylls, except the fourth, and most
of those of Theocritus, depict the life of herdsmen in the country,
the word is generally applied to pastoral poems. Virgil’s _Eclogues_
are little pictures of pastoral life, but contain many allusions to
the poet’s own circumstances and to his friends and patrons, Pollio,
Gallus, Varus, Mæcenas, and Augustus. Pastoral poems, written for the
cultivated circle of an imperial court, are necessarily artificial,
and to this rule the _Eclogues_ are no exception. Yet the charm of
their diction, the polish of their verse, the genuine love of nature
and appreciation of rural life which they display, have given these
poems a well-deserved place among the most famous productions of Roman
literature. In the _Eclogues_ Virgil is, even more than in his other
poems, dependent on Greek originals. Not only scattered lines, but
whole passages are almost literal translations from the idylls of
Theocritus, and less noticeable adaptations from other poets also
occur. Sometimes Virgil’s version is less beautiful than the original
poem from which he borrows, and some of the most admired passages are
not his own inventions; but even in the _Eclogues_, the earliest of his
authentic works, written when he was about thirty years of age, amid
the distress that accompanied his ejection from his little property,
Virgil succeeds in making from his Greek originals new and great poems
of genuinely Roman character. From first to last Virgil is a national
poet.
The poem which stands first in the series, but which was not the
first in order of composition, has the form of a dialogue between two
herdsmen, Melibœus and Tityrus. In it the poet expresses his gratitude
to Augustus, whom he calls a god. The poem begins:
_Melibœus._ Stretched in the shadow of the broad beech, thou
Rehearsest, Tityrus, on the slender pipe
Thy woodland music. We our fatherland
Are leaving, we must shun the fields we love:
While, Tityrus, thou, at ease amid the shade,
Bidd’st answering woods call Amaryllis “fair.”
_Tityrus._ O Melibœus! ’tis a god that made
For me this holiday: for a god I’ll aye
Account him; many a young lamb from my fold
Shall stain his altar. Thanks to him, my kine
Range as thou seest them: thanks to him, I play
What songs I list upon my shepherd’s pipe.[52]
In the dialogue that follows, Tityrus, who represents Virgil himself,
speaks of his visit to Rome and his meeting with Augustus:
There, Melibœus, I beheld that youth
For whom each year twelve days my altars smoke.
Thus answered he my yet unanswered prayer,
“Feed still, my lads, your kine, and yoke your bulls.”[53]
The fourth _Eclogue_, addressed to Pollio, and written in the year of
his consulship (40 B. C.), celebrates in prophetic and lofty language
the birth of a child. As the child grows the world is to become
better, until the golden age of peace and good-will among men shall
come again. This poem was, curiously enough, long supposed to be an
inspired prophecy of the coming of Christ. Who the child really was
is uncertain, but there is some evidence that Gaius Asinius Gallus,
Pollio’s son, is meant. The lofty tone is struck with the very opening
of the poem:
Muses of Sicily, a loftier song
Wake we! Some tire of shrubs and myrtles low.
Are woods our theme? Then princely be the woods.
Come are those last days that the Sibyl sang;
The ages’ mighty march begins anew.
Now comes the virgin, Saturn reigns again;
Now from high heaven descends a wondrous race.
Thou on the new-born babe—who first shall end
That age of iron, bid a golden dawn
Upon the broad world—chaste Lucina, smile:
Now thy Apollo reigns. And Pollio, thou
Shalt be our Prince, when he that grander age
Opens, and onward roll the mighty moons:
Thou, trampling out what prints our crimes have left,
Shalt free the nations from perpetual fear.
While he to bliss shall waken; with the Blest
See the Brave mingling, and be seen of them,
Ruling that world o’er which his father’s arm shed peace.[54]
But the atmosphere of the _Eclogues_ is generally that of the country,
and the form that of dialogue, with competitive songs by the herdsmen.
The opening lines of the fifth _Eclogue_ may serve as an example. The
characters are Menalcas and Mopsus:
_Men._ Mopsus, suppose now two good men have met—
You at flute-blowing, as at verses I—
We sit down here, where elm and hazel mix.
_Mop._ Menalcas, meet it is that I obey
Mine elder. Lead, or into shade—that shifts
At the wind’s fancy—or (mayhap the best)
Into some cave. See, here’s a cave, o’er which
A wild vine flings her flimsy foliage.
_Men._ On these hills one—Amyntas—vies with you.
_Mop._ Suppose he thought to out-sing Phœbus’ self?
_Men._ Mopsus, begin. If aught you know of flames
That Phyllis kindles, aught of Alcon’s worth,
Or Codrus’ ill-temper, then begin;
Tityrus meanwhile will watch the grazing kids.
_Mop._ Ay, I will sing the song which t’other day
On a green beech’s bark I cut; and scored
The music as I wrote. Hear that, and bid
Amyntas vie with me.
_Men._ As willow lithe
Yields to pale olive; as to crimson beds
Of roses yields the lowly lavender,
So, to my mind, Amyntas yields to you.[55]
[Sidenote: The Georgics.] The _Eclogues_ were published not later
than 38 B. C. In 29 B. C. the four books of the _Georgics_ were
completed. One of the most important tasks of the new government, now
that the civil strife was ended, was to ensure the continuance of
tranquility by settling the veterans in the country and encouraging
agriculture, which had been sadly neglected in Italy for many years.
It was therefore with a practical end in view that Mæcenas suggested
to Virgil the composition of a poem on agriculture. This was a subject
which Virgil was especially qualified to treat with success, and the
poem, to which he devoted seven years, is the most perfect of his
works. It is a very free imitation of the _Works and Days_ of Hesiod,
and contains many passages derived from Aratus and other Greek poets,
but in its composition and its poetic beauty it is independent of
all but Virgil’s own genius. It is dedicated to Mæcenas. The first
book treats of the tilling of the soil, the beginning of agriculture,
the instruments needed by the farmer, the tasks appropriate to the
different seasons, and the signs of the weather, ending with a splendid
passage describing the portents at the time of Cæsar’s death, and a
prayer that Augustus may put an end to the wars and disorders of the
times. This passage is closely connected with the preceding lines in
which the signs of the weather given by th
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/44975