The History of Roman Literature

by Charles Thomas Cruttwell · English · Gutenberg #7525 · 1,357,811 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The 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: The History of Roman Literature

Author: Charles Thomas Cruttwell

Release date: February 1, 2005 [eBook #7525]
Most recently updated: December 30, 2020

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7525

Credits: Produced by Anne Soulard, Tiffany Vergon and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF ROMAN LITERATURE ***

Produced by Anne Soulard, Tiffany Vergon
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.

A HISTORY OF ROMAN LITERATURE:
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE DEATH OF MARCUS AURELIUS

BY
CHARLES THOMAS CRUTTWELL, M.A.

TO THE VENERABLE J. A. HESSEY, D.O.L ARCHDEACON OF MIDDLESEX,
THIS WORK IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED
BY HIS FORMER PUPIL, THE AUTHOR.

PREFACE.

The present work is designed mainly for Students at our Universities and
Public Schools, and for such as are preparing for the Indian Civil Service
or other advanced Examinations. The author hopes, however, that it may
also be acceptable to some of those who, without being professed scholars,
are yet interested in the grand literature of Rome, or who wish to refresh
their memory on a subject that perhaps engrossed their early attention,
but which the many calls of advancing life have made it difficult to
pursue.

All who intend to undertake a thorough study of the subject will turn to
Teuffel's admirable History, without which many chapters in the present
work could not have attained completeness; but the rigid severity of that
exhaustive treatise makes it fitter for a book of reference for scholars
than for general reading even among students. The author, therefore,
trusts he may be pardoned for approaching the History of Roman Literature
from a more purely literary point of view, though at the same time without
sacrificing those minute and accurate details without which criticism
loses half its value. The continual references to Teuffel's work,
excellently translated by Dr. W. Wagner, will bear sufficient testimony to
the estimation in which the author holds it, and the obligations which he
here desires to acknowledge.

He also begs to express his thanks to Mr. John Wordsworth, of B. N. C.,
Oxford, for many kind suggestions, as well as for courteous permission to
make use of his _Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin_; to Mr. H. A.
Redpath, of Queen's College, Oxford, for much valuable assistance in
correction of the proofs, preparation of the index, and collation of
references, and to his brother, Mr. W. H. G. Cruttwell, for verifying
citations from the post-Augustan poets.

To enumerate all the sources to which the present Manual is indebted would
occupy too much space here, but a few of the more important may be
mentioned. Among German writers, Bernhardy and Ritter--among French,
Boissier, Champagny, Diderot, and Nisard--have been chiefly used. Among
English scholars, the works of Dunlop, Conington, Ellis, and Munro, have
been consulted, and also the _History of Roman Literature_, reprinted from
the _Encyclopaedia Metropolitana_, a work to which frequent reference is
made, and which, in fact, suggested the preparation of the present volume.

It is hoped that the Chronological Tables, as well as the list of Editions
recommended for use, and the Series of Test Questions appended, will
materially assist the Student.

OXFORD,
_November_, 1877.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

Roman and Greek Literature have their periods of study--Influence of each
--Exactness of Latin language--Greek origin of Latin literature--Its three
great periods: (1) The Ante-Classical Period; (2) The Golden Age; (3) The
Decline.

BOOK I

FROM LIVIUS ANDRONICUS TO SULLA (240-80 B.C.).

CHAPTER I.

_On the Earliest Remains of the Latin Language._

Early inhabitants of Italy--Italic dialects--Latin--Latin alphabet--Later
innovations--Pronunciation--Spelling--Early Monuments--Song of Fratres
Arvales--Salian Hymn--Law of Romulus--Laws of Twelve Tables--Treaty
between Rome and Carthage--_Columna Rastrata_--Epitaphs of the Scipios--
_Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus_--Break-up of the language.

APPENDIX.--Examples of late corrupted dialects

CHAPTER II.

_On the Beginnings of Roman Literature._

The Latin character--Romans a practical people--Their religion unromantic
--Primitive culture of Latium--Germs of drama and epos--No early
historians--Early speeches--Ballad literature--No early Roman epos--Poets
despised--_Fescenninae_--_Saturae_--_Mime_ or _Planipes_--_Atellanae_-
Saturnian metre--Early interest in politics and law as giving the germs of
oratory and jurisprudence.

CHAPTER III.

_The Introduction of Greek Literature--Livius and Naevius_ (240-204 B.C.).

Introduction of Greek literature to Rome--Its first translators--Livius
Andronicus--His translation of the _Odyssey_, Tragedies, &c.--Cn.
Naevius--Inventor of _Praetextae_--Style--A politician--Writer of the
first national epic poem--His exile and death--Cicero's opinion of him--
His epitaph.

CHAPTER IV.

_Roman Comedy--Plautus to Turpilius_ (254-103 B.C.).

The Roman theatre--Plan of construction--Comedy--Related to Athenian
Middle and New Comedy--Plautus--His plays--Their plots and style--
_Palliatae_ and _Togatae_--His metres--Caecilius--Admires Terence--
Terence--His intimate friends--His style--Use of _contamination_--Lesser
comedians.

CHAPTER V.

_Roman Tragedy: Ennius--Accius_ (233-94 B.C.).

Contrast between Greek and Roman tragedy--Oratorical form of Latin
tragedy--Ennius--The father of Roman poetry--His _humamitas_--Relations
with Scipio--A follower of Pythagoras--His tragedies--Pacuvius--Painter
and tragedian--Cicero's criticism of his _Niptra_--His epitaph--L. Accius
--The last tragic writer--A reformer of spelling.

APPENDIX.--On some fragments of Sueius or Suevius.

CHAPTER VI.

_Epic Poetry: Ennius--Furius_ (200-100 B.C.).

Naevius and Ennius--Olympic deities and heroes of Roman story--Hexameter
of Ennius--Its treatment--Matius--Hostius--Furius.

CHAPTER VII.

_The Early History of Satire: Ennius to Lucilius_ (200-103 B.C.).

Roman satire a native growth--Origin of word "_Saturae_"--It is
didactic--Not necessarily poetical in form--Ennius--Pacuvius--Lucilius--
The objects of his attack--His popularity--His humility--His style and
language.

CHAPTER VIII.

_The Minor Departments of Poetry--The Atellanae (Pomponius and
Novius, circ. 90 B.C.) and the Epigram (Ennius--Callus, 100 B. C.)._

_Atellanae_--Oscan in origin--Novius--Pomponius--Mummius--Epigrammatists--
Catulus--Porcius Licinius--Pompilius--Valerius Aedituus.

CHAPTER IX.

_Prose Literature--History. Fabius Pictor--Macer_ (210-80 B.C.).

Early records--_Annales, Libri Lintei, Commentarii_, &c.--Narrow view of
history--Fabius--Cincius Alimentus--Cato--Creator of Latin prose--His
orations--His _Origines_--His treatise on agriculture--His miscellaneous
writings--_Catonis dicta_--Calpurnius Piso--Sempronius Asellio--Claudius
Quadrigarius Valerius Antias--Licinius Macer.

APPENDIX.--On the _Annales Pontificum_.

CHAPTER X.

_The History of Oratory before Cicero._

Comparison of English, Greek, and Roman oratory--AppiusCornelius
Cethegus--Cato--Laelius--The younger Scipio--Galba--Carbo--The Gracchi--
Self-praise of ancient orators--Aemilius Scaurus--Rutilius--Catulus--A
violent death often the fate of a Roman orator--M. Antonius--Crassus--The
Roman law-courts--Bribery and corruption prevalent in them--Feelings and
prejudices appealed to--Cotta and Sulpicius--Carbo the younger--
Hortensius--His friendship for Cicero--Asiatic and Attic styles.

CHAPTER XI.

_Other kinds of Prose Literature: Grammar, Rhetoric, and Philosophy_
(147-63 B.C.).

Legal writers--P. Mucius Scaevola--Q. Mucius Scaevola--Rhetoric--
Plotius Gallus--Cornificius--Grammatical science--Aelius Stilo--
Philosophy--Amafinius--Rabirius--Relation of philosophy to
religion.

BOOK II.

THE GOLDEN AGE.
FROM THE CONSULSHIP OF CICERO TO THE DEATH OF AUGUSTUS (63 B.C.-l4 A.D.).

PART I.

_THE REPUBLICAN PERIOD_.

CHAPTER I.

_Varro._

The two Divisions of this culminating period--Classical authors--Varro
--His life, his character, his encyclopaedic mind--His _Menippean
Satires_--_Logistorici_-_Antiquities Divine and Human_--_Imagines_--_De
Lingua Latina_--_De Re Rustica_.

APPENDIX.--Note I. The Menippean Satires of Varro,
" II. The _Logistorici_,
" III. Fragments of Atacinus,
" IV. The Jurists, Critics, and Grammarians of less note.

CHAPTER II.

_Oratory and Philosophy--Cicero_ (106-43 B.C.).

Cicero--His life--_Pro Roscio_--_In Verrem_--_Pro Cluentio_--_Pro lege
Manilia_--_Pro Rabirio_--Cicero and Clodius--His exile--_Pro Milone_--His
_Philippics_--Criticism of his oratory--Analysis of _Pro Milone_--His
Philosophy, moral and political--On the existence of God and the human
soul--List of his philosophical works--His rhetorical works--His letters--
His contemporaries and successors.

APPENDIX.--Poetry of M. and Q. Cicero.

CHAPTER III.

_Historical and Biographical Composition--Caesar--Nepos--Sallust._

Roman view of history--Caesar's _Commentaries_--Trustworthiness of his
statements--His style--A. Hirtius--Other writers of commentaries--Caesar's
oratorical and scientific position--Cornelius Nepos--C. Sallustius
Crispus--Tubero.

APPENDIX.--On the _Acta Diurna_ and _Acta Senatus_.

CHAPTER IV.

_The History of Poetry to the Close of the Republic--Rise of
Alexandrinism--Lucretius---Catullus._

The Drama--J. Caesar Strabo--The _Mimae_--D. Laberius--Publilius
Syrus--Matius--Pantomimi--Actors--The poetry of Cicero and Caesar--
Alexandria and its writers--Aratus--Callimachus--Apollonius Rhodius--
Euphorion--Lucretius--His philosophical opinions and style--Bibaculus--
Varro Atacinus--Calvus--Catullus--Lesbia.

APPENDIX.--Note I. On the Use of Alliteration in Latin Poetry,
" II. Some additional details on the History of the _Mimus_,
" III. Fragments of Valerius Soranus.

PART II.

_THE AUGUSTAN EPOCH_ (42 B.C.-l4 A.D.).

CHAPTER I.

_General Characteristics._

Common features of the Augustan authors--Augustus's relation to them
--Maecenas--The Apotheosis of the emperor--Rhetoricians not orators--
Historians--Jurists--Poets--Messala--Varius--Anser--Macer.

CHAPTER II.

_Virgil_ (70-19 B.C.)

Virgil--His earliest verses--His life and character--The minor poems
--The _Eclogues_--The _Georgics_--Virgil's love of Nature--His aptitude
for epic poetry--The scope of the _Aeneid_--The _Aeneid_ a religious poem
--Its relation to preceding poetry.

APPENDIX.--Note I. Imitations of Virgil in Propertius, Ovid, and
Manilius,
" II. On the shortening of final o in Latin poetry,
" III. On parallelism in Virgil's poetry,
" IV. On the Legends connected with Virgil.

CHAPTER III.

_Horace_ (65-8 B.C.).

Horace--His life--The dates of his works--Two aspects: a lyric poet and a
man of the world--His _Odes_ and _Epodes_--His patriotic odes--Excellences
of the odes--The _Satires_ and _Epistles_--Horace as a moralist--The _Ars
Poetica_--Horace's literary criticism--Lesser poets.

CHAPTER IV.

_The Elegiac Poets--Gratius--Manilius._

Roman elegy--Cornelius Callus--Domitius Marsus--Tibullus--Propertius--
Ovid--His life--_The Art of Love_--His exile--Doubtful and spurious poems
--Lesser erotic and epic poets--Gratius--Manilius.

CHAPTER V.

_Prose Writers of the Augustan Age._

Oratory Neglected--Declamation takes its place--Porcius Latro--Annaeus
Seneca--History--Livy--Opportune appearance of his work--Criticism of his
method--Pompeius Trogus--Vitruvius--Grammarians--Fenestella--Verrius
Flaccus--Hyginus--Law and philosophy.

APPENDIX.--Note I. A _Suasoria_ translated from Seneca,
" II. Some Observations on the Theory of Rhetoric, from
Quintilian, Book III.

BOOK III.

THE DECLINE.
FROM THE ACCESSION OF TIBERIUS TO THE DEATH OF M. AURELIUS, A.D. 14-180.

CHAPTER I.

_The Age of Tiberius_ (14-37 A.D.).

Sudden collapse of letters--Cause of this--Tiberius--Changed position
of literature--Vellius Paterculus--Valerius Maximus--Celsus--Remmius
Palaemon--Germanicus--Phaedrus--Pomponius Secundus the tragedian.

CHAPTER II.

_The Reigns of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero_ (37-68 A.D.).

1. _Poets._

The Neronian period an epoch--Peculiar characteristics of its writers
--Literary pretensions of Caligula--of Claudius--of Nero--Poem on
Calpurnius Piso--Relation of philosophy to life--Cornutus--Persius--Lucan
--Criticism of the _Pharsalia_--Eclogues of Calpurnius--The poem on Etna--
Tragedies of Seneca--The _apokolokuntosis_.

CHAPTER III.

_The Reigns of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero._

2. _Prose Writers--Seneca._

His importance--Life and writings--Influence of his exile--Relations with
Nero--His death--Is he a Stoic?--Gradual convergence of the different
schools of thought--Seneca a _teacher_ more than anything else--His
conception of philosophy--Supposed connection with Christianity--Estimate
of his character and style.

CHAPTER IV.

_The Reigns of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero._

3. _Other Prose Writers_.

Domitius Corbulo--Quintus Curtius--Columella--Pomponius Mela--
Valerius Protius--Petronius Arbiter--Account of his extant fragments.

APPENDIX.--Note I. The _Testamentum Porcelli_,
" II. On the MS. of Petronius.

CHAPTER V.

_The Reigns of the Flavian Emperors_ (69-96 A.D.).

1. _Prose Writers_.

A new literary epoch--Marked by common characteristics--Decay of national
genius--Pliny the elder--Account of his death translated from the younger
Pliny--His studious habits--The _Natural History_--Its character and
value--Quintilian--Account of his book _de Institutione Oratoria_--
Frontinus--A valuable and accurate writer--Grammatical studies.

APPENDIX.--Quintilian's Criticism on the Roman Authors.

CHAPTER VI.

_The Reigns of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian_ (69-96 A.D.).

2. _Poets_.

Reduced scope of poetry--Poetry the most dependent on external conditions
of any form of written literature--Valerius Flaccus--Silius--His death as
described by Pliny--His poem--The elder Statius--Statius--An extempore
poet--His public recitations--The _Silvae_--The _Thebaid_ and _Achilleid_
--His similes--Arruntius Stella--Martial--His death as recounted by Pliny
--The epigram--Other poets.

APPENDIX.--On the Similes of Virgil, Lucan, and Statius.

CHAPTER VII.

_The Reigns of Nerva and Trajan_ (96-117 A.D.).

Pliny the younger--His oratory--His correspondence--Letter to Trajan
--Velius Longus--Hyginus--Balbus--Flaccus--Juvenal--His life--A finished
declaimer--His character--His political views--Style--Tacitus--Dialogue on
eloquence--_Agricola_--_Germania_--_Histories_--Annals_
--Intended work on Augustus's reign--Style.

CHAPTER VIII.

_The Reigns of Hadrian and the Antonines_ (117-180 A.D.).

Era of African Latinity--Differs from the Silver Age--Hadrian's poetry
--Suetonius--His life--List of writings--Lives of the Caesars--His account
of Nero's death--Florus--Salvius Julianus and Sextus Pomponius--Fronto--
His relations with Aurelius--List of his works--Gellius--Gaius--Poems of
the period--_Pervigilium Veneris_--Apuleius--_De Magia_--_Metamorphoses_
or Golden Ass--Cupid and Psyche--His philosophical works.

CHAPTER IX.

_State of Philosophical and Religious Thought during the Period of the
Antonines--Conclusion_.

Greek eloquence revives in the Sophists--Itinerant rhetors--Cynic
preachers of virtue--The better class of popular philosophers--Dio
Chrysostom--Union of philosophy and rhetoric--Greek now the language of
general literature--Reconciliation of philosophy with religion--The
Platonist school--Apuleius--Doctrine of daemons--Decline of thought--
General review of the main features of Roman literatureConclusion.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

LIST OF EDITIONS RECOMMENDED

QUESTIONS OR SUBJECTS FOR ESSAYS, &c.

INTRODUCTION.

In the latter part of the seventeenth century, and during nearly the whole
of the eighteenth, the literature of Rome exercised an imperial sway over
European taste. Pope thought fit to assume an apologetic tone when he
clothed Homer in an English dress, and reminded the world that, as
compared with Virgil, the Greek poet had at least the merit of coming
first. His own mind was of an emphatically Latin order. The great poets of
his day mostly based their art on the canons recognised by Horace. And
when poetry was thus affected, it was natural that philosophy, history,
and criticism should yield to the same influence. A rhetorical form, a
satirical spirit, and an appeal to common sense as supreme judge, stamp
most of the writers of western Europe as so far pupils of Horace, Cicero,
and Tacitus. At present the tide has turned. We are living in a period of
strong reaction. The nineteenth century not only differs from the
eighteenth, but in all fundamental questions is opposed to it. Its
products have been strikingly original. In art, poetry, science, the
spread of culture, and the investigation of the basis of truth, it yields
to no other epoch of equal length in the history of modern times. If we go
to either of the nations of antiquity to seek for an animating impulse, it
will not be Rome but Greece that will immediately suggest itself to us.
Greek ideas of aesthetic beauty, and Greek freedom of abstract thought,
are being disseminated in the world with unexampled rapidity. Rome, and
her soberer, less original, and less stimulating literature, find no place
for influence. The readiness with which the leading nations drink from the
well of Greek genius points to a special adaptation between the two.
Epochs of upheaval, when thought is rife, progress rapid, and tradition,
political or religious, boldly examined, turn, as if by necessity, to
ancient Greece for inspiration. The Church of the second and third
centuries, when Christian thought claimed and won its place among the
intellectual revolutions of the world, did not disdain the analogies of
Greek philosophy. The Renaissance owed its rise, and the Reformation much
of its fertility, to the study of Greek. And the sea of intellectual
activity which now surges round us moves ceaselessly about questions which
society has not asked itself since Greece started them more than twenty
centuries age. On the other hand, periods of order, when government is
strong and progress restrained, recognise their prototypes in the
civilisation of Rome, and their exponents in her literature. Such was the
time of the Church's greatest power: such was also that of the fully
developed monarchy in France, and of aristocratic ascendancy in England.
Thus the two literatures wield alternate influence; the one on the side of
liberty, the other on the side of government; the one as urging restless
movement towards the ideal, the other as counselling steady acceptance of
the real.

From a more restricted point of view, the utility of Latin literature may
be sought in the practical standard of its thought, and in the almost
faultless correctness of its composition. On the former there is no need
to enlarge, for it has always been amply recognised. The latter excellence
fits it above all for an educational use. There is probably no language
which in this respect comes near to it. The Romans have been called with
justice a nation of grammarians. The greatest commanders and statesmen did
not disdain to analyse the syntax and fix the spelling of their language.
From the outset of Roman literature a knowledge of scientific grammar
prevailed. Hence the act of composition and the knowledge of its theory
went hand in hand. The result is that among Roman classical authors scarce
a sentence can be detected which offends against logical accuracy, or
defies critical analysis. In this Latin stands alone. The powerful
intellect of an Aeschylus or Thucydides did not prevent them from
transgressing laws which in their day were undiscovered, and which their
own writing helped to form. Nor in modern times could we find a single
language in which the idioms of the best writers could be reduced to
conformity with strict rule. French, which at first sight appears to offer
such an instance, is seen on a closer view to be fuller of illogical
idioms than any other language; its symmetrical exactness arises from
clear combination and restriction of single forms to a single use.
English, at least in its older form, abounds in special idioms, and German
is still less likely to be adduced. As long, therefore, as a penetrating
insight into syntactical structure is considered desirable, so long will
Latin offer the best field for obtaining it. In gaining accuracy, however,
classical Latin suffered a grievous loss. It became a cultivated as
distinct from a natural language. It was at first separated from the
dialect of the people, and afterwards carefully preserved from all
contamination by it. Only a restricted number of words were admitted into
its select vocabulary. We learn from Servius that Virgil was censured for
admitting _avunculus_ into epic verse; and Quintilian says that the
prestige of ancient use alone permits the appearance in literature of
words like _balare_, _hinnire_, and all imitative sounds. [1] Spontaneity,
therefore, became impossible, and soon invention also ceased; and the
imperial writers limit their choice to such words as had the authority of
classical usage. In a certain sense, therefore, Latin was studied as a
dead language, while it was still a living one. Classical composition,
even in the time of Juvenal, must have been a labour analogous to, though,
of course, much less than, that of the Italian scholars of the sixteenth
century. It was inevitable that when the repositaries of the literary
idiom were dispersed, it should at once fall into irrecoverable disuse;
and though never properly a dead language, should have remained as it
began, an artificially cultivated one. [2] An important claim on our
attention put forward by Roman literature is founded upon its actual
historical position. Imitative it certainly is. [3] But it is not the only
one that is imitative. All modern literature is so too, in so far as it
makes a conscious effort after an external standard. Rome may seem to be
more of a copyist than any of her successors; but then they have among
other models Rome herself to follow. The way in which Roman taste,
thought, and expression have found their way into the modern world, makes
them peculiarly worthy of study; and the deliberate method of undertaking
literary composition practised by the great writers and clearly traceable
in their productions, affords the best possible study of the laws and
conditions under which literary excellence is attainable. Rules for
composition would be hard to draw from Greek examples, and would need a
Greek critic to formulate them. But the conscious workmanship of the
Romans shows us technical method as separable from the complex aesthetic
result, and therefore is an excellent guide in the art.

The traditional account of the origin of literature at Rome, accepted by
the Romans themselves, is that it was entirely due to contact with Greece.
Many scholars, however, have advanced the opinion that, at an earlier
epoch, Etruria exercised an important influence, and that much of that
artistic, philosophical, and literary impulse, which we commonly ascribe
to Greece, was in its elements, at least, really due to her. Mommsen's
researches have re-established on a firmer basis the superior claims of
Greece. He shows that Etruscan civilisation was itself modelled in its
best features on the Hellenic, that it was essentially weak and
unprogressive and, except in religion (where it held great sway) and in
the sphere of public amusements, unable permanently to impress itself upon
Rome. [4] Thus the literary epoch dates from the conquest of Magna
Graecia. After the fall of Tarentum the Romans were suddenly familiarised
with the chief products of the Hellenic mind; and the first Punic war
which followed, unlike all previous wars, was favourable to the effects of
this introduction. For it was waged far from Roman soil, and so relieved
the people from those daily alarms which are fatal to the calm demanded by
study. Moreover it opened Sicily to their arms, where, more than in any
part of Europe except Greece itself, the treasures of Greek genius were
enshrined. A systematic treatment of Latin literature cannot therefore
begin before Livius Andronicus. The preceding ages, barren as they were of
literary effort, afford little to notice except the progress of the
language. To this subject a short essay has been devoted, as well as to
the elements of literary development which existed in Rome before the
regular literature. There are many signs in tradition and early history of
relations between Greece and Rome; as the decemviral legislation, the
various consultations of the Delphic Oracle, the legends of Pythagoras and
Numa, of Lake Regillus, and, indeed, the whole story of the Tarquins; the
importation of a Greek alphabet, and of several names familiar to Greek
legend--_Ulysses, Poenus, Catamitus_, &c.--all antecedent to the Pyrrhic
war. But these are neither numerous enough nor certain enough to afford a
sound basis for generalisation. They have therefore been merely touched on
in the introductory essays, which simply aim at a compendious registration
of the main points; all fuller information belonging rather to the
antiquarian department of history and to philology than to a sketch of the
written literature. The divisions of the subject will be those naturally
suggested by the history of the language, and recently adopted by Teuffel,
_i.e._--

1. The sixth and seventh centuries of the city (240-80 B.C.), from Livius
to Sulla.

2. The Golden Age, from Cicero to Ovid (80 B.C.-A.D. 14).

3. The period of the Decline, from the accession of Tiberius to the death
of Marcus Aurelius (14-180 A.D.).

These Periods are distinguished by certain strongly marked
characteristics. The First, which comprises the history of the legitimate
drama, of the early epos and satire, and the beginning of prose
composition, is marked by immaturity of art and language, by a vigorous
but ill-disciplined imitation of Greek poetical models, and in prose by a
dry sententiousness of style, gradually giving way to a clear and fluent
strength, which was characteristic of the speeches of Gracchus and
Antonius. This was the epoch when literature was popular; or at least more
nearly so than at any subsequent period. It saw the rise and fall of
dramatic art: in other respects it merely introduced the forms which were
carried to perfection in the Ciceronian and Augustan ages. The language
did not greatly improve in smoothness, or adaptation to express finished
thought. The ancients, indeed, saw a difference between Ennius, Pacuvius,
and Accius, but it may be questioned whether the advance would be
perceptible by us. Still the _labor limae_ unsparingly employed by
Terence, the rules of good writing laid down by Lucilius, and the labours
of the great grammarians and orators at the close of the period, prepared
the language for that rapid development which it at once assumed in the
masterly hands of Cicero.

The Second Period represents the highest excellence in prose and poetry.
The prose era came first, and is signalised by the names of Cicero,
Sallust, and Caesar. The celebrated writers were now mostly men of action
and high position in the state. The principles of the language had become
fixed; its grammatical construction was thoroughly understood, and its
peculiar genius wisely adapted to those forms of composition in which it
was naturally capable of excelling. The perfection of poetry was not
attained until the time of Augustus. Two poets of the highest renown had
indeed flourished in the republican period; but though endowed with lofty
genius they are greatly inferior to their successors in sustained art,
_e.g._ the constructions of prose still dominate unduly in the domain of
verse, and the intricacies of rhythm are not fully mastered. On the other
hand, prose has, in the Augustan age, lost somewhat of its breadth and
vigour. Even the beautiful style of Livy shows traces of that intrusion of
the poetic element which made such destructive inroads into the manner of
the later prose writers. In this period the writers as a rule are not
public men, but belong to what we should call the literary class. They
wrote not for the public but for the select circle of educated men whose
ranks were gradually narrowing their limits to the great injury of
literature. If we ask which of the two sections of this period marks the
most strictly national development, the answer must be--the Ciceronian;
for while the advancement of any literature is more accurately tested by
its prose writers than by its poets, this is specially the case with the
Romans, whose genius was essentially prosaic. Attention now began to be
bestowed on physical science, and the applied sciences also received
systematic treatment. The rhetorical element, which had hitherto been
overpowered by the oratorical, comes prominently forward; but it does not
as yet predominate to a prejudicial extent.

The Third Period, though of long duration, has its chief characteristics
clearly defined from the beginning. The foremost of these is unreality,
arising from the extinction of freedom and consequent loss of interest in
public life. At the same time, the Romans, being made for political
activity, did not readily content themselves with the less exciting
successes of literary life. The applause of the lecture-room was a poor
substitute for the thunders of the assembly. Hence arose a declamatory
tone, which strove by frigid and almost hysterical exaggeration to make up
for the healthy stimulus afforded by daily contact with affairs. The vein
of artificial rhetoric, antithesis, and epigram, which prevails from Lucan
to Fronto, owes its origin to this forced contentment with an uncongenial
sphere. With the decay of freedom, taste sank, and that so rapidly that
Seneca and Lucan transgress nearly as much against its canons as writers
two generations later. The flowers which had bloomed so delicately in the
wreath of the Augustan poets, short-lived as fragrant, scatter their
sweetness no more in the rank weed-grown garden of their successors.

The character of this and of each epoch will be dwelt on more at length as
it comes before us for special consideration, as well as the social or
religious phenomena which influenced the modes of thought or expression.
The great mingling of nationalities in Rome during the Empire necessarily
produced a corresponding divergence in style, if not in ideas.
Nevertheless, although we can trace the national traits of a Lucan or a
Martial underneath their Roman culture, the fusion of separate elements in
the vast capital was so complete, or her influence so overpowering, that
the general resemblance far outweighs the differences, and it is easy to
discern the common features which signalise unmistakeably the writers of
the Silver Age.

BOOK I.

CHAPTER I.

ON THE EARLIEST REMAINS OF THE LATIN LANGUAGE.

The question, Who were the earliest inhabitants of Italy? is one that
cannot certainly be answered. That some lower race, analogous to those
displaced in other parts of Europe [1] by the Celts and Teutons, existed
in Italy at a remote period is indeed highly probable; but it has not been
clearly demonstrated. At the dawn of the historic period, we find the
Messapian and Iapygian races inhabiting the extreme south and south-west
of Italy; and assuming, as we must, that their migrations had proceeded by
land across the Apennines, we shall draw the inference that they had been
gradually pushed by stronger immigrants into the furthest corner of the
Peninsula. Thus we conclude with Mommsen that they are to be regarded as
the historical aborigines of Italy. They form no part, however, of the
Italian race. Weak and easily acted upon, they soon ceased to have any
influence on the immigrant tribes, and within a few centuries they had all
but disappeared as a separate nation. The Italian races, properly so
called, who possessed the country at the time of the origin of Rome, are
referable to two main groups, the Latin and the Umbrian. Of these, the
Latin was numerically by far the smaller, and was at first confined within
a narrow and somewhat isolated range of territory. The Umbrian stock,
including the Samnite or Oscan, the Volscian and the Marsian, had a more
extended area. At one time it possessed the district afterwards known as
Etruria, as well as the Sabellian and Umbrian territories. Of the numerous
dialects spoken by this race, two only are in some degree known to us
(chiefly from inscriptions) the Umbrian and the Oscan. These show a close
affinity with one another, and a decided, though more distant,
relationship with the Latin. All three belong to a well-marked division of
the Indo-European speech, to which the name of _Italic_ is given. Its
nearest congener is the Hellenic, the next most distant being the Celtic.
The Hellenic and Italic may thus be called sister languages, the Celtic
standing in the position of cousin to both, though, on the whole, more
akin to the Italic. [2]

The Etruscan language is still a riddle to philologists, and until it is
satisfactorily investigated the ethnological position of the people that
spoke it must be a matter of dispute. The few words and forms which have
been deciphered lend support to the otherwise more probable theory that
they were an Indo-Germanic race only remotely allied to the Italians, in
respect of whom they maintained to quite a late period many distinctive
traits. [3] But though the Romans were long familiar with the literature
and customs of Etruria, and adopted many Etruscan words into their
language, neither of these causes influenced the literary development of
the Romans in any appreciable degree. Italian philology and ethnology have
been much complicated by reference to the Etruscan element. It is best to
regard it, like the Iapygian, as altogether outside the pale of genuine
Italic ethnography.

The main points of correspondence between the Italic dialects as a whole,
by which they are distinguished from the Greek, are as follow:--Firstly,
they all retain the spirants S, J (pronounced Y), and V, _e.g. sub,
vespera, janitrices_, beside _upo, espera, einateres_. Again, the Italian
_u_ is nearer the original sound than the Greek. The Greeks sounded _u_
like _ii_, and expressed the Latin _u_ for the most part by _ou_. On the
other hand the Italians lost the aspirated letters _th, ph, ch_, which
remain in Greek, and frequently omitted the simple aspirate. They lost
also the dual both in nouns and verbs, and all but a few fragmentary forms
of the middle verb. In inflexion they retain the sign of the ablative
(_d_), and, at least in Latin, the dat. plur. in _bus_. They express the
passive by the letter _r_, a weakened form of the reflexive, the principle
of which is reproduced in more than one of the Romance languages.

On the other hand, Latin differs from the other Italian dialects in
numerous points. In pronouns and elsewhere Latin _q_ becomes _p_ in
Umbrian and Oscan _(pis = quis)._ Again, Oscan had two vowels more than
Latin and was much more conservative of diphthongal sounds; it also used
double consonants, which old Latin did not. The Oscan and Umbrian
alphabets were taken from the Etruscan, the Latin from the Greek; hence
the former lacked O Q X, and used [Symbol] or [Symbol] (_san_ or soft _z_)
for _z_ (_zeta = ds_). They possessed the spirant F which they expressed
by [Symbol] and used the symbol [Symbol] to denote V or W. They preserved
the old genitive in _as_ or _ar_ (Lat. _ai, ae_) and the locative, both
which were rarely found in Latin; also the Indo-European future in _so_
(_didest, herest_) and the infin. in _um_ (_e.g. ezum = esse_).

The old Latin alphabet was taken from the Dorian alphabet of Cumae, a
colony from Chaleis, and consisted of twenty-one letters, A B C D E F Z H
I K L M N O P Q R S T V X, to which the original added three more, O or
[Symbol] (_th_), [Symbol] (_ph_), and [Symbol] (_ch_). These were retained
in Latin as numerals though not as letters, [Symbol] in the form of C=100,
[Symbol] or M as 1000, and [Symbol] or L as 50.

Of these letters Z fell out of use at an early period, its power being
expressed by S (_Saguntum = Zákunthos_) or SS (_massa = máza_). Its
rejection was followed by the introduction, of G. Plutarch ascribes this
change to Sp. Carvilius about 231 B.C., but it is found on inscriptions
nearly fifty years earlier. [4] In many words C was written for G down to
a late period, _e.g._ CN. was the recognised abbreviation for _Gnaeus_.

In Cicero's time Z was taken into use again as well as the Greek Y, and
the Greek combinations TH, PH, CH, chiefly for purposes of
transliteration. The Emperor Claudius introduced three fresh symbols, two
of which appear more or less frequently on monuments of his time. They are
[Symbol] or [Symbol], the inverted digamma, intended to represent the
consonantal V: [Symbol], or anti-sigma, to represent the Greek _psi_, and
[Symbol] to represent the Greek _upsilon_ with the sound of the French _u_
or German _ü_. The second is not found in inscriptions.

Other innovations were the doubling of vowels to denote length, a device
employed by the Oscans and introduced at Rome by the poet Accius, though
Quintilian [5] implies that it was known before his time, and the doubling
of consonants which was adopted from, the Greek by Ennius. In Greek,
however, such doubling generally, though not always, has a philological
justification. [6]

The pronounciation of Latin has recently been the subject of much
discussion. It seems clear that the vowels did not differ greatly, if at
all, from the same as pronounced by the modern Italians. The distinction
between E and I, however, was less clearly marked, at least in the popular
speech. Inscriptions and manuscripts afford abundant instances of their
confusion. _Menerva leber magester_ are mentioned by Quintilian, [7] and
the employment of _ei_ for the _i_ of the dat. pl. of nouns of the second
declension and of _nobis vobis_, and of _e_ and _i_ indifferently for the
acc. pl. of nouns of the third declension, attest the similarity of sound.
That the spirant J was in all cases pronounced as Y there is scarcely room
for doubt. The pronunciation of V is still undetermined, though there is a
great preponderance of evidence in favour of the W sound having been the
original one. After the first century A.D. this semi-vowel began to
develop into the labiodental consonant _v_, the intermediate stage being a
labial _v_, such as one may often hear in South Germany at the present
day, and which to ordinary ears would seem undistinguishable from _w_.

There is little to remark about the other letters, except that S, N, and M
became very weak when final and were often entirely lost. S was
rehabilitated in the literary dialect in the time of Cicero, who speaks of
the omission to reckon it as _subrusticum_; but final M is always elided
before a vowel. An illustration of the way in which final M and N were
weakened may be found in the nasalised pronunciation of them in modern
French (_main, faim_). The gutturals C and G have by some been supposed to
have had from the first a soft sibilant sound before E and I; but from the
silence of all the grammarians on the subject, from the transcriptions of
C in Greek by _kappa_, not _sigma_ or _tau_, and from the inscriptions and
MSS. of the best ages not confusing CI with TI, we conclude that at any
rate until 200 A.D. C and G were sounded hard before all vowels. The
change operated quickly enough afterwards, and to a great extent through
the influence of the Umbrian which had used _d_ or _ç_ before E and I for
some time.

In spelling much irregularity prevailed, as must always be the case where
there is no sound etymological theory on which to base it. In the earliest
inscriptions we find many inconsistencies. The case-signs _m_, _d_, are
sometimes retained, sometimes lost. In the second Scipionic epitaph we
have _oino (unum)_ side by side with _Luciom_. In the _Columna Rostrata_
(260 B.C.) we have _c_ for _g_, single instead of double consonants, _et_
for _it_ in _ornavet_, and _o_ for _u_ in terminations, all marks of
ancient spelling, contrasted with _maximos, maxumos; navebos, navebous;
praeda_, and other inconsistent or modern forms. Perhaps a later
restoration may account for these. In the decree of Aemilius, _posedisent_
and _possidere_ are found. In the _Lex Agraria_ we have _pequnia_ and
_pecunia_, in _S. C. de Bacchanalibus, senatuos_ and _nominus_ (gen.
sing.), _consoluerunt_ and _cosoleretur_, &c., showing that even in legal
documents orthography was not fixed. It is the same in the MSS. of ancient
authors. The oldest MSS. of Plautus, Lucretius, and Virgil, are consistent
in a considerable number of forms with themselves and with each other, but
vary in a still larger number. In antiquity, as at present, there was a
conflict between sound and etymology. A word was pronounced in one way;
science suggested that it ought to be written in another. This accounts
for such variations as _inperium, imperium; atque, adque; exspecto,
expecto;_ and the like (cases like _haud, haut; saxum, saxsum;_ are
different). The best writers could not decide between these conflicting
forms. A still greater fluctuation existed in English spelling in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, [8] but it has since been overcome.
Great writers sometimes introduced spellings of their own. Caesar wrote
_Pompeiii_ (gen. sing.) for _Pompeii_, after the Oscan manner. He also
brought the superlative _simus_ into use. Augustus, following in his
steps, paid great attention to orthography. His inscriptions are a
valuable source of evidence for ascertaining the correctest spelling of
the time. During and after the time of Claudius affected archaisms crept
in, and the value both of inscriptions and MSS. is impaired, on the one
hand, by the pedantic endeavour to bring spelling into accord with archaic
use or etymology, and, on the other, by the increasing frequency of
debased and provincial forms, which find place even in authoritative
documents. In spite of the obscurity of the subject several principles of
orthography have been definitely established, especially with regard to
the older Latin, which will guide future editors. And the labours of
Ritschl, Corssen, and many others, cannot fail to bring to light the most
important laws of variability which have affected the spelling of Latin
words, so far as the variation has not depended on mere caprice. [9]

With these preliminary remarks we may turn to the chief monuments of the
old language, the difficulties and uncertainties of which have been
greatly diminished by recent research. They are partly inscriptions (for
the oldest period exclusively so), and partly public documents, preserved
in the pages of antiquarians. Much may be learnt from the study of coins,
which, though less ancient than some of the written literature, are often
more archaic in their forms. The earliest of the existing remains is the
song of the Arval Brothers, an old rustic priesthood (_qui sacra publica
faciunt propterea ut fruges ferant arva_), [10] dating from the times of
the kings. This fragment was discovered at Rome in 1778, on a tablet
containing the acts of the sacred college, and was supposed to be as
ancient as Romulus. The priesthood was a highly honourable office, its
members were chosen for life, and emperors are mentioned among them. The
yearly festival took place in May, when the fruits were ripe, and
consisted in a kind of blessing of the first-fruits. The minute and
primitive ritual was evidently preserved from very ancient times, and the
hymn, though it has suffered in transliteration, is a good specimen of
early Roman worship, the rubrical directions to the brethren being
inseparably united with the invocation to the Lares and Mars. According to
Mommsen's division of the lines, the words are--

ENOS, LASES, IUVATE, (_ter_)
NEVE LUE RUE, MARMAR, SINS (V. SERS) INCURRERE IN PLEORES. (_ter_)
SATUR FU, FERE MARS. LIMEN SALI. STA. BERBER. (_ter_)
SEMUNIS ALTERNEI ADVOCAPIT CONCTOS. (_ter_)
ENOS, MARMOR, IUVATO. (_ter_)
TRIUMPE. (_Quinquies_)

The great difference between this rude dialect and classical Latin is
easily seen, and we can well imagine that this and the Salian hymn of Numa
were all but unintelligible to those who recited them. [11] The most
probable rendering is as follows:--"Help us, O Lares! and thou, Marmar,
suffer not plague and ruin to attack our folk. Be satiate, O fierce Mars!
Leap over the threshold. Halt! Now beat the ground. Call in alternate
strain upon all the heroes. Help us, Marmor. Bound high in solemn
measure." Each line was repeated thrice, the last word five times.

As regards the separate words, _enos_, which should perhaps be written _e
nos_, contains the interjectional _e_, which elsewhere coalesces with
vocatives. [12] _Lases_ is the older form of _Lares_. _Lue rue = luem
ruem_, the last an old word for _ruinam_, with the case-ending lost, as
frequently, and the copula omitted, as in _Patres Conscripti_, &c.
_Marmar, Marmor_, or _Mamor_, is the reduplicated form of _Mars_, seen in
the Sabine _Mamers_. _Sins_ is for _sines_, as _advocapit_ for
_advocabitis_. [13] _Pleores_ is an ancient form of _plures_, answering to
the Greek _pleionas_ in form, and to _tous pollous_, "the mass of the
people" in meaning. _Fu_ is a shortened imperative. [14] _Berber_ is for
_verbere_, imper. of the old _verbero, is_, as _triumpe_ from _triumpere_
= _triumphare_. _Semunes_ from _semo_ (_se-homo_ "apart from man") an
inferior deity, as we see from the Sabine _Semo Sancus_ (= _Dius Fidius_).
Much of this interpretation is conjectural, and other views have been
advanced with regard to nearly every word, but the above given is the most
probable.

The next fragment is from the Salian hymn, quoted by Varro. [15] It
appears to be incomplete. The words are:

"Cozeulodoizeso. Omnia vero adpatula coemisse iamcusianes duo
misceruses dun ianusve vet pos melios eum recum...," and a little
further on, "divum empta cante, divum deo supplicante."

The most probable transcription is:

"Chorauloedus ero; Omnia vero adpatula concepere Iani curiones. Bonus
creator es. Bonus Janus vivit, quo meliorem regum [terra Saturnia
vidit nullum]"; and of the second, "Deorum impetu canite, deorum deum
suppliciter canite."

Here we observe the ancient letter _z_ standing for _s_ and that for _r_,
also the word _cerus_ masc. of _ceres_, connected with the root _creare_.
_Adpatula_ seems = _clara_. Other quotations from the Salian hymns occur
in Festus and other late writers, but they are not considerable enough to
justify our dwelling upon them. All of them will be found in Wordsworth's
_Fragments and Specimens of early Latin_.

There are several fragments of laws said to belong to the regal period,
but they have been so modernised as to be of but slight value for the
purpose of philological illustration. One or two primitive forms, however,
remain. In a law of Romulus, we read _Si nurus ... plorassit ... sacra
divis parendum estod_, where the full form of the imperative occurs, the
only instance in the whole range of the language. [16] A somewhat similar
law, attributed to Numa, contains some interesting forms:

"Si parentem puer verberit asi ole plorasit, puer divis parentum
verberat? ille ploraverit diis
sacer esto."

Much more interesting are the scanty remains of the Laws of the Twelve
Tables (451, 450 B.C.). It is true we do not possess the text in its
original form. The great destruction of monuments by the Gauls probably
extended to these important witnesses of national progress. Livy, indeed,
tells us that they were recovered, but it was probably a copy that was
found, and not the original brass tables, since we never hear of these
latter being subsequently exhibited in the sight of the people. Their
style is bold and often obscure, owing to the omission of distinctive
pronouns, though doubtless this obscurity would be greatly lessened if we
had the entire text. Connecting particles are also frequently omitted, and
the interdependence of the moods is less developed than in any extant
literary Latin. For instance, the imperative mood is used in all cases,
permissive as well as jussive, _Si nolet arceram ne sternito_, "If he does
not choose, he need not procure a covered car." The subjunctive is never
used even in conditionals, but only in final clauses. Those which seem to
be subjunctives are either present indicatives (_e.g. escit, vindicit_) or
second futures (_e.g. faxit, rupsit_.). The ablative absolute, so strongly
characteristic of classical Latin, is never found, or only in one doubtful
instance. The word _igitur_ occurs frequently in the sense of "after
that," "in that case," a meaning which it has almost lost in the literary
dialect. Some portion of each Table is extant. We subjoin an extract from
the first.

"1. Si in ius vocat, ito. Ni it, antestamino: igitur em capito. Si calvitur
antestetur postea eum frustratur

pedemve struit, manum endo iacito
iniicito

2. Rem ubi pacunt orato. Ni pacunt, in comitio aut in foro ante
pagunt (cf. pacisci)
meridiem caussam coiciunto. Com peroranto ambo praesentes.
Una

Post meridiem praesenti litem addicito. Si ambo praesentes, Sol occasus
suprema tempestas esto."

The difference between these fragments and the Latin of Plautus is really
inconsiderable. But we have the testimony of Polybius [17] with regard to
a treaty between Rome and Carthage formed soon after the Regifugium (509
B.C.), and therefore not much anterior to the Decemvirs, that the most
learned Romans could scarcely understand it. We should infer from this
that the language of the Twelve Tables, from being continually quoted to
meet the exigencies of public life, was unconsciously moulded into a form
intelligible to educated men; and that this process continued until the
time when literary activity commenced. After that it remained untouched;
and, in fact, the main portion of the laws as now preserved shows a strong
resemblance to the Latin of the age of Livius, who introduced the written
literature.

The next specimen will be the _Columna Rostrata_, or Column of Duillius.
The original monument was erected to commemorate his naval victory over
the Carthaginians, 260 B.C., but that which at present exists is a
restoration of the time of Claudius. It has, however, been somewhat
carelessly done, for several modernisms have crept into the language. But
these are not sufficient to disprove its claim to be a true restoration of
an ancient monument. To consider it a forgery is to disregard entirely the
judgment of Quintilian, [18] who takes its genuineness for granted. It is
in places imperfect--

"Secestanosque ... opsidioned exemet, lecionesque Cartaciniensis omnis
maximosque macistratos luci palam post dies novem castreis exfociunt,
magistratus effugiunt
Macelamque opidom vi puenandod cepet. Enque eodem macistratud bene
rem navebos marid consol primos ceset, copiasque clasesque navales primos
gessit
ornavet paravetque. Cumque eis navebous claseis Poenicas omnis, item
maxumas copias Cartaciniensis, praesented Hanibaled dictatored olorom,
illorum
inaltod marid puenandod vicet. Vique navis cepet cum socieis septeresmom
in alto septiremem
unam, quinqueresmosque triresmosque naveis xxx: merset xiii. Aurom
mersit
captom numci [Symbols] DCC. arcentom captom praeda: numci CCCI[Symbols]
CCCI[Symbols]. Omne captom, aes CCCI[Symbols] (plus vicies semel). Primos
quoque navaled praedad poplom donavet primosque Cartaciniensis incenuos
ingenuos
duxit in triumpod."

We notice here C for G, ET for IT, O for V on the one hand: on the other,
_praeda_ where we should expect _praida_, besides the inconsistencies
alluded to on p. 13.

The Mausoleum of the Scipios containing the epitaphs was discovered in
1780. The first of these inscriptions dates from 280 B.C. or twenty years
earlier than the Columna Rostrata, and is the earliest original Roman
philological antiquity of assignable date which we possess. But the other
epitaphs on the Scipios advance to a later period, and it is convenient to
arrange them all together. The earliest runs thus:--

The next, the title of which is painted and the epitaph graven, refers to
the son of Barbatus. Like the preceding, it is written in Saturnian verse:

The more archaic character of this inscription suggests the
explanation that the first was originally painted, and not engraven
till a later period, when, as in the case of the Columna Rostrata,
some of its archaisms (probably the more unintelligible) were
suppressed. In ordinary Latin it would be:

"Hunc unum plurimi consentiunt Romani (or Romae) bonorum optimum
fuisse virum virorum, Lucium Scipionem. Filius (erat) Barbati, Consul,
Censor. Aedilis hic fuit apud vos. Hic cepit Corsicam Aleriamque urbem
pugnando; dedit tempestatibus aedem merito votam."

The third epitaph is on P. Corn. Scipio, probably son of the great
Africanus, and adopted father of Scipio Aemilianus:--

The last which will be quoted here is that of L. Corn. Scipio, of
uncertain date:

These last two are written in clear, intelligible Latin, the former
showing in addition a genuine literary inspiration. Nevertheless, the
student will perceive many signs of antiquity in the omission of the case-
ending _m_, in the spellings _gesistei, quom_ ( = _cum_. prep.) in the old
long quantities _omnia fama facile_ and the unique _quairatis_. There are
no less than five other inscriptions in the Mausoleum, one of which
concludes with four elegiac lines, but they can hardly be cited with
justice among the memorials of the old language.

The _Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus_, or, as some scholars prefer to
call it, _Epistola Consulum ad Teuranos_ (186 B.C.), found at Terra di
Teriolo, in Calabria, in 1640, is quite in its original state. It is
easily intelligible, and except in orthography, scarcely differs from
classical Latin. We subjoin it entire, as it is a very complete and
important specimen of the language, and with it we shall close our list:--

"1. Q. Marcius L. f. S(p) Postumius L. f. cos senatum consoluerunt n. Oct-
2. ob. apud aedem | Duelonai. Sc. arf. M. Claudi(us) M. f.
Bellonae Scribendo adfuerunt
L. Valeri(us) P.f.Q. Minuci(us) C. f.--
3. De Bacanalibus quei foideratei | esent ita exdeicendum censuere.
4. Neiquis eorum Bacanal habuise velet. Sei ques | esent quei
vellet Si qui
sibei deicerent necesus ese Bacanal habere, eeis utei
5. ad pr(aetorem) urbanum | Romam venirent deque eeis rebus,
6. ubei eorum verba audita esent, utei senatus | noster decerneret, dum ne
minus Senatorbus C adesent, quom ea
adessent
7. res cosoleretur | Bacas vir nequis adiese velet ceivis Roma-
8. nus neve nominus Latini neve socium | quisquam, nisei
pr(aetorem) urbanum adiesent, isque de senatuos sententiad,
adiissent
9. dum ne | minus Senatoribus C adesent, quom ea res cosoleretur, iousiset.
Censuere. |
10. Sacerdos nequis vir eset. Magister neque vir neque mulier
11. quisquam eset. | Neve pecuniam quisquam eorum comoinem ha-
communem
12. buise velet, neve magistratum | neve pro magistratud, neque
13. virum neque mulierem quiquam fecise velet. | Neve posthac inter sed
coniourase
14. neve comvovise neve conspondise | neve compromesise velet, neve quis-
15. quam fidem inter sed dedise velet | Sacra in oquoltod ne quisquam
occulto
16. fecise velet, neve in poplicod neve in | preivatod neve exstrad urbem
17. sacra quisquam fecise velet,--nisei | pr(aetorem) urbanum adieset isque
18. de senatuos sententiad, dum ne minus | senatoribus C adesent, uom es
res cocoleretur, iousiset. Censuere.
19. Homines plous V oinversei virei atque mulieres sacra ne quisquam |
universi
20. fecise velet, neve inter ibei virei plous duobus mulieribus plous tri-
21. bus | arfuise velent, nisei de pr(aetoris) urbani senatuosque sententiad,
22. utei suprad | scriptam est.
23. Haice utei in coventionid exdeicatis ne minus trinum | noundinum
contione
24. senatuosque sententiam utei scientes esetis--eorum | sententia ita fuit:
25. Sei ques esent, quei arvorsum ead fecisent, quam suprad | scriptum
adversum ea
26. est, eeis rem caputalem faciendam censuere--atque utei | hoce in
27. tabolam abenam inceideretis, ita senatus aiquom censuit; | uteique eam
aequum
28. figier ioubeatis ubei facilumed gnoscier potisit;--atque | utei ea Ba-
29. canalia, sei qua sunt, exstrad quam sei quid ibei sacri est | ita utei
suprad scriptum est, in diebus x. quibus vobis tabelai datai
30. erunt, | faciatis utci dismota sient--in agro Teurano."
Tauriano

We notice that there are in this decree no doubled consonants, no
ablatives without the final _d_ (except the two last words, which are
probably by a later hand), and few instances of _ae_ or _i_ for the older
_ai, ei; oi_ and _ou_ stand as a rule for _oe, u_; _ques, eeis_, for _qui,
ii_. On the other hand _us_ has taken the place of _os_ as the termination
of _Romanus, Postumius_, &c., and generally _u_ is put instead of the
older _o_. The peculiarities of Latin syntax are here fully developed, and
the language has become what we call classical. At this point literature
commences, and a long succession of authors from Plautus onwards carry the
history of the language to its completion; but it should be remembered
that few of these authors wrote in what was really the speech of the
people. In most cases a literature would be the best criterion of a
language. In Latin it is otherwise. The popular speech could never have
risen to the complexity of the language of Cicero and Sallust. This was an
artificial tongue, based indeed on the colloquial idiom, but admitting
many elements borrowed from the Greek. If we compare the language and
syntax of Plautus, who was a genuine popular writer, with that of Cicero
in his more difficult orations, the difference will at once be felt. And
after the natural development of classical Latin was arrested (as it
already was in the time of Augustus), the interval between the colloquial
and literary dialects became more and more wide. The speeches of Cicero
could never have been unintelligible even to the lowest section of the
city crowd, but in the third and fourth centuries it is doubtful whether
the common people understood at all the artificially preserved dialect to
which literature still adhered. Unfortunately our materials for tracing
the gradual decline of the spoken language are scanty. The researches of
Mommsen, Ritschl, and others, have added considerably to their number. And
from these we see that the old language of the early inscriptions was
subjected to a twofold process of growth. On the one hand, it expanded
into the literary dialect under the hands of the Graecising aristocracy;
on the other, it ran its course as a popular idiom, little affected by the
higher culture for several centuries until, after the decay of classical
Latin, it reappears in the fifth century, strikingly reminding us in many
points of the earliest infancy of the language. The _lingua plebeia,
vulgaris_, or _rustica_, corrupted by the Gothic invasions, and by the
native languages of the other parts of the empire which it only partially
supplanted, became eventually distinguished from the _Lingua Latina_
(which was at length cultivated, even by the learned, only in writing,) by
the name of _Lingua Romana_. It accordingly differed in different
countries. The purest specimens of the old Lingua Romana are supposed to
exist in the mountains of Sardinia and in the country of the Grisons. In
these dialects many of the most ancient formations were preserved, which,
repudiated by the classical Latin, have reappeared in the Romance
languages, bearing testimony to the inherent vitality of native idiom,
even when left to work out its own development unaided by literature.

APPENDIX.

_Examples of the corrupted dialect of the fifth and following
centuries._ [20]

1. An epitaph of the fifth century.

"Hic requiescit in pace domna
domina

Bonusa quix ann. xxxxxx et Domo
quae vixit Domino

Menna quixitannos ... Eabeat anatema a Juda si quis alterum
qui vixit annos Habeat anathema

omine sup. me posuerit. Anatema abeas da trecenti decem et
hominem super habeas de trecentis

octo patriarche qui chanones esposuerunt et da s ca Xpi
patriarchis canones exposuerunt sanctis Christi

quatuor Eugvangelia"
Evangeliis

2. An instrument written in Spain under the government of the Moors in the
year 742, a fragment of which is taken from Lanzi. The whole is given by
P. Du Mesnil in his work on the doctrine of the Church.

"Non faciant suas missas misi
portis cerratis: sin peiter
seratis (minus) pendant

decem pesantes argenti. Monasterie quae sunto in eo mando ... faciunt
nummos Monasteriae faciant

Saracenis bona acolhensa sine vexatione neque forcia: vendant sine
vectigalia? vi

pecho tali pacto quod non vadant tributo foras de nostras terras."
nostris terris

3. The following is the oath of fealty taken by Lewis, King of
Germany, in 842 A.D.

"Pro Deo amur et pro Christian poble et nostro comun salvament
Dei amore Christiano populo nostra communi salute

dist di enavant in quant
de isto die in posterum quantum

Dis saver et podirme dunat: si salverat eo cist meon fradre Karlo
Deus scire posse donet: sic (me) servet ei isti meo fratri Carolo

et in adjudha et in cadhuna cosa si cum om per
adjumento qualicunque caussa sic quomodo homo per

dreit son fradra salvar distino: quid il mi altre
rectum (=jure) suo fratri salvare destine: quod ille mihi ex altera (parte)

si fazet; et abludher nul plaid nunquam prendrai, qui
sic faciet; ab Lothario nullum consilium unquam accipiam, quod

meon vol cist meon fradra Karlo in damno sit."
mea voluntate isti meo fratri Carolo damnum

CHAPTER II.

ON THE BEGINNINGS OF ROMAN LITERATURE.

Mommsen has truly remarked that the culminating point of Roman development
was the period which had no literature. Had the Roman people continued to
move in the same lines as they did before coming in contact with the works
of Greek genius, it is possible that they might have long remained without
a literature. Or if they had wrought one out for themselves, it would no
doubt have been very different from that which has come down to us. As it
is, Roman literature forms a feature in human history quite without a
parallel. We see a nation rich in patriotic feeling, in heroes legendary
and historical, advancing step by step to the fullest solution then known
to the world of the great problems of law and government, and finally
rising by its virtues to the proud position of mistress of the nations,
which yet had never found nor, apparently, even wanted, any intellectual
expression of its life and growth, whether in the poet's inspired song or
in the sober narrative of the historian.

The cause of this striking deficiency is to be sought in the original
characteristics of the Latin race. The Latin character, as distinguished
from the Greek, was eminently practical and unimaginative. It was marked
by good sense, not by luxuriant fancy: it was "natum rebus agendis." The
acute intellect of the Romans, directing itself from the first to
questions of war and politics, obtained such a clear and comprehensive
grasp of legal and political rights as, united with an unwavering tenacity
of purpose, made them able to administer with profound intelligence their
vast and heterogeneous empire. But in the meantime reflective thought had
received no impulse.

The stern and somewhat narrow training which was the inheritance of the
governing class necessarily confined their minds to the hard realities of
life. Whatever poetical capacity the Romans may once have had was thus
effectually checked. Those aspirations after an ideal beauty which most
nations that have become great have embodied in "immortal verse"--if they
ever existed in Rome--faded away before her greatness reached its
meridian, only to be rekindled into a shadowy and reflected brightness
when Rome herself had begun to decay.

There is nothing that so powerfully influences literature as the national
religion. Poetry, with which in all ages literature begins, owes its
impulse to the creations of the religious imagination. Such at least has
been the case with those Aryan races who have been most largely endowed
with the poetical gift. The religion of the Roman differed from that of
the Greek in having no background of mythological fiction. For him there
was no Olympus with its half-human denizens, no nymph-haunted fountain, no
deified heroes, no lore of sacred bard to raise his thoughts into the
realm of the ideal. His religion was cold and formal. Consisting partly of
minute and tedious ceremonies, partly of transparent allegories whereby
the abstractions of daily life were clothed with the names of gods, it
possessed no power over his inner being. Conceptions such as Sowing
(Saturnus), War (Bellona), Boundary (Terminus), Faithfulness (Fides), much
as they might influence the moral and social feelings, could not be
expanded into material for poetical inventions. And these and similar
deities were the objects of his deepest reverence. The few traces that
remained of the ancient nature-worship, unrelated to one another, lost
their power of producing mythology. The Capitoline Jupiter never stood to
the Romans in a true personal relation. Neither Mars nor Hercules (who
were genuine Italian gods) was to Rome what Apollo was to Greece. Whatever
poetic sentiment was felt centred rather in the city herself than in the
deities who guarded her. Rome was the one name that roused enthusiasm;
from first to last she was the true Supreme Deity, and her material
aggrandisement was the never-exhausted theme of literary, as it had been
the consistent goal of practical, effort.

The primitive culture of Latium, in spite of all that has been written
about it, is still so little known, that it is hard to say whether there
existed elements out of which a native art and literature might have been
matured. But it is the opinion of the highest authorities that such
elements did exist, though they never bore fruit. The yearly Roman
festival with its solemn dance, [1] the masquerades in the popular
carnival, [2] and the primitive litanies, afforded a basis for poetical
growth almost identical with that which bore such rich fruit in Greece. It
has been remarked that dancing formed a more important part of these
ceremonies than song. This must originally have been the case in Greece
also, as it is still in all primitive stages of culture. But whereas in
Greece the artistic cultivation of the body preceded and led up to the
higher conceptions of pure art, in Rome the neglect of the former may have
had some influence in repressing the existence of the latter.

If the Romans had the germ of dramatic art in their yearly festivals, they
had the germ of the epos in their lays upon distinguished warriors. But
the heroic ballad never assumed the lofty proportions of its sister in
Greece. Given up to women and boys it abdicated its claim to widespread
influence, and remained as it had begun, strictly "gentile." The theory
that in a complete state place should be found for the thinker and the
poet as well as for the warrior and legislator, was unknown to ancient
Rome. Her whole development was based on the negation of this theory. It
was only when she could no longer enforce her own ideal that she admitted
under the strongest protest the dignity of the intellectual calling. This
will partly account for her singular indifference to historical study.
With many qualifications for founding a great and original historical
school, with continuous written records from an early date, with that
personal experience of affairs without which the highest form of history
cannot be written, the Romans yet allowed the golden opportunity to pass
unused, and at last accepted a false conception of history from the
contemporary Greeks, which irreparably injured the value of their greatest
historical monuments. Had it been customary for the sober-minded men who
contributed to make Roman history for more than three centuries, to leave
simple commentaries for the instruction of after generations, the result
would have been of incalculable value. For that such men were well
qualified to give an exact account of facts is beyond doubt. But the
exclusive importance attached to active life made them indifferent to such
memorials, and they were content with the barren and meagre notices of the
pontifical annals and the yearly registers of magistrates in the temple of
Capitoline Jupiter.

These chronicles and registers on the one hand, and the hymns, laws, [3]
and formulas of various kinds on the other, formed the only written
literature existing in the times before the Punic wars. Besides these,
there, were a few speeches, such as that of Ap. Claudius Caecus (280 B.C.)
against Pyrrhus, published, and it is probable that the funeral orations
of the great families were transmitted either orally or in writing from
one generation to another, so as to serve both as materials for history
and models of style.

Much importance has been assigned by Niebuhr and others to the ballad
literature that clustered round the great names of Roman history. It is
supposed to have formed a body of national poetry, the complete loss of
which is explained by the success of the anti-national school of Ennius
which superseded it. The subjects of this poetry were the patriots and
heroes of old Rome, and the traditions of the republic and the struggles
between the orders were faithfully reflected in it. Macaulay's _Lays of
Ancient Rome_ are a brilliant reconstruction of what he conceived to be
the spirit of this early literature. It was written, its supporters
contend, in the native Saturnian, and, while strongly leavened with Greek
ideas, was in no way copied from Greek models. It was not committed to
writing, but lived in the memory of the people, and may still be found
embedded in the beautiful legends which adorn the earlier books of Livy.
Some idea of its scope may be formed from the fragments that remain of
Naevius, who was the last of the old bards, and bewailed at his own death
the extinction of Roman poetry. Select lays were sung at banquets either
by youths of noble blood, or by the family bard; and if we possessed these
lays, we should probably find in them a fresher and more genuine
inspiration than in all the literature which followed.

This hypothesis of an early Roman epos analogous to the Homeric poems, but
preserved in a less coherent shape, has met with a close investigation at
the hands of scholars, but is almost universally regarded as "not proven."
The scanty and obscure notices of the early poetry by no means warrant our
drawing so wide an inference as the Niebuhrian theory demands. [4] All
they prove is that the Roman aristocracy, like that of all other warlike
peoples, listened to the praises of their class recited by minstrels
during their banquets or festive assemblies. But so far from the minstrel
being held in honour as in Greece and among the Scandinavian tribes, we
are expressly told that he was in bad repute, being regarded as little
better than a vagabond. [5] Furthermore, if these lays had possessed any
merit, they would hardly have sunk into such complete oblivion among a
people so conservative of all that was ancient. In the time of Horace
Naevius was as well known as if he had been a modern; if, therefore, he
was merely one, though, the most illustrious, of a long series of bards,
it is inconceivable that his predecessors should have been absolutely
unknown. Cicero, indeed, regrets the loss of these rude lays; but it is in
the character of an antiquarian and a patriot that he speaks, and not of
an appraiser of literary merit. The really imaginative and poetical halo
which invests the early legends of Rome must not be attributed to
individual genius, but partly to patriotic impulse working among a people
for whom their city and her faithful defenders supplied the one material
for thought, and partly, no doubt, though we know not in what degree, to
early contact with the legends and culture of Greece. The epitaphs of the
first two Scipios are a good criterion of the state of literary
acquirement at the time. They are apparently uninfluenced by Greek models,
and certainly do not present a high standard either of poetical thought or
expression.

The fact, also, that the Romans possessed no native term for a poet is
highly significant. _Poeta_, which we find as early as Naevius, [6] is
Greek; and _vates_, which Zeuss [7] traces to a Celtic root, meant
originally "soothsayer," not "poet." [8] Only in the Augustan period does
it come into prominence as the nobler term, denoting that inspiration
which is the gift of heaven and forms the peculiar privilege of genius.
[9] The names current among the ancient Romans, _librarius_, _scriba_,
were of a far less complimentary nature, and referred merely to the
mechanical side of the art. [10] These considerations all tend to the
conclusion that the true point from which to date the beginning of Roman
literature is that assigned by Horace, [11] viz. the interval between the
first and second Punic wars. It was then that the Romans first had leisure
to contemplate the marvellous results of Greek culture, revealed to them
by the capture of Tarentum (272 B.C.), and still more conspicuously by the
annexation of Sicily in the war with Carthage. In Sicily, even more than
in Magna Graecia, poetry and the arts had a splendid and enduring life.
The long line of philosophers, dramatists, and historians was hardly yet
extinct. Theocritus was still teaching his countrymen the new poetry of
rustic life, and many of the inhabitants of the conquered provinces came
to reside at Rome, and imported their arts and cultivation; and from this
period the history of Roman poetry assumes a regular and connected form.
[12]

Besides the scanty traces of written memorials, there were various
elements in Roman civilisation which received a speedy development in the
direction of literature and science as soon as Greek influence was brought
to bear on them. These may be divided into three classes, viz. rudimentary
dramatic performances, public speaking in the senate and forum, and the
study of jurisprudence.

The capacity of the Italian nations for the drama is attested by the fact
that three kinds of dramatic composition were cultivated in Rome, and if
we add to these the semi-dramatic _Fescenninae_, we shall complete the
list of that department of literature. This very primitive type of song
took its rise in Etruria; it derives its name from Fescennium, an Etrurian
town, though others connect it with _fascinum_, as if originally it were
an attempt to avert the evil eye. [13] Horace traces the history of this
rude banter from its source in the harvest field to its city developments
of slander and abuse, [14] which needed the restraint of the law. Livy, in
his sketch of the rise of Roman drama, [15] alludes to these verses as
altogether unpolished, and for the most part extemporaneous. He agrees
with Horace in describing them as taking the form of dialogue
(_alternis_), but his account is meagre in the extreme. In process of time
the Fescennines seem to have modified both their form and character. From
being in alternate strains, they admitted a treatment as if uttered by a
single speaker,--so at least we should infer from Macrobius's notice of
the Fescennines sent by Augustus to Pollio, [16] which were either lines
of extempore raillery, or short biting epigrams, like that of Catullus on
Vatinius, [17] owing their title to the name solely to the pungency of
their contents. In a general way they were restricted to weddings, and we
have in the first _Epithalamium_ of Catullus, [18] and some poems by
Claudian, highly-refined specimens of this class of composition. The
Fescennines owed their popularity to the light-hearted temper of the old
Italians, and to a readiness at repartee which is still conspicuous at the
present day in many parts of Italy.

With more of the dramatic element than the Fescennines, the _Saturae_
appear to have early found a footing in Rome, though their history is
difficult to trace. We gather from Livy [19] that they were acted on the
stage as early as 359 B.C. Before this the boards had been occupied by
Etruscan dancers, and possibly, though not certainly, by improvisers of
Fescennine buffooneries; but soon after this date _Saturae_ were performed
by one or more actors to the accompaniment of the flute. The actors, it
appears, sang as well as gesticulated, until the time of Livius, who set
apart a singer for the interludes, while he himself only used his voice in
the dialogue. The unrestrained and merry character of the _Saturae_ fitted
them for the after-pieces, which broke up the day's proceedings
(_exodium_); but in later times, when tragedies were performed, this
position was generally taken by the _Atellana_ or the _Mime_. The name
_Satura_ (or _Satira_) is from _lanx saturu_, the medley or hodge-podge,
"quae referta variis multisque primitiis in sacro apud priscos diis
inferebatur." Mommsen supposes it to have been the "masque of the full
men" (_saturi_), enacted at a popular festival, while others have
connected it with the Greek Satyric Drama. In its dramatic form it
disappears early from history, and assumes with Ennius a different
character, which has clung to it ever since.

Besides these we have to notice the _Mime_ and the _Atellanae_. The former
corresponds roughly with our farce, though the pantomimic element is also
present, and in the most recent period gained the ascendancy. Its true
Latin name is _Planipes_ (so Juvenal _Planipedes audit Fabios_ [20] in
allusion to the actor's entering the stage barefoot, no doubt for the
better exhibition of his agility). Mimes must have existed from very
remote times in Italy, but they did not come into prominence until the
later days of the Republic, when Laberius and Syrus cultivated them with
marked success. We therefore defer noticing them until our account of
that period.

There still remain the _fabulae Atellanae_, so called from Atella, an
Oscan town of Campania, and often mentioned as _Osci Ludi_. These were
more honourable than the other kinds, inasmuch as they were performed by
the young nobles, wearing masks, and giving the reins to their power of
improvisation. Teuffel (L. L. § 9) considers the subjects to have been
"comic descriptions of life in small towns, in which the chief personages
gradually assumed a fixed character." In the period of which we are now
treating, _i.e._ before the time of a written literature, they were
exclusively in the hands of free-born citizens, and, to use Livy's
expression, were not allowed to be polluted by professional actors. But
this hindered their progress, and it was not until several centuries after
their introduction, viz., in the time of Sulla, that they received
literary treatment. They adopted the dialect of the common people, and
were more or less popular in their character. More details will be given
when we examine them in their completer form. All such parts of these
early scenic entertainments as were not mere conversation or ribaldry,
were probably composed in the Saturnian metre.

This ancient rhythm, the only one indigenous to Italy, presents some
points worthy of discussion. The original application of the name is not
agreed upon. Thompson says, "The term Saturnius seems to have possessed
two distinct applications. In both of these, however, it simply meant 'as
old as the days of Saturn,' and, like the Greek _Ogugios_, was a kind of
proverbial expression for something antiquated. Hence (1) the rude
rhythmical effusions, which contained the early Roman story, might be
called Saturnian, not with reference to their metrical law, but to their
_antiquity_; and (2) the term _Saturnius_ was also applied to a definite
measure on the principles of Greek prosody, though rudely and loosely
moulded--the measure employed by Naevius, which soon became _antiquated_,
when Ennius introduced the hexameter--and which is the _metrum Saturnium_
recognised by the grammarians." [21] Whether this measure was of Italian
origin, as Niebuhr and Macaulay think, or was introduced from Greece at an
early period, it never attained to anything like Greek strictness of
metrical rules. To scan a line of Livius or Naevius, in the strict sense
of the word, is by no means an easy task, since there was not the same
constancy of usage with regard to quantity as prevailed after Ennius, and
the relative prominence of syllables was determined by accent, either
natural or metrical. By natural accent is meant the higher or lower pitch
of the voice, which rests on a particular syllable of each word _e.g.
Lúcius_; by metrical accent the _ictus_ or beat of the verse, which in the
Greek rhythms implies a long _quantity_, but in the Saturnian measure has
nothing to do with quantity. The principle underlying the structure of the
measure is as follows. It is a succession of trochaic beats, six in all,
preceded by a single syllable, as in the instance quoted by
Macaulay:

"The | queén was ín her chámber eáting bréad and hóney,"

So in the Scipionic epitaph,

"Qui | bús si in lónga lícuisét tibi útier víta."

These are, doubtless, the purest form of the measure. In these there is no
break, but an even continuous flow of trochaic rhythm. But even in the
earliest examples of Saturnians there is a very strong tendency to form a
break by making the third trochaic beat close a word, _e.g._

"Cor | néliús Lucíus || Scípió Barbátus,"

and this structure prevailed, so that in the fragments of Livius and
Naevius by far the greater number exhibit it.

When Greek patterns of versification were introduced, the Saturnian rhythm
seems to have received a different explanation. It was considered as a
compound of the iambic and trochaic systems. It might be described as an
_iambic hepthemimer_ followed by a _trochaic dimeter brachycatalectic_.
The latter portion was preserved with something like regularity, but the
former admitted many variations. The best example of this _Graecised_
metre is the celebrated line--

"Dabunt malum Metelli | Naevio poetae."

If, however, we look into the existing fragments of Naevius and Livius,
and compare them with the Scipionic epitaphs, we shall find that there is
no appreciable difference in the rhythm; that whatever theory grammarians
might adopt to explain it, the measure of these poets is the genuine
trochaic beat, so natural to a primitive people, [22] and only so far
elaborated as to have in most cases a pause after the first half of the
line. The idea that the metre had prosodiacal laws, which, nevertheless,
its greatest masters habitually violated, [23] is one that would never
have been maintained had not the desire to systematise all Latin prosody
on a Greek basis prevailed almost universally. The true theory of early
Latin scansion is established beyond a doubt by the labours of Ritschl in
regard to Plautus. This great scholar shows that, whereas after Ennius
classic poetry was based on quantity alone, before him accent had at least
as important a place; and, indeed, that in the determination of quantity,
the main results in many cases were produced by the influence of accent.

Accent (Gr. _prosodia_) implied that the pronunciation of the accented
syllable was on a higher or lower note than the rest of the word. It was
therefore a musical, not a quantitative symbol. The rules for its position
are briefly as follows. No words but monosyllables or contracted forms
have the accent on the last; dissyllables are therefore always accented on
the first, and polysyllables on the first or second, according as the
penultimate is short or long, _Lúcius, cecídi_. At the same time, old
Latin was burdened with a vast number of suffixes with a long final vowel.
The result of the non-accentuation of the last syllable was a continual
tendency to slur over and so shorten these suffixes. And this tendency was
carried in later times to such an extent as to make the quantity of all
final vowels after a short syllable bearing the accent indifferent. There
were therefore two opposing considerations which met the poet in his
capacity of versifier. There was the desire to retain the accent of every-
day life, and so make his language easy and natural, and the desire to
conform to the true quantity, and so make it strictly correct. In the
early poets this struggle of opposing principles is clearly seen. Many
apparent anomalies in versification are due to the influence of accent
over-riding quantity, and many again to the preservation of the original
quantity in spite of the accent. Ennius harmonised with great skill the
claims of both, doing little more violence to the natural accent in his
elaborate system of quantity than was done by the Saturnian and comic
poets with their fluctuating usage. [24]

To apply these results to the Saturnian verses extant, let us select a few
examples:

"Gnaivód patré prognátus | fórtis vír sapiénsque."

_patre_ or _patred_ retains its length by position, _i.e._ its metrical
accent, against the natural accent _pátre_. In the case of syllables on
which the _ictus_ does not fall the quantity and accent are indifferent.
They are always counted as short, two syllables may stand instead of one--

per liquidum máre sudántes | dítem véxárant.

or the unaccented syllable may be altogether omitted, as in the second
half of the line--

"dítem véxárant."

In a line of Naevius--

"Runcús atqué Purpúreus | fílií térras."

we have in _Purpúreus_ an instance of accent dominating over quantity. But
the first two words, in which the _ictus_ is at variance with both accent
and quantity, show the loose character of the metre. An interesting table
is given by Corssen proving that the variance between natural and metrical
accent is greater in the Saturnian verses than in any others, and in
Plautus than in subsequent poets, and in iambics than in trochaics. [25]
We should infer from these facts (1) that the trochaic metre was the one
most naturally suited to the Latin language; (2) that the progress in
uniting quantity and accent, which went on in spite of the great
inferiority of the poets, proves that the early poets did not understand
the conditions of the problem which they had set before them. To follow
out this subject into detail would be out of place here. The main point
that concerns our present purpose is, that the great want of skill
displayed in the construction of the Saturnian verse [26] shows the Romans
to have been mere novices in the art of poetical composition.

The Romans, as a people, possessed a peculiar talent for public speaking.
Their active interest in political life, their youthful training and the
necessity of managing their own affairs at an age which in most countries
would be wholly engrossed with boyish sports, all combined to make
readiness of speech an almost universal acquirement. The weighty
earnestness (_gravitas_) peculiar to the national character was nowhere
more conspicuously displayed than in the impassioned and yet strictly
practical discussions of the senate. Taught as boys to follow at their
father's side, whether in the forum, at the law courts, in the senate at a
great debate, or at home among his agricultural duties, they gained at an
early age an insight into public business and a patient aptitude for work,
combined with a power of manly and natural eloquence, which nothing but
such daily familiarity could have bestowed. In the earlier centuries of
Rome the power of speaking was acquired solely by practice. Eloquence was
not reduced to the rules of an art, far less studied through manuals of
rhetoric. The celebrated speech of Appius Claudius when, blind, aged, and
infirm, he was borne in a litter to the senate-house, and by his burning
words shamed the wavering fathers into an attitude worthy of their
country, was the greatest memorial of this unstudied native eloquence.
When Greek letters were introduced, oratory, like everything else, was
profoundly influenced by them; and although it never, during the
republican period, lost its national character, yet too much of mere
display was undoubtedly mixed up with it, and the severe self-restraint of
the native school disappeared, or was caricatured by antiquarian
imitators. The great nurse of Roman eloquence was Freedom; when that was
lost, eloquence sank, and while that existed, the mere lack of technical
dexterity cannot have greatly abated from the real power of the speakers.

The subject which the Romans wrought out for themselves with the least
assistance from Greek thought, was Jurisprudence. In this they surpassed
not only the Greeks, but all nations ancient and modern. From the early
formulae, mostly of a religious character, which existed in the regal
period, until the publication of the Decemviral code, conservatism and
progress went hand in hand. [27] After that epoch elementary legal
knowledge began to be diffused, though the interpretation of the Twelve
Tables was exclusively in the hands of the Patricians. But the limitation
of the judicial power by the establishment of a fixed code, and the
obligation of the magistrate to decide according to the written letter,
naturally encouraged a keen study of the sources which in later times
expanded into the splendid developments of Roman legal science. The first
institution of the table of _legis actiones_, attributed to Appius
Claudius (304 B.C.), must be considered as the commencement of judicial
knowledge proper. The _responsa prudentium_, at the giving of which
younger men were present as listeners, must have contributed to form a
legal habit of thought among the citizens, and prepared a vast mass of
material for the labours of the philosophic jurists of a later age.

But inasmuch as neither speeches nor legal decisions were generally
committed to writing, except in the bare form of registers, we do not find
that there was any growth of regular prose composition. The rule that
prose is posterior to poetry holds good in Rome, in spite of the
essentially prosaic character of the people. It has been already said that
religious, legal, and other formulae were arranged in rhythmical fashion,
so as to be known by the name of _carmina_. And conformably to this we see
that the earliest composers of history, who are in point of time the first
prose writers of Rome, did not write in Latin at all, but in Greek. The
history of Latin prose begins with Cato. He gave it that peculiar
colouring which it never afterwards entirely lost. Having now completed
our preliminary remarks, we shall proceed to a more detailed account of
the earliest writers whose names or works have come down to us.

CHAPTER III.

THE INTRODUCTION OF GREEK LITERATURE--LIVIUS AND NAEVIUS (240-204 B.C.).

It is not easy for us to realise the effect produced on the Romans by
their first acquaintance with Greek civilisation. The debt incurred by
English theology, philosophy, and music, to Germany, offers but a faint
parallel. If we add to this our obligations to Italy for painting and
sculpture, to France for mathematical science, popular comedy, and the
culture of the _salon_, to the Jews for finance, and to other nations for
those town amusements which we are so slow to invent for ourselves, we
shall still not have exhausted or even adequately illustrated the
multifarious influences shed on every department of Roman life by the
newly transplanted genius of Hellas. It was not that she merely lent an
impulse or gave a direction to elements already existing. She did this;
but she did far more. She kindled into life by her fruitful contact a
literature in prose and verse which flourished for centuries. She
completely undermined the general belief in the state religion,
substituting for it the fair creations of her finer fancy, or when she did
not substitute, blending the two faiths together with sympathetic skill;
she entwined herself round the earliest legends of Italy, and so moulded
the historical aspirations of Rome that the great patrician came to pride
himself on his own ancestral connection with Greece, and the descent of
his founder from the race whom Greece had conquered. Her philosophers
ruled the speculations, as her artists determined the aesthetics, of all
Roman amateurs. Her physicians held for centuries the exclusive practice
of scientific medicine; while in music, singing, dancing, to say nothing
of the lighter or less reputable arts of ingratiation, her professors had
no rivals. The great field of education, after the break up of the ancient
system, was mainly in Greek hands; while her literature and language were
so familiar to the educated Roman that in his moments of intensest feeling
it was generally in some Greek apophthegm that he expressed the passion
which moved him. [1]

It would, therefore, be scarcely too much to assert that in every field of
thought (except that of law, where Rome remained strictly national) the
Roman intellect was entirely under the ascendancy of the Greek. There are,
of course, individual exceptions. Men like Cato, Varro, and in a later age
perhaps Juvenal, could understand and digest Greek culture without thereby
losing their peculiarly Roman ways of thought; but these patriots in
literature, while rewarded with the highest praise, did not exert a
proportionate influence on the development of the national mind. They
remained like comets moving in eccentric orbs outside the regular and
observed motion of the celestial system.

The strongly felt desire to know something about Greek literature must
have produced within a few years a pioneer bold enough to make the
attempt, if the accident of a schoolmaster needing text-books in the
vernacular for his scholars had not brought it about. The man who thus
first clothed Greek poetry in a Latin dress, and who was always gratefully
remembered by the Romans in spite of his sorry performance of the task,
was LIVIUS ANDRONICUS (285-204? B.C.), a Greek from Tarentum, brought to
Rome 275 B.C., and made the slave probably of M. Livius Salinator. Having
received his freedom, he set up a school, and for the benefit of his
pupils translated the Odyssey into Saturnian verse. A few fragments of
this version survive, but they are of no merit either from a poetical or a
scholastic point of view, being at once bald and incorrect. [2] Cicero [3]
speaks slightingly of his poems, as also does Horace, [4] from boyish
experience of their contents. It is curious that productions so immature
should have kept their position as text-books for near two centuries; the
fact shows how conservative the Romans were in such matters.

Livius also translated tragedies from the Greek. We have the names of the
_Achilles_, _Aegisthus_, _Ajax_, _Andromeda_, _Danae, _Equus Trojanus_,
_Tereus_, _Hermione_. In this sphere also he seems to have written from a
commendable motive, to supply the popular want of a legitimate drama. His
first play was represented in 240 B.C. He himself followed the custom,
universal in the early period, [5] of acting in his own dramas. In them he
reproduced some of the simpler Greek metres, especially the trochaic; and
Terentianus Maurus [6] gives from the _Ino_ specimens of a curious
experiment in metre, viz. the substitution of an iambus for a spondee in
the last foot of a hexameter. As memorials of the old language these
fragments present some interest; words like _perbitere (= perire),
anculabant ( =hauriebant), nefrendem (= infantem), dusmus (= dumosus)_,
disappeared long before the classical period.

His plodding industry and laudable aims obtained him the respect of the
people. He was not only selected by the Pontifices to write the poem on
the victory of Sena (207 B.C.), [7] but was the means of acquiring for the
class of poets a recognised position in the body corporate of the state.
His name was handed down to later times as the first awakener of literary
effort at Rome, but he hardly deserves to be ranked among the body of
Roman authors. The impulse which he had communicated rapidly bore fruit.
Dramatic literature was proved to be popular, and a poet soon arose who
was fully capable of fixing its character in the lines which its after
successful cultivation mainly pursued. CN. NAEVIUS, (269?-204 B.C.) a
Campanian of Latin extraction and probably not a Roman citizen, had in his
early manhood fought in the first Punic war. [8] At its conclusion he came
to Rome and applied himself to literary work. He seems to have brought out
his first play as early as 235 B.C. His work mainly consisted of
translations from the Greek; he essayed both tragedy and comedy, but his
genius inclined him to prefer the latter. Many of his comedies have Latin
names, _Dolus_, _Figulus_, _Nautae_, &c. These, however, were not
_togatae_ but _palliatae_, [9] treated after the same manner as those of
Plautus, with Greek costumes and surroundings. His original contribution
to the stage was the _Praetexta_, or national historical drama, which
thenceforth established itself as a legitimate, though rarely practised,
branch of dramatic art. We have the names of two _Praetextae_ by him,
_Clastidium_ and _Romulus_ or _Alimonium Romuli et Remi_.

The style of his plays can only be roughly inferred from the few passages
which time has spared us. That it was masculine and vigorous is clear; we
should expect also to find from the remarks of Horace as well as from his
great antiquity, considerable roughness. But on referring to the fragments
we do not observe this. On the contrary, the style both in tragedy and
comedy is simple, natural, and in good taste. It is certainly less
laboured than that of Ennius, and though it lacks the racy flavour of
Plautus, shows no inferiority to his in command of the resources of the
language. [10] On the whole, we are inclined to justify the people in
their admiration for him as a genuine exponent of the strong native humour
of his day, which the refined poets of a later age could not appreciate.

Naevius did not only occupy himself with writing plays. He took a keen
interest in politics, and brought himself into trouble by the freedom with
which he lampooned some of the leading families. The Metelli, especially,
were assailed by him, and it was probably through their resentment that he
was sent to prison, where he solaced himself by composing two comedies.
[11] Plautus, who was more cautious, and is by some thought to have had
for Naevius some of the jealousy of a rival craftsman, alludes to this
imprisonment [12]:--

"Nam os columnatum poetae esse indaudivi barbaro,
Quoi bini custodes semper totis horis accubant."

The poet, however, did not learn wisdom from experience. He lampooned the
great Scipio in some spirited verses still extant, and doubtless made many
others feel the shafts of his ridicule. But the censorship of literary
opinion was very strict in Rome, and when he again fell under it, he was
obliged to leave the city. He is said to have retired to Utica, where he
spent the rest of his life and died (circ. 204 B.C.). It was probably
there that he wrote the poem which gives him the chief interest for us,
and the loss of which by the hand of time is deeply to be regretted.
Debarred from the stage, he turned to his own military experience for a
subject, and chose the first Punic war. He thus laid the foundation of the
class of poetry known as the "National Epic," which received its final
development in the hands of Virgil. The poem was written in Saturnian
verse, perhaps from a patriotic motive; and was not divided into books
until a century after the poet's death, when the grammarian Lampadio
arranged it in seven books, assigning two to the mythical relations of
Rome and Carthage, and the remainder to the history of the war. The
narrative seems to have been vivid, truthful, and free from exaggerations
of language. The legendary portion contained the story of Aeneas's visit
to Carthage, which Virgil adopted, besides borrowing other single
incidents. What fragments remain are not very interesting and do not
enable us to pronounce any judgment. But Cicero's epithet "_luculente_
scripsit" [13] is sufficient to show that he highly appreciated the poet's
powers; and the popularity which he obtained in his life-time and for
centuries after his death, attests his capacity of seizing the national
modes of thought. He had a high opinion of himself; he held himself to be
the champion of the old Italian school as opposed to the Graecising
innovators. His epitaph is very characteristic: [14]

"Mortales immortales si foret fas flere,
Flerent Divae Camenae Naevium poetam.
Itaque postquamst Orcino traditus thesauro
Obliti sunt Romae loquier Latina lingua."

CHAPTER IV.

ROMAN COMEDY--PLAUTUS TO TURPILIUS (254-103 B.C.).

Before entering upon any criticism of the comic authors, it will be well
to make a few remarks on the general characteristics of the Roman theatre.
Theatrical structures at Rome resembled on the whole those of Greece, from
which they were derived at first through the medium of Etruria, [1] but
afterwards directly from the great theatres which Magna Graecia possessed
in abundance. Unlike the Greek theatres, however, those at Rome were of
wood not of stone, and were mere temporary erections, taken down
immediately after being used. On scaffoldings of this kind the plays of
Plautus and Terence were performed. Even during the last period of the
Republic, wooden theatres were set up, sometimes on a scale of profuse
expenditure little consistent with their duration. [2] An attempt was made
to build a permanent stone theatre, 135 B.C., but it was defeated by the
Consul Scipio Nasica. [3]

The credit of building the first such edifice is due to Pompey (55 B.C.),
who caused it to have accommodation for 40,000 spectators. Vitruvius in
his fifth book explains the ground-plan of such buildings. They were
almost always on the same model, differing in material and size. On one
occasion two whole theatres of wood, placed back to back, were made to
turn on a pivot, and so being united, to form a single amphitheatre. [4]
In construction, the Roman theatre differed from the Greek in reserving an
arc not exceeding a semicircle for the spectators. The stage itself was
large and raised not more than five feet. But the orchestra, instead of
containing the chorus, was filled by senators, magistrates, and
distinguished guests. [5] This made it easier for the Romans to dispense
with a chorus altogether, which we find, as a rule, they did. The rest of
the people sat or stood in the great semicircle behind that which formed
the orchestra. The order in which they placed themselves was not fixed by
law until the later years of the Republic, and again, with additional
safeguards, in the reign of Augustus. [6] But it is reasonable to suppose
that the rules of precedence were for the most part voluntarily observed.

It would appear that in the earliest theatres there were no tiers of seats
(_cunei_), but merely a semicircle of sloping soil, banked up for the
occasion (_cavea_) on which those who had brought seats sat down, while
the rest stood or reclined. The stage itself is called _pulpitum_ or
_proscaenium_, and the decorated background _scaena_. Women and children
were allowed to be present from the earliest period; slaves were not, [7]
though it is probable that many came by the permission of their masters.
The position of poets and actors was anything but reputable. The manager
of the company was generally at best a freedman; and the remuneration
given by the Aediles, if the piece was successful, was very small; if it
failed, even that was withheld. The behaviour of the audience was
certainly none of the best. Accustomed at all times to the enjoyment of
the eye rather than the ear, the Romans were always impatient of mere
dialogue. Thus Terence tells us that contemporary poets resorted to
various devices to produce some novel spectacle, and he feels it necessary
to explain why he himself furnishes nothing of the kind. Fair criticism
could hardly be expected from so motley an assembly; hence Terence begs
the people in each case to listen carefully to his play and then, and not
till then, if they disapprove, to hiss it off the stage. [8] In the times
of Plautus and Ennius the spectators were probably more discriminating;
but the steady depravation of the spectacles furnished for their amusement
contributed afterwards to brutalise them with fearful rapidity, until at
the close of the Republican period dramatic exhibitions were thought
nothing of in comparison with a wild-beast fight or a gladiatorial show.

At first, however, comedy was decidedly a favourite with the people, and
for one tragic poet whose name has reached us there are at least five
comedians. Of the three kinds of poetry cultivated in this early period,
comedy, which, according to Quintilian [9] was the least successful, has
been much the most fortunate. For whereas we have to form our opinion of
Roman tragedy chiefly from the testimony of ancient authors, we can
estimate the value of Roman comedy from the ample remains of its two
greatest masters. The plays of Plautus are the most important for this
purpose. Independently of their greater talent, they give a truer picture
of Roman manners, and reflect more accurately the popular taste and level
of culture. It is from them, therefore, that any general remarks on Roman
comedy would naturally be illustrated.

Comedy, being based on the fluctuating circumstances of real life, lends
itself more easily than tragedy to a change of form. Hence, while tragic
art after once passing its prime slowly but steadily declines, comedy
seems endued with greater vitality, and when politics and religion are
closed to it, readily contents itself with the less ambitious sphere of
manners. Thus, at Athens, Menander raised the new comedy to a celebrity
little if at all inferior to the old; while the form of art which he
created has retained its place in modern literature as perhaps the most
enduring which the drama has assumed. In Rome there was far too little
liberty of speech for the Aristophanic comedy to be possible. Outspoken
attacks in public on the leading statesmen did not accord with the
senatorial idea of government. Hence such poets as possessed a comic vein
were driven to the only style which could be cultivated with impunity,
viz. that of Philemon and Menander. But a difficulty met them at the
outset. The broad allusions and rough fun of Aristophanes were much more
intelligible to a Roman public than the refined criticism and quiet satire
of Menander, even supposing the poet able to reproduce these. The author
who aspired to please the public had this problem before him,--while
taking the Middle and New Comedy of Athens for his model, to adapt them to
the coarser requirements of Roman taste and the national rather than
cosmopolitan feeling of a Roman audience, without drawing down the wrath
of the government by imprudent political allusions.

It was the success with which Plautus fulfilled these conditions that
makes him pre-eminently the comic poet of Rome; and which, though purists
affected to depreciate him, [10] excited the admiration of such men as
Cicero, [11] Varro, and Sisenna, and secured the uninterrupted
representation of his plays until the fourth century of
the Empire.

The life of Plautus, which extended from 254 to 184 B.C. presents little
of interest. His name used to be written M. ACCIUS, but is now, on the
authority of the Ambrosian MS. changed to T. MACCIUS PLAUTUS. He was by
birth an Umbrian from Sassina, of free parents, but poor. We are told by
Gellius [12] that he made a small fortune by stage decorating, but lost it
by rash investment; he was then reduced to labouring for some years in a
corn mill, but having employed his spare time in writing, he established a
sufficient reputation to be able to devote the rest of his life to the
pursuit of his art. He did not, however, form a high conception of his
responsibility. The drudgery of manual labour and the hardships under
which he had begun his literary career were unfavourable to the finer
susceptibilities of an enthusiastic nature. So long as the spectators
applauded he was satisfied. He was a prolific writer; 130 plays are
attributed to him, but their genuineness was the subject of discussion
from a very early period. Varro finally decided in favour of only 21, to
which he added 19 more as probably genuine, the rest he pronounced
uncertain. We may join him in regarding it as very probable that the plays
falsely attributed to Plautus were productions of his own and the next
generation, which for business reasons the managers allowed to pass under
the title of "Plautine." Or, perhaps, Plautus may have given a few touches
and the benefit of his great name to the plays of his less celebrated
contemporaries, much as the great Italian painters used the services of
their pupils to multiply their own works.

Of the 20 plays that we possess (the entire Varronian list, except the
_Vidularia_, which was lost in the Middle Ages) all have the same general
character, with the single exception of the _Amphitruo_. This is more of a
burlesque than a comedy, and is full of humour. It is founded on the well-
worn fable of Jupiter and Alcmena, and has been imitated by Molière and
Dryden. Its source is uncertain; but it is probably from Archippus, a
writer of the old comedy (415 B.C.). Its form suggests rather a
development of the Satyric drama.

The remaining plays are based on real life; the real life that is
pourtrayed by Menander, and by no means yet established in Rome, though
soon to take root there with far more disastrous consequences the life of
imbecile fathers made only to be duped, and spendthrift sons; of jealous
husbands, and dull wives; of witty, cunning, and wholly unscrupulous
slaves; of parasites, lost to all self-respect; of traffickers in vice of
both sexes, sometimes cringing, sometimes threatening, but almost always
outwitted by a duplicity superior to their own; of members of the _demi-
monde_, whose beauty is only equalled by their shameless venality, though
some of them enlist our sympathies by constancy in love, others by
unmerited sufferings (which, however, always end happily); and, finally,
of an array of cooks, go-betweens, confidantes, and nondescripts, who will
do any thing for a dinner--a life, in short, that suggests a gloomy idea
of the state into which the once manly and high-minded Athenians had sunk.

It may, however, be questioned whether Plautus did not exceed his models
in licentiousness, as he certainly fell below them in elegance. The drama
has always been found to exercise a decided influence on public morals;
and at Rome, where there was no authoritative teaching on the subject, and
no independent investigation of the foundations of moral truth, a series
of brilliant plays, in which life was regarded as at best a dull affair,
rendered tolerable by coarse pleasures, practical jokes, and gossip, and
then only as long as the power of enjoyment lasts, can have had no good
effect on the susceptible minds of the audience. The want of respect for
age, again, so alien to old Roman feeling, was an element imported from
the Greeks, to whom at all times the contemplation of old age presented
the gloomiest associations. But it must have struck at the root of all
Roman traditions to represent the aged father in any but a venerable
light; and inimitable as Plautus is as a humourist, we cannot regard him
as one who either elevates his own art, or in any way represents the
nobler aspect of the Roman mind.

The conventional refinement with which Menander invested his characters,
and which was so happily reproduced by Terence, was not attempted by
Plautus. His excellence lies rather in the bold and natural flow of his
dialogue, fuller, perhaps, of spicy humour and broad fun than of wit, but
of humour and fun so lighthearted and spontaneous that the soberest reader
is carried away by it. In the construction of his plots he shows no great
originality, though often much ingenuity. Sometimes they are adopted
without change, as that of the _Trinummus_ from the _Thaesauros_ of
Philemon; sometimes they are patched together [13] from two or more Greek
plays, as is probably the case with the _Epidicus_ and _Captivi_;
sometimes they are so slight as to amount to little more than a peg on
which to hang the witty speeches of the dialogue, as, for example, those
of the _Persa_ and _Curculio_.

The _Menaechmi_ and _Trinummus_ are the best known of his plays; the
former would be hard to parallel for effective humour: the point on which
the plot turns, viz. the resemblance between two pairs of brothers, which
causes one to be mistaken for the other, and so leads to many ludicrous
scenes, is familiar to all readers of Shakespeare from the _Comedy of
Errors_. Of those plays which border on the sentimental the best is the
_Captivi_, which the poet himself recommends to the audience on the score
of its good moral lesson, adding with truth--

"Huiusmodi paucas poetae reperiunt comoedias
Ubi boni meliores fiant."

We are told [14] that Plautus took the greatest pleasure in his
_Pseudolus_, which was also the work of his old age. The _Epidicus_ also
must have been a favourite with him. There is an allusion to it in the
_Bacchides_, [15] which shows that authors then were as much distressed by
the incapacity of the actors as they are now.

"Non herus sed actor mihi cor odio sauciat.
Etiam Epidicum quam ego fabulum aeque ac me ipsum amo
Nullam aeque invitus specto, si agit Pellio."

The prologues prefixed to nearly all the plays are interesting from their
fidelity to the Greek custom, whereas those of Terence are more personal,
and so resemble the modern prologue. In the former we see the arch
insinuating pleasantry of Plautus employed for the purpose of ingratiating
himself with the spectators, a result which, we may be sure, he finds
little difficulty in achieving. Among the other plays, the _Poenulus_
possesses for the philologist this special attraction, that it contains a
Phoenician passage, which, though rather carelessly transliterated, is the
longest fragment we possess of that important Semitic language. [16] All
the Plautine plays belong to the _Palliatae_, i.e. those of which the
entire surroundings are Greek, the name being taken from the _Pallium_ or
Greek cloak worn by the actors. There was, however, in the Italian towns a
species of comedy founded on Greek models but national in dress, manners,
and tone, known as _Comoedia Togata_, of which Titinius was the greatest
master. The _Amphitruo_ is somewhat difficult to class; if, as has been
suggested above, it be assigned to the old comedy, it will be a
_Palliata_. If, as others think, it be rather a specimen of the _Hilaro-
tragodia_ [17] or _Rhinthonica_ (so called from Rhinthon of Tarentum), it
would form the only existing specimen of another class, called by the
Greeks _Italikae komodia_. Horace speaks of Plautus as a follower of
Epicharmus, and his plots were frequently taken from mythological
subjects. With regard, however, to the other plays of Plautus, as well as
those of Caecilius, Trabea, Licinius Imbrex, Luscius Lavinius, Terence and
Turpilius, there is no ground for supposing that they departed from the
regular treatment of palliatae. [18]

Plautus is a complete master of the Latin language in its more colloquial
forms. Whatever he wishes to say he finds no difficulty in expressing
without the least shadow of obscurity. His full, flowing style, his
inexhaustible wealth of words, the pliancy which in his skilful hands is
given to the comparatively rude instrument with which he works, are
remarkable in the highest degree. In the invention of new words, and the
fertility of his combinations, [19] he reminds us of Shakespeare, and far
exceeds any other Latin author. But perhaps this faculty is not so much
absent from subsequent writers as kept in check by them. They felt that
Latin gained more by terse arrangement and exact fitness in the choice of
existing terms, than by coining new ones after the Greek manner. Plautus
represents a tendency, which, after him, steadily declines; Lucretius is
more sparing of new compounds than Ennius, Virgil than Lucretius, and
after Virgil the age of creating them had ceased.

It must strike every reader of Plautus, as worthy of note, that he assumes
a certain knowledge of the Greek tongue on the part of his audience. Not
only are many (chiefly commercial) terms directly imported from the Greek,
as _dica_, _tarpessita_, _logi_, _sycophantia_, _agoranomus_, but a large
number of Greek adjectives and adverbs are used, which it is impossible to
suppose formed part of the general speech--e.g. _thalassicus_, _euscheme_,
_dulice_, _dapsilis_: Greek puns are introduced, as "_opus est Chryso
Chrysalo_" in the _Bacchides_; and in the _Persa_ we have the following
hybrid title of a supposed Persian grandee, "_Vaniloquidorus
Virginisvendonides Nugipolyloquides Argentiexterebronides Tedigniloquides
Nummorumexpalpouides Quodsemelarripides Nunquamposteareddides_!"

Nevertheless, Plautus never uses Greek words in the way so justly
condemned by Horace, viz. to avoid the trouble of thinking out the proper
Latin equivalent. He is as free from this bad habit as Cato himself: all
his Graecisms, when not technical terms, have some humourous point; and,
as far as we can judge, the good example set by him was followed by all
his successors in the comic drama. Their superiority in this respect may
be appreciated by comparing them with the extant fragments of Lucilius.

In his metres he follows the Greek systems, but somewhat loosely. His
iambics admit spondees, &c. into all places but the last; but some of his
plays show much more care than others: the _Persa_ and _Stichus_ being the
least accurate, the _Menaechmi_ peculiarly smooth and harmonious. The
Trochaic tetrameter and the Cretic are also favourite rhythms; the former
is well suited to the Latin language, its beat being much more easily
distinguishable in a rapid dialogue than that of the Iambic. His metre is
regulated partly by quantity, partly by accent; but his quantities do not
vary as much as has been supposed. The irregularities consist chiefly of
neglect of the laws of position, of final long vowels, of inflexional
endings, and of double letters, which last, according to some grammarians,
were not used until the time of Ennius. His Lyric metres are few, and very
imperfectly elaborated. Those which he prefers are the Cretic and
Bacchiac, though Dactylic and Choriambic systems are not wholly unknown.
His works form a most valuable storehouse of old Latin words, idioms, and
inflexions; and now that the most ancient MSS. have been scientifically
studied, the true spelling of these forms has been re-established, and
throws the greatest light on many important questions of philology. [20]

After Plautus the most distinguished writer of comedy was STATIUS
CAECILIUS (219-166? B.C.), a native of Insubria, brought as a prisoner to
Rome, and subsequently (we know not exactly when) manumitted. He began
writing about 200 B.C., when Plautus was at the height of his fame. He
was, doubtless, influenced (as indeed could not but be the case) by the
prestige of so great a master; but, as soon as he had formed his own
style, he seems to have carried out a treatment of the originals much more
nearly resembling that of Terence. For while in Plautus some of the oddest
incongruities arise from the continual intrusion of Roman law-terms and
other everyday home associations into the Athenian _agora_ or
_dicasteries_, in Terence this effective but very inartistic source of
humour is altogether discarded, and the comic result gained solely by the
legitimate methods of incident, character, and dialogue. That this
stricter practice was inaugurated by Caecilius is probable, both from the
praise bestowed on him in spite of his deficiency in purity of Latin style
by Cicero, [21] and also from the evident admiration felt for him by
Terence. The prologue to the _Hecyra_ proves (what we might have well
supposed) that the earlier plays of such a poet had a severe struggle to
achieve success. [22] The actor, Ambivius Turpio, a tried servant of the
public, maintains that his own perseverance had a great deal to do with
the final victory of Caecilius; and he apologises for bringing forward a
play which had once been rejected, by his former success in similar
circumstances. Horace implies that he maintained during the Augustan age
the reputation of a dignified writer. [23] Of the thirty-nine titles of
his plays, by far the larger number are Greek, though a few are Latin, or
exist in both languages. Those of Plautus and Naevius, it will be
observed, are almost entirely Latin. This practice of retaining the Greek
title, indicating, as it probably does, a closer adherence to the Greek
style, seems afterwards to have become the regular custom. In his later
years Caecilius enjoyed great reputation, and seems to have been almost
dictator of the Roman stage, if we may judge from the story given by
Suetonius in his life of Terence. One evening, he tells us, as Caecilius
was at dinner, the young poet called on him, and begged for his opinion on
the _Andria_, which he had just composed. Unknown to fame and meanly
dressed, he was bidden to seat himself on a bench and read his work.
Scarcely had he read a few verses, when Caecilius, struck by the
excellence of the style, invited his visitor to join him at table; and
having listened to the rest of the play with admiration, at once
pronounced a verdict in his favour. This anecdote, whatever be its
pretensions to historical accuracy, represents, at all events, the
conception entertained of Caecilius's position and influence as introducer
of dramatic poets to the Roman public. The date of his death is uncertain:
he seems not to have attained any great age.

The judgment of Caecilius on TERENCE was ratified by the people. When the
_Andria_ was first presented at the Megalesian games (166 B.C.) it was
evident that a new epoch had arisen in Roman art. The contempt displayed
in it for all popular methods of acquiring applause is scarcely less
wonderful than the formed style and mature view of life apparent in the
poet of twenty-one years.

It was received with favour, and though occasional failures afterwards
occurred, chiefly through the jealousy of a rival poet, the dramatic
career of Terence may, nevertheless, be pronounced as brilliantly
successful as it was shortlived. His fame increased with each succeeding
play, till at the time of his early death, he found himself at the head of
his profession, and, in spite of petty rivalries, enjoying a reputation
almost equal to that of Plautus himself.

The elegance and purity of his diction is the more remarkable as he was a
Carthaginian by birth, and therefore spoke an idiom as diverse as can be
conceived from the Latin in syntax, arrangement, and expression. He came
as a boy to Rome, where he lived as the slave of the senator Terentius
Lucanus, by whom he was well educated and soon given his freedom. The best
known fact about him is his intimate friendship with Scipio Africanus the
younger, Laelius, and Furius, who were reported to have helped him in the
composition of his plays. This rumour the poet touches on with great
skill, neither admitting nor denying its truth, but handling it in such a
way as reflected no discredit on himself and could not fail to be
acceptable to the great men who were his patrons. [24] We learn from
Suetonius that the belief strengthened with time. To us it appears most
improbable that anything important was contributed by these eminent men.
They might have given hints, and perhaps suggested occasional expressions,
but the temptation to bring their names forward seems sufficiently to
account for the lines in question, since the poet gained rather than lost
by so doing. It has, however, been supposed that Scipio and his friends,
desiring to elevate the popular taste, really employed Terence to effect
this for them, their own position as statesmen preventing their coming
forward in person as labourers in literature; and it is clear that Terence
has a very different object before him from that of Plautus. The latter
cares only to please; the former is not satisfied unless he instructs. And
he is conscious that this endeavour gains him undeserved obloquy. All his
prologues speak of bitter opposition, misrepresentation, and dislike; but
he refuses to lower his high conception of his art. The people must hear
his plays with attention, throw away their prejudices, and pronounce
impartially on his merits. [25] He has such confidence in his own view
that he does not doubt of the issue. It is only a question of time, and if
his contemporaries refuse to appreciate him, posterity will not fail to do
so. This confidence was fully justified. Not only his friends but the
public amply recognised his genius; and if men like Cicero, Horace, and
Caesar, do not grant him the highest creative power, they at least speak
with admiration of his cultivated taste. The criticism of Cicero is as
discriminating as it is friendly: [26]

"Tu quoque, qui solus lecto sermone, Terenti,
Conversum espressumque Latina voce Menandrum
In medio populi sedatis vocibus effers;
Quidquid come loquens atque omnia dulcia dicens."

Caesar, in a better known epigram, [27] is somewhat less complimentary,
but calls him _puri sermonis amator_ ("a well of English undefiled").
Varro praises his commencement of the _Andria_ above its original in
Menander; and if this indicates national partisanship, it is at least a
testimony to the poet's posthumous fame.

The modern character of Terence, as contrasted with Plautus, is less
apparent in his language than in his sentiments. His Latin is
substantially the same as that of Plautus, though he makes immeasurably
fewer experiments with language. He never resorts to strange words,
uncouth compounds, puns, or Graecisms for producing effect; [28] his
diction is smooth and chaste, and even indelicate subjects are alluded to
without any violation of the proprieties; indeed it is at first surprising
that with so few appeals to the humourous instinct and so little witty
dialogue, Terence's comic style should have received from the first such
high commendation. The reason is to be found in the circumstances of the
time. The higher spirits at Rome were beginning to comprehend the drift of
Greek culture, its subtle mastery over the passions, its humanitarian
character, its subversive influence. The protest against traditional
exclusiveness begun by the great Scipio, and powerfully enforced by
Ennius, was continued in a less heroic but not less effective manner by
the younger Scipio and his friends Lucilius and Terence. All the plays of
Terence are written with a purpose; and the purpose is the same which
animated the political leaders of free thought. To base conduct upon
reason rather than tradition, and paternal authority upon kindness rather
than fear; [29] to give up the vain attempt to coerce youth into the
narrow path of age; to grapple with life as a whole by making the best of
each difficulty when it arises; to live in comfort by means of mutual
concession and not to plague ourselves with unnecessary troubles: such are
some of the principles indicated in those plays of Menander which Terence
so skilfully adapted, and whose lessons he set before a younger and more
vigorous people. The elucidation of these principles in the action of the
play, and the corresponding interchange of thought naturally awakened in
the dialogue and expressed with studied moderation, [30] form the charm of
the Terentian drama. In the bolder elements of dramatic excellence it must
be pronounced deficient. There is not Menander's many-sided knowledge of
the world, nor the racy drollery of Plautus, nor the rich humour of
Molière, nor the sparkling wit of Sheridan,--all is toned down with a
severe self-restraint, creditable to the poet's sense of propriety, but
injurious to comic effect. His characters also lack variety, though
powerfully conceived. They are easily classified; indeed, Terence himself
summarises them in his prologue to the _Eanuchus_, [31] and as a rule is
true to the distinctions there laid down. Another defect is the great
similarity of names. There is a _Chremes_ in four plays who stands for an
old man in three, for a youth in one; while the names _Sostrata, Sophrona,
Bacchis, Antipho, Hegio, Phaedria, Davus_, and _Dromo_, all occur in more
than one piece. Thus we lose that close association of a name with a
character, which is a most important aid towards lively and definite
recollection. The characters become not so much individuals as
impersonations of social or domestic relationships, though drawn, it is
true, with a life-like touch. This defect, which is shared to a great
extent by Plautus, is doubtless due to the imitative nature of Latin
comedy. Menander's characters were analysed and classified by the critics,
and the translator felt bound to keep to the main outlines of his model.
It is said that Terence was not satisfied with his delineation of Greek
life, but that shortly before his death he started on a voyage to Greece,
to acquaint himself at first hand with the manners he depicted. [32] This
we can well believe, for even among Roman poets Terence is conspicuous for
his striking _realism_. His scenes are fictitious, it is true, and his
conversation is classical and refined, but both breathe the very spirit of
real life. There is, at least, nothing either ideal or imaginative about
them. The remark of Horace [33] that "Pomponius would have to listen to
rebukes like those of Demea if his father were living; that if you broke
up the elegant rhythmical language you would find only what every angry
parent would say under the same circumstances," is perfectly just, and
constitutes one of the chief excellences of Terence,--one which has made
him, like Horace, a favourite with experienced men of the world.

Terence as a rule does not base his play upon a single Greek original, but
levies contributions from two or more, and exercises his talent in
harmonising the different elements. This process is known as
_contamination_; a word that first occurs in the prologue to the _Andria_,
and indicates an important and useful principle in imitative dramatic
literature. The ground for this innovation is given by W. Wagner as the
need felt by a Roman audience for a quick succession of action, and their
impatience of those subtle dialogues which the Greeks had so much admired,
and which in most Greek plays occupy a somewhat disproportionate length.
The dramas in which "contamination" is most successfully used are, the
_Eunuchus_, _Andria_, and _Adelphoe_; the last-mentioned being the only
instance in which the two models are by different authors, viz. the
_Adelphoi_ of Menander and the _Synapothnaeskontes_ of Diphilus. So far as
the metre and language went, Terence seems to have followed the Greek much
more closely than Plautus, as was to be expected from his smaller
inventive power. Quintilian, in commending him, expresses a wish that he
had confined himself to the trimeter iambic rhythm. To us this criticism
is somewhat obscure. Did the Romans require a more forcible style when the
long iambic or the trochaic was employed? or is it the weakness of his
metrical treatment that Quintilian complains of? Certainly the trochaics
of Terence are less clearly marked in their rhythm than those of Ennius or
Plautus.

Terence makes no allusion by name to any of his contemporaries; [34] but a
line in the _Andria_ [35] is generally supposed to refer to Caecilius, and
to indicate his friendly feeling, somewhat as Virgil indicates his
admiration for Ennius in the opening of the third Georgic. [36] And the
"_vetus poeta_," (Luscius Lavinius) or "_quidam malevoli_," are alluded to
in all the prologues as trying to injure his fame. His first play was
produced in the year that Caecilius died, 166 B.C.; the _Hecyra_ next
year; the _Hauton Timorumenos_ in 163; the _Eunuchus_ and _Phormio_ in
161; the _Adelphoe_ in 160; and in the following year the poet died at the
age of twenty-six, while sailing round the coast of Greece. The maturity
of mind shown by so young a man is very remarkable. It must be remembered
that he belonged to a race whose faculties developed earlier than among
the Romans, that he had been a slave, and was therefore familiar with more
than one aspect of life, and that he had enjoyed the society of the
greatest in Rome, who reflected profoundly on social and political
questions. His influence, though imperfectly exercised in his lifetime,
increased after his death, not so much through the representation as the
reading of his plays. His language became one of the chief standards of
classical Latin, and is regarded by Mr. Munro as standing on the very
highest level--the same as that of Cicero, Caesar, and Lucretius. His
moral character was assailed soon after his death by Porcius Licinius, but
probably without good grounds. More might be said against the morality of
his plays--the morality of accommodation, as it is called by Mommsen.
There is no strong grasp of the moral principle, but decency and propriety
should be respected; if an error has been committed, the best way is, if
possible, to find out that it was no error after all, or at least to treat
it as such. In no point does ancient comedy stand further apart from
modern ideas than in its view of married life; the wile is invariably the
dull legal partner, love for whom is hardly thought of, while the
sentiment of love (if indeed it be worthy of the name) is reserved for the
Bacchis and Thais, who, in the most popular plays turn out to be Attic
citizens, and so are finally united to the fortunate lover.

But defective and erroneous as these views are, we must not suppose that
Terence tries to make vice attractive. On the contrary, he distinctly says
that it is useful to know things as they really are for the purpose of
learning to choose the good and reject the evil. [37] Moreover, his lover
is never a mere profligate, but proves the reality of his affection for
the victim of his wrong-doing by his readiness and anxiety in all cases to
become her husband.

Terence has suggested many modern subjects. The _Eunuchus_ is reflected in
the _Bellamira_ of Sir Charles Sedley and _Le Muet_ of Brueys; the
_Adelphi_ in Molière's _Ecole des Maris_ and Baron's _L'Ecole des Pères_;
and the _Phormio_ in Molière's _Les Fourberies de Scapin_.

We need do no more than just notice the names of LUSCIUS LAVINIUS, [38]
the older rival and detractor of Terence; ATILIUS, whose style is
characterised by Cicero [39] as extremely harsh; TRABEA, who, like
ATILIUS, was a contemporary of Caecilius, and LICINIUS IMBREX, who
belonged to the older generation; TURPILIUS, JUVENTIUS, and VALERIUS, [40]
who lived to a considerably later period. The former died as late as 103
B.C., having thus quite outlived the productiveness of the legitimate
dramatic art. He seems to have been livelier and more popular in his
diction than Terence; it is to be regretted that so little of him remains.

The earliest cultivation of the national comedy (_togata_) [41] seems to
date from after the death of Terence. Its first representative is
TITINIUS, about whom we know little or nothing, except that he based his
plays on the Attic comedy, changing, however, the scene and the costumes.
The pieces, according to Mommsen, were laid in Southern Latium, _e.g._
Setia, Ferentinum, or Velitrae, and delineated with peculiar freshness the
life of these busy little towns. The titles of his comedies are--_Coccus,
Fullones, Hortensius, Quintius, Varus, Gemina, Iurisperita, Prilia,
Privigna, Psaltria, Setina, Tibicina, Velitema, Ulubrana_. From these we
should infer that his peculiar excellence lay in satirizing the weaknesses
of the other sex. As we have before implied, this type of comedy
originally arose in the country towns and maintained a certain antagonism
with the Graecized comedy of Rome. In a few years, however, we find it
established in the city, under T. QUINTIUS ATTA and L. AFRANIUS. Of the
former little is known; of the latter we know that he was esteemed the
chief poet of _togatae_, and long retained his hold on the public.
Quintilian [42] recognises his talent, but condemns the morality of his
plays. Horace speaks of him as wearing a gown which would have fitted
Menander, but this is popular estimation, not his own judgment.
Nevertheless, we may safely assert that the comedies of Afranius and
Titinius, though often grossly indecent, had a thoroughly rich vein of
native humour, which would have made them very valuable indications of the
average popular culture of their day.

CHAPTER V.

ROMAN TRAGEDY (ENNIUS--ACCIUS, 239-94 B.C.).

As the Italian talent for impromptu buffoonery might perhaps have in time
created a genuine native comedy, so the powerful and earnest rhetoric in
which the deeper feelings of the Roman always found expression, might have
assumed the tragic garb and woven itself into happy and original alliance
with the dramatic instinct. But what actually happened was different.
Tragedy, as well as comedy, took its subjects from the Greek; but though
comedy had the advantage of a far greater popularity, and also of a
partially native origin, there is reason to believe that tragedy came the
nearer of the two to a really national form of art. In the fullest and
noblest sense of the word Rome had indeed no national drama; for a drama,
to be truly representative, must be based on the deepest chords of
patriotic and even religious feeling. And that golden age of a people's
history when Patriotism and Religion are still wedded together, seeming
but varying reflections from the mirror of national life, is the most
favourable of all to the birth of dramatic art. In Greece this was pre-
eminently the case. The spirit of patriotism is ever present--rarely,
indeed, suggesting, as in the _Persae_ of Aeschylus, the subject of the
play, but always supplying a rich background of common sympathy where poet
and people can feel and rejoice together. Still more, if possible, is the
religious spirit present, as the animating influence which gives the drama
its interest and its vitality. The great moral and spiritual questions
which occupy the soul of man, in each play or series of plays, try to work
out their own solution by the natural human action of the characters, and
by those reflections on the part of the chorus to which the action
naturally gives rise. But with the transplanted tragedy of the Romans this
could no longer be the case. The religious ideas which spoke straight to
the Athenian's heart, spoke only to the acquired learning of the Roman.
The idea of man, himself free, struggling with a destiny which he could
not comprehend or avert, is foreign to the Roman conception of life. As
Schlegel has observed, a truly Roman tragic drama would have found an
altogether different basis. The binding force of "Religio," constraining
the individual to surrender himself for the good of the Supreme State, and
realising itself in acts of patriotic self-devotion; such would have been
the shape we should have expected Roman tragedy to take, and if it failed
to do this, we should not expect it in other respects to be a great
success.

The strong appreciation which, notwithstanding its initial defects,
tragedy did meet with and retain for many generations, is a striking
testimony to the worth and talent of the men who introduced it. Their
position as elevators of the popular taste was not the less real because
they themselves were men of provincial birth, and only partially polished
minds. Both in the selection of their models and in the freedom of
treating them they showed that good sense which was characteristic of the
nation. As a rule, instead of trying to familiarise the people with
Aeschylus and Sophocles, poets who are essentially Athenian, they
generally chose the freethinking and cosmopolitan Euripides, who was
easily intelligible, and whose beauties did not seem so entirely to defy
imitation. What Euripides was to Greek tragedy Menander was to comedy.
Both denationalised their respective fields of poetry; both thereby
acquired a vast ascendancy over the Roman mind, ready as it was to be
taught, and only awaiting a teacher whose views it could understand. Now
although Livius actually introduced, and Naevius continued, the
translation of tragedies from the Greek, it was Ennius who first rendered
them with a definitely conceived purpose. This purpose was--to raise the
aesthetic sense of his countrymen, to set before them examples of heroic
virtue, and, above all, to enlighten their minds with what he considered
rational views on subjects of morals and and religion; though, after all,
the fatal facility with which the sceptical theories of Euripides were
disseminated and embraced was hardly atoned for by the gain to culture
which undoubtedly resulted from the tragedian's labours. Mommsen says with
truth that the stage is in its essence anti-Roman, just as culture itself
is anti-Roman; the one because it consumes time and interest on things
that interfere with the serious business of life, the other because it
creates degrees of intellectual position where the constitution intended
that all should be alike. But amid the vast change that came over the
Roman habits of thought, which men like Cato saw, resisted, and bewailed,
it mattered little whether old traditions were violated. The stage at once
became a powerful engine of popular education; and it rested with the poet
to decide whether it should elevate or degrade. Political interests, it is
true, were carefully guarded. The police system, with which senatorial
narrowness environed the stage as it did all corporations or voluntary
societies, rigidly repressed and made penal anything like liberty of
speech. But it was none the less possible to inculcate the stern Roman
virtues beneath the mask of an Ajax or Ulysses; and Sellar has brought out
with singular clearness in his work on the poets of the Republic the
national features which are stamped on this early tragedy, making it in
spite of its imperfections worthy of the great Republic.

The oratorical mould in which all Latin poetry except satire and comedy is
to a great extent cast, is visible from the beginning in tragedy. Weighty
sentences follow one another until the moral effect is reached, or the
description fully turned. The rhythm seems to have been much more often
trochaic [1] than iambic, at least than trimeter iambic, for the
tetrameter is more frequently employed. This is not to be wondered at,
since even in comedy, where such high-flown cadences are out of place, the
people liked to hear them, measuring excellence by stateliness of march
rather than propriety of diction.

The popular demand for grandiloquence ENNIUS (209-169 B.C.) was well able
to satisfy, for he had a decided leaning to it himself, and great skill in
attaining it. Moreover he had a vivid power of reproducing the original
emotion of another. That reflected fervour which draws passion, not direct
from nature, but from nature as mirrored in a great work of art, stamps
Ennius as a genuine Roman in talent, while it removes him from the list of
creative poets. The chief sphere of his influence was epic poetry, but in
tragedy he founded a school which only closed when the drama itself was
silenced by the bloody massacres of the civil wars. Born at Rudiae in
Calabria, and so half Greek, half Oscan, he served while a young man in
Sardinia, where he rose to the rank of centurion, and was soon after
brought to Rome by Cato. There is something striking in the stern
reactionist thus introducing to Rome the man who was more instrumental
than any other in overthrowing his hopes and fixing the new culture beyond
possibility of recall. When settled at Rome, Ennius gained a living by
teaching Greek, and translating plays for the stage. He also wrote
miscellaneous poems, and among them a panegyric on Scipio which brought
him into favourable notice. His fame must have been established before
B.C. 189, for in that year Fulvius Nobilior took him into Aetolia to
celebrate his deeds a proceeding which Cato strongly but ineffectually
impugned. In 184 B.C., the Roman citizenship was conferred on him. He
alluded to this with pride in his annals--

"Nos sumus Romani qui fuvimus ante Rudini."

During the last twenty years of his life his friendship with Scipio and
Fulvius must have ensured him respect and sympathy as well as freedom from
distasteful labour. But he was never in affluent circumstances; [2] partly
through his own fault, for he was a free liver, as Horace tells us [3]--

"Ennius ipse pater nunquam nisi potus ad arma
Prosiluit dicenda;"

and he himself alludes to his lazy habits, saying that he never wrote
poetry unless confined to the house by gout. [4] He died in the seventieth
year of his age and was buried in the tomb of the Scipios, where a marble
statue of him stood between those of P. and L. Scipio.

Ennius is not merely "the Father of Roman Poetry;" he held also as a man a
peculiar and influential position, which we cannot appreciate, without
connecting him with his patron and friend, the great Scipio Africanus.
Nearly of an age, united by common tastes and a common spiritual
enthusiasm, these two distinguished men wrought together for a common
object. Their familiarity with Greek culture and knowledge of Greek
religious ideas seem to have filled both with a high sense of their
position as teachers of their countrymen. Scipio drew around him a circle
of aristocratic liberals. Ennius appealed rather to the people at large.
The policy of the elder Scipio was continued by his adopted son with far
less breadth of view, but with more refined taste, and more concentrated
effort. Where Africanus would have sought his inspiration from the poetry,
Aemilianus went rather to the philosophy, of Greece; he was altogether of
a colder temperament, just as his literary friends Terence and Lucilius
were by nature less ardent than Ennius. Between them they laid the
foundation of that broader conception of civilisation which is expressed
by the significant word _humanitas_, and which had borne its intellectual
fruit when the whole people raised a shout of applause at the line in the
_Hautontimorumenos_--

"Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto."

This conception, trite as it seems to us, was by no means so when it was
thus proclaimed: if philosophers had understood it (_apas anthropos
anthropo oikeion kai philon_.--_Ar. Eth. N._ lib. 9), they had never made
it a principle of action; and the teachers who had caused even the
uneducated Roman populace to recognise its speculative truth must be
allowed to have achieved something great. Some historians of Rome have
seen in this attitude a decline from old Roman exclusiveness, almost a
treasonable conspiracy against the Roman idea of the State. Hence they
have regarded Ennius with something of that disfavour which Cato in his
patriotic zeal evinced for him. The justification of the poet's course, if
it is to be sustained at all, must be sought in the necessity for an
expansion of national views to meet the exigences of an increasing foreign
empire. External coercion might for a time suffice to keep divergent
nationalities together; but the only durable power would be one founded on
sympathy with the subject peoples on the broad ground of a common
humanity. And for this the poet and his patron bore witness with a
consistent and solemn, though often irreverent, earnestness. Ennius had
early in life shown a tendency towards the mystic speculations of
Pythagoreanism: traces of it are seen in his assertion that the soul of
Homer had migrated into him through a peacock, [5] and that he had three
souls because he knew three languages; [6] while the satirical notice of
Horace seems to imply that he, like Scipio, regarded himself as specially
favoured of heaven--

"Leviter curare videtur
Quo promissa caadant et somnia Pythagorea." [7]

At the same time he studied the Epicurean system, and in particular, the
doctrines of Euhemerus, whose work on the origin of the gods he
translated. His denial of Divine Providence is well known [8]--

"Ego deum genus esse dixi et dicam semper caelitum:
Sed eos non curare opinor quid agat humanum genus.
Nam si curent, bene bonis sit, male malis, quod nunc abest."

Of these two inconsistent points of view, the second, as we should expect
in a nature so little mystical, finally prevailed, so that Ennius may well
be considered the preacher of scepticism or the bold impugner of popular
superstition according to the point of view which we assume. In addition
to these philosophic aspirations he had a strong desire to reach artistic
perfection, and to be the herald of a new literary epoch. Conscious of his
success and proud of the power he wielded over the minds of the people, he
alludes more than once to his performances in a self-congratulatory
strain--

"Enni poeta salve, qui mortalibus
Versus propinas flammeos medullitus."

"Hail! poet Ennius, who pledgest mankind in verses fiery to the heart's
core." And with even higher confidence in his epitaph--

"Aspicite, o cives, senis Enni imagini' formam:
Hic vostrum panxit maxima faeta patrum.
Nemo me lacrimis decoret nec funera fletu
Faxit. Cur? volito vivu' per ora virum."

We shall illustrate the above remarks by quoting one or two passages from
the fragments of his tragedies, which, it is true, are now easily
accessible to the general reader, but nevertheless will not be out of
place in a manual like the present, which is intended to lead the student
to study historically for himself the progress of the literature. The
first is a dialogue between Hecuba and Cassandra, from the _Alexander_.
Cassandra feels the prophetic impulse coming over her, the symptoms of
which her mother notices with alarm:

"HEC.
"Sed quid oculis rabere visa es derepente ar dentibus?
Ubi tua illa paulo ante sapiens virginali' modestia?

CAS.
Mater optumarum multo mulier melior mulierum,
Missa sum superstitiosis ariolationibus.
Namque Apollo fatis fandis dementem invitam ciret:
Virgines aequales vereor, patris mei meum factmn pudet,
Optimi viri. Mea mater, tui me miseret, me piget:
Optumam progeniem Priamo peperisti extra me: hoc dolet:
Men obesse, illos prodesse, me obstare, illos obsequi!"

She then sees the vision--

* * * * *
"Adest adest fax obvoluta sanguine atque incendio!
Multos annos latuit: cives ferte opem et restinguite!
Iamque mari magno classis cita
Texitur: exitium examen rapit:
Advenit, et fera velivolantibus
Navibus complebit manus litora."

This is noble poetry. Another passage from the _Telamo_ is as follows:--

"Sed superstitiosi vates impudentesque arioli,
Aut inertes aut insani aut quibus egestas imperat,
Qui sibi semitam non sapiunt, alteri monstrant viam,
Quibus divitias pollicentur, ab eis drachumam ipsi petunt.
De his divitiis sibi deducant drachumam, reddant cetera."

Here he shows, like so many of his countrymen, a strong vein of satire.
The metre is trochaic, scanned, like these of Plautus and Terence, by
accent as much as by quantity, and noticeable for the careless way in
which whole syllables are slurred over. In the former fragment the fourth
line must be scanned--

Horace mentions the ponderous weight of his iambic lines, which were
loaded with spondees. The anapaestic measure, of which he was a master,
has an impetuous swing that carries the reader away, and, while producing
a different effect from its Greek equivalent, in capacity is not much
inferior to it. Many of his phrases and metrical terms are imitated in
Virgil, though such imitation is much more frequently drawn from his
hexameter poems. He wrote one _Praetexta_ and several comedies, but these
latter were uncongenial to his temperament, and by no means successful. He
had little or no humour. His poetical genius was earnest rather than
powerful; probably he had less than either Naevius or Plautus; but his
higher cultivation, his serious view of his art, and the consistent
pursuit of a well-conceived aim, placed him on a dramatic level nearly as
high as Plautus in the opinion of the Ciceronian critics. His literary
influence will be more fully discussed under his epic poems.

His sister's son PACUVIUS (220-132 B.C.), next claims our attention. This
celebrated tragedian, on whom the complimentary epithet _doctus_ [9] was
by general consent bestowed, was brought up at Brundisium, where amid
congenial influences he practised with success the art of a painter. At
what time he came to Rome is not known, but he gained great renown there
by his paintings before attaining the position of chief tragic poet. Pliny
tells us of a picture in the Temple of Hercules in the Forum Boarium,
which was considered as only second to that of Fabius Pictor. With the
enthusiasm of the poet he united that genial breadth of temper which among
artists seems peculiarly the painter's gift. Happy in his twofold career
(for he continued to paint as well as to write), [10] free from jealousy
as from want, successful as a poet and as a man, he lived at Rome until
his eightieth year, the friend of Laelius and of his younger rival Accius,
and retired soon after to his native city where he received the visits of
younger writers, and died at the great age of eighty-eight (132 B.C.). His
long career was not productive of a large number of works. We know of but
twelve tragedies and one _praetexta_ by him. The latter was called
_Paullus_, and had for its hero the conqueror of Perseus, King of
Macedonia, but no fragments of it survive. The great authority which the
name of Pacuvius possessed was due to the care with which he elaborated
his writings. Thirteen plays and a few _saturae_ in a period of at least
thirty years [11] seems but a small result; but the admirable way in which
he sustained the dramatic situations made every one of them popular with
the nation. There were two, however, that stood decidedly above the rest--
the _Antiopa_ and the _Dulorestes_. Of the latter Cicero tells the
anecdote that the people rose as one man to applaud the noble passage in
which Pylades and Orestes contend for the honour of dying for one another.
[12] Of the former he speaks in the highest terms, though it is possible
that in his admiration for the severe and truly Roman sentiments it
inculcated, he may have been indulgent to its artistic defects. The few
lines that have come down to us resemble that ridiculed by Persius [13]
for its turgid mannerisms. A good instance of the excellences which a
Roman critic looked for in tragedy is afforded by the praise Cicero
bestows on the _Niptra_, a play imitated from Sophocles. The passage is so
interesting that it may well be added here. [14] Cicero's words are--

"The wise Greek (Ulysses) when severely wounded does not lament overmuch;
he curbs the expression of his pain. 'Forward gently,' he says, 'and with
quiet effort, lest by jolting me you increase the pangs of my wound.' Now,
in this Pacuvius excels Sophocles, who makes Ulysses give way to cries and
tears. And yet those who are carrying him, out of consideration for the
majesty of him they bear, do not hesitate to rebuke even this moderate
lamentation. 'We see indeed, Ulysses, that you have suffered grievous
hurt, but methinks for one who has passed his life in arms, you show too
soft a spirit.' The skilful poet knows that habit is a good teacher how to
bear pain. And so Ulysses, though in extreme agony, still keeps command
over his words. 'Stop! hold, I say! the ulcer has got the better of me.
Strip off my clothes. O, woe is me! I am in torture.' Here he begins to
give way; but in a moment he stops--'Cover me; depart, now leave me in
peace; for by handling me and jolting me you increase the cruel pain.' Do
you observe how it is not the cessation of bodily anguish, but the
necessity of chastening the expression of it that keeps him silent? And
so, at the close of the play, while himself dying, he has so far conquered
himself that he can reprove others in words like these,--'It is meet to
complain of adverse fortune, but not to bewail it. That is the part of a
man; but weeping is granted to the nature of woman.' The softer feelings
here obey the other part of the mind, as a dutiful soldier obeys a stern
commander."

We can go with Cicero in admiring the manly spirit that breathes through
these lines, and feel that the poet was justified in so far leaving the
original as without prejudice to the dramatic effect to inculcate a higher
moral lesson.

As to the treatment of his models we may say, generally, that Pacuvius
used more freedom than Ennius. He was more of an adapter and less of a
translator. Nevertheless this dependence on his own resources for
description appears to have cramped rather than freed his style. The early
Latin writers seem to move more easily when rendering the familiar Greek
originals than when essaying to steer their own path. He also committed
the mistake of generally imitating Sophocles, the untransplantable child
of Athens, instead of Euripides, to whom he could do better justice, as
the success of his Euripidean plays prove. [15] His style, though
emphatic, was wanting in naturalness. The author of the treatise to
Herennius contrasts the _sententiae_ of Ennius with the _periodi_ of
Pacuvius; and Lucilius speaks of a word "contorto aliquo ex Pacuviano
exordio."

Quintilian [16] notices the inelegance of his compounds, and makes the
just remark that the old writers attempted to reproduce Greek analogies
without sufficient regard for the capacities of their language; thus while
the word _kyrtauchaen_ is elegant and natural, its Latin equivalent
_incurvicervicus_, borders on the ludicrous. [17] Some of his fragments
show the same sceptical tendencies that are prominent in Ennius. One of
them contains a comprehensive survey of the different philosophic systems,
and decides in favour of blind chance (_temeritas_) as the ruling power,
on the ground of sudden changes in fortune like that of Orestes, who in
one day was metamorphosed from a king into a beggar. Pacuvius either
improved his later style, or else confined its worst points to his
tragedies, for nothing can be more classical and elegant than his epitaph,
which is couched in diction as refined as that of Terence--

Adulescens, tametsi properas, te hoc saxum vocat
Ut sese aspicias, delude quod scriptumst legas.
Hic sunt poetae Pacuvi Marci sita
Ossa. Hoc volebam nescius ne esses. Vale.

When Pacuvius retired to Brundisium he left a worthy successor in L.
ATTIUS or ACCIUS (170-94 B.C.), whom, as before observed, he had assisted
with his advice, showing kindly interest as a fellow-workman rather than
jealousy as a rival. Accius's parents belonged to the class of
_libertini_; they settled at Pisaurum. The poet began his dramatic career
at the age of thirty with the _Atreus_, and continued to exhibit until his
death. He forms the link between the ante-classical and Ciceronian epochs;
for Cicero when a boy [18] conversed with him, and retained always a
strong admiration for his works. [19] He had a high notion of the dignity
of his calling. There is a story told of his refusing to rise to Caesar
when he entered the Collegium Poetarum; but if by this Julius be meant,
the chronology makes the occurrence impossible. Besides thirty-seven
tragedies, he wrote _Annales_ (apparently mythological histories in
hexameters, something of the character of Ovid's _Fasti_), _Didascalia_,
or a history of Greek and Roman poetry, and other kindred works, as well
as two _Praetextae_.

The fragments that have reached us are tolerably numerous, and enable us
to select certain prominent characteristics of his style. The loftiness
for which he is celebrated seems to be of expression rather than of
thought, _e.g._

"Quid? quod videbis laetum in Parnasi iugo
Bicipi inter pinos tripudiantem in circulis
Concutere thyrsos ludo, taedis fulgere;"

but sometimes a noble sentiment is simply and emphatically expressed--

"Non genus virum ornat, generi vir fortis loco." [20]

He was a careful chooser of words, _e.g._

"Tu _pertinaciam_ esse, Antiloche, hanc praedicas,
Ego _pervicaciam_ aio et ea me uti volo:
Haec fortis sequitur, illam indocti possident....
Nam pervicacem dici me esse et vincere
Perfacile patior, pertinaciam nil moror." [21]

These distinctions, obvious as they are to us, were by no means so to the
early Romans. Close resemblance in sound seemed irresistibly to imply some
connexion more than that of mere accident; and that turning over the
properties of words, which in philosophy as well as poetry seems to us to
have something childish in it, had its legitimate place in the development
of each language. Accius paints action with vigour. We have the following
spirited fragment--

"Constituit, cognovit, sensit, conlocat sese in locum
Celsum: hinc manibus rapere raudus saxeum et grave."

and again--

"Heus vigiles properate, expergite,
Pectora tarda, sopore exsurgite!"

He was conspicuous among tragedians for a power of reasoned eloquence of
the forensic type; and delighted in making two rival pleaders state their
case, some of his most successful scenes being of this kind. His opinions
resembled those of Ennius, but were less irreverent. He acknowledges the
interest of the gods in human things--

"Nam non facile sine deum opera humana propria [22] sunt bona,"

and in a fragment of the _Brutus_ he enforces the doctrine that dreams are
often heaven-sent warnings, full of meaning to those that will understand
them. Nevertheless his contempt for augury was equal to that of his
master--

"Nil credo auguribus qui auris verbis divitant
Alienas, suas ut auro locupletent domos."

The often-quoted maxim of the tyrant _oderint dum metuant_ is first found
in him. Altogether, he was a powerful writer, with less strength perhaps,
but more polish than Ennius; and while manipulating words with greater
dexterity, losing but little of that stern grandeur which comes from the
plain utterance of conviction. His general characteristics place him
altogether within the archaic age. In point of time little anterior to
Cicero, in style he is almost a contemporary of Ennius. The very slight
increase of linguistic polish during the century and a quarter which
comprises the tragic art of Rome, is somewhat remarkable. The old-
fashioned ornaments of assonance, alliteration, and plays upon words are
as frequent in Accius as in Livius, or rather more so; and the number of
archaic forms is scarcely smaller. We see words like _noxitudo,
honestitudo, sanctescat, topper, domuitio, redhostire_, and wonder that
they could have only preceded by a few years the Latin of Cicero, and were
contemporary with that of Gracchus. Accius, like so many Romans, was a
grammarian; he introduced certain changes into the received spelling,
_e.g._ he wrote _aa, ee_, etc. when the vowel was long, reserving the
single _a, e_, etc. for the short quantity. It was in acknowledgment of
the interest taken by him in these studies that Varro dedicated to him one
of his many philological treatises. The date of his death is not quite
certain; but it may be safely assigned to about 90 B.C. With him died
tragic writing at Rome: scarcely a generation after we find tragedy has
donned the form of the closet drama, written only for recitation. Cicero
and his brother assiduously cultivated this rhetorical art. When writing
failed, however, acting rose, and the admirable performances of Aesopus
and Roscius did much to keep alive an interest in the old works. Varius
and Pollio seem for a moment to have revived the tragic muse under
Augustus, but their works had probably nothing in common with this early
but interesting drama; and in Imperial times tragedy became more and more
confused with rhetoric, until delineation of character ceased to be an
object, and declamatory force or fine point was the chief end pursued.

CHAPTER VI.

EPIC POETRY. ENNIUS--FURIUS (200-100 B.C.)

We must now retrace our steps, and consider Ennius in the capacity of epic
poet. It was in this light that he acquired his chief contemporary renown,
that he accredits himself to posterity in his epitaph, and that he
obtained that commanding influence over subsequent poetic literature,
which, stereotyped in Virgil, was never afterwards lost. The merit of
discerning the most favourable subject for a Roman epic belongs to
Naevius; in this department Ennius did but borrow of him; it was in the
form in which he cast his poem that his originality was shown. The
legendary history of Rome, her supposed connection with the issues of the
Trojan war, and her subsequent military achievements in the sphere of
history, such was the groundwork both of Naevius's and Ennius's
conception. And, however unsuitable such a consecutive narrative might be
for a heroic poem, there was something in it that corresponded with the
national sentiment, and in a changed form it re-appears in the _Aeneid_.
Naevius had been contented with a single episode in Rome's career of
conquest. Ennius, with more ambition but less judgment, aspired to grasp
in an epic unity the entire history of the nation; and to achieve this, no
better method occurred to him than the time-honoured and prosaic system of
annals. The difficulty of recasting these in a poetic mould might well
have staggered a more accomplished master of song; but to the enthusiastic
and laborious bard the task did not seem too great. He lived to complete
his work in accordance with the plan he had proposed, and though, perhaps,
the _manus ultima_ may have been wanting, there is nothing to show that he
was dissatisfied with his results. We may perhaps smile at the vanity
which aspired to the title of Roman Homer, and still more at the
partiality which so willingly granted it; nevertheless, with all
deductions on the score of rude conception and ruder execution, the
fragments that remain incline us to concur with Scaliger in wishing that
fate had spared us the whole, and denied us Silius, Statius, Lucan, "et
tous ces garçons là." The whole was divided into eighteen books, of which
the first contained the introduction, the earliest traditions, the
foundation of Rome, and the deification of Romulus; the second and third
contained the regal period; the fourth began the history of the Republic
and carried it down to the burning of the city by the Gauls; the fifth
comprised the Samnite wars; the sixth, that with Pyrrhus; the seventh, the
first Punic war; the eighth and ninth, the war with Hannibal; the tenth
and eleventh, that with Macedonia; the twelfth, thirteenth, and
fourteenth, that with Syria; the fifteenth, the campaign of Fulvius
Nobilior in Aetolia, and ended apparently with the death of the great
Scipio. The work then received a new preface, and continued the history
down to the poet's last years, containing many personal notices, until it
was finally brought to a close in 172 B.C. after having occupied its
author eighteen years. [1] "The interest of this last book," says
Conington, [2] "must have centred, at least to us, in the discourse about
himself, in which the old bard seems to have indulged in closing this his
greatest poem. Even now we may read with sympathy his boastful allusion to
his late enrolment among the citizens of the conquering city; we may be
touched by the mention he appears to have made of the year of his age in
which he wrote, bordering closely on the appointed term of man's life; and
we may applaud as the curtain falls on his grand comparison of himself to
a victorious racer laden with Olympian honours, and now at last consigned
to repose:--

'Sicut fortis equus, spatio qui saepe supremo
Vicit Olimpia, nunc senio confectus quiescit.'"

He was thus nearly fifty when he began to write, a fact which strikes us
as remarkable. We are accustomed to associate the poetic gift with a
highly-strung nervous system, and unusual bodily conditions not favourable
to long life, as well as with a precocious special development which
proclaims unmistakably in the boy the future greatness of the man. None of
these conditions seem to have been present in the early Roman school.
Livius was a quiet schoolmaster, Naevius a vigorous soldier, Ennius a
self-indulgent but hard-working _litterateur_, Plautus an active man,
whose animal spirits not even the flour-mill could quench, Pacuvius a
steady but genial student, Accius and Terence finished men of the world;
and all, except Terence (and he probably met his early death through an
accident), enjoyed the full term of man's existence. Moreover, few of them
began life by being poets, and some, as Ennius and Plautus, did not apply
themselves to poetry until they had reached mature years. With these facts
the character of their genius as a rule agrees. We should not expect in
such men the fine inspiration of a Sophocles, a Goethe, or a Shelley, and
we do not find it. The poetic frenzy, so magnificently described in the
_Phaedrus_ of Plato, which caused the Greeks to regard the poet in his
moments of creation as actually possessed by the god, is nowhere manifest
among the early Romans; and if it claims to appear in their later
literature, we find it after all a spurious substitute, differing widely
from the emotion of creative genius. It is not mere accident that Rome is
as little productive in the sphere of speculative philosophy as she is in
that of the highest poetry, for the two endowments are closely allied. The
problem each sets before itself is the same; to arrest and embody in an
intelligible shape the idea that shall give light to the dark questionings
of the intellect, or the vague yearnings of the heart. To Rome it has not
been given to open a new sphere of truth, or to add one more to the mystic
voices of passion; her epic mission is the humbler but still not ignoble
one of bracing the mind by her masculine good sense, and linking together
golden chains of memory by the majestic music of her verse.

There were two important elements introduced into the mechanism of the
story by Ennius; the Olympic Pantheon, and the presentation of the Roman
worthies as heroes analogous to those of Greece. The latter innovation was
only possible within narrow limits, for the idea formed by the Romans even
of their greatest heroes, as Romulus, Numa, or Camillus was different in
kind from that of the Greek hero-worshipper. Thus we see that Virgil
abstains from applying the name to any of his Italian characters,
confining it to such as are mentioned in Homer, or are connected with the
Homeric legends. Still we find at a later period Julius Caesar publicly
professing his descent on both sides from a superhuman ancestor, for such
he practically admits Ancus Martius to be. [3] And in the epic of Silius
Italicus the Roman generals occupy quite the conventional position of the
hero-leader.

The admission of the Olympic deities as a kind of divine machinery for
diversifying and explaining the narrative was much more pregnant with
consequences. Outwardly, it is simply adopted from Homer, but the spirit
which animates it is altogether different. The Greek, in spite of his
intellectual scepticism, retained an aesthetic and emotional belief in his
national gods, and at any rate it was natural that he should celebrate
them in his verse; but the Roman poet claimed to utilize the Greek
Pantheon for artistic purposes alone. He professed no belief in the beings
he depicted. They were merely an ornamental, supernatural element, either
introduced at will, as in Horace, or regulated according to traditional
conceptions, as in Ennius and Virgil. Apollo, Minerva, and Bacchus, were
probably no more to him than they are to us. They were names, consecrated
by genius and convenient for art, under which could be combined the
maximum of beautiful associations with the minimum of trouble to the poet.
The custom, which perpetuated itself in Latin poetry, revived again with
the rise of Italian art; and under a modified form its influence may be
seen in the grand conceptions of Milton. The true nature of romantic
poetry is, however, alien to any such mechanical employment of the
supernatural, and its comparative infrequency in the highest English and
German poetry, stamps these as products of the modern spirit. Had the
Romans left Olympus to itself, and occupied themselves only with the
rhetorical delineation of human action and feeling, they would have chosen
a less ambitious but certainly more original path. Lucretius struggles
against the prevailing tendency; but so unable were the Romans to invest
their finer fancies with any other shape, that even while he is blaming
the custom he unawares falls into it.

It was in the metrical treatment that Ennius's greatest achievement lay.
For the first time in any consecutive way he introduced the hexameter into
Latin poetry. It is true that Plautus had composed his epitaph in that
measure, if we may trust Varro's judgment on its genuineness. [4] And the
Marcian oracles, though their rhythm has been disputed, were in all
probability written in the same. [5] But these last were translations, and
were in no sense an epoch in literature. Ennius compelled the intractable
forms of Latin speech to accommodate themselves to the dactylic rhythm.
Difficulties of two kinds met him, those of accent and those of quantity.
The former had been partially surmounted by the comic writers, and it only
required a careful extension of their method to render the deviations from
the familiar emphasis of daily life harmonious and acceptable. In respect
of quantity the problem was more complex. Plautus had disregarded it in
numerous instances (_e.g. dari_), and in others had been content to
recognize the natural length or shortness of a vowel (_e.g. senex ipse_),
neglecting the subordinate laws of position, &c. This custom had, as far
as we know, guided Ennius himself in his dramatic poems; but for the epos
he adopted a different principle. Taking advantage of the tendency to
shorten final vowels, he fixed almost every doubtful case as short, _e.g.
musa, patre, dare, omnibus, amaveris, pater_, only leaving the long
syllable where the metre required it, as _condiderit_. By this means he
gave a dactylic direction to Latin prosody which it afterwards, though
only slightly, extended. At the same time he observed carefully the Greek
laws of position and the doubled letters. He admitted hiatus, but not to
any great extent, and chiefly in the caesura. The lengthening of a short
vowel by the ictus occurs occasionally in his verses, but almost always in
words where it was originally by nature long. In such words the
lengthening may take place even in the thesis of the foot, as in--

"non enim rumores ponebat ante salutem."

Elision played a prominent part in his system. This was natural,
since with all his changes many long or intractable terminations
remained, _e.g. enim, quidem, omnium_, &c. These were generally
elided, sometimes shortened as in the line quoted, sometimes
lengthened as in the comedians,--

"inimicitiam agitantes."

Very rarely does he improperly shorten a naturally long vowel, _e.g.
contra_ (twice); terminations in _o_ he invariably retains, except _ego_
and _modo_. The final _s_ is generally elided before a consonant when in
the thesis of the foot, but often remains in the arsis (_e.g. plenu'
fidei, Isque dies_). The two chief blots on his versification are his
barbarous examples of tmesis,--_saxo cere comminuit brum: Massili portant
invenes ad litora tanas_ (= cerebrum, Massilitanas), and his quaint
apocope, _cael, gau, do_ (_caelum, gaudium, domum_), probably reflected
from the Homeric _do, kri_, in which Lucilius imitates him, _e.g. nol._
(for _nolueris_). The caesura, which forms the chief feature in each
verse, was not understood by Ennius. Several of his lines have no caesura
at all; and that delicate alternation of its many varieties which charms
us in Homer and Virgil, is foreign to the conception, as it would have
been unattainable by the efforts, of the rugged epic bard. Nevertheless
his labour achieved a great result. He stamped for centuries the character
and almost the details of subsequent versification. [6] If we study the
effect of his passages, we shall observe far greater power in single lines
or sentences than in a continuous description. The solemn grandeur of some
of his verses is unsurpassable, and, enshrined in the Aeneid, their
dignity seems enhanced by their surroundings. Such are--

"Tuque pater Tiberine tuo cum ilumino sancto."

"Unus homo nobis cunctando restituit rem."

"Quae neque Dardaniis campis potuere perire
Nec quom capta capi, nec quom combusta cremari,
Augusto augurio postquam incluta condita Roma est."

On the other hand he sometimes falls into pure prose;

"Cives Romani tum facti sunt Campani,"

and the like, are scarcely metre, certainly not poetry. Later epicists in
their desire to avoid this fault over elaborate their commonplace
passages. Ennius tries, however clumsily, to copy Homer in dismissing them
without ornament. The one or two similes that are preserved are among his
least happy efforts. [7] Among battle scenes he is more at home, and these
he paints with reality and strength. There are three passages of
considerable length, which the reader who desires to judge of his
narrative power should study. They are the dream of Ilia and the auspices
of Romulus in the first book, and the description of the friend of
Servilius in the seventh. This last is generally thought to be a picture
of the poet himself, and to intimate in the most pleasing language his
relations to his great patron. For a singularly appreciative criticism of
these fragments the student is referred to Sellar's _Poets of the
Republic_. The massive Roman vigour of treatment which shone forth in the
_Annals_ and made them as it were a rock-hewn monument of Rome's glory,
secured to Ennius a far greater posthumous renown than that of any of the
other early poets. Cicero extols him, and has no words too contemptuous
for those who despise him, Lucretius praises him in the well known words--

"Ennius ut noster cecinit, qui primus amoeno
Detulit ex Helicone perenni fronde coronam,
Per gentis Italas hominum quae clara clueret." [8]

Virgil, it is true, never mentions him, but he imitates him continually.
Ovid, with generous appreciation, allows the greatness of his talent,
though he denies him art; [9] and the later imperial writers are even
affected in their admiration of him. He continued to be read through the
Middle Ages, and was only lost as late as the thirteenth century.

Ennius produced a few scattered imitators, but not until upwards of two
generations after his death, if we except the doubtful case of Accius. The
first is MATIUS, who translated the Iliad into hexameters. This may be
more properly considered as the sequel to Livius, but the few fragments
remaining show that his versification was based on that of Ennius.
Gellius, with his partiality for all that was archaic, warmly praises this
work.

HOSTIUS wrote the _Bellum Istricum_ in three books. This was no doubt a
continuation of the great master's _Annales_. What the war was is not
quite certain. Some fix it at 178 B.C.; others as late as 129 B.C. The
earlier date is the more probable. We then have to ask when Hostius
himself lived. Teuffel inclines to place him before Accius; but most
commentators assign him a later date. A few lines are preserved in
Macrobius, [10] which seem to point to an early period, _e.g._

"non si mihi linguae
Centum atque ora sient totidem vocesque liquatae,"

and again,

"Dia Minerva, semol autem tu invictus Apollo
Arquitenens Latonius."

His object in quoting these is to show that they were copied by Virgil. A
passage in Propertius has been supposed to refer to him, [11]

"Splendidaque a docto fama refulget avo,"

where he would presumably be the grandfather of that Hostia whom under the
name of Cynthia so many of Propertius's poems celebrate. Another poet of
whom a few lines are preserved in Gellius and Macrobius is A. FURIUS of
Antium, which little town produced more than one well-known writer. His
work was entitled _Annals_. Specimens of his versification are--

"Interea Oceani linquens Aurora cubile."

"Quod genus hoc hominum Saturno sancte create?"

"Pressatur pede pes, mucro mucrone, viro vir." [12]

CHAPTER VII.

THE EARLY HISTORY OF SATIRE (ENNIUS TO LUCILIUS)

200-103 B.C.

Satire, as every one knows, is the one branch of literature claimed by the
Romans as their own. [1] It is, at any rate, the branch in which their
excellence is most characteristically displayed. Nor is the excellence
confined to the professed satirists; it was rather inherent in the genius
of the nation. All their serious writings tended to assume at times a
satirical spirit. Tragedy, so far as we can judge, rose to her clearest
tones in branding with contempt the superstitions of the day. The epic
verses of Ennius are not without traces of the same power. The prose of
Cato abounds with sarcastic reflections, pointedly expressed. The
arguments of Cicero's theological and moral treatises are largely
sprinkled with satire. The whole poem of Lucretius is deeply imbued with
it: few writers of any age have launched more fiery sarcasm upon the fear
of death, or the blind passion of love than he has done in his third and
fourth books. Even the gentle Virgil breaks forth at times into earnest
invective, tipped with the flame of satire: [2] Dido's bitter irony,
Turnus' fierce taunts, show that he could wield with stern effect this
specially Roman weapon. Lucan and Seneca affect a style which, though
grotesque, is meant to be satirical; while at the close of the classical
period, Tacitus transforms the calm domain of history into satire, more
burning because more suppressed than that of any of his predecessors. [3]

The claim to an independent origin advanced by Quintilian has been more
than once disputed. The name _Satire_ has been alleged as indicative of a
Greek original (_Satyrion_). [4] It is true this can no longer be
maintained. Still some have thought that the poems of Archilochus or the
_Silli_ may have suggested the Roman form of composition. But the former,
though full of invective, were iambic or personal, not properly satirical.
And the _Silli_, of which examples are found in Diogenes Laertius and Dio
Chrysostom, were rather patched together from the verses of serious
writers, forming a kind of _Cento_ like the _Carmen Nuptiale_ of Ausonius,
than original productions. The Roman Satire differed from these in being
essentially _didactic_. Besides ridiculing the vices and absurdities of
individuals or of society, it had a serious practical purpose, viz. the
improvement of public culture or morals. Thus it followed the old Comedy
of Athens in its plain speaking, and the method of Archilochus in its
bitter hostility to those who provoked attack. But it differed from the
former in its non-political bias, as well as its non-dramatic form: and
from the latter in its motive, which is not personal enmity, but public
spirit. Thus the assertion of Horace, that Lucilius is indebted to the old
comedians, [5] must be taken in a general sense only, and not be held to
invalidate the generally received opinion that, in its final and perfected
form, Satire was a genuine product of Rome.

The metres adopted by Satire was originally indifferent. The _Saturae_ of
Ennius were composed in trochaics, hexameters, and iambics; those of Varro
(called _Menippean_, from Menippus of Gadara), mingled together prose and
verse. [6] But from Lucilius onwards, Satire, accurately so called, was
always treated in hexameter verse. [7]

Nevertheless, Horace is unquestionably right in saying that it had more
real affinity for prose than for poetry of any kind--

"Primum ego me illorum, dederim quibus esse poetis,
Excerpam numero: neque enim concludere versum
Dixeris esse satis; neque si quis scribat, uti nos,
Sermoni propiora, pates hunc esse poetam." [8]

The essence of satiric talent is that it should be able to understand the
complexities of real life, that it should penetrate beneath the surface to
the true motives of action, and if these are bad, should indicate by life-
like touches their ridiculous or contemptible nature. There is room here
for great variety of treatment and difference of _personnel_. One may have
a broad and masculine grasp of the main outlines of social intercourse;
another with subtler analysis may thread his way through the intricacies
of dissimulation, and lay bare to the hypocrite secrets which he had
concealed even from himself; a third may select certain provinces of
conduct or thought, and by a good-humoured but discriminating portraiture,
throw them into so new and clear a light, as to enable mankind to look at
them, free from the prejudices with which convention so often blinds our
view.

The qualifications for excelling in this kind of writing are clearly such
as have no special connection with poetry. Had the modern prose essay
existed at Rome, it is probable the satirists would have availed
themselves of it. From the fragments of Lucilius we should judge that he
found the trammels of verse somewhat embarrassing. Practice had indeed
enabled him to write with unexampled fluency; [9] but except in this
mechanical facility he shows none of the characteristics of a poet. The
accumulated experience of modern life has pronounced in favour of
abandoning the poetic form, and including Satire in the domain of prose.
No doubt many celebrated poets in France and England have cultivated verse
satire; but in most cases they have merely imitated, whereas the prose
essay is a true formation of modern literary art. Conington, in an
interesting article, [10] regards the progressive enlargement of the
sphere of prose composition as a test of a nation's intellectual advance.
Thus considered, poetry is the imperfect attempt to embody in vivid
language ideas which have themselves hardly assumed definite form, and
necessarily gives way to prose when clearness of thought and sequence of
reasoning have established for themselves a more perfect vehicle. However
inadequate such a view may be to explain the full nature of poetry, it is
certainly true so far as concerns the case at present before us. The
assignment of each special exercise of mind to its proper department of
literature is undoubtedly a late growth of human culture, and such nations
as have not attained to it, whatever may be the splendour of their
literary creations, cannot be said to have reached the full maturity of
intellectual development.

The conception of Satire by the ancients is illustrated by a passage in
Diomedes: [11] "_Satira dicitur carmen apud Romanos nunc quidem maledicum
et ad carpenda hominum vitia archaeae comoediae charactere compositum,
quale scripserunt Lucilius et Horatius et Persius; at olim carmen quod ex
variis poematibus constabat satira cocabatur, quale scripserunt Pacuvius
et Ennius_." This old-fashioned _satura_ of Ennius may be considered as
half-way between the early semi-dramatic farce and the classical Satire.
It was a genuine medley, containing all kinds of subjects, often couched
in the form of dialogue, but intended for recitation, not for action. The
poem on Scipio was classed with it, but what this poem was is not by any
means clear; from the fragment that remains, describing a calm after storm
in sonorous language, we should gather that Scipio's return voyage from
Africa may have formed its theme. [12] Other subjects, included in the
_Saturae_ of Ennius, were the _Hedyphagetica_, a humorous didactic poem on
the mysteries of gastronomy, which may have suggested similar effusions by
Lucilius and Horace; [13] the _Epicharmus_ and _Euhemerus_, both in
trochaics, the latter a free translation of the _iera anagraphae_, or
explanation of the gods as deified mortals; and the _Epigrams_, among
which two on the great Scipio are still preserved, the first breathing the
spirit of the Republic, the second asserting with some arrogance the
exploits of the hero, and his claims to a place among the denizens of
heaven. [14]

Of the _Saturae_ of Pacuvius nothing is known. C. LUCILIUS (148-103 B.C.),
the founder of classical Satire, was born in the Latin town of Suessa
Aurunca in Campania. He belonged to an equestrian family, and was in easy
circumstances. [15] He is supposed to have fought under Scipio in the
Numantine war (133 B.C.) when he was still quite a youth; and it is
certain from Horace that he lived on terms of the greatest intimacy, both
with him, Laelius, and Albinus. He is said to have possessed the house
which had been built at the public expense for the son of King Antiochus,
and to have died at Naples, where he was honoured with a public funeral,
in the forty-sixth year of his age. His position, at once independent and
unambitious (for he could not hold office in Rome), gave him the best
possible chance of observing social and political life, and of this chance
he made the fullest use. He lived behind the scenes: he saw the corruption
prevalent in high circles; he saw also the true greatness of those who,
like Scipio, stood aloof from it, and he handed down to imperishable
infamy each most signal instance of vice, whether in a statesman, as
Lupus, [16] Metellus, or Albucius, or in a private person, as the glutton
Gallonius.

It is possible that he now and then misapplied his pen to abuse his own
enemies or those of his friends, for we know that the honourable Mucius
Scaevola was violently attacked by him; [17] and there is a story that
being once lampooned in the theatre in a libellous manner, the poet sued
his detractor, but failed in obtaining damages, on the ground that he
himself had done the same to others. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt
whatever that on the whole he nobly used the power he possessed, that his
trenchant pen was mainly enlisted on the side of patriotism, virtue, and
enlightenment, and that he lashed without mercy corruption, hypocrisy, and
ignorance. The testimony of Horace to his worth, coming from one who
himself was not easily deceived, is entitled to the highest consideration;
[18] that of Juvenal, though more emphatic, is not more weighty, [19] and
the opinion, blamed by Quintilian, [20] that he should be placed above all
other poets, shows that his plain language did not hinder the recognition
of his moral excellence.

Although a companion of the great, he was strictly popular in his tone. He
appealed to the great public, removed on the one hand from accurate
learning, on the other from indifference to knowledge. "_Nec
doctissimis_," he says, [21] "_Manium Persium haec legere nolo, Junium
Congum volo._" And in another passage quoted by Cicero, [22] he professes
to desire that his readers may be the Tarentines, Consentines, and
Sicilians,--those, that is, whose Latin grammar and spelling most needed
improvement. But we cannot extend this humility [23] to his more famous
political allusions. Those at any rate would be nothing if not known to
the parties concerned; neither the poet's genius nor the culprit's guilt
could otherwise be brought home to the individual.

In one sense Lucilius might be called a moderniser, for he strove hard to
enlarge the people's knowledge and views; but in another and higher sense
he was strictly national: luxury, bribery, and sloth, were to him the very
poison of all true life, and cut at the root of those virtues by which
alone Rome could remain great. This national spirit caused him to be
preferred to Horace by conservative minds in the time of Tacitus, but it
probably made his critics somewhat over-indulgent. Horace, with all his
admiration for him, cannot shut his eyes to his evident faults, [24] the
rudeness of his language, the carelessness of his composition, the habit
of mixing Greek and Latin words, which his zealous admirers construed into
a virtue, and, last but not least, the diffuseness inseparable from a
hasty draft which he took no trouble to revise. Still his elegance of
language must have been considerable. Pliny speaks of him as the first to
establish a severe criticism of style, [25] and the fragments reveal
beneath the obscuring garb of his uncouth hexameters, a terse and pure
idiom not unlike that of Terence. His faults are numerous, [26] but do not
seriously detract from his value. The loss of his works must be considered
a serious one. Had they been extant we should have found useful
information in his pictures of life and manners in a state of moral
transition, amusement in such pieces as his journal of a progress from
Rome to Capua, [27] and material for philological knowledge in his careful
distinctions of orthography and grammar.

As a favourable specimen of his style, it will be sufficient to quote his
definition of virtue:

"Virtus, Albine, est pretium persolvere verum
Quis in versamur, quis vivimus rebus potesse.
Virtus est homini scire id quod quaeque habeat res.
Virtus scire homini rectum, utile, quid sit honestum,
Quae bona, quae mala item, quid inutile, turpe, inhonestum.
Virtus, quaerendae finem rei scire modumque;
Virtus divitiis pretium persolvere posse.
Virtus, id dare quod reipsa debetur honori,
Hostem esse atque inimicum hominum morumque malorum
Contra, defensorem hominum morumque bonorum;
Magnificare hos, his bene velle, his vivere amicum;
Commoda praeterea patriai prima putare,
Deinde parentum, tertia iam postremaque nostra."

We see in these lines a practical and unselfish standard--that of the
cultivated but still truly patriotic Roman, admitting the necessity of
knowledge in a way his ancestors might have questioned, but keeping
steadily to the main points of setting a true price upon all human things,
and preferring the good of one's country to personal advantage. This is a
morality intelligible to all, and if it falls below the higher
enlightenment of modern, knowledge, it at least soars above the average
practice. We are informed [28] that Lucilius did not spare his immediate
predecessors and contemporaries in literature any more than in politics.
He attacked Accius for his unauthorised innovations in spelling, Pacuvius
and Ennius for want of a sustained level of dignity. His satire seems to
have ranged over the whole field of life, so far as it was known to him;
and though his learning was in no department deep, [29] it was sound so
far as it went, and was guided by natural good taste. He will always
retain an interest for us from the charming picture given by Horace of his
daily life; how he kept his books beside him like the best of friends, as
indeed they were, and whatever he felt, thought, or saw, intrusted to
their faithful keeping, whence it comes that the man's life stands as
vividly before one's eyes as if it had been painted on a votive tablet.
Then the way in which Laelius and Scipio unbent in his company, mere youth
as he was compared to them, gives us a pleasing notion of his social
gifts; he who could make the two grave statesmen so far forget their
decorum as to romp in the manner Horace describes, must at least have been
gifted with contagious light-heartedness. This genial humour Horace tried
with success to reproduce, but he is conscious of inferiority to the
master. In English literature Dryden is the writer who most recalls him,
though rather in his higher than in his more sportive moods.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE MINOR DEPARTMENTS OF POETRY--THE ATELLANAE (POMPONIUS AND NOVIUS,
CIRC. 90 B.C.) AND THE EPIGRAM (ENNIUS--CATULUS, 100 B.C.).

The last class of dramatic

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/7525