The symbols of the
Greek mythology are nearer and dearer to him than the symbolism of the
Cross.
Greek mythology are nearer and dearer to him than the symbolism of the
Cross.
Oxford Book of Latin Verse
Here stands Philocomus, here Scipio.
In the period of the Punic Wars this organization is only rudimentary.
By no means casual, it is none the less as yet uninfected by
officialism. The transition from the age of Scipio to the age of
Augustus introduced two almost insensible modifications:
(1) In the earlier period the functions of the _grammaticus_ and the
_rhetor_ were undifferentiated. The _grammaticus_, as he was known
later, was called then _litteratus_ or _litterator_. He taught both
poetry and rhetoric. But Suetonius tells us that the name denoted
properly an 'interpres poetarum': and we may infer that in the early
period instruction in rhetoric was only a very casual adjunct of the
functions of the _litterator_. At what precise date the office of the
_litterator_ became bifurcated into the two distinct professions of
_grammaticus_ and _rhetor_ we cannot say. It seems likely that the
undivided office was retained in the smaller Italian towns after it had
disappeared from the educational system of Rome. The author of
_Catelepton V_, who may very well be Vergil, appears to have frequented
a school where poetry and rhetoric were taught in conjunction. Valerius
Cato and Sulla, the former certainly, the latter probably, a
Transpadane, were known as _litteratores_. But the _litterator_
gradually everywhere gave place to the _grammaticus_: and behind the
_grammaticus_, like Care behind the horseman, sits spectrally the
_rhetor_.
(2) The introduction of the _rhetor_ synchronizes with the transition
from the private patron to the patron-as-government-official. And by an
odd accident both changes worked in one and the same direction. That the
system of literary patronage was in many of its effects injurious to the
Augustan literature is a thesis which was once generally allowed. But it
was a thesis which could easily take exaggerated expression. And against
the view which it presents there has recently been a not unnatural
reaction. A moderate representative of this reaction is the late
Professor Nettleship. 'The intimacy', says Nettleship[5], 'which grew
up between Octavianus and some of the great writers of his time did not
imply more than the relation which . . . often existed between a poor poet
and his powerful friend. For as the men of nobler character among the
Roman aristocracy were mostly ambitious of achieving literary success
themselves, and were sometimes really successful in achieving it: as
they had formed a high ideal of individual culture . . . aiming at
excellence in literature and philosophy as well as in politics and the
art of war, so they looked with a kindly eye on the men of talent and
genius who with less wealth and social resources than their own were
engaged in the great work of improving the national literature. '
There is much here which is truly and tellingly said. We ought never to
forget that the system of patronage sprang from a very lofty notion of
patriotism and of the national welfare. It implies a clear and fine
recognition among the great men of affairs of the principle that a
nation's greatness is not to be measured, and cannot be sustained, by
purely material achievements. It is true, again, that the system of
patronage did not originate with Augustus or the Augustans. Augustus was
a patron of letters just as Scipio had been--because he possessed power
and taste and a wide sense of patriotic obligation. So much is true, or
fairly true. But if it is meant, as I think it is, that the literary
patronage of the Princeps was the same in kind as, and different only in
degree from, that exercised by the great men of the Republican
period--if that is meant, then we have gone beyond what is either true
or plausible.
I am not concerned here, let me say, with the _moral_ effects of
literary patronage. I am concerned only with its literary effects. Nor
will I charge these to Augustus alone. He was but one patron--however
powerful--among many. He did not create the literature which carries his
name. Nevertheless it seems impossible to doubt that it was largely
moulded under his personal influence, and that he has left upon it the
impress of his own masterful and imperial temper. Suetonius in a few
casual paragraphs gives us some insight into his literary tastes and
methods. He represents him as from his youth up a genuine enthusiast for
literature: 'Eloquentiam studiaque liberalia (i. e. _grammatice_ and
rhetoric) ab aetate prima et cupide et laboriosissime exercuit. ' Even
upon active military service he made a point of reading, composing, and
declaiming daily. He wrote a variety of prose works, and 'poetica
summatim attigit', he dabbled in poetry. There were still extant in
Suetonius' time two volumes of his poetry, the one a collection of
_Epigrammata_, the other--more interesting and significant--a hexameter
poem upon _Sicily_. [6] Moreover Augustus 'nursed in all ways the
literary talent of his time'. He listened 'with charity and
long-suffering' to endless recitations 'not only of poetry and of
history but of orations and of dialogues'. We are somewhat apt, I fancy,
to associate the practice of recitation too exclusively with the
literary circles of the time of Nero, Domitian, and Trajan. Yet it is
quite clear that already in the Augustan age this practice had attained
system and elaboration. From the silence of Cicero in his Letters (the
Epistles of Pliny furnish a notable contrast) we may reasonably infer
that the custom was not known to him. It is no doubt natural in all ages
that poets and orators should inflict their compositions upon their more
intimate friends. No one of us in a literary society is safe even to-day
from this midnight peril. But even of these informal recitations we hear
little until the Augustan age. Catullus' friend Sestius perhaps recited
his orations in this fashion: but the poem[7] admits a different
interpretation. And it is significant that we are nowhere told that
Cicero declaimed to his friends the speeches of the second action
against Verres. Those speeches were not delivered in court. They were
published after the flight of Verres. If custom had tolerated it we may
be sure that Cicero would not have been slow to turn his friends into a
jury.
The formal recitation, recitation as a 'function', would seem to be the
creation of the Principate. It was the product in part, no doubt, of the
Hellenizing movement which dominated all departments of literary
fashion. But we may plausibly place its origin not so much in the vanity
of authors seeking applause, or in that absence of literary vanity which
courts a frank criticism, as in the relations of the wealthy patron and
his poor but ambitious client. The patron, in fact, did not subscribe
for what he had not read--or heard. The endless recitations to which
Augustus listened were hardly those merely of his personal friends. He
listened, as Suetonius says, 'benigne et patienter'. But it was the
'benignity and patience' not of a personal friend but of a government
official--of a government official dispensing patronage. Suetonius
allows us to divine something of the tastes of this all-powerful
official. He was the particular enemy of 'that style which is easier
admired than understood'--_quae mirentur potius homines quam
intellegant_. It looks as though the clearness and good sense which mark
so distinctively the best Augustan literature were developed to some
extent under the direct influence of the Princeps.
The Princeps and his coadjutors may perhaps be not unprofitably regarded
as the heads of a great Educational Department. Beneath them are
numberless _grammatici_ and _rhetores_. The work of these is directed
towards the ideals of the supreme heads of the Department. How far this
direction is due to accident and how far to some not very defined
control it would be impossible to say. But obviously among the conscious
aims of the schools of many of these _grammatici_ and _rhetores_ was the
ambition of achieving some of the great prizes of the literary world.
The goal of the pupil was government preferment, as we should call it.
And we may perhaps be allowed, if we guard ourselves against the peril
of mistaking a distant analogy for a real similarity of conditions, to
see in the recitations before the Emperor and his ministers, an
inspection, as it were, of schools and universities, an examination for
literary honours and emoluments. And this being so, it is not to no
purpose that the _rhetor_ in this age stands behind the _grammaticus_.
For the final examination, the inspection-by-recitation, is bound to be,
whatever the wishes of any of the parties concerned, an examination in
rhetoric. The theme appointed may be history, it may be philosophy, it
may be poetry. But the performance will be, and must be, rhetoric. The
_Aeneid_ of Vergil may be read and re-read by posterity, and pondered
word by word, line upon line. But it is going to be judged at a single
recitation. For Vergil, it is true, there may be special terms. But this
will be the lot of the many; and the many will develop, to suit it, a
fashion of poetry the influence of which even Vergil himself will hardly
altogether escape. Moreover, there will be, of course, other patrons
than the Princeps, at once less patient and less intelligent.
These effects of recitation we recognize, of course, easily enough in
the case of such a poet as Lucan. But we must go back further. Vergil
is, no doubt, as little like Lucan as he well could be. Yet he did not
sit at the feet of Epidius for nothing: and he did not forget when he
wrote the fourth book of the _Aeneid_ that he would one day read it to
Augustus. We know that there are several kinds of oratory. But we are
inclined, I think, to suppose that there is only one kind of
rhetoric--that rhetoric is always the same thing. Yet there are at least
two kinds of rhetoric. In the practical world there are two conquering
forces--the iron hand and the velvet glove. Just so in rhetoric--which
in the spiritual world is one of the greatest, and very often one of the
noblest, of conquering forces--there is the iron manner and the velvet
manner. Lucan goes home like a dagger thrust. His is the rhetoric that
cuts and beats. The rhetoric of Vergil is soft and devious. He makes no
attempt to astonish, to perplex, to horrify. He aims to move us in a
wholly different manner. And yet, like Lucan, he aims to move us _once
and for all_. He aims to be understood upon a first hearing. I know that
this sounds like a paradox. I shall be told that Vergil is of all poets
the most indirect. That is perfectly true. But _why_ is Vergil of all
poets the most indirect? Just because he is always trying at all costs
to make himself clear. Lucan says a thing once and is done with it.
Vergil cannot. He begins all over again. He touches and retouches. He
has no 'theme' not succeeded by a 'variation'. [8] In Lucan everything
depends upon concentration, in Vergil upon amplification. Both are
trying painfully to be understood on a first hearing--or, rather, to
make, on a first hearing, the emotional or ethical effect at which they
aim. Any page of Vergil will illustrate at once what I mean. I select at
random the opening lines of the third _Aeneid_:
postquam res Asiae Priamique euertere gentem
immeritam uisum superis, ceciditque superbum
Ilium, et omnis humo fumat Neptunia Troia;
diuersa exsilia et desertas quaerere terras
auguriis agimur diuum, classemque sub ipsa
Antandro et Phrygiae molimur montibus Idae,
incerti quo fata ferant, ubi sistere detur.
The first three lines might have been expressed by an ablative absolute
in two words--_Troia euersa_. But observe. To _res Asiae_ in 1 Vergil
adds the explanatory _Priami gentem_, amplifying in 2 with the new
detail _immeritam_. _Euertere uisum_ (1-2) is caught up by _ceciditque
Ilium_ (2-3), with the new detail _superbum_ added, and again echoed
(3) by _humo fumat_--_fumat_ giving a fresh touch to the picture. In 4
_diuersa exsilia_ is reinforced by _desertas terras_, _sub ipsa
Antandro_ (5-6) by _montibus Idae_ (6). In 7 _ubi sistere detur_ echoes
_quo fata ferant_. One has only to contrast the rapidity of Homer, in
whom every line marks decisive advance. But Vergil diffuses himself. And
this diffusion is in its origin and aim rhetorical.
Yet he did not write, and I do not mean to suggest that he wrote, for an
_auditorium_ and ἐς τὸ παραχρῆμα, and not for the scrupulous
consideration of after ages. He wrote to be read and pondered. But he is
haunted nevertheless by the thought of the _auditorium_. It distracts,
and even divides, his literary consciousness. He writes, perhaps without
knowing it, for two classes--for the members of his patron's salon and
for the scholar in his study. We shall not judge his style truly if we
allow ourselves wholly to forget the _auditorium_. And here let me add
that we shall equally fail to understand the style of Lucan or that of
Statius if we remember, as we are apt to do, only the _auditorium_. The
_auditorium_ is a much more dominating force in their consciousness than
it is in that of Vergil. But even they rarely allow themselves to forget
the judgement of the scholar and of posterity. They did not choose and
place their words with so meticulous a care merely for the audience of
an afternoon. If we sometimes are offended by their evident subservience
to the theatre, yet on the whole we have greater reason to admire the
courage and conscience with which they strove nevertheless to keep
before them the thought of a wider and more distant and true-judging
audience.
I have intentionally selected for notice that rhetorical feature in
Vergil's style which is, I think, the least obvious. How much of the
_Aeneid_ was written ultimately by Epidius I hardly like to inquire.
Nowhere does Vergil completely succeed in concealing his rhetorical
schooling. Even in his greatest moments he is still to a large extent a
rhetorician. Indeed I am not sure that he ever writes pure
poetry--poetry which is as purely poetry as that of Catullus. Take the
fourth book of the _Aeneid_, which has so much passionate Italian
quality. Even there Vergil does not forget the mere formal rules of
rhetoric. Analyse any speech of Dido. Dido knows all the rules. You can
christen out of Quintilian almost all the figures of rhetoric which she
employs. Here is a theme which I have not leisure to develop. But it is
interesting to remember in this connexion the immense and direct
influence which Vergil has had upon British oratory. Burke went nowhere
without a copy of Vergil in his pocket. Nor is it for nothing that the
fashion of Vergilian quotation so long dominated our parliamentary
eloquence. These quotations had a perfect appropriateness in a
rhetorical context: for they are the language of a mind by nature and by
education rhetorical.
III
Roman poetry continued for no less than five centuries after the death
of Vergil--and by Roman poetry I mean a Latin poetry classical in form
and sentiment. But of these five centuries only two count. The second
and third centuries A. D. are a Dark Age dividing the silver twilight of
the century succeeding the age of Horace from the brief but brilliant
Renaissance of the fourth century: and in the fifth century we pass into
a new darkness. The infection of the Augustan tradition is sufficiently
powerful in the first century to give the impulse to poetic work of high
and noble quality. And six considerable names adorn the period from Nero
to Domitian. Of these the greatest are perhaps those of Seneca, Lucan,
and Martial. All three are of Spanish origin: and it is perhaps to their
foreign blood that they owe the genius which redeems their work from its
very obvious faults. It is the fashion to decry Seneca and Lucan as mere
rhetoricians. Yet in both there is something greater and deeper than
mere rhetoric. They move by habit grandly among large ideas. Life is
still deep and tremendous and sonorous. Their work has a certain Titanic
quality. We judge their poetry too much by their biography, and their
biography too little in relation to the terrible character of their
times. Martial is a poet of a very different order. Yet in an inferior
_genre_ he is supreme. No other poet in any language has the same
never-failing grace and charm and brilliance, the same arresting
ingenuity, an equal facility and finish. We speak of his faults, yet, if
the truth must be told, his poetry is faultless--save for one fault: its
utter want of moral character. The three other great names of the period
are Statius, Silius, and Valerius. Poets of great talent but no genius,
they 'adore the footsteps' of an unapproachable master. Religiously
careful artists, they see the world through the eyes of others. Sensible
to the effects of Greatness, they have never touched and handled it.
They know it only from the poets whom they imitate. The four winds of
life have never beat upon their decorous faces. We would gladly give the
best that they offer us--and it is often of fine quality--for something
much inferior in art but superior in the indefinable qualities of
freshness and gusto. The exhaustion of the period is well seen in
Juvenal--in the jaded relish of his descriptions of vice, in the
complete unreality of his moral code, in a rhetoric which for ever just
misses the fine effects which it laboriously calculates.
The second century is barren. Yet we are dimly aware in the reign of
Hadrian of an abortive Revival. We hear of a school of _neoterici_: and
these _neoterici_ aimed at just what was needed--greater freshness and
life. They experimented in metre, and they experimented in language.
They tried to use in poetry the language of common speech, the language
of Italy rather than that of Rome, and to bring into literature once
again colour and motion. The most eminent of these _neoterici_ is Annius
Florus, of whom we possess some notable fragments. But the movement
failed; and Florus is the only name that arrests the attention of the
student of Roman poetry between Martial and Nemesianus. Nemesianus is
African, and his poems were not written in Rome. But his graceful genius
perhaps owes something to the impulsion given to literary studies by
Numerian--one of the few emperors of the period who exhibit any interest
in the progress of literature. The fourth century is the period of
Renaissance. We may see in Tiberianus the herald of this Renaissance.
The four poems which can be certainly assigned to him are distinguished
by great power and charm. It is a plausible view that he is also the
author of the remarkable _Peruigilium Veneris_--that poem proceeds at
any rate from the school to which Tiberianus belongs. The style of
Tiberianus is formed in the academies of Africa, and so also perhaps his
philosophy. The Platonic hymn to the Nameless God is a noble monument of
the dying Paganism of the era. Tiberianus' political activities took him
to Gaul: and Gaul is the true home of this fourth-century Renaissance.
In Gaul around Ausonius there grew up at Bordeaux a numerous and
accomplished and enthusiastic school of poets. To find a parallel to the
brilliance and enthusiasm of this school we must go back to the school
of poets which grew up around Valerius Cato in Transpadane Gaul in the
first century B. C. The Bordeaux school is particularly interesting from
its attitude to Christianity. Among Ausonius' friends was the austere
Paulinus of Nola, and Ausonius himself was a convert to the Christian
faith. But his Christianity is only skin-deep. His Bible is Vergil, his
books of devotion are Horace and Ovid and Statius.
The symbols of the
Greek mythology are nearer and dearer to him than the symbolism of the
Cross. The last enemy which Christianity had to overcome was, in fact,
Literature. And strangely enough the conquest was to be achieved
finally, not by the superior ethical quality of the new religion, but by
the havoc wrought in Latin speech by the invasion of the Barbarians, by
the decay of language and of linguistic study. To the period of
Ausonius--and probably to Gaul--belong the rather obscure Asmenidae--the
'sons', or pupils, of Asmenius. At least two of them, Palladius and
Asclepiadius, exhibit genuine poetical accomplishment. But the schools
both of Ausonius and of Asmenius show at least in one particular how
relaxed had become the hold even upon its enthusiasts of the true
classical tradition. All these poets have a passion for triviality, for
every kind of _tour de force_, for conceits and mannerisms. At times they
are not so much poets as the acrobats of poetry.
The end of the century gives us Claudian, and a reaction against this
triviality. 'Paganus peruicacissimus,' as Orosius calls him, Claudian
presents the problem of a poet whose poetry treats with real power the
circumstances of an age from which the poet himself is as detached as
can be. Claudian's real world is a world which was never to be again, a
world of great princes and exalted virtues, a world animated by a
religion in which Rome herself, strong and serene, is the principal
deity. Accident has thrown him into the midst of a political nightmare
dominated by intriguing viziers and delivered to a superstition which
made men at once weak and cruel. Yet this world, so unreal to him, he
presents in a rhetorical colouring extraordinarily effective. Had he
possessed a truer instinct for things as they are he might have been the
greatest of the Roman satirists. He has a real mastery of the art of
invective. But, while he is great where he condemns, where he blesses he
is mostly contemptible. He has too many of the arts of the cringing
Alexandrian. And they availed him nothing. Over every page may be heard
the steady tramp of the feet of the barbarian invader.
After Claudian we pass into the final darkness. The gloom is illuminated
for a brief moment by the Gaul Rutilius. But Rutilius has really
outlived Roman poetry and Rome itself. Nothing that he admires is any
longer real save in his admiration of it. The things that he condemns
most bitterly are the things which were destined to dominate the world
for ten centuries. Christianity is 'a worse poison than witchcraft'. The
monastic spirit is the 'fool-fury of a brain unhinged'. The monasteries
are 'slave-dungeons'.
It was these 'slave-dungeons' which were to keep safe through the long
night of the Middle Ages all that Rutilius held dear. It was these
'slave-dungeons' which were to afford a last miserable refuge to the
works of that long line of poets of whom Rutilius is the late and
forlorn descendant. Much indeed was to perish even within the fastnesses
of these 'slave-dungeons': for the monasteries were not always secure
from the shock of war, nor the precious memorials which they housed from
the fury of fanaticism. Yet much was to survive and to emerge one day
from the darkness and to renew the face of the world. Rutilius wrote his
poem in 416 A. D. If he could have looked forward exactly a thousand
years he would have beheld Poggio and the great Discoverers of the
Italian Renaissance ransacking the 'slave-dungeons' of Italy, France,
and Germany, and rejoicing over each recovered fragment of antiquity
with a pure joy not unlike that which heavenly minds are said to feel
over the salvation of souls. These men were, indeed, kindling into life
again the soul of Europe. They were assisting at a New Birth. In this
process of regeneration the deepest force was a Latin force, and of this
Latin force the most impelling part was Latin poetry. We are apt
to-day, perhaps, in our zeal of Hellenism, to forget, or to disparage,
the part which Latin poetry has sustained in moulding the literatures of
modern Europe. But if the test of great poetry is the length and breadth
of its influence in the world, then Roman poetry has nothing to fear
from the vagaries of modern fashion. For no other poetry has so deeply
and so continuously influenced the thought and feeling of mankind. Its
sway has been wider than that of Rome itself: and the Genius that broods
over the Capitoline Hill might with some show of justice still claim, as
his gaze sweeps over the immense field of modern poetry, that he beholds
nothing which does not owe allegiance to Rome:
Iupiter arce sua totum cum spectat in orbem,
nil nisi Romanum quod tueatur habet.
NVMA POMPILIVS (? )
715-673 B. C.
_1. Fragments of the Saliar Hymns_
_i_
DIVOM templa cante,
diuom deo supplicate.
_ii_
QVOME tonas, Leucesie,
prae tet tremonti.
quor libet, Curis,
decstumum tonare?
_iii_
CONSE, ulod oriese:
omnia tuere,
adi, Patulci, coi isse:
Sancus Ianes Cerus es.
Duonus Ianus ueuet
po melios, eu, recum.
THE ARVAL BROTHERHOOD
_2. Against Plague upon the Harvest_
_Incertae Aetatis. _
ENOS, Lases, iuuate,
enos, Lases, iuuate,
enos, Lases, iuuate.
neue lue rue, Marmar, sins incurrere in pleoris,
neue lue rue, Marmar, sins incurrere in pleoris,
neue lue rue, Marmar, sers incurrere in pleoris.
satur fu, fere Mars: limen sali: sta berber,
satur fu, fere Mars: limen sali: sta berber,
satur fu, fere Mars: limen sali: sta berber,
semunis alternei aduocapit conctos,
semunis alternei aduocapit conctos,
semunis alternei aduocapit conctos.
enos, Marmor, iuuato,
enos, Marmor, iuuato,
enos, Marmor, iuuato.
triumpe, triumpe, triumpe, triumpe, triumpe.
ANONYMOUS
_3. Charms_
_i. Against the Gout_
_Incertae Aetatis. _
EGO tui memini,
medere meis pedibus:
terra pestem teneto,
salus hic maneto
in meis pedibus.
_ii. At the Meditrinalia_
NOVOM uetus uinum bibo,
nouo ueteri morbo medeor.
_4. An Ancient Lullaby_
_Incertae Aetatis. _
LALLA, lalla, lalla:
i, aut dormi aut lacta.
_5. Epitaphs of the Scipios_
284-176 B. C.
_i_
CORNELIVS Lucius Scipio Barbatus,
Gnaiuod patre prognatus fortis uir sapiensque,
quoius forma uirtutei parisuma fuit,
consol, censor, aidilis quei fuit apud nos,
Taurasia, Cisauna, Samnio cepit,
subigit omne Loucanam opsidesque abdoucsit.
_ii_
HONC oino ploirime cosentiont Romai
duonoro optumo fuise uiro
Lucium Scipione. filios Barbati
consol, censor, aidilis hic fuet apud nos:
hic cepit Corsica Aleriaque urbe,
dedet Tempestatebus aide meretod.
_iii_
QVEI apice insigne Dialis flaminis gesistei,
mors perfecit tua ut essent omnia breuia,
honos fama uirtusque, gloria atque ingenium.
quibus sei in longa licuiset utier tibi uita,
facile facteis superases gloriam maiorum.
qua re lubens te in gremiu Scipio, recipit
terra, Publi, prognatum Publio, Corneli.
_iv_
MAGNA sapientia multasque uirtutes
aeuitate quam parua posidet hoc saxsum.
quoiei uita defecit, non honos, honore,
is hic situs, quei nunquam uictus est uirtutei,
annos gnatus uiginti is Diteist mandatus,
ne quairatis honore quei minus sit mactus.
L. LIVIVS ANDRONICVS
284-204 B. C. (? )
_6. Fragments of the Odyssey_
_i_
VIRVM mihi, Camena, insece uersutum.
_ii_
Mea puera quid uerbi ex tuo ore supera fugit?
_iii_
Mea puer quid uerbi ex tuo ore audio?
neque enim te oblitus sum, Laertie noster.
_iv_
Simul ac dacrimas de ore noegeo detersit.
_v_
Namque nullum peius macerat hemonem
quamde mare saeuom: uires quoi sunt magnae,
topper eas confringunt importunae undae.
_vi_
Topper citi ad aedis uenimus Circai.
simul duona eorum portant ad naues:
milia alia in isdem inserinuntur.
_vii_
In Pylum deuenies aut ibi ommentans.
_viii_
Inferus an superus tibi fert deus funera, Vlixes?
_ix_
Cum socios nostros mandisset impius Cyclops.
_x_
At celer hasta uolans perrumpit pectora ferro.
_7. Dramatic Fragments_
_i_
TVM autem lasciuum Nerei simum pecus
ludens ad cantum classem lustratur choro.
_ii_
Ipsus se in terram saucius fligit cadens.
_iii_
Quin quod parere uos maiestas mea procat,
toleratis templo, letoque hanc deducitis?
_iv_
Nam praestatur uirtuti laus, sed gelu multo ocius
uento tabescit.
_v_
Confluges ubi conuentu campum totum inumigant.
_vi_
Florem anculabant Liberi ex carchesiis.
_vii_
Quo Castalia per struices saxeas lapsu accidit.
_viii_
Quem ego nefrendem alui lacteam inmulgens opem.
_ix_
Puerarum manibus confectum pulcerrime.
_x_
Iamne oculos specie laetauisti optabili?
CN. NAEVIVS
270-199 B. C. (? )
_8. Fragments of the Bellum Poenicum_
_i_
NOVEM Iouis concordes filiae sorores.
_ii_
Postquam auem aspexit in templo Anchisa,
sacra in mensa penatium ordine ponuntur,
immolabat auream uictimam pulcram.
_iii_
Amborum uxores
noctu Troiad exibant capitibus opertis,
flentes ambae, abeuntes lacrimis cum multis.
_iv_
Blande et docte percontat, Aenea quo pacto
Troiam urbem liquisset.
_v_
Deinde pollens sagittis inclutus Arquitenens
sanctus Ioue prognatus Pythius Apollo.
_vi_
Transit Melitam
Romanus exercitus, insulam integram urit,
populatur, uastat, rem hostium concinnat.
_vii_
Sin illos deserant fortissimos uiros,
magnum stuprum populo fieri per gentis.
_viii_
Seseque ei perire mauolunt ibidem
quam cum stupro redire ad suos populares.
_ix_
Fato Metelli Romae fiunt consules.
_9. Dramatic Fragments_
_i_
LAETVS sum laudari me abs te, pater, a laudato uiro.
_ii_
Vos qui regalis corporis custodias
agitatis, ite actutum in frondiferos locos,
ingenio arbusta ubi nata sunt, non obsita.
_iii_
Cedo, qui rem uestram publicam tantam amisistis tam cito?
proueniebant oratores nouei, stulti adulescentuli.
_iv_
Ego semper pluris feci
potioremque habui libertatem multo quam pecuniam.
_v_
Si quidem loqui uis,
non perdocere multa longe promicando oratiost.
_vi_
Quasi in choro ludens datatim dat se et communem facit:
alii adnutat, alii adnictat, alium amat, alium tenet,
alibi manus est occupata, alii pede percellit pedem,
anulum dat alii spectandum, a labris alium inuocat,
cum alio cantat, at tamen alii suo dat digito litteras.
_10. His Own Epitaph_
IMMORTALES mortales si foret fas flere,
flerent diuae Camenae Naeuium poetam.
itaque, postquam est Orchi traditus thesauro,
obliti sunt Romai loquier lingua Latina.
T. MACCIVS PLAVTVS
254-184 B. C.
_11. His Own Epitaph_
POSTQVAM est mortem aptus Plautus, Comoedia luget,
scaena est deserta, dein Risus Ludus Iocusque
et Numeri innumeri simul omnes conlacrumarunt.
MARCIVS VATES
250-200 B. C. (? )
_12. Precepts_
_i_
POSTREMVS dicas, primus taceas.
_ii_
Quamuis nouentium duonum negumate.
_13. Vaticinium_
250-200 B. C. (? )
AQVAM Albanam, Romane, caue lacu teneri,
caue in mare manare flumine sinas suo.
emissam agris rigabis, dissipatam riuis
exstingues: tum tu insiste muris hostium audax,
memor, quam per tot annos obsides urbem,
ex ea tibi his quae iam nunc panduntur fatis
uictoriam oblatam. bello perfecto
donum peramplum uictor ad mea templa
portato: patria sacra, quorum cura dudum est
omissa, endostaurata, ut adsolet, facito.
Q. ENNIVS
239-169 B. C.
FROM THE ANNALS
_14. The Vision of Ilia_
ET cita cum tremulis anus attulit artubus lumen.
talia tum memorat lacrimans exterrita somno:
'Eurydica prognata, pater quam noster amauit,
uires uitaque corpus meum nunc deserit omne.
nam me uisus homo pulcher per amoena salicta
et ripas raptare locosque nouos: ita sola
postilla, germana soror, errare uidebar
tardaque uestigare et quaerere te neque posse
corde capessere: semita nulla pedem stabilibat.
exim compellare pater me noce uidetur
his uerbis: "O gnata, tibi sunt ante gerendae
aerumnae, post ex fluuio fortuna resistet. "
haec effatus pater, germana, repente recessit
nec sese dedit in conspectum corde cupitus,
quamquam multa manus ad caeli caerula templa
tendebam lacrumans et blanda uoce uocabam.
uix aegro cum corde meo me somnus reliquit. '
_15. Romulus and Remus_
CVRANTES magna cum cura tum cupientes
regni dant operam simul auspicio augurioque.
. . . Remus auspicio se deuouet atque secundam
solus auem seruat. at Romulus pulcher in alto
quaerit Auentino, seruat genus altiuolantum.
certabant urbem Romam Remoramne uocarent.
omnibus cura uiris uter esset induperator.
expectant, ueluti consul cum mittere signum
uolt omnes auidi spectant ad carceris oras,
quam mox emittat pictis e faucibus currus:
sic expectabat populus atque ore timebat
rebus, utri magni uictoria sit data regni.
interea sol albus recessit in infera noctis.
exin candida se radiis dedit icta foras lux
et simul ex alto longe pulcherruma praepes
laeua uolauit auis. simul aureus exoritur sol,
cedunt de caelo ter quattuor corpora sancta
auium, praepetibus sese pulchrisque locis dant.
conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse priora,
auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque.
_16. The Speech of Pyrrhus_
NEC mi aurum posco nec mi pretium dederitis:
non cauponantes bellum sed belligerantes,
ferro, non auro, uitam cernamus utrique,
uosne uelit an me regnare era quidue ferat Fors
uirtute experiamur. et hoc simul accipe dictum:
quorum uirtuti belli fortuna pepercit,
eorundem libertati me parcere certum est.
dono, ducite, doque uolentibus cum magnis dis.
_17. Character of a Friend of Servilius_[9]
HAECCE locutus uocat, quocum bene saepe libenter
mensam sermonesque suos rerumque suarum
omne iter impertit magnam cum lassus diei
partem fuisset de summis rebus regundis
consilio indu foro lato sanctoque senatu,
cui res audacter magnas paruasque iocumque
eloqueretur et incaute malaque et bona dictu
euomeret si qui uellet tutoque locaret,
quocum multa uolup sibi fecit clamque palamque,
ingenium cui nulla malum sententia suaset
ut faceret facinus leuis aut malus, doctus, fidelis,
suauis homo, facundus, suo contentus, beatus,
scitus, secunda loquens in tempore, commodus, uerbum
paucum, multa tenens antiqua, sepulta uetustas
quae facit; et mores ueteresque nouosque tenentem,
multorum ueterum leges diuumque hominumque,
prudentem, qui dicta loquiue tacereue posset,
hunc inter pugnas conpellat Seruilius sic.
_18. M. Cornelius Cethegus_
ADDITVR orator Cornelius suauiloquenti
ore Cethegus Marcus Tuditano collega
Marci filius . . .
. . . is dictust ollis popularibus olim
qui tum uiuebant homines atque aeuum agitabant
flos delibatus populi suadaeque medulla.
_19. Caelius resists the Onset of the Istri_
VNDIQVE conueniunt uelut imber tela tribuno:
configunt parmam, tinnit hastilibus umbo,
aerato sonitu galeae, sed nec pote quisquam
undique nitendo corpus discerpere ferro:
semper abundantes hastas frangitque quatitque.
totum sudor habet corpus multumque laborat,
nec respirandi fit copia: praepete ferro
Histri tela manu iacientes sollicitabant.
_20. Toga Cedit Armis_
POSTQVAM Discordia taetra
belli ferratos postes portasque refregit,
pellitur e medio sapientia, ui geritur res,
spernitur orator bonus, horridus miles amatur.
haut doctis dictis certantes nec maledictis
miscent inter sese inimicitiam agitantes,
non ex iure manum consertum, sed magis ferro
rem repetunt regnumque petunt, uadunt solida ui.
_21. Lesser Fragments of the Annals_
_i_
MVSAE, quae pedibus magnum pulsatis Olympum.
_ii_
Te, sale nata, precor, Venus, et genitrix patris nostri,
ut me de caelo uisas cognata parumper.
_iii_
Pectora fida tenet desiderium, simul inter
sese sic memorant: O Romule, Romule die,
qualem te patriae custodem di genuerunt!
O pater, O genitor, O sanguen dis oriundum,
tu produxisti nos intra luminis oras.
_iv_
Omnes mortales uictores, cordibus uiuis
laetantes, uino curatos, somnus repente
in campo passim mollissimus perculit acris.
_v_
At tuba terribili sonitu taratantara dixit.
incedunt arbusta per alta, securibus caedunt,
percellunt magnas quercus, exciditur ilex,
fraxinus frangitur atque abies consternitur alta,
pinus proceras peruortunt: omne sonabat
arbustum fremitu siluai frondosai.
In the period of the Punic Wars this organization is only rudimentary.
By no means casual, it is none the less as yet uninfected by
officialism. The transition from the age of Scipio to the age of
Augustus introduced two almost insensible modifications:
(1) In the earlier period the functions of the _grammaticus_ and the
_rhetor_ were undifferentiated. The _grammaticus_, as he was known
later, was called then _litteratus_ or _litterator_. He taught both
poetry and rhetoric. But Suetonius tells us that the name denoted
properly an 'interpres poetarum': and we may infer that in the early
period instruction in rhetoric was only a very casual adjunct of the
functions of the _litterator_. At what precise date the office of the
_litterator_ became bifurcated into the two distinct professions of
_grammaticus_ and _rhetor_ we cannot say. It seems likely that the
undivided office was retained in the smaller Italian towns after it had
disappeared from the educational system of Rome. The author of
_Catelepton V_, who may very well be Vergil, appears to have frequented
a school where poetry and rhetoric were taught in conjunction. Valerius
Cato and Sulla, the former certainly, the latter probably, a
Transpadane, were known as _litteratores_. But the _litterator_
gradually everywhere gave place to the _grammaticus_: and behind the
_grammaticus_, like Care behind the horseman, sits spectrally the
_rhetor_.
(2) The introduction of the _rhetor_ synchronizes with the transition
from the private patron to the patron-as-government-official. And by an
odd accident both changes worked in one and the same direction. That the
system of literary patronage was in many of its effects injurious to the
Augustan literature is a thesis which was once generally allowed. But it
was a thesis which could easily take exaggerated expression. And against
the view which it presents there has recently been a not unnatural
reaction. A moderate representative of this reaction is the late
Professor Nettleship. 'The intimacy', says Nettleship[5], 'which grew
up between Octavianus and some of the great writers of his time did not
imply more than the relation which . . . often existed between a poor poet
and his powerful friend. For as the men of nobler character among the
Roman aristocracy were mostly ambitious of achieving literary success
themselves, and were sometimes really successful in achieving it: as
they had formed a high ideal of individual culture . . . aiming at
excellence in literature and philosophy as well as in politics and the
art of war, so they looked with a kindly eye on the men of talent and
genius who with less wealth and social resources than their own were
engaged in the great work of improving the national literature. '
There is much here which is truly and tellingly said. We ought never to
forget that the system of patronage sprang from a very lofty notion of
patriotism and of the national welfare. It implies a clear and fine
recognition among the great men of affairs of the principle that a
nation's greatness is not to be measured, and cannot be sustained, by
purely material achievements. It is true, again, that the system of
patronage did not originate with Augustus or the Augustans. Augustus was
a patron of letters just as Scipio had been--because he possessed power
and taste and a wide sense of patriotic obligation. So much is true, or
fairly true. But if it is meant, as I think it is, that the literary
patronage of the Princeps was the same in kind as, and different only in
degree from, that exercised by the great men of the Republican
period--if that is meant, then we have gone beyond what is either true
or plausible.
I am not concerned here, let me say, with the _moral_ effects of
literary patronage. I am concerned only with its literary effects. Nor
will I charge these to Augustus alone. He was but one patron--however
powerful--among many. He did not create the literature which carries his
name. Nevertheless it seems impossible to doubt that it was largely
moulded under his personal influence, and that he has left upon it the
impress of his own masterful and imperial temper. Suetonius in a few
casual paragraphs gives us some insight into his literary tastes and
methods. He represents him as from his youth up a genuine enthusiast for
literature: 'Eloquentiam studiaque liberalia (i. e. _grammatice_ and
rhetoric) ab aetate prima et cupide et laboriosissime exercuit. ' Even
upon active military service he made a point of reading, composing, and
declaiming daily. He wrote a variety of prose works, and 'poetica
summatim attigit', he dabbled in poetry. There were still extant in
Suetonius' time two volumes of his poetry, the one a collection of
_Epigrammata_, the other--more interesting and significant--a hexameter
poem upon _Sicily_. [6] Moreover Augustus 'nursed in all ways the
literary talent of his time'. He listened 'with charity and
long-suffering' to endless recitations 'not only of poetry and of
history but of orations and of dialogues'. We are somewhat apt, I fancy,
to associate the practice of recitation too exclusively with the
literary circles of the time of Nero, Domitian, and Trajan. Yet it is
quite clear that already in the Augustan age this practice had attained
system and elaboration. From the silence of Cicero in his Letters (the
Epistles of Pliny furnish a notable contrast) we may reasonably infer
that the custom was not known to him. It is no doubt natural in all ages
that poets and orators should inflict their compositions upon their more
intimate friends. No one of us in a literary society is safe even to-day
from this midnight peril. But even of these informal recitations we hear
little until the Augustan age. Catullus' friend Sestius perhaps recited
his orations in this fashion: but the poem[7] admits a different
interpretation. And it is significant that we are nowhere told that
Cicero declaimed to his friends the speeches of the second action
against Verres. Those speeches were not delivered in court. They were
published after the flight of Verres. If custom had tolerated it we may
be sure that Cicero would not have been slow to turn his friends into a
jury.
The formal recitation, recitation as a 'function', would seem to be the
creation of the Principate. It was the product in part, no doubt, of the
Hellenizing movement which dominated all departments of literary
fashion. But we may plausibly place its origin not so much in the vanity
of authors seeking applause, or in that absence of literary vanity which
courts a frank criticism, as in the relations of the wealthy patron and
his poor but ambitious client. The patron, in fact, did not subscribe
for what he had not read--or heard. The endless recitations to which
Augustus listened were hardly those merely of his personal friends. He
listened, as Suetonius says, 'benigne et patienter'. But it was the
'benignity and patience' not of a personal friend but of a government
official--of a government official dispensing patronage. Suetonius
allows us to divine something of the tastes of this all-powerful
official. He was the particular enemy of 'that style which is easier
admired than understood'--_quae mirentur potius homines quam
intellegant_. It looks as though the clearness and good sense which mark
so distinctively the best Augustan literature were developed to some
extent under the direct influence of the Princeps.
The Princeps and his coadjutors may perhaps be not unprofitably regarded
as the heads of a great Educational Department. Beneath them are
numberless _grammatici_ and _rhetores_. The work of these is directed
towards the ideals of the supreme heads of the Department. How far this
direction is due to accident and how far to some not very defined
control it would be impossible to say. But obviously among the conscious
aims of the schools of many of these _grammatici_ and _rhetores_ was the
ambition of achieving some of the great prizes of the literary world.
The goal of the pupil was government preferment, as we should call it.
And we may perhaps be allowed, if we guard ourselves against the peril
of mistaking a distant analogy for a real similarity of conditions, to
see in the recitations before the Emperor and his ministers, an
inspection, as it were, of schools and universities, an examination for
literary honours and emoluments. And this being so, it is not to no
purpose that the _rhetor_ in this age stands behind the _grammaticus_.
For the final examination, the inspection-by-recitation, is bound to be,
whatever the wishes of any of the parties concerned, an examination in
rhetoric. The theme appointed may be history, it may be philosophy, it
may be poetry. But the performance will be, and must be, rhetoric. The
_Aeneid_ of Vergil may be read and re-read by posterity, and pondered
word by word, line upon line. But it is going to be judged at a single
recitation. For Vergil, it is true, there may be special terms. But this
will be the lot of the many; and the many will develop, to suit it, a
fashion of poetry the influence of which even Vergil himself will hardly
altogether escape. Moreover, there will be, of course, other patrons
than the Princeps, at once less patient and less intelligent.
These effects of recitation we recognize, of course, easily enough in
the case of such a poet as Lucan. But we must go back further. Vergil
is, no doubt, as little like Lucan as he well could be. Yet he did not
sit at the feet of Epidius for nothing: and he did not forget when he
wrote the fourth book of the _Aeneid_ that he would one day read it to
Augustus. We know that there are several kinds of oratory. But we are
inclined, I think, to suppose that there is only one kind of
rhetoric--that rhetoric is always the same thing. Yet there are at least
two kinds of rhetoric. In the practical world there are two conquering
forces--the iron hand and the velvet glove. Just so in rhetoric--which
in the spiritual world is one of the greatest, and very often one of the
noblest, of conquering forces--there is the iron manner and the velvet
manner. Lucan goes home like a dagger thrust. His is the rhetoric that
cuts and beats. The rhetoric of Vergil is soft and devious. He makes no
attempt to astonish, to perplex, to horrify. He aims to move us in a
wholly different manner. And yet, like Lucan, he aims to move us _once
and for all_. He aims to be understood upon a first hearing. I know that
this sounds like a paradox. I shall be told that Vergil is of all poets
the most indirect. That is perfectly true. But _why_ is Vergil of all
poets the most indirect? Just because he is always trying at all costs
to make himself clear. Lucan says a thing once and is done with it.
Vergil cannot. He begins all over again. He touches and retouches. He
has no 'theme' not succeeded by a 'variation'. [8] In Lucan everything
depends upon concentration, in Vergil upon amplification. Both are
trying painfully to be understood on a first hearing--or, rather, to
make, on a first hearing, the emotional or ethical effect at which they
aim. Any page of Vergil will illustrate at once what I mean. I select at
random the opening lines of the third _Aeneid_:
postquam res Asiae Priamique euertere gentem
immeritam uisum superis, ceciditque superbum
Ilium, et omnis humo fumat Neptunia Troia;
diuersa exsilia et desertas quaerere terras
auguriis agimur diuum, classemque sub ipsa
Antandro et Phrygiae molimur montibus Idae,
incerti quo fata ferant, ubi sistere detur.
The first three lines might have been expressed by an ablative absolute
in two words--_Troia euersa_. But observe. To _res Asiae_ in 1 Vergil
adds the explanatory _Priami gentem_, amplifying in 2 with the new
detail _immeritam_. _Euertere uisum_ (1-2) is caught up by _ceciditque
Ilium_ (2-3), with the new detail _superbum_ added, and again echoed
(3) by _humo fumat_--_fumat_ giving a fresh touch to the picture. In 4
_diuersa exsilia_ is reinforced by _desertas terras_, _sub ipsa
Antandro_ (5-6) by _montibus Idae_ (6). In 7 _ubi sistere detur_ echoes
_quo fata ferant_. One has only to contrast the rapidity of Homer, in
whom every line marks decisive advance. But Vergil diffuses himself. And
this diffusion is in its origin and aim rhetorical.
Yet he did not write, and I do not mean to suggest that he wrote, for an
_auditorium_ and ἐς τὸ παραχρῆμα, and not for the scrupulous
consideration of after ages. He wrote to be read and pondered. But he is
haunted nevertheless by the thought of the _auditorium_. It distracts,
and even divides, his literary consciousness. He writes, perhaps without
knowing it, for two classes--for the members of his patron's salon and
for the scholar in his study. We shall not judge his style truly if we
allow ourselves wholly to forget the _auditorium_. And here let me add
that we shall equally fail to understand the style of Lucan or that of
Statius if we remember, as we are apt to do, only the _auditorium_. The
_auditorium_ is a much more dominating force in their consciousness than
it is in that of Vergil. But even they rarely allow themselves to forget
the judgement of the scholar and of posterity. They did not choose and
place their words with so meticulous a care merely for the audience of
an afternoon. If we sometimes are offended by their evident subservience
to the theatre, yet on the whole we have greater reason to admire the
courage and conscience with which they strove nevertheless to keep
before them the thought of a wider and more distant and true-judging
audience.
I have intentionally selected for notice that rhetorical feature in
Vergil's style which is, I think, the least obvious. How much of the
_Aeneid_ was written ultimately by Epidius I hardly like to inquire.
Nowhere does Vergil completely succeed in concealing his rhetorical
schooling. Even in his greatest moments he is still to a large extent a
rhetorician. Indeed I am not sure that he ever writes pure
poetry--poetry which is as purely poetry as that of Catullus. Take the
fourth book of the _Aeneid_, which has so much passionate Italian
quality. Even there Vergil does not forget the mere formal rules of
rhetoric. Analyse any speech of Dido. Dido knows all the rules. You can
christen out of Quintilian almost all the figures of rhetoric which she
employs. Here is a theme which I have not leisure to develop. But it is
interesting to remember in this connexion the immense and direct
influence which Vergil has had upon British oratory. Burke went nowhere
without a copy of Vergil in his pocket. Nor is it for nothing that the
fashion of Vergilian quotation so long dominated our parliamentary
eloquence. These quotations had a perfect appropriateness in a
rhetorical context: for they are the language of a mind by nature and by
education rhetorical.
III
Roman poetry continued for no less than five centuries after the death
of Vergil--and by Roman poetry I mean a Latin poetry classical in form
and sentiment. But of these five centuries only two count. The second
and third centuries A. D. are a Dark Age dividing the silver twilight of
the century succeeding the age of Horace from the brief but brilliant
Renaissance of the fourth century: and in the fifth century we pass into
a new darkness. The infection of the Augustan tradition is sufficiently
powerful in the first century to give the impulse to poetic work of high
and noble quality. And six considerable names adorn the period from Nero
to Domitian. Of these the greatest are perhaps those of Seneca, Lucan,
and Martial. All three are of Spanish origin: and it is perhaps to their
foreign blood that they owe the genius which redeems their work from its
very obvious faults. It is the fashion to decry Seneca and Lucan as mere
rhetoricians. Yet in both there is something greater and deeper than
mere rhetoric. They move by habit grandly among large ideas. Life is
still deep and tremendous and sonorous. Their work has a certain Titanic
quality. We judge their poetry too much by their biography, and their
biography too little in relation to the terrible character of their
times. Martial is a poet of a very different order. Yet in an inferior
_genre_ he is supreme. No other poet in any language has the same
never-failing grace and charm and brilliance, the same arresting
ingenuity, an equal facility and finish. We speak of his faults, yet, if
the truth must be told, his poetry is faultless--save for one fault: its
utter want of moral character. The three other great names of the period
are Statius, Silius, and Valerius. Poets of great talent but no genius,
they 'adore the footsteps' of an unapproachable master. Religiously
careful artists, they see the world through the eyes of others. Sensible
to the effects of Greatness, they have never touched and handled it.
They know it only from the poets whom they imitate. The four winds of
life have never beat upon their decorous faces. We would gladly give the
best that they offer us--and it is often of fine quality--for something
much inferior in art but superior in the indefinable qualities of
freshness and gusto. The exhaustion of the period is well seen in
Juvenal--in the jaded relish of his descriptions of vice, in the
complete unreality of his moral code, in a rhetoric which for ever just
misses the fine effects which it laboriously calculates.
The second century is barren. Yet we are dimly aware in the reign of
Hadrian of an abortive Revival. We hear of a school of _neoterici_: and
these _neoterici_ aimed at just what was needed--greater freshness and
life. They experimented in metre, and they experimented in language.
They tried to use in poetry the language of common speech, the language
of Italy rather than that of Rome, and to bring into literature once
again colour and motion. The most eminent of these _neoterici_ is Annius
Florus, of whom we possess some notable fragments. But the movement
failed; and Florus is the only name that arrests the attention of the
student of Roman poetry between Martial and Nemesianus. Nemesianus is
African, and his poems were not written in Rome. But his graceful genius
perhaps owes something to the impulsion given to literary studies by
Numerian--one of the few emperors of the period who exhibit any interest
in the progress of literature. The fourth century is the period of
Renaissance. We may see in Tiberianus the herald of this Renaissance.
The four poems which can be certainly assigned to him are distinguished
by great power and charm. It is a plausible view that he is also the
author of the remarkable _Peruigilium Veneris_--that poem proceeds at
any rate from the school to which Tiberianus belongs. The style of
Tiberianus is formed in the academies of Africa, and so also perhaps his
philosophy. The Platonic hymn to the Nameless God is a noble monument of
the dying Paganism of the era. Tiberianus' political activities took him
to Gaul: and Gaul is the true home of this fourth-century Renaissance.
In Gaul around Ausonius there grew up at Bordeaux a numerous and
accomplished and enthusiastic school of poets. To find a parallel to the
brilliance and enthusiasm of this school we must go back to the school
of poets which grew up around Valerius Cato in Transpadane Gaul in the
first century B. C. The Bordeaux school is particularly interesting from
its attitude to Christianity. Among Ausonius' friends was the austere
Paulinus of Nola, and Ausonius himself was a convert to the Christian
faith. But his Christianity is only skin-deep. His Bible is Vergil, his
books of devotion are Horace and Ovid and Statius.
The symbols of the
Greek mythology are nearer and dearer to him than the symbolism of the
Cross. The last enemy which Christianity had to overcome was, in fact,
Literature. And strangely enough the conquest was to be achieved
finally, not by the superior ethical quality of the new religion, but by
the havoc wrought in Latin speech by the invasion of the Barbarians, by
the decay of language and of linguistic study. To the period of
Ausonius--and probably to Gaul--belong the rather obscure Asmenidae--the
'sons', or pupils, of Asmenius. At least two of them, Palladius and
Asclepiadius, exhibit genuine poetical accomplishment. But the schools
both of Ausonius and of Asmenius show at least in one particular how
relaxed had become the hold even upon its enthusiasts of the true
classical tradition. All these poets have a passion for triviality, for
every kind of _tour de force_, for conceits and mannerisms. At times they
are not so much poets as the acrobats of poetry.
The end of the century gives us Claudian, and a reaction against this
triviality. 'Paganus peruicacissimus,' as Orosius calls him, Claudian
presents the problem of a poet whose poetry treats with real power the
circumstances of an age from which the poet himself is as detached as
can be. Claudian's real world is a world which was never to be again, a
world of great princes and exalted virtues, a world animated by a
religion in which Rome herself, strong and serene, is the principal
deity. Accident has thrown him into the midst of a political nightmare
dominated by intriguing viziers and delivered to a superstition which
made men at once weak and cruel. Yet this world, so unreal to him, he
presents in a rhetorical colouring extraordinarily effective. Had he
possessed a truer instinct for things as they are he might have been the
greatest of the Roman satirists. He has a real mastery of the art of
invective. But, while he is great where he condemns, where he blesses he
is mostly contemptible. He has too many of the arts of the cringing
Alexandrian. And they availed him nothing. Over every page may be heard
the steady tramp of the feet of the barbarian invader.
After Claudian we pass into the final darkness. The gloom is illuminated
for a brief moment by the Gaul Rutilius. But Rutilius has really
outlived Roman poetry and Rome itself. Nothing that he admires is any
longer real save in his admiration of it. The things that he condemns
most bitterly are the things which were destined to dominate the world
for ten centuries. Christianity is 'a worse poison than witchcraft'. The
monastic spirit is the 'fool-fury of a brain unhinged'. The monasteries
are 'slave-dungeons'.
It was these 'slave-dungeons' which were to keep safe through the long
night of the Middle Ages all that Rutilius held dear. It was these
'slave-dungeons' which were to afford a last miserable refuge to the
works of that long line of poets of whom Rutilius is the late and
forlorn descendant. Much indeed was to perish even within the fastnesses
of these 'slave-dungeons': for the monasteries were not always secure
from the shock of war, nor the precious memorials which they housed from
the fury of fanaticism. Yet much was to survive and to emerge one day
from the darkness and to renew the face of the world. Rutilius wrote his
poem in 416 A. D. If he could have looked forward exactly a thousand
years he would have beheld Poggio and the great Discoverers of the
Italian Renaissance ransacking the 'slave-dungeons' of Italy, France,
and Germany, and rejoicing over each recovered fragment of antiquity
with a pure joy not unlike that which heavenly minds are said to feel
over the salvation of souls. These men were, indeed, kindling into life
again the soul of Europe. They were assisting at a New Birth. In this
process of regeneration the deepest force was a Latin force, and of this
Latin force the most impelling part was Latin poetry. We are apt
to-day, perhaps, in our zeal of Hellenism, to forget, or to disparage,
the part which Latin poetry has sustained in moulding the literatures of
modern Europe. But if the test of great poetry is the length and breadth
of its influence in the world, then Roman poetry has nothing to fear
from the vagaries of modern fashion. For no other poetry has so deeply
and so continuously influenced the thought and feeling of mankind. Its
sway has been wider than that of Rome itself: and the Genius that broods
over the Capitoline Hill might with some show of justice still claim, as
his gaze sweeps over the immense field of modern poetry, that he beholds
nothing which does not owe allegiance to Rome:
Iupiter arce sua totum cum spectat in orbem,
nil nisi Romanum quod tueatur habet.
NVMA POMPILIVS (? )
715-673 B. C.
_1. Fragments of the Saliar Hymns_
_i_
DIVOM templa cante,
diuom deo supplicate.
_ii_
QVOME tonas, Leucesie,
prae tet tremonti.
quor libet, Curis,
decstumum tonare?
_iii_
CONSE, ulod oriese:
omnia tuere,
adi, Patulci, coi isse:
Sancus Ianes Cerus es.
Duonus Ianus ueuet
po melios, eu, recum.
THE ARVAL BROTHERHOOD
_2. Against Plague upon the Harvest_
_Incertae Aetatis. _
ENOS, Lases, iuuate,
enos, Lases, iuuate,
enos, Lases, iuuate.
neue lue rue, Marmar, sins incurrere in pleoris,
neue lue rue, Marmar, sins incurrere in pleoris,
neue lue rue, Marmar, sers incurrere in pleoris.
satur fu, fere Mars: limen sali: sta berber,
satur fu, fere Mars: limen sali: sta berber,
satur fu, fere Mars: limen sali: sta berber,
semunis alternei aduocapit conctos,
semunis alternei aduocapit conctos,
semunis alternei aduocapit conctos.
enos, Marmor, iuuato,
enos, Marmor, iuuato,
enos, Marmor, iuuato.
triumpe, triumpe, triumpe, triumpe, triumpe.
ANONYMOUS
_3. Charms_
_i. Against the Gout_
_Incertae Aetatis. _
EGO tui memini,
medere meis pedibus:
terra pestem teneto,
salus hic maneto
in meis pedibus.
_ii. At the Meditrinalia_
NOVOM uetus uinum bibo,
nouo ueteri morbo medeor.
_4. An Ancient Lullaby_
_Incertae Aetatis. _
LALLA, lalla, lalla:
i, aut dormi aut lacta.
_5. Epitaphs of the Scipios_
284-176 B. C.
_i_
CORNELIVS Lucius Scipio Barbatus,
Gnaiuod patre prognatus fortis uir sapiensque,
quoius forma uirtutei parisuma fuit,
consol, censor, aidilis quei fuit apud nos,
Taurasia, Cisauna, Samnio cepit,
subigit omne Loucanam opsidesque abdoucsit.
_ii_
HONC oino ploirime cosentiont Romai
duonoro optumo fuise uiro
Lucium Scipione. filios Barbati
consol, censor, aidilis hic fuet apud nos:
hic cepit Corsica Aleriaque urbe,
dedet Tempestatebus aide meretod.
_iii_
QVEI apice insigne Dialis flaminis gesistei,
mors perfecit tua ut essent omnia breuia,
honos fama uirtusque, gloria atque ingenium.
quibus sei in longa licuiset utier tibi uita,
facile facteis superases gloriam maiorum.
qua re lubens te in gremiu Scipio, recipit
terra, Publi, prognatum Publio, Corneli.
_iv_
MAGNA sapientia multasque uirtutes
aeuitate quam parua posidet hoc saxsum.
quoiei uita defecit, non honos, honore,
is hic situs, quei nunquam uictus est uirtutei,
annos gnatus uiginti is Diteist mandatus,
ne quairatis honore quei minus sit mactus.
L. LIVIVS ANDRONICVS
284-204 B. C. (? )
_6. Fragments of the Odyssey_
_i_
VIRVM mihi, Camena, insece uersutum.
_ii_
Mea puera quid uerbi ex tuo ore supera fugit?
_iii_
Mea puer quid uerbi ex tuo ore audio?
neque enim te oblitus sum, Laertie noster.
_iv_
Simul ac dacrimas de ore noegeo detersit.
_v_
Namque nullum peius macerat hemonem
quamde mare saeuom: uires quoi sunt magnae,
topper eas confringunt importunae undae.
_vi_
Topper citi ad aedis uenimus Circai.
simul duona eorum portant ad naues:
milia alia in isdem inserinuntur.
_vii_
In Pylum deuenies aut ibi ommentans.
_viii_
Inferus an superus tibi fert deus funera, Vlixes?
_ix_
Cum socios nostros mandisset impius Cyclops.
_x_
At celer hasta uolans perrumpit pectora ferro.
_7. Dramatic Fragments_
_i_
TVM autem lasciuum Nerei simum pecus
ludens ad cantum classem lustratur choro.
_ii_
Ipsus se in terram saucius fligit cadens.
_iii_
Quin quod parere uos maiestas mea procat,
toleratis templo, letoque hanc deducitis?
_iv_
Nam praestatur uirtuti laus, sed gelu multo ocius
uento tabescit.
_v_
Confluges ubi conuentu campum totum inumigant.
_vi_
Florem anculabant Liberi ex carchesiis.
_vii_
Quo Castalia per struices saxeas lapsu accidit.
_viii_
Quem ego nefrendem alui lacteam inmulgens opem.
_ix_
Puerarum manibus confectum pulcerrime.
_x_
Iamne oculos specie laetauisti optabili?
CN. NAEVIVS
270-199 B. C. (? )
_8. Fragments of the Bellum Poenicum_
_i_
NOVEM Iouis concordes filiae sorores.
_ii_
Postquam auem aspexit in templo Anchisa,
sacra in mensa penatium ordine ponuntur,
immolabat auream uictimam pulcram.
_iii_
Amborum uxores
noctu Troiad exibant capitibus opertis,
flentes ambae, abeuntes lacrimis cum multis.
_iv_
Blande et docte percontat, Aenea quo pacto
Troiam urbem liquisset.
_v_
Deinde pollens sagittis inclutus Arquitenens
sanctus Ioue prognatus Pythius Apollo.
_vi_
Transit Melitam
Romanus exercitus, insulam integram urit,
populatur, uastat, rem hostium concinnat.
_vii_
Sin illos deserant fortissimos uiros,
magnum stuprum populo fieri per gentis.
_viii_
Seseque ei perire mauolunt ibidem
quam cum stupro redire ad suos populares.
_ix_
Fato Metelli Romae fiunt consules.
_9. Dramatic Fragments_
_i_
LAETVS sum laudari me abs te, pater, a laudato uiro.
_ii_
Vos qui regalis corporis custodias
agitatis, ite actutum in frondiferos locos,
ingenio arbusta ubi nata sunt, non obsita.
_iii_
Cedo, qui rem uestram publicam tantam amisistis tam cito?
proueniebant oratores nouei, stulti adulescentuli.
_iv_
Ego semper pluris feci
potioremque habui libertatem multo quam pecuniam.
_v_
Si quidem loqui uis,
non perdocere multa longe promicando oratiost.
_vi_
Quasi in choro ludens datatim dat se et communem facit:
alii adnutat, alii adnictat, alium amat, alium tenet,
alibi manus est occupata, alii pede percellit pedem,
anulum dat alii spectandum, a labris alium inuocat,
cum alio cantat, at tamen alii suo dat digito litteras.
_10. His Own Epitaph_
IMMORTALES mortales si foret fas flere,
flerent diuae Camenae Naeuium poetam.
itaque, postquam est Orchi traditus thesauro,
obliti sunt Romai loquier lingua Latina.
T. MACCIVS PLAVTVS
254-184 B. C.
_11. His Own Epitaph_
POSTQVAM est mortem aptus Plautus, Comoedia luget,
scaena est deserta, dein Risus Ludus Iocusque
et Numeri innumeri simul omnes conlacrumarunt.
MARCIVS VATES
250-200 B. C. (? )
_12. Precepts_
_i_
POSTREMVS dicas, primus taceas.
_ii_
Quamuis nouentium duonum negumate.
_13. Vaticinium_
250-200 B. C. (? )
AQVAM Albanam, Romane, caue lacu teneri,
caue in mare manare flumine sinas suo.
emissam agris rigabis, dissipatam riuis
exstingues: tum tu insiste muris hostium audax,
memor, quam per tot annos obsides urbem,
ex ea tibi his quae iam nunc panduntur fatis
uictoriam oblatam. bello perfecto
donum peramplum uictor ad mea templa
portato: patria sacra, quorum cura dudum est
omissa, endostaurata, ut adsolet, facito.
Q. ENNIVS
239-169 B. C.
FROM THE ANNALS
_14. The Vision of Ilia_
ET cita cum tremulis anus attulit artubus lumen.
talia tum memorat lacrimans exterrita somno:
'Eurydica prognata, pater quam noster amauit,
uires uitaque corpus meum nunc deserit omne.
nam me uisus homo pulcher per amoena salicta
et ripas raptare locosque nouos: ita sola
postilla, germana soror, errare uidebar
tardaque uestigare et quaerere te neque posse
corde capessere: semita nulla pedem stabilibat.
exim compellare pater me noce uidetur
his uerbis: "O gnata, tibi sunt ante gerendae
aerumnae, post ex fluuio fortuna resistet. "
haec effatus pater, germana, repente recessit
nec sese dedit in conspectum corde cupitus,
quamquam multa manus ad caeli caerula templa
tendebam lacrumans et blanda uoce uocabam.
uix aegro cum corde meo me somnus reliquit. '
_15. Romulus and Remus_
CVRANTES magna cum cura tum cupientes
regni dant operam simul auspicio augurioque.
. . . Remus auspicio se deuouet atque secundam
solus auem seruat. at Romulus pulcher in alto
quaerit Auentino, seruat genus altiuolantum.
certabant urbem Romam Remoramne uocarent.
omnibus cura uiris uter esset induperator.
expectant, ueluti consul cum mittere signum
uolt omnes auidi spectant ad carceris oras,
quam mox emittat pictis e faucibus currus:
sic expectabat populus atque ore timebat
rebus, utri magni uictoria sit data regni.
interea sol albus recessit in infera noctis.
exin candida se radiis dedit icta foras lux
et simul ex alto longe pulcherruma praepes
laeua uolauit auis. simul aureus exoritur sol,
cedunt de caelo ter quattuor corpora sancta
auium, praepetibus sese pulchrisque locis dant.
conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse priora,
auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque.
_16. The Speech of Pyrrhus_
NEC mi aurum posco nec mi pretium dederitis:
non cauponantes bellum sed belligerantes,
ferro, non auro, uitam cernamus utrique,
uosne uelit an me regnare era quidue ferat Fors
uirtute experiamur. et hoc simul accipe dictum:
quorum uirtuti belli fortuna pepercit,
eorundem libertati me parcere certum est.
dono, ducite, doque uolentibus cum magnis dis.
_17. Character of a Friend of Servilius_[9]
HAECCE locutus uocat, quocum bene saepe libenter
mensam sermonesque suos rerumque suarum
omne iter impertit magnam cum lassus diei
partem fuisset de summis rebus regundis
consilio indu foro lato sanctoque senatu,
cui res audacter magnas paruasque iocumque
eloqueretur et incaute malaque et bona dictu
euomeret si qui uellet tutoque locaret,
quocum multa uolup sibi fecit clamque palamque,
ingenium cui nulla malum sententia suaset
ut faceret facinus leuis aut malus, doctus, fidelis,
suauis homo, facundus, suo contentus, beatus,
scitus, secunda loquens in tempore, commodus, uerbum
paucum, multa tenens antiqua, sepulta uetustas
quae facit; et mores ueteresque nouosque tenentem,
multorum ueterum leges diuumque hominumque,
prudentem, qui dicta loquiue tacereue posset,
hunc inter pugnas conpellat Seruilius sic.
_18. M. Cornelius Cethegus_
ADDITVR orator Cornelius suauiloquenti
ore Cethegus Marcus Tuditano collega
Marci filius . . .
. . . is dictust ollis popularibus olim
qui tum uiuebant homines atque aeuum agitabant
flos delibatus populi suadaeque medulla.
_19. Caelius resists the Onset of the Istri_
VNDIQVE conueniunt uelut imber tela tribuno:
configunt parmam, tinnit hastilibus umbo,
aerato sonitu galeae, sed nec pote quisquam
undique nitendo corpus discerpere ferro:
semper abundantes hastas frangitque quatitque.
totum sudor habet corpus multumque laborat,
nec respirandi fit copia: praepete ferro
Histri tela manu iacientes sollicitabant.
_20. Toga Cedit Armis_
POSTQVAM Discordia taetra
belli ferratos postes portasque refregit,
pellitur e medio sapientia, ui geritur res,
spernitur orator bonus, horridus miles amatur.
haut doctis dictis certantes nec maledictis
miscent inter sese inimicitiam agitantes,
non ex iure manum consertum, sed magis ferro
rem repetunt regnumque petunt, uadunt solida ui.
_21. Lesser Fragments of the Annals_
_i_
MVSAE, quae pedibus magnum pulsatis Olympum.
_ii_
Te, sale nata, precor, Venus, et genitrix patris nostri,
ut me de caelo uisas cognata parumper.
_iii_
Pectora fida tenet desiderium, simul inter
sese sic memorant: O Romule, Romule die,
qualem te patriae custodem di genuerunt!
O pater, O genitor, O sanguen dis oriundum,
tu produxisti nos intra luminis oras.
_iv_
Omnes mortales uictores, cordibus uiuis
laetantes, uino curatos, somnus repente
in campo passim mollissimus perculit acris.
_v_
At tuba terribili sonitu taratantara dixit.
incedunt arbusta per alta, securibus caedunt,
percellunt magnas quercus, exciditur ilex,
fraxinus frangitur atque abies consternitur alta,
pinus proceras peruortunt: omne sonabat
arbustum fremitu siluai frondosai.
