OTHER KINDS OF PROSE LITERATURE, GRAMMAR, RHETORIC, AND PHILOSOPHY
(147-63 B.C.).
Great literary activity of all kinds was, after the third Punic war,
liable to continual interruption from political struggles or revolutions.
But between each two periods of disturbance there was generally an
interval in which philosophy, law, and rhetoric were carefully studied.
As, however, no work of this period has come down to us except the
treatise to Herennius, our notice of it will be proportionately general
and brief. We shall touch on the principal studies in order. First in time
as in importance comes Law, the earliest great representative of which is
P. MUCIUS SCAEVOLA, consul in 133 B.C. but better known as Pontifex
Maximus. In this latter office, which he held for several years, Mucius
did good service to literature. He united a high technical training with a
liberal mind, and superintended the publication of the _Annales
Pontificum_ from the earliest period to his own date. This was a great
boon to historians. He gave another to jurists. His _responsa_ were
celebrated for their insight into the principles of Law, and for the
minute knowledge they displayed. He was conscientious enough to study the
law of every case before he undertook to plead it, a practice which,
however commendable, was rare even with advocates of the highest fame, as,
for example, M. Antonius.
The jurisconsult of this period used to offer his services without payment
to any who chose to consult him. At first he appeared in the forum, but as
his fame and the number of applicants increased, he remained at home and
received all day. His replies were always oral, but when written down were
considered as authoritative, and often quoted by the orators. In return
for this laborious occupation, he expected the support of his clients in
his candidature for the offices of state. An anecdote is preserved of C.
Figulus, a jurisconsult, who, not having been successful for the
consulship, addressed his _consultores_ thus, "You know how to _consult_
me, but not (it seems) how to make me _consul_." [1] In addition to the
parties in a suit, advocates in other causes often came to a great
jurisconsult to be _coached_ in the law of their case. For instance,
Antonius, who, though a ready speaker, had no knowledge of jurisprudence,
often went to Scaevola for this purpose. Moreover there were always one or
two regular pupils who accompanied the jurisconsult, attended carefully to
his words, and committed them assiduously to memory or writing. Cicero
himself did this for the younger Scaevola, and thus laid the foundation of
that clear grasp on the civil law which was so great a help to him in his
more difficult speeches. It was not necessary that the pupil should
himself intend to become a _consultus_; it was enough that he desired to
acquire the knowledge for public purposes, although, of course, it
required great interest to procure for a young man so high a privilege.
Cicero was introduced to Scaevola by the orator Crassus. The family of the
Mucii, as noticed by Cicero, were traditionally distinguished by their
legal knowledge, as that of the Appii Claudii were by eloquence. The Augur
Q. MUCIUS SCAEVOLA who comes midway between Publius and his son Quintus
was somewhat less celebrated than either, but he was nevertheless a man of
eminence. He died probably in 87 B.C., and Cicero mentions that it was in
consequence of this event that he himself became a pupil of his nephew.
[2]
The great importance of Religious Law must not be forgotten in estimating
the acquirements of these men. Though to us the _Jus Augurale_ and _Jus
Pontificium_ are of small interest compared with the _Jus Civile_; yet to
the Romans of 120 B.C., and especially to an old and strictly aristocratic
family, they had all the attraction of exclusiveness and immemorial
authority. In all countries religious law exercises at first a sway far in
excess of its proper province, and Rome was no exception to the rule. The
publication of civil law is an era in civilization. Just as the
chancellorship and primacy of England were often in the hands of one
person and that an ecclesiastic, so in Rome the pontifices had at first
the making of almost all law. What a canonist was to Mediaeval Europe, a
pontifex was to senatorial Rome. In the time of which we are now speaking
(133-63 B.C.), the secular law had fully asserted its supremacy on its own
ground, and it was the dignity and influence, not the power of the post,
that made the pontificate so great an object of ambition, and so
inaccessible to upstart candidates. Even for Cicero to obtain a seat in
the college of augurs was no easy task, although he had already won his
way to the consulship and been hailed as the saviour of his country.
The younger Scaevola (Q. MUCIUS SCAEVOLA), who had been his father's
pupil, [3] and was the most eloquent of the three, was born about 135
B.C., was consul 95 with Licinius Crassus for his colleague, and
afterwards Pontifex Maximus. He was an accomplished Greek scholar, a man
of commanding eloquence, deeply versed in the Stoic philosophy, and of the
highest nobility of character. As Long well says, "He is one of those
illustrious men whose fame is not preserved by his writings, but in the
more enduring monument of the memory of all nations to whom the language
of Rome is known." His chief work, which was long extant, and is highly
praised by Cicero, was a digest of the civil law. Rudorff says of it, [4]
"For the first time we meet here with a comprehensive, uniform, and
methodical system, in the place of the old interpretation of laws and
casuistry, of legal opinions and prejudices." Immediately on its
publication it acquired great authority, and was commented upon within a
few years of the death of its author. It is quoted in the Digest, and is
the earliest work to which reference is there made. [5] He was especially
clear in definitions and distinctions, [6] and the grace with which he
invested a dry subject made him deservedly popular. Though so profound a
lawyer, he was quite free from the offensive stamp of the mere
professional man. His urbanity, unstained integrity, and high position,
fitted him to exercise a widespread influence. He had among his hearers
Cicero, as we have already seen, and among jurists proper, Aquillius
Gallus, Balbus Lucilius, and others, who all attained to eminence. His
virtue was such that his name became proverbial for probity as for legal
eminence. In Horace he is coupled with Gracchus as the ideal of a lawyer,
as the other of an orator.
"Gracchus ut hic illi foret, huic ut Mucius ille." [7]
The great oratorical activity of this age produced a corresponding
interest in the theory of eloquence. We have seen that many of the orators
received lessons from Greek rhetoricians. We have seen also the deep
attraction which rhetoric possessed over the Roman mind. It was, so to
speak, the form of thought in which their intellectual creations were
almost all cast. Such a maxim as that attributed to Scaevola, _Fiat
iustitia: ruat caelum_, is not legal but rhetorical. The plays of Attius
owed much of their success to the ability with which statement was pitted
against counter-statement, plea against plea. The philosophic works of
Cicero are coloured with rhetoric. Cases are advanced, refuted, or summed
up, with a view to presentability (_veri simile_), not abstract truth. The
history of Livy, the epic of Virgil, are eminently rhetorical. A Roman
when not fighting was pleading. It was, then, important that he should he
well grounded in the art. Greek rhetoricians, in spite of Cato's
opposition, had been steadily making way, and increasing the number of
their pupils; but it was not until about 93 B.C. that PLOTIUS GALLUS
taught the principles of Rhetoric in Latin. Quintilian says, [8] "_Latinos
dicendi praeceptores extremis L. Crassi temporibus coepisse Cicero auctor
est: quorum insignis maxime Plotius fuit._" He was the first of that long
list of writers who expended wit, learning, and industry, in giving
precepts of a mechanical character to produce what is unproduceable,
namely, a successful style of speaking. Their treatises are interesting,
for they show on the one hand the severe technical application which the
Romans were always willing to bestow in order to imitate the Greeks; and
on the other, the complex demands of Latin rhetoric as contrasted with the
simpler and more natural style of modern times.
The most important work on the subject is the treatise dedicated to
Herennius (80 B.C.), written probably in the time of Sulla, and for a long
time reckoned among Cicero's works. The reason for this confusion is
twofold. First, the anonymous character of the work; and, secondly, the
frequent imitations of it by Cicero in his _De Inventione_, an incomplete
essay written when he was a young man. Who the author was is not agreed;
the balance of probability is in favour of CORNIFICIUS. Kayser [9] points
out several coincidences between Cornificius's views, as quoted by
Quintilian, and the rhetorical treatise to Herennius. The author, whoever
he may be, was an accomplished man, and, while a warm admirer of Greek
eloquence, by no means disposed to concede the inferiority of his own
countrymen. His criticism upon the _inanitas_ [10] of the Greek manuals is
thoroughly just. They were simply guides to an elegant accomplishment, and
had no bearing on real life. It was quite different with the Roman
manuals. These were intended to fit the reader for forensic contests, and,
we cannot doubt, did materially help towards this result. It was only in
the imperial epoch that empty ingenuity took the place of activity, and
rhetoric sunk to the level of that of Greece. There is nothing calling for
special remark in the contents of the book, though all is good. The chief
points of interest in this subject will be discussed in a later chapter.
The style is pure and copious, the Latin that finished idiom which is the
finest vehicle for Roman thought, that spoken by the highest circles at
the best period of the language.
The science of Grammar was now exciting much attention. The Stoic writers
had formulated its main principles, and had assigned it a place in their
system of general philosophy. It remained for the Roman students to apply
the Greek treatment to their own language. Apparently, the earliest
labours were of a desultory kind. The poet Lucilius treated many points of
orthography, pronunciation, and the like; and he criticised inaccuracies
of syntax or metre in the poets who had gone before him. A little later we
find the same mine further worked. Quintilian observes that grammar began
at Rome by the exegesis of classical authors. Octavius Lampadio led the
van with a critical commentary on the _Punica_ of Naevius, and Q.
Vargunteius soon after performed the same office for the annals of Ennius.
The first scientific grammarian, was AELIUS STILO, a Roman knight (144-70
B.C.). His name was L. Aelius Praeconinus; he received the additional
cognomen _Stilo_ from the facility with which he used his pen, especially
in writing speeches for others to deliver. At the same time he was no
orator, and Cicero implies that better men often used his compositions
through mere laziness, and allowed them to pass as their own. [11] Cicero
mentions in more than one place that he himself had been an admiring pupil
of Aelius. And Lucilius addressed some of his satires to him, probably
those on grammar,
"Has res ad te scriptas Luci misimus Aeli;"
so that he is a bond of connection between the two epochs. His learning
was profound and varied. He dedicated his investigations to Varro, who
speaks warmly of him, but mentions that his etymologies are often
incorrect. He appears to have bestowed special care on Plautus, in which
department he was followed by Varro, some of the results of whose
criticism have been already given.
The impulse given by Stilo was rapidly extended. Grammar became a
favourite study with the Romans, as indeed it was one for which they were
eminently fitted. The perfection to which they carried the analysis of
sentences and the practical rules for correct speech as well as the
systematization of the accidence, has made their grammars a model for all
modern school-works. It is only recently that a deeper scientific
knowledge has reorganised the entire treatment, and substituted for
superficial analogy the true basis of a common structure, not only between
Greek and Latin, but among all the languages of the Indo-European class.
Nevertheless, the Roman grammarians deserve great praise for their
elaborate results in the sphere of correct writing. No defects of syntax
perplex the reader of the classical authors. Imperfect and unpliable the
language is, but never inexact. And though the meaning is often hard to
settle, this is owing rather to the inadequacy of the material than the
carelessness of the writer.
Side by side with rhetoric and grammar, Philosophy made its appearance at
Rome. There was no importation from Greece to which a more determined
resistance was made from the first by the national party. In the
consulship of Strabo and Messala (162 B.C.) a decree was passed banishing
philosophers and rhetoricians from Rome. Seven years later took place the
embassy of the three leaders of the most celebrated schools of thought,
Diogenes the Stoic, Critolaus the Peripatetic, and Carneades the New
Academician. The subtilty and eloquence of these disputants rekindled the
interest in philosophy which had been smothered, not quenched, by the
vigorous measures of the senate. There were two reasons why an interest in
these studies was dreaded. First, they tended to spread disbelief in the
state religion, by which the ascendency of the oligarchy was in great
measure maintained; secondly, they distracted men's minds, and diverted
them from that exclusive devotion to public life which the old _régime_
demanded. Nevertheless, some of the greatest nobles ardently espoused the
cause of free thought. After the war with Perseus, and the detention of
the Achaean hostages in Rome, many learned Greeks well versed in
philosophical inquiries were brought into contact with their conquerors in
a manner well calculated to promote mutual confidence. The most eminent of
these was Polybius, who lived for years on terms of intimacy with Scipio
and Laelius, and imparted to them his own wide views and varied knowledge.
From them may be dated the real study of Philosophy at Rome. They both
attained the highest renown in their lifetime and after their death for
their philosophical eminence, [12] but apparently they left no
philosophical writings. The spirit, however, in which they approached
philosophy is eminently characteristic of their nation, and determined the
lines in which philosophic activity afterwards moved.
In no department of thought is the difference between the Greek and Roman
mind more clearly seen; in none was the form more completely borrowed, and
the spirit more completely missed. The object of Greek philosophy had been
the attainment of absolute truth. The long line of thinkers from Thales to
Aristotle had approached philosophy in the belief that they could by it be
enabled to understand the cause of all that is. This lofty anticipation
pervades all their theories, and by its fruitful influence engenders that
wondrous grasp and fertility of thought [13] which gives their
speculations an undying value. It is true that in the later systems this
consciousness is less strongly present. It struggles to maintain itself in
stoicism and epicureanism against the rising claims of human happiness to
be considered as the goal of philosophy. In the New Academy (which in the
third century before Christ was converted to scepticism) and in the
sceptical school, we see the first confession of incapacity to discover
truth. Instead of certainties they offer probabilities sufficient to guide
us through life; the only axiom which they assert as incontrovertible
being the fact that we know nothing. Thus instead of proposing as the
highest activity of man a life of speculative thought, they came to
consider inactivity and impassibility [13] the chief attainable good.
Their method of proof was a dialectic which strove to show the
inconsistency or uncertainty of their opponent's positions, but which did
not and could not arrive at any constructive result. Philosophy (to use an
ancient phrase) had fallen from the sphere of _knowledge_ to that of
_opinion_. [15]
Of these _opinions_ there were three which from their definiteness were
well calculated to lay hold on the Roman mind. The first was that of the
Stoics, that virtue is the only good; the second that of the Epicureans,
that pleasure is the end of man; the third that of the Academy, that
nothing can be known. [16] These were by no means the only, far less the
exclusive characteristics of each school; for in many ways they all
strongly resembled each other, particularly stoicism and the New Academy;
and in their definition of what should be the practical result of their
principles all were substantially agreed. [17]
But what to the Greeks was a speculative principle to be drawn out by
argument to its logical conclusions, to the Romans was a practical maxim
to be realized in life. The Romans did not understand the love of abstract
truth, or the charm of abstract reasoning employed for its own sake
without any ulterior end. To profess the doctrines of stoicism, and live a
life of self-indulgence, was to be false to one's convictions; to embrace
Epicurus's system without making it subservient to enjoyment, was equally
foreign to a consistent character. In Athens the daily life of an
Epicurean and a Stoic would not present any marked difference; in
discussion they would be widely divergent, but the contrast ended there.
In Rome, on the contrary, it was the mode of life which made the chief
distinction. Men who laboured for the state as jurists or senators, who
were grave and studious, generally, if not always, adopted the tenets of
Zeno; if they were orators, they naturally turned rather to the Academy,
which offered that balancing of opinions so congenial to the tone of mind
of an advocate. Among public men of the highest character, very few
espoused Epicurus's doctrines.
The mere assertion that pleasure was the _summum bonum_ for man was so
repugnant to the old Roman views that it could hardly have been made the
basis of a self-sacrificing political activity. Accordingly we find in the
period before Cicero only men of the second rank representing epicurean
views. AMAFINIUS is stated to have been the first who popularised them.
[18] He wrote some years before Cicero, and from his lucid and simple
treatment immediately obtained a wide circulation for his books. The
multitude (says Cicero), hurried to adopt his precepts, [19] finding them
easy to understand, and in harmony with their own inclinations. The second
writer of mark seems to have been RABIRIUS. He also wrote on the physical
theory of Epicurus in a superficial way. He neither divided his subject
methodically, nor attempted exact definitions, and all his arguments were
drawn from the world of visible things. In fact, his system seems to have
been a crude and ordinary materialism, such as the vulgar are in all ages
prone to, and beyond which their minds cannot go. The refined Catulus was
also an adherent of epicureanism, though he also attached himself to the
Academy. Among Greeks resident at Rome the best known teachers were
Phaedrus and Zeno; a book by the former on the gods was largely used by
Cicero in the first book of his _De Natura Deorum_. A little later
Philodemus of Gadara, parts of whose writings are still extant, seems to
have risen to the first place. In the time of Cicero this system obtained
more disciples among the foremost men. Both statesmen and poets cultivated
it, and gained it a legitimate place among the genuine philosophical
creeds. [20]
Stoicism was far more congenial to the national character, and many great
men professed it. Besides Laelius, who was a disciple of Diodes and
Panactius, we have the names of Rutilius Rufus, Aelius Stilo, Balbus, and
Scaevola. But during the tumultuous activity of these years it was not
possible for men to cultivate philosophy with deep appreciation. Political
struggles occupied their minds, and it was in their moments of relaxation
only that the questions agitated by stoicism would he discussed. We must
remember that as yet stoicism was one of several competing systems.
Peripateticism and the Academy, as has been said, attracted the more
sceptical or argumentative minds, for their dialectics were far superior
to those of stoicism; it was in its moral grandeur that stoicism towered
not only above these but above all other systems that have been invented,
and the time for the full recognition of this moral grandeur had not yet
come. At present men were occupied in discussing its logical quibbles and
paradoxes, and in balancing its claims to cogency against those of its
rivals. It was not until the significance of its central doctrine was
tried to the uttermost by the dark tyranny of the Empire, that stoicism
stood erect and alone as the sole representative of all that was good and
great. Still, the fact that its chief professors were men of weight in the
state, lent it a certain authority, and Cicero, among the few definite
doctrines that he accepts, numbers that of stoicism that virtue is
sufficient for happiness.
We shall close this chapter with one or two remarks on the relation of
philosophy to the state religion. It must be observed that the formal and
unpliable nature of the Roman cult made it quite unable to meet the
requirements of advancing enlightenment. It was a superstition, not a
religion; it admitted neither of allegoric interpretation nor of poetical
idealisation. Hence there was no alternative but to believe or disbelieve
it. There can be no doubt that all educated Romans did the latter. The
whole machinery of ritual and ceremonies was used for purely political
ends; it was no great step to regard it as having a purely political
basis. To men with so slight a hold as this on the popular creed, the
religion and philosophy of Greece were suddenly revealed. It was a
spiritual no less than an intellectual revolution. Their views on the
question of the unseen were profoundly changed. The simple but manly piety
of the family religion, the regular ceremonial of the state, were
confronted with the splendid hierarchy of the Greek Pantheon and the
subtle questionings of Greek intellect. It is no wonder that Roman
conviction was, so to speak, taken by storm. The popular faith received a
shock from which it never rallied. Augustus and others restored the
ancient ritual, but no edict could restore the lost belief. So deep had
the poison penetrated that no sound place was left. With superstition they
cast off all religion. For poetical or imaginative purposes the Greek
deities under their Latin dress might suffice, but for a guide of life
they were utterly powerless. The nobler minds therefore naturally turned
to philosophy, and here they found, if not certainty, at least a
reasonable explanation of the problems they encountered. Is the world
governed by law? If so, is that law a moral one? If not, is the ruler
chance? What is the origin of the gods? of man? of the soul? Questions
like these could neither be resolved by the Roman nor by the Helleno-Roman
systems of religion, but they were met and in a way answered by Greek
philosophy. Hence it became usual for every thinking Roman to attach
himself to the tenets of some sect, which ever best suited his own
comprehension or prejudices. But this adhesion did not involve a rigid or
exclusive devotion. Many were Eclectics, that is, adopted from various
systems such elements as seemed to them most reasonable. For instance,
Cicero was a Stoic more than anything else in his ethical theory, a New
Academician in his logic, and in other respects a Platonist. But even he
varied greatly at different times. There was, however, no combination
among professors of the same sect with a view to practical work or
dissemination of doctrines. Had such been attempted, it would at once have
been put down by the state. But it never was. Philosophical beliefs of
whatever kind did not in the least interfere with conformity to the state
religion. One Scaevola was Pontifex Maximus, another was Augur; Cicero
himself was Augur, so was Caesar. The two things were kept quite distinct.
Philosophy did not influence political action in any way. It was simply a
refuge for the mind, such as all thinking men must have, and which if not
supplied by a true creed, will inevitably be sought in a false or
imperfect one. And the noble doctrines professed by the great Greek
schools were certainly far more worthy of the adhesion of such men as
Scaevola and Laelius, than the worn-out cult which the popular ceremonial
embodied.
BOOK II.
THE GOLDEN AGE.
FROM THE CONSULSHIP OF CICERO TO THE DEATH OF AUGUSTUS (63 B.C.-14 A.D.).
PART I.
THE REPUBLICAN PERIOD.
CHAPTER I.
VARRO.
The period embraced by the present book contains the culmination of all
kinds of literature, the drama alone excepted. It falls naturally into two
divisions, each marked by special and clearly-defined characteristics. The
first begins with the recognition of Cicero as the chief man of letters at
Rome, and ends with the battle of Philippi, a year after his death. It
extends over a period of two and twenty years (about 63-42 B.C.), though
many of Cicero's orations are anterior, and some of Varro's works
posterior, to the extreme dates. In this period Latin prose writing
attained its perfection. The storms which shook and finally overthrew the
Republic turned the attention of all minds to political questions. Oratory
and history were the prevailing forms of intellectual activity. It was not
until the close of the period that philosophy was treated by Cicero during
his compulsory absence from public life; and poetry rose once more into
prominence in the works of Lucretius and Catullus. The chief
characteristics of the literature of this period are freedom and vigour.
In every author the bold spirit of the Republic breathes forth; and in the
greatest is happily combined with an extensive and elegant scholarship,
equally removed from pedantry and dullness.
The second division (42 B.C.-14 A.D.) begins shortly after the battle of
Philippi, with the earliest poems of Varius and Virgil, and closes with
the death of Augustus. It is pre-eminently an era of poets, Livy alone
being a prose writer of the first rank, and is marked by all the
characteristics of an imperial age. The transition from the last poems of
Catullus to the first of Virgil is complete. Nevertheless, many republican
authors lived on into this period, as Varro, Pollio, and Bibaculus. But
their character and genius belong to the Republic, and, with the exception
of Pollio, they will be noticed under the republican writers. The entire
period represents the full maturity and perfection of the Latin language,
and the epithet _classical_ is by many restricted to the authors who wrote
in it. It is best, however, not to narrow unnecessarily the sphere of
classicality; to exclude Terence on the one hand or Tacitus and Pliny on
the other, would savour of artificial restriction rather than that of a
natural classification.
The first writer that comes before us is M. TERENTIUS VARRO, 116-28 B.C.
He is at once the earliest and the latest of the series. His birth took
place ten years before that of Cicero, and his death fifteen years after
Cicero's murder, in the third year of the reign of Augustus. His long life
was devoted almost entirely to study, and he became known even in his
lifetime as the most learned of the Romans. This did not, however, prevent
him from offering his services to the state when the state required them.
He served more than once under Pompey, acquitting himself with
distinction, so that in the civil war the important post of legatus was
intrusted to him in company with Petreius and Afranius in Spain. But Varro
felt from the first his inability to cope with his adversary. Caesar
speaks of him as acting coolly in Pompey's interest until the successes of
Afranius at Ilerda roused him to more vigorous measures; but the triumph
of the Pompeians was shortlived; and when Caesar convened the delegates at
Corduba, Varro found himself shut out from all the fortified towns, and in
danger of being deserted by his army. [1] He therefore surrendered at
discretion, returned to Italy, and took no more part in public affairs. We
hear of him occasionally in Cicero's letters as studying in his country
seats at Tusculum, Cumae, or Casinum, indifferent to politics, and
preparing those great works of antiquarian research which have
immortalised his name. Caesar's victorious return brought him out of his
retreat. He was placed over the library which Caesar built for public use,
an appointment equally complimentary to Varro and honourable to Caesar.
Antony, however, incapable of the generosity of his chief, placed Varro's
name on the list of the proscribed, at a time when the old man was over
seventy years of age, and had long ceased to have any weight in politics.
Nothing more clearly shows the abominable motives that swayed the
triumvirs than this attempt to murder an aged and peaceful citizen for the
sake of possessing his wealth. For Varro had the good or bad fortune to be
extremely rich. His Casine villa, alluded to by Cicero, and partly
described by himself, was sumptuously decorated, and his other estates
were large and productive. The Casine villa was made the scene of Antony's
revelry; he and his fellow-rioters plundered the rooms, emptied the
cellar, burned the library, and carried on every kind of debauchery and
excess. Few passages in all eloquence are more telling than that in which
Cicero with terrible power contrasts the conduct of the two successive
occupants. [2] Varro, through the zeal of his friends, managed to escape
Antony's fury, and for a time lay concealed in the villa of Galenas, at
which Antony was a frequent visitor, little suspecting that his enemy was
within his grasp. An edict was soon issued, however, exempting the old man
from the effect of the proscription, so that he was enabled to live in
peace at Rome until his death. But deprived of his wealth (which Augustus
afterwards restored), deprived of his friends, and above all, deprived of
his library, he must have felt a deep shadow cast over his declining
years. Nevertheless, he remained cheerful, and to all appearance
contented, and charmed those who knew him by the vigour of his
conversation and his varied antiquarian lore. He is never mentioned by any
of the Augustan writers.
Varro belongs to the genuine type of old Roman, improved but not altered
by Greek learning, with his heart fixed in the past, deeply conservative
of everything national, and even in his style of speech protesting against
the innovations of the day. If we reflect that when Varro wrote his
treatise on husbandry, Virgil was at work on the _Georgics_, and then
compare the diction of the two, it seems almost incredible that they
should have been contemporaries. In all literature there is probably no
such instance of rock-like impenetrability to fashion; for him Alexandria
might never have existed. He recalls the age of Cato rather than that of
Cicero. His versatility was as great as his industry. There was scarcely
any department of prose or poetry, provided it was national, in which he
did not excel. His early life well fitted him for severe application. Born
at Reate, in the Sabine territory, which was the nurse of all manly
virtues, [3] Varro, as he himself tells us, had to rough it as a boy; he
went barefoot over the mountain side, rode without saddle or bridle, and
wore but a single tunic. [4] Bold, frank, and sarcastic, he had all the
qualities of the old-fashioned country gentleman. At Rome he became
intimate with Aelius Stilo, whose opinion of his pupil is shown by the
inscription of his grammatical treatise to him. Stilo's mantle descended
on Varro, but with sevenfold virtue. Not only grammar, by which term we
must understand philology and etymology as well as syntax, but antiquities
secular and religious, and almost all the liberal arts, were passed under
review by his encyclopaedic mind.
At the same time lighter themes had strong attraction for him. He
possessed in a high degree that racy and caustic wit which was a special
Italian product, and had been conspicuous in Cato and Lucilius. But while
Cato studied to be oracular, and Lucilius to be critical, Varro seems to
have indulged his vein without any special object. Though by no means a
born poet, he had the faculty of writing terse and elegant verse when he
chose, and in his younger days composed a long list of metrical works.
There were among them _Pseudotragoediae_, which Teuffel thinks were the
same as the _Hilarotragoediae_, or _Rhinthonicae_, so called from their
inventor Rhinthon; though others class them with the _Komodotragodiai_, of
which Plautus's _Amphitruo_ is the best known instance. However this may
be, they were mock-heroic compositions in which the subjects consecrated
by tragic usage were travestied or burlesqued. It is probable that they
were mere literary exercises designed to beguile leisure or to facilitate
the labour of composition, like the closet tragedies composed by Cicero
and his brother Quintus; and Varro certainly owed none of his fame to
them. Other poems of his are referred to by Cicero, and perhaps by
Quintilian; [5] but in the absence of definite allusions we can hardly
characterize them. There was one class of semi-poetical composition which
Varro made peculiarly his own, the _Satura Menippea_, a medley of prose
and verse, treating of all kinds of subjects just as they came to hand in
the plebeian style, often with much grossness, but with sparkling point.
Of these _Saturae_ he wrote no less than 150 books, of which fragments
have been preserved amounting to near 600 lines. Menippus of Gadara, the
originator of this style of composition, lived about 280 B.C.; he
interspersed jocular and commonplace topics with moral maxims and
philosophical doctrines, and may have added contemporary pictures, though
this is uncertain.
Varro followed him; we find him in the _Academicae Quaestiones_ of Cicero,
[6] saying that he adopted this method in the hope of enticing the
unlearned to read something that might profit them. In these _saturae_
topics were handled with the greatest freedom. They were not satires in
the modern sense. They are rather to be considered as lineal descendants
of the old _saturae_ which existed before any regular literature. They
nevertheless embodied with unmistakable clearness Varro's sentiments with
regard to the prevailing luxury, and combined his thorough knowledge of
all that best befitted a Roman to know with a racy freshness which we miss
in his later works. The titles of many are preserved, and give some index
to the character of the contents. We have some in Greek, _e.g._
Marco_polis_ or _peri archaes_, a sort of Varro's Republic, after the
manner of Plato; _Hippokyon_, _Kynoppaetor_, and others, satirizing the
cynic philosophy. Some both in Greek and Latin, as _Columnae Herculis,
peri doxaes_; _est modus matulae, peri methaes_; others in Latin only, as
_Marcipor_ the slave of Marcus (_i.e._ Varro himself). Many are in the
shape of proverbs, e.g. _Longe fugit qui suos fugit_, _gnothi seauton_,
_nescis quid vesper serus vehat_. Only two fragments are of any length;
one from the _Marcipor_, in graceful iambic verse, [7] the other in prose
from the _nescis quid vesper_. [8] It consists of directions for a
convivial meeting: "Nam multos convivas esse non convenit, quod _turba_
plerumque est _turbulenta_; et Romae quidem constat: sed et Athenis;
nusquam enim plures cubabant. [9] Ipsum deinde convivium constat ex rebus
quatuor, et tum denique omnibus suis numeris absolutum est; si belli
homuculi collecti sunt, si lectus locus, si tempus lectum, si apparatus
non neglectus. Nec loquaces autem convivas nec mutos legere oportet; quia
eloquentia in foro et apud subsellia; silentium vero non in convivio sed
in cubiculo esse debet. Quod profecto eveniet, si de id genus rebus ad
communem vitae usum pertinentibus confabulemur, de quibus in foro atque in
negotiis agendis loqui non est otium. Dominum autem convivii esse oportet
non tam _tautum_ quam _sine sordibus_. Et in convivio legi non omnia
debent, sed ea potissimum quae simul sunt _biophelae_, [10] et delectent
potius, ut id quoque videatur non superfuisse. Bellaria ea maxime sunt
_mellita_, quae _mellita_ non sunt, _pemmasin_ entra et _pepsei_ societas
infida." In this piece we see the fondness for punning, which even in his
eightieth year had not left him. The last pun is not at first obvious; the
meaning is that the nicest sweetmeats are those which are not too sweet,
for made dishes are hostile to digestion; or, as we may say, paraphrasing
his diction, "Delicacies are conducive to delicacy." It was from this
_satura_ the celebrated rule was taken that guests should be neither fewer
than the graces, nor more than the muses. The whole subject of the
Menippean satires is brilliantly treated in Mommsen's _History of Rome_,
and Riese's edition of the satires, to both which, if he desire further
information, we refer the reader. [11]
The genius of Varro, however, more and more inclined him to prose. The
next series of works that issued from his pen were probably those known as
_Logistorici_ (about 56-50 B.C.). The model for these was furnished by
Heraclides Ponticus, a friend and pupil of Plato, and after his death, of
Aristotle. He was a voluminous and encyclopaedic writer, but too indolent
to apply the vigorous method of his master. Hence his works, being
discursive and easily understood, were well fitted for the comprehension
of the Romans. Varro's histories were short, mostly taken from his own or
his friends' experience, and centred round some principle of ethics or
economics. _Catus de liberis educandis_, _Marius de Fortuna_, &c. are
titles which remind us of Cicero's _Laelius de Amicitia_ and _Cato Major
de Senectute_, of which it is extremely probable they were the suggesting
causes.
Varro in his _saturae_ is very severe upon philosophers. He had almost as
great a contempt for them as his archetype Cato. And yet Varro was deeply
read in the philosophy of Greece. He did not yield to Cicero in admiration
of her illustrious thinkers. It is probable that with his keen
appreciation of the Roman character he saw that it was unfitted for
speculative thought; that in most cases its cultivation would only bring
forth pedants or hypocrites. When asked by Cicero why he had not written a
great philosophical work, he replied that those who had a real interest in
the study would go direct to the fountain head, those who had not would be
none the better for reading a Latin compendium. Hence he preferred to turn
his labours into a more productive channel, and to instruct the people in
their own antiquities, which had never been adequately studied, and, now
that Stilo was dead, seemed likely to pass into oblivion. [12] His
researches occupied three main fields, that of law and religion, that of
civil history and biography, and that of philology.
Of these the first was the one for which he was most highly qualified, and
in which he gained his highest renown. His crowning work in this
department was the _Antiquities Divine and Human_, in 41 books. [13] This
was the greatest monument of Roman learning, the reference book for all
subsequent writers. It is quoted continually by Pliny, Gellius, and
Priscian; and, what is more interesting to us, by St Augustine in the
fifth and seventh books of his _Civitas Dei_, as the one authoritative
work on the subject of the national religion. [14] He thus describes the
plan of the work. It consisted of 41 books; 25 of human antiquities, 16 of
divine. In the human part, 6 books were given to each of the four
divisions; viz. of Agents, of Places, of Times, of Things. [15] To these
24 one prefatory chapter was prefixed of a general character, thus
completing the number. In the divine part a similar method was followed.
Three books were allotted to each of the five divisions of the subject,
viz. the Men who sacrifice, the Places, and Times of worship, [16] the
Rites performed, and finally the Divine Beings themselves. To these was
prefixed a book treating the subject comprehensively, and of a prefatory
nature. The five triads were thus subdivided: the first into a book on
_Pontifices_, one on Augurs, one on _Quindecimviri Sacrorum_; the second
into books on shrines, temples, and sacred spots, respectively; the third
into those on festivals and holidays, the games of the circus, and
theatrical spectacles; the fourth treats of consecrations, private rites,
and public sacrifices, while the fifth has one treatise on gods that
certainly exist, one on gods that are doubtful, and one on the chief and
select deities.
We have given the particulars of this division to show the almost pedantic
love of system that Varro indulged. Nearly all his books were parcelled
out on a similar methodical plan. He had no idea of following the natural
divisions of a subject, but always imposed on his subject artificial
categories drawn from his own prepossessions. [17] The remark has been
made that of all Romans Varro was the most unphilosophical. Certainly if a
true classification be the basis of a truly scientific treatment, Varro
can lay no claim to it. His erudition, though, profound, is cumbrous. He
never seems to move easily in it. His illustrations are far-fetched, often
inopportune. What, for instance, can be more out of place than to bring to
a close a discussion on farming by the sudden announcement of a hideous
murder? [18] His style is as uncouth as his arrangement is unnatural. It
abounds in constructions which cannot be justified by strict rules of
syntax, _e.g._ "_hi qui pueros in ludum mittunt, idem barbatos ... non
docebimus?_" [19] "When we send our children to school to learn to speak
correctly, shall we not also correct bearded men, when they make
mistakes?" Slipshod constructions like this occur throughout the treatise
on the Latin tongue, though, it is true, they are almost entirely absent
from that on husbandry, which is a much more finished work. Obscurity in
explaining what the author means, or in describing what he has seen, is so
frequent an accompaniment of vast erudition that it need excite little
surprise. And yet how different it is from the matchless clearness of
Cicero or Caesar! In the treatise on husbandry, Varro is at great pains to
describe a magnificent aviary in his villa at Casinum, but his auditors
must have been clear-headed indeed if they could follow his description.
[20] And in the _De Lingua Latina_, wishing to show how the elephant was
called _Luca bos_ from having been first seen in Lucania with the armies
of Pyrrhus, and from the ox being the largest quadruped with which the
Italians were then acquainted, he gives us the following involved note--
_In Virgilii commentario erat: Ab Lucanis Lucas; ab eo quod nostri, quom
maximam quadrupedem, quam ipsi haberent, vocarent bovem, et in Lucanis
Pyrrhi bello primum vidissent apud hostes elephantos, Lucanum bovem quod
putabant Lucam bovem appellassent_.
In fact Varro was no stylist. He was a master of facts, as Cicero of
words. _Studiosum rerum_, says Augustine, _tantum docet, quantum studiosum
verborum Cicero delectat_. Hence Cicero, with all his proneness to
exaggerate the excellences of his friends, never speaks of him as
eloquent. He calls him _omnium facile acutissimus, et sine ulla
dubitatione doctissimus_. [21] The qualities that shone out conspicuously
in his works were, besides learning, a genial though somewhat caustic
humour, and a thorough contempt for effeminacy of all kinds. The fop, the
epicure, the warbling poet who gargled his throat before murmuring his
recondite ditty, the purist, and above all the mock-philosopher with his
nostrum for purifying the world, these are all caricatured by Varro in his
pithy, good-humoured way; the spirit of the Menippean satires remained,
though the form was changed to one more befitting the grave old teacher of
wisdom. The fragments of his works as well as the notices of his friends
present him to us the very picture of a healthy-minded and healthy-bodied
man.
To return to the consideration of his treatise on Antiquities, from which
we have digressed. The great interest of the subject will be our excuse
for dwelling longer upon it. There is no Latin book the recovery of which
the present century would hail with so much pleasure as this. When
antiquarianism is leading to such fruitful results, and the study of
ancient religion is so earnestly pursued, the aid of Varro's research
would be invaluable. And it is the more disappointing to lose it, since we
have reason for believing that it was in existence during the lifetime of
Petrarch. He declares that he saw it when a boy, and afterwards, when he
knew its value, tried all means, but without success, to obtain it. This
story has been doubted, chiefly on the ground that direct quotations from
the work are not made after the sixth century. But this by itself is
scarcely a sufficient reason, since the Church gathered all the knowledge
of it she required from the writings of St Augustine. From him we learn
that Varro feared the entire collapse of the old faith; that he attributed
its decline in some measure to the outward representations of divine
objects; and, observing that Rome had existed 170 years without any image
in her temples, instanced Judea to prove "_eos qui primi simulacra deorum
populis posuerunt, eos civitatibus suis et metum dempsisse, et errorem
addidisse_." [22] Other fragments of deep interest are preserved by
Augustine. One, showing the conception of the state religion as a purely
human institution, explains why human antiquities are placed before
divine, "_Sicut prior est pictor quam tabula picta, prior faber quam
aedificium; ita priores sunt civitates, quam ea quae a civitatibus
instituta sunt._" Another describes the different classes of theology,
according to a division first made by the Pontifex Scaevola, [23] as
poetical, philosophical, and political, or as mythical, physical, and
civil. [24] Against the first of these Varro fulminated forth all the
shafts of his satire: _In eo multa sunt contra dignitatem et naturam
immortalium ficta ... quae non modo in hominem, sed etiam quae in
contemptissimum hominem cadere possunt_. About the second he did not say
much, except guardedly to imply that it was not fitted for a popular
ceremonial. The third, which it was his strong desire to keep alive, as it
was afterwards that of Virgil, seemed to him the chief glory of Rome. He
did not scruple to say (and Polybius had said it before him) that the
grandeur of the Republic was due to the piety of the Republic. It was
reserved for the philosopher of a later age [25] to asperse with bitter
ridicule ceremonies to which all before him had conformed while they
disbelieved, and had respected while seeing through their object.
Varro dedicated his work to Caesar, who was then Pontifex Maximus, and
well able to appreciate the chain of reasoning it contained. The acute
mind of Varro had doubtless seen in Caesar a disposition to rehabilitate
the fallen ceremonial, and foreseeing his supremacy in the state, had laid
before him this great manual for his guidance. Caesar evinced the deepest
respect for Varro, and must have carefully studied his views. At least it
can be no mere coincidence that Augustus, in carrying out his
predecessor's plans for the restoration of public worship, should have
followed so closely on the lines which we see from Augustine Varro struck
out. To consider Varro's labours as undirected to any practical object
would be to misinterpret them altogether. No man was less of the mere
_savant_ or the mere _littérateur_ than he.
Besides this larger work Varro seems to have written smaller ones, as
introductions or pendants to it. Among these were the _Aitia_, or
_rationale_ of Roman manners and customs, and a work _de gente populi
Romani_, the most noticeable feature of which was its chronological
calculation, which fixed the building of Rome to the date now generally
received, and called the Varronian Era (753 B.C.). It contained also
computations and theories with regard to the early history of many other
states with which Rome came in contact, _e.g._ Athens, Argos, etc., and is
referred to more than once by St Augustine. [26] The names of many other
treatises on this subject are preserved; and this is not surprising, when
we learn that no less than 620 books belonging to 74 different works can
be traced to his indefatigable pen, so that, as an ancient critic says,
"so much has he written that it seems impossible he could have read
anything, so much has he read that it seems incredible he could have
written anything."
In the domain of history and biography he was somewhat less active. He
wrote, however, memoirs of his campaigns, and a short biography of Pompey.
A work of his, first mentioned by Cicero, to which peculiar interest
attaches, is the _Imagines_ or _Hebdomades_, called by Cicero
"_Peplographia_ Varronis." [27] It was a series of portraits--700 in all--
of Greek and Roman celebrities, [28] with a short biography attached to
each, and a metrical epigram as well. This was intended to be, and soon
became, a popular work. An abridged edition was issued shortly after the
first, 39 B.C. no doubt to meet the increased demand. This work is
mentioned by Pliny as embodying a new and most acceptable process, [29]
whereby the impressions of the portraits were multiplied, and the reading
public could acquaint themselves with the physiognomy and features of
great men. [30] What this process was has been the subject of much doubt.
Some think it was merely an improved method of miniature drawing, others,
dwelling on the general acceptableness of the invention, strongly contend
that it was some method of multiplying the portraits like that of copper
or wood engraving, and this seems by far the most probable view; but what
the method was the notices are much too vague for us to determine.
The next works to be noticed are those on practical science. As far as we
can judge he seems to have imitated Cato in bringing out a kind of
encyclopaedia, adapted for general readers. Augustine speaks of him as
having exhaustively treated the whole circle of the liberal, or as he
prefers to call it, the secular arts. [31] Those to which most weight were
attached would seem to have been grammar, rhetoric, arithmetic, medicine,
and geometry. From one or two passages that are preserved, we should be
inclined to fancy that Varro attached a superstitious (almost a
Pythagorean) importance to numbers. [32] He himself was not an adherent of
any system, but as Mommsen quaintly expresses it, he led a blind dance
between them all, veering now to one now to another, as he wished to avoid
any unpleasant conclusion or to catch at some attractive idea. Not
strictly connected with the _Encyclopaedia_, but going to some extent over
the same ground though in a far more thorough and systematic way, was the
great treatise _De Lingua Latina_, in twenty-five books, of which the
first four were dedicated to Septimius, the last twenty-one (to the
orator's infinite delight) to Cicero. Few things gave Cicero greater
pleasure than this testimony of Varro's regard. With his insatiable
appetite for praise, he could not but observe with regret that Varro,
trusted by Pompey, courted by Caesar, and reverenced by all alike, had
never made any confidential advances to him. Probably the deeply-read
student and simple-natured man failed to appreciate the more brilliant, if
less profound, scholarship of the orator, and the vacillation and
complexity of his character. While Cicero loaded him with praises and
protestations of friendship, Varro appears to have maintained a somewhat
cool or distant attitude. At last, however, this reserve was broken
through. In 47 B.C. he seems to have promised Cicero to dedicate a work to
him, which by its magnitude and interest required careful labour. In the
letter prefixed to the posterior _Academica_, 45 B.C., Cicero evinces much
impatience at having been kept two years waiting for his promised boon,
and inscribes his own treatise with Varro's name as a polite reminder
which he hopes his friend will not think immodest. In the opening chapters
Cicero extols Varro's learning with that warmth of heart and total absence
of jealousy which form so pleasing a trait in his character. Their
diffuseness amusingly contrasts with Varro's brevity in his dedication.
When it appeared, there occurred not a word of compliment, nothing beyond
the bare announcement _In his ad te scribam_. [33] Truly Varro was no
"mutual admirationist."
C. O. Müller, who has edited this treatise with great care, is of opinion
that it was never completely finished. He argues partly from the words
_politius a me limantur_, put into Varro's mouth by Cicero, partly from
the civil troubles and the perils into which Varro's life was placed,
partly from the loose unpolished character of the work, that it represents
a first draught intended, but not ready for, publication. For example, the
same thing is treated more than once; _Jubar_ is twice illustrated by the
same quotation, [34] _Canis_ is twice derived from _canere_; [35] _merces_
is differently explained in two places; [36] _Lympha_ is derived both from
_lapsus aquae_, and from _Nympha_; [37] _valicinari_ from _vesanus_ and
_versibus viendis_. [38] Again marginal additions or corrections, which
have been the means of destroying the syntactical connection, seemed to
have been placed in the text by the author. [39] Other insertions of a
more important character though they illustrate the point, yet break the
thread of thought; and in one book, the seventh, the want of order is so
apparent that its finished character could hardly be maintained. These
facts lead him to conclude that the book was published without his
knowledge, and perhaps against his will, by those who pillaged his
library. It is obvious that this is a theory which can neither be proved
nor disproved. It is an ingenious excuse for Varro's negligence in not
putting his excellent materials together with more care. The plan of the
work is as follows:--
Book I.--On the origin of the Latin language.
Books II.-VII. First Part.--On the imposition of names.
Thus subdivided--
_a_ ii-iv. On etymology. ii. What can be said against it.
iii. What can be said for it.
iv. About its form and character.
_b_ v.-vii. Origin of words. v. Names of places and all that is in them.
vi. Names of time, things that happen in time, &c.
vii. Poetical words.
Books VIII.-XIII. Second Part.--On declension and inflection.
Again subdivided--
_a_ viii.-x. The general method (_disciplina_) of declension.
viii. Against a universal analogy obtaining.
ix. In favour of it.
x. On the theory of declension.
_b_ xi.-xiii. On the special declensions.
Books XIV.-XXV. Third Part.--On syntax (_Quemadmodum verba inter se
coniungantur_).
Of this elaborate treatise only books V.-X. remain, and those in a
mutilated and unsatisfactory condition, so that we are unable to form a
clear idea of the value of the whole. Moreover, much of what we have is
rendered useless, except for antiquarian purposes, by the extremely crude
notions of etymology displayed. _Caelum_ is from _cavus_, or from _chaos_;
_terra_ from _teri, quia teritur_; _Sol_ from _solus_; _lepus_ from
_levipes_, &c. The seventh book must always be a repertory of interesting
quotations, many of which are not found elsewhere; and the essay on
_Analogia_ in books IX. and X. is well worthy of study, as showing on what
sort of premises the ancients formed their grammatical reasonings. The
work on grammar was followed or preceded by another on philosophy on a
precisely similar plan. This was studied, like so many of his other works,
by Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine. Its store of facts was no doubt
remarkable, but as a popular exposition of philosophical ideas, it must
have been very inferior to the treatises of Cicero.
The last or nearly the last book he wrote was the treatise on agriculture,
_De Re Rustica_, which has fortunately come down to us entire; and with
the kindred works of Cato and Columella, forms one of the most deeply
interesting products of the Roman mind. It is in three books: the first
dedicated to his wife Fundania, the second to Turanius Niger, the third to
Pinnius. Varro was in his 81st year when he drew upon his memory and
experience for this congenial work, 36 B.C. The destruction of his library
had thrown him on his own resources to a great extent; nevertheless, the
amount of book-lore which he displays in this dialogue is enormous. The
design is mapped out, as in his other treatises, with stately precision.
He meets some friends at the temple of Tellus by appointment with the
sacristan, "_ab_ aeditimo, _ut dicere didicimus a patribus nostris; ut
corrigimur ab recentibus urbanis, ab_ aedituo." These friends' names,
Fundanius, Agrius, and Agrasius, suggest the nature of the conversation,
which turns mainly on the purchase and cultivation of land and stock. They
are soon joined by Licinius Stolo and Tremellius Scrofa, the last-
mentioned being the highest living authority on agricultural matters. The
conversation is carried on with zest, and somewhat more naturally than in
Cicero's dialogues. A warm eulogy is passed on the soil, climate, and
cultivation of Italy, the whole party agreeing that it exceeds in natural
blessings all other lands. The first book contains directions for raising
crops of all kinds as well as vegetables and flowers, and is brought to an
abrupt termination by the arrival of the priest's freedman who narrates
the murder of his master. The party promise to attend the funeral, and
with the sarcastic reflection _de casu humano magis querentes quam
admirantes id Romae factum_, the book ends. The next treats of stock (_de
re pecuaria_), and one or two new personages are introduced, as Mennas,
Murius, and Vaccius (the last, of course, taking on himself to speak of
kine), and ends with an account of the dairy and sheep-shearing. The third
is devoted to an account of the preserves (_de villicis pastionibus_)
which includes aviaries, whether for pleasure or profit, fish-tanks, deer-
forests, rabbit-warrens, and all such luxuries of a country house as are
independent of tillage or pasturage--and a most brilliant catalogue it is.
As Varro and his friends, most of whom are called by the names of birds
(Merula, Pavo, Pica, and Passer), discourse to one another of their
various country seats, and as they mention those of other senators, more
or less splendid than their own, we recognise the pride and grandeur of
those few Roman families who at this time parcelled out between them the
riches of the world. Varro, whose life had been peaceful and unambitious,
had realized enough to possess three princely villas, in one of which
there was a marble aviary, with a duck-pond, bosquet, rosary, and two
spacious colonnades attached, in which were kept, solely for the master's
pleasure, 3000 of the choicest songsters of the wood. That grosser taste
which fattened these beautiful beings for the table or the market was
foreign to him; as also was the affectation which had made Hortensius
sacrifice his career to the enjoyment of his pets. There is something
almost terrible in the thought that the costly luxuries of which these
haughty nobles talk with so much urbanity, were wrung from the wretched
provincials by every kind of extortion and excess; that bribes of untold
value passed from the hands of cringing monarchs into those of violent
proconsuls, to minister to the lust and greed, or at best to the wanton
luxury, of a small governing class. In Varro's pleasant dialogue we see
the bright side of the picture; in the speeches of Cicero the dark side.
Doubtless there is a charm about the lofty pride that brooks no superior
on earth, and almost without knowing it, treats other nations as mere
ministers to its comfort: but the nemesis was close at hand; those who
could not stoop to assist as seconds in the work of government must lie as
victims beneath the assassin's knife or the heel of the upstart freedman.
The style of this work is much more pleasing than that of the _Latin
Language_. It is brisk and pointed, and shows none of the signs of old
age. It abounds with proverbs, [40] patriotic reflections, and ancient
lore, [41] but is nevertheless disfigured with occasional faults,
especially the uncritical acceptance of marvels, such as the impregnation
of mares by the wind [42] ("_an incredible thing but nevertheless true_");
the production of bees from dead meat (both of which puerilities are
repeated unquestioningly by Virgil), the custom of wolves plunging swine
into cold water to cool their flesh which is so hot as to be otherwise
quite uneatable, and of shrew mice occasionally gnawing a nest for
themselves and rearing their young in the hide of a fat sow, &c. [43] He
also attempts one or two etymologies; the best is _via_ which he tells us
is for _veha_, and _villa_ for _vehula_; _capra_ from _capere_ is less
plausible. Altogether this must be placed at the head of the Roman
treatises on husbandry as being at once the work of a man of practical
experience, which Cato was, and Columella was not, and of elegant and
varied learning, to which Columella might, but Cato could not, pretend.
There is, indeed, rather too great a parade of erudition, so much so as
occasionally to encumber the work; but the general effect is very
pleasing, and more particularly the third book, which shows us the calm
and innocent life of one, who, during the turbulent and bloody climax of
political strife, sought in the great recollections of the past a solace
for evils which he was powerless to cure, and whose end he could not
foresee.
APPENDIX.
NOTE I.--_The Menippean Satires of Varro._
The reader will find all the information on this subject in Riese's
edition of the _Menippean Satires_, Leipsic, 1865. We append a few
fragments showing their style, language, and metrical treatment.
(1) From the _ammon metreis_.
"Quém secúntur eúm rutúndis vélitís levés pármis
Ante sígnaní quadrátis múltisígnibús técti."
We observe here the rare rhythm, analogous to the iambic scazon, of a
trochaic tetrameter with a long penultimate syllable.
(2) From the _Anthropopolis_.
"Non fit thesauris non auro pectu' solutum;
Non demunt animis curas et religiones
Persarum montes, non atria diviti' Crassi."
The style here reminds us strongly of Horace.
(3) From the _Bimarcus_.
"Túnc repénte caélitum áltum tónitribús templúm tonéscat,
Et patér divón trisú cum fúlmen igni férvido áctum
Mútat in tholúm macelli."
(4) From the _Dolium aut Seria_, in anapaestics.
"Mundus domus est maxima homulli
Quam quinque altitonae flammigerae
Zonae cingunt per quam limbus
Bis sex signis stellumicantibus
Aptus in obliquo aethere Lunae
Bigas acceptat."
The sentiment reminds us of Plato.
(5) From the _Est modus matulae_, on wine.
"Vino nihil iucundius quisquam bibit
Hoc aegritudinem ad medendam invenerunt,
Hoc hilaritatis dulce seminarium,
Hoc continet coagulum convivia."
(6) From the _Eumenides_, in galliambics, from which those of Catullus may
be a study.
"Tibi týpana non inánes sonitús Matri' Deúm
Tonimú', canimu' tibí nos tibi núnc semivití;
Teretém cornam volántem iactant tibí Gallí."
(7) From the _Marcipor_, a fine description.
"Repente noctis circiter meridie
Cum pictus aer fervidis late ignibus
Caeli chorean astricen ostenderet
Nubes aquali frigido velo leves
Caeli cavernas aureas subduxerant
Aquam vomentes inferam mortalibus
Ventique frigido se ab axe eruperant,
Phrenetici septentrionum filii
Secum ferentes regulas ramos syrus.
At nos caduci naufragi ut ciconiae,
Quarum bipinnis fulminis plumas vapor
Percussit, alte maesti in terram cecidimus."
NOTE II.--_The Logistorici_.
The _Logistorici_, which, as we have said, were imitated from Heraclides
Ponticus, are alluded to under the name _Hrakleideion_ by Cicero. He says
(Att. xv. 27, 2), _Excudam aliquid Hrakleideion, quod lateat in thesauris
tuis_ (xvi. 2, 5) _Hrakleideion, si Brundisium salvi, adoriemur._ In xvi.
3, 1, he alludes to the work as his _Cato Major de Senectute_. Varro had
promised him a _Hrakleideion_. _Varro ... a quo adhuc_ Hr. _illud non
abstuli_ (xvi. 11, 3). He received it (xvi. 12).
NOTE III.--_Some Fragments of Varro Atacinus._
This poet, who is by later writers often confounded with Varro Reatinus,
was much more finished in his style, and therefore more read by the
Augustan writers. Frequently when they speak of Varro it is to him that
they refer. We append some passages from his _Chorographia_.
I.
"Vidit et aetherio mundum torquerier axe
Et septem aeternis sonitum dare vocibus orbes,
Nitentes aliis alios quae maxima divis
Laetitia est. At tunc longe gratissima Phoebi
Dextera consimiles meditator reddere voces."
II.
"Ergo inter solis stationem ad sidera septem
Exporrecta iacet tellus: huic extima fluctu
Oceani, interior Neptuno cingitur ora."
III.
"At quinque aethertis zonis accingitur orbis
Ac vastant mas hiemes mediamque calores:
Sed terrae extremas inter mediamque coluntur
Quas solis valido numquam vis atterat igne'."
From the _Ephemeris_, two passages which Virgil has copied.
I.
"Tum liceat pelagi volucres tardaeqne paludis
Cernere inexpleto studio gestire lavandi
Et velut insolitum pennis infundere rorem.
Aut arguta lacus circumvolitavit hirando."
II.
"Et vos suspiciens caelum (mirabile visu)
Naribus aerium patulis decerpsit odorem,
Nec tenuis formica cavis non erebit ova."
An epigram attributed to him, but probably of somewhat later date, is as
follows:
"Marmoreo Licinus tumulo iacet, at Cato parvo;
Pompeius nullo. Ciedimus esse deos?"
NOTE IV.--_On the Jurists, Critics, and Grammarians of less note._
The study of law had received a great impulse from the labours of
Scaevola. But among his successors none can be named beside him, though
many attained to a respectable eminence. The business of public life had
now become so engrossing that statesmen had no leisure to study law
deeply, nor jurists to devote themselves to politics. Hence there was a
gradual divergence between the two careers, and universal principles began
to make themselves felt in jurisprudence. The chief name of this period is
_Sulpicius Rufus_ (born 105 B.C.), who is mentioned with great respect in
Cicero's _Brutus_ as a high-minded man and a cultivated student. His
contribution lay rather in methodical treatment than in amassing new
material. Speeches are also attributed to him (Quint. iv. 2, 106), though
sometimes there is an uncertainty whether the older orator is not meant.
Letters of his are preserved among those of Cicero, and show the extreme
purity of language attained by the highly educated (Ad Fam. iv. 5). Other
jurists are _P. Orbius_, a pupil of _Juventius_, of whom Cicero thought
highly; _Ateius_, probably the father of that Ateius Capito who obtained
great celebrity in the next period, and _Pacuvius Labeo_, whose fame was
also eclipsed by that of his son. Somewhat later we find _C. Trebatius_,
the friend of Cicero and recipient of some of his most interesting
letters. He was a brilliant but not profound lawyer, and devoted himself
more particularly to the pontifical law. His dexterous conduct through the
civil wars enabled him to preserve his influence under the reign of
Augustus. Horace professes to ask his advice (Sat. ii. 1, 4):
"Docte Trebati
Quid faciam, praescribe."
Trebatius replies: "Cease to write, or if you cannot do that, celebrate
the exploits of Caesar." This courtier-like counsel is characteristic of
the man, and helps to explain the high position he was enabled to take
under the empire. Two other jurists are worthy of mention, _A.
Cascellius_, a contemporary of Trebatius, and noted for his sarcastic wit;
and _Q. Aelius Tubero_, who wrote also on history and rhetoric, but
finally gave himself exclusively to legal studies.
Among grammatical critics, the most important is _P. Nigidius Figulus_
(98-46 B.C.). He was, like Varro, conservative in his views, and is
considered by Gellius to come next to him in erudition. They appear to
have been generally coupled together by later writers, but probably from
the similarity of their studies rather than from any equality of talent.
Nigidius was a mystic, and devoted much of his time to Pythagorean
speculations, and the celebration of various religious mysteries. His
_Commentarii_ treated of grammar, orthography, etymology, &c. In the
latter he appears to have copied Varro in deriving all Latin words from
native roots. Besides grammar, he wrote on sacrificial rites, on theology
(_de dis_), and natural science. One or two references are made to him in
the curious _Apology_ of Apuleius. In the investigation of the
supernatural he was followed by _Caecina_, who wrote on the Etruscan
ceremonial, and drew up a theory of portents and prodigies.
The younger generation produced few grammarians of merit. We hear of
_Ateius Praetextatus_, who was equally well known as a rhetorician. He was
born at Athens, set free for his attainments, and called himself
_Philologus_ (Suet. De Gram. 10). He seems to have had some influence with
the young nobles, with whom a teacher of grammar, who was also a fluent
and persuasive speaker, was always welcome. Another instance is found in
_Valerius Cato_, who lost his patrimony when quite a youth by the rapacity
of Sulla, and was compelled to teach in order to obtain a living. He
speedily became popular, and was considered an excellent trainer of poets.
He is called--
"Cato Grammaticus, Latina Siren,
Qui solus legit et facit poetas."
Having acquired a moderate fortune and bought a villa at Tusculum, he sank
through mismanagement again into poverty, from which he never emerged, but
died in a garret, destitute of the necessaries of life. His fate was the
subject of several epigrams, of which one by Bibaculus is preserved in
Suetonius (De Cr. ii).
The only other name worth notice is that of _Santra_, who is called by
Martial _Salebrosus_. He seems to have written chiefly on the history of
Roman literature, and, in particular, to have commented on the poems of
Naevius. Many obscurer writers are mentioned in Suetonius's treatise, to
which, with that on rhetoric by the same author, the reader is here
referred.
CHAPTER II.
ORATORY AND PHILOSOPHY--CICERO (106-43 B.C.).
Marcus Tullius Cicero, [1] the greatest name in Roman literature, was born
on his father's estate near Arpinum, 3d Jan. 106 B.C. Arpinum had received
the citizenship some time before, but his family though old and of
equestrian position had never held any office in Rome. Cicero was
therefore a _novus homo_, a _parvenu_, as we should say, and this made the
struggle for honours which occupied the greater part of his career, both
unusual and arduous. For this struggle, in which his extraordinary talent
seemed to predict success, his father determined to prepare the boy by an
education under his own eye in Rome. Marcus lived there for some years
with his brother Quintus, studying under the best masters (among whom was
the poet Archias), learning the principles of grammar and rhetoric, and
storing his mind with the great works of Greek literature. He now made the
acquaintance of the three celebrated men to whom he so often refers in his
writings, the Augur Mucius Scaevola, and the orators Crassus and Antonius,
with whom he often conversed, and asked them such questions as his boyish
modesty permitted. At this time too he made his first essays in verse, the
poem called _Pontius Glaucus_, and perhaps the _Phaenomena_ and
_Prognostics_ [2] of Aratus. On assuming the manly gown he at once
attached himself to Scaevola for the purpose of learning law, attending
him not only in his private consultations, but also to the courts when he
pleaded, and to the assembly when he harangued the people. His industry
was untiring. As he tells us himself, he renounced dissipation, pleasure,
exercise, even society; his whole spare time was spent in reading,
writing, and declaiming, besides daily attendance at the forum, where he
drank in with eager zeal the fervid eloquence of the great speakers.
Naturally keen to observe, he quickened his faculties by assiduous
attention; not a tone, not a gesture, not a turn of speech ever escaped
him; all were noted down in his ready memory to be turned to good account
when his own day should come. Meanwhile he prepared himself by deeper
studies for rising to oratorical eminence. He attended the subtle lectures
of Philo the Academic, and practised the minute dialectic of the Stoics
under Diodotus, and tested his command over both philosophy and
disputation by declaiming in Greek before the rhetorician Molo.
At the age of twenty-five he thought himself qualified to appear before
the world. The speech for Quintius, [3] delivered 81 B.C. is not his
first, but it is one of his earliest. In it he appears as the opponent of
Hortensius. At this time Sulla was all-powerful at Rome. He had crushed
with pitiless ferocity the remnants of the Marian party; he had reinstated
the senate in its privileges, abased the tribunate, checked the power of
the knights, and still swayed public opinion by a rule of terror. In his
twenty-seventh year, Cicero, by defending S. Roscius Amerinus, [4] exposed
himself to the dictator's wrath. Roscius, whose accuser was Sulla's
powerful freedman Chrysogonus, was, though innocent, in imminent danger of
conviction, but Cicero's staunch courage and irresistible eloquence
procured his acquittal. The effect of this speech was instantaneous; the
young aspirant was at once ranked among the great orators of the day.
In this speech we see Cicero espousing the popular side. The change which
afterwards took place in his political conduct may perhaps be explained by
his strong hatred on the one hand for personal domination, and by his
enthusiasm on the other for the great traditions of the past. Averse by
nature to all extremes, and ever disposed towards the weaker cause, he
became a vacillating statesman, because his genius was literary not
political, and because (being a scrupulously conscientious man, and
without the inheritance of a family political creed to guide him) he found
it hard to judge on which side right lay. The three crises of his life,
his defence of Roscius, his contest with Catiline, and his resistance to
Antony, were precisely the three occasions when no such doubts were
possible, and on all these the conduct of Cicero, as well as his genius,
shines with its brightest lustre. To the speech for Roscius, his first and
therefore his boldest effort, he always looked back with justifiable
pride, and drew from it perhaps in after life a spur to meet greater
dangers, greater because experience enabled him to foresee them. [5]
About this time Cicero's health began to fail from too constant study and
over severe exertions in pleading. The tremendous calls on a Roman
orator's physique must have prevented any but robust men from attaining
eminence. The place where he spoke, girt as it was with the proudest
monuments of imperial dominion, the assembled multitudes, the magnitude of
the political issues on which in reality nearly every criminal trial
turned, all these roused the spirit of the speaker to its utmost tension,
and awoke a corresponding vehemence of action and voice.
Cicero therefore retired to Athens, where he spent six months studying
philosophy with Antiochus the Academic, and with Zeno and Phaedrus who
were both Epicureans. His brother Quintus and his friend Atticus were
fellow-students with him. He next travelled in Asia Minor, seeking the
help and advice of all the celebrated rhetoricians he met, as Menippus of
Stratonice, Dionysius of Magnesia, Aeschylus of Cnidos, Xenocles of
Adramyttium. At Rhodes he again placed himself under Molo, whose wise
counsel checked the Asiatic exuberance which to his latest years Cicero
could never quite discard; and after an absence of over two years he
returned home thoroughly restored in health, and steadily determined to
win his place as the greatest orator of Rome (76 B.C.). Meanwhile Sulla
had died, and Cicero no longer incurred danger by expressing his views. He
soon after defended the great comedian Roscius [6] on a charge of fraud in
a civil speech still extant, and apparently towards the end of the same
year was married to Terentia, a lady of high birth, with whom he lived for
upwards of thirty years.
In 75 B.C. Cicero was elected quaestor, and obtained the province of
Sicily under the Praetor Sextus Peducaeus. While there he conciliated good
will by his integrity and kindness, and on his departure was loaded with
honours by the grateful provincials. But he saw the necessity of remaining
in Rome for the future, if he wished to become known; consequently he took
a house near the forum, and applied himself unremittingly to the calls of
his profession. He was now placed on the list of senators, and in the year
70 appeared as a candidate for the aedileship. The only oration we know of
during the intervening years is that for Tullius [7] (71 B.C.); but many
cases of importance must have been pleaded by him, since in the
preliminary speech by which he secured the conduct of the case against
Verres, [8] he triumphantly brings himself forward as the only man whose
tried capacity and unfailing success makes him a match for Hortensius, who
is retained on the other side. This year is memorable for the impeachment
of Verres, the only instance almost where Cicero acted as public
prosecutor, his kindly nature being apter to defend than to accuse; but on
this occasion he burned with righteous indignation, and spared no labour
or expense to ransack Sicily for evidence of the infamous praetor's guilt.
Cicero was tied to the Sicilians, whom he called his clients, by acts of
mutual kindness, and he now stood forth to avenge them with a good will.
The friends of Verres tried to procure a _Praevaricatio_, or sham
accusation, conducted by a friend of the defendant, but Cicero stopped
this by his brilliant and withering invective on Caecilius, the unlucky
candidate for this dishonourable office. The judges, who were all
senators, could not but award the prosecution to Cicero, who, determined
to obtain a conviction, conducted it with the utmost despatch. Waiving his
right to speak, and bringing on the witnesses contrary to custom at the
outset of the trial, he produced evidence so crushing that Verres
absconded, and the splendid orations which remain [9] had no occasion to
be, and never were, delivered. It was Cicero's justifiable boast that he
obtained all the offices of state in the first year in which he could by
law hold them. In 69 B.C. he was elected at the head of the poll as Curule
Aedile, a post of no special dignity, something between that of a mayor
and a commissioner of works, but admitting a liberal expenditure on the
public shows, and so useful towards acquiring the popularity necessary for
one who aspired to the consulship. To this year are to be referred the
extant speeches for Fonteius [10] and Caecina, [11] and perhaps the lost
ones for Matridius [12] and Oppius. [13] Cicero contrived without any
great expenditure to make his aedileship a success. The people were well
disposed to him, and regarded him as their most brilliant representative.
The next year (68 B.C.) is important for the historian as that in which
begins Cicero's Correspondence--a mine of information more trustworthy
than anything else in the whole range of antiquity, and of exquisite
Latinity, and in style unsurpassed and unsurpassable. The wealth that had
flowed in from various sources, such as bequests, presents from foreign
potentates or grateful clients at home, loans probably from the same
source, to which we must add his wife's considerable dowry, he proceeded
to expend in erecting a _villa_ at Tusculum. Such villas were the fairest
ornaments of Italy, "_ocelli Italiae_," as Cicero calls them, and their
splendour may be inferred from the descriptions of Varro and Pliny.
Cicero's, however, though it contained choice works of art and many rare
books, could not challenge comparison with those of great nobles such as
Catulus, Lucullus, or Crassus, but it was tastefully laid out so as to
resemble in miniature the Academy of Athens, where several of his happiest
hours had been spent, and to which in thought he often returned. Later in
life he purchased other country-seats at Antium, Asturia, Sinuessa,
Arpinum, Formiae, Cumae, Puteoli, and Pompeii; but the Tusculan was always
his favourite.
In the year 67 Cicero stood for the praetorship, the election to which was
twice put off, owing to the disturbances connected with Gabinius' motion
for giving the command of the Mediterranean to Pompey, and that of Otho
for assigning separate seats in the theatre to the knights. But the third
election ratified the results of the two previous ones, and brought in
Cicero with a large majority as _Praetor Urbanus_ over the heads of seven,
some of them very distinguished, competitors. He entered on his office 66
B.C. and signalised himself by his high conduct as a judge; but this did
not, however, prevent him from exercising his profession as an advocate,
for in this year he defended Fundanius [14] in a speech now lost, and
Cluentius [15] (who was accused of poisoning) in an extremely long and
complicated argument, one of the most difficult, but from the light it
throws on the depraved morals of the time one of the most important of all
his speeches. Another oration belonging to this year, and the first
political harangue which Cicero delivered, was that in favour of the
Manilian law, [16] which conferred on Pompey the conduct of the war
against Mithridates. The bill was highly popular; Caesar openly favoured
it, and Cicero had no difficulty in carrying the entire assembly with him.
It is a singularly happy effort of his eloquence, and contains a noble
panegyric on Pompey, the more admirable because there was no personal
motive behind it. At the expiration of his praetorian year he had the
option of a province, which was a means of acquiring wealth eagerly
coveted by the ambitious; but Cicero felt the necessity of remaining at
Rome too strongly to be tempted by such a bribe. "Out of sight, out of
mind," was nowhere so true as at Rome. If he remained away a year, who
could tell whether his chance for the Consulship might not be
irretrievably compromised?
In the following year (65 B.C.) he announced himself as a candidate for
this, the great object of his ambition, and received from his brother some
most valuable suggestions in the essay or letter known as _De Petitione
Consulatus_. This _manual_ (for so it might be called) of _electioneering
tactics_, gives a curious insight into the customs of the time, and in
union with many shrewd and pertinent remarks, contains independent
testimony to the evil characters of Antony and Catiline. But Cicero relied
more on his eloquence than on the arts of canvassing. It was at this
juncture that he defended the ex-tribune Cornelius, [17] who had been
accused of _maiestas_, with such surpassing skill as to draw forth from
Quintilian a special tribute of praise. This speech is unfortunately lost.
His speech _in the white gown_, [18] of which a few fragments are
preserved by Asconius, was delivered the following year, only a few days
before the election, to support the senatorial measure for checking
corrupt canvassing. When the _comitia_ were held, Cicero was elected by a
unanimous vote, a fact which reflects credit upon those who gave it. For
the candidate to whom they did honour had no claims of birth, or wealth,
or military glory; he had never flattered them, never bribed them; his
sole title to their favour was his splendid genius, his unsullied
character, and his defence of their rights whenever right was on their
side. The only trial at which Cicero pleaded during this year was that of
Q. Gellius, [19] in which he was successful.
The beginning of his consulship (63 B.C.) was signalised by three great
oratorical displays, viz. the speeches against the agrarian law of Rullus
[20] and the extempore speech delivered on behalf of Roscius Otho. The
populace on seeing Otho enter the theatre, rose in a body and greeted him
with hisses: a tumult ensued; Cicero was sent for; he summoned the people
into an adjoining temple, and rebuked them with such sparkling wit as to
restore completely their good humour. It is to this triumph of eloquence
that Virgil is thought to refer in the magnificent simile (_Aen._ i. 148):
"Ac veluti magno in populo cum saepe coorta est
Seditio, saevitque animis ignobile volgus;
Iamque faces et saxa volant, furor arma ministrat;
Tum pietate gravem ac meritis si forte virum quem
Aspexere silent arrectisque auribus adstant;
Ille regit dictis animos et pectora mulcet."
The next speech, which still remains to us, is a defence of the senator
Rabirius; [21] that on behalf of Calpurnius Piso is lost. [22] But the
efforts which make this year forever memorable are the four orations
against Catiline. [23] These were almost extemporaneous, and in their
trenchant vigour and terrible mastery of invective are unsurpassed except
by the second Philippic. In the very heat of the crisis, however, Cicero
found time to defend his friend Muraena [2] in a brilliant and jocose
speech, which shows the marvellous versatility of the man. That warm
Italian nature, open to every gust of feeling, over which impressions came
and went like summer clouds, could turn at a moment's notice from the
hand-to-hand grapple of a deadly duel to the lightest and most delicate
rapier practice of the fencing school.
As soon as Cicero retired from office (62 B.C.) he found enemies ready to
accuse him. Metellus the Tribune declared that he had violated the
Constitution. Cicero replied to him in a spirited speech, which he alludes
to under the name _Oratio Metellina_, but he felt himself on insecure
ground. Catiline was indeed crushed, but the ramifications of the
conspiracy extended far and wide. Autronius and Sulla were implicated in
it; the former Cicero refused to aid, the latter he defended in a speech
which is lost to us. [25] The only other speech of this year is that on
behalf of the poet Archias, [26] who had been accused of usurping the
rights of a Roman citizen. In the following year (61 B.C.) occurred the
scandal about Clodius. This profligate demagogue would have been acquitted
on an _alibi_, had it not been for Cicero's damaging evidence; he
nevertheless contrived to procure a final acquittal by the most abominable
means, but determined to wreak his vengeance by working Cicero's ruin. To
this resolution the personal taunts of the great orator no doubt
contributed. We have an account from Cicero's pen of the scenes that took
place in the senate during the trial--the invectives poured forth by
Clodius and the no less fiery retorts of his opponent. We must not imagine
our orator's talent as always finding vent in the lofty strain which we
are accustomed to associate with him. On the contrary, his attacks at
times were pitched in another key, and he would frequently exchange
sarcastic jests in a way that we should regard as incompatible with
decency, and almost with self-respect. On one occasion, for instance, he
had a skirmish of wit, which was vociferously applauded by an admiring
senate: "You have bought a house," says Clodius. (We quote from Forsyth.)
"One would think," rejoins Cicero, "that you said I had bought a jury."
"They did not believe you on your oath!" exclaims Clodius. "Yes," retorted
Cicero, "twenty-five of the jury did believe _me_, but thirty-one did not
believe _you_, for they took care to get their money beforehand!" These
and similar pleasantries, however they may have tickled the ears of the
senate, awoke in Clodius an implacable hatred, which could only be
satisfied with Cicero's fall; and the better to strike at him he made an
attempt (unsuccessful at first, but carried out somewhat later) to be made
a plebeian and elected tribune of the people (60 B.C.).
Meanwhile Cicero had returned to his profession, and defended Scipio
Nasica; [27] he had also composed a history of his consulship in Greek, on
which (to use his own expression) he had emptied all the scent-boxes of
Isocrates, and touched it lightly with the brush of Aristotle; moreover,
he collected into one volume the speeches he had delivered as consul under
the title of _Consular Orations_. [28] At this time the coalition known as
the First Triumvirate was formed, and Cicero, disgusted at its
unscrupulous conduct, left Rome for his Tusculan villa, where he meditated
writing a work on universal geography. Soon, however, impatient of
retirement, he returned to Rome, defended A. Themius [29] twice, and both
times successfully, and afterwards, aided by Hortensius (with whose party
he had now allied himself), L. Valerius Flaccus (59 B.C.). [30]
But Clodius's vengeance was by this time imminent, and Pompey's assurances
did not quiet Cicero's mind. He retired for some months to his Antian
villa, and announced his intention of publishing a collection of anecdotes
of contemporary statesmen, in the style of Theopompus, which would be, if
we possessed it, an extremely valuable work. On his return to Rome (58
B.C.) he found the feeling strongly against him, and a bill of Clodius's
was passed, interdicting him from fire and water, confiscating his
property, and outlawing his person. The pusillanimity he shows in his
exile exceeds even the measure of what we could have believed. It must be
remembered that the love of country was a passion with the ancients, to a
degree now difficult to realise; and exile from it, even for a time, was
felt to be an intolerable evil. But Cicero's exile did not last long; in
August of the following year (57 B.C.) he was recalled with no dissentient
voice but that of Clodius, and at once hastened to Rome, where he
addressed the senate and people in terms of extravagant compliment. These
are the line speeches "on his return," [31] in the first of which he
thanks the senate, and in the second the people; in the third he addresses
the pontiffs, trying to persuade them that he has a right to reclaim the
site of his house, [32] in the fourth [33] which was delivered early the
next year, he rings the changes on the same subject.
The next year (56 B.C.) is signalised by several important speeches.
Whatever we may think of his political conduct during this trying period,
his professional activity was most remarkable. He defended L. Bestia [34]
(who was accused of electoral corruption when candidate for the
praetorship) but unsuccessfully; and also P. Sextius, [35] on a charge of
bribery and illegal violence, in which he was supported by Hortensius.
Soon after we find him in the country in correspondence with Lucceius, on
the subject of the history of his consulship; but he soon returned to Rome
and before the year ended delivered his fine speech on the consular
provinces, [36] in which he opposed the curtailment of Caesar's command in
Gaul; and also that on behalf of Coelius, [37] a lively and elegant
oration which has been quoted to prove that Cicero was indifferent to
purity of morals, because he palliates as an advocate and a friend the
youthful indiscretions of his client.
In 55 B.C. he pleaded the cause of Caninius Gallus, [38] in a successful
speech now lost, and attacked the ex-consul Piso [39] (who had long roused
his resentment) in terms of the most unmeasured and unworthy invective.
Towards the close of the year he completed his great treatise, _De
Oratore_, the most finished and faultless of all his compositions; and so
active was his mind at this epoch, that he offered to write a treatise on
Britain, if Quintus, who had been there with Caesar, would furnish him
with the materials. His own poems, _de Consulatu_ and _de Temporibus suis_
had been completed before this, and, as we learn from the letters, were
highly approved by Caesar. Next year (54 B.C.) he defended Plancius [40]
and Scaurus, [41] the former of which orations is still extant; and later
on, Rabirius Postumus, [42] who was accused, probably with justice, of
extortion. This year had witnessed another change in Cicero's policy; he
had transferred his allegiance from Pompey to Caesar. In 52 B.C. occurred
the celebrated trial of Milo for the murder of Clodius, in which Cicero,
who appeared for the defendant, was hampered by the presence of Pompey's
armed retainers, and made but a poor speech; the magnificent and
exhaustive oratorical display that we possess [43] having been written
after Milo's condemnation and sent to him in his exile at Marseilles,
where he received it with sarcastic praise. At the close of this year
Cicero was appointed to the government of the province of Cilicia, where
he conducted himself with an integrity and moderation little known to
Roman pro-consuls, and returned in 50 B.C. scarcely richer than he had set
out.
During the following years Cicero played a subordinate part. In the great
convulsions that were shaking the state men of a different sort were
required; men who possessed the first requisite for the statesman, the one
thing that Cicero lacked, firmness. Had Cicero been as firm as he was
clear-sighted, he might have headed the statesmanship of Rome. But while
he saw the drift of affairs he had not courage to act upon his insight; he
allowed himself to be made the tool, now of Pompey, now of Caesar, till
both were tired of him. "I wish," said Pompey, when Cicero joined him in
Epirus, "that Cicero would go over to the other side; perhaps he would
then be afraid of us." The only speeches we possess of this period were
delivered subsequently to the victorious entry of Caesar, and exhibit a
prudent but most unworthy adulation. That for Marcellus [44] (46 B.C.) was
uttered in the senate, and from its gross flattery of the dictator was
long supposed to be spurious; the others on behalf of Ligarius [45] and
King Deiotarus [46] are in a scarcely more elevated strain. Cicero was
neither satisfied with himself nor with the world; he remained for the
most time in retirement, and devoted his energies to other literary
labours. But his absence had proved his value. No sooner is Caesar dead
than he appears once more at the head of the state, and surpasses all his
former efforts in the final contest waged with the brutal and unscrupulous
Antony. On the history of this eventful period we shall not touch, but
merely notice the fourteen glorious orations called _Philippicae_ [47]
(after those of Demosthenes), with which as by a bright halo he encircled
the closing period of his life.
The first was delivered in the senate (2d September, 44 B.C.) and in it
Cicero, who had been persuaded by Brutus, most fortunately for his glory,
to return to Rome, excuses his long absence from affairs, and complains
with great boldness of Antony's threatening attitude. This roused the
anger of his opponent, who delivered a fierce invective upon Cicero, to
which the latter replied by that tremendous outburst of mingled
imprecation, abuse, self-justification, and exalted patriotism, which is
known as the Second Philippic. This was not published until Antony had
left Rome; but it is composed as if it had been delivered immediately
after the speech which provoked it. Never in all the history of eloquence
has a traitor been so terribly denounced, an enemy so mercilessly
scourged. It has always been considered by critics as Cicero's crowning
masterpiece. The other Philippics, some of which were uttered in the
senate, while others were extempore harangues before the people, were
delivered in quick succession between December 44 B.C. and April 43 B.C.
They cost the orator his life. When Antony and Octavius entered Rome
together, and each sacrificed his friends to the other's bloodthirsty
vengeance, Cicero was surrendered by Octavius to Antony's minions. He was
apprised of the danger, and for a while thought of escaping, but nobler
thoughts prevailed, and he determined to meet his fate, and seal by death
a life devoted to his country. The end is well-known; on the 7th of
December he was murdered by Popillius Laenas, a man whom he had often
befriended, and his head and hands sent to Antony, who nailed them to the
rostra, in mockery of the immortal eloquence of which that spot had so
often been the scene, and which was now for ever hushed, leaving to
posterity the bitter reflection that Freedom had perished, and with her
Eloquence, her legitimate and noblest child.
The works of this many-sided genius may be classed under three chief
divisions, on each of which we shall offer a few critical remarks; his
Orations, his Philosophical and Rhetorical Treatises, and his
Correspondence.
Cicero was above all things an Orator. To be the greatest orator of Rome,
the equal of Demosthenes, was his supreme desire, and to it all other
studies were made subservient. Poetry, history, law, philosophy, were
regarded by him only as so many qualifications without which an orator
could not be perfect. He could not conceive a great orator except as a
great man, nor a good orator except as a good man. The integrity of his
public conduct, the purity of his private life, wonderful if contrasted
with the standard of those around him, arose in no small degree from the
proud consciousness that he who was at the head of Roman eloquence must
lead in all respects a higher life than other men. The cherished theory of
Quintilian, that a perfect orator would be the best man that earth could
produce, is really but a restatement of Cicero's firm belief. His highest
faculties, his entire nature, conspired to develop the powers of eloquence
that glowed within him; and though to us his philosophical treatises or
his letters may be more refreshing or full of richer interest than his
speeches, yet it is by these that his great fame has been mainly acquired,
and it is these which beyond comparison best display his genius.
Of the eighty or thereabouts which he is known to have composed, fifty-
nine are in whole or in part preserved. They enable us to form a complete
estimate of his excellences and defects, for they belong to almost every
department of eloquence. Some, as we have seen, are deliberative, others
judicial, others descriptive, others personal; and while in the two latter
classes his talents are nobly conspicuous, the first is as ill-adapted as
the second is pre-eminently suitable to his special gifts. As pleader for
an accused person, Cicero cannot, we may say _could_ not, be surpassed. It
was this exercise of his talent that gave him the deepest pleasure, and
sometimes, as he says with noble pride, seemed to lift him almost above
the privileges of humanity; for to help the weak, to save the accused from
death, is a work worthy of the gods. In invective, notwithstanding his
splendid anger against Catiline, Antony, and Piso, he does not appear at
his happiest; and the reason is not far to seek. It has often been laid to
his reproach that he corresponded and even held friendly intercourse with
men whom he holds up at another time to the execration of mankind.
Catiline, Antony, Clodius, not to mention other less notorious criminals,
had all had friendly relations with him. And even at the very time of his
most indignant speeches, we know from his confidential correspondence that
he often meditated advances towards the men concerned, which showed at
least an indulgent attitude. The truth is, that his character was all
sympathy, he had so many points of contact with every human being, he was
so full of human feeling, that he could in a moment put himself into each
man's position and draw out whatever plea or excuse his conduct admitted.
It was not his nature to feel anger long; it evaporates almost in the
speaking; he soon returns to the kind and charitable construction which,
except for reasons of argument, he was always the foremost to assume. No
man who lived was ever more forgiving. And it is this, and not moral
blindness or indifference, which explains the glaring inconsistencies of
his relations to others. It will follow from this that he was pre-
eminently fitted for the oratory of panegyric. And beyond doubt he has
succeeded in this difficult department better than any other orator,
ancient or modern. Whether he praises his country, its religion, its laws,
its citizens, its senate, or its individual magistrates, he does it with
enthusiasm, a splendour, a geniality, and an inconceivable richness of
felicitous expression which make us love the man as much as we admire his
genius. [48]
And here we do not find that apparent want of conviction that so painfully
jars on the impression of reality which is the first testimony to an
orator's worth. When he praises, he praises with all his heart. When he
raises the strain of moral indignation we can almost always beneath the
orator's enthusiasm detect the rhetorician's art. We shall have occasion
to notice in a future page the distressing loss of power which at a later
period this affectation of moral sentiment involved. In Cicero it does not
intrude upon the surface, it is only remotely present in the background,
and to the Romans themselves no doubt appeared an excellence rather than a
defect. Nevertheless, if we compare Cicero with Demosthenes in this
respect, we shall at once acknowledge the decisive superiority of the
latter, not only in his never pretending to take a lofty tone when he is
simply abusing an enemy, but in his immeasurably deeper earnestness when a
question of patriotism or moral right calls out his highest powers. Cicero
has always an array of common-places ready for any subject; every case
which he argues can be shown to involve such issues as the belief in a
divine providence, the loyalty to patriotic tradition, the maintenance of
the constitution, or the sanctity of family life; and on these well-worn
themes he dilates with a magnificent prodigality of pathetic ornament
which, while it lends splendour to his style, contrasts most unfavourably
with the curt, business-like, and strictly relevant arguments of
Demosthenes.
For deliberative eloquence it has been already said that Cicero was not
well fitted, since on great questions of state it is not so much the
orator's fire or even his arguments that move as the authority which
attaches to his person. And in this lofty source of influence Cicero was
deficient. It was not by his fiery invective, or his impressive pictures
of the peril of the state, that the senate was persuaded to condemn the
Catilinarian conspirators to death without a trial; it was the stern
authoritative accents of Cato that settled their wavering resolution.
Cicero was always applauded; men like Crassus, Pompey, or Caesar, were
followed.
Even in his own special department of judicial eloquence Cicero's mind was
not able to cope with the great principles of law. Such fundamental
questions as "Whether law may be set aside for the purpose of saving the
state?" "How far an illegal action which has had good results is
justifiable?" questions which concern the statesman and philosopher as
much as the jurist, he meets with a superficial and merely popular
treatment. Without any firm basis of opinion, either philosophical like
Cato's, personal like Caesar's, or traditional like that of the senate, he
was compelled to judge questions by the results which he could foresee at
the moment, and by the floating popular standard to which, as an advocate,
he had naturally turned.
But while denying to Cicero the highest legal attributes, we must not
forget that the jury before whom he pleaded demanded eloquence rather than
profound knowledge. The orations to which they were accustomed were laid
out according to a fixed rhetorical plan, the plan proposed in the
treatise to Herennius and in Cicero's own youthful work, the _De
Inventione_. There is the introduction, containing the preliminary
statement of the case, and the ethical proof; the body of the speech, the
argument, and the peroration addressing itself to the passions of the
judge. No better instance is found of this systematic treatment than the
speech for Milo, [49] declared by native critics to be faultless, and of
which, for the sake of illustration, we give a succinct analysis. It must
be remembered that he has a bad case. He commences with a few introductory
remarks intended to recommend himself and conciliate his judges, dilating
on the special causes which make his address less confident than usual,
and claiming their indulgence for it. He then answers certain _a priori_
objections likely to be offered, as that no homicide deserves to live,
which is refuted by the legal permission to kill in self-defence; that
Milo's act had already been condemned by the senate, which is refuted by
the fact that a majority of senators praised it; that Pompey had decided
the question of law, which is refuted by his permitting a trial at all,
which he would not have done unless a legal defence could be entertained.
The objections answered, and a special compliment having been judiciously
paid to the presiding judge, he proceeds to the _Expositio_, or statement
of facts. In this particular case they were by no means advantageous;
consequently, Cicero shows his art by cloaking them in an involved
narration which, while apparently plausible, is in reality based on a
suppression of truth. Having rapidly disposed of these, he proceeds to
sketch the line of defence with its several successive arguments. He
declares himself about to prove that so far from being the aggressor, Milo
did but defend himself against a plot laid by Clodius. As this was quite a
new light to the jury, their minds must be prepared for it by persuasive
grounds of probability. He first shows that Clodius had strong reasons for
wishing to be rid of Milo, Milo on the contrary had still stronger ones
for not wishing to be rid of Clodius; he next shows that Clodius's life
and character had been such as to make assassination a natural act for him
to commit, while Milo on the contrary had always refused to commit
violence, though he had many times had the power to do so; next, that time
and place and circumstances favoured Clodius, but were altogether against
Milo, some plausible objections notwithstanding, which he states with
consummate art, and then proceeds to demolish; next, that the indifference
of the accused to the crimes laid to his charge is surely incompatible
with guilt; and lastly, that even if his innocence could not be proved, as
it most certainly can, still he might take credit to himself for having
done the state a service by destroying one of its worst enemies. And then,
in the peroration that follows, he rouses the passions of the judges by a
glowing picture of Clodius's guilt, balanced by an equally glowing one of
Milo's virtues; he shows that Providence itself had intervened to bring
the sinful career of Clodius to an end, and sanctified Milo by making him
its instrument, and he concludes with a brilliant avowal of love and
admiration for his client, for whose loss, if he is to be condemned,
nothing can ever console him. But the judges will not condemn him; they
will follow in the path pointed out by heaven, and restore a faithful
citizen to that country which longs for his service.--Had Cicero but had
the courage to deliver this speech, there can be scarcely any doubt what
the result would have been. Neither senate, nor judges, nor people, ever
could resist, or ever tried to resist, the impassioned eloquence of their
great orator.
In the above speech the argumentative and ethical portions are highly
elaborated, but the descriptive and personal are, comparatively speaking,
absent. Yet in nothing is Cicero more conspicuous than in his clear and
lifelike descriptions. His portraits are photographic. Whether he
describes the money-loving Chaerea with his shaven eye-brows and head
reeking with cunning and malice; [50] or the insolent Verres, lolling on a
litter with eight bearers, like an Asiatic despot, stretched on a bed of
rose-leaves; [51] or Vatinius, darting forward to speak, his eyes starting
from his head, his neck swollen, and his muscles rigid; [52] or the
Gaulish and Greek witnesses, of whom the former swagger erect across the
forum, [53] the latter chatter and gesticulate without ever looking up;
[54] we see in each case the master's powerful hand. Other descriptions
are longer and more ambitious; the confusion of the Catilinarian
conspirators after detection; [55] the character of Catiline; [56] the
debauchery of Antony in Varro's villa; [57] the scourging and crucifixion
of Gavius; [58] the grim old Censor Appius frowning on Clodia his
degenerate descendent; [59] the tissue of monstrous crime which fills page
after page of the _Cluentius_. [60] These are pictures for all time; they
combine the poet's eye with the stern spirit of the moralist. His power of
description is equalled by the readiness of his wit. Raillery, banter,
sarcasm, jest, irony light and grave, the whole artillery of wit, is
always at his command; and though to our taste many of his jokes are
coarse, others dull, and others unfair or in bad taste, yet the Romans
were never tired of extolling them. These are varied with digressions of a
graver cast: philosophical sentiments, patriotic allusions, gentle
moralisings, and rare gems of ancient legend, succeed each other in the
kaleidoscope of his shifting fancy, whose combinations may appear
irregular, but are generally bound together by chains of the most delicate
art.
His chief faults are exaggeration, vanity, and an inordinate love of
words. The former is at once a conscious rhetorical artifice, and an
unconscious effect of his vehement and excitable temperament. It probably
did not deceive his hearers any more than it deceives us. His vanity is
more deplorable; and the only palliation it admits is the fact that it is
a defect which rarely goes with a bad heart. Had Cicero been less vain, he
might have been more ambitious; as it was, his ridiculous self-conceit
injured no one but himself. His wordiness is of all his faults the most
seductive and the most conspicuous, and procured for him even in his
lifetime the epithet of _Asiatic_. He himself was sensible that his
periods were overloaded. As has been well said, he leaves nothing to the
imagination. [61] Later critics strongly censured him, and both Tacitus
and Quintilian think it necessary to assert his pre-eminence. His wealth
of illustration chokes the idea, as creepers choke the forest tree; both
are beautiful and bright with flowers, but both injure what they adorn.
Nevertheless, if we are to judge his oratory by its effect on those for
whom it was intended, and to whom it was addressed; as the vehement,
gorgeous, impassioned utterance of an Italian speaking to Italians his
countrymen, whom he knew, whom he charmed, whom he mastered; we shall not
be able to refuse him a place as equal to the greatest of those whose
eloquence has swayed the destinies of the world.
We now turn to consider Cicero as a Philosopher, in which character he was
allowed to be the greatest teacher that Rome ever had, and has descended
through the Middle Ages to our own time with his authority, indeed,
shaken, but his popularity scarcely diminished. We must first observe that
philosophy formed no part of his inner and real life. It was only when
inactivity in public affairs was forced upon him that he devoted himself
to its pursuit. During the agitation of the first triumvirate, he composed
the _De Republica_ and _De Legibus_, and during Caesar's dictatorship and
the consulship of Antony, he matured the great works of his old age. But
the moment he was able to return with honour to his post, he threw aside
philosophy, and devoted himself to politics, thus clearly proving that he
regarded it as a solace for leisure or a refuge from misfortune, rather
than as the serious business of life. The system that would alone be
suitable to such a character would be a sober scepticism, for scepticism
in thought corresponds exactly to vacillation in conduct. But though his
mind inclined to scepticism, he had aspirations far higher than his
intellect or his conduct could attain; in his noblest moments he half
rises to the grand Stoic ideal of a self-sufficient and all-wise virtue.
But he cannot maintain himself at that height, and in general he takes the
view of the Academy that all truth is but a question of more or less
probability.
To understand the philosophy of Cicero, it is necessary to remember both
his own mental training, and the condition of those for whom he wrote. He
himself regarded philosophy as food for eloquence, as one of the chief
ingredients of a perfect orator. And his own mind, which by nature and
practice had been cast in the oratorical mould, naturally leaned to that
system which best admitted of presenting truth under the form of two
competing rhetorical demonstrations. His readers, too, would be most
attracted by this form of truth. He did not write for the original
thinkers, the Catos, the Varros, and the Scaevolas; [62]
he
wrote for the great mass of intelligent men, men of the world, whom he
wished to interest in the lofty problems of which philosophy treats. He
therefore above all things strove to make philosophy eloquent. He read for
this purpose Plato, Aristotle, and almost all the great masters who ruled
the schools in his day; but being on a level with his age and not above
it, he naturally turned rather to the thinkers nearest his own time, whose
clearer treatment also made them most easily understood. These were
chiefly Epicureans, Stoics, and Academicians; and from the different
_placita_ of these schools he selected such views as harmonised with his
own prepossessions, but neither chained himself down to any special
doctrine, nor endeavoured to force any doctrine of his own upon others. In
some of his more popular works, as those on political science and on moral
duties, [63] he does not employ any strictness of method; but in his more
systematic treatises he both recognises and strives to attain a regular
process of investigation. We see this in the _Topica_, the _De Finibus_,
and the _Tusculanae Disputationes_, in all of which he was greatly
assisted by the Academic point of view which strove to reconcile
philosophy with the dictates of common sense. A purely speculative ideal
such as that of Aristotle or Plato had already ceased to be propounded
even by the Greek systems; and Roman philosophy carried to a much more
thorough development the practical tendency of the later Greek schools. In
the _Hortensius_, a work unfortunately lost, which he intended to be the
introduction to his great philosophical course, he removed the current
objections to the study, and showed philosophy to be the only comforter in
affliction and the true guide of life. The pursuit of virtue, therefore,
being the proper end of wisdom, such speculations only should be pursued
as are within the sphere of human knowledge. Nevertheless he is
inconsistent with his own programme, for he extends his investigations far
beyond the limits of ethics into the loftiest problems which can exercise
the human mind. Carried away by the enthusiasm which he has caught from
the great Greek sages, he asserts in one place [64] that the search for
divine truth is preferable even to the duties of practical life; but that
is an isolated statement. His strong Roman instinct calls him back to
recognise the paramount claims of daily life; and he is nowhere more
himself than when he declares that every one would leave philosophy to
take care of herself at the first summons of duty. [65] This subordination
of the theoretical to the practical led him to confuse in a rhetorical
presentation the several parts of philosophy, and it seeks and finds its
justification to a great extent in the endless disputes in which in every
department of thought the three chief schools were involved. Physics (as
the term was understood in his day) seemed to him the most mysterious and
doubtful portion of the whole. A knowledge of the body and its properties
is difficult enough; how much more unattainable is a knowledge of such
entities as the Deity and the soul! Those who pronounce absolutely on
points like these involve themselves in the most inextricable
contradictions. While they declare as certainties things that obviously
differ in the general credence they meet with, they forget that certainty
does not admit of degrees, whereas probability does. How much more
reasonable therefore to regard such questions as coming within the sphere
of the probable, and varying between the highest and the lowest degrees of
probability. [66]
In his moral theory Cicero shows greater decision. He is unwavering in his
repudiation of the Epicurean view that virtue and pleasure are one, [67]
and generally adheres to that of the other schools, who here agree in
declaring that virtue consists in following nature. [68] But here occurs
the difficulty as to what place is to be assigned to external goods. At
one time he inclines to the lofty view of the Stoic that virtue is in
itself sufficient for happiness; at another, struck by its inapplicability
to practical life, he thinks this less true than the Peripatetic theory,
which takes account of external circumstances, and though considering them
as inappreciable when weighed in the balance against virtue, nevertheless
admits that within certain limits they are necessary to a complete life.
Thus it appears that both in physics and morals he doubted the reality of
the great abstract conceptions of reason, and came back to the
presentations of sense as at all events the most indisputably probable.
This would lead us to infer that he rested upon the senses as the ultimate
criterion of truth. But if he adopts them as a criterion at all, he does
so with great reservations. He allows the senses indeed the power of
judging between sweet and bitter, near and distant, and the like, but he
never allows them to determine what is good and what is evil. [69] And
similarly he allows the intellect the power of judgment on genera and
species, but he does not deny that it sometimes spins out problems which
it is wholly unable to solve. [70] Since therefore neither the senses nor
the intellect are capable of supplying an infallible criterion, we must
reject the Stoic doctrine that there are certain sensations so forcible as
to produce an irresistible conviction of their truth. For these
philosophers ascribe the full possession of this conviction to the sage
alone, and he is not, nor can he be, one of the generality of mankind.
Hence Cicero, who writes for these, gives his opinion that there are
certain sensuous impressions in which from their permanence and force a
man may safely trust, though he cannot assert them to be absolutely true.
[71] This liberal and popular doctrine he is aware will be undermined by
the absolute scepticism of the New Academy; [72] but he is willing to risk
this, and to put his view forward as the best possible approximation to
truth.
With these ultimate principles Cicero, in his _De Natura Deorum_,
approaches the questions of the existence of God and of the human soul.
The bias of his own nobler nature led him to hold fast these two vital
truths, but he is fully aware that in attempting to prove them the Stoics
have used arguments which are not convincing. In the Tusculan disputations
[73] he acknowledges the necessity of assuming one supreme Creator or
Ruler of all things, endued with eternal motion in himself; and he
connects this view with the affinity which he everywhere assumes to
subsist between the human and divine spirit. With regard to the essence of
the human soul he has no clear views; but he strenuously asserts its
existence and phenomenal manifestation analogous to those of the Deity,
and is disposed to ascribe to it immortality also. [74] Free Will he
considers to be a truth of peculiar importance, probably from the
practical consideration that on it responsibility and, therefore, morality
itself ultimately rest.
From this brief abstract it will be seen that Cicero's speculative beliefs
were to a great extent determined by his moral convictions, and by his
strong persuasion of the dignity of human nature. This leads him to combat
with vigour, and satirise with merciless wit, the Epicurean theory of
life; and while his strong common sense forbids him to accept the Stoic
doctrine in all its defiant harshness, he strengthens the Peripatetic
view, to which he on the whole leans, by introducing elements drawn from
it. The peculiar combination which he thus strives to form takes its
colour from his own character and from the terms of his native language.
The Greeks declare that the beautiful (_to kalon_) is good; Cicero
declares that the honourable (_honestum_) alone is good. Where, therefore,
the Greeks had spoken of _to kalon_, and we should speak of moral good,
Cicero speaks of _honestum_, and founds precisely similar arguments upon
it. This conception implies, besides self-regarding rectitude, the praise
of others and the rewards of glory, and hence is eminently suited to the
public-spirited men for whom he wrote. To it is opposed the base
(_turpe_), that disgraceful evil which all good men would avoid. But as
his whole moral theory is built on observation as much as on reading or
reflection, he never stretches a rule too tight; he makes allowance for
overpowering circumstances, for the temper and bent of the individual.
Applicable to all who are engaged in an honourable career with the
stimulus of success before them, his ethics were especially suited to the
noble families of Rome to whom the approval of their conscience was indeed
a necessity of happiness, but the approval of those whom they respected
was at least equally so.
The list of his philosophical works is interesting and may well be given
here. The _Paradoxa_ (written 46 B.C.), [75] explains certain paradoxes of
the Stoics. The _Consolatio_ (45 B.C.) was written soon after the death of
his daughter Tullia, whom he tenderly loved. It is lost with the exception
of a few fragments. The same fate has befallen the _Hortensius_, which
would have been an extremely interesting treatise. The _De finibus bonorum
et malorum_, in five books, was composed in 45 B.C. In the first part M.
Manlius Torquatus expounds the Epicurean views, which Cicero confutes
(books i. ii.); in the second, Cato acts as champion of the Stoics, who
are shown by Cicero to be by no means so exclusive as they profess (books
iii. iv.); in the third and last Piso explains the theories of the Academy
and the Lyceum. The _Academica_ is divided into two editions; the first,
called _Lucullus_, is still extant; the second, dedicated to Varro, exists
in a considerable portion. The _Tusculan Disputations, Timaeus_ (now
lost), and the _De Natura Deorum_, were all composed in the same year (45
B.C.). The latter is in the form of a dialogue between Velleius the
Epicurean, Balbus the Stoic, and Cotta the Academic, which is supposed to
have been held in 77 B.C. The following year were produced _Laelius or De
Amicitia, De Divinatione_, an important essay, _De Fato, Cato Major_ or
_De Senectute, De Gloria_ (now lost), _De Officiis_, an excellent moral
treatise addressed to his son, and _De Virtutibus_, which with the
_Oeconomics and Protagoras_ (translations from the Greek), and the _De
Auguriis_ (51 B.C.?) complete the list of his strictly philosophical
works. Political science is treated by him in the _De Republica_, of which
the first two books remain in a tolerably complete state, the other four
only in fragments, [76] and in the _De Legibus_, of which three books only
remain. The former was commenced in the year 54 B.C. but not published
until two years later, at which time probably the latter treatise was
written, but apparently never published. While in these works the form of
dialogue is borrowed from the Greek, the argument is strongly coloured by
his patriotic sympathies. He proves that the Roman polity, which fuses in
a happy combination the three elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and
democracy, is the best suited for organic development and external
dominion; and he treats many constitutional and legal questions with
eloquence and insight. Our loss of the complete text of these books is to
be deplored rather on account of the interesting information and numerous
allusions they contained, than from their value as an exposition of the
principles of law or government. The style is highly elaborated, and its
even flow is broken by beautiful quotations from the old poets, especially
the _Annals_ of Ennius.
The rhetorical works of Cicero are both numerous and important. A
practical science, of which the principles were of a nature intelligible
to all, and needed only a clear exposition and the authority of personal
experience, was, of all literary subjects, the best suited to bring out
the rich qualities of Cicero's mind. Accordingly we find that even in his
early manhood he attempted to propound a theory of oratory in the
unfinished work _De Inventione_, or _Rhetorica_, as it is sometimes
called. This was compiled partly from the Greek authorities, partly from
the treatise _Ad Herennium_, which we have noticed under the last period.
But he himself was quite conscious of its deficiencies, and alludes to it
more than once as an unripe and youthful work. The fruits of his mature
judgment were preserved in the _De Oratore_, a dialogue between some of
the great orators of former days, in three books, written 55 B.C. The
chief speakers are Crassus and Antonius, and we infer from Cicero's
identifying himself with the former's views that he regarded him on the
whole as the higher orator. The next work in the series is the invaluable
_Brutus sive de claris Oratoribus_, a vast mine of information on the
history of the Roman bar, and the progress of oratorical excellence. The
scene is laid in the Tusculan villa, where Cicero meets some of his
younger friends shortly after the death of Hortensius. In his criticism of
orators, past and present, he pays a touching tribute to the character and
splendid talents of his late rival and at the same time intimate friend,
and laments, what he foresaw too well, the speedy downfall of Roman
eloquence. [77] All these works of his later years are tinged with a deep
sadness which lends a special charm to their graceful periods; his
political despondency drove him to seek solace in literary thought, but he
could not so far lose himself even among his beloved worthies of the past
as to throw off the cloud of gloom that softened but did not obscure his
genius. The _Orator ad M. Brutum_ is intended to give us his ideal of what
a perfect orator should be; its treatment is brilliant but imperfect. The
_Partitiones Oratoriae_, or Catechism of the Art of Oratory, in questions
and answers, belongs to the educational sphere; and, after the example of
Cato's books, is addressed to his son. The _Topica_, written in 44 B.C.,
contains an account of the invention of arguments, and belongs partly to
logic, partly to rhetoric. The last work of this class is the _De Optimo
Genere Oratorum_, which stands as a preface to the crown speeches of
Demosthenes and Aeschines, which Cicero had translated. The chief interest
consists in the discussion it raises on the comparative merits of the
Attic and Asiatic styles.
In all these works there reigns throughout a magnificence of language and
a calm grandeur of tone well befitting the literary representative of the
"assembly of kings." Nowhere perhaps in all literature can be found
compositions in which so many sources of permanent attraction meet;
dignity, sweetness, an inexpressible and majestic eloquence, drawing the
reader along until he seems lost in a sea of grand language and lofty
thoughts, and at the same time a sympathetic human feeling, a genial
desire to persuade, a patient perseverance in illustration, an inimitable
clearness of expression; admirable qualities, whose rich harmonious
combination is perhaps incompatible with the profoundest philosophic
wisdom, but which have raised Cicero to take the lead among those great
popular teachers who have expressed, and by expressing furthered, the
growing enlightenment of mankind.