[79]. Suet., _Rel._ (Teubner), p. 289, ll. 34 f.: “Asinius Pollio
orator et consularis, qui de Dalmatis triumphaverat, in villa
Tusculana anno octogesimo aetatis suae moritur” (St. Jerome, _Chron.,
a. Abr._, 2020, in Migne, Vol. XXVII, col. 441, and Reiff., p. 82).
[80]. Some examples of praises bestowed upon Pollio are: Catullus,
_Carm._, xii, 9: Horace, _Carm._, ii, 1, 13: Quintilian, x, 2, 25;
xii, 10, 11; x, 1, 113 has praise mingled with censure:
Asinius Pollio possesses a well-developed faculty of invention,
and great accuracy not only of language (which to some, indeed,
appears too accurate), but also of method and of spirit. But he
is so far from possessing the brilliant and pleasing style of
Cicero that he might seem to belong to the preceding century.
[81]. See n. [79] above.
[82]. See Smith’s _Dict._:
Tiberius hated him, partly on account of his freedom in
expressing his opinion, but more especially because Asinius
Gallus had married Vipsania, the former wife of Tiberius. At
last the emperor resolved upon getting rid of him. In A. D. 30
he invited him to his table at Capreae, and at the same time
got the senate to sentence him to death. But Tiberius saved
his life, only for the purpose of inflicting upon him severer
cruelties than death alone. He kept him imprisoned for three
years, and on the most scanty supply of food. After the lapse
of three years, he died in his dungeon of starvation, but
whether it was compulsory or voluntary is unknown.
The last comment is from Tac., _Ann._, vi, 23. The text which
Petrarch must have had before him (and from which he practically
quotes), is Suet., _Rel._ (Teubner), p. 290, ll. 27 f.: “C. Asinius
Gallus Asinii Pollionis filius, cuius etiam Virgilius meminit [in
_Ecl._, 4], diris a Tiberio suppliciis necatur.” Petrarch’s words are
(Vol. III, p. 283): “quem diris ab illo suppliciis enecatum legimus”
(St. Jerome, in Migne, Vol. XXVII, col. 443, and Reiff., p. 86).
[83]. C. Asinius Pollio died in 5 A. D.; his son Gallus died in 33 A.
D. (See preceding note.)
[84]. Quintilian, xii, 1, 22:
I pass over those who do not give Cicero and Demosthenes due
credit even in oratory. To be sure, Cicero himself does not
judge Demosthenes absolutely perfect, saying that now and then
the latter becomes drowsy. Cicero is similarly judged by both
Brutus and Calvus, who criticize the structure of his periods
to his own face; and by the Asinii, father and son, who in many
places attack the faults of his language even with bitterness.
Pollio’s hostility to Cicero is mentioned also in Sen., _Suas._, vi,
14; 24; 27. But Cicero was not the only author who displeased the
taste of Pollio; among others were Livy (Quint., i, 5, 56; viii, 1,
3), Sallust (Suet., _Gramm._, 10), and Caesar (see n. [86]).
[85]. Sen., _Contr._, iv, _praef._ 3:
(Pollio) was somewhat more ornate when declaiming than when
pleading a case, ... and his judgment was so deficient that
in many instances he himself stood in need of that indulgence
which it was scarcely possible for others to obtain from him.
[86]. Petrarch’s words are (Vol. III, p. 284): “adversus ipsum
mundi Dominum.” It will be noticed that Fracassetti prints the word
“Dominum” with a capital letter, thus making the phrase equivalent
to the word “God.” In fact he translates the passage “contro lo
stesso Signore della terra” (Vol. 5. p. 167), which conveys the same
thought. Aside from the fact that Pollio died in A. D. 5, when it was
quite too early to speak of Christianity at Rome, we believe that
the line in Petrarch can easily be interpreted otherwise. The key is
furnished by Suet., _Julius_, 56:
Asinius Pollio thinks that Caesar’s books (on the Gallic War)
were written with small accuracy and with but little regard
for the truth. For, he says, Caesar was too ready to believe
the accounts of deeds performed by others, and published in
incorrect form even his own deeds, either purposely or because
they had slipped his memory. Pollio, therefore, was of the
opinion that Caesar would have rewritten or corrected his work.
And thus it clearly results that it is Caesar who is meant by “ipsum
mundi Dominum.”
[87]. There is a passage in Gellius written so very much after the
heart and spirit of Petrarch, that the temptation to give it here has
been too strong to resist. It is _Noc. Att._, xvii, 1, 1:
Just as there have been in this world some monsters of men, who
have scattered broadcast unholy and lying doctrines concerning
the immortal gods, so have there been men so monstrous and so
destitute of reason as to have had the presumption to write
of Cicero that his language was by no means pure, and that it
gave evidence of a faulty and inconsiderate choice of words.
Among these detractors are Asinius Gallus and Largus Licinius,
whose book is even yet current under the unspeakable title of
_Ciceromastix_.
These words are such as might have been spoken by the venerable old
gentleman of _Fam._, XXIV, 2. (See the first letter to Cicero, n.
[1].)
[88]. Sen., _Contr._, vii, 4, 6: “Calvus who for a long time carried
on a very unequal struggle against Cicero for supremacy in oratory.”
[89]. Petrarch enlarges upon this point in _Rer. mem._, II, 2, “De
ingenio,” p. 412:
It does not seem fitting to omit mention of Asinius Pollio,
who, as Seneca has established and as is apparent to all, must
be thought to hold the second place of honor between those two
very eloquent Romans, M. Tullius and T. Livy [Sen., _Ep._,
100, 9]. Seneca is an authority by no means to be despised.
Thus far in the present chapter (_Rer. mem._, _loc. cit._) I
have written of six eloquent men. Seneca chooses none of these
except Tullius, and maintains that there are three men foremost
in eloquence--three whom in a certain letter of his he seems to
prefer to all others. The second place among these he assigns
to Pollio, whose style he pronounces different from that of
Cicero, and (to use his own words) ‘uneven and jolting and one
that breaks off when you least expect it’ [_Ep._, 100, 7].
Although no specimens of his eloquence have as yet fallen into
my hands, and although his name has already become famous and
has already spread abroad unaided, still it did not appear just
to me (when undertaking to write on the subject of eloquence)
to pass his name in silence--the more so that I had already
spoken of others inferior to him. And so it has pleased me to
place him after Caesar Augustus, under whom he flourished. I
shall add this only: that many sang the praises of Pollio; but
that his name was especially honored by the Muse of Mantua. But
I must now retrace my steps somewhat.
[90]. This is making it unnecessarily strong. Cicero’s statements
are more guarded, and his criticisms are milder, than one would be
led to suppose from the language of Petrarch. In the _Brutus_, where
Cicero speaks of Calvus at great length, his language is reserved. In
sec. 279 he says:
“I must first, however, do justice to the memory of two
promising youths, who, if they had lived to a riper age, would
have acquired the highest reputation for their eloquence.” [In
280:] “You mean, I suppose,” said Brutus, “Gaius Curio and
Gaius Licinius Calvus.” “The very same,” replied I.... [283:]
But let us return to Calvus, whom we have just mentioned, an
orator who had received more literary improvements than Curio,
and had a more accurate and delicate manner of speaking, which
he conducted with great taste and elegance; but (by being too
minute and nice a critic upon himself) while he was laboring
to correct and refine his language, he suffered all the force
and spirit of it to evaporate. In short, it was so exquisitely
polished, as to charm the eye of every skilful observer; but
it was little noticed by the common people in a crowded forum,
which is the proper theater of eloquence. (Translation of E.
Jones, in the volume translated and edited by J. S. Watson.)
It must be noticed, however, that these passages were written after
the death of Calvus; but we are compelled to judge from these, since
none of the correspondence carried on between Cicero and Calvus on
the subject of eloquence is now extant (cf. Cic., _ad Fam._, XV, 21,
4, with which, however, Petrarch was unacquainted).
[91]. Pliny, _N. H._, vii, 24, and St. Jerome, _Chron., a. Abr._,
2027 (Migne, Vol. XXVII, coll. 441, 442, and Reiff., p. 83). From the
similarity of expressions, it again results that St. Jerome was the
direct source; for in Pliny there is no word alluding to the period
of two years.