that of a “popular novelist,” since he displays a profound scholarship
not usually found in the “popular novelist.” But it may be fair to
consider that one of his aims was to tell a “rattling good story,” and in
this he was certainly successful. His one important novel was called _The
Roman Traitor; or Days of Cicero, Cato, and Catiline_, and was published
in Philadelphia in 1853. It is a powerful story of the conspiracy of
Catiline against the Roman republic in 63 B. C. The character of Catiline
is portrayed with masterful strokes, while those of Lentulus, Cethegus,
and other conspirators, are also well-done. Cicero, Cato, and the young
Julius Caesar, also appear in a natural light, though of these three,
only Cicero is made to play an important part. Scenes in the Senate
and in the houses of the nobility are life-like, yet not over-done.
The author has succeeded admirably in portraying real men and women,
their thoughts, desires and passions. Scenes of politics, luxury, and
intrigue, ring true to life. Speeches assigned to Cicero, Caesar, and
Cato, are literal translations from the works of Cicero and Sallust. Yet
the author makes them seem as real as though the words were being spoken
today. He also shows a thorough knowledge of the topography of ancient
Rome. Certain “Gothic” elements appear in the story, especially near the
end, where the scene is a dark, dismal recess, overlooking a fearful
chasm. But the general style surpasses that of any Gothic romance and is
suggestive of Scott. Fine as it is in its portrayal of Roman life, _The
Roman Traitor_ is even finer in its telling of a remarkable story. It is
also the only really effective handling of the conspiracy of Catiline in
the form of fiction.
The chief aim of Major G. J. Whyte-Melville in _The Gladiators_ (1863),
is obviously to present a “gorgeous romance,” replete with hair-raising
episodes. Whyte-Melville, who is the first of the brilliantly sensational
writers of the “gorgeous romance” of Roman life in English, is well
known for his novels of sporting life in England. In _The Gladiators_
he portrays the brilliant and corrupt society of ancient Rome in the
first century, A. D., in a way which suggests his knowledge of a similar
brilliant sporting society in modern England. In his use of history in
_The Gladiators_, Whyte-Melville is fairly accurate. While not a man
of profound scholarship, he fortunately found his historical material
in a compact and readily accessible form, in the work of the Jewish
historian Josephus. There is not much genuine history in the first part
of _The Gladiators_, in which portion the scene is laid in Rome; but
in the latter part of the novel, the author followed Josephus, in his
wish to find plenty of exciting and romantic episodes. It is interesting
to note, for example, that the story of the secret passage through
the walls of Jerusalem (which illustrates the labyrinth motive), was
taken by Whyte-Melville from Josephus. Many other instances could be
cited of Whyte-Melville’s indebtedness to Josephus. Croly, it will be
recalled, followed Josephus to some extent, but made a more scholarly and
imaginative use of his material. The latter part of _The Gladiators_, in
which the author relies more on the guidance of history, is better than
the first part of the story, and contains some really fine descriptions
of episodes in the siege of Jerusalem. However, that part of the story
which deals with life at Rome and the defeat of Vitellius is accurate in
its portrayal of some characteristic scenes of Roman times. In general,
_The Gladiators_, while it has an impossible plot, and consists mainly of
a series of gorgeous scenes, may be said to portray Roman life very well
in most of its scenes. It lacks unity in its story and probability in
some of its details, and this is what prevents its having a completeness
of realistic effect.
It would be absurd as well as unfair to call _Ben Hur_ (1880), Gen. Lew
Wallace’s great novel of Roman life, “merely a popular” novel. A gorgeous
romance it certainly is,—but this is not all. _Ben Hur_ has been and
still is “popular” in the best sense of the word. Some of the finest
novels of Roman life, even such great works as Kingsley’s _Hypatia_ and
Canon Farrar’s _Darkness and Dawn_, make their strongest appeal to the
cultured few; _Ben Hur_ appeals with equal power to all. Moreover, some
novels of Roman life interest every one for a time, yet later lose their
power to interest; _Ben Hur_ has become a permanent thing, appealing to
the popular taste of all time. _Ben Hur_ is the first novel of Roman life
in English which has with uniform success combined a high seriousness and
sincerity of tone, with a use of the sensational achieving the utmost
in realistic effect. Such a combination was only partly attempted in
_Hypatia_,—which only makes a limited use of the sensational,—and was
only equalled in isolated parts of _Salathiel_. _Ben Hur_ has been called
a romance, but as one reads it, his feeling is not, “This is romance,”
but “This is life!”
_Ben Hur_ is so universally known, that it is needless to review it
here. It has never ceased to be sold in English-speaking countries; while
it has been translated into French, German, Bohemian, Swedish, Turkish,
Spanish, Portuguese and Arabic, and printed in raised letters for the
blind. Its dramatization has also increased its popularity. Hence we
need now only consider a few points about _Ben Hur_ in regard to its
relation to our subject. In the first place, _Ben Hur_ is definitely a
novel of Roman life, though its scene only goes to the city of Rome in
occasional brief explanatory paragraphs. Other novels of Roman life so
far considered have deserved to be called such, either because their
scene was laid (at least in part) in Rome, or because it was laid chiefly
in some great city of the Empire, (as Alexandria in _Hypatia_), in which
life very strongly resembled the life of Rome. But from _Ben Hur_, more
than from any other novel, one gets a sense of other related parts of the
Roman world. Other novelists, as Croly in _Salathiel_, have successfully
carried their characters to different parts of the Roman world, and have
described scenes, which were of deep significance, but which none the
less were associated in one’s mind with a definitely limited place. But
in _Ben Hur_ from the beginning of the story, when the three “wise men,”
representing the antiquity of Egypt, the learning of the East, and the
culture of Greece, meet and pursue the common purpose of their lives,
one perceives that the important events and even minor episodes of the
story are to be of such tremendous significance, that they throw off the
limitations of time and place. The events of _Ben Hur_ are accurately
assigned by the author to different historical places, but they really
belong not so much to separate, individual parts of the Roman world,
as to the whole of that world. Christ was born in Palestine (the scene
of most of _Ben Hur_), but His message was to the whole world,—and the
world was then Roman. Ben Hur was a Jew, but the message he received was
for Jew and Gentile, Roman master and Roman slave. That the entire world
was Roman in the time of Christ is shown by Wallace with great care and
fidelity. Wherever the story takes one, he meets with characteristic
Roman scenes. Scenes in Palestine show the unmistakable marks of the
Roman oppressor, and the bitter hatred with which Rome’s power is
regarded. We meet with Roman soldiers, a Roman slave-gang, we witness
the departure of a Roman galley, and a Roman fight at sea; we behold the
conclusion of a Roman all-night revel, while the Romans take precedence
over all other celebrants in the Grove of Daphne. Even the chariot-race
scene,[28] the most famous in _Ben Hur_, could have been transferred to
Rome, and is characteristic of the Roman world.
How then does _Ben Hur_ show the coming of Christ into the world, the
material part of which was under Roman sway? The novel is called in its
alternative title _A Tale of the Christ_;—and such it is. The figure of
Christ appears when he is a babe worshipped by the Magi, and later in
scenes near the time of the Crucifixion; but these scenes are based on
Scripture rather than created by Wallace. We have spoken of the fact
that no novel of Roman life can be successful, if it makes Christ the
central figure or character. _Ben Hur_ does not do so; but its author
shows enough of the life and death of the lowly Nazarene to convince one
of His Divine Influence upon the Roman world, which has become the world
of today. Ben Hur as he listened to the preaching of Jesus, and gazed
upon His wonderful countenance, remembered having seen Him before. “That
the look so calm, so pitiful, so loving, had somewhere in the past beamed
upon him as that moment it was beaming on Balthazar, became an assurance.
Faintly at first, at last a clear light, a burst of sunshine, the scene
by the well at Nazareth what time the Roman guard was dragging him to the
galleys returned, and all his being thrilled.” This quotation is typical
of the story of _Ben Hur; a Tale of the Christ_. The mother and sister of
Ben Hur suffered misfortune at the hands of the Romans, and were only
freed from the cruelty of the Roman world by their acceptance of and
meeting with The Master. Lew Wallace is equally great in his portrayal of
the material life of Rome and the spiritual life of Christ.
Having chosen his subject, Wallace wisely refrained from making any
very great use of Roman history, or of Roman historical characters
not important in the Bible story. But just as the scenes of his novel
are typical of life in the Roman world, so his characters exhibit the
variety of race, creed and nationality to be found in the people Rome
ruled. Beside a number of different types of Hebrew character which the
author portrays, there are at least two kinds of Romans in _Ben Hur_,
the proud, cruel oppressor, in Messala, and the magnanimous benefactor,
in Quintus Arrius. Other characters represent the sage of whatever
nationality, the youthful Greek with his perfect physical beauty, the
Arab sheik, the seductive siren of the Nile, the devout Christian, and
the pagan priestess. But Wallace does not rely too much on atmosphere or
local color. His knowledge of Roman history was sound. While Messala, an
imaginary character, is important in the story, Sejanus, who controlled
the politics of Rome, is given his proper place in the background.
In fact, the scholarship of Wallace was sound in every way. While he
did not finish his schooling according to the prescribed course, he
completed his own education more thoroughly than most men do. He was a
great reader of good books, and at the age of 19, had read every book
in his father’s library,—700 standard works. He continued to be a great
reader and student, and formed a large library of his own. Besides his
reading Wallace had a rich experience of life on the battlefield and in
public life, and was peculiarly well fitted to understand with sympathy
all sorts and conditions of men. _Ben Hur_ is the only other novel of
Roman life, besides _Salathiel_, to arouse successfully the reader’s
sympathy for a Jewish hero. In his presentation of Ben Hur as a slave,
Wallace showed his realization of antiquity of the slavery question; and
he had shortly before done his part in settling forever that question.
His sympathetic understanding of men, women, and little children of the
present aided him in portraying with sympathy various types of character
seen in the life of the past. _Ben Hur_ is a novel which voices the hopes
and aspirations of the common people of all the world.
Any estimate of the absolute value of Ben Hur must place Lew Wallace’s
novel very high indeed. If one discounts the great influence the book has
had upon its many readers, and considers it simply as a piece of art,
it still ranks very high. While _Ben Hur_ is said to have brought its
author more sudden fame than any other novel has brought to an American
author, this fame which came suddenly, did not as suddenly depart. If he
is judged by the merits of _Ben Hur_, Wallace deserves to be ranked, as a
novelist, with other great American novelists, such as Cooper, Hawthorne
and Howells. In the opinion of a noted authority on American literature,
_Ben Hur_ “is in every respect a great novel.”[29] And it is impossible
to differ with this opinion. Reduced to its lowest terms, all adverse
criticism of _Ben Hur_ lies in an arraignment of its so-called “faulty
syntax.” Those who make this criticism in every case fail to give any
quotation in illustration of their view, or to be specific in any other
way. If one were to go through _Ben Hur_ hunting for irregularities
of syntax, doubtless he could find them just as easily as they may be
found in the work of almost any other great novelist,—and perhaps no
more easily. It is doubtful if the great majority of reviewers who have
criticised the syntax of _Ben Hur_ have had any thorough appreciation
of what syntax is. Moreover, to quote a recent work on style, by a
classical scholar, who is speaking of the style of Sophocles, it seems
“that liberties of this kind are not confined to any particular stage
of literary history, but are mainly due to the individual bent of the
writer’s genius. No ancient author, however, has carried them to a
greater length than Sophocles, ... he rejoices in those confusions
of _syntax_ ... by which one construction is suddenly merged in
another.”[30] Sophocles has not perished on account of irregularities
of style or syntax, nor will Lew Wallace, for any such reason. The
free style of _Ben Hur_ is well suited to describe its ever-changing
scenes. Nor is the novel to be criticised for looseness of construction.
Its combination of unity and variety make _Ben Hur_ in every sense a
great novel suited to a portrayal of life in the Roman Empire in the
time of Christ. The chariot race, the sea fight, and the disentombing
of Ben Hur’s mother and sister, are thrilling episodes in the world’s
literature; and considered as a whole, _Ben Hur_ is one of the great
novels of all time.
After the appearance of _Ben Hur_ many “popular” novels of Roman life
tend toward a greater or less imitation of Lew Wallace’s great novel.
There is, however, little such imitation in John W. Graham’s _Neaera_
(1886), a novel the author of which displays genuine scholarship. In its
description of the splendor and crime of the court of Tiberius, _Neaera_
depends much on the _Annals_ of Tacitus, which furnishes the best source
for such a description of the Rome of Tiberius. The character of the
gloomy Emperor is well drawn, as are also those of Sejanus, his mistress
Livia, and Lygdus, the eunuch. Domitius Afer is made prominent, and
through him we learn of the methods of the Emperor and others who make
use of the ruffians of the Subura to attain their ends. The banquet of
Apicius, and his suicide furnish the material for a realistic description
of manners.
An example of a very poor kind of “popular” historical novel is found
in _The Son of a Star_ (1888), by B. W. Richardson. This is a wildly
fantastic romance which bears on the title page a quotation from Horace,
“Ficta voluptatis causa sit proxima veris,” but is certainly very far
from the truth in most respects. While _The Son of a Star_ makes
occasional brief displays of accurate scholarship, chiefly borrowed from
other novelists, its loose construction and false atmosphere make it
a good example of the novel of Roman life “gone to seed.” The bright,
though false, coloring of this romance suggests the work of Sir Rider
Haggard, which has already been excluded from consideration in this
study. His _Cleopatra_ appeared in the following year (1889). This date,
in fact, may be said to mark the point at which the pretended novel of
Roman life, with its artificial coloring, becomes separated from the true
novel of Roman life.
The idea of presenting the life of Rome as a gorgeous and at times bloody
spectacle, with a frequent use of the sensational, reached its greatest
height in _Quo Vadis_ (1895), by the Polish author, H. Sienkiewicz.
This idea had appeared in the English novel of Roman life, _e. g._,
in _Salathiel_ (1827), _The Gladiators_ (1863), and _Ben Hur_ (1880).
There is no need to review _Quo Vadis_ in detail here, since it is so
well known; but let us establish its relation to the English novel of
Roman life. It appeared after Eckstein’s _Nero_ (1889), and a number
of English novels of Roman life of the time of Nero, and may owe some
of its inspiration to these, especially to _Darkness and Dawn_ (1892).
But after _Quo Vadis_ was translated into English (1896), its influence
upon later English novels of Roman life overshadowed even that of Canon
Farrar’s great and more serious work. _Quo Vadis_ has been translated and
read in civilized lands even more widely than _Ben Hur_. These are the
two novels of Roman life which have had the most widespread influence
upon all subsequent novels of Roman life the world over. _Quo Vadis_
adds practically no new element to the novel of Roman life, but puts
certain elements which already existed into a more intensely vivid, and
even lurid form,—in short, emphasizes the sensational. In its larger
outlines _Quo Vadis_ is reminiscent not only of _Darkness and Dawn_ but
of _Hypatia_. It represents the same struggle between the Christian
Church and the Roman pagan world, the same triumph of Christianity.
The contrast lies between the proud, voluptuous, and cruel spirit of
pagan Rome and the spirit of humility and hope of the dwellers in the
catacombs. A personal contrast is seen between Nero, the royal performer
in the circus, and St. Peter, the fisherman who was to rule the world by
his example. Other characters are those familiar to the novel of Roman
life, Petronius the connoisseur in luxury, Vinicius the active young
Roman noble, Lygia the beautiful Christian maiden condemned to the arena,
Ursus the powerful slave, the dissolute Poppæa and members of Nero’s
court, Croton the athlete, Glaucus the forgiving Christian, and others
too numerous to mention. The scenes of _Quo Vadis_ are also familiar,
much the same as those of _Darkness and Dawn_, the picture of the fire
at Rome being especially fine. While the moral lesson exists in _Quo
Vadis_, what Sienkiewicz did for the novel of Roman life was to portray
the life of the city of Rome itself in a form absolutely irresistible to
the so-called “average” reader. Realistic effect was the most important
thing to the writer of _Quo Vadis_; and in preparation for the writing
of a novel which should portray the life of Rome with realistic effect
he traveled widely and made a thorough study of numerous Latin authors,
especially those who describe the life of Rome of the first few centuries
A. D. The result is that Sienkiewicz was a profound scholar; and his
scholarship appears in _Quo Vadis_,—though the novel shows some instances
of error, chiefly topographical error, especially in the description of
the great fire. None the less _Quo Vadis_ is now the novel of Roman life
which shows to the greatest extent a combination of careful scholarship
and popularity of appeal. By 1900, nearly 2,000,000 copies of the English
translation (1896), by Jeremiah Curtin, had been sold; and the influence
of the novel upon popular taste is still important, since it creates
beyond a doubt in every reader’s mind a desire to read further in Roman
historical fiction.
_The Sign of the Cross_, by Wilson Barrett, appeared immediately after
_Quo Vadis_, and, though very popular, is nothing but a weak and slavish
imitation of Sienkiewicz’s great novel. This is all that need be said of
_The Sign of the Cross_ as a novel, since there is nothing original about
it, and its brief popularity was due entirely to the reflected splendor
of _Quo Vadis_. The fact that this novel was turned into a play with some
success, following the example set by the dramatization of _Ben Hur_,
shows that theatrical managers realized the possibilities offered by a
novel of Roman life. Unfortunately the drama of Roman life presented
either on the stage or the screen, has in nearly every instance, become
more a gorgeous spectacle or a sensational melodrama, than a serious
drama. But the drama of Roman life is mentioned here, since it has
induced many who have seen such a play to read the novel on which it
was based. This was the case with _Ben Hur_, which in the form of a
novel offers, I believe, a higher and stronger appeal than any dramatic
production based upon it.
Another novel which definitely goes back to _Quo Vadis_ for its best
scenes, but is possessed of some individual merit, is _Amor Victor_,
the third edition of which appeared in 1902. This novel, by Orr Kenyon,
is also marked by the seriousness of purpose which underlies the
sensationalism of _Quo Vadis_. It particularly resembles _Quo Vadis_
in its scenes in the arena, and in showing the tremendous difference
between the appalling difficulties presented to the Christian at the
time of the Empire, and those which he now meets. But _Amor Victor_ also
shows the similarity of atrocities committed by pagans then and now.
This novel seems to be the first to draw parallels between events in the
past and definite, specific occurrences of the present, taken sometimes
even from personal experiences. For example, the author, in describing
certain almost unthinkable atrocities which occurred in the Roman arena,
shows how exactly the same outrages were committed upon the Christians
by the Turks shortly before he wrote. Even since _Amor Victor_ was
written, these scenes have been repeated in Turkey. Moreover, Kenyon, in
describing the scene in which Arsaces, the giant Parthian, kills a lion
in the arena, is recalling the time when he himself had seen Sandow, the
famous strong man, throw a lion in a public exhibition. This definite use
of an incident, which the author has seen with his own eyes, aids him in
achieving realistic effect. A similar use of an incident which actually
occurred, is made by Mr. E. L. White in _Andivius Hedulio_ (1921), in
which the description of the miraculous escape of Commodus’ chariot from
disaster was suggested by a real accident in the streets of Baltimore.
_Amor Victor_ takes its story of St. John the Apostle from the patristic
writings. It is accurate in its historical coloring. In speaking of his
serious purpose, the author says in a note at the end of _Amor Victor_,
“Newell Dwight Hillis has shown that really great works of fiction are
those which illustrate some vital principle, some deep moral lesson.” The
novel conveys a moral lesson. Yet, while parts of it are also written
in juvenile style, _Amor Victor_ is not merely a story of religious
instruction, but a true novel of Roman life. _The Story of Phaedrus_, by
Hillis, to which Kenyon has reference in his quotation, is more a story
of religious instruction written in distinctly juvenile style. Its hero
does not see much of Roman life, since he spends most of his life in
copying sacred writings in the depths of the catacombs.
An imitation of _Ben Hur_ with some original touches is Mr. Irving
Bacheller’s _Vergilius; A Tale of the Coming of Christ_ (1904). The
author reverses the plan of Lew Wallace, by placing the birth of Christ
at the end, instead of at the beginning of his story. Mr. Bacheller’s
attempt to use the birth of Christ as a climax, to which the rest of
the story leads, is not very successful. His treatment of sacred scenes
falls far below that of Lew Wallace, and the construction of his plot is
poor. But he has described some scenes in Roman life with fine realistic
effect, particularly those which take place in the magnificent palaces
of Rome and Jerusalem. The descriptions of intrigues which take place
in the court of Augustus, show the uncertainty of life at Rome at the
time. The characters are few in number, Augustus and the young Jewish
prince Herod Antipater being the only important historical figures. The
crafty nature of Augustus is portrayed with a very keen insight into the
depths of human nature, and the vindictive hatred of the Jewish prince
forms a marked contrast to the noble, ingenuous nature of Vergilius,
the imaginary hero of the story. Vergilius is a young patrician, and
a favorite of Augustus; his character is not idealized and is quite
representative of Roman times. In justice to Mr. Bacheller’s work, it
should be said that he has not attempted to fill as large a canvas as
did Lew Wallace in _Ben Hur_; his picture of life in Roman times is more
limited in its scope, and more chaste in its outlines. Scenes which make
use of the sensational are not overdone. _Vergilius_ is a novel of Roman
life, containing many beautifully written passages, which give it a very
high position among such novels.