one in the Curia. In this the destinies of the Roman Republic are shown
to be in the hands of its own unscrupulous government, just as much as
they are later in the hands of Caesar; this scene is truly great, and
contains no apparent inconsistencies. The scene in which Agias is saved
by Fabia, is modelled somewhat on a similar scene between Onesimus and a
Vestal in Canon Farrar’s _Darkness and Dawn_, as Mr. Davis candidly says
in his preface. The scene depicting the riot in Alexandria, especially
the passage which shows how little the brutal Roman soldiers care for
the lives of the poorer citizens, recalls a similar scene in _Hypatia_.
But _A Friend of Caesar_ contains very little direct borrowing from
previous novels of Roman life, and does not rely too much upon historical
events as a means of obtaining realistic effect. The scene in which
trusty old Mamercus guards the door of the villa, is a masterpiece in
its description of hand-to-hand fighting, and excels, in its realism,
the description of the actual battle between the forces of Caesar and
those of Pompey. In its portrayal of character, and its presentation of
realistic scenes, _A Friend of Caesar_ is a novel which rests firmly upon
its own merits.
George Manville Fenn was not a teacher, but his book for boys, _Marcus,
the Young Centurion_, (1904), is given passing mention here, since,
like Mr. Davis’s novel, it deals with Julius Caesar. Fenn’s book tells
something of Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul, but a far better book on this
subject is _The Standard Bearer; a Story of Army Life in the Time of
Caesar_, (1915), by Mr. Albert Carleton Whitehead. This book tells very
realistically the story given in Caesar’s _Commentaries_, but is rather a
book for boys than a novel of Roman life.
_The Unwilling Vestal_, (1918), by Mr. Edward Lucas White, a teacher and
thorough scholar of Baltimore, Maryland, was quite evidently written
to show that life in ancient Rome was essentially “modern.” While this
novel mentions historical events, such as the campaigns of Marcus
Aurelius, and gives a most striking portrayal of the effects of the great
pestilence at Rome, it does not attempt to narrate historical details
so much, as to make the life and customs of ancient Rome seem familiar
and real to the modern reader. It has achieved this latter purpose by
presenting Roman life chiefly as it affects a single character, Brinnaria
the Vestal. It is true that the figure of Marcus Aurelius appears in the
novel, and at the close of the book Commodus plays an important part;
Almo, the charioteer, is a character of whom we hear much at second-hand,
but we seldom make a closer acquaintance with him, and even the
descriptions of his fights in the amphitheatre are lacking in realistic
effect. The Vestals, with whom Brinnaria is later associated, are given
natural and human qualities, but do not play any very important part.
_The Unwilling Vestal_ is a character-study, a study of one character.
The other characters are important only as they influence the principal
one. Moreover, the varied scenes of Roman life which are portrayed center
about the principal character. Hence, most of them have to do with the
life of a Vestal. This is shown to be far from a narrow or confining
life. In addition, the author seems justified in selecting for his
Vestal a person so independent, self-willed, and unusual as Brinnaria.
Her parents play little part in the story, and from the very first, she
shows a disposition to “go it alone.” By devoting so much attention
to Brinnaria, and emphasising her human qualities, whether virtues or
faults, the author has succeeded in making us feel that we know Brinnaria
well. It seems to be a part of the author’s purpose to convince us
that Brinnaria and her chum Flexinna are not essentially different
from the modern American girls we see and know; and so he gives us a
thorough acquaintance with Brinnaria, the girl, before introducing us to
Brinnaria, the Vestal. There are no really great scenes in _The Unwilling
Vestal_. In attempting to recall any such, one thinks at once of the
scenes in the amphitheatre; but here, as elsewhere, we are concerned
with Brinnaria, her feelings, and her interests.
While Almo, the charioteer, comes before us directly only a few times,
the story, (indirectly told), of his career as charioteer, gladiator,
villicus, and King of the Grove, affords opportunity to throw interesting
sidelights on things that took place here and there in the world of the
Roman Empire. For example, a concise and accurate account of the way in
which the racing companies were managed, is given. An interesting account
is given of Brinnaria’s occupations inside the Temple of Vesta, and, as
has already been indicated, it is shown that, besides being a Vestal, she
was an important figure in the social life of Rome. The author says:
She took great delight in mixing in society merely for
society’s sake. Moderns are likely to imagine that the Vestals
of ancient Rome were nuns, or something like nuns. They were
nothing of the sort. They were maiden ladies of wealth and
position, whose routine duties brought them into familiar
association with all the men important in the Roman government,
hierarchy, nobility, and gentry, and with their wives and
daughters.
Though _The Unwilling Vestal_ fails to present some of its scenes
with realistic effect, because of the lack of a sufficient number
of characters of different kinds, its author does portray some very
interesting things in Roman life, through the medium of a single
interesting character and a very real one. Mr. T. Everett Harré had given
a vivid picture of life in Roman Alexandria, while presenting only one
important character, in _Behold the Woman_, (1916), two years before; but
the character of Mary, while intensely human, is not intended to show
especially “modern” traits of character. Brinnaria in _The Unwilling
Vestal_, is made to seem in some ways more familiar to the modern reader,
and more like his modern acquaintances, than any other single character
in any novel of Roman life, written before Mr. White’s book. Besides
being an interesting novel, _The Unwilling Vestal_ is so accurate in
its description of Roman life and custom that it could be used as a
schoolbook of great value. Finally, the so-called “modern scientific
touch” is given in the crucial scene of the story, in which Brinnaria
exonerates herself by carrying water in a sieve,—something which the
author had seen done in a series of accurate experiments. _The Unwilling
Vestal_ is original in style, and does not seem to depend on previous
novels of Roman life in any way. Its omission of any mention of the
Christians, makes it easier for the author to portray truthfully the life
of Pagan Rome.
In _The Unwilling Vestal_, (1918), Mr. White had told many interesting
things about Roman life, but in limiting himself to a single important
character, whose experiences are narrated in the third person, he
sometimes had failed to make the reader feel a share in the life of
Rome, as an eye-witness of the scene, or even a participant in it. Such
a realistic effect he actually attained in _Andivius Hedulio, Adventures
of a Roman Nobleman in the Days of the Empire_, (1921). This improvement
he brought about in part by introducing a large number of characters
from all ranks and conditions of Roman society, thus “presenting, in
a narrative fiction, a complete and faithful depiction of all the
phases, high and low, of that life which made up the grandeur which was
Rome.”[33] And most of the numerous characters are made just as familiar
to the reader as Brinnaria had been made in _The Unwilling Vestal_.
But this is not the only means taken by the author to make his novel
realistic; and the realistic effect is made complete by the fact that the
adventures of Hedulio are narrated in the first person by a character
who has the entire sympathy of the reader. While not a great believer
in newspaper reviews, I am willing to admit there is some justice in
the high praise made by “G. W. D.” in _The Evening Public Ledger_,
Philadelphia. After comparing _Andivius Hedulio_ to _Salammbo_, he says
of Mr. White’s novel, “The history is so subtly interwoven with the
narrative, that it becomes an integral part of it. The attention of the
reader is concentrated on the human relations and the characters are men
and women kin with the men and women of the present century. Mr. White
has made the past live as if it were the present. Or to put it another
way, he has abolished time, and has exhibited to us the unchanging human
emotions playing upon one another in Rome of the second century, just
as they play upon one another in America of the twentieth century. He
has not once yielded to the temptation to display his eruditions at the
expense of the story, a temptation to which so many learned men succumb
when they try to write historical fiction. They succumb because they lack
the instinct of the story teller, and do not realize that a novel must be
a human drama first, whatever else it may be, whether a study of manners
or of morals or a picture of the world in a historical epoch.... There is
nothing that people are more interested in than in other people.”
Any adverse criticism of _Andivius Hedulio_ would most naturally be
directed against the somewhat loose construction of its plot. The plot
of the novel imagines the young Roman nobleman wrongly suspected of
conspiring against the life of the Emperor Commodus. Fleeing for his
life, he passes eleven years in various disguises, never getting very
far from Italy and returning again and again to Rome, through one
chance or another. As the author says in his _Note to the Reader_, “The
plot ... has a general resemblance to the ancient _Milesian_ tales;
as, for instance, that on a version of which Shakespeare based his
_Comedy of Errors_. More definitely it is affiliated with the plot of
the _Metamorphoses_ of Apuleius... Much of the plot shows derivation
from romances of the _Picaresco_ type, or approaching that type... The
atmosphere of the adventures collectively is indubitably that of the
_Satiricon_ of Petronius, along with much from the _Metamorphoses_ of
Apuleius.” Much of the plot, says Mr. White, came from his assuming that
there was a fashionable litter-craze at Rome, “a fad of wealthy fops for
journeying by litter instead of by travelling coach... Much of the minor
incident and local color derives from my saturating myself with what
survives to us of Roman roadbooks.” In a sense _Andivius Hedulio_ _is_ a
romance of the road. In reading the novel, I was much impressed by the
author’s genuine delight in strange, unexpected, but _not improbable_
adventures, and was reminded much of certain aspects of the romances of
Robert Louis Stevenson; it was no surprise to discover later that I had
overlooked its dedication “To Robert Louis Stevenson, who in reading
fiction loved ‘The open road and the bright eyes of danger.’” Moreover
Mr. White, like Stevenson, realized that the best way to tell a story,
especially a story of adventure, is to tell “one thing after another.”
This is the way it was done by the authors of the _Milesians_, of the
_Metamorphoses_, and of the “picaresque” romances. Such works have their
place in the line of ancestry of the modern novel, and the author is
entirely justified in using them,—somewhat expurgated,—since often they
portray life in a very realistic way. It cannot be said that _Andivius
Hedulio_ excels such great novels as _Ben Hur_ and _Darkness and Dawn_,
in portraying the life of the Roman world with realistic effect. But
the author’s genius, in making the experiences of characters of the
Roman world seem essentially like our own experiences, and those of our
friends, makes this novel excel most other novels of Roman life in this
respect.
_Andivius Hedulio_ is the work of a scholarly teacher of Latin, who
wished to throw a strong light on the life of the historical period of
Commodus’ reign; and especially to present Commodus in the character of
“the most perfect athlete the world ever produced, misplaced on earth’s
greatest throne.” Mr. White’s novel is in no sense a school-history
book, such as Mr. Davis’s _A Friend of Caesar_; but any school-boy could
read it with pleasure, and learn from its sound scholarship, much, that
would aid him in his classical studies. Commodus is the most important
historical figure, and, as the author says, the part he plays in the
novel is due in part to what is said of him in the work of Gibbon,
Dio Cassius, and Herodian. While other sources mentioned by Mr. White
in his _Note to the Reader_, show a wide reading and a thoroughness
of scholarship, the novel itself is sufficient evidence of this, and
is entirely free from slavish copying. He frankly admits that the
culminating incident in the chariot races originated partly from certain
details in the chariot race in _Ben Hur_, (1880). But this incident is
given a peculiar originality, by the addition of details taken from the
account given to Mr. White of a “run-away” accident, which actually
occurred in Baltimore. This illumination of the past, by placing in a
story of the past an incident which has recently occurred, often aids a
novelist in attaining realistic effect, and illustrates one of the ways
Mr. White has taken to make the past seem real to present-day readers.
The labyrinth motive appears in _Andivius Hedulio_, when the hero and his
faithful servant make their escape from a secret stair, and through a
long, dark and filthy drain. This incident was suggested by the escape of
Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo’s _Les Miserables_, and Baring-Gould may have
taken a similar incident in _Perpetua_ from the same source.
Commodus’ joy in driving his horses to victory in the chariot races and
in displaying his skill in the amphitheatre, is well portrayed by the
author; but perhaps the greatest stroke in the portrayal of Commodus, is
made, not when he is governing horses, or overcoming single opponents,
animal or human, in the arena, but when he is controlling the minds and
passions of the army of mutineers. While Commodus is not the technical
hero of the story, he is the real hero of the novel, and in a fine
character-study he is represented as the man who really controlled the
Roman world, whether addressing soldiers and courtiers, or impressing the
populace by his skill in the arena. But besides presenting life at the
court of Commodus and in the higher social circles at Rome, with which
the Emperor was definitely connected, the novel takes one through the
streets of Rome and into different quarters of the city, in such a way
as to illustrate the life of all classes of Roman society; and presents
with fairness most of the various types of human character, which were to
be found in the city of Rome itself and in various parts of the Empire.
Since the Christians were comparatively few in number, even as late
as the time of Commodus, (and the life of Rome was still essentially
pagan), the author wisely refrains from any attempt to give them a place
in his story. He says of _Andivius Hedulio_, “Especially I judged it
free from vital anachronisms. I know of no fiction dealing with Rome or
Greece which does not project-back later ideas of duty, right and wrong,
morality and such like ethical concepts, into periods far anteceding
those in which these conceptions developed. The Greeks and Romans had
very definite notions as to personal morals, decency, duty, and the like,
but many of the ideas most prevalent among us originated since Roman
times and were then non-existent and inconceivable.” It would be beside
the mark to cry “paganism,” against Mr. White’s _Andivius Hedulio_, since
paganism is exactly what he wished to portray. In some respects this
novel excels any other previously discussed, in its portrayal not only of
the outward life, but of the _social_ and _ethical_ atmosphere of pagan
Rome. And its teacher-author has been eminently successful in showing,
to school-boy and mature reader alike, “all the phases, high and low, of
that life which made up the grandeur which was Rome.”
H. NOVELS WRITTEN BY AUTHORS WHO HAVE PORTRAYED ROMAN LIFE FROM AN
ESTHETIC VIEWPOINT
Walter Pater’s _Marius the Epicurean_ appeared in 1885. While Pater
was a tutor at Oxford, _Marius the Epicurean_ is so far removed from
being a school-book, that it was impossible to consider it in the class
of novels written by teachers to illustrate Roman life or a certain
period of Roman history in a pedagogical way. In fact Pater’s work is so
different from most novels of Roman life, and has a literary value so
much higher than most novels of any kind, that it is best considered in
a class by itself. Nothing has ever been written exactly like _Marius
the Epicurean_, which ranks above Pater’s other literary productions,
fine as they are, and furnishes his principal contribution to posterity.
It was indeed written for posterity, and not intended to be read as an
interesting novel and then forgotten. Marius the Epicurean is the finest
piece of pure literature that will be considered in this study. Moreover
it cannot escape consideration as a novel of Roman life. Its full title
is _Marius the Epicurean, His Sensations and Ideas_. Its hero is a Roman
boy, who advances in years, until he arrives at mature manhood, and whose
death is recorded at the end of the story. “It would probably have been
called a novel had its chief claim and merit not been independent of
fiction.”[34] In following the development of Marius, Pater is showing
what might have happened to a young man in the Rome of Marcus Aurelius,
if he were possessed of a particularly fine esthetic sense, and devoted
his life to an esthetic ideal. There is sufficient binding material in
the form of narrative to make _Marius the Epicurean_ rather a novel than
a series of essays, though it contains fine studies of the physical and
spiritual life of Rome. Such novels of Roman life as George Gissing’s
_Veranilda_, (1904), and Mr. Eden Phillpotts’ _Pan and the Twins_,
(1922), have derived much inspiration from both the substance and quality
of Pater’s work. Such a thorough classical scholar and ardent lover of
the classics as Lionel Johnson could say of its exactness, in _Post
Liminium_: “Readers, accustomed by long experience to use _Marius_ for a
text-book,—exact, precise, rigorous, well warranted and attested,—of the
Antonine age, do not need to be told that Mr. Pater never writes without
his facts and evidences.”[35]
Pater’s aim in _Marius the Epicurean_ had something in common with the
aim of some of the best novels of Roman life, that have been considered,
however unique his method may have been. He purposes to show a young man
in an age similar to our own, and one who exhibited “a sort of religious
phase possible for the modern mind.” Marius is like Pater in his serious
and refined nature, and his esthetic delight in religious ceremonial, but
represents better Pater’s ideal. Though he is taught to believe in the
outworn system of paganism, he takes delight only in the most beautiful
elements in pagan religious ceremonials. In his quest of the fine and
the beautiful in religious emotion, he is led to higher and higher forms
of philosophy, each step in his development being minutely described by
Pater, not with the accompaniment of abstract philosophizing, but with
the desire to portray in simple terms the beauty of esthetic experience.
At each step toward a higher intellectual existence Marius approaches the
ideal of a Christian life; his soul is said to be “naturally Christian,”
and he admires elements of beauty in the thought and life of a Christian
comrade. Finally by a mere accident, he dies a Christian. _Marius the
Epicurean_ simply portrays the life of Rome, as it appeared to a young
Roman who lived only to seek the highest good in esthetic experience.
It clearly shows that life governed by an esthetic ideal, could and did
exist in the days of Marcus Aurelius, just as it can and does exist today.
In _Marius the Epicurean_, Pater, as the author, shows himself to be more
a true Hellenist than any writer appears to be in any novel of Roman
life written before Pater’s work,—though his truly Greek appreciation of
the beautiful is in no way inconsistent with Christianity. But the book
portrays not merely the beauty of Greek philosophy. Viewed as a portrayal
of life, _Marius the Epicurean_ may be fairly said to portray essentially
the entire course of the religious life of Rome,—starting with the
primitive and patriarchal “religion of Numa,” and passing through later
forms, (whether wholly Roman or including foreign elements); and further
on through the abstractions of Greek philosophy, to the highest form of
Christianity. The social and moral phenomena to be seen at Rome in the
times of Marcus Aurelius, are shown, and the part which great schools of
Greek philosophy played in the life of Rome, is made to appear important.
While no great character portrayals are attempted in _Marius the
Epicurean_, Marius is made to meet with such great characters as the
Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Apuleius, and Lucian. Marcus Aurelius is
portrayed in a very modern light as a public lecturer, through whose
example Marius determines to become a student of rhetoric at Rome; yet
to Marius he seemed to be, (as he actually was), the greatest thinker
and the greatest man of his time. In his representation of the character
of Faustina, who is seen surrounded by her children, including the
supposedly illegitimate Commodus, Pater may owe something to Swinburne’s
poem, _Faustine_. Roman customs are well represented, when we see
people performing sacrifices or going to the theatre to celebrate a
holiday; and the life of Rome is made to seem real by minute descriptive
touches, such as those which describe the evidences of the ravages of
the great pestilence. Roman shops, inns, temples, and other buildings
appear crowded with people, and a multitude of human types are shown, as
soldiers, courtesans, beggars and little children. Some description is
also made of a Roman marriage ceremony; and the mythological burlesques
and gladiatorial contests of the amphitheatre are described as affecting
different individuals in different ways. In the death of Verus appears
something of the spirit which made the Romans turn such a matter into a
public event; the great Galen, making his way through the throng to the
side of the sufferer, is a figure which is familiar elsewhere in the
novel of Roman life.
But the most characteristic scenes taken from the outward life of the
Romans’ are the banquet and the Triumph of Marcus Aurelius. Pater
adds to the reality of these Roman scenes by portraying not only the
characteristics of men, but also those of children, and even animals.
Thus in the triumphal procession go “the ibex, the wild-cat, and the
reindeer stalking and trumpeting grandly.” Though scenes of the martyrdom
of the Christians only appear as told at second-hand, a characteristic
Roman brutality is shown by the guards in charge of Christian prisoners.
Thus the material life of Rome, as well as its religious life, is
portrayed in _Marius the Epicurean_. What Pater did for the novel of
Roman life was to show the possibility of portraying not merely the
material existence of the Romans, but the whole life of Rome considered
from a religious and esthetic standpoint. _Marius the Epicurean_ has been
said to stand without fiction; but the highest hope of any fiction might
well be to rise to the level of Pater’s work. It took five or six years
to write, and shows Pater’s thorough scholarship, and his appreciation
of the beautiful in Latin and Greek literature. Mr. Edward Hutton sums
up its excellence when he says that, “In _Marius the Epicurean_, Pater
gave us a book profound and simple, bounded by the great refusals of an
artist, perfect in prose, stooping to nothing, having the dignity of a
great poem, and the thoughtfulness that is characteristic of the writers
of the Augustan age.”