CHAPTER VII.

ROMAN LITERATURE.

If the ancient civilization rivaled the modern in the realm of

_art_, it was equally remarkable in the field of letters. It is not

my object to show that it was equal, or superior, or inferior to modern

literature, either in original genius or artistic excellence. That point

would be difficult to settle, and unprofitable to discuss. There is no

doubt as to the superior advantage which the modern world derives in

consequence of the invention of printing, and the consequent diffusion

of knowledge. But the question is in reference to the height which was

attained by the ancient pagan intellect, unaided by Christianity. I

simply wish to show that the ancients were distinguished in all

departments of literature, and that some of the masterpieces of genius

were created by them.

Nor is it my object to write a summary of the literature of antiquity.

It would be as dull as a catalogue, or a dictionary, or a compendium of

universal history for the use of schools in a single volume. And it

would be as profitless. My aim is simply to show that the old

civilization can boast of its glories in literature, as well as in art,

and that the mind of man never more nobly asserted its power than in

Greece and Rome. Our present civilization delights in those

philosophers, poets, and historians, who caught their inspiration from

the great pagan models which have survived the wreck of material

greatness. The human intellect achieved some of its greatest feats

before Christianity was born. The inborn dignity of the mind and soul

was never more nobly asserted than by Plato and Aristotle, by Thucydides

and Tacitus, by Homer and Virgil, by Demosthenes and Cicero. In

attestation, therefore, of the glory of the ancient civilization, in the

realm of literature, it is quite sufficient for our purpose to point out

some of those great lights which, after the lapse of two thousand years

or more, still continue to shine, and which are objects of hopeless

imitation, even as they are of universal admiration. If we can show that

the great heights were reached, even by a few, we prove the extent of

civilization. If genius can soar, under Pagan, as well as under

Christian influences, it would appear that civilization, in an

intellectual point of view, may be the work of man, unaided by

inspiration. It is the triumph of the native intellect of man which I

wish to show.

[Sidenote: Romans borrow from the Greeks.]

Although it is my chief aim to present the magnificent civilization of

the Roman empire under the emperors, I must cite the examples of Grecian

as well as Roman genius, since Greece became a part of that grand

empire, and since Grecian and Roman culture is mixed up and blended

together. Roman youth were trained in the Grecian schools. Young men

were sent to Athens and Rhodes after they had finished their education

in the capital. Athens continued to be, for several hundred years after

her political glory had passed away, the great university city of the

world. Educated Romans were as familiar with the Greek classics as they

were with those of their own country, and could talk Greek as modern

Germans can talk French. The poems which kindled the enthusiasm of Roman

youth are as worthy of notice as the statues which the conquerors

brought from the Ionian cities, to ornament their palaces and baths.

They equally attest the richness of the old civilization. And as it is

the triumph of the pagan intellect which I wish to show, it matters but

little whether we draw our illustrations from Greece or Rome. Without

the aid of Greece, Rome could never have reached the height she

attained.

[Sidenote: Richness of Greek Poetry.]

[Sidenote: The Homeric poems.]

Now how rich in poetry was classical antiquity, whether sung in the

Greek or Latin languages. In all those qualities which give immortality,

it has never been surpassed, whether in simplicity, in passion, in

fervor, in fidelity to nature, in wit, or in imagination. It existed

from the early ages, and continued to within a brief period of the fall

of the empire. With the rich accumulation of ages, the Romans were

familiar. They knew nothing indeed of the solitary grandeur of the

Jewish muse, or the mythological myths of the Ante-Homeric songsters;

but they possessed the Iliad and the Odyssey, with their wonderful

truthfulness, and clear portraiture of character, their absence of all

affectation, their serenity and cheerfulness, their good sense and

healthful sentiments, yet so original that the germ of almost every

character which has since figured in epic poetry can be found in them.

We see in Homer [Footnote: Born probably at Smyrna, an Ionian city,

about one hundred and fifty years after the Trojan War.] a poet of the

first class, holding the same place in literature that Plato does in

philosophy, or Newton in science, and exercising a mighty influence on

all the ages which have succeeded him. For nearly three thousand years

his immortal creations have been the delight and the inspiration of men

of genius, and they are as marvelous to us as they were to the

Athenians, since they are exponents of the learning, as well as of the

consecrated sentiments of the heroic ages. We see no pomp of words, no

far-fetched thoughts, no theatrical turgidity, no ambitious

speculations, no indefinite longings; but we read the manners and

customs of the primitive nations, and lessons of moral wisdom and human

nature as it is, and the sights and wonders of the external world, all

narrated with singular simplicity, yet marvelous artistic skill. We find

accuracy, delicacy, naturalness, yet grandeur, sentiment, and beauty,

such as Pheidias represented in his statues of Jupiter. No poems have

ever been more popular, and none have extorted greater admiration from

critics. Like Shakespeare, Homer is a kind of Bible to both the learned

and unlearned among all people and ages--one of the prodigies of this

world. His poems form the basis of Greek literature, and are the best

understood and the most widely popular of all Grecian composition. The

unconscious simplicity of the Homeric narrative, its vivid pictures, its

graphic details and religious spirit, create an enthusiasm such as few

works of genius can claim. Moreover, it presents a painting of society,

with its simplicity and ferocity, its good and evil passions, its

compassion and its fierceness, such as no other poem affords. [Footnote:

The Homeric poems have been translated into nearly all the European

languages, and several times into English. The last translation is by

the Earl of Derby--a most remarkable work. Guizot, _Cours d'Hist.

Mod_., Lecon 7me; Grote, vol. ii. p. 277; _Studies in Homer_, by

Hon. W. E. Gladstone; Mure, _Critical Hist. of Lang. and Lit. of

Greece_; Muller, _Hist, of the Lit. of Ancient Greece_, translated

by Donaldson.] Nor is it necessary to speak of any other Grecian

epic, when the Iliad and the Odyssey attest the perfection which

was attained one hundred and twenty years before Hesiod was born. Grote

thinks that the Iliad and the Odyssey were produced at some period

between 850 B.C., and 776 B.C.

[Sidenote: Pindar.]

In lyrical poetry the Greeks were no less remarkable, and indeed they

attained to absolute perfection, owing to the intimate connection

between poetry and music. Who has surpassed Pindar in artistic skill?

His _triumphal odes_ are paeans, in which piety breaks out in

expressions of the deepest awe, and the most elevated sentiments of

moral wisdom. They alone of all his writings have descended to us, but

all possess fragments of odes, songs, dirges, and panegyrics, which show

the great excellence to which he attained. He was so celebrated that he

was employed by the different states and princes of Greece to compose

choral songs for special occasions, especially the public games.

Although a Theban, he was held in the highest estimation by the

Athenians, and was courted by kings and princes. [Footnote: Born in

Thebes 522 B.C., and died probably in his eightieth year, and was

contemporary with Aeschylus and the battle of Marathon.] We possess,

also, fragments of Sappho, Simonides, Anacreon, and others, enough to

show that, could the lyrical poetry of Greece be recovered, we should

probably possess the richest collection that the world has produced.

[Sidenote: Greek dramatic poetry.]

But dramatic poetry was still more varied and remarkable. Even the great

masterpieces of Sophocles and Euripides, were regarded by contemporaries

as inferior to many tragedies utterly unknown to us.

[Sidenote: Aeschylus.]

The great creator of the Greek drama was Aeschylus, born at Eleusis, 525

B.C. It was not till the age of forty-one that he gained his first

prize. Sixteen years afterwards, defeated by Sophocles, he quitted

Athens in disgust, and went to the court of Hiero, king of Syracuse. But

he was always held, even at Athens, in the highest honor, and his pieces

were frequently reproduced upon the stage. It was not so much his object

to amuse an audience, as to instruct and elevate it. He combined

religious feeling with lofty moral sentiment. And he had unrivaled power

over the realm of astonishment and terror. "At his summons," says Sir

Walter Scott, "the mysterious and tremendous volume of destiny, in which

is inscribed the doom of gods and men, seemed to display its leaves of

iron before the appalled spectators; the more than mortal voices of

Deities, Titans, and departed heroes, were heard in awful conference;

heaven bowed, and its divinities descended; earth yawned and gave up the

pale spectres of the dead, and yet more undefined and ghastly forms of

those infernal deities who struck horror into the gods themselves." His

imagination dwells in the loftiest regions of the old mythology of

Greece; his tone is always pure and moral, though stern and harsh. He

appeals to the most violent passions, and he is full of the boldest

metaphors. In sublimity he has never been surpassed. He was in poetry,

what Pheidias and Michael Angelo were in art. The critics say that his

sublimity of diction is sometimes carried to an extreme, so that his

language becomes inflated. His characters are sublime, like his

sentiments; they were gods and heroes of colossal magnitude. His

religious views were Homeric, and he sought to animate his countrymen to

deeds of glory, as it became one of the generals who fought at Marathon

to do. He was an unconscious genius, and worked, like Homer, without a

knowledge of artistical laws. He was proud and impatient, and his poetry

was religious rather than moral. He wrote seventy plays, of which only

seven are extant; but these are immortal, among the greatest creations

of human genius, like the dramas of Shakespeare. He died in Sicily in

the sixty-ninth year of his age. The principal English translation of

his plays are by Potter, Harford, and Medwin. [Footnote: See Muller and

Bode, histories of Greek Literature.]

[Sidenote: Sophocles.]

The fame of Sophocles is scarcely less than that of Aeschylus. He was

twenty-seven years of age when he appeared as a rival. He was born in

Colonus, in the suburbs of Athens, 495 B.C., and was the contemporary of

Herodotus, of Pericles, of Pindar, of Pheidias, of Socrates, of Cimon,

of Euripides--the era of great men; the period of the Peloponnesian War,

when every thing that was elegant and intellectual culminated at Athens.

Sophocles had every element of character and person which fascinated the

Greeks: beauty of person, symmetry of form, skill in gymnastics,

calmness and dignity of manner, a cheerful and amiable temper, a ready

wit, a meditative piety, a spontaneity of genius, an affectionate

admiration for talent, and patriotic devotion to his country. His

tragedies, by the universal consent of the best critics, are the

perfection of the Grecian drama, and they, moreover, maintain that he

has no rival, Shakespeare alone excepted, in the whole realm of dramatic

poetry, unless it be Aeschylus himself, to whom he bears the same

relation in poetry that Raphael does to Michael Angelo in the world of

art. It was his peculiarity to excite emotions of sorrow and compassion.

He loved to paint forlorn heroes. He was human in all his sympathies,

not so religious as his great rival, but as severely ethical; not so

sublime, but more perfect in art. His sufferers are not the victims of

an inexorable destiny, but of their own follies. Nor does he even excite

emotion apart from a moral end. He lived to be ninety years old, and

produced the most beautiful of his tragedies in his eightieth year, the

"Oedipus at Colonus." He wrote the astonishing number of one hundred and

thirty plays, and carried off the first prize twenty-four times. His

"Antigone" was written when he was forty-five, and when Euripides had

already gained a prize. Only seven of his tragedies have survived, but

these are priceless treasures. The fertility of his genius was only

equaled by his artistic skill. [Footnote: Schlegel, _Lectures on

Dramatic Art_; Muller, _Hist. Lit._; Donaldson's _Antigone_;

Lessing, _Leben des Sophokles_; Philip Smith, article in Smith's

_Dict._.]

[Sidenote: Euripides.]

Euripides, the last of the great triumvirate of the Greek tragic poets,

was born at Athens, B.C. 485. He had not the sublimity of Aeschylus, nor

the touching pathos of Sophocles, but, in seductive beauty and

successful appeal to passion, was superior to both. Nor had he their

stern simplicity. In his tragedies the passion of love predominates, nor

does it breathe the purity of sentiment. It approaches rather to the

tone of the modern drama. He paints the weakness and corruptions of

society, and brings his subjects to the level of common life. He was the

pet of the Sophists, and was pantheistic in his views. He does not paint

ideal excellence, and his characters are not as men ought to be, but as

they are, especially in corrupt states of society. He wrote ninety-five

plays, of which eighteen are extant. Whatever objection may be urged in

reference to his dramas on the score of morality, nobody can question

their transcendent art, or his great originality. With the exception of

Shakespeare, all succeeding dramatists have copied these three great

poets, especially Racine, who took Sophocles for his model. [Footnote:

Muller, Schlegel. Sir Walter Scott on the Drama; Gote, vol. viii. p.

442, Thorne, _Mag. Via. Eurip._ Potter has made a translation of

all his plays.]

[Sidenote: Greek comedy.]

[Sidenote: Aristophanes.]

The Greeks were no less distinguished for comedy. Both tragedy and

comedy sprung from feasts in honor of Bacchus; and as the jests and

frolics were found misplaced when introduced into grave scenes, a

separate province of the drama was formed, and comedy arose. At first it

did not derogate from the religious purposes which were at the

foundation of the Greek drama. It turned upon parodies, in which the

adventures of the gods are introduced by way of sport, like the appetite

of Hercules, or the cowardice of Bacchus. Then the comic authors

entertained spectators by fantastic and gross displays; by the

exhibition of buffoons and pantomimes. But the taste of the Athenians

was too severe to relish such entertainments, and comedy passed into

ridicule of public men and measures, and of the fashions of the day. The

people loved to see their great men brought down to their own level. Nor

did comedy flourish until the morals of society were degenerated, and

ridicule had become the most effective weapon to assail prevailing

follies. Comedy reached its culminating point when society was both the

most corrupt and the most intellectual, as in France, when Moliere

pointed his envenomed shafts against popular vices. It pertained to the

age of Socrates and the Sophists, when there was great bitterness in

political parties, and an irrepressible desire for novelties. In

Cratinus, comedy first made herself felt as a great power, who espoused

the side of Cimon against Pericles, with great bitterness and vehemence.

Many were the comic writers of that age of wickedness and genius, but

all yielded precedence to Aristophanes, whose plays only have reached

us. Never were libels on persons of authority and influence uttered with

such terrible license. He attacked the gods, the politicians, the

philosophers, and the poets of Athens; even private citizens did not

escape from his shafts, and women were subjects of his irony. Socrates

was made the butt of his ridicule, when most revered, and Cleon in the

height of his power, and Euripides when he had gained the highest

prizes. He has furnished jests for Rabelais, and hints to Swift, and

humor for MoliEre. In satire, in derision, in invective, and bitter

scorn, he has never been surpassed. No modern capital would tolerate

such unbounded license. Yet no plays were ever more popular, or more

fully exposed follies which could not otherwise be reached. He is called

the Father of Comedy, and his comedies are of great historical

importance, although his descriptions are doubtless caricatures. He was

patriotic in his intentions, and set up for a reformer. His peculiar

genius shines out in his "Clouds," the greatest of his pieces, in which

he attacks the Sophists. He wrote fifty-four plays. He was born B.C.

444, and died B.C. 380. His best comedies are translated by Mitchell.

Thus it would appear that in the three great departments of poetry,--the

epic, the lyric, and the dramatic,--the old Greeks were great masters,

and have been the teachers of all subsequent nations and ages.

The Romans, in these departments, were not their equals, but they were

very successful copyists, and will bear competition with modern nations.

If the Romans did not produce a Homer, they can boast of a Virgil; if

they had no Pindar, they furnished a Horace, while in satire they

transcended the Greeks.

[Sidenote: Naevius.]

The Romans, however, produced no poetry worthy of notice until the Greek

language and literature were introduced. It was not till the fall of

Tarentum that we read of a Roman poet. Livius Andronicus, a Greek slave,

B.C. 240, rudely translated the Odyssey into Latin, and was the author

of various plays, all of which have perished, and none of which,

according to Cicero, were worth a second perusal. Still he was the first

to substitute the Greek drama for the old lyrical stage poetry. One year

after the first Punic War, he exhibited the first Roman play. As the

creator of the drama, he deserves historical notice, though he has no

claim to originality, and like a schoolmaster as he was, pedantically

labored to imitate the culture of the Greeks. And his plays formed the

commencement of Roman translation-literature, and naturalized the Greek

metres in Latium, even though they were curiosities rather than works of

art. [Footnote: Mommsen, vol. ii. b. ii. ch. xiv.] Naevius, B.C. 235,

produced a play at Rome, and wrote both epic and dramatic poetry, but so

little has survived, that no judgment can be formed of his merits. He

was banished for his invectives against the aristocracy, who did not

relish severity of comedy. [Footnote: Horace, _Ep_. ii. 11, 53.]

Mommsen regards Naevius as the first among the Romans who deserves to be

ranked among the poets. He flourished about the year 550, and closely

adhered to Andronicus in metres. His language is free from stiffness and

affectation, and his verses have a graceful flow. Plautus was perhaps

the first great poet whom the Romans produced, and his comedies are

still admired by critics, as both original and fresh. He was born in

Umbria, B.C. 257, and was contemporaneous with Publius and Cneius

Scipio. He died B.C. 184.

[Sidenote: Plautus.]

The first development of Roman genius in the field of poetry, seems to

have been the dramatic, in which the Greek authors were copied. Plautus

might be mistaken for a Greek, were it not for the painting of Roman

manners. His garb is essentially Greek. He wrote one hundred and thirty

plays, not always for the stage, but for the reading public. He lived

about the time of the second Punic War, before the theatre was fairly

established at Rome. His characters, although founded on Greek models,

act, speak, and joke like Romans. He enjoyed great popularity down to

the latest times of the empire, while the purity of his language, as

well as the felicity of his wit, was celebrated by the ancient critics.

[Footnote: Quint., x. i. Section 99.] Cicero places his wit on a par

with the old Attic comedy, [Footnote: Cicero, _De Off_., i. 29.]

while Jerome spent much time in reading his comedies, even though they

afterward cost him tears of bitter regret. Modern dramatists owe much to

him. Moliere has imitated him in his "_Avare_," and Shakespeare in

his "Comedy of Errors." Lessing pronounces the "_Captivi_" to be

the finest comedy ever brought upon the stage. [Footnote: Smith, _Dict.

of Ant._ art. _Plaut_.] He has translated this play into German.

It has also been admirably translated into English. The great excellence

of Plautus was the masterly handling of the language, and the adjusting

the parts for dramatic effect. His humor, broad and fresh, produced

irresistible comic effects. No one ever surpassed him in his vocabulary

of nicknames, and his happy jokes. Hence he maintained his popularity in

spite of his vulgarity. [Footnote: Mommsen, vol. ii. b. iii. ch. xiv.]

[Sidenote: Terence.]

Terence shares with Plautus the throne of Roman comedy. He was a

Carthaginian slave, and was born B.C. 160, but was educated by a wealthy

Roman, into whose hands he fell, and ever after associated with the best

society, and traveled extensively into Greece. He was greatly inferior

to Plautus in originality, nor has he exerted a lasting influence like

him; but he wrote comedies characterized by great purity of diction, and

which have been translated into all modern languages. [Footnote:

Coleman's _Terence_; Dryden, _On Dram. Poet._; Mommsen, vol.

iii. b. v. ch. xiii.] Anterior to the Augustan age, no tragic production

has reached us, although Quintilian speaks highly of Accius, [Footnote:

Quint., x. 1. Section 97.] especially of the vigor of his style. But

he merely imitated the Greeks. Terence closely copied Menander, whom

Mommsen regards as the most polished, elegant, and chaste of all the

poets of the newer comedy. Unlike Plautus, he draws his characters from

good society, and his comedies, if not moral, were decent. Plautus wrote

for the multitude; Terence for the few. Plautus delighted in a noisy

dialogue and slang expressions; Terence confines himself to quiet

conversation and elegant expressions, for which he was admired by Cicero

and Quintilian, and other great critics. He aspired to the approval of

the good, rather than the applause of the vulgar; and it is a remarkable

fact that his comedies supplanted the more original productions of

Plautus in the latter years of the republic, showing that the literature

of the aristocracy was more prized than that of the people, even in a

degenerate age. The "_Thyestes_" [Footnote: Hor., _Sat_. I 9;

Martial, viii. 18.] of Varius, was regarded in its day as equal to Greek

tragedies. Ennius composed tragedies in a vigorous style, and was

regarded by the Romans as the parent of their literature, although most

of his works have perished. [Footnote: Born B.C. 239.] Virgil borrowed

many of his thoughts, and he was regarded as the prince of Roman song in

the time of Cicero. The Latin language is greatly indebted to him.

Pacuvius imitated Aeschylus in the loftiness of his style. [Footnote:

Born B.C. 170] The only tragedy of the Romans which has reached us was

written by Seneca the philosopher.

[Sidenote: The Aeneid.]

[Sidenote: Virgil.]

In epic poetry the Romans accomplished more, though still inferior to

the Greeks. The "Aeneid" has certainly survived the material glories of

Rome. It may not have come up to the exalted ideal of its author; it may

be defaced by political flatteries; it may not have the force and

originality of the "Iliad," but it is superior in art, and delineates

the passion of love with more delicacy than can be found in any Greek

author. In soundness of judgment, in tenderness of feeling, in chastened

fancy, in picturesque description, in delineation of character, in

matchless beauty of diction, and in splendor of versification, it has

never been surpassed by any poem in any language, and proudly takes its

place among the imperishable works of genius. "Availing himself of the

pride and superstition of the Roman people, the poet traces the origin

and establishment of the 'Eternal City,' to those heroes and actions

which had enough in them of what was human and ordinary to excite the

sympathies of his countrymen, intermingled with persons and

circumstances of an extraordinary and superhuman character to awaken

their admiration and awe. No subject could have been more happily

chosen. It has been admired also for its perfect unity of action; for

while the episodes command the richest variety of description, they are

always subordinate to the main object of the poem, which is to impress

the divine authority under which Aeneas first settled in Italy. The wrath

of Juno, upon which the whole fate of Aeneas seems to turn, is at once

that of a woman and a goddess; the passion of Dido, and her general

character, bring us nearer to the present world; but the poet is

continually introducing higher and more effectual influences, until, by

the intervention of gods and men, the Trojan name is to be continued in

the Roman, and thus heaven and earth are appeased." [Footnote: Thompson,

_Hist. Rom. Lit._, p. 92.] No one work of man has probably had such

a wide and profound influence as this poem of Virgil,--a text-book in

all schools since the revival of learning, the model of the Carlovingian

poets, the guide of Dante, the oracle of Tasso. [Footnote: Virgil was

born seventy years before Christ, and was seven years older than

Augustus. His parentage was humble, but his facilities of education were

great. He was a most fortunate man, enjoying the friendship of Augustus

and Maecenas, fame in his own lifetime, leisure to prosecute his studies,

and ample rewards for his labors. He died at Brundusium at the age of

fifty.]

[Sidenote: Horace.]

In lyrical poetry, the Romans can boast of one of the greatest masters

of any age or nation. The Odes of Horace have never been transcended,

and will probably remain through all the ages, the delight of scholars.

They may not have the deep religious sentiment, and the unity of

imagination and passion which belong to the Greek lyrical poets, but as

works of art, of exquisite felicity of expression, of agreeable images,

they are unrivaled. Even in the time of Juvenal, his poems were the

common school books of Roman youth. Horace, like Virgil, was a favored

man, enjoying the friendship of the great with ease, fame, and fortune.

But his longings for retirement, and his disgust at the frivolities

around him, are a sad commentary on satisfied desires. [Footnote: Born

B.C. 65. The best translation of his works is by Francis; but Horace is

untranslatable.] His odes compose but a small part of his writings. His

epistles are the most perfect of his productions, and rank with the

Georgics of Virgil and the satires of Juvenal, as the most perfect form

of Roman verse. His satires are also admirable, but without the fierce

vehemence and lofty indignation that characterized Juvenal. It is the

folly rather than the wickedness of vice which he describes with such

playful skill and such keenness of observation. He was the first to

mould the Latin tongue to the Greek lyric measures. Quintilian's

criticism is indorsed by all scholars. "_Lyricorum Horatius fere solus

legi dignus, in verbis felicissime audax_." No poetry was ever more

severely elaborated than that of Horace, and the melody of the language

imparts to it a peculiar fascination. If inferior to Pindar in passion

and loftiness, it glows with a more genial humanity, and with purer wit.

It cannot be enjoyed fully, except by those versed in the experiences of

life. Such perceive a calm wisdom, a penetrating sagacity, a sober

enthusiasm, and a refined taste, which are unusual even among the

masters of human thought. It is the fashion to depreciate the original

merits of this poet, as well as those of Virgil and Plautus and Terence,

because they derived so much assistance from the Greeks. But the Greeks

borrowed from each other. Pure originality is impossible. It is the

mission of art to add to its stores, without hoping to monopolize the

whole realm. Even Shakespeare, the most original of modern poets, was

vastly indebted to those who went before him, and even he has not

escaped the hypercriticism of minute observers.

[Sidenote: Catullus.]

In this allusion to lyrical poetry, I have not spoken of Catullus,

unrivaled in tender lyric, and the greatest poet before the Augustan

era. He was born B.C. 87, and enjoyed the friendship of the most

celebrated characters. One hundred and sixteen of his poems have come

down to us, most of which are short, and many of them defiled by great

coarseness and sensuality. Critics say, however, that whatever he

touched he adorned; that his vigorous simplicity, pungent wit, startling

invective, and felicity of expression, make him one of the great poets

of the Latin language.

[Sidenote: Lucretius.]

In didactic poetry, Lucretius was preeminent, and is regarded by

Schlegel as the first of Roman poets in native genius. [Footnote: Born

B.C. 95, died B.C. 52. Smith's _Dict._] He lived before the

Augustan era, and died at the age of forty-two by his own hand. His

great poem "De Rerum Natura," is a delineation of the epicurean

philosophy, and treats of all the great subjects of thought with which

his age is conversant. It somewhat resembles Pope's "Essay on Man," in

style and subject, but immeasurably superior in poetical genius. It is a

lengthened disquisition, in seven thousand four hundred lines, of the

great phenomena of the outward world. As a painter and worshiper of

nature, he was superior to all the poets of antiquity. His skill in

presenting abstruse speculations is marvelous, and his outbursts of

poetic genius are matchless in power and beauty. Into all subjects he

casts a fearless eye, and writes with sustained enthusiasm. But he was

not fully appreciated by his countrymen, although no other poet has so

fully brought out the power of the Latin language. Professor Ramsay,

[Footnote: The translation of Lucretius into English was made by I. M.

Goode, Evelyn, and Drummond.] while alluding to the melancholy

tenderness of Tibullus, the exquisite ingenuity of Ovid, the inimitable

felicity and taste of Horace, the gentleness and splendor of Virgil, and

the vehement declamation of Juvenal, thinks that, had the verses of

Lucretius perished, we should never have known that it could give

utterance to the grandest conceptions with all that self-sustained

majesty and harmonious swell, in which the Grecian muse rolls forth her

loftiest outpourings. The eulogium of Ovid is--

"Carmina sublimis tune sunt peritura Lucreti,

Exitio terras quum dabit una dies."

[Sidenote: Ovid.]

Elegiac poetry has an honorable place in Roman literature. To this

school belongs Ovid, [Footnote: Born B.C. 43. Died A.D. 18.] whose

"Metamorphoses" will always retain their interest. He, with that self-

conscious genius common to poets, declares that his poem would be proof

against sword, fire, thunder, and time,--a prediction, says Bayle,

[Footnote: Bayle, _Dict._] which has not yet proved false. Niebuhr

[Footnote: _Lect._, vol. ii. p. 166.] thinks that, next to

Catullus, he was the most poetical of his countrymen. Milton thinks he

could have surpassed Virgil had he attempted epic poetry. He was nearest

to the romantic school of all the classical authors, and Chaucer,

Ariosto, and Spenser owe to him great obligations. Like Pope, his verses

flowed spontaneously. His "Tristia" were more admired by the Romans than

his "Amores" or "Metamorphoses,"--probably from the doleful description

of his exile,--a fact which shows that contemporaries are not always the

best judges of real merit. His poems, great as was their genius, are

deficient in the severe taste which marked the Greeks, and are immoral

in their tendency. He had great advantages, but was banished by Augustus

for his description of licentious love, "Carmina per libidinosa." Nor

did he support exile with dignity. He died of a broken heart, and

languished, like Cicero, when doomed to a similar fate. But few

intellectual men have ever been able to live at a distance from the

scene of their glories, and without the stimulus of high society.

Chrysostom is one of the few exceptions. Ovid, as an immoral man, was

justly punished.

[Sidenote: Tibullus.]

Tibullus was also a famous elegiac poet, and was born the same year as

Ovid, and was the friend of Horace. He lived in retirement, and was both

gentle and amiable. At his beautiful country seat he soothed his soul

with the charms of literature and the simple pleasures of the country.

Niebuhr pronounces his elegies doleful, [Footnote: _Lect._, vol.

iii. p. 143.] but Merivale [Footnote: _Hist_, vol. iv. p. 602.]

thinks that "the tone of tender melancholy in which he sung his

unprosperous loves had a deeper and purer source than the caprices of

three inconstant paramours." "His spirit is eminently religious, though

it bids him fold his hands in resignation rather than open them in hope.

He alone of all the great poets of his day remained undazzled by the

glitter of the Caesarian usurpation, and pined away in unavailing

despondency, in beholding the subjugation of his country."

[Sidenote: Propertius.]

His contemporary, Propertius, [Footnote: Born B.C. 51.] was, on the

contrary, the most eager of all the flatterers of Augustus,--a man of

wit and pleasure, whose object or idolatry was Cynthia, a poetess and a

courtesan. He was an imitator of the Greeks, but had a great

contemporary fame, [Footnote: Quint., x. 1. Section 93.] and shows

great warmth of passion, but he never soared into the sublime heights of

poetry, like his rival. Such were among the great elegiac poets of Rome,

generally devoted to the delineation of the passion of love. The older

English poets resembled them in this respect, but none of them have

soared to such lofty heights as the later ones, like Wordsworth and

Tennyson. It is in lyric poetry that the moderns have chiefly excelled

the ancients, in variety, in elevation of sentiment, and in imagination.

The grandeur and originality of the ancients were displayed rather in

epic and dramatic poetry.

[Sidenote: Juvenal.]

[Sidenote: Perseus.]

In _satire_ the Romans transcended both the Greeks and the moderns.

There is nothing in any language which equals the fire, the intensity,

and the bitterness of Juvenal,--not even Swift and Pope. But he

flourished in the decline of literature, and has neither the taste nor

elegance of the Augustan writers. He was the son of a freedman, and was

born A.D. 38, and was the contemporary of Martial. He was banished by

Domitian on account of a lampoon against a favorite dancer, but under

the reign of Nerva he returned to Rome, and the imperial tyranny was the

subject of his bitterest denunciation, next to the degradation of public

morals. His great rival in satire was Horace, who laughed at follies;

but he, more austere, exaggerated and denounced them. His sarcasms on

women have never been equaled in severity, and we cannot but hope that

they were unjust. In an historical point of view, as a delineation of

the manners of his age, his satires are priceless, even like the

epigrams of Martial. Satire arose with Lucilius, [Footnote: Born B.C.

148.] in the time of Marius, an age when freedom of speech was

tolerated. Horace was the first to gain immortality in this department.

Persius comes next, born A.D. 34, the friend of Lucan and Seneca in the

time of Nero; and he painted the vices of his age when it was passing to

that degradation which marked the reign of Domitian when Juvenal

appeared, who, disdaining fear, boldly set forth the abominations of the

times, and struck without distinction all who departed from duty and

conscience. This uncompromising poet, not pliant and easy like Horace,

animadverted, like an incorruptible censor, on the vices which were

undermining the moral health and preparing the way for violence; on the

hypocrisy of philosophers and the cruelty of tyrants; on the weakness of

women and the debauchery of men. He discourses on the vanity of human

wishes with the moral wisdom of Dr. Johnson, and urges self-improvement

like Socrates and Epictetus. [Footnote: The best translations of Juvenal

are those of Dryden, Gifford, and Badham.]

I might speak of other celebrated poets,--of Lucan, of Martial, of

Petronius; but I only wish to show that the great poets of antiquity,

both Greek and Roman, have never been surpassed in genius, in taste, and

in art, and few were ever more honored in their lifetime by appreciating

admirers showing the advanced state of civilization which was reached in

every thing pertaining to the realm of thought.

But the genius of the ancients was displayed in prose composition as

well as in poetry, although perfection was not so soon attained. The

poets were the great creators of the languages of antiquity. It was not

until they had produced their immortal works that the languages were

sufficiently softened and refined to admit of great beauty in prose. But

prose requires art as well as poetry. There is an artistic rhythm in the

writings of the classical authors, like those of Cicero and Herodotus

and Thucydides, as marked as in the beautiful measure of Homer and

Virgil. Burke and Macaulay are as great artists in style as Tennyson

himself. Plato did not write poetry, but his prose is as "musical as

Apollo's lyre." And it is seldom that men, either in ancient or modern

times, have been distinguished for both kinds of composition, although

Voltaire, Schiller, Milton, Swift, and Scott are among the exceptions.

Cicero, the greatest prose writer of antiquity, produced only an

inferior poem, laughed at by his contemporaries. Bacon could not write

poetry, with all his affluence of thought and vigor of imagination and

command of language, any easier than Pope could write prose.

All sorts of prose compositions were carried to perfection by both

Greeks and Romans, in history, in criticism, in philosophy, in oratory,

in epistles.

[Sidenote: Herodotus.]

The earliest great prose writer among the Greeks was Herodotus,

[Footnote: Born B.C. 484.] from which we may infer that _History_

was the first form of prose composition which attained development. But

Herodotus was not born until Aeschylus had gained a prize for tragedy,

more than two hundred years after Simonides, the lyric poet, flourished,

and probably six hundred years after Homer sung his immortal epics.

After more than two thousand years the style of this great "Father of

History" is admired by every critic; while his history, as a work of

art, is still a study and a marvel. It is difficult to understand why no

anterior work in prose is worthy of note, since the Greeks had attained

a high civilization two hundred years before he appeared, and the

language had reached a high point of development under Homer for more

than five hundred years. The history of Herodotus was probably written

in the decline of life, when his mind was enriched with great

attainments in all the varied learning of his age, and when he had

conversed with most of the celebrated men of the various countries which

he visited. It pertains chiefly to the wars of the Greeks with the

Persians; but, in his frequent episodes, which do not impair the unity

of the work, he is led to speak of the manners and customs of the

oriental nations. It was once the fashion to speak of Herodotus as a

credulous man, who embodied the most improbable, though interesting

stories. But now it is believed that no historian was ever more

profound, conscientious, and careful; and all modern investigations

confirm his sagacity and impartiality. He was one of the most

accomplished men of antiquity, or of any age,--an enlightened and

curious traveler, a profound thinker, a man of universal knowledge,

familiar with the whole range of literature, art, and science in his

day, acquainted with all the great men of Greece and at the courts of

Asiatic princes, the friend of Sophocles, of Pericles, of Thucydides, of

Aspasia, of Socrates, of Damon, of Zeno, of Pheidias, of Protagoras, of

Euripides, of Polygnotus, of Anaxagoras, of Xenophon, of Alcibiades, of

Lysias, of Aristophanes,--the most brilliant constellation of men of

genius who were ever found together within the walls of a Grecian city,

respected and admired by these great lights, all of whom he transcended

in knowledge. Thus was he fitted for his task by travel, by study, and

by intercourse with the great, to say nothing of his original genius,

and the greatest prose work which had yet appeared in Greece was

produced,--a prose epic, severe in taste, perfect in unity, rich in

moral wisdom, charming in style, religious in spirit, grand in subject,

without a coarse passage; simple, unaffected, and beautiful, like the

narratives of the Bible; amusing, yet instructive, easy to understand,

yet extending to the utmost boundaries of human research--a model for

all subsequent historians. So highly was it valued by the Athenians,

when their city was at the height of its splendor, that they decreed to

its author ten talents, about twelve thousand dollars, for reciting it.

He even went from city to city, a sort of prose rhapsodist, or like a

modern lecturer, reciting his history--an honored and extraordinary man,

a sort of Humboldt, having mastered every thing. And he wrote, not for

fame, but to communicate the results of his inquiries, from the pure

love of truth which he learned by personal investigation at Dodona, at

Delphi, at Samos, at Athens, at Corinth, at Thebes, at Tyre; yea, he

traveled into Egypt, Scythia, Asia Minor, Palestine, Babylonia, Italy,

and the islands of the sea. His episode in Egypt is worth more, in an

historical point of view, than every thing combined which has descended

to us from antiquity. Herodotus was the first to give dignity to

history; nor, in truthfulness, candor, and impartiality, has he ever

been surpassed. His very simplicity of style is a proof of his

transcendent art, even as it is the evidence of his severity of taste.

[Footnote: Dahlman has written an admirable life of Herodotus; but

Rawlinson's translation, with his notes, is invaluable.]

[Sidenote: Thucydides.]

To Thucydides, as an historian, the modern world also assigns a proud

preeminence. He treated only of a short period, during the Peloponnesian

War; but the various facts connected with that great event could only be

known by the most minute and careful inquiries. He devoted twenty-seven

years to the composition of his narration, and he weighed his testimony

with the most scrupulous care. His style has not the fascination of

Herodotus, but it is more concise. In a single volume he relates what

could scarcely be compressed into eight volumes of a modern history. As

a work of art, of its kind, it is unrivaled. In his description of the

plague of Athens he is minute as he is simple. He abounds with rich

moral reflections, and has a keen perception of human character. His

pictures are striking and tragic. He is vigorous and intense, and every

word he uses has a meaning. But some of his sentences are not always

easily understood. One of the greatest tributes which can be paid to him

is, that, according to the estimate of an able critic, [Footnote: George

Long, Oxford.] we have a more exact history of a long and eventful

period by Thucydides than we have of any period in modern history,

equally long and eventful; and all this is compressed into a volume.

[Footnote: Born 471 B.C.; lived twenty years in exile on account of a

military failure.]

[Sidenote: Xenophon.]

Xenophon is the last of the trio of the Greek historians, whose writings

are classical and inimitable. [Footnote: Born probably about 444 B.C.]

He is characterized by great simplicity and absence of affectation. His

"Anabasis," in which he describes the expedition of the younger Cyrus

and the retreat of the ten thousand Greeks, is his most famous book. But

his "Cyropaedia," in which the history of Cyrus is the subject, although

still used as a classic in colleges for the beauty of the style, has no

value as a history, since the author merely adopted the current stories

of his hero without sufficient investigation. Xenophon wrote a variety

of treatises and dialogues, but his "Memorabilia" of Socrates is the

most valuable. All antiquity and all modern writers unite in giving to

Xenophon great merit as a writer, and great moral elevation as a man.

If we pass from the Greek to the Latin historians,--to those who were as

famous as the Greek, and whose merit has scarcely been transcended in

our modern times, if, indeed, it has been equaled,--the great names of

Sallust, of Caesar, of Livy, of Tacitus, rise up before us, together with

a host of other names we have not room or disposition to present, since

we only aim to show that the ancients were at least our equals in this

great department of prose composition. The first great masters of the

Greek language in prose were the historians, so far as their writings

have descended, although it is probable that the orators may have shaped

the language before them, and given it flexibility and refinement. The

first great prose writers of Rome were the orators. Nor was the Latin

language fully developed and polished until Cicero appeared. But we do

not write a history of the language: we speak only of those who wrote

immortal works in the various departments of learning.

As Herodotus did not arise until the Greek language had been already

formed by the poets, so no great prose writer appeared among the Romans

for a considerable time after Plautus, Terence, Ennius, and Lucretius

flourished.

[Sidenote: Sallust.]

The first great historian was Sallust, the contemporary of Cicero, born

B.C. 86, the year that Marius died. Q. Fabius Pictor, M. Portius Cato,

L. Cal. Piso had already written works which are mentioned with respect

by the Latin authors, but they were mere annalists or antiquarians, like

the chroniclers of the Middle Ages, and had no claim as artists. Sallust

made Thucydides his model, but fell below him in genius and elevated

sentiment. He was born a plebeian, and rose to distinction by his

talents, but was ejected from the Senate for his profligacy. Afterwards

he made a great fortune as praetor and governor of Numidia, and lived in

magnificence on the Quirinal--one of the most profligate of the literary

men of antiquity. We possess but a small portion of his works, but the

fragments which have come down to us show peculiar merit. He sought to

penetrate the human heart, and reveal the secret motives which actuate

the conduct of men. His style is brilliant, but his art is always

apparent. He is clear and lively, but rhetorical. Like Voltaire, who

inaugurated modern history, he thought more of style than of accuracy of

facts. He was a party man, and never soared beyond his party. He aped

the moralist, but erected egotism and love of pleasure into proper

springs of action, and honored talent disconnected with virtue.

Like Carlyle, he exalted _strong_ men, and _because_ they were

strong. He was not comprehensive like Cicero, or philosophical like

Thucydides, although he affected philosophy as he did morality. He was

the first who deviated from the strict narratives of events, and also

introduced much rhetorical declamation, which he puts into the mouths of

his heroes. [Footnote: The best translations of this author are those by

Stewart, 1806, and Murphy, 1807.] He wrote for eclat.

[Sidenote: Caesar.]

Caesar, as an historian, ranks higher, and no Roman ever wrote purer

Latin than he. But his historical works, however great their merit, but

feebly represent his transcendent genius--the most august name of

antiquity. He was mathematician, architect, poet, philologist, orator,

jurist, general, statesman--imperator. In eloquence he was only second

to Cicero. The great value of his history is in the sketches of the

productions, the manners, the customs, and the political state of Gaul,

Britain, and Germany. His observations on military science, on the

operation of sieges, and construction of bridges and military engines,

are valuable. But the description of his military operations is only a

studied apology for his crimes, even as the bulletins of Napoleon were

set forth to show his victories in the most favorable light. His fame

rests on his victories and successes as a statesman rather than on his

merits as an historian, even as Louis Napoleon will live in history for

his deeds rather than as the apologist of Caesar. [Footnote: See

_History of Caesar_, by Napoleon, a work more learned than popular,

however greatly he may be indebted to the labors of others.] The

"Commentaries" resemble the history of Herodotus more than any other

Latin production, at least in style; they are simple and unaffected,

precise and elegant, plain and without pretension.

Caesar was born B.C. 100, and while I admire his genius and his

generosity, I hold in detestation the ambition which led him to overturn

the constitution of his country on the plea of revolutionary necessity.

It is true that there was the strife of parties and factions, greedy of

revenge, and still more of spoils. It was a period of "_great

offenses_," but it was also the brightest period in Roman history, so

far as pertains to the development of genius. It was more favorable to

literature than the lauded "Augustan era." It was an age of free

opinions, in which liberty gave her last sigh, and when heroic efforts

were made to bring back the ancient virtue, and to save the state from

despotism. The lives of Piso, of Milo, of Cinna, of Lepidus, of Cotta,

of Dolabella, of Crassus, of Quintus Maximus, of Aquila, of Pompey, of

Brutus, of Cassius, of Antony, show what extraordinary men of action

were then upon the stage, both good and evil, while Varro, Cicero,

Catullus, Lucretius, and Sallust gave glory to the world of letters. It

may have resulted favorably to the peace of society that the imperial

rule supplanted the aristocratic regime, but it was a change fatal to

liberty of speech and all independent action--a change, the good of

which was on the outside, and in favor of material interests, but the

evil of which was internal, and consumed secretly, but surely, the real

greatness of the empire.

[Sidenote: Prose composition.]

[Sidenote: High social position of historians.]

The Augustan age, though it produced a constellation of poets who shed

glory upon the throne before which they prostrated themselves in abject

homage, like the courtiers of Louis XIV., still was unfavorable to prose

composition,--to history as well as eloquence. Of the historians, Livy

is the only one whose writings are known to us, and only fragments of

his history. [Footnote: Born B.C. 59.] He was a man of distinction at

court, and had a great literary reputation--so great that a Spaniard

traveled from Cadiz on purpose to see him. Most of the great historians

of the world have occupied places of honor and rank, which were given to

them not as prizes for literary successes, but for the experience,

knowledge, and culture which high social position and ample means

secured. Herodotus lived in courts; Thucydides was a great general, also

Xenophon; Caesar wrote his own exploits; Sallust was praetor and governor;

Livy was tutor to Claudius; Tacitus was praetor and consul suffectus;

Eusebius was bishop and favorite of Constantine; Ammianus was the friend

of the Emperor Julian; Gregory of Tours was one of the leading prelates

of the West; Froissart attended in person, as a man of rank, the

military expeditions of his day; Clarendon was Lord Chancellor; Burnet

was a bishop and favorite of William III.; Thiers and Guizot both were

prime ministers; while Gibbon, Hume, Robertson, Macaulay, Grote, Milman,

Neander, Niebuhr, Muller, Dahlman, Buckle, Prescott, Irving, Bancroft,

Motley, have all been men of wealth or position. Nor do I remember a

single illustrious historian who has been poor and neglected.

[Sidenote: Livy.]

The ancients regarded Livy as the greatest of historians,--an opinion

not indorsed by modern critics, on account of his inaccuracies. But his

narrative is always interesting, and his language pure. He did not sift

evidence like Grote, nor generalize like Gibbon; but he was, like

Voltaire and Macaulay, an artist in style, and possessed undoubted

genius. His annals are comprised in one hundred and forty-two books,

extending from the foundation of the city to the death of Drusus, B.C.

9, of which only thirty-five have come down to us--an impressive

commentary on the vandalism of the Middle Ages, and the ignorance of the

monks who could not preserve so great a treasure. "His story flows in a

calm, clear, sparkling current, with every charm which simplicity and

ease can give." He delineates character with great clearness and power;

his speeches are noble rhetorical compositions; his sentences are

rhythmical cadences. He was not a critical historian, like Herodotus,

for he took his materials secondhand, and he was ignorant of geography;

nor did he write with the exalted ideal of Thucydides, but as a painter

of beautiful forms, which only a rich imagination could conjure, he is

unrivaled in the history of literature. Moreover, he was honest and

sound in heart, and was just and impartial in reference to those facts

with which he was conversant.

[Sidenote: Tacitus.]

In the estimation of modern critics, the highest rank, as an historian,

is assigned to Tacitus, and it would be difficult to find his rival in

any age or country. He was born A.D. 57, about forty-three years after

the death of Augustus. He belonged to the equestrian rank, and was a man

of consular dignity. He had every facility for literary labors that

leisure, wealth, friends, and social position could give, and he lived

under a reign when truth could be told.

The extant works of this great writer are the "Life of Agricola," his

father-in-law; his "Annales," which commence with the death of Augustus,

A.D. 14, and close with the death of Nero, A.D. 68; the "Historiae,"

which comprise the period from the second consulate of Galba, A.D. 68,

to the death of Domitian; and a treatise on the Germans.

[Sidenote: Histories of Tacitus.]

His histories describe Rome in the fullness of imperial glory, when the

will of one man was the supreme law of the empire. He also wrote of

events when liberty had fled, and the yoke of despotism was nearly

insupportable. He describes a period of great moral degradation, nor

does he hesitate to lift the veil of hypocrisy in which his generation

had wrapped itself. He fearlessly exposes the cruelties and iniquities

of the early emperors, and writes with judicial impartiality respecting

all the great characters he describes. No ancient writer shows greater

moral dignity and integrity of purpose than Tacitus. In point of

artistic unity he is superior to Livy and equal to Thucydides, whom he

resembles in conciseness of style. His distinguishing excellence as an

historian is his sagacity and impartiality. Nothing escapes his

penetrating eye; and he inflicts merited chastisement on the tyrants who

reveled in the prostrated liberties of his country, while he

immortalizes those few who were faithful to duty and conscience in a

degenerate age. But his writings were not so popular as those of Livy.

Neither princes nor people relished his intellectual independence and

moral elevation. He does not satisfy Dr. Arnold, who thinks he ought to

have been better versed in the history of the Jews, and who dislikes his

speeches because they were fictitious.

[Sidenote: Qualities which give immortality to historians.]

Neither the Latin nor Greek historians are admired by those dry critics,

who seek to give to rare antiquarian matter a disproportionate

importance, and to make this matter as fixed and certain as the truths

of natural science. History can never be other than an approximation to

the truth, even when it relates to the events and characters of our own

age. History does not give positive knowledge which cannot be disputed

except in general terms. We _know_ that Caesar was ambitious, but we

do not know whether he was more or less so than Pompey, nor do we know

how far he was justified in his usurpation. A great history must have

other merits than mere accuracy, or antiquarian research, or display of

authorities and notes. It must be a work of art, and art has reference

to style and language, to grouping of details and richness of

illustration, to eloquence and poetry and beauty. A dry history, if ever

so learned, will never be read; it will only be consulted, like a law-

book, or Mosheim's "Commentaries." We wish _life_ in history, and

it is for the life that the writings of Livy and Tacitus will be

perpetuated. Voltaire and Schiller have no great merit as historians, in

a technical sense, but the "Life of Charles XII." and the "Thirty Years'

War" are still classics. Neander has written one of the most searching

and recondite histories of modern times, but it is too dry, too

deficient in art, to be cherished, and may pass away, like the

voluminous writings of Varro, the most learned of the Romans. It is the

_art_ which is immortal in a book, not the knowledge, or even the

thoughts. What keeps alive the "Provincial Letters"? It is the style,

the irony, the elegance. It is the exquisite delineation of character,

the moral wisdom, the purity and force of language, the artistic

arrangement, and the lively and interesting narratives, appealing to all

minds, like the "Arabian Nights," or Froissart's "Chronicles," which

give immortality to the classic authors of antiquity. We will not let

them perish, because they amuse us, and inspire us. Livy doubtless was

too ambitious in aspiring to write accurately the whole history of his

country. He would have been wiser had he confined himself to a

particular epoch, of which he was conversant, like Tacitus and

Thucydides. But it is taking a narrow view of history to make all

writers after the same pattern, even as it would be bigoted to make all

Christians belong to the same sect. Some will be remarkable for style,

others for learning, and others again for moral and philosophical

wisdom. Some will be minute, and others generalizing. Some dig out a

multiplicity of facts without apparent object, and others induce from

those facts. Some will make essays, and others chronicles. We have need

of all styles and all kinds of excellence. A great and original thinker

may not have the time or opportunity or taste for a minute and searching

criticism of original authorities; but he may be able to generalize

previously established facts, so as to draw most valuable moral

instruction. History is a boundless field of inquiry. No man can master

it, in all its departments and periods. What he gains in minute details,

he is apt to lose in generalization. If he attempts to embody too much

learning, he may be deficient in originality; if he would say every

thing, he is apt to be dry; if he elaborates too much, he loses life.

Society, too, requires different kinds and styles of history,--history

for students, history for ladies, histories for old men, histories for

young men, histories to amuse, and histories to instruct. If all men

were to write history according to Dr. Arnold's views, then we should

have histories of interest only to classical scholars. A fellow of

Christ Church may demand authorities, even if he never consults one of

them, but a member of Congress may wish to see learning embodied in the

text, and animated by genius, after the fashion of the ancient

historians, who never quoted their sources of knowledge, and who were

valued for the richness of thoughts and artistic beauty of style. The

ages in which they flourished, attached no value to pedantic displays of

labor, or evidences of learning paraded in foot-notes.

[Sidenote: Greatness of the ancient historians.]

Thus the great historians whom I have alluded to, both Greek and Latin,

have few equals and no superiors, in our own times, in those things

which are most to be admired. They were not pedants, but men of immense

genius and learning, who blended the profoundest principles of moral

wisdom with the most fascinating narratives, men universally popular

among learned and unlearned, and men who were great artists in style,

and masters of the language in which they wrote. We claim a superiority

to them, because we are more recondite and critical; but the decline of

Roman literature can be dated to times when commentaries became the

fashion. We improve on commentaries. They are chiefly confined to

biblical questions. _We_ write dictionaries and encyclopedias. In

this respect we are superior to the ancients. Our latest fashion of

histories makes them very long, and very uncertain, containing much

irrelevant matter, and more remarkable for learning than for genius, or

elegance of diction. Yet Macaulay, Prescott, and Motley have few equals

among the ancients in interest or artistic beauty.

[Sidenote: Suetonius.]

[Sidenote: Marcellinus.]

Rome can boast of no great historian after Tacitus, who should have

belonged to the Ciceronian epoch. Suetonius, born about the year A.D.

70, shortly after Nero's death, was rather a biographer than historian.

Nor as a biographer does he take a high rank. His "Lives of the Caesars,"

like Diogenes Laertius' "Lives of the Philosophers," are rather

anecdotical than historical. L. A. Florus, who flourished during the

reign of Trajan, has left a series of sketches of the different wars

from the days of Romulus to those of Augustus. Frontinus epitomized the

large histories of Pompeius. Marcellinus wrote a history from Nerva to

Valens, and is often quoted by Gibbon. But none wrote who should be

adduced as examples of the triumph of genius, except Sallust, Caesar,

Livy, and Tacitus.

[Sidenote: Ancient orators.]

[Sidenote: Ancient eloquence.]

There is another field of prose compositions in which the Greeks and

Romans gained great distinction, and proved themselves equal to any

nation of modern times, and this was that of eloquence. It is true we

have not a rich collection of ancient speeches. But we have every reason

to believe that both Greeks and Romans were most severely trained in the

art of public speaking, and that forensic eloquence was highly prized

and munificently rewarded. It commenced with democratic institutions,

and flourished as long as the people were a great power in the state. It

declined whenever and as soon as tyrants bore rule. Eloquence and

liberty flourished together; nor can there be eloquence when there is

not freedom of debate. In the fifth century before Christ--the first

century of democracy--great orators arose, for without the power and the

opportunity of defending himself against accusation, no man could hold

an ascendent position. Socrates insisted upon the gift of oratory to a

general in the army, [Footnote: Xen. _Mem._, iii. 3, 11.] as well as

to a leader in political life. In Athens the courts of justice were

numerous, and those who could not defend themselves were obliged to

secure the services of those who were trained in the use of public

speaking. Thus the lawyers arose, among whom eloquence has been more in

demand, and more richly paid than in any other class, certainly of

ancient times. Rhetoric became connected with dialectics, and in Greece,

Sicily, and Italy, both were most extensively cultivated. Empedocles was

distinguished as much for rhetoric as for philosophy. It was not,

however, in the courts of law that eloquence displayed the greatest fire

and passion, but in political assemblies. These could only coexist with

liberty; and a democracy was more favorable than an aristocracy to a

large concourse of citizens. In the Grecian republics, eloquence as an

art, may be said to have been born. It was nursed and fed by political

agitations; by the strife of parties. It arose from appeals to the

people as a source of power; and, when the people were not cultivated,

it appealed chiefly to popular passions and prejudices. When they were

enlightened, it appealed to interests.

[Sidenote: Pericles.]

It was in Athens, where there existed the purest form of democratic

institutions, that eloquence rose to the loftiest heights in the ancient

world, so far as eloquence appeals to popular passions. Pericles, the

greatest statesman of Greece, was celebrated for his eloquence, although

no specimens remain to us. It was conceded by the ancient authors, that

his oratory was of the highest kind, and the epithet of Olympian was

given him as carrying the weapons of Zeus upon his tongue. [Footnote:

Plutarch; Cic. _De Orat_., iii. 34; Quin., x. i. Section 82;

Plat. _Phed_., p. 262.] His voice was sweet, and his utterance

distinct and rapid. Pisistratus was also famous for his eloquence,

although he was a usurper and a tyrant. Isocrates [Footnote: Born 436

B.C.] was a professed rhetorician, and endeavored to base it upon sound

moral principles, and rescue it from the influence of the Sophists. He

was the great teacher of the most eminent statesmen of his day. Twenty-

one of his orations have come down to us, and they are excessively

polished and elaborated; but they were written to be read; they were not

extemporary. His language is the purest and most refined Attic dialect.

Lysias [Footnote: Born B.C. 458.] was a fertile writer of orations also,

and he is reputed to have produced as many as four hundred and twenty-

five. Of these only thirty-five are extant. They are characterized by

peculiar gracefulness and elegance, which did not interfere with

strength. So able were these orations, that only two were unsuccessful.

They were so pure that they were regarded as the best canon of the Attic

idiom. [Footnote: Dion. _Lys_., ii. 3.]

[Sidenote: Demosthenes.]

But all the orators of Greece--and Greece was the land of orators--gave

way to Demosthenes, born B.C. 385. He received a good education, and is

said to have been instructed in philosophy by Plato, and in eloquence by

Isocrates. But it is more probable that he privately prepared himself

for his brilliant career. As soon as he attained his majority, he

brought suits against the men whom his father had appointed his

guardians for their waste of property, and was, after two years,

successful, conducting the prosecution himself. It was not until the age

of thirty that he appeared as a speaker in the public assembly on

political matters, and he enjoyed universal respect, and became one of

the leading statesmen of Athens, and henceforth he took an active part

in every question that concerned the state. He especially distinguished

himself in his speeches against Macedonian aggrandizements, and his

Philippics are, perhaps, the most brilliant of his orations. But the

cause which he advocated was unfortunate. The battle of Cheronea, B.C.

338, put an end to the independence of Greece, and Philip of Macedon was

all-powerful. For this catastrophe Demosthenes was somewhat responsible,

but his motives were pure and his patriotism lofty, and he retained the

confidence of his countrymen. Accused by Aeschines, he delivered his

famous Oration on the Crown. Afterwards, during the supremacy of

Alexander, he was again accused, and suffered exile. Recalled from

exile, on the death of Alexander, he roused himself for the deliverance

of Greece, without success, and, hunted by his enemies, he took poison

in the sixty-third year of his age, having vainly contended for the

freedom of his country,--one of the noblest spirits of antiquity,

spotless in his public career, and lofty in his private life. As an

orator, he has not probably been equaled by any man of any country. By

his contemporaries he was regarded as faultless as a public speaker, and

when it is remembered that he struggled against physical difficulties

which, in the early part of his career, would have utterly discouraged

any ordinary man, we feel that he deserves the highest commendation. He

never spoke without preparation, and most of his orations were severely

elaborated. He never trusted to the impulse of the occasion. And all his

orations exhibit him as a pure and noble patriot, and are full of the

loftiest sentiments. He was a great artist, and his oratorical successes

were greatly owing to the arrangement of his speeches and the

application of the strongest arguments in their proper places. Added to

this moral and intellectual superiority was the "magic power of his

language, majestic and simple at the same time, rich yet not bombastic,

strange and yet familiar, solemn without being ornamented, grave and yet

pleasing, concise and yet fluent, sweet and yet impressive, which

altogether carried away the minds of his hearers." [Footnote: Leonhard

Schmitz.] His orations were most highly prized by the ancients, who

wrote innumerable commentaries on them, but most of these criticisms are

lost. Sixty, however, of these great productions of genius have come

down to us, and are contained in the various collections of the Attic

orators by Aldus, Stephens, Taylor, Reiske, Dukas, Bekker, Dobson, and

Sauppe. Demosthenes, like other orators, first became known as the

composer of speeches for litigants; but his great fame was based on the

orations he pronounced in great political emergencies. His rival was

Aeschines, but he was vastly inferior to Demosthenes, although bold,

vigorous, and brilliant. Indeed, the opinions of mankind, for two

thousand years, have been unanimous in ascribing to Demosthenes the

highest position as an orator of all the men of ancient and modern

times. David Hume says of him, "that, could his manner be copied, its

success would be infallible over a modern audience." "It is rapid

harmony exactly adjusted to the sense. It is vehement reasoning, without

any appearance of art. It is disdain, anger, boldness, freedom involved

in a continual stream of argument; so that, of all human productions,

his orations present to us the models which approach the nearest to

perfection." [Footnote: _Dissertation of Lord Brougham on the

Eloquence of the Ancients._]

[Sidenote: Roman orators.]

It is probable that the Romans were behind the Athenians in all the arts

of rhetoric; and yet in the days of the republic celebrated orators

arose, called out by the practice of the law and political meetings. It

was, in fact, in forensic eloquence that Latin prose first appears as a

cultivated language; for the forum was to the Romans what libraries are

to us. And the art of public speaking was very early developed. Cato,

Laelius, Carbo, and the Gracchi are said to have been majestic and

harmonious in speech. Their merits were eclipsed by Antonius, Crassus,

Cotta, Sulpitius, and Hortensius. The last had a very brilliant career

as an orator, although his orations were too florid to be read. Caesar

was also distinguished for his eloquence, the characteristics of which

were force and purity. Caelius was noted for lofty sentiment; Brutus for

philosophical wisdom; Callidus for a delicate and harmonious style, and

Calvus for sententious force.

[Sidenote: Cicero.]

But all the Roman orators yielded to Cicero, as the Greeks did to

Demosthenes. These two men are always coupled together when allusion is

made to eloquence. They were preeminent in the ancient world, and have

never been equaled in the modern.

Cicero was not probably equal to his great Grecian rival in vehemence,

in force, in fiery argument, which swept every thing away before him;

and he was not probably equal to him in original genius; but he was his

superior in learning, in culture, and in breadth. [Footnote: Born B.C.

106.] He distinguished himself very early as an advocate; but his first

great public effort was in the prosecution of Verres for corruption.

Although defended by Hortensius, and the whole influence of the Metelli

and other powerful families, Cicero gained his cause,--more fortunate

than Burke in his prosecution of Warren Hastings, who was also sustained

by powerful interests and families. Burke also resembled Cicero in his

peculiarities and in his fortunes more than any modern orator. His

speech on the Manilian law, when he appeared as a political orator,

greatly contributed to his popularity. I need not describe his memorable

career; his successive election to all the highest offices of state, his

detection of Catiline's conspiracy, his opposition to turbulent and

ambitious partisans, his alienations and friendships, his brilliant

career as a statesman, his misfortunes and sorrows, his exile and

recall, his splendid services to the state, his greatness and his

defects, his virtues and weaknesses, his triumphs and martyrdom. These

are foreign to my purpose. No man of heathen antiquity is better known

to us, and no man, by pure genius, ever won more glorious laurels. His

life and labors are immortal. His virtues and services are embalmed in

the heart of the world. Few men ever performed greater literary labors,

and in most of its departments. Next to Aristotle, he was the most

learned man of antiquity, but performed more varied labors than he,

since he was not only great as a writer and speaker, but as a statesman,

and was the most conspicuous man in Rome after Pompey and Caesar. He may

not have had the moral greatness of Socrates, nor the philosophical

genius of Plato, nor the overpowering eloquence of Demosthenes, but he

was a master of all the wisdom of antiquity. Even civil law, the great

science of the Romans, became interesting in his hands, and is divested

of its dryness and technicality. He popularized history, and paid honor

to all art, even to the stage. He made the Romans conversant with the

philosophy of Greece, and systematized the various speculations. He may

not have added to the science, but no Roman, after him, understood so

well the practical bearing of all the various systems. His glory is

purely intellectual, and it was by pure genius that he rose to his

exalted position and influence.

But it was in forensic eloquence that he was preeminent, and in which he

had but one equal in ancient times. Roman eloquence culminated in him.

He composed about eighty orations, of which fifty-nine are preserved.

Some were delivered from the rostrum to the people, and some in the

Senate. Some were mere philippics, as savage in denunciation as those of

Demosthenes. Some were laudatory; some were judicial; but all were

severely logical, full of historical allusion, profound in philosophical

wisdom, and pervaded with the spirit of patriotism. "He goes round and

round his object, surveys it in every light, examines it in all its

parts, retires and then advances, compares and contrasts it,

illustrates, confirms, and enforces it, till the hearer feels ashamed of

doubting a position which seems built on a foundation so strictly

argumentative. And having established his case, he opens upon his

opponent a discharge of raillery so delicate and good natured that it is

impossible for the latter to maintain his ground against it; or, when

the subject is too grave, he colors his exaggerations with all the

bitterness of irony and vehemence of passion. But the appeal to the

gentler emotions is reserved for the close of the oration, as in the

defense of Cluentius, Caelius, Milo, and Flaccus; the most striking

instances of which are the poetical bursts of feeling with which he

addresses his client, Plaucius, and his picture of the desolate

condition of the vestal Fonteia, should her brother be condemned. At

other times his peroration contains more heroic and elevated sentiments,

as in the invocation of the Alban Altars, and in his defense of Sextius,

and that on liberty at the close of the third Philippic." [Footnote:

Newman, _Hist. Rom. Lit._, p. 305.]

Critics have uniformly admired his style as peculiarly suited to the

Latin language, which, being scanty and unmusical, requires more

redundancy than the Greek. The simplicity of the Attic writers would

make Latin composition bold and tame. To be perspicuous, the Latin must

be full. Thus Arnold thinks that what Tacitus gained in energy he lost

in elegance and perspicuity. But Cicero, dealing with a barren and

unphilosophical language, enriched it with circumlocutions and

metaphors, while he formed it of harsh and uncouth expressions, and thus

became the greatest master of composition the world has seen. He was a

great artist, making use of his scanty materials to the best effect; and

since he could not attain the elegance of the Greeks, he sought to excel

them in vigor. He had absolute control over the resources of his

vernacular tongue, and not only unrivaled skill in composition, but tact

and judgment. Thus he was generally successful, in spite of the venality

and corruption of the times. The courts of justice were the scene of his

earliest triumphs; nor did he speak from the rostra until he was praetor

on mere political questions, as in reference to the Manilian and

Agrarian laws. It is in his political discourses that he rises to the

highest ranks. In his speeches against Verres, Catiline, and Antony, he

kindles in his countrymen lofty feelings for the honor of his country,

and abhorrence of tyranny and corruption. Indeed, he hated bloodshed,

injustice, and strife, and beheld the downfall of liberty with

indescribable sorrow.

Cicero held a very exalted position as a philosophical writer and

critic; but we defer what we have to say on this point until we speak of

the philosophy of the ancients. Upon eloquence his main efforts were,

however, directed, and eloquence was the most perfect fruit of his

talents. Nor can we here speak of Cicero as a man. He has his admirers

and detractors. He had great faults and weaknesses as well as virtues.

He was egotistical, vain, and vacillating. But he was industrious,

amiable, witty, and public spirited. In his official position he was

incorruptible. He was no soldier, but he had a greater than a warrior's

excellence. In spite of his faults, his name is one of the brightest of

the ancients. His integrity was never impeached, even in an age of

unparalleled corruption, and he was pure in morals. He was free from

rancor and jealousy, was true in his friendships, and indulgent to his

dependents. [Footnote: Professor Ramsay, of Glasgow, has written a most

admirable article on Cicero in Smith's _Dictionary_. It is very

full and impartial. Cicero's own writings are the best commentary on his

life. Plutarch has afforded much anecdote. Forsythe is the last work of

erudition. The critics sneer at Middleton's _Life of Cicero_; but

it has lasted one hundred years. It is, perhaps, too eulogistic. Drumann

is said to have most completely exhausted his subject in his

_Geschichte Roms_.]

Thus in oratory, as in history, the ancients can boast of most

illustrious examples, never even equaled. Still, we cannot tell the

comparative merits of the great classical orators of antiquity, with the

more distinguished of our times. Only Mirabeau, Pitt, Fox, Burke,

Brougham, Webster, and Clay, can even be compared with them. In power of

moving the people, some of our modern reformers and agitators may be

mentioned favorably; but their harangues are comparatively tame when

read.

[Sidenote: Varro.]

In philosophy, the Greeks and Romans distinguished themselves more than

even in poetry, or history, or eloquence. Their speculations pertained

to the loftiest subjects which ever tasked the intellect of man. But

this great department deserves a separate chapter. There were

respectable writers, too, in various other departments of literature,

but no very great names whose writings have descended to us.

Contemporaries had an exalted opinion of Varro, who was considered the

most learned of the Romans, as well as their most voluminous author. He

was born ten years before Cicero, and he is highly commended by

Augustine. [Footnote: Born B.C. 116; _Civ. Dei_., vi. 2.] He was

entirely devoted to literature, took no interest in passing events, and

lived to a good old age. St. Augustine says of him, "that he wrote so

much that one wonders how he had time to read; and that he read so much,

we are astonished how he found time to write." He composed four hundred

and ninety books. Of these only one has descended to us entire--"De Re

Rustica"--written at the age of eighty; but it is the best treatise

which has come down from antiquity on ancient agriculture. We have parts

of his other books, and we know of books which have entirely perished

which, for their information, would be invaluable; especially his

"Divine Antiquities," in sixteen books--his great work, from which St.

Augustine drew his materials for his "City of God." He wrote treatises

on language, on the poets, on philosophy, on geography, and various

other subjects. He wrote satire and criticism. But although his writings

were learned, his style was so bad that the ages have failed to preserve

him. It is singular that the truly immortal books are most valued for

their artistic excellences. No man, however great his genius, can afford

to be dull. Style is to written composition, what delivery is to a

public speaker. John Foster, one of the finest intellects of the last

generation, preached to a "handful" of hearers, while "Satan" Montgomery

drew ecstatic crowds. Nobody goes to hear the man of thoughts, every

body to hear the man of words, being repelled or attracted by

_manner_.

[Sidenote: Seneca.]

Seneca was another great writer among the Romans, but he belongs to the

domain of philosophy, although it is his ethical works which have given

him immortality, as may be truly said of Socrates and Epictetus,

although they are usually classed among the philosophers. He was a

Spaniard, and was born a few years before the Christian era, was a

lawyer and a rhetorician, a teacher and minister of Nero. It was his

misfortune to know one of the most detestable princes that ever

scandalized humanity, and it is not to his credit to have accumulated,

in four years, one of the largest fortunes in Rome, while serving such a

master. But since he lived to experience his ingratitude, he is more

commonly regarded as a martyr. Had he lived in the republican period, he

would have been a great orator. He wrote voluminously on many subjects,

and was devoted to a literary life. He rejected the superstitions of his

country, and looked upon the ritualism of religion as a mere fashion;

but his religion was a mere deism, and he dishonored his own virtues by

a compliance with the vices of others. He saw much of life, and died at

fifty-three. What is remarkable in his writings, which are clear but

labored, is, that under pagan influences and imperial tyranny, he should

have presented such lofty moral truth; and it is a mark of almost

transcendent talent that he should, unaided by Christianity, have soared

so high in the realm of ethical inquiry. Nor is it easy to find any

modern author who has treated great questions in so attractive a way.

[Sidenote: Quintilian.]

Quintilian is a Latin classic, and belonged to the class of

rhetoricians, and should have been mentioned among the orators, like

Lysias the Greek, a teacher, however, of eloquence, rather than an

orator. He was born A.D. 40, and taught the younger Pliny, also two

nephews of Domitian, receiving a regular salary from the imperial

treasury. His great work is a complete system of rhetoric.

"_Institutiones Oratoriae_" is one of the clearest and fullest of

all rhetorical manuals ever written in any language, although, as a

literary production, inferior to the "_De Oratore_" of Cicero. It

is very practical and sensible, and a complete compendium of every topic

likely to be useful in the education of an aspirant for the honors of

eloquence. In systematic arrangement, it falls short of a similar work

by Aristotle; but it is celebrated for its sound judgment and keen

discrimination, showing great reading and reflection. He should be

viewed as a critic rather than as a rhetorician, since he entered into

the merits and defects of the great masters of Greek and Roman

literature. In his peculiar province he has had no superior. Like

Cicero, or Demosthenes, or Plato, or Thucydides, or Tacitus, he would be

a great man if he lived in our times, and could proudly challenge the

modern world to produce a better teacher than he in the art of public

speaking.

[Sidenote: Lucian.]

There are other writers of immense fame, who do not represent any

particular class in the field of literature, which can be compared with

the modern. But I can only draw attention to Lucian, a witty and

voluminous Greek author, who lived in the reign of Commodus, wrote

rhetorical, critical, and biographical works, and even romances which

have given hints to modern authors. But his fame rests on his

"Dialogues," intended to ridicule the heathen philosophy and religion,

and which show him to have been one of the great masters of ancient

satire and mockery. His style of dialogue--a combination of Plato and

Aristophanes--is not much used by modern writers, and his peculiar kind

of ridicule is reserved now for the stage. Yet he cannot be called a

writer of comedy, like MoliEre. He resembles Rabelais and Swift more

than any other modern writers, and has their indignant wit, indecent

jokes, and pungent sarcasms. He paints, like Juvenal, the vices and

follies of his time, and exposes the hypocrisy that reigns in the high

places of fashion and power. His dialogues have been imitated by

Fontanelle and Lord Lyttleton, but they do not possess his humor or

pungency. Lucian does not grapple with great truths, but contents

himself in ridiculing those who have proclaimed them; and, in his cold

cynicism, depreciates human knowledge, and all the great moral teachers

of mankind. He is even shallow and flippant upon Socrates. But he was

well read in human nature, and superficially acquainted with all the

learning of antiquity. In wit and sarcasm, he may be compared with

Voltaire, and his end was the same, to demolish and pull down, without

substituting any thing in its stead. His skepticism was universal, and

extended to religion, to philosophy, and to every thing venerated and

ancient. His purity of style was admired by Erasmus, and he has been

translated into most European languages. The best English version is

rendered by Dr. Franklin, London, 2 vols. 4to. In strong contrast to the

"Dialogues" is the "City of God," by Saint Augustine, in which he

demolishes with keener ridicule all the gods of antiquity, but

substitutes instead the knowledge of the true God.

Thus the Romans, as well as Greeks, produced works in all departments of

literature which will bear comparison with the masterpieces of modern

times. And where would have been the literature of the early Church, or

of modern nations, had not the great original writers of Athens and Rome

been our schoolmasters? And when we further remember that their glorious

literature was created by native genius, without the aid of

Christianity, we are filled with amazement, and may almost be excused if

we deify the reason of man. At least we are assured that literature as

well as art may flourish under pagan influences, and that Christianity

has a higher mission than the culture of the mind. Religious skepticism

cannot be disarmed if we appeal to Christianity as the test of

intellectual culture. The realm of reason has no fairer fields than

those which are adorned by pagan art. Nor have greater triumphs of

intellect been witnessed in these, our Christian times, than among that

class which is the least influenced by Christian ideas. Some of the

proudest trophies of genius have been won by infidels, or by men

stigmatized as such. Witness Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Hegel, Fichte,

Gibbon, Hume, Buckle. And then how many great works are written without

the inspiration or the spirit of a living Christianity! How little

Bulwer, or Byron, or Dumas, or Goethe owe, apparently, to Christian

teachings! Is Emerson superior to Epictetus, in an ethical point of

view? Was Franklin a great philosopher, or Jefferson a great statesman,

because they were surrounded by Christian examples? May there not be the

greatest practical infidelity, with the most artistic beauty and native

reach of thought? Milton justly ascribes the most sublime intelligence

to Satan and his angels on the point of rebellion against the majesty of

Heaven. A great genius may be kindled by the fires of discontent and

ambition, which will quicken the intellectual faculties, even while they

consume the soul, and spread their devastating influence on the homes

and hopes of man.

* * * * *

RERERENCES.--There are no better authorities than the classical authors

themselves, and their works must be studied in order to comprehend the

spirit of ancient literature. Modern historians of Roman literature are

merely critics, like Drumann, Schlegel, Niebuhr, Muller, Mommsen, Mure,

Arnold, Dunlap, and Thompson. Nor do I know of an exhaustive history of

Roman literature in the English language. Yet nearly every great writer

has occasional criticisms, entitled to respect. The Germans, in this

department, have no equals. As critics and commentators they are

unrivaled.