A History of Roman Literature by Charles Thomas Cruttwell
C >>
Charles Thomas Cruttwell >> A History of Roman Literature
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 | 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
32 |
33 |
34 |
35 |
36 |
37 |
38 |
39 |
40 |
41 |
42 |
43 |
44 |
45 |
46 |
47 |
48 |
49 |
50 |
51 |
52
So unfortunately prevalent was this view that a writer was not called a
historian unless he had considerable pretensions to style. Thus, men who
could write, and had written, in an informal way, excellent historical
accounts, were not studied by their countrymen as historians. Their
writings were relegated to the limbo of antiquarian remains. The habit of
writing notes of their campaigns, memoranda of their public conduct,
copies of their speeches, &c. had for some time been usual among the abler
or more ambitious nobles. Often these were kept by them, laid by for
future elaboration: oftener still they were published, or sent in the form
of letters to the author's friends. The letters of Cicero and his numerous
correspondents present such a series of raw material for history; and in
reading any of the antiquarian writers of Rome we are struck by the large
number of monographs, essays, pamphlets, rough notes, commentaries, and
the like, attributed to public men, to which they had access.
It is quite clear that for many years these documents had existed, and
equally clear that, unless their author was celebrated or their style
elegant, the majority of readers entirely neglected them. Nevertheless
they formed a rich material for the diligent and capable historian. In
using them, however, we could not expect him to show the same critical
acumen, the same impartiality, as a modern writer trained in scientific
criticism and the broad culture of international ideas; to expect this
would be to expect an impossibility. To look at events from a national
instead of a party point of view was hard; to look at them from a human
point of view, as Polybius had done, was still harder. Thus we cannot
expect from Republican Rome any historical work of the same scope and
depth as those of Herodotus and Thucydides; neither the dramatic genius of
the one nor the philosophic insight of the other was to be gained there.
All we can look for is a clear comprehensive narrative, without flagrant
misrepresentation, of some of the leading episodes, and such we
fortunately possess in the memoirs of Caesar and the biographical essays
of Sallust.
The immediate object of the Commentaries of JULIUS CAESAR (100-44 B.C.),
was no doubt to furnish the senate with an authentic military report on
the Gallic and Civil Wars. But they had also an ulterior purpose. They
aspired to justify their author in the eyes of Rome and of posterity in
his attitude of hostility to the constitution.
Pompey was perhaps quite as desirous of supreme power as Caesar, and was
equally ready to make all patriotic motives subordinate to self-interest.
Nevertheless he gained, by his connexion with the senate, the reputation
of defender of the constitution, and thought fit to appropriate the
language of patriotism. Caesar, in his _Commentaries_--which, though both
unfinished and, historically speaking, unconnected with one another,
reveal the deeper connexion of successive products of the same creative
policy--labours throughout to show that he acted in accordance with the
forms of the constitution and for the general good of Rome. This he does
not as a rule attempt to prove by argument. Occasionally he does so, as
when any serious accusation was brought against the legitimacy of his
acts; and these are among the most important and interesting chapters in
his work. [4] But his habitual method of exculpating himself is by his
persuasive moderation of statement, and his masterly collocation of
events. In reading the narrative of the Civil War it is hard to resist the
conviction that he was unfairly treated. Without any terms of reprobation,
with scarcely any harsh language, with merely that wondrous skill in
manipulating the series of facts which genius possesses, he has made his
readers, even against their prepossession, disapprove of Pompey's attitude
and condemn the bitter hostility of the senate. So, too, in the report of
the Gallic War, where diplomatic caution was less required, the same
apparent candour, the same perfect statement of his case, appears. In
every instance of aggressive and ambitious war, there is some equitable
proposal refused, some act of injustice not acknowledged, some
infringement of the dignity of the Roman people committed, which makes it
seem only natural that Caesar should exact reprisals by the sword. On two
or three occasions he betrays how little regard he had for good faith when
barbarians were in consideration, and how completely absent was that
generous clemency in the case of a vanquished foreign prince, which when
exercised towards his own countrymen procured him such enviable renown.
[5] His treacherous conduct towards the Usipetes and Tenchteri, which he
relates with perfect _sang froid_, [6] is such as to shock us beyond
description; his brutal vengeance upon the Atuatici and Veneti, [7] all
whose leading men he murdered, and sold the rest, to the number of 53,000,
by auction; his cruel detention of the noble Vercingetorix, who, after
acting like an honourable foe in the field, voluntarily gave himself up to
appease the conqueror's wrath; [8] these are blots in Caesar's scutcheon,
which, if they do not place him below the recognised standard of action of
the time, prevent him from being placed in any way above it. The theory
that good faith is unnecessary with an uncivilised foe, is but the other
side of the doctrine that it is merely a thing of expediency in the case
of a civilised one. And neither Rome herself, nor many of her greatest
generals, can free themselves from the grievous stain of perfidious
dealing with those whom they found themselves powerful enough so to treat.
But if we can neither approve the want of principle, nor accept the _ex
parte_ statements which are embodied in Caesar's _Commentaries_, we can
admire to the utmost the incredible and almost superhuman activity which,
more than any other quality, enabled him to overcome his enemies. This is
evidently the means on which he himself most relied. The prominence he has
given to it in his writings makes it almost equivalent to a precept. The
burden of his achievements is the continual repetition of _quam celerrime
contendendum ratus,--maximis citissimisque itineribus profectus_,--and
other phrases describing the rapidity of his movements. By this he so
terrified the Pompeians that, hearing he was _en route_ for Rome, they
fled in such dismay as not even to take the money they had amassed for the
war, but to leave it a prey to Caesar. And by the want of this, as he
sarcastically observes, the Pompeians lost their only chance of crushing
him, when, driven from Dyrrhachium, with his army seriously crippled and
provisions almost exhausted, he must have succumbed to the numerous and
well-fed forces opposed to him. [9] He himself would never have committed
such a mistake. The after-work of his victories was frequently more
decisive than the victories themselves. He always pursued his enemies into
their camp, by storming which he not only broke their spirit, but made it
difficult for them to retain their unity of action. No man ever knew so
well the truth of the adage "nothing succeeds like success;" and his
_Commentaries_ from first to last are instinct with a triumphant
consciousness of his knowledge and of his having invariably acted upon it.
A feature which strikes every reader of Caesar is the admiration and
respect he has for his soldiers. Though unsparing of their lives when
occasion demanded, he never speaks of them as "food for powder." Once,
when his men clamoured for battle, but he thought he could gain his point
without shedding blood, he refused to fight, though the discontent became
alarming: "Cur, etiam secundo praelio, aliquas ex suis amitteret? Cur
vulnerari pateretur optime meritos de se milites? cur denique fortunam
periclitaretur, praesertim cum non minus esset imperatoris consilio
superare quam gladio?" This consideration for the lives of his soldiers,
when the storm was over, won him gratitude; and it was no single instance.
Everywhere they are mentioned with high praise, and no small portion of
the victory is ascribed to them. Stories of individual valour are
inserted, and several centurions singled out for special commendation.
Caesar lingers with delight over the exploits of his tenth legion.
Officers and men are all fondly remembered. The heroic conduct of Pulfio
and Varenus, who challenge each other to a display of valour, and by each
saving the other's life are reconciled to a friendly instead of a hostile
rivalry; [10] the intrepidity of the veterans at Lissus, whose self-
reliant bravery calls forth one of the finest descriptions in the whole
book; [11] and the loyal devotion of all when he announces his critical
position, and asks if they will stand by him, [12] are related with
glowing pride. Numerous other merely incidental notices, scattered through
both works, confirm the pleasing impression that commander and commanded
had full confidence in each other; and he relates [13] with pardonable
exultation the speaking fact that among all the hardships they endured
(hardships so terrible that Pompey, seeing the roots on which they
subsisted, declared he had beasts to fight with and not men) not a soldier
except Labienus and two Gaulish officers ever deserted his cause, though
thousands came over to him from the opposite side. It is the greatest
proof of his power over men, and thereby, of his military capacity, that
perhaps it is possible to show.
Besides their clear description of military manoeuvres, of engineering,
bridge-making, and all kinds of operations, in which they may be compared
with the despatches of the great generals of modern times, Caesar's
_Commentaries_ contain much useful information regarding the countries he
visited. There is a wonderful freshness and versatility about his mind.
While primarily considering a country, as he was forced to do, from its
strategical features, or its capacity for furnishing contingents or
tribute, he was nevertheless keenly alive to all objects of interest,
whether in nature or in human customs. The inquiring curiosity with which
Lucan upbraids him during his visit to Egypt, if it were not on that
occasion assumed, as some think, to hide his real projects, was one of the
chief characteristics of his mind. As soon as he thought Gaul was quiet he
hurried to Illyria, [14] animated by the desire to see those nations, and
to observe their customs for himself. His journey into Britain, though by
Suetonius attributed to avarice, which had been kindled by the report of
enormous pearls of fine quality to be found on our coasts, is by himself
attributed to his desire to see so strange a country, and to be the first
to conquer it. [15] His account of our island, though imperfect, is
extremely interesting. He mentions many of our products. The existence of
lead and iron ore was known to him; he does not allude to tin, but its
occurrence can hardly have been unknown to him. He remarks that the beech
and pine do not grow in the south of England, which is probably an
inaccuracy; [16] and he falls into the mistake of supposing that the north
of Scotland enjoys in winter a period of thirty days total darkness. His
account of Gaul, and, to a certain extent, of Germany, is more explicit.
He gives a fine description of the Druids and their mysterious religion,
noticing in particular the firm belief in the immortality of the soul,
which begot indifference to death, and was a great incentive to bravery.
[17] The effects of this belief are dwelt on by Lucan in one of his most
effective passages, [18] which is greatly borrowed from Caesar. Their
knowledge of letters, and their jealous restriction of it to themselves
and express prohibition of any written literature, he attributes partly to
their desire to keep the people ignorant, the common feeling of a powerful
priesthood, and partly to a conviction that writing injures the memory,
which among men of action should be kept in constant exercise. His
acquaintance with German civilization is more superficial, and shows that
incapacity for scientific criticism which was common to all antiquity.
[19] His testimony to the chastity of the German race, confirmed
afterwards by Tacitus, is interesting as showing one of the causes which
have contributed to its greatness. He relates, with apparent belief, the
existence of several extraordinary quadrupeds in the vast Hercynian
forest, such as the unicorn of heraldry, which here first appears; the
elk, which has no joints to its legs, and cannot lie down, whose bulk he
depreciates as much as he exaggerates that of the urus or wild bull, which
he describes as hardly inferior to the elephant in size. To have slain one
of these gigantic animals, and carried off its horns as a trophy, was
almost as great a glory as the possession of the grizzly bear's claws
among the Indians of the Rocky Mountains. Some of his remarks on the
temper of the Gauls might be applied almost without change to their modern
representatives. The French _elan_ is done ample justice to, as well as
the instability and self-esteem of that great people. "_Ut ad bella
suscipienda Gallorum alacer et promptus est animus, sic mollis ac minime
resistens ad calamitates perferendas mens eorum est_." [20] And again,
"_quod sunt in capessendis consiliis mobiles et novis plerumque rebus
student_." [21] He notices the tall stature of both Gauls and Germans,
which was at first the cause of some terror to his soldiers, and some
contemptuousness on their part. [22] "_Plerisque hominibus Gallis prae
magnitudine corporum suorum brevitas nostra contemptui est_."
Caesar himself was of commanding presence, great bodily endurance, and
heroic personal daring. These were qualities which his enemies knew how to
respect. On one occasion, when his legions were blockaded in Germany, he
penetrated at night to his camp disguised as a Gaul; and in more than one
battle he turned the fortune of the day by his extraordinary personal
courage, fighting on foot before his wavering troops, or snatching the
standard from the centurion's timid grasp. He took the greatest pains to
collect accurate information, and frequently he tells us who his
informants were. [23] Where there was no reason for the suppression or
misrepresentation of truth, Caesar's statements may be implicitly relied
on. No man knew human nature better, or how to decide between conflicting
assertions. He rarely indulges in conjecture, but in investigating the
motives of his adversaries he is penetrating and unmerciful. At the
commencement of the treatise on the civil war he gives his opinion as to
the considerations that weighed with Lentulus, Cato, Scipio, and Pompey;
and it is characteristic of the man that of all he deals most hardly with
Cato, whose pretensions annoyed him, and in whose virtue he did not
believe. To the bravest of his Gallic enemies he is not unjust. The Nervii
in particular, by their courage and self-devotion, excite his warm
admiration, [24] and while he felt it necessary to exterminate them, they
seem to have been among the very few that moved his pity.
As to the style of these two great works, no better criticism can be given
than that of Cicero in the _Brutus_; [25] "They are worthy of all praise:
they are unadorned, straightforward, and elegant, every ornament being
stripped off as it were a garment. While he desired to give others the
material out of which to create a history; he may perhaps have done a
kindness to conceited writers who wish to trick them out with meretricious
graces; [26] but he has deterred all men of sound taste from touching
them. For in history a pure and brilliant conciseness of style is the
highest attainable beauty." Condensed as they are, and often almost bald,
they have that matchless clearness which marks the mind that is master of
its entire subject. We have only to compare them with the excellent but
immeasurably inferior commentaries of Hirtius to estimate their value in
this respect. Precision, arrangement, method, are qualities that never
leave them from beginning to end. It is much to be regretted that they are
so imperfect and that the text is not in a better state. In the _Civil
War_ particularly, gaps frequently occur, and both the beginning and the
end are lost. They were written during the campaign, though no doubt cast
into their present form in the intervals of winter leisure. Hirtius, who,
at Caesar's request, appended an eighth book to the _Gallic War_, tells us
in a letter to Balbus, how rapidly he wrote. "I wish that those who will
read my book could know how unwillingly I took it in hand, that I might
acquit myself of folly and arrogance in completing what Caesar had begun.
For all agree; that the elegance of these commentaries surpasses the most
laborious efforts of other writers. They were edited to prevent historians
being ignorant of matters of such high importance. But so highly are they
approved by the universal verdict that the power of amplifying them has
been rather taken away than bestowed by their publication. [27] And yet I
have a right to marvel at this even more than others. For while others
know how faultlessly they are written, I know with what ease and rapidity
he dashed them off. For Caesar, besides the highest conceivable literary
gift, possessed the most perfect skill in explaining his designs." This
testimony of his most intimate friend is confirmed by a careful perusal of
the works, the elaboration of which, though very great, consists, not in
the execution of details, but in the carefully meditated design. The
_Commentaries_ have always been a favourite book with soldiers as with
scholars. Their Latinity is not more pure than their tactics are
instructive. Nor are the loftier graces of composition wanting. The
speeches of Curio rise into eloquence. [28] Petreius's despair at the
impending desertion of his army [29] is powerfully drawn, and the
contrast, brief but effective, between the Pompeians' luxury and his own
army's want of common necessaries, assumes all the grandeur of a moral
warning. [30]
The example of their general and their own devotion induced other
distinguished men to complete his work. A. Hirtius (consul 43 B.C.), who
served with him in the Gallic and Civil Wars, as we have seen, added at
his request an eighth book to the history of the former; and in the
judgment of the best critics the _Alexandrine War_ is also by his hand.
From these two treatises, which are written in careful imitation of
Caesar's manner, we form a high conception of the literary standard among
men of education. For Hirtius, though a good soldier and an efficient
consul, was a literary man only by accident. It was Caesar who ordered him
to write, first a reply to Cicero's panegyric on Cato, and then the Gallic
Commentary. Nevertheless, his two books show no inferiority in taste or
diction to those of his illustrious chief. They of course lack his genius;
but there is the same purity of style, the same perfect moderation of
language.
Nothing is more striking than the admirable taste of the highest
conversational language at Rome in the seventh century of the Republic.
Not only Hirtius, but Matius, Balbus, Sulpicius, Brutus, Cassius and other
correspondents of Cicero, write to him in a dialect as pure as his own. It
is true they have not his grace, his inimitable freedom and copiousness.
Most of them are somewhat laboured, and give us the impression of having
acquired with difficulty the control of their inflexible material. But the
intimate study of the noble language in which they wrote compels us to
admit that it was fully equal to the clear exposition of the severest
thought and the most subtle diplomatic reasoning. But its prime was
already passing. Even men of the noblest family could not without long
discipline attain the lofty standard of the best conversational
requirements. Sextus Pompeius is said to have been _sermone barbarus_.
[31] On this Niebuhr well remarks: "It is remarkable to see how at that
time men who did not receive a thorough education neglected their mother-
tongue, and spoke a corrupt form of it. The _urbanitas_, or perfection of
the language, easily degenerated unless it were kept up by careful study.
Cicero [32] speaks of the _sermo urbanus_ in the time of Laelius, and
observes that the ladies of that age spoke exquisitely. But in Caesar's
time it had begun to decay." Caesar, in one of his writings, tells his
reader to shun like a rock every unusual form of speech. [33] And this
admirable counsel he has himself generally followed--but few
provincialisms or archaisms can be detected in his pages. [34] In respect
of style he stands far at the head of all the Latin historians. The
authorship of the _African War_ is doubtful; it seems best, with Niebuhr,
to assign it to Oppius. The _Spanish War_ is obviously written by a person
of a different sort. It may either be, as Niebuhr thinks, the work of a
centurion or military tribune in the common rank of life, or, as we
incline to think, of a provincial, perhaps a Spaniard, who was well read
in the older literature of Rome, but could not seize the complex and
delicate idiom of the _beau monde_ of his day. With vulgarisms like _bene
magni, in opere distenti_, [35] and inaccuracies like _ad ignoscendum_ for
_ad se excusandum_, [36] _quam opimam_ for _quam optimam_, [37] he
combines quotations from Ennius, _e.g. hic pes pede premitur, armis
teruntur arma_, [38] and rhetorical constructions, _e.g. alteri alteris
non solum mortem morti exaggerabant, sed tumulos tumulis exaequabant_.
[39] He quotes the words of Caesar in a form of which we can hardly
believe the dictator to have been guilty: "_Caesar gives conditions: he
never receives them_:" [40] and again, "_I am Caesar: I keep my faith_."
[41] Points like these, to which we may add his fondness for dwelling on
horrid details [42] (always omitted by Caesar), and for showy
descriptions, as that of the single combat between Turpio and Niger, [43]
seem to mark him out as in mind if not in race a Spaniard. These are the
very features we find recurring in Lucan and Seneca, which, joined to
undoubted talent, brought a most pernicious element into the Latin style.
To us Caesar's literary power is shown in the sphere of history. But to
his contemporaries he was even more distinguished in other fields. As an
orator he was second, and only second, to Cicero. [44] His vigorous sense,
close argument, brilliant wit, and perfect command of language, made him,
from his first appearance as accuser of Dolabella at the age of 22, one of
the foremost orators of Rome. And he possessed also, though he kept in
check, that greatest weapon of eloquence, the power to stir the passions.
But with him eloquence was a means, not an end. He spoke to gain his
point, not to acquire fame; and thus thought less of enriching than of
enforcing his arguments. One ornament of speech, however, he pursued with
the greatest zeal, namely, good taste and refinement; [45] and in this,
according to Cicero, he stood above all his rivals. Unhappily, not a
single speech remains; only a few characteristics fragments, from which we
can but feel the more how much we have lost. [46]
Besides speeches, which were part of his public life, he showed a deep
interest in science. He wrote a treatise on grammar, _de Analogia_, for
which he found time in the midst of one of his busiest campaigns [47] and
dedicated to Cicero, [48] much to the orator's delight. In the dedication
occur these generous words, "If many by study and practice have laboured
to express their thoughts in noble language, of which art I consider you
to be almost the author and originator, it is our duty to regard you as
one who has well deserved of the name and dignity of the Roman people."
The treatise was intended as an introduction to philosophy and eloquence,
and was itself founded on philosophical principles; [49] and beyond doubt
it brought to bear on the subject that luminous arrangement which was
inseparable from Caesar's mind. Some of his conclusions are curious; he
lays down that the genitive of _dies_ is _die_; [50] the genitive plural
of _panis, pars; panum, partum_; [51] the accusative of _turbo, turbonem_;
[52] the perfect of _mordeo_ and the like, _memordi_ not _momordi_; [53]
the genitive of _Pompeius, Pompeiii_. [54] The forms _maximus, optimus,
municipium_, [55] &c. which he introduced, seem to have been accepted on
his authority, and to have established themselves finally in the language.
As chief pontifex he interested himself with a digest of the _Auspices_,
which he carried as far as sixteen books. [56] The _Auguralia_, which are
mentioned by Priscian, are perhaps a second part of the same treatise. He
also wrote an essay on _Divination_, like that of Cicero. In this he
probably disclosed his real opinions, which we know from other sources
were those of the extremest scepticism. There seemed no incongruity in a
man who disbelieved the popular religion holding the sacred office of
pontifex. The persuasion that religion was merely a department of the
civil order was considered, even by Cicero, to absolve men from any
conscientious allegiance to it. After his elevation to the perpetual
dictatorship he turned his mind to astronomy, owing to the necessities of
the calendar; and composed, or at least published, several books which
were thought by no means unscientific, and are frequently quoted. [57] Of
his poems we shall speak in another place. The only remaining works are
his two pamphlets against Cato, to which Juvenal refers: [58]
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 | 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
32 |
33 |
34 |
35 |
36 |
37 |
38 |
39 |
40 |
41 |
42 |
43 |
44 |
45 |
46 |
47 |
48 |
49 |
50 |
51 |
52