Read Ebook: A History of Roman Literature by Fowler Harold North

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 887 lines and 110621 words, and 18 pages

INDEX 303

CICERO, bust in the Vatican Museum, Rome 65

CAESAR, bust in the Museum at Naples 83

VIRGIL AND TWO MUSES, mosaic in the Bardo Museum, Tunis 113

BOOK I

INTRODUCTION--EARLY ROMAN LITERATURE--TRAGEDY

Roman literature, while it lacks the brilliant originality and the delicate beauty which characterize the works of the great Greek writers, is still one of the great literatures of the world, and it possesses an importance for us which is even greater than its intrinsic merits would naturally give it. In the first place, Roman literature has preserved to us, in Latin translations and adaptations, many important remains of Greek literature which would otherwise have been lost, and in the second place, the political power of the Romans, embracing nearly the whole known world, made the Latin language the most widely spread of all languages, and thus caused Latin literature to be read in all lands and to influence the literary development of all the peoples of Europe.

The Romans were a practical race, not gifted with much poetic imagination, but with great ability to organize their state and their army and to accomplish whatever they determined to do. They had come into Italy with a number of related tribes from the north and had settled in a place on the bank of the Tiber, where they were exposed to attacks from the Etruscans and other neighbors. They were thus forced from the beginning to fortify their city, and live close together within the walls. This made the early development of a form of city government both natural and necessary, and turned the Roman mind toward political organization. At the same time, the attacks of external enemies forced the Romans to pay attention to the organization and support of an army. So, from the time of the foundation of their city by the Tiber, the Romans turned their attention primarily to politics and war. The effect upon their language and literature is clearly seen. Their language is akin to Greek, and like Greek is one of the Indo-European family of languages, to which English and the other most important languages of Europe belong. It started with the same material as Greek, but while Greek developed constantly more variety, more delicacy, and more flexibility, Latin is fixed and rigid, a language adapted to laws and commands rather than to the lighter and more graceful kinds of utterance. Circumstances, aided no doubt by the natural bent of their minds, tended to make the Romans political, military, and practical, rather than artistic.

Roman literature, as might be expected after what has just been said, is often not the spontaneous outpouring of literary genius, but the means by which some practical ends or purposes are to be attained. Almost from first to last, the writings of Roman authors have a political purpose, and the influence of political events upon the literature is most marked. Even those kinds of Roman literature which seem at first sight to have the least connection with political matters have nevertheless a political purpose. Plays were written to enhance the splendor of public festivals provided by office holders who were at the same time office seekers and hoped to win the favor of the people by successful entertainments; history was written to teach the proper methods of action for future use or to add to the influence of living leaders of the state by calling to mind the great deeds of their ancestors; epic and lyric poems were composed to glorify important persons at Rome, or at least to prove the right of Rome to the foremost place among the nations by giving her a literature worthy to rank with that of the Greeks.

The development of Roman literature is closely connected with political events, and its three great divisions correspond to the divisions of Roman political history. The first or Republican Period extends from the beginning of Roman literature after the first Punic war to the battle of Actium in 31 B. C. The second or Augustan Period, from 31 B. C. to 14 A. D., is the period in which the institutions of the republic were transformed to serve the purposes of the monarchy. The "Golden Age" of Roman literature comprises the last part of the Republican Period and the whole Augustan Period, from 81 B. C. to 14 A. D. The third or Imperial Period lasts from 14 A. D. to the beginning of the Middle Ages. The first part of this period, from 14 to 117 A. D., is called the "Silver Age." In the first period the Romans learn to imitate Greek literature and develop their language until it is capable of fine literary treatment, and in the latter part of this time they produce some of their greatest works, especially in prose. The second period, made illustrious by Horace and Virgil, is the time when Roman poetry reaches its greatest height. The third period is a time of decline, sometimes rapid, sometimes retarded for a while, during which Roman literature shows few great works and many of very slight literary value. Throughout the first and second periods, and even for the most part in the third period, Latin literature is produced almost entirely at Rome, is affected by changes in the city, and reflects the sentiments of the city population. It is therefore proper to speak of Roman literature, rather than Latin literature, for that which interests us is the literature of the city by the Tiber and of the civilization with which the city is identified, rather than works written in the Latin language.

The beginning of a real literature at Rome was made by a foreigner of Greek birth, and naturally took the form of an imitation of Greek works. This would undoubtedly have been the case, even if the first professional author had been a native Roman, for the Romans had for some time been in close touch with the Greeks of Italy, and Greek literature presented itself to them as a finished product, calling for their admiration and inciting them to imitate it. Nevertheless there were in existence at Rome in early times materials from which a native literature might have arisen if the Greek influence had not been so strong as to prevent their development. The early Romans sang songs at weddings and at harvest festivals, chanted hymns to the gods, and were familiar with rude popular performances which might have given rise to a native drama. The words of such songs and performances were of course, for the most part at least, rhythmical, but few if any of them were committed to writing until much later times. The art of writing was, however, known to the Romans as early as the sixth century B. C., for the Greek colonies on the coast of Italy must have had trade connections with the Romans at a very early time, and writing was thoroughly familiar to the Greeks by the time Rome was two centuries old.

If it were right that mortals be wept for by immortals, The goddess Muses would weep for Naevius the poet. And so since to the treasure of Orcus he's departed, The Romans have forgotten to speak the Latin language.

Naevius had a right to be proud. He had made literature a real force at Rome, able to contend with the great men of the city; he had invented the drama with Roman characters, and had written the first national epic poem. In doing all this he had at the same time added to the richness and grace of the still rude Latin language. But great as were the merits of Naevius, he was surpassed in every way by his successor.

Quintus Ennius, a poet of surprising versatility and power, was born at Rudiae, in Calabria, in 239 B. C. While he was serving in the Roman army in Sardinia, in 204 B. C., he met with M. Porcius Cato, who took him home to Rome. Here Ennius gave lessons in Greek and translated Greek plays for the Roman stage. He became acquainted with several prominent Romans, among them the elder Scipio Africanus, went to AEtolia as a member of the staff of M. Fulvius Nobilior, and obtained full Roman citizenship in 184 B. C. His death was brought on by the gout in 169 B. C.

Ennius was the first great epic poet at Rome. After him epic poetry was neglected, until it was taken up again a hundred years later. Tragedy, however the other branch of literature in which Ennius chiefly excelled, was cultivated without interruption, for it had become usual to produce tragedies at the chief festivals of the city and on other public occasions, and new plays were therefore constantly in demand. But as gladiatorial shows grew more frequent and more magnificent, tragedy declined in popularity, though tragedies continued to be written, and even acted. The development of Roman tragedy is, however, contained within a few generations, the professional authors of tragedies about whom we have any information are few, and their works are lost, with the exception of such fragments as have happened to be quoted by later writers. It is therefore best to continue the account of Roman tragedy now, even at the sacrifice of strict chronological order.

So great a mass glides on, roaring from the deep with vast sound and breath, rolls the waves before it, and stirs up the whirlpools mightily. It rushes gliding forward, scatters and blows back the sea. Now you might think a broken cloud was rolling on, now that a lofty rock, torn off, was being swept along by winds or hurricanes, or that eddying whirlwinds were rising as the waves rush together; or that the sea was stirring up some confused heaps of earth, or that perhaps Triton with his trident overturning the cavern down below, in the billowy tide, was raising from the deep a rocky mass to heaven.

Before passing on to the treatment of comedy, it would be well to try to picture to ourselves the Roman theatre and the manner of producing a play. In the early days of Livius Andronicus there was no permanent theatre building, and the spectators stood up during the performance, but, as time went on, arrangements for seating the audience were made, and finally, in 55 B. C., a stone theatre was erected. Stone theatres had long been in use in Greece, and in course of time they came to be built in all the large cities of the Roman empire. The Roman theatre differed somewhat from the Greek theatre, though resembling it in its general appearance. The Roman stage was about three or four feet high, and long and wide enough to give room for several actors, usually not more than four or five at a time, one or two musicians, a chorus of indefinite number, and as many supernumeraries as might be needed. These last were sometimes very numerous, when kings appeared with their body-guards, or generals led their armies or their hosts of prisoners upon the stage. At the back of the stage was a building, usually three stories high, representing a palace. In the middle was a door leading into the royal apartments, and two other doors, one at each side, led to the rooms for guests. At each end of the stage was a door, the one at the right leading to the forum, the other to the country or the harbor. Changes of scene were imperfectly made by changing parts of the decoration. In comedies, the background represented not a palace, but a private house or a street of houses.

In the early days of the Roman drama, the actors did not wear masks, but before the end of the republic masks were introduced. These were useful in the large theatres of the time, as they added to the volume of the actor's voice, and since the expression of the actor's face could be seen by only a small proportion of the spectators, little was lost by hiding it with a mask. The masks themselves were carefully made, and were appropriate to the different characters. The costumes were conventional, kings wearing long robes and holding sceptres in their left hands, all tragic actors wearing boots with thick soles to raise them above the stature of the chorus, and all comic actors wearing low shoes without heels. The actors were, as a rule at least, slaves, but the profits of the profession were so great that a successful actor can have had but little difficulty in buying his freedom.

Plays were performed at Rome on various occasions when the people were to be entertained, and the aediles and other officials and public men vied with each other in showing their wealth and in courting popularity. We must, therefore, imagine, that when a play was performed in the latter part of the republican period the actors, chorus, and supernumeraries were dressed in the richest and most gorgeous costumes, and everything possible was done to add to the spectacular effect of the performance, while the audience, excited by the scene and the action, lost no opportunity of cheering their favorite actors, or hissing those who failed to please.

COMEDY

Comedy imported--Plautus, about 254 to 184 B. C.--Plots of Roman comedies--Extant plays of Plautus--Degree of originality in Plautus--Statius Caecilius, birth unknown, death about 165 B. C.--Other comic writers--Terence, about 190 to 159 B. C.--Plays of Terence--Plautus and Terence compared--Turpilius, died 103 B. C.--Fabula togata--Titinius, about 150 B. C. --Titus Quinctius Atta, died 77 B. C.--Lucius Afranius, born about 150 B. C.--Fescennine verses--Fabulae Atellanae--Pomponius and Novius, about 90 B. C.--Mimes--Decimus Laberius and Publilius Syrus, about 50 B. C.

Livius Andronicus, Ennius, and Pacuvius, all produced comedies at Rome, as did other writers of tragedies, but of these works only scanty fragments remain. Three writers, Plautus, Caecilius, and Terence, devoted themselves exclusively to comedy, and it is from the extant plays of the eldest and the youngest of these, Plautus and Terence, that most of our knowledge of Roman comedy is derived.

Titus Maccius Plautus was born at Sarsina, a town of Umbria, about 254 B. C. He went to Rome while still a boy, and seems to have earned so much as a servant or assistant of actors, that he was able to leave the city and engage in trade at some other place. His business venture was a failure; he lost his money, and returned to Rome, where he hired himself out to a miller, in whose service he was when he wrote his first three plays. His first appearance with a play was probably about 224 B. C. Further details of his life are unknown. He died in 184 B. C., at the age of about seventy years. He was, therefore, a younger contemporary of Livius Andronicus and Naevius, but older than Ennius and Pacuvius.

The following passage, whatever it may owe to the Greek original, doubtless owes part of its unusual liveliness to Plautus:

A second passage will give an idea of the style of some of the dialogue of Plautus. The speakers are a boy, Paegnium, and a maid-servant, Sophoclidisca:

Statius Caecilius, an Insubrian by birth, probably came to Rome as a slave--that is, a captive--at some time not far from 200 B. C. Here he became a writer of comedies, was set free by his master, and lived in the same house with Ennius. He died about 165 B. C. The titles of some forty plays by Caecilius are known; but the extant fragments are too short to afford much information as to his style, his ability, or the contents of his plays. As many of the titles of his pieces are known also as titles of plays by Menander, it is clear that Caecilius presented plays of the Greek new comedy in Latin form. He appears to have followed the Greek originals rather more closely than Plautus, and to have cultivated elegance of style rather than brilliant dialogue. Other comic writers of the same time were Trabea, Atilius, Aquilius, Licinius Imbrex, and Luscius Lanuvinus, of whose works few fragments exist, and who are mentioned here merely to show that there were writers of comedies at Rome between Plautus and Terence. No one of them, however, seems to have possessed the originality and exuberant wit of Plautus, or to have attained the elegance and polish of Terence.

The plays of Terence are written in a style far more advanced, more refined, and more artistic than those of Plautus, but they show much less originality, wit, and vigor. Plautus wrote at a time when Greek culture was already known to the Romans, but when it was less thoroughly appreciated than later, and he wrote not for any one class of Romans, but for the people. The language of Plautus is therefore the language of every-day life as it was spoken by the average Roman; his wit is of the kind that appealed to ordinary men, and his plays have much action, that the common man might enjoy them. Plautus took Greek plays and made them over to suit the average Roman. The position of Terence was different. In his day a cultivated class of Romans existed, who knew Greek literature well, who admired and loved Greek culture, but were none the less patriotic Romans. These men wished to introduce all that was best in Greece into Rome. So far as literature was concerned, they wished to make Latin literature as much like Greek literature as possible, and therefore encouraged imitation rather than originality, purity and grace of language rather than vigor of thought or expression. These were the men among whom Terence lived, and whose taste influenced him most. His plays contain few indications that they are written for a Roman audience , but are Greek in their refinement of language, gentle humor, and polished excellence of detail. There is less variety of metre than in the plays of Plautus, as, indeed, there is less variety of any kind, for Terence relies for his effect, not upon variety, but upon finished elegance. He is the earliest Latin author who tries to equal the Greeks in stylistic refinement, and few of those who came after him were as successful as he.

Many of the qualities of the style of Terence are lost in translation; but something of the air of ease, naturalness, and good humor that pervades his plays is seen in the short scene in the Phormio, in which Demipho asks Nausistrata, the wife of Chremes, to persuade Phanium to marry Phormio.

EARLY PROSE--THE SCIPIONIC CIRCLE--LUCILIUS

Greek influence upon Roman prose--Fabius Pictor, 216 B. C.--Cincius Alimentus, 210 B. C.--Cato, 234-149 B. C.--Cato's works--Orators--Jurists--Latin annalists--Scipio Africanus the younger, 185-129 B. C.--The Scipionic circle--Lucilius, 180-126 B. C.--Satire--Satires of Lucilius--Literature in the fifty years before Cicero--Poetry--History--Learned works--General writers--Jurists--Oratory--Rhetoric addressed to Herennius--Great development of prose in this period.

Tragedy and comedy began, reached their full development, and decayed in the short period of a century and a half between the first play of Livius Andronicus and the death of Accius. It was therefore advisable to give a connected account of dramatic literature at Rome for this entire period, and to reserve for separate treatment the beginnings of prose literature, which, though less rapid in its growth, had a far longer life and was a much truer expression of the national genius.

Marcus Porcius Cato was born at Tusculum, in 234 B. C., and died in 149 B. C. Throughout his life he was active in public affairs. He was quaestor , aedile , consul , and censor , and in all his offices showed his honesty, efficiency, singleness of purpose, and sincere, though somewhat narrow-minded, patriotism. He believed that the influence of Greek art, literature, philosophy, and ways of life was bad, though in his old age he learned the Greek language, and studied Greek literature. In a letter to his son, he says: "I shall speak about those Greeks in their proper place, son Marcus, and tell what I discovered at Athens, and that it is good to look into their literature, but not to learn it thoroughly. I shall convince you that their race is most worthless and unteachable."

Cato was opposed to the prevailing tendencies in literature--the tendencies which were destined to prevail--but in spite of that he was one of the most productive literary men of his time. His active political life gave him many occasions for public speaking, in the senate or before the people, and he spoke often in courts of law, either in suits of his own or as an advocate for others. One hundred and fifty of his speeches existed in Cicero's, time, and some, at least, were read and admired long after Cicero. About eighty scattered fragments now exist, some of which belong to political, others to legal speeches. These show vigor and terseness of expression, a sort of dry humor, and straightforward freedom of speech, but no elegance of style.

Cato was one of the most famous orators of his time, but his competitors were many, among them some of the most noted men of Rome. Most of these orators were men of natural ability, whose eloquence was trained in the school of public life and owed its effect in great measure to the weight of the speaker's dignity or the glory of his deeds. Their speeches are lost, and the reputation they had survives only to remind us that during and after the second Punic war Roman eloquence was growing in power, preparing, as it were, for the brilliant oratory of the Gracchi in the second half of the second century B. C., and the superb productions of Cicero in the century to follow. Among orators of Cato's time should be mentioned Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator, five times consul, censor, and dictator, the conqueror of Hannibal, then Quintus Caecilius Metellus, consul in 206 B. C., Marcus Cornelius Cethegus , Publius Licinius Crassus , and Scipio Africanus the elder .

The annalists who wrote in Greek, such as Fabius Pictor, were followed, soon after the middle of the second century B. C., by several writers whose works differed from theirs chiefly by being written in Latin. They derived their general views and methods, as well as some of their facts, from earlier Greek historians, such as Ephorus and Timaeus. The first of these Latin annalists was Lucius Cassius Hemina, who wrote a history of Rome to his own time. Somewhat more important was Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi, who was consul in 133 B. C. His annals covered the same ground as those of Hemina, and are said to have been written in an artless, somewhat rude style. A similar lack of elegance seems to have belonged to the works of the other annalists of this time. Evidently the Romans had not yet learned to write artistic prose. Yet this is the period when, under the guidance of Greek teachers, the Romans were paying more attention than ever before to grammar and rhetoric, purity of language, and nicety of expression.

The man about whom the best literary life of the city centred was Scipio Africanus the younger, who lived from 185 to 129 B. C. He was the son of the distinguished Lucius AEmilius Paulus, whose victory at Pydna, in 168 B. C., had destroyed the last foreign power capable of making serious resistance to the Roman legions, and he had been adopted by the son of the elder Scipio Africanus. He was himself a distinguished soldier, for as a simple officer he had saved the Roman army in Africa, after which he had been made consul and commander of the army which brought the third Punic war to a close by the capture and destruction of Carthage . It might have been expected that he would take an active part in the government, especially as in his time the state needed the help of her best citizens. But Scipio seems to have felt that the internal troubles, which beset the state now that all external dangers were over, were too serious to be cured. He used his influence for good wherever he was able, but made no systematic attempt to correct the abuses of the government, which led at last to the revolutionary disorders of the days of the Gracchi . Instead of being a party leader, he occupied a position somewhat apart from the aristocratic and the popular parties, lending his influence and his eloquence to the causes that seemed to him good, and in this way preserving a reputation for independence and good judgment. His patriotism was undoubted, and his influence as great as that of any man in Rome.

Scipio had been carefully educated, and employed his leisure in literary and intellectual pursuits. He was not an author himself, except in so far as he published his speeches, which were much admired, but he loved to be surrounded by men of letters, to profit by their conversation, and lend them the support of his social position and influence. His somewhat older friend, Gaius Laelius, who was consul in 140 B. C., shared his literary tastes, though he, too, refrained from publishing other works than speeches. From 167 to 150 B. C. a thousand Greeks of prominent position in their native country were kept as hostages in Italy. Among these was the historian Polybius, who was assigned a residence in Rome, and who became a member of the circle of literary friends who surrounded Scipio and Laelius. The Stoic philosopher Panaetius, who afterward became the head of the Stoic school, was another Greek belonging to the Scipionic circle. The influence of Panaetius upon Roman philosophy was great, as was that of Polybius upon the writing of Roman history. But Latin writers also gathered about Scipio. Among them were Terence , the most polished writer of comedies; Hemina and Piso, the annalists; Gaius Fannius, a nephew of Laelius, who was consul in 122 B. C., and achieved distinction as an orator, besides writing a history of Rome; Sempronius Asellio, whose history of his own times was continued at least to 91 B. C.; Lucius Furius Philus, consul in 136 B. C., orator and jurist, and many others. Among them all, the most original genius was the father of Roman satire, Gaius Lucilius.

Lucilius was born, probably in 180 B. C., at Suessa Aurunca, in Campania. He was a member of a wealthy equestrian family, and when he went to live at Rome he kept himself free from the cares of business as well as of politics, devoting himself to social life and to literature. He lived as a wealthy bachelor, not holding himself aloof from the pleasures of the capital, but not indulging in excesses. Most of his life was passed in the city, but in 134 B. C. he followed Scipio to the war in Spain, and in 126 B. C., when all who were not Roman citizens were obliged to leave Rome, he made a journey to Sicily, from which he did not return until 124 B. C. He died at Naples in 103 B. C.

Virtue, Albinus, is being able to pay the true price for the things in and by which we live; virtue is knowing to what each thing leads for a man. Virtue is knowing what is right, useful, honorable for a man, what things are good, what bad likewise, what is useless, base, dishonorable; virtue is knowing the limit and measure in seeking anything; virtue is giving to riches their true value; virtue is giving to honor what is really due to it; is being an enemy and opponent of bad men and morals, on the other hand a defender of good men and morals, regarding them as of much importance, wishing them well, living as their friend; moreover, considering the advantages of one's country first, of one's relatives second, of ourselves third and last.

Other fragments contain direct attacks upon individuals, but these which have been quoted serve to give an idea of the freedom of speech, good sense, and serious purpose of the first great satirist.

The life of Lucilius fell in a period of many changes. As a boy, he saw the Roman power established in the east, before he reached middle life he witnessed the destruction of Carthage, then he lived through the troublous years before and after the death of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 B. C. and that of his brother Gaius in 121 B. C., and in the year before his death he saw the consulship in the hands of Gaius Marius. It was not until the long struggle between Marius and Sulla was over that any measure of tranquility returned to the Roman state. Then came the Golden Age of Roman literature. But for fifty years before the time of Cicero circumstances at Rome were not favorable to literary production of every kind. Lucilius, Accius, Afranius and a few other poets lived on until about the end of the second century B. C., but there was little new life in poetry. Gnaeus Matius translated the Iliad, and Laevius Melissus imitated some of the lighter Greek poems. The epic poem of Hostius on the Istrian war and that of Aulus Furius from Antium on an unknown subject have left hardly any traces. It is not worth while to mention in detail the occasional love songs and epigrams written by various authors. Aside from Lucilius and the dramatists already mentioned, there are no poets of note in this period.

In history, the production was greater and more important. Fannius and Asellio were emulated by Coelius Antipater, whose history of the second Punic war was of some importance, and he was followed by Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, who wrote a history of Rome in at least twenty-three books, coming down to the year 82 B. C. Another more voluminous but less trustworthy historian was Valerius Antias, who wrote annals in at least seventy-five books. His date is uncertain, but he seems to have lived early in the first century B. C. Two other historians of the latter part of this period were Lucius Cornelius Sisenna , who wrote a history of his own times in an antiquated style, and Gaius Licinius Macer, whose annals, beginning with the earliest times, were probably continued until near the date of his death . The dictator Sulla wrote memoirs, which must have possessed great historical value. Gaius Sempronius Tuditanus was not only an annalist, but also an antiquarian.

Important writers on legal subjects were Publius Mucius Scaevola and his brother Publius Licinius Crassus Mucianus , but more important than either was Quintus Mucius Scaevola , whose systematic treatment of Roman law served as the foundation for all later works on the subject. Quintus Scaevola was also distinguished as an orator.

Throughout the period from the third Punic war to the dictatorship of Sulla--and, in fact, until the death of Cicero--nearly every public man at Rome was an orator, and many of them published their speeches. In the times of the Gracchi, Rome contained, perhaps, more excellent speakers than at any other period, among whom none equalled in force, brilliancy and oratorical power the great, though unsuccessful, statesman and patriot Gaius Gracchus, , who far surpassed his elder brother Tiberius in eloquence, though he, too, was an orator of distinction. After the Gracchi the most distinguished orators were Marcus Antonius and Lucius Licinius , the first of whom excelled in vigor and liveliness of delivery, the second in wit, elegance and variety of composition. These orators were not merely men with natural ability to speak, but were carefully trained in accordance with the precepts of Greek rhetoric.

The importance of the period immediately preceding the time of Cicero can not be judged by the extant literature, but must be estimated by the number of works and authors mentioned by later writers and the qualities assigned to them. It is at once evident that poetry made little progress, while prose writing of all kinds advanced with rapid strides. It is only natural, therefore, that the age of Cicero should be the most brilliant period of Latin prose, and that the highest general development of poetry should be reserved for the Augustan age. Yet, even the Augustan age can only equal, not surpass, the immortal poems of two of Cicero's contemporaries, Lucretius and Catullus.

LUCRETIUS

The Ciceronian period--Lucretius, 99-55 B. C.--Philosophy at Rome--The poem of Lucretius--Its purpose, contents, and style.

It was in the dictatorship of Sulla, 81 B. C., that Cicero made his first appearance as an orator, and almost from that time until his death, in 43 B. C., he was the most prominent orator and man of letters in Rome. It is but right that in the history of literature this period of nearly forty years is called the age of Cicero. In political and external matters this was a time of great unrest. Sulla's dictatorship, which seemed to put an end to strife, served only to strengthen the power of the senate, not to diminish its abuses; the increase of the slave population of Italy still continued to drive the freeborn farmers to Rome to swell the number of the city rabble; the slaves themselves broke out into open war; the provinces were discontented on account of the extortions of their governors; the Cilician pirates became so powerful that their suppression was a matter of some difficulty; Mithridates aroused a war in the east, and was overcome only by great exertion; while in Rome itself the conspiracy of Catiline and the struggle between Pompey and Caesar clearly foreshadowed the end of the republic.

The purpose of the poem is to free men from superstition and the fear of death by teaching the doctrines of Epicurus. This is a most serious purpose, and Lucretius is thoroughly in earnest. If he adopts the poetic form, it is in order to make his presentation of the doctrines more attractive, in the hope that it will thus have greater influence. This point of view, and at the same time the poet's sense of the difficulty of his theme and his power to cope with it, is clearly expressed in the following passage:

The arrangement of the poem is as follows: Book i sets forth the atomic theory, invented by Democritus and held by Epicurus, that the world consists of atoms--infinitely small particles of matter--and void, i. e., empty space. The theories of other Greek philosophers, such as Heraclitus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, are refuted. In Book ii it is explained how the atoms combine to form the various things in the world, because as they fall through space they depart from a straight line and come in contact with each other. It is also shown that the atoms, although infinite in number, are limited in variety. In Book iii the mind and the soul, or principle of life, are shown to be material and to die when the body dies. Religion and the fear of death, which Lucretius regards as a result of religion, are attacked. Since the soul dies with the body, there is no reason to fear death, because after death we shall feel no lack of anything, shall have no troubles, but shall be as if we had not been born, or as if we lay wrapped in dreamless sleep:

So death to us is naught, concerns us not, When the soul's nature is as mortal known.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet