History of Roman Literature from its Earliest Period to the Augustan Volume I Part 17

M. Schlegel is of opinion, that had the Romans quitted the practice of Greek translation, and composed original tragedies, these would have been of a different cast and species from the Greek productions, and would have been chiefly expressive of profound religious sentiments.-"La tragedie Grecque avoit montre l'homme libre, combattant contre la destinee; la tragedie Romaine eut presente a nos regards l'homme soumis a la Divinite, et subjugue jusques dans ses penchans les plus intimes, par cette puissance infinie qui sanctifie les ames, qui les enchaine de ses liens, et qui brille de toutes parts, a travers le voile de l'univers(354)." His reasons for supposing that this difference would have existed, are founded on the difference in the mythological systems of the two nations.-"L'ancienne croyance des Romains et les usages qui s'y rapportoient, renfermoient un sens moral, serieux, philosophique, divinatoire et symbolique, qui n'existoit pas dans la religion des Grecs."

There can be no doubt, that the Romans were in public life, during the early periods or their history, a devotedly religious people. Nothing of moment was undertaken without being a.s.sured that the G.o.ds approved, and would favour the enterprise. The utmost order was observed in every step of religious performance. We see a consul leaving his army, on suspicion of some irregularity, to hold new auspices-an army inspired with sacred confidence and ardour, after appeasing the wrath of the G.o.ds, by expiatory l.u.s.trations-and a conqueror dedicating at his triumph the temple vowed in the moment of danger. But notwithstanding all this, it so happens, that a spirit of free-thinking is one of the most striking characteristics of the oldest cla.s.s of Latin poets, particularly the tragedians, and in the fragments of those very plays which were founded on Roman subjects, there is everywhere expressed a bitter contempt for augury, and for the _sens divinatoire et symbolique_, which they evidently considered as quackery: and the dramatists do not seem to have much scrupled to declare that it was so, or the people to testify approbation of such sentiments. Even the almost impious lines of Ennius, that the G.o.ds take no concern in the affairs of mortals, were received, as we learn from Cicero, with vast applause.-"Noster Ennius, qui magno plausu loquitur, a.s.sentiente populo-Ego Deum genus(355)," &c. It is probable, however, that a tragedy purely Roman would have been written in a different spirit from a Greek drama, because the manners of the two people had little resemblance, and because the Roman pa.s.sion for freedom, detestation of tyranny, and feelings of patriotism, had strong shades of distinction from those of Greece. The self-devotion of the Decii and Curtius, was of a fiercer description than that of Leonidas. It was the headlong contempt, rather than the resolute sacrifice, of existence.

It was probably, too, from a slavish imitation of the Greek dramatists, that the Latin tragedies acquired what is considered one of their chief faults-the introduction of aphorisms and moral sentences, which were not confined to the chorus, the proper receptacle for them, (it being the peculiar office and character of the chorus to moralize,) but were spread over the whole drama in such a manner, that the characters appeared to be _vivendi preceptores_ rather than _rei actores_. Quintilian characterizes Attius and Pacuvius as chiefly remarkable for this practice.-"Tragdiae scriptores Attius et Pacuvius, clarissimi gravitate sententiarum." A question on this point is started by Hurd,-That since the Greek tragedians moralized so much, how shall we defend Sophocles, and particularly Euripides, if we condemn Attius and Seneca? Brumoy's solution is, that the moral and political aphorisms of the Greek stage generally contained some apt and interesting allusion to the state of public affairs, easily caught by a quick intelligent audience, and not a dry affected moral without farther meaning, like most of the Latin maxims. In the age, too, of the Greek tragedians, there was a prevailing fondness for moral wisdom; and schools of philosophy were resorted to for recreation as well as for instruction. Moral aphorisms, therefore, were not inconsistent with the ordinary flow of conversation in those times, and would be relished by such as indulged in philosophical conferences, whereas such speculations were not introduced till late in Rome, and were never very generally in vogue.

On the whole, it may be admitted that the bold and animated genius of Rome was well suited to tragedy, and that in force of colouring and tragic elevation the Latin poets presented not a feeble image of their great originals; but unfortunately their judgment was uninformed, and they were too easily satisfied with their own productions. Strength and fire were all at which they aimed, and with this praise they remained contented.

They were careless with regard to the regularity or harmony of versification. The discipline of correction, the curious polis.h.i.+ng of art, which had given such l.u.s.tre to the Greek tragedies, they could not bestow, or held the emendation requisite for dramatic perfection as disgraceful to the high spirit and energy of Roman genius(356):

"Turpem putat inscriptis metuitque lituram(357)."

To originality or invention in their subjects, they hardly ever presumed to aspire, and were satisfied with gathering what they found already produced by another soil in full and ripened maturity.

It may perhaps appear strange that the Romans possessed so little original talents for tragedy, and indeed for the drama in general; but the genius of neighbouring nations, who had equal success in other sorts of poetry, has often been very different in this department of literature. The Spaniards could boast of Lopez de Vega, Cervantes, and Calderon, at a time when the Portuguese had no drama, and were contented with the exhibitions of strolling players from Castile. Scotland had scarcely produced a single play of merit in the brightest age of the dramatic glory of England-the age of Shakspeare, Ma.s.singer, and Jonson. While France was delighted with the productions of Racine, Corneille, and Moliere, the modern Italians, as if their ancestors' poverty of dramatic genius still adhered to them, though so rich and abundant in every other department of literature, scarcely possessed a tolerable play of their own invention, and till the time of Goldoni were amused only with the most slavish imitations of the Latin comedies, the buffooneries of harlequin, or tragedies of acc.u.mulated and unmitigated horrors, which excite neither the interest of terror nor of pity.

For all this it may not be easy completely to account; but various causes may be a.s.signed for the want of originality in Roman tragedy, and indeed in the whole Roman drama. The nation was deficient in that milder humanity of which there are so many beautiful instances in Grecian history. From the austere patriotism of Brutus sacrificing every personal feeling to the love of country,-from the frugality of Cincinnatus, and parsimony of the Censor, it fell with frightful rapidity into a state of luxury and corruption without example. Even during the short period which might be called the age of refinement, it wanted a poetical public. To judge by the early part of their history, one would suppose that the Romans were not deficient in that species of sensibility which fits for due sympathy in theatrical incidents. Most of their great revolutions were occasioned by events acting strongly and suddenly on their feelings. The hard fate of Lucretia, Virginia, and the youth Publilius, freed them from the tyranny of their kings, decemvirs, and patrician creditors. On the whole, however, they were an austere, stately, and formal people; their whole mode of life tended to harden the heart and feelings, and there was a rigid uniformity in their early manners, ill adapted to the free workings of the pa.s.sions.

External indications of tenderness were repressed as unbecoming of men whose souls were fixed on the attainment of the most lofty objects. Pity was never to be felt by a Roman, but when it came in the shape of clemency towards a vanquished foe, and tears were never to dim the eyes of those whose chief pride consisted in acting with energy and enduring with firmness. This self-command, which their principles required of them,-this control of every manifestation of suffering in themselves, and contempt for the expression of it in others, tended to exclude tragedy almost entirely from the range of their literature.

Any softer emotions, too, which the Roman people may have once experienced-any sentiments capable of being awakened to tragic pathos, became gradually blunted by the manner in which they were exercised. They had, by degrees, been accustomed to take a barbarous delight in the most wanton displays of human violence, and brutal cruelty. Lions and elephants tore each other in pieces before their eyes; and they beheld, with emotions only of delight, crowds of hireling gladiators wasting their energy, valour, and life, on the guilty _arena_ of a Circus. Gladiatorial combats were first exhibited by Decius and Marcus Brutus, at the funeral of their father, about the commencement of the Punic wars. The number of such entertainments increased with the luxury of the times; and those who courted popular favour found no readier way to gain it than by magnificence and novelty in this species of expense. Caesar exhibited three hundred pairs of gladiators; Pompey presented to the mult.i.tude six hundred lions, to be torn in pieces in the Circus, besides harnessed bears and dancing elephants; and some other candidate for popular favour, introduced the yet more refined barbarity of combats between men and wild animals.

These were the darling amus.e.m.e.nts of all, and chief occupations of many Romans; and those who could take pleasure in such spectacles, must have lost all that tenderness of inward feeling, and all that exquisite sympathy for suffering, without which none can perceive the force and beauty of a tragic drama. The extension, too, of the military power, and the increasing wealth and splendour of the Roman republic, accustomed its citizens to triumphal and gaudy processions. This led to a taste for what, in modern times, has been called _Spectacle_; and, instead of melting with tenderness at the woes of Andromache, the people demanded on the stage such exhibitions as presented them with an image of their favourite pastimes:-

"Quatuor aut plures aulaea premuntur in horas, Dum fugiunt equitum turmae, peditumque catervae: Mox trahitur manibus regum fortuna retortis; Esseda festinant, pilenta, petorrita, naves: Captivum portatur ebur, captiva Corinthus(358)."

This sort of show was not confined to the afterpiece or entertainment, but was introduced in the finest tragedies, which were represented with such pomp and ostentation as to destroy all the grace of the performance. A thousand mules pranced about the stage in the tragedy of _Clytemnestra_; and whole regiments, accoutred in foreign armour, were marshalled in that of the _Trojan Horse_(359). This taste, so fatal to the genuine excellence of tragedy or comedy, was fostered and encouraged by the aediles, who had the charge of the public Shows, and, among others, of the exhibitions at the theatre. The aediles.h.i.+p was considered as one of the steps to the higher honours of the state; and those who held it could not resort to surer means of conciliating the favour of their fellow-citizens, or purchasing their future suffrages, than by sparing no expense in the pageantry of theatrical amus.e.m.e.nts.

The language, also, of the Romans, however excellent in other respects, was at least in comparison with Greek, but ill suited to the expression of earnest and vivid emotion. It required an artful and elaborate collocation of words, and its construction is more forced and artificial than that of most other tongues. Hence pa.s.sion always seemed to speak the language with effort; the idiom would not yield to the rapid transitions and imperfect phrases of impa.s.sioned dialogue.

Little attention, besides, was paid to critical learning, and the cultivation of correct composition. The Latin muse had been nurtured amid the festivities of rural superst.i.tion; and the impure mixture of licentious jollity had so corrupted her nature, that it long partook of her rustic origin. Even so late as the time of Horace, the tragic drama continued to be unsuccessful, in consequence of the illiberal education of the Roman youth; who, while the Greeks were taught to open all the mind to glory, were so cramped in their genius by the love of gain, and by the early infusion of sordid principles, that they were unable to project a great design, or conduct it to perfection. The consequence was, that the "_aerugo et cura peculi_" had so completely infected the Roman dramatists, that lucre was the sole object of their pains. Hence, provided they could catch popular applause, and secure a high price from the magistrates who superintended theatrical exhibitions, they felt indifferent to every n.o.bler view, and more worthy purpose:-

"Gest.i.t enim nummum in loculos demittere; post hoc Securus, cadat, an recto stet fabula tale(360)."

But, above all, the low estimation in which the art of poetry was held, must be regarded as a cause of its little progress during the periods of the republic: "Sero igitur," says Cicero, "a nostris, poetae vel cogniti vel recepti. Quo minus igitur honoris erat poetis, eo minora studia fuerunt(361)." The earliest poets of Rome had not the encouragement of that court favour which was extended to Chaucer in England, to Marot and Ronsard in France, and to Dante by the petty princes of Italy. From Livius Andronicus to Terence, poetry was cultivated only by foreigners and freedmen. Scipio and Laelius, indeed, are said to have written some scenes in the plays of Terence; but they did not choose that anything of this sort should pa.s.s under their names. The stern republicans seem to have considered poetry as an art which captives and slaves might cultivate, for the amus.e.m.e.nt of their conquerors, or masters, but which it would be unsuitable for a grave and lofty patrician to practice. I suspect, the Romans regarded a poet as a tumbler or rope-dancer, with whose feats we are entertained, but whom we would not wish to imitate.

The drama in Rome did not establish itself systematically, and by degrees, as it did in Greece. Plautus wrote for the stage during the time of Livius Andronicus, and Terence was nearly contemporary with Pacuvius and Attius; so that everything serious and comic, good and bad, came at once, and if it was Grecian, found a welcome reception among the Romans. On this account every species of dramatic amus.e.m.e.nt was indiscriminately adopted at the theatre, and that which was most absurd was often most admired. The Greek drama acquired a splendid degree of perfection by a close imitation of nature; but the Romans never attained such perfection, because, however exquisite their models, they did not copy directly from nature, but from its representative and image.

Had the Romans, indeed, possessed a literature of their own, when they first grew familiar with the works of the Greek poets, their native productions would no doubt have been improved by the study and imitation of the masterpieces of these more accomplished foreigners; yet they would still have preserved something of a national character. But, unfortunately, when the Romans first became acquainted with the writings of the Greeks, they had not even sown the seeds of learning, so that they remained satisfied with the full-ripened produce imported from abroad.

Several critics have indeed remarked in all the compositions of the Romans, and particularly in their tragedies, a peculiar severity and loftiness of thought; but they were all formed so entirely on a Greek model, that their early poetry must be regarded rather as the production of art than genius, and as a spark struck by contact and attrition, rather than a flame spontaneously kindled at the altar of the Muses.

In addition to all this, the Latin poet had no encouragement to invent. He was not required to look abroad into nature, or strike out a path for himself. So far from this being demanded, Greek subjects were evidently preferred by the public-

"Omnes res gestas Athenis esse autumant, Quo vobis illud Graec.u.m videatur magis(362)."

All the works, then, which have been hitherto mentioned, and which, with exception of the _Annals_ of Ennius, are entirely dramatic, belong strictly to what may be called the Greek school of composition, and are unquestionably the least original cla.s.s of productions in the Latin, or perhaps any other language. But however little the early dramatists of Rome may have to boast of originality or invention, they are amply ent.i.tled to claim an unborrowed praise for the genuine purity of their native style and language.

The style and language of the dramatic writers of the period, on which we are now engaged, seem to have been much relished by a numerous cla.s.s of readers, from the age of Augustus to that of the Antonines, and to have been equally abhorred by the poets of that time. We have already seen Horace's indignation against those who admired the _Carmen Saliare_, or the poems of Livius, and which appears the bolder and more surprising, as Augustus himself was not altogether exempt from this predilection(363); and we have also seen the satire of Persius against his age, for being still delighted with the fustian tragedies of Attius and the rugged style of Pacuvius-

"Est nunc Brisei quem venosus liber Atti, Sunt quos Pacuviusque et verrucosa moretur Antiope aerumnis cor luctificabile fulta."

In like manner Martial, in his Epigrams, mimicking the obsolete phrases of the ancient dramatists-

"Attonitusque legis _terrai frugiferai_, Attius et quicquid Pacuviusque vomunt."

Such sentiments, however, as is evident from Horace's Epistle to Augustus, proceeded in a great measure from the modern poets being provoked at an admiration, which they thought did not originate in a real sense of the merit of these old writers, but in an envious wish to depreciate, by odious comparison, the productions of the day-

"Jam Saliare Numae carmen qui laudat, et illud Quod mec.u.m ignorat, solus vult scire videri; Ingentis non ille favet, plauditque sepultis, Nostra sed impugnat-nos, nostraque lividus odit."

But although a great proportion of the public may, with malicious designs, have heaped extravagant commendations on the style of the ancient tragedians, there can be no doubt that it is full of vigour and richness; and if inferior to the exquisite refinement of the Augustan age, it was certainly much to be preferred to the obscurity of Persius, or the conceits of Martial. "A very imperfect notion," says Wakefield, in one of his letters to Fox, "is entertained in general of the copiousness of the Latin language, by those who confine themselves to what are styled the Augustan writers. The old comedians and tragedians, with Ennius and Lucilius, were the great repositories of learned and vigorous expression.

I have ever regarded the loss of the old Roman poets, particularly Ennius and Lucilius, from the light they would have thrown on the formations of the Latin language, and its derivation from the aeolian Greek, as the severest calamity ever sustained by philological learning(364)."

Sometimes, indeed, their words are uncouth, particularly their compound terms and epithets, in the formation of which they are not nearly so happy as the Greeks. Livius Andronicus uses _Odorisequos canes_-Pacuvius employs _Repandirostrum_ and _Incurvicervic.u.m_. Such terms always appear incongruous and disjointed, and not knit together so happily as _Cyclops_, and other similar words of the Greeks.

The different cla.s.ses into which the regular drama of this period may be reduced, is a subject involved in great contradiction and uncertainty, and has been much agitated in consequence of Horace's celebrated line-

"Vel qui _Praetextas_ vel qui docuere _Togatas_(365)."

On the whole, it seems pretty evident, that the _regular_ drama was divided into tragedy and comedy. A tragedy on a Greek subject, and in which Greek manners were preserved, as the Hecuba, Dulorestes, &c. was simply styled _Tragdia_, or sometimes _Tragdia Palliata_. Those tragedies again, in which Roman characters were introduced, as the Decius and Brutus of Attius, were called _Praetextatae_, because the Praetexta was the habit worn by Roman kings and consuls. The comedy which adopted Greek subjects and characters, like those of Terence, was termed _Comdia_, or _Comdia Palliata_; and that which was clothed in Roman habits and customs, was called _Togata_(366). Afranius was the most celebrated writer of this last cla.s.s of dramas, which were probably Greek pieces accommodated to Roman manners, since Afranius lived at a period when Roman literature was almost entirely imitative. It is difficult, no doubt, to see how an Athenian comedy could be bent to local usages foreign to its spirit and genius; but the Latin writers were not probably very nice about the adjustment; and the _Comdia Togata_ is so slightly mentioned by ancient writers, that we can hardly suppose that it comprehended a great cla.s.s of national compositions. The _Tabernaria_ was a comedy of a lower order than the _Comdia Togata_: It represented such manners as were likely to be met with among the dregs of the Plebeians; and was so called from Taberna, as its scene was usually laid in shops or taverns. These, I think, are the usual divisions of the regular Roman drama; but critics and commentators have sometimes applied the term _Togata_ to all plays, whether tragedies or comedies, in which Roman characters were represented, and _Palliata_ to every drama of Greek origin.

There was, however, a species of irregular dramas, for which the Romans were not indebted to the Greeks, and which was peculiar to themselves, called _Fabulae Atellanae_. These entertainments were so denominated from Atella, a considerable town of the Oscans, now St Arpino, lying about two miles south from Aversa, between Capua and Naples,-the place now named Atella being at a little distance.

When Livius Andronicus had succeeded in establis.h.i.+ng at Rome a regular theatre, which was formed on the Greek model, and was supported by professional writers, and professional actors, the free Roman youth, who were still willing, amid their foreign refinements, occasionally to revive the recollection of the old popular pastimes of their Italian ancestry, continued to amuse themselves with the satiric pieces introduced by the _Histrions_ of Etruria, and with the Atellane Fables which Oscan performers had first made known at Rome(367). The actors of the regular drama were not permitted to appear in such representations; and the Roman youths, to whom the privilege was reserved, were not, as other actors, removed from their tribe, or rendered incapable of military service(368); nor could they be called on like them to unmask in presence of the spectators(369). It has been conjectured, that the popularity of these spectacles, and the privileges reserved to those who appeared in them, were granted in consequence of their pleasantries being so tempered by the ancient Italian gravity, that there was no admixture of obscenity or indecorum, and hence no stain of dishonour was supposed to be inflicted on the performers(370).

The Atellane Fables consisted of detached scenes following each other, without much dramatic connection, but replete with jocularity and buffoonery. They were written in the Oscan dialect, in the same way as the Venetian or Neapolitan jargons are frequently employed in the Italian comedies; and they differed from the Greek satiric drama in this, that the characters of the latter were Satyrs, while those of the Atellane fables were Oscan(371). One of these was called Maccus, a grotesque and fantastic personage, with an immense head, long nose, and hump back, who corresponded in some measure to the clown or fool of modern pantomime, and whose appellation of Maccus has been interpreted by Lipsius as _Bardus_, _fatuus_, _stolidus_(372). In its rude but genuine form this species of entertainment was in great vogue and constant use at Rome. It does not appear that the Atellane fables were originally written out, or that the actors had certain parts prescribed to them. The general subject was probably agreed on, but the performers themselves filled up the scenes from their own art or invention(373). As the Roman language improved, and the provincial tongues of ancient Italy became less known, the Oscan dialect was gradually abandoned. Quintus Novius, who lived in the beginning of the seventh century of Rome, and whom Macrobius mentions as one of the most approved writers of Atellane Fables, was the author who chiefly contributed to this innovation. He is cited as the author of the _Virgo Praegnans_, _Dotata_, _Gallinaria_, _Gemini_, and various others.

At length, in the time of Sylla, Lucius Pomponius produced Atellane Fables, which were written without any intermixture of the Oscan dialect, being entirely in the Latin language; and he at the same time refined their ancient buffoonery so much, by giving them a more rational cast, that he is called by Velleius Paterculus the inventor of this species of drama, and is characterized by that author as "sensibus celebrem, verbis rudem(374)." Pomponius was remarkable for his accurate observation of manners, and his genius has been highly extolled by Cicero and Seneca. The names of sixty-three of his pieces have been cited by grammarians, and from all these fragments are still extant. From some of them, however, not more than a line has been preserved, and from none of them more than a dozen. It would appear that the Oscan character of Maccus was still retained in many fables of Pomponius, as there is one ent.i.tled _Maccus_, and others _Macci Gemini_, _Maccus Miles_, _Maccus Sequestris_, in the same manner as we say Harlequin footman, &c. Pappo, or Pappus, seems also to have been a character introduced along with Maccus, and, I should think, corresponded to the Pantaloon of modern pantomime. Among the names of the Atellanes of Pomponius we find _Pappus Agricola_, and among those of Novius, _Pappus Praeteritus_. This character, however, appears rather to have been of Greek than of Oscan origin; and was probably derived from ?app??, the Silenus or old man of the Greek dramatic satire.

The improvements of Pomponius were so well received at Rome, that he was imitated by Mummius, and by Sylla himself, who, we are told by Athenaeus, wrote several Atellane Fables in his native language(375). In this new form introduced by Pomponius the Atellane dramas continued to enjoy great popularity in Rome, till they were in some measure superseded by the Mimes of Laberius and Publius Syrus.

Along with the Atellane Fables, the Roman youth were in the practice of acting short pieces called _Exodia_, which were interludes, or after-pieces, of a yet more loose, detached, and farcical description, than the Atellanes, being a continuation of the ancient performances originally introduced by the Histrions of Etruria(376). In these Exodia the actors usually wore the same masks and habits as in the Atellanes and tragedies(377), and represented the same characters in a ludicrous point of view:-

"Urbicus Exodio risum movet Atellanae Gestibus Autonoes. Hunc diligit aelia pauper(378)."

Joseph Scaliger, in his Commentary on Manilius, gives his opinion, that the _Exodia_ were performed at the end of the princ.i.p.al piece, like our farces, and were so called as being the issue of the entertainment, which is also a.s.serted by a scholiast on Juvenal(379). But the elder Scaliger and Salmasius thought that the _exodium_ was a sort of interlude, and had not necessarily any connection with the princ.i.p.al representation. The _Exodia_ continued to be performed with much license in the times of Tiberius and Nero; and when the serious spirit of freedom had vanished from the empire, they often contained jocular but direct allusions to the crimes of the portentous monsters by whom it was scourged and afflicted.

It has been much disputed among modern critics, whether the

SATIRE

of the Romans was derived from the Greeks, or was of their own invention.

The former opinion has been maintained by the elder Scaliger(380), Heinsius(381), Vulpius(382), and, among the most recent German critics, by Blankenburg(383), Conz, and Flogel(384); the latter theory, which seems to have been that of the Romans themselves, particularly of Horace and Quintilian(385), has been supported by Diomedes(386), Joseph Scaliger, Casaubon(387), Spanheim(388), Rigaltius(389), Dacier(390), and Dryden, and by Koenig(391), and Manso, among the Germans. Those who suppose that satire descended directly from the Greeks to the Romans, derive the word from _Satyrus_, the well-known mythological compound of a man and goat.

Casaubon, on the other hand, and most of those who have followed him, deduce it from the adjective _Satura_, a Sabine word, originally signifying a medley, and, afterwards,-full or abundant. To this word the substantive _Lanx_ was understood, which meant the platter or charger whereon the first fruits of the earth were offered to Bacchus at his festivals,-

"Ergo rite suum Baccho dicemus honorem Carminibus patriis, lancesque et liba feremus(392)."

The term _Satura_ thus came to be applied to a species of composition, originally written in various sorts of verse, and comprehending a _farrago_ of all subjects,-

"Quicquid agunt homines, votum, timor, ira, voluptas, Gaudia, discursus(393)," &c.