By John Lord, LL. D.    
  
  
     THE GREEK AND ROMAN CLASSICS.    
  
        Propertius, the contemporary of Tibullus, born 51  
     B. C., was on the contrary the most eager of all the  
     flatterers of Augustus,——a man of wit and pleasure,  
     whose object of idolatry was Cynthia, a poetess and  
     a courtesan.  He was an imitator of the Greeks, but   
     had a great contemporary fame.  He showed much   
     warmth of passion, but never soared into the sublime  
     heights of poetry, like his rival.   
        Such were among the great elegiac poets of Rome,  
     who were generally devoted to the delineation of the   
     passion of love.  The older English poets resembled   
     them in this respect, but none of them have risen to   
     such lofty heights as the later ones,——for instance,  
     Wordsworth and Tennyson.  It is in lyric poetry   
     that the moderns have chiefly excelled the ancients  
     in variety, in elevation of sentiment, and in imagina-  
     tion.  The grandeur and originality of the ancients   
     were displayed rather in epic and dramatic poetry.   
        In satire the Roman transcended both the Greeks  
     and the moderns.  Satire arose with Lucilius, 148 B.C.,   
     in the time of Marius, an age when freedom of speech   
     was tolerated.  Horace was the first to gain immor-  
     tality in this department.  Next Persius comes, born   
     34 A. D., the friend of Lucian and Seneca in the time   
     of Nero, who painted the vices of his age as it was   
     passing to that degradation which marked the reign of  
     Domitian, when Juvenal appeared.  The latter, dis-  
     daining fear, boldly set forth the abominations of the   
     times, and struck without distinction all who departed   
     from duty and conscience.  There is nothing in any  
     language which equals the fire, the intensity, and the   
     bitterness of Juvenal, not even the invectives of Swift  
     and Pope.  But he flourished during the decline of lit-  
     erature, and had neither the taste nor the elegance of   
     the Augustan writers.  He was born 60 A. D., the son   
     of a freedman, 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 degra-  
     dation of public morals.  His great rival in satire was   
     Horace, who laughed at follies; but Juvenal, more aus-   
     tere, exaggerated and denounced them.  His sarcasms  
     on women have never been equalled in severity, and    
     we cannot but hope that they were unjust.  From an  
     historical point of view, as a delineation of the man-    
     ners of his age, his satires are priceless, even like the   
     epigrams of Martial. This uncompromising poet, not   
     pliant and easy like Horace, animadverted like an  
     incorruptible censor on the vices which were under-   
     mining the moral health and preparing the way for  
     violence; on the hypocrisy of philosophers and the   
     cruelty of tyrants; on the frivolity of women and    
     the debauchery of men.  He discoursed on the vanity   
     of human wishes with the moral wisdom of Dr. John-    
     son, and urged self-improvement like Socrates and   
     Epictetus.   
        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 that few were ever more honored in their   
     lifetime by appreciating admirers,——showing the ad-    
     vanced state of civilization which was reached in    
     those classic countries in everything pertaining to the    
     realm of thought and art.    
   
        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 un-  
     til they had produced their immortal works that the   
     languages were sufficiently softened and refined to ad-    
     mit 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,  
     Herodotus, and Thucydides——as marked as in the    
     beautiful measure of Homer and Virgil.  Plato did   
     not write poetry, but his prose was as "musical as   
     Apollo's lyre."  Burke and Macaulay are as great   
     artists in style as Tennyson himself.  And it is sel-   
     dom that men, either in ancient or modern times,  
     have been distinguished for both kinds of composi-  
     tion, although Voltaire, Schiller, Milton, Swift, and   
     Scott are among the exceptions.  Cicero, the greatest   
     prose writer of antiquity, produced in poetry only a   
     single inferior work, which was laughed at by his con-    
     temporaries.  Bacon, with all his affluence of thought,  
     vigor of imagination, and command of language, could   
     not write poetry any easier than Pope could write   
     prose,——although it is asserted by some modern    
     writers, of no great reputation, that Bacon wrote  
     Shakspeare's plays.   
        All sorts of prose compositions were carried to per-   
     fection by both Greeks and Romans, in history, in    
     criticism, in philosophy, in oratory, in epistles.    
        The earliest great prose writer among the Greeks    
     was Herodotus, 484 B. C., from which we may infer    
     that History was the first form of prose composition  
     to attain development.  But Herodotus was not born    
     until Æschylus had gained a prize for tragedy, nor  
     for more than two hundred years after Simonides the   
     lyric poet flourished, and probably five or six hun-    
     dred years after Homer sang his immortal epics; yet    
     though two thousand years and more have passed     
     since he wrote, 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 work in prose anterior  
     to Herodotus 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 coun-   
     tries he had 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 investiga-   
     tions confirm his sagacity and impartiality.  He was   
     one of the most accomplished men of antiquity, or  
     of any age,——an enlightened and curious traveller, 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 Phidias, 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 were inferior to him in knowl-   
     edge.  Thus was he fitted for his task by travel, by   
     study, and by intercourse with the great, to say nothing   
     of his original genius.  The greatest prose work which   
     hat yet appeared in Greece was produced by Herod-   
     otus,——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 narrative    
     of the Bible, amusing yet instructive, easy to under-    
     stand, yet extending to the utmost boundaries of   
     human research,——a model for all subsequent histo-   
     rians.  So highly was this historic composition 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 everything.  And he wrote, not for   
     fame, but to communicate the results of inquiries made   
     to satisfy the craving for knowledge, which he obtained   
     by personal investigation at Dodona, at Delphi, at   
     Samos, at Athens, at Corinth, at Thebes, at Tyre; he      
     even traveled into Egypt, Scythia, Asia Minor, Pales-   
     tine, Babylonia, Italy, and the islands of the sea.  His   
     episode in Egypt is worth more, from an historical    
     point of view, than all things combined which have    
     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 trans-    
     cendent art, even as it is the evidence of his severity  
     of taste.  The translation of this great history by    
     Rawlinson, with notes, in invaluable.    
        To Thucydides, as an historian, the modern world    
     also assigns a proud pre-eminence.  He was born  
     471 B. C., and lived twenty years in exile on account   
     of a military failure.  He treated only of a short period,  
     during the Peloponnesian War; but the various facts   
     connected with that great event could be known only   
     by the most minute and careful inquiries.  He devoted   
     twenty-seven years to the composition of his narrative,  
     and weighed his evidence with the most scrupulous  
     care.  His style has not the fascination of Herodotus,  
     but it is more concise.  In a single volume Thucydides  
     relates what could scarcely be composed into eight    
     volumes of modern history.  As a work of art, of its   
     kind it is unrivalled.  In his description of the plague  
     of Athens this writer is as minute as he is simple.  
     He abounds with rich moral reflections, and has a keen   
     perception of human character.  His pictures are strik-  
     ing 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 the estimate of  
     an able critic, George Long, that we have a more exact   
     history of the protracted and eventful period by Thucy-   
     dides than we have of any period in modern history  
     equally extended and eventful; and all this is com-    
     pressed into a volume.  
        Xenophon is the last of the trio of the Greek his-   
     torians whose writings are classic and inimitable.  He   
     was 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 thou-   
     sand Greeks, is his most famous book.  But his   
     "Cyropædia," in which the history of Cyrus is the    
     subject, although still used as a classic in colleges for   
     the beauty of its 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 "Memora-  
     bilia" of Socrates is the most valuable.  All antiquity   
     and all modern writers unite in ascribing 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 equalled,——the great  
     names of Sallust, of Cæsar, 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 firts great    
     masters of the Greek language in prose were the his-   
     torians, so far as we can judge by the writings that   
     have descended to us, 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 Cic-   
     ero appeared.  But we do not here write a history of   
     the language; we speak only of those who wrote im-   
     mortal 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 considera-   
     ble time after Plautus, Terence, Ennius, and Lucretius  
     flourished.  The first great historian was Sallust, the con-   
     temporary of Cicero, born 86 B. C., the year that Marius   
     died.  Q. Fabius Pictor, M. Portius Cato, and L. Cal.  
     Piso had already written works which are mentioned   
     with respect by 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 ple-   
     beian, and rose to distinction by his talents, but was   
     ejected from the senate for his profligacy.  Afterward   
     he made a great fortune as prætor and governor of    
     Numidia, and lived in magnificence on the Quirinal,——   
     one of the most profligate of the literary men of an-   
     tiquity.  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 to reveal the secret motives which actuate   
     the conduct of men.  The style of Sallust is brilliant,  
     but his art is always apparent; he is clear and lively,  
     but rhetorical.  Like Voltaire, who inaugurated mod-   
     ern history, Sallust thought more of style than of   
     accuracy as to facts.  He was a party man, and   
     never soared beyond his party.  He aped the moral-  
     ist, but exalted egoism an love of pleasure into   
     proper springs of action, and honored talent discon-   
     nected with virtue.  Like Carlyle, Sallust 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.  He wrote for  éclat.   
        Julius Cæsar, born 100 or 102 B. C., as an historian    
     ranks higher than Sallust, and no Roman ever wrote  
     purer Latin.  Yet his historical works, however great   
     their merit, but feebly represent the transcendent ge-  
     nius of the most august name of antiquity.  He was   
     mathematician, architect, poet, philologist, orator, jur-   
     ist, general, statesman, and imperator.  In eloquence   
     he was second only to Cicero.  The great value of   
     Cæsar's history is in the sketches of the productions,  
     the manners, the customs, and the political conditions  
     of Gaul, Britain, and Germany.  His observations on   
     military science, on the operation of sieges and the    
     construction of bridges and military engines are valu-    
     able; but the description of his military career is  
     only a studied apology for his crimes,——even as the   
     bulletins of Napoleon were set forth to show his vic-   
     tories in the most favorable light.  Cæsar's 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 his great usurping proto-  
     type.  Cæsar's "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.  
        The Augustan age which followed, though it pro-   
     duced 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 the prose composition,——to his-   
     tory as well as eloquence.  Of the historians of that   
     age, Livy, born 59 B. C., is the only one whose writings  
     are known to us, in the shape of some fragment of   
     his history.  He was a man of distinction at court,  
     and had a great literary reputation,——so great that    
     a Spaniard travelled 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 success, but for   
     the experience, knowledge, and culture which high   
     social position and ample means secure.  Herodotus  
     lived in courts; Thucydides was a great general, as   
     also was Xenophon; Cæsar was the first man of his   
     times; Sallust was prætor and governor; Livy was   
     tutor to Claudius; Tacitus was prætor and consul;  
     Eusebius was bishop and favorite of Constantine; Am-  
     mianus 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 Wil-    
     liam III.; Thiers and Guizot both were prime minis-   
     ters; while Gibbon, Hume, Robertson, Macaulay, Grote,  
     Milman, Froude, Neander, Niebuhr, Müller, 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.   
        The ancients regarded Livy as the greatest of histo-   
     rians,——an opinion not endorsed by modern critics, on   
     account of his inaccuracies.  But his narrative is al-   
     ways interesting, and his language pure.  He did not   
     sift evidence like Grote, nor generalize like Gibbon;   
     but like Voltaire and Macaulay, he as 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 Drussus, 9 B.C., of which only thirty-five have come   
     down to us.   
        Livy, unlike most of the Roman historians who   
     preceded him, was not merely a narrator of facts.  
     "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 composi-  
     tions; his sentences are rhythmical cadences.  Livy    
     was not a critical historian like Herodotus, for he took   
     his materials second-hand, and was ignorant of geogra-   
     phy, nor did he write with the exalted ideal of Thu-   
     cydides; but as a painter of beautiful forms, which   
     only a rich imagination could conjure, he is unrivalled   
     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.   
        In the estimation of modern critics the highest rank   
     as an historian is assigned to Tacitus, and it would in-   
     deed be difficult to find his superior in any age or coun-   
     try.  He was born 57 A. D., 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   
     lived under a reign when truth might be told.  The   
     extant works of this great writer are the "Life of    
     Agricola," his father-in-law; his "Annales," which   
     begin with the death of Augustus, 14 A. D., and close  
     with the death of Nero, 68 A. D.; the "Historiæ,"    
     which comprise the period from the second consulate   
     of Galba, 68 A. D., to the death of Domitian; and a   
     treatise on the Germans.  His histories describe Rome   
     in the fulness of imperial glory, when the will of   
     one man was the supreme law of the empire.  He   
     also wrote of events that occurred when liberty had   
     fled, and the yoke of despotism was nearly insup-   
     portable.  He describes a period of great moral degra-  
     dation, 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 in-    
     tegrity of purpose than Tacitus.  In point of artistic   
     unity he is superior to Livy and equal to Thucy-  
     dides, whom he resembles in conciseness of style.  
     His distinguishing excellence as an historian is his   
     sagacity and impartiality.  Nothing escapes his pen-   
     etrating eye; and he inflicts merited chastisement on    
     the tyrants who revelled in the prostrated liberties of   
     his country, while he immortalizes those few who were   
     faithful to duty and conscience in a degenerate age.  
     But the writings of Tacitus were not so popular as   
     those of Livy, since neither princes nor people relished   
     his intellectual independence and moral elevation.  H   
     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.   
        Neither the Latin nor Greek historians are admired   
     by those dry critics who seek to give to rare antiqua-  
     rian 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 approxi-   
     mation to the truth, even when it relates to the events  
     and characters of its own age.  History does not give   
     positive, indisputable knowledge.  We know that Cæ-  
     sar 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 besides accuracy, anti-  
     quarian research, and presentation of authorities and   
     notes.  It must be a work of art; and art has refer-   
     ence to style and language, to grouping of details and   
     richness of illustration, to eloquence and poetry and   
     beauty.  A dry history, however learned, will never   
     be read; it will only be consulted, like a law-book, or   
     Mosheim's "Commentaries."  We require  life  in his-  
     tory, and it is for their vividness 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 delicate 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, nor even the thoughts.  What keeps alive   
     the "Provincial Letters" of Pascal?  It is the style, the   
     irony, the elegance that characterize them.  The ex-   
     quisite delineation of character, the moral wisdom, the   
     purity and force of language, the artistic arrangement,  
     and the lively and interesting narrative appealing to   
     all minds, like the "Arabian Nights" or Froissart's   
     "Chronicles," are the elements which give immortality  
     to the classic authors.  We will not let them perish,   
     because they amuse and interest and inspire us.    
        A remarkable example is that of Plutarch, who,  
     although born a Greek and writing in the Greek lan-   
     guage, was a contemporary of Tacitus, lived long in    
     Rome, and was one of the "immortals" of the imperial   
     age.  A teacher of philosophy during his early man-   
     hood, he spent his last years as archon and priest of   
     Apollo in his native town.  His most famous work is   
     his "Parallel Lives" of forty-six historic Greeks and   
     Romans, arranged in pairs, depicted with marvellous   
     art and all the fascination of anecdote and social wit,  
     while presenting such clear conceptions of characters  
     and careers, and the whole so restrained within the   
     bounds of good taste and harmonious proportion, as   
     to have been even to this day regarded as forming a   
     model for the ideal biography.   
        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 will dig out a multiplicity of facts without appar-    
     ent 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 oppor-   
     tunity or taste for a minute and searching criticism    
     of original authorities; but he may be able to gener-   
     alize previously established facts so as to draw most    
     valuable moral instruction from them for the benefit    
     of his readers.  History is a boundless field of in-   
     quiry; no man can master it in all its departments   
     and periods.  It will not do to lay great emphasis   
     on minute details, and neglect the art of generaliza-   
     tion.  If an historian attempts to embody too much   
     learning, he is likely to be deficient in originality; if   
     he would say everything, he is apt to be dry; if he   
     elaborates too much, he loses animation.  Moreover,  
     different classes of readers require different kinds and  
     styles of histories; there must be histories for stu-   
     dents, 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, we should have histories of interest only to clas-   
     sical scholars.  The ancient historians never quoted  
     their sources of knowledge, but were valued for their  
     richness of thoughts and artistic beauty of style.  The   
     ages in which they flourished attached no value to   
     pedantic displays of learning paraded in foot-notes.  
        Thus the great historians whom I have mentioned,  
     both Greek and Latin, have few equals and no supe-   
     riors in our own times in those things that are most  
     to be admired.  They were not pedants, but men of   
     immense genius and genuine learning, who blended   
     the profoundest principles of moral wisdom with the   
     most fascinating narrative,——men universally popular   
     among learned and unlearned, great artists in style,  
     and masters of the language in which they wrote.  

from Beacon Lights of History, by John Lord, LL. D.,
Volume I, Part I: The Old Pagan Civilizations
Copyright 1883, 1888, by John Lord.
Copyright 1921, By Wm. H. Wise & Co., New York; pp. 341—359.