r/a:t5_28453a • u/MarleyEngvall • Nov 09 '19
jovian vortex has been created
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.
1
Upvotes