History of Roman Literature from its Earliest Period to the Augustan Volume II Part 5

Caesar's Commentaries consist of seven books of the Gallic, and three of the civil wars. Some critics, however, particularly Floridus Sabinus(196), deny that he was the author of the books on the latter war, while Carrio and Ludovicus Caduceus doubt of his being the author even of the Gallic war,-the last of these critics attributing the work to Suetonius.

Hardouin, who believed that most of the works now termed cla.s.sical, were forgeries of the monks in the thirteenth century, also tried to persuade the world, that the whole account of the Gallic campaigns was a fiction, and that Caesar had never drawn a sword in Gaul in his life. The testimony, however, of Cicero and Hirtius, who were contemporary with Caesar,-of many authentic writers, who lived after him, as Suetonius, Strabo, and Plutarch,-and of all the old grammarians, must be considered as settling the question; for if such evidence is not implicitly trusted, there seems to be an end of all reliance on ancient authority.

Though these Commentaries comprehend but a small extent of time, and are not the general history of a nation, they embrace events of the highest importance, and they detail, perhaps, the greatest military operations to be found in ancient story. We see in them all that is great and consummate in the art of war. The ablest commander of the most martial people on the globe records the history of his own campaigns. Placed at the head of the finest army ever formed in the world, and one devoted to his fortunes, but opposed by military skill and prowess only second to its own, he, and the soldiers he commanded, may be almost extolled in the words in which Nestor praised the heroes who had gone before him:-

"?a?t?s?? d? ?e???? ?p???????? t?afe? a?d???, ?a?t?s?? e? ?sa? ?a? ?a?t?s??? ?a???t?," --

for the Gauls and Germans were among the bravest and most warlike nations then on earth, and Pompey was accounted the most consummate general of his age. No commander, it is universally admitted, ever had such knowledge of the mechanical part of war: He possessed the complete empire of the sea, and was aided by all the influence derived from the const.i.tuted authority of the state.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the whole Commentaries, is the account of the campaign in Spain against Afranius and Petreius, in which Caesar, being reduced to extremities for want of provisions and forage, (in consequence of the bridges over the rivers, between which he had encamped, being broken down,) extricated himself from this situation, after a variety of skilful manuvres, and having pursued Pompey's generals into Celtiberia, and back again to Lerida, forced their legions to surrender, by placing them in those very difficulties from which he had so ably relieved his own army.

It is obvious that the greater part of such Commentaries must be necessarily occupied with the detail of warlike operations. The military genius of Rome breathes through the whole work, and it comprehends all the varieties which warfare offers to our interest, and perhaps, undue admiration-pitched battles, affairs of posts, encampments, retreats, marches in face of the foe through woods and over plains or mountains, pa.s.sages of rivers, sieges, defence of forts, and those still more interesting accounts of the spirit and discipline of the enemies' troops, and the talents of their generals. In his clear and scientific details of military operations, Caesar is reckoned superior to every writer, except, perhaps, Polybius. Some persons have thought he was too minute, and that, by describing every evolution performed in a battle, he has rendered his relations somewhat crowded. But this was his principle, and it served the design of the author.

As he records almost nothing at which he was not personally present, or heard of from those acting under his immediate directions, he possessed the best information with regard to everything of which he wrote(197). In general, when he speaks of himself, it is without affectation or arrogance. He talks of Caesar as of an indifferent person, and always maintains the character which he has thus a.s.sumed; indeed, it can hardly be conceived that he had so small a share in the great actions he describes, as appears from his own representations. With exception of the false colours with which he disguises his ambitious projects against the liberties of his country, everything seems to be told with fidelity and candour. Nor is there any very unfair concealment of the losses he may have sustained: he ingenuously acknowledges his own disaster in the affair at Dyracchium; he admits the loss of 960 men, and the complete frustration of his whole plan for the campaign. When he relates his successes, on the other hand, it is with moderation. There is the utmost caution, reserve, and modesty, in his account of the battle of Pharsalia; and one would hardly conceive that the historian had any share in the action or victory.

He in general acknowledges, that the events of war are beyond human control, and ascribes the largest share of success to the power of fortune. The rest he seems willing to attribute to the valour of his soldiers, and the good conduct of his military a.s.sociates. Thus he gives the chief credit and glory of the great victory over Ariovistus to the presence of mind displayed by Cra.s.sus, who promptly made the signal to a body of men to advance and support one of the wings which was overpowered by the mult.i.tude of the enemy, and was beginning to give way. He does not even omit to do justice to the distinguished and generous valour of the two centurions, Pulfio and Varenus, or of the centurion s.e.xtius Baculus, during the alarming attack by the Sicambri. On the other hand, when he has occasion to mention the failure of his friends, as in relating Curio's defeat and death in Africa, he does it with tenderness and indulgence. Of his enemies, he speaks without insult or contempt; and even in giving his judgment upon a great military question, though he disapproves Pompey's mode of waiting for the attack at Pharsalia, his own reasons for a contrary opinion are urged with deference and candour. The confident hopes which were entertained in Pompey's camp-the pretensions and disputes of the leading senators, about the division of patronage and officers, and the confiscations which were supposed to be just falling within their grasp, furnished him with some amusing anecdotes, which it must have been difficult to resist inserting; nor can we wonder, that while all the preparations for celebrating the antic.i.p.ated victory with luxury and festivity, were matters of ocular observation, he should have devoted some few pa.s.sages in his Commentaries, to recording the vanity and presumption of such fond expectations. Labienus, who had deserted him, and Scipio, who gave him so much trouble, by rekindling the war, are those of whom he speaks with the greatest rancour, in relating the cruelty of the former, and the tyrannical ingenious rapacity of the latter(198).

Whatever concerns the events of the civil war could not easily have been falsified or misrepresented. So many enemies, who had been eye-witnesses of everything, survived that period, that the author could scarcely have swerved from the truth without detection. But in his contests with the Gauls, and Germans, and Britons, there was no one to contradict him. Those who accompanied him were devoted to his fame and fortunes, and interested like himself in exalting the glory of these foreign exploits. That he has varnished over the real motives, and also the issue, of his expedition to Britain has been frequently suspected. The reason he himself a.s.signs for the undertaking is, that he understood supplies had been thence furnished to the enemy, in almost all the Gallic wars; but Suetonius a.s.serts, that the information he had received of the quant.i.ty and size of the pearls on the British coast, was his real inducement. Fourteen short chapters in the fourth book of the Gallic war, relate his first visit, and his hasty return; and sixteen in the fifth, detail his progress in the following summer. These chapters have derived importance from containing the earliest authentic memorials of the inhabitants and state of this island; and there has, of course, been much discussion on the genuine though imperfect notices they afford. Various tracts, chiefly published in the _Archaeologia_, have topographically followed the various steps of Caesar's progress, particularly his pa.s.sage across the Thames, and have debated the situation of the Portus Iccius, from which he embarked for Britain.

Caesar's occasional digressions concerning the manners of the Gauls and Germans, are also highly interesting and instructive, and are the only accounts to be at all depended on with regard to the inst.i.tutions and customs of these two great nations, at that remote period. In Gaul he had remained so long, and had so thoroughly studied the habits and customs of its people for his own political purposes, that whatever is delivered concerning that country, may be confidently relied on. His intercourse with the German tribes was occasional, and chiefly of a military description. Some of his observations on their manners-as their hospitality, the continence of their youth, and the successive occupation of different lands by the same families-are confirmed by Tacitus; but in other particulars, especially in what relates to their religion, he is contradicted by that great historian. Caesar declares that they have no sacrifices, and know no G.o.ds, but those, like the Sun or Moon, which are visible, and whose benefits they enjoy(199). Tacitus informs us, that their chief G.o.d is Mercury, whom they appease by human victims; that they also sacrifice animals to Hercules and Mars; and adore that Secret Intelligence, which is only seen in the eye of mental veneration(200). The researches of modern writers have also thrown some doubts on the accuracy of Caesar's German topography; and Cluverius, in particular, has attempted to show, that he has committed many errors in speaking both of the Germans and Batavians(201).

As the Commentaries of Caesar do not pretend to the elaborate dignity of history, the author can scarcely be blamed if he has detailed his facts without mingling many reflections or observations. He seldom inserts a political or characteristic remark, though he had frequent opportunities for both, in describing such singular people as the Gauls, Germans, and Britons. But his object was not, like Sall.u.s.t or Tacitus, to deduce practical reflections for the benefit of his reader, or to explain the political springs of the transactions he relates. His simple narrative was merely intended for the gratification of those Roman citizens, whom he had already persuaded to favour his ambitious projects; yet even they, I think, might have wished to have heard something more of what may be called the military motives of his actions. He tells us of his marches, retreats, and encampments, but seldom sufficiently explains the grounds on which these warlike measures were undertaken-how they advanced his own plans, or frustrated the designs of the enemy. More insight into the military views by which he was prompted, would have given additional interest and animation to his narrative, and afforded ampler lessons of instruction.

No person, I presume, wishes to be told, for the twentieth time, that the style of Caesar is remarkable for clearness and ease, and a simplicity more truly n.o.ble than the pomp of words. Perhaps the most distinguis.h.i.+ng characteristic of his style, is its perfect equality of expression. There was, in the mind of Caesar, a serene and even dignity. In temper, nothing appeared to agitate or move him-in conduct, nothing diverted him from the attainment of his end. In like manner, in his style, there is nothing swelling or depressed, and not one word occurs which is chosen for the mere purpose of embellishment. The opinion of Cicero, who compared the style of Caesar to the unadorned simplicity of an ancient Greek statue, may be considered as the highest praise, since he certainly entertained no favourable feelings towards the author; and the style was very different from that which he himself employed in his harangues, or philosophical works, or even in his correspondence. "Nudi sunt," says he, "recti, et venusti, omni ornatu orationis tanquam veste detracto." This exquisite purity was not insensibly obtained, as the Laelian and Mucian Families are said to have acquired it, by domestic habit and familiar conversation, but by a.s.siduous study and thorough knowledge of the Latin language(202), and the practice of literary composition, to which Caesar had been accustomed from his earliest youth(203).

But, however admirable for its purity and elegance, the style of Caesar seems to be somewhat deficient, both in vivacity and vigour. Walchius, too, has pointed out a few words, which he considers not of pure Latinity, as _ambactus_, a term employed by the Gauls and Germans to signify a servant-also _Ancorarii_ funes, a word nowhere else used as an adjective-_Antemittere_ for _premittere_, and _summo magistratu praeiverat_ for _magistratui_(204). The use of such words as _collabefieret_, _contabulatio_, _detrimentosum_, _explicitius_, _materiari_, would lead us to suspect that Caesar had not _always_ attended to the rule which he so strongly laid down in his book, _De a.n.a.logia_, to avoid, as a rock, every unusual word or expression. Bergerus, in an immense quarto, ent.i.tled _De Naturali pulchritudine Orationis_ has at great length attempted to show that Caesar had antic.i.p.ated all the precepts subsequently delivered by Longinus, for reaching the utmost excellence and dignity of composition.

He points out his conformity to these rules, in what he conceives to be the abridgments, amplifications, transitions, gradations,-in short, all the various figures and ornaments of speech, which could be employed by the most pedantic rhetorician; and he also critically examines those few words and phrases of questionable purity, which are so thinly scattered through the Commentaries.

Mankind usually judge of a literary composition by its intrinsic merit, without taking into consideration the age of the author, the celerity with which it was composed, or the various circ.u.mstances under which it was written; and in this, perhaps, they act not unjustly, since their business is with the work, and not with the qualities of the author. But were such things to be taken into view, it should be remembered, that these Memoirs were hastily drawn up during the tumult and anxiety of campaigns, and were jotted down from day to day, without care or premeditation. "Ceteri," says Hirtius, the companion of Caesar's expeditions, and the continuator of his Commentaries,-"Ceteri quam bene atque emendate; nos etiam quam facile atque celeriter eos perscripserit scimus."

The Commentaries, _De Bello Gallico_, and _De Bello Civili_, are the only productions of Caesar which remain to us. Several ancient writers speak of his _Ephemeris_, or Diary; but it has been doubted whether the work, so termed by Plutarch, Servius, Symmachus, and several others, be the same book as the Commentaries, or a totally different production. The former opinion is adopted by Fabricius, who thinks that _Ephemeris_, or _Ephemerides_, is only another name for the Commentaries, which in fact may be considered as having been written in the manner and form of a diary. He acknowledges, that several pa.s.sages, cited by Servius, as taken from these _Ephemerides_, are not now to be found in the Commentaries; but then he maintains that there are evidently defects (_lacunae_) in the latter work; and he conjectures that the words quoted by Servius are part of the lost pa.s.sages of the Commentaries. This opinion is followed by Vossius, who cites a sort of Colophon at the end of one of the oldest MSS.

of the Commentaries which he thinks decisive of the question, as it shows that the term _Ephemeris_ was currently applied to them.-"C. J. Caesaris, P. M. Ephemeris rerum Gestarum Belli Gallici, Lib. VIII. explicit feliciter."

Bayle, in his Dictionary, has supported the opposite theory. He believes the _Ephemeris_ to have been a journal of the author's life. He admits, that a pa.s.sage which Plutarch quotes as from the _Ephemeris_, occurs also in the fourth book of the Commentaries; but then he maintains, that it was impossible for Caesar not to have frequently mentioned the same thing in his Commentaries and Journal, and he thinks, that had Plutarch meant to allude to the former, he would have called them, not _Ephemeris_, but ?p???ata as Strabo has termed them. Besides, Polyaenus mentions divers warlike stratagems, as recorded by Caesar, which are not contained in the Commentaries, and which, therefore, could have been explained only in the separate work _Ephemeris_.

There are still some fragments remaining of the letters which Caesar addressed to the Senate and his friends, and also of his orations, which were considered as inferior only to those of Cicero. Of his rhetorical talents, something may be hereafter said. It appears that his qualities as an orator and historian, were very different, since vehemence and the power of exciting emotion, (concitatio,) are mentioned as the characteristics of his harangues. Some of them were delivered in behalf of clients, and on real business, in the Forum; but the two orations ent.i.tled _Anticatones_ were merely written in the form and manner of accusations before a judicial tribunal. These rhetorical declamations, which were composed about the time of the battle of Munda, were intended as an answer to the laudatory work of Cicero, called _Laus Catonis_. The author particularly considered in them the last act of Cato at Utica, and has raked up all the vices and defects of his character, whether real or imputed, public or private,-his ambition, affectation of singularity, churlishness, and avarice; but as the _Anticatones_ were seasoned with lavish commendations of Cicero, whose panegyric on Cato they were intended to confute, the orator felt much flattered with the dictatorial incense, and greatly admired the performances in which it was offered,-"Collegit vitia Catonis, sed c.u.m maximis laudibus meis(205)."

These two rival works were much celebrated at Rome; and both of them had their several admirers, as different parties and interests disposed men to favour the subject, or the author of each. It seems also certain, that they were the princ.i.p.al cause of establis.h.i.+ng and promoting that veneration which posterity has since paid to the memory of Cato; for his name being thrown into controversy in that critical period of the fate of Rome, by the patron of liberty on one side, and its oppressor on the other, it became a kind of political test to all succeeding ages, and a perpetual argument of dispute between the friends of freedom, and the flatterers of power(206). The controversy was taken up by Brutus, the nephew, and Fabius Gallus, an admirer of Cato: it was renewed by Augustus, who naturally espoused the royal side of the question, and by Thraseas Paetus, who ventured on this dangerous topic during the darkest days of imperial despotism.

Caesar's situation as Pontifex Maximus probably led him to write the _Auguralia_ and _Libri Auspiciorum_, which, as their names import, were books explaining the different auguries and presages derived from the flight of birds. To the same circ.u.mstance we may attribute his work on the motions of the stars, _De Motu Siderum_, which explains what he had learned in Egypt on that subject from Sosigenes, a peripatetic philosopher of Alexandria, and in which, if we may credit the elder Pliny, he prognosticated his own death on the ides of March(207).

The composition of the works. .h.i.therto mentioned naturally enough suggested itself to a high-priest, warrior, and politician, who was also fond of literature, and had the same command of his pen as of his sword. But it appears singular, that one so much occupied with war, and with political schemes for the ruin of his country, should have seriously employed himself in writing formal and elaborate treatises on grammar. There is no doubt, however, that he composed a work, in two books, on the a.n.a.logies of the Latin tongue, which was addressed to Cicero, and was ent.i.tled, like the preceding work of Varro on the same subject, _De a.n.a.logia_. It was written, as we are informed by Suetonius, while crossing the Alps, on his return to the army from Hither Gaul, where he had gone to attend the a.s.semblies of that province(208). In this book, the great principle established by him was, that the proper choice of words formed the foundation of eloquence(209); and he cautioned authors and public speakers to avoid as a rock every unusual word or unwonted expression(210). His declensions, however, of some nouns, appear, at least to us, not a little strange-as _turbo_, _turbonis_, instead of _turbinis_(211); and likewise his inflections of verbs,-as, _mordeo_, _memordi_; _pungo,_, _pepugi_; _spondeo_, _spepondi_(212). He also treated of derivatives; as we are informed, that he derived ens from the verb _sum_, _es_, _est_; and of rules of grammar,-as that the dative and ablative singular of neuters in _e_ are the same, as also of neuters in _ar_, except _far_ and _jubar_. It appears that he even descended to the most minute consideration of orthography and the formation of letters; Thus, he was of opinion, that the letter V should be formed like an inverted F,-thus ?,-because it has the force of the aeolic digamma. Ca.s.siodorus farther mentions, that, in the question with regard to the use of the _u_ or _i_ in such words as _maxumus_ or _maximus_, Caesar gave the preference to _i_; and, from such high authority, this spelling was adopted in general practice.

It has been said, that Caesar also made a collection of apophthegms and anecdotes, in the style of our modern _Ana_; but Augustus prevented these from being made public. That emperor likewise, in a letter to Pompeius Macrus, to whom he had given the charge of arranging his library, prohibited the publication of several poetical effusions of Caesar's youth.

These are said to have consisted of a tragedy on the subject of dipus, and a poem in praise of Hercules(213). Another poem, ent.i.tled _Iter_ was written by him in maturer age. It is said, by Suetonius, to have been composed when he reached Farther Spain, on the twenty-fourth day after his departure from Rome(214); and it may therefore be conjectured to have been a poetical relation of the incidents which occurred during that journey, embellished, perhaps, with descriptions of the most striking scenery through which he pa.s.sed. Two epigrams, which are still extant, have also been frequently attributed to him; one on the dramatic character of Terence, already quoted(215), and another on a Thracian boy, who, while playing on the ice, fell into the river Hebrus,-

"Thrax puer, astricto glacie dum luderet Hebro," &c.

But this last is, with more probability, supposed by many to have been the production of Caesar Germanicus.

There were also several useful and important works accomplished under the eye and direction of Caesar, such as the graphic survey of the whole Roman empire. Extensive as their conquests had been, the Romans. .h.i.therto had done almost nothing for geography, considered as a science. Their knowledge was confined to the countries they had subdued, and them they regarded only with a view to the levies they could furnish, and the taxations they could endure. Caesar was the first who formed more exalted plans. aethicus, a writer of the fourth century, informs us, in the preface to his _Cosmographia_, that this great man obtained a _senatusconsultum_, by which a geometrical survey and measurement of the whole Roman empire was enjoined to three geometers. Xenodoxus was charged with the eastern, Polycletus with the southern, and Theodotus with the northern provinces.

Their scientific labour was immediately commenced, but was not completed till more than thirty years after the death of him with whom the undertaking had originated. The information which Caesar had received from the astronomer Sosigenes in Egypt, enabled him to alter and amend the Roman calendar. It would be foreign from my purpose to enter into an examination of this system of the Julian year, but the computation he adopted has been explained, as is well known, by Scaliger and Ga.s.sendi(216); and it has been since maintained, with little farther alteration than that introduced by Pope Gregory XIII. When we consider the imperfection of all mathematical instruments in the time of Caesar, and the total want of telescopes, we cannot but view with admiration, not unmixed with astonishment, that comprehensive genius, which, in the infancy of science, could surmount such difficulties, and compute a system, that experienced but a trifling derangement in the course of sixteen centuries.

Although Caesar wrote with his own hand only seven books of the Gallic campaigns, and the history of the civil wars till the death of his great rival, it seems highly probable, that he revised the last or eighth book of the Gallic war, and communicated information for the history of the Alexandrian and African expeditions, which are now usually published along with his own Commentaries, and may be considered as their supplement, or continuation. The author of these works, which nearly complete the interesting story of the campaigns of Caesar, was Aulus Hirtius, one of his most zealous followers, and most confidential friends. He had been nominated Consul for the year following the death of his master; and, after that event, having espoused the cause of freedom, he was slain in the attack made by the forces of the republic on Antony's camp, near Modena.

The eighth book of the Gallic war contains the account of the renewal of the contest by the states of Gaul, after the surrender of Alesia, and of the different battles which ensued, at most of which Hirtius was personally present, till the final pacification, when Caesar, learning the designs which were forming against him at Rome, set out for Italy.

Caesar, in the conclusion of the third book of the Civil War, mentions the commencement of the Alexandrian war. Hirtius was not personally present at the succeeding events of this Egyptian contest, in which Caesar was involved with the generals of Ptolemy, nor during his rapid campaigns in Pontus against Pharnaces, and against the remains of the Pompeian party in Africa, where they had a.s.sembled under Scipio, and being supported by Juba, still presented a formidable appearance. He collected, however, the leading events from the conversation of Caesar(217), and the officers who were engaged in these campaigns. He has obviously imitated the style of his master; and the resemblance which he has happily attained, has given an appearance of unity and consistence to the whole series of these well-written and authentic memoirs. It appears that Hirtius carried down the history even to the death of Caesar, for in his preface addressed to Balbus, he says, that he had brought down what was left imperfect from the transactions at Alexandria, to the end, not of the civil dissensions, to a termination of which there was no prospect, but of the life of Caesar(218).

This latter part, however, of the Commentaries of Hirtius, has been lost, as it seems now to be generally acknowledged that he was not the author of the book _De Bello Hispanico_, which relates Caesar's second campaign in Spain, undertaken against young Cneius Pompey, who, having a.s.sembled, in the ulterior province of that country, those of his father's party who had survived the disasters in Thessaly and Africa, and being joined by some of the native states, presented a formidable resistance to the power of Caesar, till his hopes were terminated by the decisive battle of Munda.

Dodwell, indeed, in a Dissertation on this subject, maintains, that it was originally written by Hirtius, but was interpolated by Julius Celsus, a Constantinopolitan writer of the 6th or 7th century. Vossius, however, whose opinion is that more commonly received, attributes it to Caius Oppius(219), who wrote the Lives of Ill.u.s.trious Captains, and also a book to prove that the aegyptian Caesario was not the son of Caesar. Oppius was Caesar's confidential friend, and companion in many of his enterprizes; and it was to him, as we are informed by Suetonius, that Caesar gave up the only apartment at an inn, while they were travelling in Gaul, and lay himself on the ground, and in the open air(220).

A fragment has been added at the end of this book, on the Spanish war, by Jungerman, from a MS. of Petavius. Vossius thinks that this fragment was taken from the Commentaries, called those of Julius Celsus, on the Life of Caesar, published in 1473. These Commentaries, however, were the work of a Christian writer; but Julius Celsus, a Constantinopolitan of the 6th century, already mentioned, having revised the Commentaries of Caesar, the work on his life came, (from the confusion of names, or perhaps from a fiction devised, to give the stamp of authority,) to be attributed to Julius Celsus, who was contemporary with Caesar, and was reported to have written a history of his campaigns; just in the same way as a fabulous life of Alexander, produced in the middle ages, pa.s.ses to this day under the name of Callisthenes, the historiographer of the Macedonian monarch.

There is no other historian of the period on which we are now engaged, of whose works even any fragments have descended to us. Atticus, however, wrote Memoirs of Rome from the earliest periods, and also memoirs of its princ.i.p.al families, as the Junian, Cornelian, and Fabian,-tracing their origin, enumerating their honours, and recording their exploits. At the same time Lucceius composed Histories of the Social War, and of the Civil Wars of Sylla, which were so highly esteemed by Cicero, that he urges him in one of his letters to undertake a history of his consuls.h.i.+p, in which he discovered and suppressed the conspiracy of Catiline(221). From a subsequent letter to Atticus we learn that Lucceius had promised to accomplish the task suggested to him(222). It is probable, however, that it never was completed,-his labour having been interrupted by the civil wars, in which he followed the fortunes of Pompey, and was indeed one of his chief advisers in adopting the fatal resolution of quitting Italy.

The Annals of Procilius, which appeared at this period, may be conjectured to have comprehended the whole series of Roman history, from the building of the city to his own time; since Varro quotes him for the account of Curtius throwing himself into the gulf(223) and Pliny refers to him for some remarks with regard to the elephants which appeared at Pompey's African triumph(224).

Brutus is also said to have written epitomes of the meagre and barren histories of Fannius and Antipater. That he should have thought of abridging narratives so proverbially dry and jejune, seems altogether inexplicable.

The works of an historian called Caecina have also perished, and if we may trust to his own account of them, their loss is not greatly to be deplored. In one of his letters to Cicero he says, "From much have I been compelled to refrain, many things I have been forced to pa.s.s over lightly, many to curtail, and very many absolutely to omit. Thus circ.u.mscribed, restricted, and broken as it is, what pleasure or what useful information can be expected from the recital(225)?"

We have thus traced the progress of historical composition among the Romans, from its commencement to the time of Augustus. There is no history so distinguished and adorned as the Roman, by ill.u.s.trious characters; and the circ.u.mstances which it records produced the greatest as well as most permanent empire that ever existed on earth. The interest of the early events, and the value of the conclusions to be drawn from them, are much diminished by their uncertainty. Subsequently, however, to the second Punic war, the Roman historians were, for the most part, themselves engaged in the affairs of which they treat, and had therefore, at least, the most perfect _means_ of communicating accurate information. But this advantage, which, in one point of view, is so prodigious, was attended with concomitant evils. Lucian, in his treatise, How History ought to be Written, says, that the author of this species of composition should be abstracted from all connection with the persons and things which are its subjects; that he should be of no country and no party; that he should be free from all pa.s.sion, and unconcerned who is pleased or offended with what he writes. Now, the Roman historians of the era on which we are engaged were the slaves of party or the heads of factions; and even when superior to all petty interests or prejudices, they still show plainly that they are Romans. None of them stood impartially aloof from their subject, or supplied the want of historians of Carthage and of Gaul, by whom their narratives might be corrected, and their colouring softened.

Of all the arts next to war, Eloquence was of most importance in Rome; since, if the former led to the conquest of foreign states, the latter opened to each individual a path to empire and dominion over the minds of his fellow citizens(226). Without this art, wisdom itself, in the estimation of Cicero, could be of little avail for the advantage or glory of the commonwealth(227).

During the existence of the monarchy, and in the early age of the republic, law proceedings were not numerous. Many civil suits were prevented by the absolute dominion which a Roman father exercised over his family; and the rigour of the decemviral laws, in which all the proceedings were extreme, frequently concussed parties into an accommodation; while, at the same time, the purity of ancient manners had not yet given rise to those criminal questions of bribery and peculation at home, or of oppression and extortion in the provinces, which disgraced the closing periods of the commonwealth, and furnished themes for the glowing invective of Cicero and Hortensius. Hence there was little room for the exercise of legal oratory; and whatever eloquence may have shone forth in the early ages of Rome, was probably of a political description, and exerted on affairs of state.

From the earliest times of the republic, history records the wonderful effects which Junius Brutus, Publicola, and Appius Claudius, produced by their harangues, in allaying seditions, and thwarting pernicious counsels.

Dionysius of Halicarna.s.sus gives us a formal speech, which Romulus, by direction of his grandfather, made to the people after the building of the city, on the subject of the government to be established(228). There are also long orations of Servius Tullius; and great part of the Antiquities of Dionysius is occupied with senatorial debates during the early ages of the republic. But though the orations of these fathers of Roman eloquence were doubtless delivered with order, gravity, and judgment, and may have possessed a masculine vigour, well calculated to animate the courage of the soldier, and protect the interests of the state, we must not form our opinion of them from the long speeches in Dionysius and Livy, or suppose that they were adorned with any of that rhetoric art with which they have been invested by these historians. A nation of outlaws, destined from their cradle to the profession of arms,-taught only to hurl the spear or javelin, and inure their bodies to other martial exercises,-with souls breathing only conquest,-and regarded as the enemies of every state till they had become its masters, could have possessed but few topics of ill.u.s.tration or embellishment, and were not likely to cultivate any species of rhetorical refinement. To convince by solid arguments when their cause was good, and to fill their fellow-citizens with pa.s.sions corresponding to those with which they were themselves animated, would be the great objects of an eloquence supplied by nature and unimproved by study. Quintilian accordingly informs us, that though there appeared in the ancient orations some traces of original genius, and much force of argument, they bore, in their rugged and unpolished periods, the signs of the times in which they were delivered.

With exception of the speech of Appius Claudius to oppose a peace with Pyrrhus, there are no harangues mentioned by the Latin critics or historians as possessing any charms of oratory, previously to the time of Cornelius Cethegus, who flourished during the second Punic war, and was Consul about the year 550. Cethegus was particularly distinguished for his admirable sweetness of elocution and powers of persuasion, whence he is thus characterized by Ennius, a contemporary poet, in the 9th book of his _Annals_:

"Additur orator Cornelius suaviloquenti Ore Cethegus Marcus, Tuditano collega; Flos delibatus populi, suadaeque medulla."

The orations of Cato the Censor have been already mentioned as remarkable for their rude but masculine eloquence. When Cato was in the decline of life, a more rich and copious mode of speaking at length began to prevail.

Ser. Galba, by the warmth and animation of his delivery, eclipsed Cato and all his contemporaries. He was the first among the Romans who displayed the distinguis.h.i.+ng talents of an orator, by embellis.h.i.+ng his subject,-by digressing, amplifying, entreating, and employing what are called topics, or common-places of discourse. On one occasion, while defending himself against a grave accusation, he melted his judges to compa.s.sion, by producing an orphan relative, whose father had been a favourite of the people. When his orations, however, were afterwards reduced to writing, their fire appeared extinguished, and they preserved none of that l.u.s.tre with which his discourses are said to have shone when given forth by the living orator. Cicero accounts for this from his want of sufficient study and art in composition. While his mind was occupied and warmed by the subject, his language was bold and rapid; but when he took up the pen, his emotion ceased, and the periods fell languid from its point; "which,"

continues he, "never happened to those who, having cultivated a more studied and polished style of oratory, wrote as they spoke. Hence the mind of Laelius yet breathes in his writings, though the force of Galba has failed." It appears, however, from an anecdote recorded by Cicero, that Galba was esteemed the first orator of his age by the judges, the people, and Laelius himself.-Laelius, being intrusted with the defence of certain persons suspected of having committed a murder in the Silian forest, spoke for two days, correctly, elegantly, and with the approbation of all, after which the Consuls deferred judgment. He then recommended the accused to carry their cause to Galba, as it would be defended by him with more heat and vehemence. Galba, in consequence, delivered a most forcible and pathetic harangue, and after it was finished, his clients were absolved as if by acclamation(229). Hence Cicero surmises, that though Laelius might be the more learned and acute disputant, Galba possessed more power over the pa.s.sions; he also conjectures, that the former had more elegance, but the latter more force; and he concludes, that the orator who can move or agitate his judges, farther advances his cause than he who can instruct them.

Laelius is also compared by Cicero with his friend, the younger Scipio Africa.n.u.s, in whose presence, this question concerning the Silian murder was debated. They were almost equally distinguished for their eloquence; and they resembled each other in this respect, that they both invariably delivered themselves in a smooth manner, and never, like Galba, exerted themselves with loudness of speech or violence of gesture(230); but their style of oratory was different,-Laelius affecting a much more ancient phraseology than that adopted by his friend. Cicero himself seems inclined most to admire the rhetoric of Scipio; but he says, that, being so renowned a captain, and mankind being unwilling to allow supremacy to one individual, in what are considered as the two greatest of arts, his contemporaries for the most part awarded to Laelius the palm of eloquence.

The intercourse which was by this time opening up with Greece, and the encouragement now afforded to Greek teachers, who always possessed the undisputed privilege of dictating the precepts of the arts, produced the same improvement m oratory that it had effected in every branch of literature. Marcus Emilius Lepidus was a little younger than Galba or Scipio, and was Consul in 617. From his orations, which were extant in the time of Cicero, it appeared that he was the first who, in imitation of the Greeks, gave harmony and sweetness to his periods, or the graces of a style regularly polished and improved by art.

Cicero mentions a number of other orators of the same age with Lepidus, and minutely paints their peculiar styles of rhetoric. We find among them the names of almost all the eminent men of the period, as Emilius Paulus, Scipio Nasica, and Mucius Scaevola. The importance of eloquence for the purposes of political aggrandizement, is sufficiently evinced, from this work of Cicero, _De Claris Oratoribus_, since there is scarcely an orator mentioned, even of inferior note, who did not at this time rise to the highest offices in the state.

The political situation of Rome, and the internal inquietude which now succeeded its foreign wars, were the great promoters of eloquence. We hear of no orators in Sparta or Crete, where the severest discipline was exercised, and where the people were governed by the strictest laws. But Rhodes and Athens, places of popular rule, where all things were open to all men, swarmed with orators. In like manner, Rome, when most torn with civil dissensions, produced the brightest examples of eloquence. Cicero declares, that wisdom without eloquence was of little service to the state(231); and from the political circ.u.mstances of the times, that sort of oratory was most esteemed which had most sway over a restless and ungovernable mult.i.tude. The situation of public affairs occasioned those continual debates concerning the Agrarian Laws, and the consequent popularity acquired by the most factious demagogues. Hence, too, those frequent impeachments of the great-those ambitious designs of the patricians-those hereditary enmities in particular families-in fine, those incessant struggles between the Senate and plebeians, which, though all prejudicial to the commonwealth, contributed to swell and ramify that rich vein of eloquence, which now flowed so profusely through the agitated frame of the state. During the whole period previous to the actual breaking out of the civil wars, when the Romans turned the sword against each other, and the mastery of the world depended on its edge, oratory continued to open the most direct path to dignities. The farther a Roman citizen advanced in this career, so much nearer was he to preferment, so much the greater his reputation with the people; and when elevated to the dignified offices of the state, so much the higher his ascendancy over his colleagues.

The Gracchi were the genuine offspring, and their eloquence the natural fruits of these turbulent times. Till their age, oratory had been a sort of _Arcanum imperii_,-an instrument of government in the power of the Senate, who used every precaution to retain its exclusive exercise. It was the great bulwark that withstood the tide of popular pa.s.sion, and weakened it so as not to beat too high or strongly on their own order and authority. The Gracchi not only broke down the embankment, but turned the flood against the walls of the Senate itself. The interests of the people had never yet been espoused by men endued with eloquence equal to theirs.

Cicero, while blaming their political conduct, admits that both were consummate orators; and this he testifies from the recollection of persons still surviving in his day, and who remembered their mode of speaking.