Skip to main content

Full text of "History of Roman literature, from its earliest period to the Augustan age"

See other formats 


>  )) '. 


i » i  .>    —       ■ 
> 

B0  9O    ^^ 


Bar 


>-   31    )    ;>  ■»      r  )         ")  > 

'      >   >    ;>  2$     )  O        '  ) 
-'•  ■>    )    )>"))     V)  1 

>  )   -V>  )  ,      J  )  ; 

)  jj>  y>     >■  >■ 

>  •  .  >  ■> 


5 '■">    >i*i 


*JM   ) 


jerix^ 


^>  "»■  :./>     »     i 


3^>  •) N) 


.J>^>  » 


y  ) 

>  > 


im^i 


)>     ) 


In  memoriam  Johannis  M9  Caul 

Universitatis  collegiiapudTorontonenses  Praesidis  PRIM  I 

AB  ANDOM^MDCCCXL  AD  AN: DOM     MDCCCLXXX; 

et  ob  dolorem  collegii  cum  bibliothecasua 

adxv  kalmartandom^mdcccxc 

incendio  combusti: 

hunccum  caeteris  libris  quljohannis  m^caul  quondam 

erant  Universitatis  collegio  dono  dederunt  heredes  ejus: 

scilicet  ut  b1bliothecam, 

quam  magna  ex  parte  ipse  olim  vivus  instituisset, 

eandem  etiam  mortuusaliqua  tamen  ex  parte  restitueret. 


HISTORY 


OF 


ROMAN  LITERATURE. 


HISTORY       / 


OF 


ROMAN    LITERATURE, 


FROM 


ITS  EARLIEST  PERIOD 


TO 


THE  AUGUSTAN  AGE. 

IN  TWO  VOLUMES. 


BY/    • 


40HN  DUNLOP, 

AUTHOR  OF   THE  HISTORY  OF  FICTION. 


SECOND  EDITION. 


VOL..  II. 


LONDON. 

PRINTED  FOB 

LONGMAN,  HURST,  REES,  ORME,  BROWN,  AND  GREEN, 
PATERNOSTER-ROW. 

1824. 


*r 


■t, 


EDINBURGH : 
PRINTED   BY  JAMES   BA1.T.ANTYNE  AND  CO. 


HISTORY 


OF 


ROMAN  LITERATURE,  &c. 


VOL.  II. 


HISTORY 


OF 


ROMAN  LITERATURE,  &c. 


In  almost  all  States,  poetical  composition  has  been  em- 
ployed and  considerably  improved  before  prose.  First, 
because  the  imagination  expands  sooner  than  reason 
or  judgment ;  and,  secondly,  because  the  early  lan- 
guage of  nations  is  best  adapted  to  the  purposes  of 


4  AGRICULTURE. 

poetry,  and  to  the  expression  of  those  feelings  and  sen- 
timents with  which  it  is  conversant. 

Thus,  in  the  first  ages  of  Greece,  verse  was  the  or- 
dinary written  language,  and  prose  was  subsequently 
introduced  as  an  art  and  invention.  In  like  manner, 
at  Rome,  during  the  early  advances  of  poetry,  the  pro- 
gress of  which  has  been  detailed  in  the  preceding  vo- 
lume, prose  composition  continued  in  a  state  of  neglect 
and  barbarism. 

The  most  ancient  prose  writer,  at  least  of  those  whose 
works  have  descended  to  us,  was  a  man  of  little  feel- 
ing or  imagination,  but  of  sound  judgment  and  in- 
flexible character,  who  exercised  his  pen  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Agriculture,  which,  of  all  the  peaceful  arts,  was 
most  highly  esteemed  by  his  countrymen. 

The  long  winding  coast  of  Greece,  abounding  in 
havens,  and  the  innumerable  isles  with  which  its  seas 
were  studded,  rendered  the  Greeks,  from  the  earliest 
days,  a  trafficking,  seafaring,  piratic  people :  And 
many  of  the  productions  of  their  oldest  poets,  are,  in  a 
great  measure,  addressed  to  what  may  be  called  the 
maritime  taste  or  feeling  which  prevailed  among  their 
countrymen.  This  sentiment  continued  to  be  cherish- 
ed as  long  as  the  chief  literary  state  in  Greece  preser- 
ved the  sovereignty  of  the  seas — compelled  its  allies 
to  furnish  vessels  of  war,  and  trusted  to  its  naval  ar- 
maments for  the  supremacy  it  maintained  during  the 
brightest  ages  of  Greece.  In  none,  either  of  the  Do- 
ric or  Ionian  states,  was  agriculture  of  such  import- 
ance as,  to  exercise  much  influence  on  manners  or  lite- 
rature.    Their  territories  were  so  limited,  that  the 


AGRICULTURE;  5 

inhabitants  were  never  removed  to  such  a  distance 
from  the  capital  as  to  imbibe  the  ideas  of  husband- 
men. In  Thessaly  and  Lacedaemon,  agriculture  was  ac- 
counted degrading,  and  its  cares  were  committed  to 
slaves.  The  vales  of  Boeotia  were  fruitful,  but  were 
desolated  by  floods.  Farms  of  any  considerable  extent 
could  scarcely  be  laid  down  on  the  limited,  though 
lovely  isles  of  the  iEgean  and  Ionian  seas.  The  barren 
soil  and  mountains  of  the  centre  of  Peloponnesus  con- 
fined the  Arcadians  to  pasturage — an  employment 
bearing  some  analogy  to  agriculture,  but  totally  dif- 
ferent in  its  mental  effects,  leading  to  a  life  of  indo- 
lence, contemplation,  and  wandering,  instead  of  the 
industrious,  practical,  and  settled  habits  of  husband- 
men. Though  the  Athenians  breathed  the  purest  air 
beneath  the  clearest  skies,  and  their  long  summer  was 
gilded  by  the  brightest  beams  of  Apollo,  the  soil  of 
Attica  was  steril  and  metallic ;  while,  from  the  ex- 
cessive inequalities  in  its  surface,  all  the  operations  of 
agriculture  were  of  the  most  difficult  and  hazardous  de- 
scription. The  streams  were  overflowing  torrents,  which 
stripped  the  soil,  leaving  nothing  but  a  light  sand,  on 
which  grain  would  scarcely  grow.  But  it  was  with  the 
commencement  of  the  Peloponnesian  war  that  the  ex- 
ercise of  agriculture  terminated  in  Attica.  The  coun- 
try being  left  unprotected,  owing  to  the  injudicious 
policy  of  Pericles,  was  annually  ravaged  by  the  Spar- 
tans, and  the  husbandmen  were  forced  to  seek  refuge 
within  the  walls  of  Athens.  In  the  early  part  of  the 
age  of  Pericles,  the  Athenians  possessed  ornamented 
villas  in  the  country ;  but  they  always  returned  to  the 


6  AGRICULTURE. 

city  in  the  evening.1  We  do  not  hear  that  the  great 
men  in  the  early  periods  of  the  republic,  as  Themis- 
tocles  and  Aristides,  were  farmers ;  and  the  heroes  of 
its  latter  ages,  as  Iphicrates  and  Timotheus,  chose  their 
retreats  in  Thrace,  the  islands  of  the  Archipelago,  or 
coast  of  Ionia. 

A  picture,  in  every  point  of  view  the  reverse  of  this, 
is  presented  to  us  by  the  Agreste  Latium.  The  an- 
cient Italian  mode  of  life  was  almost  entirely  agricul- 
tural and  rural ;  and  with  exception,  perhaps,  of  the 
Etruscans,  none  of  the  Italian  states  were  in  any  de- 
gree maritime  or  commercial.  Italy  was  well  adapted 
for  every  species  of  agriculture,  and  was  most  justly 
termed  by  her  greatest  poet,  magna  parens  frugum. 
Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,2  Strabo,3  and  Pliny,4  talk 
with  enthusiasm  of  its  fertile  soil  and  benignant  cli- 
mate. Where  the  ground  was  most  depressed  and  mar- 
shy, the  meadows  were  stretched  out  for  the  pasturage 
of  cattle.  In  the  level  country,  the  rich  arable  lands, 
such  as  the  Campanian  and  Capuan  plains,  extended 
in  vast  tracts,  and  produced  a  profusion  of  fruits  of 
every  species,  while  on  the  acclivities,  where  the  skirts 
of  the  mountains  began  to  break  into  little  hills  and 
sloping  fields,  the  olive  and  vine  basked  on  soils  famed 
for  Messapian  oil,  and  for  wines  of  which  the  very 
names  cheer  and  revive  us.  The  mountains  them- 
selves produced  marble  and  timber,  and  poured  from 

1  Voyage  du  Jaine  Anacharsis,  T.  II.  c.  20. 

2  Antiquitat.  Rom.  Lib.  I. 

3  Gcograph.  Lib.  VI. 

*  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XVIII.  c.  11. ;  XXXVII.  c.  12. 


AGRICULTURE.  7 

their  sides  many  a  delightful  stream,  which  watered 
the  fields,  gladdened  the  pastures,  and  moistened  the 
meads  to  the  very  brink  of  the  shore.  Well  then  might 
Virgil  exclaim,  in  a  burst  of  patriotism  and  poetry 
which  has  never  been  surpassed, — 

"  Sed  neque  Medorum  sylvae,  ditissima  terra, 
Nee  pulcher  Ganges,  atque  auro  turbidus  Hermus, 
Laudibus  Italiee  certent ;  non  Bactra,  neque  Indi, 
Totaque  thuriferis  Panchaia  pinguis  arenis. 
Hie  ver  assiduum,  atque  alienis  mensibus  aestas ; 
Bis  gravidas  pecudes,  bis  pomis  utilis  arbor. 
#  *  •#  * 

Salve,  magna  parens  frugum,  Saturnia  tellus  I"1 

One  would  not  suppose  that  agricultural  care  was 
very  consistent,  at  least  in  a  small  state,  with  frequent 
warfare.  But  in  no  period  of  their  republic  did  the 
Romans  neglect  the  advantages  which  the  land  they 
inhabited  presented  for  husbandry.  Romulus,  who  had 
received  a  rustic  education,  and  had  spent  his  youth  in 
hunting,  had  no  attachment  to  any  peaceful  arts,  except 
to  rural  labours  ;  and  this  feeling  pervaded  his  legisla- 
tion. His  Sabine  successor,  Num a  Pompilius,  who  well 
understood  and  discharged  the  duties  of  sovereignty, 
divided  the  whole  territory  of  Rome  into  different  can- 
tons. An  exact  account  was  rendered  to  him  of  the 
manner  in  which  these  were  cultivated  ;  and  he  occa- 
sionally went  in  person  to  survey  them,  in  order  to  en- 
courage those  farmers  whose  lands  were  well  tilled, 
and  to  reproach  others  with  their  want  of  industry.2 

1  Virgil,  Georg.  Lib.  II.  2  Plutarch,  in  Numa. 


8  AGRICULTURE. 

By  the  institution,  too,  of  various  religious  festivals, 
connected  with  agriculture,  it  came  to  he  regarded  with 
a  sort  of  sacred  reverence.  Ancus  Martius,  who  trod 
iu  the  steps  of  Numa,  recommended  to  his  people  the 
assiduous  cultivation  of  their  lands.  After  the  expul- 
sion of  the  kings,  an  Agrarian  law,  hy  which  only 
seven  acres  were  allotted  to  each  citizen,  was  promul- 
gated, and  for  some  time  rigidly  enforced.  Exactness 
and  economy  in  the  various  occupations  of  agriculture 
were  thenatural  consequences  of  such  regulations.  Each 
Roman  having  only  a  small  portion  of  land  assigned 
to  him,  and  the  support  of  his  family  depending  en- 
tirely on  the  produce  which  it  yielded,  its  culture  ne- 
cessarily engaged  his  whole  attention. 

In  these  early  ages  of  the  Roman  commonwealth, 
when  the  greatest  men  possessed  but  a  few  acres,  the 
lands  were  laboured  by  the  proprietors  themselves. 
The  introduction  of  commerce,  and  the  consequent  ac- 
quisition of  wealth,  had  not  yet  enabled  individuals  to 
purchase  the  estates  of  their  fellow-citizens,  and  to  ob- 
tain a  revenue  from  the  rent  of  land  rather  than  from 
its  cultivation. 

The  patricians,  who,  in  the  city,  were  so  distinct 
from  the  plebeian  orders,  were  thus  confounded  with 
them  in  the  country,  in  the  common  avocations  of  hus- 
bandry. After  having  presided  over  the  civil  affairs  of 
the  republic,  or  commanded  its  armies,  the  most  dis- 
tinguished citizens  returned,  without  repining,  to  till 
the  lands  of  their  forefathers.  Cincinnatus,  who  was 
found  at  labour  in  his  fields  by  those  who  came  to  an- 
nounce his  election  to  the  dictatorship,  was  not  a  sin- 


AGRICULTURE.  9 

gular  example  of  the  same  hand  which  held  the  plough 
guiding  also  the  helm  of  the  state,  and  erecting  the 
standard  of  its  legions.  So  late  as  the  time  of  the  first 
Carthaginian  war,  Regulus,  in  the  midst  of  his  victo- 
rious career  in  Africa,  asked  leave  from  the  senate  to 
return  to  Italy,  in  order  to  cultivate  his  farm  of  seven 
acres,  which  had  been  neglected  during  his  absence.1 
Many  illustrious  names  among  the  Romans  originated 
in  agricultural  employments,  or  some  circumstance  of 
rustic  skill  and  labour,  by  which  the  founders  of  families 
were  distinguished.  The  Fabii  and  Lentuli  were  sup- 
posed to  have  been  celebrated  for  the  culture  of  pulses, 
and  the  Asinii  and  Vitellii  for  the  art  of  rearing  ani- 
mals. In  the  time  of  the  elder  Cato,  though  the 
manual  operations  were  performed  for  the  most  part  by 
servants,  the  great  men  resided  chiefly  on  their  farms  f 
and  they  continued  to  apply  to  the  study  and  prac- 
tice of  agriculture  long  after  they  had  carried  the  vic- 
torious arms  of  their  country  beyond  the  confines  of 
Italy.  They  did  not,  indeed,  follow  agriculture  as  their 
sole  avocation  ;  but  they  prosecuted  it  during  the  in- 
tervals of  peace,  and  in  the  vacations  of  the  Forum. 
The  art  being  thus  exercised  by  men  of  high  capacity, 
received  the  benefit  of  all  the  discoveries,  inventions, 
or  experiments  suggested  by  talents  and  force  of  intel- 
lect. The  Roman  warriors  tilled  their  fields  with  the 
same  intelligence  as  they  pitched  their  camps,  and 
sowed  corn  with  the  same  care  with  which  they  drew 

1  Livy,  Epitome,  Lib.  XVIII.     Valer.  Maxim.  Lib.  IV.  c.  4. 
§6. 

2  Cicero,  Dc  Senectute,  c.  16. 


10  AGRICULTURE. 

up  their  armies  for  battle.  Hence,  as  a  modern  Latin 
poet  observes,  dilating  on  the  expression  of  Pliny,  the 
earth  yielded  such  an  exuberant  return,  that  she  seem- 
ed as  it  were  to  delight  in  being  ploughed  with  a  share 
adorned  with  laurels,  and  by  a  ploughman  who  had 
earned  a  triumph  : — 

"  Hanc  etiam,  ut  perhibent,  sese  formabat  ad  artem, 
Cum  domito  Fabius  Dictator  ab  hoste  redibat : 
Non  veritus,  medio  dederat  qui  jura  Senatu, 
Ferre  idem  arboribusque  suis,  terrseque  colendae, 
Victricesque  manus  ruri  praestare  serendo. 
Ipsa  triumphales  tellus  experta,colonos, 
Atque  ducum  manibus  quondam  versata  suorum, 
Majores  fructus,  majora  arbusta  ferebat."1 

Nor  were  the  Romans  contented  with  merely  la- 
bouring the  ground  :  They  also  delivered  precepts  for 
its  proper  cultivation,  which,  being  committed  to  wri- 
ting, formed,  as  it  were,  a  new  science,  and,  being  de- 
rived from  actual  experience,  had  an  air  of  originality 
rarely  exhibited  in  their  literary  productions.  Such 
maxims  were  held  by  the  Romans  in  high  respect, 
since  they  were  considered  as  founded  on  the  observa- 
tion of  men  who  had  displayed  the  most  eminent  ca- 
pacity and  knowledge  in  governing  the  state,  in  fra- 
ming its  laws,  and  leading  its  armies. 

These  precepts  which  formed  the  works  of  the  agri- 
cultural writers — the  Rusticce  rei  scriptores — are  ex- 
tremely interesting  and  comprehensive.  The  Romans 
had  a  much  greater  variety  than  we,  of  grain,  pulse, 
and  roots ;  and,  besides,  had  vines,  olives,  and  other 

1  Rapin,  Hortorum,  Lib.  IV. 


AGRICULTURE.  11 

plantations,  which  were  regarded  as  profitable  crops. 
The  situation,  too,  and  construction  of  a  villa,  with 
the  necessary  accommodation  for  slaves  and  workmen, 
the  wine  and  oil  cellars,  the  granaries,  the  repositories 
for  preserving  fruit,  the  poultry  yard,  and  aviaries, 
form  topics  of  much  attention  and  detail.  These  were 
the  appertenancies  of  the  villa  rustica,  or  complete 
farm-house,  which  was  built  for  the  residence  only 
of  an  industrious  husbandman,  and  with  a  view  to- 
wards profit  from  the  employments  of  agriculture.  As 
luxury,  indeed,  increased,  the  villa  was  adapted  to  the 
accommodation  of  an  opulent  Roman  citizen,  and  the 
country  was  resorted  to  rather  for  recreation  than  for 
the  purpose  of  lucrative  toil.  What  would  Cato  the 
Censor,  distinguished  for  his  industry  and  unceasing 
attention  to  the  labours  of  the  field,  have  thought  of 
the  following  lines  of  Horace  ? 

"  O  rus,  quando  ego  te  aspiciam  ?  quandoque  licebit 
Nunc  veterum  libris,  nunc  somno  et  inertibus  horis, 
Ducere  sollicitae  jucunda  oblivia  vitse?" 

It  was  this  more  refined  relish  for  the  country,  so 
keenly  enjoyed  by  the  Romans  in  the  luxurious  ages 
of  the  state,  that  furnished  the  subject  for  the  finest 
passages  and  allusions  in  the  works  of  the  Latin  poets, 
who  seem  to  vie  with  each  other  in  their  praises  of  a 
country  life,  and  the  sweetness  of  the  numbers  in 
which,  they  celebrate  its  simple  and  tranquil  enjoy- 
ments.    The  Epode  of  Horace,  commencing, 

"  Beatus  ille,  qui  procul  negotiis," 
which  paints  the  charms  of  rural  existence,  in  the  va- 
rious seasons  of  the  year — the  well-known  passages  in 


12  AGRICULTURE. 

Virgil's  Georgics,  and  those  in  the  second  book  of 
Lucretius,  are  the  most  exquisite  and  lovely  produc- 
tions of  these  triumvirs  of  Roman  poetry.  But  the 
ancient  prose  writers,  with  whom  we  are  now  to  be  en- 
gaged, regarded  agriculture  rather  as  an  art  than  an 
amusement,  and  a  country  life  as  subservient  to  pro- 
fitable employment,  and  not  to  elegant  recreation.  In 
themselves,  however,  these  compositions  are  highly 
curious  ;  they  are  curious,  too,  as  forming  a  commen- 
tary and  illustration  of  the  subjects, 

"  Quas  et  facundi  tractavit  Musa  Maronis. " 

It  is  likewise  interesting  to  compare  them  with  the 
works  of  the  modern  Italians  on  husbandry,  as  the 
lAber  lluralium  Commodorum  of  Crescenzio,  writ- 
ten about  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century, — the 
Coltivaxione  Toscana  of  Davanzati, — Vittorio's  trea- 
tise, JDegli  Ulivi, — and  even  Alamanni's  poem  CoU 
tiva%ione,  which  closely  follows,  particularly  as  to  the 
situation  and  construction  of  a  villa,  the  precepts  of 
Cato,  Varro,  and  Columella.  The  plough  used  at  this 
day  by  the  peasantry  in  the  Campagna  di  Roma,  is  of 
the  same  form  as  that  of  the  ancient  Latian  husband- 
men j1  and  many  other  points  of  resemblance  may  be 
discovered,  on  a  perusal  of  the  most  recent  writers  on 
the  subject  of  Italian  cultivation.2  Dickson,  too,  who, 
in  his  Husbandry  of  the  Ancients,  gives  an  account 
of  Roman  agriculture  so  far  as  connected  with  the  la- 

1  Bonstetten,  Voyage  dans  le  Latium,  p.  274. 

2  J.  C.  L.  Sismondi,  Tableau  de  l' Agriculture  Toscanc,  and 
Chasteauvieux,  Lcttres  Ecriies  d' Italic.  Paris,  1816.  2  Tom. 


CATO.  13 

bours  of  the  British  farmer,  has  shown,  that,  in  spite 
of  the  great  difference  of  soil  and  climate,  many  max- 
ims of  the  old  Roman  husbandmen,  as  delivered  by 
Cato  and  Varro,  corresponded  with  the  agricultural 
system  followed  in  his  day  in  England. 

Of  the  distinguished  Roman  citizens  who  practised 
agriculture,  none  were  more  eminent  than  Cato  and 
Varro ;  and  by  them  the  precepts  of  the  art  were  also 
committed  to  writing.  Their  works  are  original  com- 
positions, founded  on  experience,  and  not  on  Grecian 
models,  like  so  many  other  Latin  productions.  Varro, 
indeed,  enumerates  about  fifty  Greek  authors,  who, 
previous  to  his  time,  had  written  on  the  subject  of 
agriculture  ;  and  Mago,  the  Carthaginian,  composed, 
in  the  Punic  language,  a  much- approved  treatise  on 
the  same  topic,  in  thirty-two  books,  which  was  after- 
wards translated  into  Latin  by  desire  of  the  senate. 
But  the  early  Greek  works,  with  the  exception  of 
Xenophon's  (Economics,  and  the  poem  of  Hesiod 
called  Works  and  Days,  have  been  entirely  lost ;  the 
tracts  published  in  the  collection  entitled  Geoponica, 
being  subsequent  to  the  age  of  Varro. 


MARCUS  PORCIUS  CATO, 

better  known  by  the  name  of  Cato  the  Censor,  wrote 
the  earliest  book  on  husbandry  which  we  possess  in  the 
Latin  language.  This  distinguished  citizen  was  born 
in  the  519th  year  of  Rome.  Like  other  Romans  of 
his  day,  he  was  brought  up  to  the  profession  of  arms. 


14  CATO 

In  the  short  intervals  of  peace  he  resided,  during  his 
youth,  at  a  small  country-house  in  the  Sabine  terri- 
tory, which  he  had  inherited  from  his  father.  Near 
it  there  stood  a  cottage  belonging  to  Manius  Curius 
Dentatus,  who  had  repeatedly  triumphed  over  the 
Sabines  and  Samnites,  and  had  at  length  driven  Pyr- 
rhus  from  Italy.  Cato  was  accustomed  frequently  to 
walk  over  to  the  humble  abode  of  this  renowned  com- 
mander, where  he  was  struck  with  admiration  at  the 
frugality  of  its  owner,  and  the  skilful  management  of 
the  farm  which  was  attached  to  it..  Hence  it  became 
his  great  object  to  emulate  his  illustrious  neighbour, 
and  adopt  him  as  his  model.1  Having  made  an  esti- 
mate of  his  house,  lands,  slaves,  and  expenses,  he  ap- 
plied himself  to  husbandry  with  new  ardour,  and  re- 
trenched all  superfluity.  In  the  morning  he  went  to 
the  small  towns  in  the  vicinity,  to  plead  and  defend 
the  causes  of  those  who  applied  to  him  for  assistance. 
Thence  he  returned  to  his  fields ;  where,  with  a  plain 
cloak  over  his  shoulders  in  winter,  and  almost  naked 
in  summer,  he  laboured  with  his  servants  till  they  had 
concluded  their  tasks,  after  which  he  sat  down  along 
with  them  at  table,  eating  the  same  bread,  and  drink- 
ing the  same  wine.2  At  a  more  advanced  period  of 
life,  the  wars,  in  which  he  commanded,  kept  him  fre- 
quently at  a  distance  from  Italy,  and  his  forensic  avo- 
cations detained  him  much  in  the  city ;  but  what  time 
he  could  spare  was  still  spent  at  the  Sabine  farm, 
where  he  continued  to  employ  himself  in  the  profit- 

i  Plutarch,  in  Cato.  2  Ibid. 


CATO.  15 

able  cultivation  of  the  land.  He  thus  became,  by 
the  universal  consent  of  his  contemporaries,  the  best 
farmer  of  his  age,  and  was  held  unrivalled  for  the  skill 
and  success  of  his  agricultural  operations.1  Though 
everywhere  a  rigid  economist,  he  lived,  it  is  said,  more 
hospitably  at  his  farm  than  in  the  city.  His  enter- 
tainments at  his  villa  were  at  first  but  sparing,  and 
seldom  given  ;  but  as  his  wealth  increased,  he  became 
more  nice  and  delicate.  "  At  first,"  says  Plutarch, 
"  when  he  was  but  a  poor  soldier,  he  was  not  difficult 
in  anything  which  related  to  his  diet ;  but  afterwards, 
when  he  grew  richer,  and  made  feasts  for  his  friends, 
presently,  when  supper  was  done,  he  seized  a  leathern 
thong,  and  scourged  those  who  had  not  given  due  at- 
tendance, or  dressed  anything  carelessly."2  Towards 
the  close  of  his  life,  he  almost  daily  invited  some 
of  his  friends  in  the  neighbourhood  to  sup  with 
him  ;  and  the  conversation  at  these  meals  turned  not 
chiefly,  as  might  have  been  expected,  on  rural  affairs, 
but  on  the  praises  of  great  and  excellent  men  among 
the  Romans.3 

It  may  be  supposed,  that  in  the  evenings  after  the 
agricultural  labours  of  the  morning,  and  after  his 
friends  had  left  him,  he  noted  down  the  precepts  sug- 
gested by  the  observations  and  experience  of  the  day. 
That  he  wrote  such  maxims  for  his  own  use,  or  the 
instruction  of  others,  is  unquestionable ;  but  the  trea- 
tise De  Re  Rustica,  which  now  bears  his  name,  ap- 

»  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XIV.  c.  4;  Lib.  XVI.  c  39. 
2  Plutarch,  in  Cato.  s  Ibid. 


16  CATO. 

pears  to  have  been  much  mutilated,  since  Pliny  and 
other  writers  allude  to  subjects  as  treated  of  by  Cato, 
and  to  opinions  as  delivered  by  him  in  this  book,  which 
are  nowhere  to  be  found  in  any  part  of  the  work  now 
extant. 

In  its  present  state,  it  is  merely  the  loose  uncon- 
nected journal  of  a  plain  farmer,  expressed  with  rude, 
sometimes  with  almost  oracular  brevity  ;  and  it  wants 
all  those  elegant  topics  of  embellishment  and  illustra- 
tion which  the  subject  might  have  so  naturally  sug- 
gested. It  solely  consists  of  the  dry  est  rules  of  agri- 
culture, and  some  receipts  for  making  various  kinds 
of  cakes  and  wines.  Servius  says,  it  is  addressed  to 
the  author's  son ;  but  there  is  no  such  address  now 
extant.  It  begins  rather  abruptly,  and  in  a  manner 
extremely  characteristic  of  the  simple  manners  of  the 
author :  "  It  would  be  advantageous  to  seek  profit 
from  commerce,  if  that  were  not  hazardous ;  or  by 
usury,  if  that  were  honest :  but  our  ancestors  ordained, 
that  the  thief  should  forfeit  double  the  sum  he  had 
stolen,  and  the  usurer  quadruple  what  he  had  taken, 
whence  it  may  be  concluded,  that  they  thought  the 
usurer  the  worst  of  the  two.  When  they  wished  highly 
to  praise  a  good  man,  they  called  him  a  good  farmer. 
A  merchant  is  zealous  in  pushing  his  fortune,  but  his 
trade  is  perilous  and  liable  to  reverses.  But  farmers 
make  the  bravest  men,  and  the  stoutest  soldiers.  Their 
gain  is  the  most  honest,  the  most  stable,  and  least  ex- 
posed to  envy.  Those  who  exercise  the  art  of  agricul- 
ture, are  of  all  others  least  addicted  to  evil  thoughts.", 

Our  author  then  proceeds  to  his  rules,  many  of 


CATO.  ]  7 

which  are  sufficiently  obvious.  Thus,  he  advises,  that 
when  one  is  about  to  purchase  a  farm,  he  should  exa- 
mine if  the  climate,  soil,  and  exposure  be  good :  he 
should  see  that  it  can  be  easily  supplied  with  plenty  of 
water, — thatitliesin  the  neighbourhood  of  a  town, — and 
near  a  navigable  river,  or  the  sea.  The  directions  for 
ascertaining  the  quality  of  the  land  are  not  quite  so 
clear  or  self-evident.  He  recommends  the  choice  of  a 
farm  where  there  are  few  implements  of  labour,  as  this 
shews  the  soil  to  be  easily  cultivated  ;  and  where  there 
are,  on  the  other  hand,  a  number  of  casks  and  vessels, 
which  testify  an  abundant  produce.  With  regard  to  the 
best  way  of  laying  out  a  farm  when  it  is  purchased, 
supposing  it  to  be  one  of  a  hundred  acres,  the  most 
profitable  thing  is  a  vineyard ;  next,  a  garden,  that 
can  be  watered  ;  then  a  willow  grove  ;  4th,  an  olive 
plantation ;  5th,  meadow-ground ;  6th,  corn  fields ; 
and,  lastly,  forest  trees  and  brushwood.  Varro  cites 
this  passage,  but  he  gives  the  preference  to  meadows : 
These  required  little  expense  ;  and,  by  his  time,  the 
culture  of  vines  had  so  much  increased  in  Italy,  and 
such  a  quantity  of  foreign  wine  was  imported,  that 
vineyards  had  become  less  valuable  than  in  the  days  of 
the  Censor.  Columella,  however,  agrees  with  Cato : 
He  successively  compares  the  profits  accruing  from 
meadows,  pasture,  trees,  and  corn,  with  those  of  vine- 
yards ;  and,  on  an  estimate,  prefers  the  last. 

When  a  farm  has  been  purchased,  the  new  proprie- 
tor should  perambulate  the  fields  the  day  he  arrives, 
or,  if  he  cannot  do  so,  on  the  day  after,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  seeing  what  has  been  done,  and  what  remains 

VOL.  II.  B 


<#/ 


18  CATO. 

to  be  accomplished.  Rules  are  given  for  the  most  as- 
siduous employment  without  doors,  and  the  most  rigid 
economy  within.  When  a  servant  is  sick  he  will  re- 
quire less  food.  All  the  old  oxen  and  the  cattle  of 
delicate  frame,  the  old  waggons,  and  old  implements 
of  husbandry,  are  to  be  sold  off.  The  sordid  parsi- 
mony of  the  Censor  leads  him  to  direct,  that  a  provi- 
dent paterfamilias  should  sell  such  of  his  slaves  as 
are  aged  and  infirm  ;  a  recommendation  which  has 
drawn  down  on  him  the  well-merited  indignation  of 
Plutarch.1  These  are  some  of  the  duties  of  the  mas- 
ter ;  and  there  follows  a  curious  detail  of  the  qualifi- 
cations and  duties  of  the  villiciis,  or  overseer,  who,  in 
particular,  is  prohibited  from  the  exercise  of  religious 
rites,  and  consultation  of  augurs. 

It  is  probable  that,  in  the  time  of  Cato,  the  Ro- 
mans had  begun  to  extend  their  villas  considerably, 
which  makes  him  warn  proprietors  of  land  not  to  be  rash 
in  building.  When  a  landlord  is  thirty-six  years  of  age 
he  may  build,  provided  his  fields  have  been  brought 
into  a  proper  state  of  cultivation.  His  direction  with 
regard  to  the  extent  of  the  villa  is  concise,  but  seems 
a  very  proper  one ; — he  advises,  to  build  in  such  a  man- 
ner that  the  villa  may  not  need  a  farm,  nor  the  farm 
a  villa.  Lucullus  and  Scaevola  both  violated  this  gold- 
en rule,  as  we  learn  from  Pliny  ;  who  adds,  that  it 
will  be  readily  conjectured,  from  their  respective  cha- 
racters, that  it  was  the  farm  of  Scaevola  which  stood  in 
need  of  the  villa,  and  the  villa  of  Lucullus  which  re- 
quired the  farm. 

1  In  Cato. 


CATO.  19 

A  vast  variety  of  crops  was  cultivated  by  the  Ro- 
mans, and  the  different  kinds  were  adapted  by  them, 
with  great  care,  to  the  different  soils.  Cato  is  very 
particular  in  his  injunctions  on  this  subject.  A  field 
that  is  of  a  rich  and  genial  soil  should  be  sown  with 
corn  ;  but,  if  wet  or  moist,  with  turnips  and  raddish. 
Figs  are  to  be  planted  in  chalky  land  ;  and  willows  in 
watery  situations,  in  order  to  serve  as  twigs  for  tying 
the  vines.  This  being  the  proper  mode  of  laying  out 
a  farm,  our  author  gives  a  detail  of  the  establishment 
necessary  to  keep  it  up ; — the  number  of  workmen, 
the  implements  of  husbandry,  and  the  farm-offices, 
with  the  materials  necessary  for  their  construction. 

He  next  treats  of  the  management  of  vineyards  and 
olives  ;  the  proper  mode  of  planting,  grafting,  prop- 
ping, and  fencing  :  And  he  is  here  naturally  led  to  fur- 
nish directions  for  making  and  preserving  the  different 
sorts  of  wine  and  oil ;  as  also  to  specify  how  much  of 
each  is  to  be  allowed  to  the  servants  of  the  family. 

In  discoursing  of  the  cultivation  of  fields  for  corn, 
Cato  enjoins  the  farmer  to  collect  all  sorts  of  weeds  for 
manure.  Pigeons'  dung  he  prefers  to  that  of  every  ani- 
mal. He  gives  orders  for  burning  lime,  and  for  ma- 
king charcoal  and  ashes  from  the  branches  or  twigs  of 
trees.  The  Romans  seem  to  have  been  at  great  pains 
in  draining  their  fields  ;  and  Cato  directs  the  forma- 
tion both  of  open  and  covered  drains.  Oxen  being  em- 
ployed in  ploughing  the  fields,  instructions  are  added 
for  feeding  and  taking  due  care  of  them.  The  Roman 
plough  has  been  a  subject  of  much  discussion  :  Two 
sorts  are  mentioned  by  Cato,  which  he  calls  Romani- 


20  CATO. 

cum,  and  Campanicum — the  first  being  proper  for  a 
stiff,  and  the  other  for  a  light  soil.  Dickson  conjec- 
tures, that  the  Romanicum  had  an  iron  Share,  and 
the  Campanicum  a  piece  of  timber,  like  the  Scotch 
plough,  and  a  sock  driven  upon  it.  The  plough,  with 
other  agricultural  implements,  as  the  crates,  rastrum, 
ligo,  and  sarculum,  most  of  which  are  mentioned  by 
Cato,  form  a  curious  point  of  Roman  antiquities. 

The  preservation  of  corn,  after  it  has  been  reaped, 
is  a  subject  of  much  importance,  to  which  Cato  has 
paid  particular  attention.  This  was  a  matter  of  con- 
siderable difficulty  in  Italy,  in  the  time  of  the  Romans; 
and  all  their  agricultural  writers  are  extremely  minute 
in  their  directions  for  preserving  it  from  rot,  and  from 
the  depredations  of  insects,  by  which  it  was  frequent- 
ly consumed. 

A  great  part  of  the  work  of  Cato  is  more  appro- 
priate to  the  housewife  than  the  farmer.  We  have  re- 
ceipts for  making  all  sorts  of  cakes  and  puddings,  fat- 
tening hens  and  geese,  preserving  figs  during  winter  ; 
as  also  medical  prescriptions  for  the  cure  of  various 
diseases,  both  of  man  and  beast.  Mala  punka,  or 
pomegranates,  are  the  chief  ingredient,  in  his  remedies, 
for  Diarrhoea,  Dyspepsia,  and  Stranguary.  Some- 
times, however,  his  cures  for  diseases  are  not  medical 
recipes,  but  sacrifices,  atonements,  or  charms.  The 
prime  of  all  is  his  remedy  for  a  luxation  or  fracture. — 
"  Take,"  says  he,  "  a  green  reed,  and  slit  it  along  the 
middle — throw  the  knife  upwards,  and  join  the  two 
parts  of  the  reed  again,  and  tie  it  so  to  the  place  broken 
or  disjointed,  and  say  this  charm — '  Daries,  Darda- 


CATO.  21 

ries,  Astataries,  Dissunapiter.'  Or  this — *  Huat, 
Hanat,  Huat,  Ista,  Pista,  Fista,  Domiabo,  Dam- 
naustra.'    This  will  make  the  part  sound  again."1 

The  most  remarkable  feature  in  the  work  of  Cato, 
is  its  total  want  of  arrangement.  It  is  divided,  indeed, 
into  chapters,  but  the  author,  apparently,  had  never 
taken  the  trouble  of  reducing  his  precepts  to  any  sort 
of  method,  or  of  following  any  general  plan.  The 
hundred  and  sixty-two  chapters,  of  which  his  work 
consists,  seem  so  many  rules  committed  to  writing,  as 
the  daily  labours  of  the  field  suggested.  He  gives  di- 
rections about  the  vineyard,  then  goes  to  his  corn-fields, 
and  returns  again  to  the  vineyard.  His  treatise  was, 
therefore,  evidently  not  intended  as  a  regular  or  well- 
composed  book,  but  merely  as  a  journal  of  incidental 
observations  That  this  was  its  utmost  pretensions, 
is  farther  evinced  by  the  brevity  of  the  precepts,  and 
deficiency  of  all  illustration  or  embellishment.  Of  the 
style,  he  of  course  would  be  little  careful,  as  his  Me- 
moranda were  intended  for  the  use  only  of  his  family 
and  slaves.  It  is  therefore  always  simple, — sometimes 
even  rude ;  but  it  is  not  ill  adapted  to  the  subject,  and 
suits  our  notion  of  the  severe  manners  of  its  author, 
and  character  of  the  ancient  Romans. 

Besides  this  book  on  agriculture,  Cato  left  behind 
him  various  works,  which  have  almost  entirely  perished. 
He  left  a  hundred  and  fifty  orations,2  which  were  ex- 
isting in  the  time  of  Cicero,  though  almost  entirely 
neglected,  and  a  book  on  military  discipline,3  both  of 

1  C.  160.       2  Cicero,  Brutus,  c.  17-       3  Vegetius,  Lib-  I.  c.  8. 


22  CATO. 

which,  if  now  extant,  would  be  highly  interesting,  as 
proceeding  from  one  who  was  equally  distinguished  in 
the  camp  and  forum.  A  good  many  of  his  orations 
were  in  dissuasion  or  favour  of  particular  laws  and 
measures  of  state,  as  those  entitled — "  Ne  quis  iterum 
Consul  fiat — De  bello  Carthaginiensi,"  of  which  war 
he  was  a  vehement  promoter — "  Suasio  in  Legem  Vo- 
coniam, — Pro  Lege  Oppia,"  &c.  Nearly  a  third  part  of 
these  orations  were  pronounced  in  his  own  defence. 
He  had  been  about  fifty  times  accused,1  and  as  often 
acquitted.  When  charged  with  a  capital  crime,  in 
the  85th  year  of  his  age,  he  pleaded  his  own  cause,  and 
betrayed  no  failure  in  memory,  no  decline  of  vigour, 
and  no  faltering  of  voice.2  By  his  readiness,  and  perti- 
nacity, and  bitterness,  he  completely  wore  out  his  ad- 
versaries,3 and  earned  the  reputation  of  being,  if  not 
the  most  eloquent,  at  least  the  most  stubborn  speaker 
among  the  Romans. 

Cato's  oration  in  favour  of  the  Appian  law,  which 
was  a  sumptuary  restriction  on  the  expensive  dresses 
of  the  Roman  matrons,  is  given  by  Livy.4  It  was  de- 
livered in  opposition  to  the  tribune  Valerius,  who  pro- 
posed its  abrogation,  and  affords  us  some  notion  of  his 
style  and  manner,  since,  if  not  copied  by  the  historian 
from  his  book  of  orations,  it  was  doubtless  adapted  by 
him  to  the  character  of  Cato,  and  his  mode  of  speak- 

1  Plutarch,  in  Cato. 

2  Valerius  Maximus,  Lib.  VIII.  c.  7.  Valerius  says,  he  was  in 
his  86th  year;  but  Cato  did  not  survive  beyond  his  85th.  Cicero, 
in  Brulo,  c.  20.     Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XIX.  c.  1. 

a  Livy,  Lib.  XXXIX.  c.  40.  *  Lib,  XXXIV.  c.  2. 


CATO.  23 

ing.  Aulus  Gellius  cites,  as  equally  distinguished  for 
its  eloquence  and  energy,  a  passage  in  his  speech  on 
the  division  of  spoil  among  the  soldiery,  in  which  he 
complains  of  their  unpunished  peculation  and  licen- 
tiousness. One  of  his  most  celebrated  harangues  was 
that  in  favour  of  the  Rhodians,  the  ancient  allies  of 
the  Roman  people,  who  had  fallen  under  the  suspicion 
of  affording  aid  to  Perseus,  during  the  second  Mace- 
donian war.  The  oration  was  delivered  after  the  over- 
throw of  that  monarch,  when  the  Rhodian  envoys  were 
introduced  into  the  Senate,  in  order  to  explain  the 
conduct  of  their  countrymen,  and  to  deprecate  the  ven- 
geance of  the  Romans,  by  throwing  the  odium  of  their 
apparent  hostility  on  the  turbulence  of  a  few  factious 
individuals.  It  was  pronounced  in  answer  to  those 
Senators,  who,  after  hearing  the  supplications  of  the 
Rhodians,  were  for  declaring  war  against  them  ;  and 
it  turned  chiefly  on  the  ancient,  long-tried  fidelity  of 
that  people, — taking  particular  advantage  of  the  cir- 
cumstance, that  the  assistance  rendered  to  Perseus 
had  not  been  a  national  act,  proceeding  from  a  public 
decree  of  the  people.  Tiro,  the  freedman  of  Cicero, 
wrote  a  long  and  elaborate  criticism  on  this  oration. 
To  the  numerous  censures  it  contains,  Aulus  Gellius 
has  replied  at  considerable  length,  and  has  blamed 
Tiro  for  singling  out  from  a  speech  so  rich,  and  so 
happily  connected,  small  and  insulated  portions,  as  ob- 
jects of  his  reprehensive  satire.  All  the  various  topics, 
he  adds,  which  are  enlarged  on  in  this  oration,  if  they 
could  have  been  introduced  with  more  perspicuity, 


24  CATO. 

method,  and  harmony,  could  not  have  been  delivered 
with  more  energy  and  strength.1 

Both  Cicero  and  Livy  have  expressed  themselves 
very  fully  on  the  subject  of  Cato's  orations.  The  for- 
mer admits,  that  his  '*  language  is  antiquated,  and 
some  of  his  phrases  harsh  and  inelegant :  but  only 
change  that,"  he  continues,  "  which  it  was  not  in  his 
power  to  change — add  number  and  cadence — give  an 
easier  turn  to  his  sentences — and  regulate  the  struc- 
ture and  connection  of  his  words,  (an  art  which  was 
as  little  practised  by  the  older  Greeks  as  by  him,)  and 
you  will  find  no  one  who  can  claim  the  preference  to 
Cato.  The  Greeks  themselves  acknowledge,  that  the 
chief  beauty  of  composition  results  from  the  frequent 
use  of  those  forms  of  expression,  which  they  call  tropes, 
and  of  those  varieties  of  language  and  sentiment,  which 
they  call  figures ;  but  it  is  almost  incredible  with  what 
copiousness,  and  with  what  variety,  they  are  all  em- 
ployed by  Cato."2  Livy  principally  speaks  of  the  fa- 
cility, asperity,  and  freedom  of  his  tongue.3  Aulus 
Gellius  has  instituted  a  comparison  of  Caius  Gracchus, 
Cato,  and  Cicero,  in  passages  where  these  three  ora- 
tors declaimed  against  the  same  species  of  atrocity — 
the  illegal  scourging  of  Roman  citizens ;  and  Gellius, 
though  he  admits  that  Cato  had  not  reached  the  splen- 
dour, harmony,  and  pathos  of  Cicero,  considers  him  as 
far  superior  in  force  and  copiousness  to  Gracchus.4 

Of  the  book  on  Military  Discipline,  a  good  deal  has 

1  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  VII.  c.  3.  2  Brutus,  c.  17. 

3  Lib.  XXXIX.  c.  40.  ■*  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  X.  c.  3. 


CATO.  25 

been  incorporated  into  the  work  of  Vegetius ;  and 
Cicero's  orations  may  console  us  for  the  want  of  those 
of  Cato.  But  the  loss  of  the  seven  books,  De  Origi- 
nibus,  which  he  commenced  in  his  vigorous  old  age, 
and  finished  just  before  his  death,  must  ever  be  deep- 
ly deplored  by  the  historian  and  antiquary.    Cato  is 
said  to  have  begun  to  inquire  into  the  history,  anti- 
quities, and  language  of  the  Roman  people,  with  a 
view  to  counteract  the  influence  of  the  Greek  taste, 
introduced  by  the  Scipios ;  and  in  order  to  take  from 
the  Greeks  the  honour  of  having  colonized  Italy,  he 
attempted  to  discover  on  the  Latian  soil  the  traces  of 
ancient  national  manners,  and  an  indigenous  civiliza- 
tion. The  first  book  of  the  valuable  work,  De  Origi- 
nibus,  as  we  are  informed  by  Cornelius  Nepos,  in  his 
short  life  of  Cato,  contained  the  exploits  of  the  kings 
of  Rome.  Cato  was  the  first  author  who  attempted  to 
fix  the  era  of  the  foundation  of  Rome,  which  he  cal- 
culated in  his  Origines,  and  determined  it  to  have 
been  in  the  first  year  of  the  7th  Olympiad.    In  order 
to  discover  this  epoch,  he  had  recourse  to  the  memoirs 
of  the  Censors,  in  which  it  was  noted,  that  the  taking 
of  Rome  by  the  Gauls,  was  119  years  after  the  expul- 
sion of  the  kings.  By  adding  this  period  to  the  aggre- 
gate duration  of  the  reigns  of  the  kings,  he  found  that 
the  amount  answered  to  the  first  of  the  7th  Olympiad. 
This  is  the  computation  followed  by  Dionysius  of 
Halicarnassus,  in  his  great  work  on  Roman  antiqui- 
ties.   It  is  probably  as  near  the  truth  as  we  can  hope 
to  arrive  ;  but  even  in  the  time  of  Cato,  the  calcula- 
ted duration  of  the  reigns  of  the  kings  was  not  found- 


26  CATO. 

ed  on  any  ancient  monuments  then  extant,  or  on  the 
testimony  of  any  credible  historian.  The  second  and 
third  books  treated  of  the  origin  of  the  different  states 
of  Italy,  whence  the  whole  work  has  received  the  name 
of  Origines.  The  fourth  and  fifth  books  comprehend- 
ed the  history  of  the  first  and  second  Punic  wars ;  and 
in  the  two  remaining  books,  the  author  discussed  the 
other  campaigns  of  the  Romans  till  the  time  of  Ser. 
Galba,  who  overthrew  the  Lusitanians. 

In  his  account  of  these  later  contests,  Cato  merely 
related  the  facts,  without  mentioning  the  names  of  the 
generals  or  leaders  ;  but  though  he  has  omitted  this, 
Pliny  informs  us  that  he  did  not  forget  to  take  notice, 
that  the  elephant  which  fought  most  stoutly  in  the 
Carthaginian  army  was  called  Surus,  and  wanted  one 
of  his  teeth.1  In  this  same  work  he  incidentally  treat- 
ed of  all  the  wonderful  and  admirable  things  which 
existed  in  Spain  and  Italy.  Some  of  his  orations,  too, 
as  we  learn  from  Livy,  were  incorporated  into  it,  as 
that  for  giving  freedom  to  the  Lusitanian  hostages  ; 
and  Plutarch  farther  mentions,  that  he  omitted  no  op- 
portunity of  praising  himself,  and  extolling  his  services 
to  the  state.  The  work,  however,  exhibited  great  in- 
dustry and  learning,  and,  had  it  descended  to  us, 
would  unquestionably  have  thrown  much  light  on  the 
early  periods  of  Roman  history  and  the  antiquities  of 
the  different  states  of  Italy.  Dionysius  of  Halicar- 
nassus,  himself  a  sedulous  inquirer  into  antiquities, 
bears  ample  testimony  to  the  research  and  accuracy  of 
that  part  which  treats  of  the  origin  of  the  ancient  Ita- 

i  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  VIII.  c.  5. 


CATO.  27 

Han  cities.  The  author  lived  at  a  time  which  was  fa- 
vourable to  this  investigation.  Though  the  Samnites, 
Etruscans,  and  Sabines,  had  been  deprived  of  their  in- 
dependence, they  had  not  lost  their  monuments  or 
records  of  their  history,  their  individuality  and  national 
manners.  Cicero  praises  the  simple  and  concise  style 
of  the  Origines,  and  laments  that  the  work  was  ne- 
glected in  his  day,  in  consequence  of  the  inflated  man- 
ner of  writing  which  had  been  recently  adopted  ;  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  tumid  and  ornamented  periods 
of  Theopompus  had  lessened  the  esteem  for  the  con- 
cise and  unadorned  narrative  of  Thucydides,  or  as  the 
lofty  eloquence  of  Demosthenes  impaired  the  relish 
for  the  extreme  attic  simplicity  of  Lysias.1 

In  the  same  part  of  the  dialogue,  entitled  Bru- 
tus, Cicero  asks  what  flower  or  light  of  eloquence  is 
wanting  to  the  Origines — "  Quern  florem,  aut  quod 
lumen  eloquentias  non  habent  ?"  But  on  Atticus  con- 
sidering the  praise  thus  bestowed  as  excessive,  he  li- 
mits it,  by  adding,  that  nothing  was  required  to  com- 
plete the  strokes  of  the  author's  pencil  but  a  certain 
lively  glow  of  colours,  which  had  not  been  discovered 
in  his  age. — "  Intelliges,  nihil  illius  lineamentis,  nisi 
eorum  pigmentorum,  quae  inventa  nondum  erant,  flo- 
rem et  colorem  defuisse."2 

The  pretended  fragments  of  the  Origines,  publish- 
ed by  the  Dominican,  Nanni,  better  known  by  the 
name  of  Annius  Viterbiensis,  and  inserted  in  his 
Antiquitates  Varies,  printed  at  Rome  in  1498,  are 
spurious,  and  the  imposition  was  detected  soon  after 

1  Brutus,  c.  17.  2  Brutus,  c.  87. 


28  CATO. 

their  appearance.  The  few  remains  first  collected  by 
Riccobonus,  and  published  at  the  end  of  his  Treatise 
on  History,  (Basil,  1579,)  are  believed  to  be  genuine. 
They  have  been  enlarged  by  Ausonius  Popma,  and 
added  by  him,  with  notes,  to  the  other  writings  of  Cato, 
published  at  Ley  den  in  1590. 

Any  rudeness  of  style  and  language  which  appears 
either  in  the  orations  of  Cato,  or  in  his  agricultural 
and  historical  works,  cannot  be  attributed  to  total  care- 
lessness or  neglect  of  the  graces  of  composition,  as  he 
was  the  first  person  in  Rome  who  treated  of  oratory 
as  an  art,1  in  a  tract  entitled  De  Oratore  ad  Filium. 

Cato  was  also  the  first  of  his  countrymen  who  wrote 
on  the  subject  of  medicine.2  Rome  had  existed  for  500 
years  without  professional  physicians.3  A  people  who 
as  yet  were  strangers  to  luxury,  and  consisted  of  far- 
mers and  soldiers,  (though  surgical  operations  might 
be  frequently  necessary,)  would  be  exempt  from  the 
inroads  of  the  "  grisly  troop,"  so  much  encouraged  by 
indolence  and  debauchery.  Like  all  semi-barbarous 
people,  they  believed  that  maladies  were  to  be  cured 
by  the  special  interposition  of  superior  beings,  and  that 
religious  ceremonies  were  more  efficacious  for  the  re- 
covery of  health  than  remedies  of  medical  skill.  De- 
riving, as  they  did,  much  of  their  worship  from  the 
Etruscans,  they  probably  derived  from  them  also  the 
practice  of  attempting  to  overcome  disease  by  magic 
and  incantation.     The  Augurs  and  Aruspices  were 

1  Quintil.  hist.  Oral.  Lib.  Ill,  c.  1. 

2  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XXV.  c.  2. 

3  Ibid. 


CATO.  29 

thus  the  most  ancient  physicians  of  Rome.  In  epide- 
mic distempers  the  Sibylline  books  were  consulted, 
and  the  cures  they  prescribed  were  superstitious  cere- 
monies.    We  have  seen  that  it  was  to  free  the  city 
from  an  attack  of  this  sort  that  scenic  representations 
were  first  introduced  at  Rome.    During  the  progress 
of  another  epidemic  infliction  a  temple  was  built  to 
Apollo  ;*  and  as  each  periodic  pestilence  naturally  aba- 
ted in  course  of  time,  faith  was  confirmed  in  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  rites  which  were  resorted  to.     Every  one 
has  heard  of  the  pomp  wherewith  Esculapius  was  trans- 
ported under  the  form  of  a  serpent,  from  Epidaurus 
to  an  islet  in  the  Tiber,  which  was  thereafter  conse- 
crated to  that  divine  physician.     The  apprehension 
of  diseases  raised  temples  to  Febris  and  Tussis,  and 
other  imaginary  beings  belonging  to  the  painful  family 
of  death,  in  order  to  avert  the  disorders  which  they 
were  supposed  to  inflict.    It  was  perceived,  however, 
that  religious  processions  and  lustrations  and  lectis- 
terniums  were  ineffectual  for  the  cure  of  those  com- 
plaints, which,  in  the  6th  century,  luxury  began  to 
exasperate  and  render  more  frequent  at  Rome.    At 
length,  in  534,  Archagatus,  a  free-born  Greek,  arrived 
in  Italy,  where  he  practised  medicine  professionally  as 
an  art,  and  received  in  return  for  his  cures  the  endear- 
ing appellation  of  Carnifex?  But  though  Archagatus 
was  the  first  who  practised  medicine,  Cato  was  the  first 
who  wrote  of  diseases  and  their  treatment  as  a  science, 
in  his  work  entitled  Commentarius  quo  Medetur  Filio, 

1  Livy,  Lib.  IV.  c.  25. 

2  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XXIX.  c.  1. 


30  CATO. 

Servis,  Familiaribus.  In  this  book  of  domestic  medi- 
cine— duck,  pigeons, and  hare,  were  the  foods  he  chiefly 
recommended  to  the  sick."  His  remedies  were  princi- 
pally extracted  from  herbs  ;  and  colewort,  or  cabbage, 
was  his  favourite  cure.2  The  recipes,  indeed,  contain- 
ed in  his  work  on  agriculture,  show  that  his  medical 
knowledge  did  not  exceed  that  which  usually  exists 
among  a  semi-barbarous  race,  and  only  extended  to  the 
most  ordinary  simples  which  nature  affords.  Cato  ha- 
ted the  compound  drugs  introduced  by  the  Greek  phy- 
sicians— considering  these  foreign  professors  of  medi- 
cine as  the  opponents  of  his  own  system.  Such,  indeed, 
was  his  antipathy,  that  he  believed,  or  pretended  to 
believe,  that  they  had  entered  into  a  league  to  poison 
all  the  barbarians,  among  whom  they  classed  the  Ro- 
mans.— "  Jurarunt  inter  se,"  says  he,  in  a  passage  pre- 
served by  Pliny,  "  barbaros  necare  omnes  medicina : 
Et  hoc  ipsum  mercede  faciunt,  ut  fides  iis  sit,  et  facile 
disperdant."3     Cato,  finding  that  the  patients  lived 
notwithstanding  this  detestable  conspiracy,  began  to 
regard  the  Greek  practitioners  as  impious  sorcerers,  who 
counteracted  the  course  of  nature,  and  restored  dying 
men  to  life,  by  means  of  unholy  charms  ;  and  he  there- 
fore advised  his  countrymen  to  remain  stedfast,  not 
only  by  their  ancient  Roman  principles  and  manners, 
but  also  by  the  venerable  unguents  and  salubrious  bal- 
sams which  had  come  down  to  them  from  the  wisdom 
of  their  grandmothers.    Such  as  they  were,  Cato's  old 

1  Plutarch,  in  Cato. 

2  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XX.  c.  9. 

3  Ibid.  Lib.  XXIX.  c.  1. 


CATO.  31 

medical  saws  continued  long  in  repute  at  Rome.  It 
is  evident  that  they  were  still  esteemed  in  the  time  of 
Pliny,  who  expresses  the  same  fears  as  the  Censor,  lest 
hot  baths  and  potions  should  render  his  countrymen 
effeminate,  and  corrupt  their  manners.1 

Everyone  knows  what  was  the  consequence  of  Cato's 
dislike  to  the  Greek  philosophers,  who  were  expelled 
the  city  by  a  decree  of  the  senate.  But  it  does  not 
seem  certain  what  became  of  Archagatus  and  his  fol- 
lowers. The  author  of  the  Diogene  Moderne,  as  ci- 
ted by  Tiraboschi,  says  that  Archagatus  was  stoned  to 
death,2  but  the  literary  historian  who  quotes  him  doubts 
of  his  having  any  sufficient  authority  for  the  assertion. 
Whether  the  physicians  were  comprehended  in  the 
general  sentence  of  banishment  pronounced  on  the 
learned  Greeks,  or  were  excepted  from  it,  has  been  the 
subject  of  a  great  literary  controversy  in  modern  Italy 
and  in  France.3 

1  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XXIX.  c  1. 

2  Stor.  del.  Let.  Ital.  Part.  III.  Lib.  III.  c.  5.  §  5. 

3  See  Spon,  Recherches  Curieuses  d'  Aniiquite.  Diss.  27.  Bayle, 
Diet.  Hist,  art.  Porcius,  Rem.  H. 

In  what  degree  of  estimation  medicine  was  held  at  Rome,  and 
by  what  class  of  people  it  was  practised,  were  among  the  quaes- 
tiones  vexatce  of  classical  literature  in  our'own  country  in  the  begin- 
ning and  middle  of  last  century.  Dr  Mead,  in  his  Oratio  Hervei- 
ana,  and  Spon,  in  his  Recherches  d' Aniiquite,  followed  out  an  idea 
first  suggested  by  Casaubon,  in  his  animadversions  on  Suetonius, 
that  physicians  in  Rome  were  held  in  high  estimation,  and  were 
frequently  free  citizens ;  that  it  was  the  surgeons  who  were  the 
servile  pecus  ;  and  that  the  erroneous  idea  of  physicians  being 
slaves,  arose  from  confounding  the  two  orders.  These  authors 
chiefly  rested  their  argument  on  classical  passages,  from  which  it 
appears  that  physicians  were  called  the  friends  of  Cicero,  Ceesar, 


32  CATO. 

Aulus  Gelliusi  mentions  Cato's  Libri  qucestionum 
Epistolicarum,  and  Cicero  his  Apophthegmata?  which 
was  probably  the  first  example  of  that  class  of  works 
which,  under  the  appellation  of  Ana,  became  so  fa- 
shionable and  prevalent  in  France. 

The  only  other  work  of  Cato  which  I  shall  mention, 
is  the  Carmen  de  Moribus.  This,  however,  was  not 
written  in  verse,  as  might  be  supposed  from  the  title. 
Precepts,  imprecations,  and  prayers,  or  any  set  for- 
mulae whatever,  were  called  Carmina.  I  do  not  know 
what  maxims  were  inculcated  in  this  carmen,  but 
they  probably  were  not  of  very  rigid  morality,  at  least 
if  we  may  judge  from  the  "  Sententia  Dia  Catonis," 
mentioned  by  Horace : 

"  Quidam  notus  homo  cum  exiret  fornice,  Macte 
Virtute  esto,  inquit  sententia  dia  Catonis."3 

Misled  by  the  title,  some  critics  have  erroneously  as- 
signed to  the  Censor  the  Disticha  de  Moribus,  now 
generally  attributed  to  Dionysius  Cato,  who  lived, 

and  Pompey.  Middleton,in  a  well-known  Latin  dissertation,  main- 
tains that  there  was  no  distinction  at  Rome  between  the  physician, 
surgeon,  and  apothecary,  and  that,  till  the  time  of  Julius  Caesar  at 
least,  the  art  of  medicine  was  exercised  only  by  foreigners  and 
slaves,  or  by  freedmen,  who,  having  obtained  liberty  for  their  pro- 
ficiency in  its  various  branches,  opened  a  shop  for  its  practice— 
De  Mcdicorum  apud  veteres  Romanos  degeniium  Conditione  Dis- 
sertatio.  Miscellaneous  Works,  Vol.  IV.  See  on  this  topic,  Schlce- 
ger,  Histor.  litis,  De  Medicorum  apud  veteres  Romanos  degentium 
Conditione.   Helmst.  1740. 

1  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  VII.  c  10. 

2  De  Officiis.  Lib.  I.  c.  29.  Multa  sunt  multorum  facete  dicta : 
ut  ea,  quae  a  sene  Catone  collecta  sunt,  quae  vocant  apophthegmata. 

3  Sat.  Lib.  I.  2. 

6 


VARRO.  33 

according  to  Scaliger,  in  the  age  of  Commodus  and 
Septimius  Severus.1 
The  work  of 


MARCUS  TERENTIUS  VARRO, 

On  agriculture,  has  descended  to  us  more  entire  than 
that  of  Cato  on  the  same  subject ;  yet  it  does  not  ap- 
pear to  be  complete.  In  the  early  times  of  the  repub- 
lic, the  Romans,  like  the  ancient  Greeks,  being  con- 
stantly menaced  with  the  incursions  of  enemies,  in- 
dulged little  in  the  luxury  of  expensive  and  orna- 
mental villas.  Even  that  of  Scipio  Africanus,  the  ri- 
val and  contemporary  of  Cato  the  Censor,  and  who  in 
many  other  respects  anticipated  the  refinements  of  a 
later  age,  was  of  the  simplest  structure.  It  was  si- 
tuated at  Liternum,  (now  Patria,)  a  few  miles  north 
from  Cumae,  and  was  standing  in  the  time  of  Seneca. 
This  philosopher  paid  a  visit  to  a  friend  who  resided  in 
it  during  the  age  of  Nero,  and  he  afterwards  described 
it  in  one  of  his  epistles  with  many  expressions  of  won- 
der and  admiration  at  the  frugality  of  the  great  Afri- 
canus.2    When,  however,  the  scourge  of  war  was  re- 

1  For  Cato's  family,  see  Aulus  Gellius,  Noct,  Attic.  Lib.  XIII. 
c.  19- 

2  We  have  many  minute  descriptions  of  the  villas  of  luxurious 
Romans,  from  the  time  of  Hortensius  to  Pliny,  but  there  are  so  few 
accounts  of  those  in  the  simpler  age  of  Scipio,  that  I  have  subjoined 
the  description  of  Seneca,  who  saw  this  mansion  precisely  in  the 
same  state  it  was  when  possessed  and  inhabited  by  the  illustri- 

VOL.  II.  C 


34  VAKKO. 

moved  from  their  immediate  vicinity,  agriculture  and 
gardening  were  no  longer  exercised  by  the  Romans  as 
in  the  days  of  the  Censor,  when  great  crops  of  grain 
were  raised  for  profit,  and  fields  of  onions  sown  for  the 
subsistence  of  the  labouring  servants.  The  patricians 
now  became  fond  of  ornamental  gardens,  fountains, 
terraces,  artificial  wildernesses,  and  grottos,  groves  of 
laurel  for  shelter  in  winter,  and  oriental  planes  for 
shade  in  summer.  Matters,  in  short,  were  fast  ap- 
proaching to  the  state  described  in  one  of  the  odes  of 
Horace — 

"  Jam  pauca  aratro  jugera  regiae 
Moles  relinquent :  undique  latius 
Extenta  visentur  Lucrino 

Stagna  lacu  :  platanusque  coelebs 
Evincet  ulmos  :  turn  violaria,  et 
Myrtus,  et  omnis  copia  narium, 
Spargent  olivetis  odorem 
Fertilibus  domino  priori. 
Turn  spissa  ramis  laurea  fervidos 
Excludet  ictu9.     Non  ita  Romuli 
Prsescriptum,  et  intonsi  Catonis 
Auspiciis,  veterumque  norma."1. 


ous  conqueror  of  Hannibal.  "  Vidi  villam  structam  lapide  qua- 
drato,  murum  circumdatum  sylvae,  turres  quoque  in  propugnacu- 
lum  villae  utrimque  subrectas.  Cisternam  aklificiis  et  viridibus 
subditam,  quae  sufficere  in  usum  exercitus  posset.  Balncolum  an- 
gustum,  tenebricosum  ex  consuetudinc  antiqua.  Magna  ergo  me 
voluptas  subit  contemplantem  mores  Scipionis  et  nostros.  In  boc 
angulo,  ille  Carthaginis  horror,  cui  Roma  debet  quod  tantum  se- 
mel  capta  est,  abluebat  corpus  laboribus  rusticis  fessum  ;  exerce- 
bat  eniin  opera  se,  terramque,  ut  mos  fuit  priscis,  ipse  subigebat. 
Sub  hoc  ille  tccto  tarn  sordido  stetit — hoc  ilium  pavimentum  tarn 
vile  sustinuit."  Senec.  Epist,  86. 
i  Lib.  II. 


VARRO.  35 

Agriculture,  however,  still  continued  to  be  so  re- 
spectable an  employment,  that  its  practice  was  not 
considered  unworthy  the  friend  of  Cicero  and  Pompey, 
nor  its  precepts  undeserving  to  be  delivered  by  one 
who  was  indisputably  the  first  scholar  of  his  age — who 
was  renowned  for  his  profound  erudition  and  thorough 
insight  into  the  laws,  the  literature,  and  antiquities  of 
his  country, — and  who  has  been  hailed  by  Petrarch  as 
the  third  great  luminary  of  Rome,  being  only  inferior 
in  lustre  to  Cicero  and  Virgil : — 

"  Qui'  vid*  io  nostra  gente  aver  per  duce 
Yarrone,  il  terzo  gran  lume  Romano, 
Che  quanto  '1  miro  piu,  tanto  piu  luce.**1 

Varro  was  born  in  the  637th  year  of  Rome,  and 
was  descended  of  an  ancient  senatorial  family.  It  is 
probable  that  his  youth,  and  even  the  greater  part  of 
his  manhood,  were  spent  in  literary  pursuits,  and  in  the 
acquisition  of  that  stupendous  knowledge,  which  has 
procured  to  him  the  appellation  of  the  most  learned  of 
the  Romans,  since  his  name  does  not  appear  in  the 
civil  or  military  history  of  his  country,  till  the  year 
680,  when  he  was  Consul  along  with  Cassius  Varus. 
In  686,  he  served  under  Pompey,  in  his  war  against 
the  pirates,  in  which  he  commanded  the  Greek  ships/ 
To  the  fortunes  of  that  Chief  he  continued  firmly 
attached,  and  was  appointed  one  of  his  lieutenants 
in  Spain,  along  with  Afranius  and  Petreius,  at  the 
commencement  of  the  war  with  Caesar.    Hispania  Ul- 

1  Trionfb  ddla  Fama,  c.  3. 

*  Varro,  De  R*  Rustica,  Lib.  II.  procem. 


36  VARRO. 

terior  was  specially  confided  to  his  protection,  and  two 
legions  were  placed  under  his  command.  After  the 
surrender  of  his  colleagues  in  Hither  Spain,  Caesar 
proceeded  in  person  against  him.  Varro  appears  to 
have  heen  little  qualified  to  cope  with  such  an  ad- 
versary. One  of  the  legions  deserted  in  his  own  sight, 
and  his  retreat  to  Cadiz,  where  he  had  meant  to  re- 
tire, having  heen  cut  off,  he  surrendered  at  discretion, 
with  the  other,  in  the  vicinity  of  Cordova.1  From  that 
period  he  despaired  of  the  salvation  of  the  republic, 
or  found,  at  least,  that  he  was  not  capable  of  saving 
it ;  for  although,  after  receiving  his  freedom  from  Cae- 
sar, he  proceeded  to  Dyracchium,  to  give  Pompey  a  de- 
tail of  the  disasters  which  had  occurred,  he  left  it  almost 
immediately  for  Rome.  On  his  return  to  Italy  he  with- 
drew from  all  political  concerns,  and  indulged  himself 
during  the  remainder  of  his  life  in  the  enjoyment  of  lite- 
rary leisure.  The  only  service  he  performed  for  Caesar, 
was  that  of  arranging  the  books  which  the  Dictator  had 
himself  procured,  or  which  had  been  acquired  by  those 
who  preceded  him  in  the  management  of  public  af- 
fairs.* He  lived  during  the  reign  of  Caesar  in  habits 
of  the  closest  intimacy  with  Cicero  ;  and  his  feelings, 
as  well  as  conduct,  at  this  period,  resembled  those  of 
his  illustrious  friend,  who,  in  all  his  letters  to  Varro, 
bewails,  with  great  freedom,  the  utter  ruin  of  the  state, 
and  proposes  that  they  should  live  together,  engaged 
only  in  those  studies  which  were  formerly  their  amuse- 

i  Caesar,  Comment,  de  Bella  Civili,  Lib.  II.  c.  17>  &c. 
a  Suetonius,  in  Jul.  Cess.  c.  44. 


VAitiio.  37 

ment,  but  were  then  their  chief  support.  "  And, 
should  none  require  our  services  for  repairing  the  ruins 
of  the  republic,  let  us  employ  our  time  and  thoughts 
on  moral  and  political  inquiries.  If  we  cannot  benefit 
the  commonwealth  in  the  forum  or  the  senate,  let 
us  endeavour,  at  least,  to  do  so  by  our  studies  and 
writings  ;  and,  after  the  example  of  the  most  learned 
among  the  ancients,  contribute  to  the  welfare  of  our 
country,  by  useful  disquisitions  concerning  laws  and 
government."  Some  farther  notion  of  the  manner  in 
which  Varro  spent  his  time  during  this  period  may 
be  derived  from  another  letter  of  Cicero,  written  in 
June,  707.  "  Nothing,"  says  he,  "  raises  your  charac- 
ter higher  in  my  esteem,  than  that  you  have  wisely 
retreated  into  harbour-— that  you  are  enjoying  the 
happy  fruits  of  a  learned  leisure,  and  employed  in 
pursuits,  which  are  attended  with  more  public  advan- 
tage, as  well  as  private  satisfaction,  than  all  the  ambi- 
tious exploits,  or  voluptuous  indulgences,  of  these  li- 
centious victors.  The  contemplative  hours  you  spend 
at  your  Tusculan  villa,  are,  in  my  estimation,  indeed, 
what  alone  deserve  to  be  called  life."1 

Varro  passed  the  greatest  portion  of  his  time  in  the 
various  villas  which  he  possessed  in  Italy.  One'  of 
these  was  at  Tusculum,  and  another  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Cumae.  The  latter  place  had  been  among 
the  earliest  Greek  establishments  in  Italy,  and  was 
long  regarded  as  pre-eminent  in  power  and  population. 
It  spread  prosperity  over  the  adjacent  coasts ;  and  its 

1  Epist.  Fam.  Lib.  IX.  Ep.  6.  Ed.  SchUtz. 


38  VARRO. 

oracle,  Sibyl,  and  temple,  long  attracted  votaries  and 
visitants.  As  the  Roman  power  increased,  that  of 
Cumae  decayed  ;  and  its  opulence  had  greatly  de- 
clined before  the  time  of  Varro.  Its  immediate  vici- 
nity was  not  even  frequently  selected  as  a  situation 
for  villas.  The  Romans  had  a  well-founded  partiality 
for  the  coasts  of  Puteoli,  and  Naples,  so  superior  in 
beauty  and  salubrity  to  the  flat,  marshy  neighbourhood 
of  Cumae.  The  situation  of  Varro's  other  villa,  at 
Tusculum,  must  have  been  infinitely  more  agreeable, 
from  its  pure  air,  and  the  commanding  prospect  it  en- 
joyed. 

Besides  immense  flocks  of  sheep  in  Apulia,  and 
many  horses  in  the  Sabine  district  of  Reate,1  Varro 
had  considerable  farms  both  at  his  Cuman  and  Tusculan 
villas,  the  cultivation  of  which,  no  doubt,  formed  an 
agreeable  relaxation  from  his  severe  and  sedentary 
studies.  He  had  also  a  farm  at  a  third  villa,  where  he 
occasionally  resided,  near  the  town  of  Casinum,  in  the 
territory  of  the  ancient  Volsci,2  and  situated  on  the 
banks  of  the  Cassinus,  a  tributary  stream  to  the  Liris. 
This  stream,  which  was  fifty-seven  feet  broad,  and 
both  deep  and  clear,  with  a  pebbly  channel,  flowed 
through  the  middle  of  his  delightful  domains.  A 
bridge,  which  crossed  the  river  from  the  house,  led  di- 
rectly to  an  island,  which  was  a  little  farther  down,  at 
the  confluence  of  the  Cassinus  with  a  rivulet  called  the 
Vinius.3  Along  the  banks  of  the  larger  water  there  were 

1  Be  Re  Rustica,  Lib.  II. 

2  Cicero,  Philip.  II.  c.  40. 

3  ee  Castell's  Villas  of  the  Ancients. 


VARRO.  39 

spacious  pleasure-walks  which  conducted  to  the  farm ; 
and  near  the  place  where  they  joined  the  fields,  there 
was  an  extensive  aviary.1  The  site  of  Varro's  villa  was 
visited  by  Sir  R.  C.  Hoare,  who  says,  that  it  stood 
close  to  Casinum,  now  St  Germano :  Some  trifling  re- 
mains still  indicate  its  site ;  but  its  memory,  he  adds, 
will  shortly  survive  only  in  the  page  of  the  historian.2 
After  the  assassination  of  Caesar,  this  residence, 
along  with  almost  all  the  wealth  of  Varro,  which  was 
immense,  was  forcibly  seized  by  Marc  Antony.3    Its 
lawless  occupation  by  that  profligate  and  blood-thirsty 
triumvir,  on  his  return  from  his  dissolute  expedition 
to  Capua,  is  introduced  by  Cicero  into  one  of  his 
Philippics,  and  forms  a  topic  of  the  most  eloquent 
and  bitter  invective.     The  contrast  which  the  ora- 
tor draws  between  the  character  of  Varro  and  that 
of  Antony — between  the  noble  and  peaceful  studies 
prosecuted  in  that  delightful  residence  by  the  right- 
ful proprietor,  and  the  shameful  debaucheries  of  the 
wretch  by  whom  it  had  been  usurped,  forms  a  pic- 
ture, to  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  parallel 
in  ancient  or  modern  oratory. — "  How  many  days  did 
you  shamefully  revel,  Antony,  in  that  villa?    From 
the  third  hour,  it  was  one  continued  scene  of  drink- 
ing, gambling,  and  uproar.    The  very  roofs  were  to  be 
pitied.    O,  what  a  change  of  masters  !    But  how  can 
he  be  called  its  master  ?  And,  if  master — gods !  how 
unlike  to  him  he  had  dispossessed!    Marcus  Varro 

i  Be  Re  Rusticd,  Lib.  III.  c.  5. 

2  Classical  Tour  in  Italy. 

a  Appian,  Be  Bello  Civili,  Lib.  IV.  47. 


40  VARRO. 

made  his  house  the  abode  of  the  muses,  and  a  retreat 
for  study — not  a  haunt  for  midnight  debauchery. 
Whilst  he  was  there,  what  were  the  subjects  dis- 
cussed— what  the  topics  debated  in  that  delightful 
residence?  I  will  answer  the  question — The  rights 
and  liberties  of  the  Roman  people — the  memorials  of 
our  ancestors — the  wisdom  resulting  from  reason  com- 
bined with  knowledge.  But  whilst  you,  Antony,  was 
its  occupant,  (for  you  cannot  be  called  its  master,)  every 
room  rung  with  the  cry  of  drunkenness — the  pave- 
ments were  swimming  with  wine,  and  the  walls  wet 
with  riot." 

Antony  was  not  a  person  to  be  satisfied  with  rob- 
bing Varro  of  his  property.  At  the  formation  of  the 
memorable  triumvirate,  the  name  of  Varro  appeared 
in  the  list  of  the  proscribed,  among  those  other  friends 
of  Pompey  whom  the  clemency  of  Caesar  had  spared. 
This  illustrious  and  blameless  individual  had  now 
passed  the  age  of  seventy  ;  and  nothing  can  afford  a 
more  frightful  proof  of  the  sanguinary  spirit  which 
guided  the  councils  of  the  triumvirs,  than  their  devo- 
ting to  the  dagger  of  the  hired  assassin  a  man  equally 
venerable  by  his  years  and  character,  and  who  ought 
to  have  been  protected,  if  not  by  his  learned  labours, 
at  least  by  his  retirement,  from  such  inhuman  perse- 
cution. But,  though  doomed  to  death  as  a  friend  of 
law  and  liberty,  his  friends  contended  with  each  other 
for  the  dangerous  honour  of  saving  him.  Calenus 
having  obtained  the  preference,  carried  him  to  his 
country-house,  where  Antony  frequently  came,  with- 
out suspecting  that  it  contained  a  proscribed  inmate. 


VARRO.  41 

Here  Varro  remained  concealed  till  a  special  edict  was 
issued  by  the  consul,  M.  Plancus,  under  the  triumvi- 
ral  seal,  excepting  him  and  Messala  Corvinus  from  the 
general  slaughter.1 

But  though  Varro  thus  passed  in  security  the  hour 
of  danger,  he  was  unable  to  save  his  library,  which  was 
placed  in  the  garden  of  one  of  his  villas,  and  fell  into 
the  hands  of  an  illiterate  soldiery. 

After  the  battle  of  Actium,  Varro  resided  in  tran- 
quillity at  Rome  till  his  decease,  which  happened  in 
727,  when  he  was  ninety  years  of  age.  The  tragical 
deaths,  however,  of  Pompey  and  Cicero,  with  the  loss 
of  others  of  his  friends, — the  ruin  of  his  country, — 
the  expulsion  from  his  villas, — and  the  loss  of  those 
literary  treasures,  which  he  had  stored  up  as  the  so- 
lace of  his  old  age,  and  the  want  of  which  would  be 
doubly  felt  by  one  who  wished  to  devote  all  his  time 
to  study, — must  have  cast  a  deep  shade  over  the  con- 
cluding days  of  this  illustrious  scholar.  His  wealth 
was  restored  by  Augustus,  but  his  books  could  not  be 
supplied. 

It  is  not  improbable,  that  the  dispersion  of  this  libra- 
ry, which  impeded  the  prosecution  of  his  studies,  and 
prevented  the  composition  of  such  works  as  required 
reference  and  consultation,  may  have  induced  Varro  to 
employ  the  remaining  hours  of  his  life  in  delivering 
those  precepts  of  agriculture,  which  had  been  the  re- 
sult of  long  experience,  and  which  needed  only  remi- 
niscence to  inculcate.   It  was  some  time  after  the  loss 

1  Berwick's  Lives  of  Asin.  Pollio,  M.  Varro,  fyc. 


42  VARRO. 

of  his  books,  and  when  he  had  nearly  reached  the  age 
of  eighty,  that  Varro  composed  the  work  on  husban- 
dry, as  he  himself  testifies  in  the  introduction.  "  If 
I  had  leisure,  I  might  write  these  things  more  conve- 
niently, which  I  will  now  explain  as  well  as  I  am  able, 
thinking  that  I  must  make  haste ;  because,  if  a  man  be 
a  bubble  of  air,  much  more  so  is  an  old  man,  for  now 
my  eightieth  year  admonishes  me  to  get  my  baggage 
together  before  I  leave  the  world.  Wherefore,  as  you 
have  bought  a  farm,  which  you  are  desirous  to  render 
profitable  by  tillage,  and  as  you  ask  me  to  take  this 
task  upon  me,  I  will  try  to  advise  you  what  must  be 
done,  not  only  during  my  stay  here,  but  after  my  de- 
parture." The  remainder  of  the  introduction  forms,  in 
its  ostentatious  display  of  erudition,  a  remarkable  con- 
trast to  Cato's  simplicity.  Varro  talks  of  the  Syrens 
and  Sibyls, — invokes  all  the  Roman  deities,  supposed 
to  preside  over  rural  affairs, — and  enumerates  all  the 
Greek  authors  who  had  written  on  the  subject  of  agri- 
culture previous  to  his  own  time. 

The  first  of  the  three  books  which  this  agricultural 
treatise  comprehends,  is  addressed,  by  Varro,  to  Fun- 
danias,  who  had  recently  purchased  a  farm,  in  the  ma- 
nagement of  which  he  wished  to  be  instructed.  The  in- 
formation which  Varro  undertakes  to  give,  is  commu- 
nicated in  the  form  of  dialogue.  He  feigns  that,  at  the 
time  appointed  for  rites  to  be  performed  in  the  sowing 
season,  {sementivis  feriis,)  he  went,  by  invitation  of 
the  priest,  to  the  temple  of  Tellus.  There  he  met  his 
father-in-law,  C.  Fundanius,  the  knight  Agrius,  and 
Agrasius,  a  farmer  of  imposts,  who  were  gazing  on  a 


VARRO.  48 

map  of  Italy,  painted  on  the  inner  walls  of  the  temple. 
The  priest,  whose  duty  it  was  to  officiate,  having  been 
summoned  by  the  edile  to  attend  him  on  affairs  of  im- 
portance, they  were  awaiting  his  return  ;  and,  in  order 
to  pass  the  time  till  his  arrival,  Agrasius  commences 
a  conversation,  (suggested  by  the  map  of  Italy,)  by  in- 
quiring at  the  others  present  in  the  temple,  whether 
they,  who  had  travelled  so  much,  had  ever  visited  any 
country  better  cultivated  than  Italy.  This  introduces 
an  eulogy  on  the  soil  and  climate  of  that  favoured  re- 
gion, and  of  its  various  abundant  productions, — the 
Apulian  wheat,  the  Venafrian  olive,  and  the  Faler- 
nian  grape.  All  this,  again,  leads  to  the  inquiry,  by 
what  arts  of  agricultural  skill  and  industry,  aiding  the 
luxuriant  soil,  it  had  reached  such  unexampled  fecun- 
dity. These  questions  are  referred  to  Licinius  Stolo, 
and  Tremellius  Scrofa,  who  now  joined  the  party,  and 
who  were  well  qualified  to  throw  light  on  the  interest- 
ing discussion — the  first  being  of  a  family  distinguish- 
ed by  the  pains  it  had  taken  with  regard  to  the  Agra- 
rian laws,  and  the  second  being  well  known  for  pos- 
sessing one  of  the  best  cultivated  farms  in  Italy. 
Scrofa,  too,  had  himself  written  on  husbandry,  as  we 
learn  from  Columella ;  who  says,  that  he  had  first  ren- 
dered agriculture  eloquent.  This  first  book  of  Varro 
is  accordingly  devoted  to  rules  for  the  cultivation  of 
land,  whether  for  the  production  of  grain,  pulse,  olives, 
or  vines,  and  the  establishment  necessary  for  a  well- 
managed  and  lucrative  farm  ;  excluding  from  consi- 
deration what  is  strictly  the  business  of  the  grazier  and 
shepherd,  rather  than  of  the  farmer. 


44  VARRO. 

After  some  general  observations  on  the  object  and 
end  of  agriculture,  and  the  exposition  of  some  general 
principles  with  regard  to  soil  and  climate,  Scrofa  and 
Stolo,  who  are  the  chief  prolocutors,  proceed  to  settle 
the  size,  as  also  the  situation  of  the  villa.  They  recom- 
mend that  it  should  be  placed  at  the  foot  of  a  well- 
wooded  hill,  and  open  to  the  most  healthful  breeze.  An 
eastern  exposure  seems  to  be  preferred,  as  it  will  thus 
have  shade  in  summer,  and  sun  in  winter.  They  farther 
advise,  that  it  should  not  be  placed  in  a  hollow  valley, 
as  being  there  subject  to  storms  and  inundations  ;  nor 
in  front  of  a  river,  as  that  situation  is  cold  in  winter, 
and  unwholesome  in  summer  ;  nor  in  the  vicinity  of 
a  marsh,  where  it  would  be  liable  to  be  infested  with 
small  insects,  which,  though  invisible,  enter  the  body 
by  the  mouth  or  nostrils,  and  occasion  obstinate  disea- 
ses. Fundanius  asks,  what  one  ought  to  do  who  hap- 
pens to  inherit  such  a  villa  ;  and  is  answered,  that  he 
should  sell  it  for  whatever  sum  it  may  bring  ;  and  if  it 
will  bring  nothing,  he  should  abandon  it.  After  this 
follow  the  subjects  of  enclosure — the  necessary  imple- 
ments of  husbandry — the  number  of  servants  and  oxen 
required — and  the  soil  in  which  different  crops  should 
be  sown.  We  have  then  a  sort  of  calendar,  directing 
what  operations  ought  to  be  performed  in  each  season 
of  the  year.  Thus,  the  author  recommends  draining 
betwixt  the  winter  solstice  and  approach  of  the  ze- 
phyrs, which  was  reckoned  to  be  about  the  beginning 
of  February.  The  sowing  of  grain  should  not  be  com- 
menced before  the  autumnal  equinox,  nor  delayed  after 
the  winter  solstice  ;  because  the  seeds  which  are  sown 


VARRO.  45 

previous  to  the  equinox  spring  up  too  quickly,  and 
those  sown  subsequent  to  the  solstice  scarcely  appear 
above  ground  in  forty  days.  A  taste  for  flowers  had 
begun  to  prevail  at  Rome  in  the  time  of  Varro ;  he 
accordingly  recommends  their  cultivation,  and  points 
out  the  seasons  for  planting  the  lily,  violet,  and  crocus. 

The  remainder  of  the  first  book  of  Varro  is  well  and 
naturally  arranged.  He  considers  his  subject  from  the 
choice  of  the  seed,  till  the  grain  has  sprung  up,  ripen- 
ed, been  reaped,  secured,  and  brought  to  market.  The 
same  course  is  followed  in  treating  of  the  vine  and  the 
olive.  While  on  the  subject  of  selling  farm-produce 
to  the  best  advantage,  the  conversation  is  suddenly 
interrupted  by  the  arrival  of  the  priest's  freedman,  who 
came  in  haste  to  apologize  to  the  guests  for  having 
been  so  long  detained,  and  to  ask  them  to  attend  on 
the  following  day  at  the  obsequies  of  his  master,  who 
had  been  just  assassinated  on  the  public  street  by  an 
unknown  hand.  The  party  in  the  temple  immediate- 
ly separate. — "De  casu  humano  magis  querentes,  quam 
admirantes  id  Romae  factum." 

The  subject  of  agriculture,  strictly  so  called,  having 
been  discussed  in  the  first  book,  Varro  proceeds  in  the 
second,  addressed  to  Niger  Turranus,  to  treat  of  the 
care  of  flocks  and  cattle,  {De  Re  Pecuaria.)  The 
knowledge  which  he  here  communicates  is  the  result 
of  his  own  observations,  blended  with  the  information 
he  had  received  from  the  great  pasturers  of  Epirus,  at 
the  time  when  he  commanded  the  Grecian  ships  on  its 
coast,  in  Pompey's  naval  war  with  the  pirates.  As  in 
the  former  book,  the  instruction  is  delivered  in  the 


46  VARRO. 

shape  of  dialogue.  Varro  being  at  the  house  of  a  per- 
son called  Cossinius,  his  host  refuses  to  let  him  depart 
till  he  explain  to  him  the  origin,  the  dignity,  and  the 
art  of  pasturage.  Our  author  undertakes  to  satisfy 
him  as  to  the  first  and  second  points,  hut  as  to  the 
third,  he  refers  him  to  Scrofa,  another  of  the  guests, 
who  had  the  management  of  extensive  sheep-walks  in 
the  territory  of  the  Brutii.  Varro  makes  hut  a  pedan- 
tic figure  in  the  part  which  he  has  modestly  taken  to 
himself.  His  account  of  the  origin  of  pasturage  is  no- 
thing but  some  very  common-place  observations  on  the 
early  stages  of  society  ;  and  its  dignity  is  proved  from 
several  signs  of  the  zodiac  being  called  after  animals, 
as  also  some  of  the  most  celebrated  spots  on  the  globe, 
— Mount  Taurus,  the  Bosphorus,  the  iEgean  sea,  and 
Italy  itself,  which  Varro  derives  from  Vitulus.  Scrofa, 
in  commencing  his  part  of  the  dialogue,  divides  the 
animals  concerning  which  he  is  to  treat  into  three 
classes  :  1.  the  lesser ;  of  which  there  are  three  sorts — 
sheep,  goats,  and  swine  :  2.  the  larger  ;  of  which  there 
are  also  three — oxen,  asses,  and  horses ;  and,  lastly, 
those  which  do  not  of  themselves  bring  profit,  but 
are  essential  to  the  care  of  the  others — the  dog,  the 
mule,  and  the  shepherd.  With  regard  to  all  animals, 
four  things  are  to  be  considered  in  purchasing  or  pro- 
curing them — their  age,  shape,  pedigree,  and  price. 
After  they  have  been  purchased,  there  are  other  four 
things  to  be  attended  to — feeding,  breeding,  rearing, 
and  curing  distempers.  According  to  this  methodical 
division  of  the  subject,  Scrofa  proceeds  to  give  rules 
for  choosing  the  best  of  the  different  species  of  ani- 


VARRO.  47 

mals  which  he  has  enumerated,  as  also  directions  for 
tending  them  after  they  have  been  bought,  and  turn- 
ing them  to  the  best  profit.  It  is  curious  to  hear  what 
were  considered  the  good  points  of  a  goat,  a  hog,  or  a 
horse,  in  the  days  of  Pompey  and  Caesar ;  in  what 
regions  they  were  produced  in  greatest  size  and  per- 
fection ;  what  was  esteemed  the  most  nutritive  pro- 
vender for  each  ;  and  what  number  constituted  an  or- 
dinary flock  or  herd.  The  qualities  specified  as  best 
in  an  ox  may  perhaps  astonish  a  modern  grazier ;  but 
it  must  be  remembered,  that  they  are  applicable  to  the 
capacity  for  labour,  not  of  carrying  beef.  Hogs  were 
fed  by  the  Romans  on  acorns,  beans,  and  barley  ;  and, 
like  our  own,  indulged  freely  in  the  luxury  of  mire, 
which,  Varro  says,  is  as  refreshing  to  them  as  the  bath 
to  human  creatures.  The  Romans,  however,  did  not 
rear,  as  we  do,  a  solitary  ill-looking  pig  in  a  sty,  but 
possessed  great  herds,  sometimes  amounting  to  the 
number  of  two  or  three  hundred. 

From  what  the  author  records  while  treating  of  the 
pasturage  of  sheep,  we  learn  that  a  similar  practice 
prevailed  in  Italy,  with  that  which  at  this  day  exists 
in  Spain,  in  the  management  of  the  Merinos  belong- 
ing to  the  Mesta.  Flocks  of  sheep,  which  pastured 
during  winter  in  Apulia,  were  driven  to  a  great  dis- 
tance from  that  region,  to  pass  the  summer  in  Sam- 
mum  ;  and  mules  were  led  from  the  champaign  grounds 
of  Rosea,  at  certain  seasons,  to  the  high  Gurgurian 
mountains.  With  much  valuable  and  curious  infor- 
mation on  all  these  various  topics,  there  are  intersper- 
sed a  great  many  strange  superstitions  and  fables,  or 


48  VARRO. 

what  may  be  called  vulgar  errors,  as  that  swine  breathe 
by  the  ears  instead  of  the  mouth  or  nostrils — that 
when  a  wolf  gets  hold  of  a  sow,  the  first  thing  he  does 
is  to  plunge  it  in  cold  water,  as  his  teeth  cannot  other- 
wise bear  the  heat  of  the  flesh — that  on  the  shore  of 
Lusitania,  mares  conceive  from  the  winds,  but  their 
foals  do  not  live  above  three  years — and  what  is  more 
inexplicable,  one  of  the  speakers  in  the  dialogue  as- 
serts, that  he  himself  had  seen  a  sow  in  Arcadia  so  fat, 
that  a  field-mouse  had  made  a  comfortable  nest  in  her 
flesh,  and  brought  forth  its  young. 

This  book  concludes  with  what  forms  the  most  pro- 
fitable part  of  pasturage — the  dairy  and  sheep-shear- 
ing. 

The  third  book,  which  is  by  far  the  most  interest- 
ing and  best  written  in  the  work,  treats  de  villicis 
pastionibus,  which  means  the  provisions,  or  moderate 
luxuries,  which  a  plain  farmer  may  procure,  independ- 
ent of  tillage  or  pasturage,— as  the  poultry  of  his  barn- 
yard— the  trouts  in  the  stream,  by  which  his  farm  is 
bounded — and  the  game,  which  he  may  enclose  in 
parks,  or  chance  to  take  on  days  of  recreation.  If  others 
of  the  agricultural  writers  have  been  more  minute  with 
regard  to  the  construction  of  the  villa  itself,  it  is 
to  Varro  we  are  chiefly  indebted  for  what  lights  we 
have  received  concerning  its  appertenancies,  as  war- 
rens, aviaries,  and  fish-ponds.  The  dialogue  on  these 
subjects  is  introduced  in  the  following  manner  : — At 
the  comitia,  held  for  electing  an  Edile,  Varro  and  the 
Senator  Axius,  having  given  their  votes  for  the  can- 
didate whom  they  mutually  favoured,  and  wishing  to 


VARRO.  49 

be  at  his  house  to  receive  him  on  his  return  home, 
after  all  the  suffrages  had  been  taken,  resolved  to  wait 
the  issue  in  the  shade  of  a  villa  publica.  There  they 
found  Appius  Claudius,  the  augur,  whom  Axius  began 
to  rally  on  the  magnificence  of  his  villa,  at  the  extre- 
mity of  the  Campus  Martius,  which  he  contrasts  with 
the  profitable  plainness  of  his  own  farm  in  the  Rea- 
tine  district.  "  Your  sumptuous  mansion,"  says  he, 
"  is  adorned  with  painting,  sculpture,  and  carving ; 
but  to  make  amends  for  the  want  of  these,  I  have  all 
that  is  necessary  to  the  cultivation  of  lands,  and  the 
feeding  of  cattle.  In  your  splendid  abode,  there  is  no 
sign  of  the  vicinity  of  arable  lands,  or  vineyards.  We 
find  there  neither  ox  nor  horse — there  is  neither  vin- 
tage in  the  cellars,  nor  corn  in  the  granary.  In  what 
respect  does  this  resemble  the  villa  of  your  ancestors  ? 
A  house  cannot  be  called  a  farm  or  a  villa,  merely 
because  it  is  built  beyond  the  precincts  of  the  city." 
This  polite  remonstrance  gives  rise  to  a  discussion  with 
regard  to  the  proper  definition  of  a  villa,  and  whether 
that  appellation  can  be  applied  to  a  residence,  where 
there  is  neither  tillage  nor  pasturage.  It  seems  to  be 
at  length  agreed,  that  a  mansion  which  is  without 
these,  and  is  merely  ornamental,  cannot  be  called  a 
villa  ;  but  that  it  is  properly  so  termed,  though  there 
be  neither  tillage  nor  pasturage,  if  fish-ponds,  pigeon- 
houses,  and  bee-hives,  be  kept  for  the  sake  of  profit ; 
and  it  is  discussed  whether  such  villas,  or  agricultural 
farms,  are  most  lucrative. 

Our  author  divides  the  Villaticce  pastiones  into 
poultry,  game,  and  fish.  Under  the  first  class,  he  com- 

VOL.  II.  D 


50  VARRO. 

prehends  birds,  such  as  thrushes,  which  are  kept  in 
aviaries,  to  be  eaten,  but  not  any  birds  of  game.  Rules 
and  directions  are  given  for  their  management,  of  the 
same  sort  with  those  concerning  the  animals  mentioned 
in  the  preceding  book.  The  aviaries  in  the  Roman 
villas  were  wonderfully  productive  and  profitable.  A 
very  particular  account  is  given  of  the  construction  of 
an  aviary.  Varro  himself  had  one  at  his  farm,  near 
Casinum,  but  it  was  intended  more  for  pleasure  and 
recreation  than  profit.  The  description  he  gives  of  it 
is  very  minute,  but  not  very  distinct.  The  pigeon- 
house  is  treated  of  separately  from  the  aviary.  As  to 
the  game,  the  instructions  do  not  relate  to  field-sports, 
but  to  the  mode  of  keeping  wild  animals  in  enclosures 
or  warrens.  In  the  more  simple  and  moderate  ages  of 
the  republic,  these  were  merely  hare  or  rabbit  warrens, 
of  no  great  extent ;  but  as  wealth  and  luxury  increa- 
sed, they  were  enlarged  to  the  size  of  40  or  50  acres, 
and  frequently  contained  within  their  limits  goats,  wild 
boars,  and  deer.  The  author  even  descends  to  instruc- 
tions with  regard  to  keeping  and  fattening  snails  and 
dormice.  On  the  subject  of  fish  he  is  extremely  brief, 
because  that  was  rather  an  article  of  expensive  luxury 
than  homely  fare  ;  and  the  candidate,  besides,  was  now 
momentarily  expected.  Fish-ponds  had  increased  in 
the  same  proportion  as  warrens,  and  in  the  age  of 
Varro  were  often  formed  at  vast  expense.  Instances 
are  given  of  the  great  depth  and  extent  of  ponds  be- 
longing to  the  principal  citizens,  some  of  which  had 
subterraneous  communications  with  the  sea,  and  others 
were  supplied  by  rivers,  which  had  been  turned  from 


VARRO.  51 

their  course.  At  this  part  of  the  dialogue,  a  shout  aud 
unusual  bustle  announced  the  success  of  the  candidate 
whom  Varro  favoured :  on  hearing  this  tumult,  the 
party  gave  up  their  agricultural  disquisitions,  and  ac- 
companied him  in  triumph  to  the  Capitol. 

This  work  of  Varro  is  totally  different  from  that  of 
Cato  on  the  same  subject,  formerly  mentioned.  It  is 
not  a  journal,  but  a  book  ;  and  instead  of  the  loose  and 
unconnected  manner  in  which  the  brief  precepts  of  the 
Censor  are  delivered,  it  is  composed  on  a  plan  not  mere- 
ly regular,  but  perhaps  somewhat  too  stiff  and  formal. 
Its  exact  and  methodical  arrangement  has  particularly 
attracted  the  notice  of  Scaliger. — "  Unicum  Varronem 
inter  Latinos  habemus,  libris  tribus  de  Re  Rustica, 
qui  vere  ac  ft&Jktoe  philosophatus  sit.  Immo  nullus 
est  Graecorum  qui  tam  bene,  inter  eos  saltern  qui  ad 
nos  pervenerunt."1  Instead,  too,  of  that  directness  and 
simplicity  which  never  deviate  from  the  plainest  pre- 
cepts of  agriculture,  the  work  of  Varro  is  embellished 
and  illustrated  by  much  of  the  erudition  which  might 
be  expected  from  the  learning  of  its  author,  and  of 
one  acquainted  with  fifty  Greek  writers  who  had  treat- 
ed of  the  subject  before  him.  "  Cato,  the  famous  Cen- 
sor," says  Martyn,  "  writes  like  an  ancient  country 
gentleman  of  much  experience :  He  abounds  in  short 
pithy  sentences,  intersperses  his  book  with  moral  pre- 
cepts, and  was  esteemed  a  sort  of  oracle.  Varro  writes 
more  like  a  scholar  than  a  man  of  much  practice  :  He 
is  fond  of  research  into  antiquity,  and  inquires  into 
the  etymology  of  the  names  of  persons  and  things. 

1  Scaligerana  prima,  p.  144. 


52  VARRO. 

Cato,  too,  speaks  of  a  country  life,  and  of  farming, 
merely  as  it  may  be  conducive  to  gain.  Varro  also 
speaks  of  it  as  of  a  wise  and  happy  state,  inclining  to 
justice,  temperance,  sincerity,  and  all  the  virtues,  which 
shelters  from  evil  passions,  by  affording  that  constant 
employment,  which  leaves  little  leisure  for  those  vices 
which  prevail  in  cities,  where  the  means  and  occasions 
for  them  are  created  and  supplied." 

There  were  other  Latin  works  on  agriculture,  be- 
sides those  of  Cato  and  Varro,  but  they  were  subse- 
quent to  the  time  which  the  present  volumes  are  in- 
tended to  embrace.  Strictly  speaking,  indeed,  even  the 
work  of  Varro  was  written  after  the  battle  of  Actium : 
the  knowledge,  however,  on  which  its  precepts  were 
founded,  was  acquired  long  before.  The  style,  too,  is 
that  of  the  Roman  republic,  not  of  the  Augustan  age. 
I  have  therefore  considered  Varro  as  belonging  to  the 
period  on  which  we  are  at  present  engaged. 

Indeed,  the  history  of  his  life  and  writings  is  almost 
identified  with  the  literary  history  of  Rome,  during 
the  long  period  through  which  his  existence  was  pro- 
tracted. But  the  treatise  on  agriculture  is  the  only  one 
of  his  multifarious  works  which  has  descended  to  us  en- 
tire. The  other  writings  of  this  celebrated  polygraph, 
as  Cicero  calls  him,1  may  be  divided  into  philological, 
critical,  historical,  mythological,  philosophic,  and  sa- 
tiric ;  and,  after  all,  it  would  probably  be  necessary,  in 
order  to  form  a  complete  catalogue,  to  add  the  conve- 
nient and  comprehensive  class  of  miscellaneous. 

The  work  De  Lingua  Latind,  though  it  has  de- 

1  noAt>yg*fAiT*T«$.   Epist.  ad  Attic.  Lib.  III.  Ep.  18. 


VARItO.  53 

scended  to  us  incomplete,  is  by  much  the  most  entire 
of  Varro's  writings,  except  the  Treatise  on  Agricul- 
ture. It  is  on  account  of  this  philological  production, 
that  Aulus  Gellius  ranks  him  among  the  grammari- 
ans, who  form  a  numerous  and  important  class  in  the 
History  of  Latin  Literature.  They  were  called  gram- 
matici  by  the  Romans — a  word  which  would  be  bet- 
ter rendered  philologers  than  grammarians.  The  gram- 
matic  science,  among  the  Romans,  was  not  confined 
to  the  inflections  of  words  or  rules  of  syntax.  It  form- 
ed one  of  the  great  divisions  of  the  art  of  criticism, 
and  was  understood  to  comprehend  all  those  different 
inquiries  which  philology  includes — embracing  not 
only  grammar,  properly  so  called,  but  verbal  and  lite- 
ral criticism,  etymology,  the  explication  and  just  in- 
terpretation of  authors,  and  emendation  of  corrupted 
passages.  Indeed  the  name  of  grammarian  (gramma- 
ticus)  is  frequently  applied  by  ancient  authors'  to  those 
whom  we  should  now  term  critics  and  commentators, 
rather  than  grammarians. 

It  will  be  readily  conceived  that  a  people,  who,  like 
the  first  Romans,  were  chiefly  occupied  with  war,  and 
whose  relaxation  was  agriculture,  did  not  attach  much 
importance  to  a  science,  of  which  the  professed  object 
was,  teaching  how  to  speak  and  write  with  propriety. 
Accordingly,  almost  six  hundred  years  elapsed  before 
they  formed  any  idea  of  such  a  study.2  Crates  Mallo- 
tes,  who  was  a  contemporary  of  Aristarchus,  and  was 
sent  as  ambassador  to  Rome,  by  Attalus,  King  of 

1  Cicero,  De  Divinat.  Lib.  I.  c  18.     Seneca,  Epist.  98. 

2  Suetonius,  De  Illust.  Grammat.  c.  1. 


54  VARRO. 

Pergamus,  towards  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,1  was 
the  first  who  excited  a  taste  for  grammatical  inquiries. 
Having  accidentally  broken  his  leg  in  the  course  of 
his  embassy,  he  employed  the  period  of  his  convales- 
cence in  receiving  visitors,  to  whom  he  delivered  lec- 
tures, containing  grammatic  disquisitions :  and  he  also 
read  and  commented  on  poets  hitherto  unknown  in 
Rome.2  These  discussions,  however,  probably  turned 
solely  on  Greek  words,  and  the  interpretation  of  Greek 
authors.  It  is  not  likely  that  Crates  had  such  a  know- 
ledge of  the  Latin  tongue,  as  to  give  lectures  on  a  sub- 
ject which  requires  minute  and  extensive  acquaintance 
with  the  language.  His  instructions,  however,  had 
the  effect  of  fixing  the  attention  of  the  Romans  on 
their  own  language,  and  on  their  infant  literature. 
Men  sprung  up  who  commented  on,  and  explained, 
the  few  Latin  poems  which  at  that  time  existed.  C. 
Octavius  Lampadius  illustrated  the  Punic  War  of 
Naevius ;  and  also  divided  that  poem  into  seven  books. 
About  the  same  time,  Q.  Vargunteius  lectured  on  the 
Annals  of  Ennius,  on  certain  fixed  days,  to  crowded 

1  Suetonius  (De  Jllust.  Grata.)  says,  that  he  was  sent  by  Atta- 
lus,  at  the  moment  of  the  death  of  Ennius.  Now,  Ennius  died  in 
585,  at  which  time  Eumenes  reigned  at  Pergamus,  and  was  not 
succeeded  by  Attalus  till  the  year  595 ;  so  that  Suetonius  was 
mistaken,  either  as  to  the  year  in  which  Crates  came  to  Rome,  or 
the  king  by  whom  he  was  sent — I  rather  think  he  was  wrong  in 
the  latter  point ;  for,  if  Crates  was,  the  first  Greek  rhetorician  who 
taught  at  Rome,  which  seems  universally  admitted,  he  must  have 
been  there  before  593,  in  which  year  the  rhetoricians  were  express- 
ly banished  from  Rome,  along  with  the  philosophers. 
Suetonius,  c  2. 


VARRO.  55 

audiences.  Q.  Philocomus  soon  afterwards  performed 
a  similar  service  for  the  Satires  of  his  friend  Lucilius. 
Among  these  early  grammarians,  Suetonius  particu- 
larly mentions  iElius  Preconinus  and  Servius  Clodius. 
The  former  was  the  master  of  Varro  and  Cicero  ;  he 
was  also  a  rhetorician  of  eminence,  and  composed  a 
number  of  orations  for  the  Patricians,  to  whose  cause 
he  was  so  ardently  attached,  that,  when  Metellus  Nu- 
midicus  was  banished  in  654s,  he  accompanied  him 
into  exile.  Serv.  Clodius  was  the  son-in-law  of  Lae- 
lius,  and  fraudently  appropriated,  it  is  said,  a  gram- 
matical work,  written  by  his  distinguished  relative, 
which  shows  the  honour  and  credit  by  this  time  at- 
tached to  such  pursuits  at  Rome.  Clodius  was  a  Ro- 
man knight ;  and,  from  his  example,  men  of  rank  did 
not  disdain  to  write  concerning  grammar,  and  even  to 
teach  its  principles.  Still,  however,  the  greater  num- 
ber of  grammarians,  at  least  of  the  verbal  gramma- 
rians, were  slaves.  If  well  versed  in  the  science,  they 
brought,  as  we  learn  from  Suetonius,  exorbitant  prices. 
Luctatius  Daphnis  was  purchased  by  Quintus  Catu- 
lus  for  200,000  pieces  of  money,  and  shortly  afterwards 
set  at  liberty.  This  was  a  strong  encouragement  for 
masters  to  instruct  their  slaves  in  grammar,  and  for 
them  to  acquire  its  rules.  Saevius  Nicanor,  and  Aure- 
lius  Opilius,  who  wrote  a  commentary,  in  nine  books, 
on  different  writers,  were  freedmen,  as  was  also  An- 
tonius  Gnipho,  a  Gaul,  who  had  been  taught  Greek 
at  Alexandria,  whither  he  was  carried  in  his  youth, 
and  was  subsequently  instructed  in  Latin  literature  at 
Rome.  Though  a  man  of  great  learning  in  the  science 


56  VARRO. 

he  professed,  he  left  only  two  small  volumes  on  the  La- 
tin language — his  time  having  been  principally  occu- 
pied in  teaching.    He  taught  first  in  the  house  of  the 
father  of  Julius  Caesar,  and  afterwards  lectured  at  home 
to  those  who  chose  to  attend  him.  The  greatest  men  of 
Rome,  when  far  advanced  in  age  and  dignity,  did  not 
disdain  to  frequent  his  school.    Many  of  his  precepts, 
indeed,  extended  to  rhetoric  and  declamation,  the  arts, 
of  all  others,  in  which  the  Romans  were  most  anxious 
to  be  initiated.   These  were  now  taught  in  the  schools 
of  almost  all  grammarians,  of  whom  there  were,  at  one 
time,  upwards  of  twenty  in  Rome.    For  a  long  while, 
only  the  Greek  poets  were  publicly  explained,  but  at 
length  the  Latin  poets  were  likewise  commented  on 
and  illustrated.    About  the  same  period,  the  etymo- 
logy of  Latin  words  began  to  be  investigated  :  iElius 
Gallus,  a  jurisconsult  quoted  by  Varro,  wrote  a  work 
on  the  origin  and  proper  signification  of  terms  of  juris- 
prudence, which  in  most  languages  remain  unvaried, 
till  they  have  become  nearly  unintelligible ;  and  iElius 
Stilo  attempted,  though  not  with  perfect  success,  to 
explain  the  proper  meaning  of  the  words  of  the  Salian 
verses,  by  ascertaining  their  derivations.1 

The  science  of  grammar  and  etymology  was  in  this 
stage  of  progress  and  in  this  degree  of  repute  at  the 
time  when  Varro  wrote  his  celebrated  treatise  DeLin- 
gudLatind.  That  work  originally  consisted  of  twenty- 
four  books — the  first  three  being  dedicated  to  Publius 
Septimius,  who  had  been  his  quaestor  in  the  war  with 

1  Court  de  Gebelin,  Monde  Primitif,  T.  VI.  Disc.  Prelim,  p.  12. 


VARRO.  57 

the  pirates,  and  the  remainder  to  Cicero.  This  last 
dedication,  with  that  of  Cicero's  Academica  to  Varro, 
has  rendered  their  friendship  immortal.  The  impor- 
tance attached  to  such  dedications  by  the  great  men  of 
Rome,  and  the  value,  in  particular,  placed  by  Cicero 
on  a  compliment  of  this  nature  from  Varro,  is  estab- 
lished by  a  letter  of  the  orator  to  Atticus — "  You 
know,"  says  he,  "  that,  till  lately,  I  composed  nothing 
but  orations,  or  some  such  works,  into  which  I  could 
not  introduce  Varro's  name  with  propriety.  After- 
wards, when  I  engaged  in  a  work  of  more  general  eru- 
dition, Varro  informed  me,  that  his  intention  was,  to 
address  to  me  a  work  of  considerable  extent  and  im- 
portance. Two  years,  however,  have  passed  away  with- 
out his  making  any  progress.  Meanwhile,  I  have  been 
mi&ing  preparations  for  returning  him  the  compli- 
ment."1 Again,  "  I  am  anxious  to  know  how  you 
came  to  be  informed  that  a  man  like  Varro,  who  has 
written  so  much,  without  addressing  anything  to  me, 
should  wish  me  to  pay  him  a  compliment."2  The 
Academica  were  dedicated  to  Varro  before  he  fulfilled 
his  promise  of  addressing  a  work  to  Cicero ;  and  it 
appears,  from  Cicero's  letter  to  Varro,  sent  along  with 
the  Academica,  how  impatiently  he  expected  its  per- 
formance, and  how  much  he  importuned  him  for  its 
execution. — u  To  exact  the  fulfilment  of  a  promise," 
says  he,  "  is  a  sort  of  ill  manners,  of  which  the  popu- 
lace themselves  are  seldom  guilty.  I  cannot,  however, 
forbear — I  will  not  say,  to  demand,  but  remind  you, 

1  Epist.  ad  Attic.  Lib.  XIII.  Ep.  12. 

2  Ibid.  Lib.  XIII.  Ep.  18. 


58  VAKiio. 

of  a  favour,  which  you  long  since  gave  me  reason  to 
expect.  To  this  end,  I  have  sent  you  four  admonitors, 
(the  four  books  of  the  Academica,)  whom,  perhaps, 
you  will  not  consider  as  extremely  modest."1  It  is  cu- 
rious, that  when  Varro  did  at  length  come  forth  with 
his  dedication,  although  he  had  been  highly  extolled 
in  the  Academica,  he  introduced  not  a  single  word  of 
compliment  to  Cicero — whether  it  was  that  Varro 
dealt  not  in  compliment,  that  he  was  disgusted  with 
his  friend's  insatiable  appetite  for  praise,  or  that  Cicero 
was  considered  as  so  exalted  that  he  could  not  be  ele- 
vated higher  by  panegyric. 

We  find  in  the  work  De  Lingua  Latind,  which  was 
written  during  the  winter  preceding  Caesar's  death,  the 
same  methodical  arrangement  that  marks  the  treatise 
De  Re  Rustled.  The  twenty-four  books  of  which  it 
consisted,  were  divided  into  three  great  parts.  The  first 
six  books  were  devoted  to  etymological  researches,  or,  as 
Varro  himself  expresses  it,  quemadmodum  vocabula 
essent  imposita  rebus  in  lingua  Latind.  In  the  first, 
second,  and  third  books,  of  this  division  of  his  work,  all 
of  which  have  perished,  the  author  had  brought  forward 
what  an  admirer  of  etymological  science  could  advance 
in  its  favour — what  a  depreciator  might  say  against 
it ;  and  what  might  be  pronounced  concerning  it  with- 
out enthusiasm  or  prejudice. — "  Quae  contra  earn  di- 
centur,  qua?  pro  ea,  que  de  ea."  The  fragments  re- 
maining of  this  great  work  of  Varro,  commence  at  the 
fourth  book,  which,  with  the  two  succeeding  books,  is 
occupied  with  the  origin  of  Latin  terms,  and  the  poe- 
1  Epist.  Famil.  Lib.  IX.  Ep.  8. 


VARRO.  59 

tical  licenses  that  have  been  taken  in  their  use.  He 
first  considers  the  origin  of  the  names  of  places,  and 
of  those  things  which  are  in  them.  His  great  division 
of  places  is,  into  heaven  and  earth — Caelum  he  derives 
from  cavum,  and  that,  from  chaos ;  terra  is  so  called 
quia  teritur.  The  derivation  of  the  names  of  many 
terrestrial  regions  is  equally  whimsical.  The  most  ra- 
tional are  those  of  the  different  spots  in  Rome,  which 
are  chiefly  named  after  individuals,  as  the  Tarpeian 
rock,  from  Tarpeia,  a  vestal  virgin,  slain  by  the  Sabines 
— the  Coelian  Mount,  from  Ccelius,  an  Etrurian  chief, 
who  assisted  Romulus  in  one  of  his  contests  with  his 
neighbours.  Following  the  same  arrangement  with 
regard  to  those  things  which  are  in  places,  he  first 
treats  of  the  immortals,  or  gods  of  heaven  and  earth. 
Descending  to  mortal  things,  he  treats  of  animals, 
whom  he  considers  as  in  three  places — air,  water,  and 
earth.  The  creatures  inhabiting  earth  he  divides  into 
men,  cattle,  and  wild  beasts.  Of  the  appellations  pro- 
per to  mankind,  he  speaks  first  of  public  honours,  as 
the  office  of  Praetor,  who  was  so  called,  "  quod  prseiret 
exercitui."  We  have  then  the  derivations  both  of  the 
generic  and  special  names  of  animals.  Thus,  Armenta 
(quasi  aramenta)  is  from  aro,  because  oxen  are  used 
for  ploughing ;  Lepus  is  quasi  Levipes.  The  remain- 
der of  the  book  is  occupied  with  those  words  which  re- 
late to  food,  clothing,  and  various  sorts  of  utensils.  Of 
these,  the  derivation  is  given,  and  it  is  generally  far- 
fetched. But  of  all  his  etymologies,  the  most  whim- 
sical is  that  contained  in  his  book  of  Divine  Things, 


60  VARltO. 

where  he  deduces  fur  fvomjurvus,  (dusky,)  because 
thieves  usually  steal  during  the  darkness  of  night.1 

The  fifth  book  relates  to  words  expressive  of  time 
and  its  divisions,  and  to  those  things  which  are  done 
in  the  course  of  time.  He  begins  with  the  months 
and  days  consecrated  to  the  service  of  the  gods,  or 
performance  of  accustomed  rites.  Things  which  hap- 
pen during  the  lapse  of  time,  are  divided  into  three 
classes,  according  to  the  three  great  human  functions 
of  thought,  speech,  and  act.  The  third  class,  or  ac- 
tions, are  performed  by  means  of  the  external  senses ; 
the  mention  of  which  introduces  the  explication  of  those 
terms  which  express  the  various  operations  of  the  senses; 
and  the  book  terminates  with  a  list  of  vocables  derived 
from  the  Greek.  These  two  books  relate  to  the  com- 
mon employment  of  words.  In  the  sixth,  the  author 
treats  of  poetic  words,  and  the  poetic  or  metaphoric  use 
of  ordinary  terms,  of  which  he  gives  examples.  Here 
he  follows  the  same  arrangement  already  adopted — 
speaking  first  of  places,  and  then  of  time,  and  show- 
ing, as  he  proceeds,  the  manner  in  which  poets  have 
changed  or  corrupted  the  original  signification  of  words. 

Such  is  the  first  division  of  the  work  of  Varro,  form- 
ing what  he  himself  calls  the  etymological  part.  He 
admits  that  it  was  a  subject  of  much  difficulty  and 
obscurity,  since  many  original  words  had  become  ob- 
solete in  course  of  time,  and  of  those  which  survived, 
the  meaning  had  been  changed  or  had  never  been  im- 
posed with  exactness.     The  second  division,  which 

1  Aulus  Gellius,  Lib.  I.  c.  18. 


VARRO.  61 

extended  from  the  commencement  of  the  seventh  to 
the  end  of  the  twelfth  book,  comprehended  the  acci- 
dents of  words,  and  the  different  changes  which  they 
undergo  from  declension,  conjugation,  and  comparison. 
The  author  admits  but  of  two  kinds  of  words — nouns 
and  verbs,  to  which  he  refers  all  the  other  parts  of 
speech.  He  distinguishes  two  sorts  of  declensions,  of 
which  he  calls  one  arbitrary,  and  the  other  natural  or 
necessary ;  and  he  is  thenceforth  alternately  occupied 
with  analogy  and  anomaly.  In  the  seventh  book  he 
discusses  the  subject  of  analogy  in  general,  and  gives 
the  arguments  which  may  be  adduced  against  its  ex- 
istence in  nouns  proper  :  In  the  eighth,  he  reasons 
like  those  who  find  analogies  everywhere.  Book  ninth 
treats  of  the  analogy  and  anomaly  of  verbs,  and  with 
it  the  fragment  we  possess  of  Varro's  treatise  termi- 
nates. The  three  other  books,  which  completed  the 
second  part,  were  of  course  occupied  with  comparison 
and  the  various  inflections  of  words. 

The  third  part  of  the  work,  which  contained  twelve 
books,  treated  of  syntax,  or  the  junction  of  words,  so 
as  to  form  a  phrase  or  sentence.  It  also  contained  a 
sort  of  glossary,  which  explained  the  true  meaning  of 
Latin  vocables. 

This,  which  may  be  considered  as  one  of  the  chief 
works  of  Varro,  was  certainly  a  laborious  and  inge- 
nious production  ;  but  the  author  is  evidently  too 
fond  of  deriving  words  from  the  ancient  dialects  of 
Italy,  instead  of  recurring  to  the  Greek,  which,  after 
the  capture  of  Tarentum,  became  a  great  source  of  La- 
tin terms.     In  general,  the  Romans,  like  the  Greeks 


62  VAiuio. 

before  them,  have  been  very  unfortunate  in  their  ety- 
mologies, being  but  indifferent  critics,  and  inadequate- 
ly informed  of  everything  that  did  not  relate  to  their 
own  country.  Blackwell,  in  his  Court  of  Augustus, 
while  he  admits  that  the  sagacity  of  Varro  is  sur- 
prising in  the  use  which  he  has  made  of  the  knowledge 
he  possessed  of  the  Sabine  and  Tuscan  dialects,  re- 
marks, that  his  work,  De  Lingua  Latind,  is  faulty 
in  two  particulars  ;  the  first,  arising  from  the  author 
having  recourse  to  far-fetched  allusions  and  metaphors 
in  his  own  language,  to  illustrate  his  etymology  of 
words,  instead  of  going  at  once  to  the  Greek.  The 
second,  proceeding  from  his  ignorance  of  the  eastern 
and  northern  languages,  particularly  the  Aramean  and 
Celtic  ;l  the  former  of  which,  in  BlackwelPs  opinion, 
had  given  names  to  the  greater  number  of  the  gods, 
and  the  latter,  to  matters  occurring  in  war  and  rustic 
life. 

It  is  not  certain  whether  the  Libri  De  Similitudine 
Verborum,  and  those  De  Utilitate  Sermonis,  cited  by 
Priscian  and  Charisius  as  philological  works  of  Varro, 
were  parts  of  his  great  production,  De  Lingua  Latu 
nd,  or  separate  compositions.  There  was  a  distinct 
treatise,  however,  De  Sermone  Latino,  addressed  to 
Marcellus,  of  which  a  very  few  fragments  are  preserved 
by  Aulus  Gellius. 

The  critical  works  of  this  universal  scholar,  were 
entitled,  De  Proprietate  Scriptorum — De  Poetis — 
De  Poematis — Theatreales,  she  de  Actio?iibus  Sce- 
nicis — De  Scenicis  Originibus — De  Plautinis  Co- 

1  See,  also,  as  to  the  Celtic  derivations,  Court  de  Gebelin,  Monde 
Primitif.  Disc.  Prelim.  T.  VI.  p.  23. 


VARRO.  63 

mcediis — De  Plautinis  Qucestionibus — De  Composi- 
tione  Satirarum — Rhetoricorum  Libri.  These  works 
are  praised  or  mentioned  by  Gellius,  Nonius  Marcel- 
lus,  and  Diomedes  ;  but  almost  nothing  is  known  of 
their  contents. 

Somewhat  more  may  be  gathered  concerning  Var- 
ro's  mythological  or  theological  works,  as  they  were 
much  studied,  and  very  frequently  cited  by  the  early 
fathers,  particularly  St  Augustine  and  Lactantius.  Of 
these  the  chief  is  the  treatise  De  Cultu  Deorum, 
noticed  by  St  Augustine  in  his  seventh  book,  De  Ci- 
vitate  Dei,  where  he  says  that  Varro  considers  God 
to  be  not  only  the  soul  of  the  world,  but  the  world 
itself.  In  this  work,  he  also  treated  of  the  origin  of 
hydromancy,  and  other  superstitious  divinations.  Six- 
teen books  of  the  treatise  De  Rerum  Humanarum 
et  DivinarumAntiquitatibus,  addressed  to  Julius  Cae- 
sar, as  Pontifex  Maximus,  related  to  theological,  or  at 
least  what  we  might  call  ecclesiastical  subjects.  He 
divides  theology  into  three  sorts — mythic,  physical, 
and  civil.  The  first  is  chiefly  employed  by  poets,  who 
have  feigned  many  things  contrary  to  the  nature  and 
dignity  of  the  immortals,  as  that  they  sprung  from  the 
head,  or  thigh,  or  from  drops  of  blood — that  they  com- 
mitted thefts  and  impure  actions,  and  were  the  servants 
of  men.  The  second  species  of  theology  is  that  which  we 
meet  with  in  the  books  of  philosophers,  in  which  it  is 
discussed,  whether  the  gods  have  been  from  all  eternity, 
and  what  is  their  essence,  whether  of  fire,  or  numbers, 
or  atoms.  Civil,  or  the  third  kind  of  theology,  relates 
to  the  institutions  devised  by  men,  for  the  worship  of  the 


64  VARRO. 

gods.  The  first  sort  is  most  appropriate  to  the  stage ; 
the  second  to  the  world ;  the  third  to  the  city.  Varro 
was  a  zealous  advocate  for  the  physical  explication  of 
the  mythological  fables,  to  which  he  always  had  re- 
course, when  pressed  by  the  difficulties  of  their  literal 
meaning.1  He  also  seems  to  have  been  of  opinion  that 
the  images  of  the  gods  were  originally  intended  to 
direct  such  as  were  acquainted  with  the  secret  doc- 
trines, to  the  contemplation  of  the  real  gods,  and  of 
the  immortal  soul  with  its  constituent  parts.2  The  first 
book  of  this  work,  as  we  learn  from  St  Augustine, 
was  introductory.  The  three  following  treated  of  the 
ministers  of  religion,  the  Pontiffs,  Augurs,  and  Si- 
byls ;  in  mentioning  whom,  he  relates  the  well-known 
story  of  her  who  offered  her  volumes  for  sale  to  Tar- 
quinius  Priscus.  In  the  next  ternary  of  chapters,  he 
discoursed  concerning  places  appointed  for  religious 
worship,  and  the  celebration  of  sacred  rites.  The  third 
ternary  related  to  holidays ;  the  fourth  to  consecra- 
tions, and  to  private  as  well  as  public  sacrifices ;  and 
the  fifth  contained  an  enumeration  of  all  the  deities 
who  watch  over  man,  from  the  moment  when  Janus 
opens  to  him  the  gates  of  life,  till  the  dirges  of  Nae- 
nia  conduct  him  to  the  tomb.  The  whole  universe, 
he  says,  in  conclusion,  is  divided  into  heaven  and 
earth ;  the  heavens,  again,  into  aether  and  air ;  earth, 
into  the  ground  and  water.  All  these  are  full  of  souls, 

i  Jupiter,  Juno,  Saturnus,  Vulcanus,  Vesta,  et  alii  plurimi  quos 
Varro  conatuv  ad  mundi  partes  sive  elementa  transferre.  (St  Au- 
gust. Civit.  Dei,  Lib.  VIII.  c.  5.) 

8  Lactantius,  Div.  Inst.  Lib.  I.  c.  6. 

6 


VARRO.  65 

mortal  in  earth  and  water,  but  immortal  in  air  and 
aether.  Between  the  highest  circle  of  heaven  and  the 
orbit  of  the  moon,  are  the  ethereal  souls  of  the  stars 
and  planets,  which  are  understood,  and  in  fact  seem, 
to  be  celestial  deities  ;  between  the  sphere  of  the  moon 
and  the  highest  region  of  tempests,  dwell  those  aerial 
spirits,  which  are  conceived  by  the  mind  though  not 
seen  by  the  eye—departed  heroes,  Lares,  and  Genii. 
This  work,  which  is  said  to  have  chiefly  contributed 
to  the  splendid  reputation  of  Varro,  was  extant  as 
late  as  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century.  Pe- 
trarch, to  whom  the  world  has  been  under  such  infi- 
nite obligations  for  his  ardent  zeal  in  discovering  the 
learned  works  of  the  Romans,  had  seen  it  in  his  youth. 
It  continued  ever  after  to  be  the  object  of  his  diligent 
search,  and  his  bad  success  was  a  source  to  him  of  con- 
stant mortification.  Of  this  we  are  informed  in  one  of  the 
letters,  which  that  enthusiastic  admirer  of  the  ancients 
addressed  to  them  as  if  they  had  been  alive,  and  his 
contemporaries.  "  Nulla?  tamen  exstant,"  says  he  to 
Varro,"  vel  admodum  lacerae, tuorum  operum  reliquiae; 
licet  divinarum  et  humanarum  rerum  libros,  ex  qui- 
bus  sonantius  nomen  habes,  puerum  me  vidisse  memi- 
nerim,  et  recordatione  torqueor,  summis,  ut  aiunt,  la- 
biis  gustatae  dulcedinis.  Hos  alicubi  forsitan  latitare 
suspicor,  eaque,  multos  jam  per  annos,  me  fatigat  cura, 
quoniam  longa  quidem  ac  sollicita  spe  nihil  est  labo- 
riosius  in  vita." 

Plutarch,  in  his  life  of  Romulus,  speaks  of  Varro 
as  a  man  of  all  the  Romans  most  versed  in  history. 
The  historical  and  political  works  are  the  Annates 

VOL.  II.  e 


66  VARRO. 

Libri — Belli  Punici  Secundi  Liber — De  Initiis  Ur- 
bis  Romance — De  Gente  Populi  Romani — Libri  de 
Familiis  Trojanis,  which  last  treated  of  the  families 
that  followed  iEneas  into  Italy.  With  this  class  we 
may  rank  the  Hebdomadum,  sive  de  Imaginibus 
Libri,  containing  the  panegyrics  of  700  illustrious 
men.  There  was  a  picture  of  each,  with  a  legend  or 
verse  under  it,  like  those  in  the  children's  histories  of 
the  Kings  of  England.  That  annexed  to  the  por- 
trait of  Demetrius  Phalereus,  who  had  upwards  of 
300  brazen  statues  erected  to  him  by  the  Athenians, 
is  still  preserved: — 

"  Hie  Demetrius  aeneis  tot  aptus  est 
Quot  luces  habet  annus  absolutus." 

There  were  seven  pictures  and  panegyrics  in  each 
book,  whence  the  whole  work  has  been  called  Hebdo- 
mades.  Varro  had  adopted  the  superstitious  notions 
of  the  ancients  concerning  particular  numbers,  and  the 
number  seven  seems  specially  to  have  commanded  his 
veneration.  There  were  in  the  world  seven  wonders 
— there  were  seven  wise  men  among  the  Greeks — 
there  were  seven  chariots  in  the  Circensian  games — : 
and  seven  chiefs  were  chosen  to  make  war  on  Thebes  : 
All  which  he  sums  up  with  remarking,  that  he  him- 
self had  then  entered  his  twelfth  period  of  seven  years, 
on  which  day  he  had  written  seventy  times  seven 
books,  many  of  which,  in  consequence  of  his  proscrip- 
tion, had  been  lost  in  the  plunder  of  his  library.  It 
appears  from  Ausonius,  that  the  tenth  book  of  this 
work  was  occupied  with  pictures  and  panegyrics  of 


VARRO.  67 

distinguished  architects,  since,  in  his  Eidyllium,  en- 
titled Mosetta,  he  observes,  that  the  buildings  on 
the  banks  of  that  river  would  not  have  been  despised 
by  the  most  celebrated  architects ;  and  that  those  who 
planned  them  might  well  deserve  a  place  in  the  tenth 
book  of  the  Hebdomas  of  Varro  : — 

**■■  Forsan  et  insignes  hominumque  operumque  labores 
Hie  habuit  decimo  celebrata  volumine  Marci 
Hebdomas." 

It  is  evident,  however,  from  one  of  the  letters  of  Sym- 
machus,  addressed  to  his  father,  that  though  this  was 
a  professed  work  of  panegyric,  Varro  was  very  sparing 
and  niggardly  of  his  praise  even  to  the  greatest  cha- 
racters :  "  Ille  Pythagoram  qui  animas  in  aeternita- 
tem  primus  asseruit ;  ille  Platonem  qui  deos  esse  per- 
suasit ;  ille  Aristotelem  qui  naturam  bene  loquendi  in 
artem  redegit ;  ille  pauperem  Curium  sed  divitibus 
imperantem  ;  ille  severos  Catones,  gen  tern  Fabiam,  de- 
cora Scipionum,  totumque  ilium  triumphalem  Sena- 
tum  parca  laude  perstrinxit."  Varro  also  wrote  an 
eulogy  on  Porcia,  the  wife  of  Brutus,  which  is  alluded 
to  by  Cicero  in  one  of  his  letters  to  Atticus.  Among 
his  notices  of  celebrated  characters,  it  is  much  to  be 
regretted  that  the  Liber  de  Vita  Sua,  cited  by  Cha- 
risius,  has  shared  the  same  fate  as  most  of  the  other 
valuable  works  of  Varro.  The  treatise  entitled,  Si- 
senna,  sive  de  Historid,  was  a  tract  on  the  composi- 
tion of  history,  inscribed  to  Sisenna,  the  Roman  his- 
torian, who  wrote  an  account  of  the  civil  wars  of  Marius 
and  Sylla.  It  contained,  it  is  said,  many  excellent  pre- 
cepts with  regard  to  the  appropriate  style  of  history, 


68  *  VARRO. 

and  the  accurate  investigation  of  facts.  But  the  great- 
est service  rendered  by  Varro  to  history  was  his  at- 
tempt to  fix  the  chronology  of  the  world.  Censorinus 
informs  us  that  he  was  the  first  who  regulated  chro- 
nology by  eclipses.  That  learned  grammarian  has  also 
mentioned  the  division  of  three  great  periods  estab- 
lished by  Varro.    He  did  not  determine  whether  the 
earliest  of  them  had  any  beginning, but  he  fixed  theend 
of  it  at  the  Ogygian  deluge.  To  this  period  of  absolute 
historical  darkness,  he  supposed  that  a  kind  of  twilight 
succeeded,  which  continued  from  that  flood  till  the  in- 
stitution of  the  Olympic  games,  and  this  he  called  the 
fabulous  age.  From  that  date  the  Greeks  pretend  to  di- 
gest their  history  with  some  degree  of  order  and  clear- 
ness.    Varro,  therefore,  looked  on  it  as  the  break  of 
day,  or  commencement  of  the  historical  age.  The  chro- 
nology, however,  of  those  events  which  occurred  at  the 
beginning  of  this  second  period,  is  as  uncertain  and  con- 
fused as  of  those  which  immediately  preceded  it.  Thus, 
the  historical  aera  is  evidently  placed  too  high  by  Var- 
ro. The  earliest  writers  of  history  did  not  live  till  long 
after  the  Olympian  epoch,  and  they  again  long  prece- 
ded the  earliest  chronologers.  Timaeus,  about  the  time 
of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  was  the  first  who  digested  the 
events  recorded  by  these  ancient  historians,  according 
to  a  computation  of  the  Olympiads.1    Preceding  wri- 
ters, indeed,  mention  these  celebrated  epochs,  but  the 
mode  of  reckoning  by  them  was  not  brought  into  es- 
tablished use  for  many  centuries  after  the  Olympic 
aera.    Arnobius  farther  informs  us,  that  Varro  calcu- 

1  Bolingbroke,  Use  and  Study  of  History,  Lett.  3. 


VARRO.  69 

lated  that  not  quite  2000  years  had  elapsed  from  the 
Ogygian  flood  to  the  consulship  of  Hirtius  and  Pansa. 
The  building  of  Rome  he  placed  two  years  higher  than 
Cato  had  done  in  his  Origines,  founding  his  compu- 
tation on  the  eclipse  which  had  a  short  while  preceded 
the  birth  of  Romulus  ;  but  unfortunately  this  eclipse 
is  not  attested  by  contemporary  authors,  nor  by  any 
historian  who  could  vouch  for  it  with  certainty.     It 
was  calculated  a  long  time  after  the  phenomenon  was 
supposed  to  have  appeared,  by  Tarrutius  Firmanus, 
the  judicial  astrologer,  who  amused  himself  with  draw- 
ing horoscopes.     Varro  requested  him  to  discover  the 
date  of  Romulus's  birth,  by  divining  it  from  the  known 
events  of  his  life,  as  geometrical  problems  are  solved 
by  analysis ;  for  Tarrutius  considered  it  as  belonging 
to  the  same  art,  (and  doubtless  the  conclusions  are 
equally  certain,)  when  a  child's  nativity  is  given  to 
predict  its  future  life,  and  when  the  incidents  of  life 
are  given  to  cast  up  the  nativity.    Tarrutius,  accord- 
ingly, having  considered  the  actions  of  Romulus,  and 
the  manner  of  his  death,  and  having  combined  all  the 
incidents,  pronounced  that  he  was  conceived  in  the 
first  year  of  the  second  Olympiad,  on  the  23d  of  the 
Egyptian  month  Choiok,  on  which  day  there  had  been 
a  total  eclipse  of  the  sun. 

Pompey,  when  about  to  enter  "for  the  first  time  on 
the  office  of  Consul,  being  ignorant  of  city  manners 
and  senatorial  forms,  requested  Varro  to  frame  for  him 
a  written  commentary  or  manual,  from  which  he  might 
learn  the  duties  to  be  discharged  by  him  when  he  con- 
vened the  Senate,     This  book,  which  was  entitled 


70  VARRO. 

lsagogicum  cle  Officio  Senatus  habendi,  Varro  says, 
in  the  letters  which  he  wrote  to  Oppianus,  had  been 
lost.  But  in  these  letters  he  repeated  many  things  on 
the  subject,  as  what  he  had  written  before  had  pe- 
rished.1 

The  philosophical  writings  of  Varro  are  not  nume- 
rous ;  but  his  chief  work  of  that  description,  entitled 
De  Philosophid  Liber,  appears  to  have  been  very  com- 
prehensive. St  Augustine  informs  us  that  Varro  ex- 
amined in  it  all  the  various  sects  of  philosophers,  of 
which  he  enumerated  upwards  of  280.  The  sect  of  the 
old  Academy  was  that  which  he  himself  followed,  and 
its  tenets  he  maintained  in  opposition  to  all  others. 
He  classed  these  numerous  sects  in  the  following  cu- 
rious manner  :  All  men  chiefly  desire,  or  place  their 
happiness  in,  four  things — pleasure — rest — these  two 
united,  (which  Epicurus,  however,  termed  pleasure,) 
or  soundness  of  body  and  mind.  Now,  philosophers 
have  contended  that  virtue  is  to  be  sought  after  for  the 
sake  of  obtaining  one  or  other  of  these  four  ;  or,  that 
some  one  of  these  four  is  to  be  sought  after  for  the 
sake  of  virtue ;  or,  that  they  and  virtue  also  are  to  be 
sought  after  for  their  own  sake,  and  from  these  diffe- 
rent opinions  each  of  the  four  great  objects  of  human 
desire  being  sought  after  with  three  different  views, 
there  are  formed  twelve  sects  of  philosophers.  These 
twelve  sects  are  doubled,  in  consequence  of  the  diffe- 
rent opinions  created  by  the  considerations  of  social  in- 
tercourse— some  maintaining  that  the  four  great  de- 
sires should  be  gratified  for  our  own  sake,  and  others, 

1  Au.  Gellius,  Lib.  XIV.  c.  7- 


VARRO.  71 

that  they  should  be  indulged  only  for  the  sake  of  our 
neighbours.  The  above  twenty-four  sects  become  forty- 
eight,  from  each  system  being  defended  as  certain 
truth,  or  as  merely  the  nearest  approximation  to  pro- 
bability— twenty-four  sects  maintaining  each  hypothe- 
sis as  certain,  and  twenty-four  as  only  probable.  These 
again  were  doubled,  from  the  difference  of  opinion  with 
regard  to  the  suitable  garb  and  external  habit  and  de- 
meanour of  philosophers. 

We  have  now  got  ninety-six  sects  by  a  very  strange 
sort  of  computation,  and  all  these  are  to  be  tripled, 
according  to  the  different  opinions  entertained  con- 
cerning the  best  mode  of  spending  life — in  literary  lei- 
sure, in  business,  or  in  both.1 

Varro  having  followed  the  sect  of  the  old  Acade- 
my, in  preference  to  all  others,  proceeded  to  refute  the 
principles  of  the  sects  he  had  enumerated.  He  clear- 
ed the  way,  by  dismissing,  as  unworthy  the  name  of 
philosophical,  all  those  sects  whose  differences  did  not 
turn  on  what  is  the  supreme  final  good  ;  for  there  is 
no  use  in  philosophizing,  unless  it  be  to  make  us  happy, 
and  that  which  makes  us  happy  is  the  final  good.  But 
those  who  dispute,  for  example,  whether  a  wise  man 
should  follow  virtue,  tranquillity,  &c.  partly  for  the  sake 
of  others,  or  solely  for  his  own,  do  not  dispute  concern- 
ing what  is  the  final  good,  but  whether  that  good  should 
be  shared.  In  like  manner,  the  Cynic  does  not  dispute 
with  regard  to  the  supreme  good,  but  in  what  dress  or 
habit  he  who  follows  the  supreme  good  should  be  clad. 
So  also  as  to  the  controversy  concerning  the  uncertainty 

1  St  Augustine,  De  Civitat.  Dei,  Lib.  XIX.  c  1. 


72  VAitito. 

of  knowledge.  The  number  of  sects  were  thus  redu- 
ced to  the  twelve  with  which  our  author  set  out,  and 
in  which  the  whole  question  relates  to  what  is  the 
final  good.  From  these,  however,  he  abstracted  the 
sects  which  place  the  final  good  in  pleasure,  rest,  or 
the  union  of  both — not  that  he  altogether  disdained 
these,  but  he  thought  they  might  be  included  in  sound- 
ness of  body  and  mind,  or  what  he  called  the  prima 
Naturae.  There  are  thus  only  three  questions  which 
merit  full  discussion.  Whether  these  prima  Naturae 
should  be  desired  for  the  sake  of  virtue,  or  virtue  for 
their  sake,  or  if  they  and  virtue  also  should  be  desired 
for  their  own  sake. 

Now,  since  in  philosophy  we  seek  the  supreme  feli- 
city of  man,  we  must  inquire  what  man  is.  His  nature 
is  compounded  of  soul  and  body.  Hence  the  summum 
bonum  necessarily  consists  in  the  prima  Naturtz  or 
perfect  soundness  of  mind  and  body.  These,  there- 
fore, must  be  sought  on  their  own  account;  and  under 
them  may  be  included  virtue,  which  is  part  of  sound- 
ness of  mind,  being  the  great  director  and  prime  former 
of  the  felicity  of  life. 

Such  were  the  doctrines  of  the  old  Academy,  which 
Varro  was  also  introduced  as  supporting  in  Cicero's 
Academica. — "  I  have  comprehended,"  says  that  illus- 
trious orator  and  philosopher,  in  a  letter  to  Atticus, 
"  the  whole  Academic  system  in  four  books,  instead 
of  two,  in  the  course  of  which  Varro  is  made  to  defend 
the  doctrines  of  Antiochus.1     I  have  put  into  his 

1  Antiochus  of  Ascalon,  a  teacher  of  the  old  Academy. 


VARRO.  73 

mouth  all  the  arguments  which  were  so  accurately  col- 
lected by  Antiochus  against  the  opinion  of  those  who 
contend  that  there  is  no  certainty  to  be  attained  in 
human  knowledge.  These  I  have  answered  myself. 
But  the  part  assigned  to  Varro  in  the  debate  is  so 
good,  that  I  do  not  think  the  cause  which  I  support 
appears  the  better." 

1  am  not  certain  under  what  class  Varro's  Novem 
libri  Disciplinarian  should  be  ranked,  as  it  probably 
comprehended  instructive  lessons  in  the  whole  range 
of  arts  and  sciences.  One  of  the  chapters,  according 
to  Vitruvius,  was  on  the  subject  of  architecture.  Varro 
was  particularly  full  and  judicious  in  his  remarks  on 
the  construction  and  situation  of  Roman  villas,  and 
seems  to  have  laid  the  foundation  for  what  Palladius 
and  Columella  subsequently  compiled  on  that  interest- 
ing topic.  Another  chapter  was  on  arithmetic  ;  and 
Fabricius  mentions,  that  Vetranius  Maurus  has  de- 
clared, in  his  Life  of  Varro,  that  he  saw  this  part  of 
the  work,  De  Disciplinis,  at  Rome,  in  the  library  of 
the  Cardinal  Lorenzo  Strozzi. 

Varro  derived  much  notoriety  from  his  satirical 
compositions.  His  Tricarenus,  or  Tricipitina,  was 
a  satiric  history  of  the  triumvirate  of  Ca2sar,  Pompey, 
and  Crassus.  Much  pleasantry  and  sarcasm  were  also 
interspersed  in  his  books  entitled  Logistorici ;  but 
his  most  celebrated  production  in  that  line  was  the 
satire  which  he  himself  entitled  Menippean.  It  was 
so  called  from  the  cynic  Menippus  of  Gadara,  a  city 
in  Syria,  who,  like  his  countryman  Meleager,  was  in 
the  habit  of  expressing  himself  jocularly  on  the  most 


74  VARRO. 

grave  and  important  subjects.  He  was  the  author  of 
a  Symposium,  in  the  manner  of  Xenophon.  His  wri- 
tings were  interspersed  with  verses,  parodied  from  Ho- 
mer and  the  tragic  poets,  or  ludicrously  applied,  for 
the  purpose  of  burlesque.  It  is  not  known,  however, 
that  he  wrote  any  professed  satire.  The  appellation, 
then,  oiMenippean,  was  given  to  his  satire  by  Varro, 
not  from  any  production  of  the  same  kind  by  Me- 
nippus,  but  because  he  imitated  his  gene'ral  style  of 
humour.  In  its  external  form  it  appears  to  have  been 
a  sort  of  literary  anomaly.  Greek  words  and  phrases 
were  interspersed  with  Latin  ;  prose  was  mingled  with 
verses  of  various  measures ;  and  pleasantry  with  se- 
rious remark.  As  to  its  object  and  design,  Cicero  in- 
troduces Varro  himself  explaining  this  in  the  Acade- 
mica.  After  giving  his  reasons  for  not  writing  pro- 
fessedly on  philosophical  subjects,  he  continues, — "  In 
those  ancient  writings  of  ours,  we,  imitating  Menip- 
pus,  without  translating  him,  have  infused  a  degree  of 
mirth  and  gaiety  along  with  a  portion  of  our  most  se- 
cret philosophy  and  logic,  so  that  even  our  unlearned 
readers  might  more  easily  understand  them,  being,  as 
it  were,  invited  to  read  them  with  some  pleasure.  Be- 
sides, in  the  discourses  we  have  composed  in  praise  of 
the  dead,  and  in  the  introductions  to  our  antiquities, 
it  was  our  wish  to  write  in  a  manner  worthy  of  phi- 
losophers, provided  we  have  attained  the  desired  ob- 
ject." From  what  Cicero  afterwards  says  in  this  dia- 
logue, while  addressing  himself  to  Varro,  it  would 
appear,  that  he  had  indeed  touched  on  philosophical 
subjects  in  his  Menippean  satire,  but  that,  learned  as 


VARllO.  75 

he  was,  his  object  was  more  to  amuse  his  readers  than 
instruct  them  :  "  You  have  entered  on  topics  of  phi- 
losophy in  a  manner  sufficient  to  allure  readers  to  its 
study,  but  inadequate  to  convey  full  instruction,  or  to 
advance  its  progress." 

Many  fragments  of  this  Menippean  satire  still  re- 
main, but  they  are  much  broken  and  corrupted.  The 
heads  of  the  different  subjects,  or  chapters,  contained 
in  it,  amounting  to  near  one  hundred  and  fifty,  have 
been  given  by  Fabricius  in  alphabetical  order.  Some 
of  them  are  in  Latin,  others  in  Greek.  A  few  chap- 
ters have  double  titles  ;  and,  though  little  remains  of 
them  but  the  titles,  these  show  what  an  infinite  va- 
riety of  subjects  was  treated  by  the  author.  As  a  spe- 
cimen, I  subjoin  those  ranged  under  the  letter  A. 
Aborigines, — lisp*  Atbpmrm  <pv<rsug, — De  Admirandis, 
vel  Gallus  Fundanius, — Agatho, — Age  modo, — Am 
<Ji£u»i,  vel  TTfpt  Alpto-euv, — Ajax  Stramentitius, — Aaacc 
ovto?  'H^xxXnc, — Andabatae,  —  Anthropopolis,  —  in^ 
Af^u?,  seu  Marcopolis, — iregi  A^au^t<rtwt»,  seu  Serranus, 
— 7r££t  Ageryg  xrna-Eoos, — m^  Ap£o<T/<no>v,  seu  vinalia,— 
Armorum  judicium, — »ifi  A^evomros,  seu  Triphallus, 
Autumedus, — Maeonius, — Baiae,  &C.1 

There  is  a  chapter  concerning  the  duty  of  a  hus- 
band, (De  officio  Mariti,)  in  which  the  author  ob- 
serves, that  the  errors  of  a  wife  are  either  to  be  cured 
or  endured  :  He  who  extirpates  them  makes  his  wife 
better,  but  he  who  bears  with  them  improves  himself. 
Another  is  inscribed,  "  You  know  not  what  a  late 

1  Fabricius,  Biblioth.  Latin.  Lib.  I.  c.  7« 


76  VARRO. 

evening,  or  supper,  may  bring  with  it,"  (Nescis  quid 
vesper  serus  vehat.)  In  this  chapter  he  remarks,  that 
the  number  of  guests  should  not  be  less  than  that  of 
the  Graces,  or  more  than  that  of  the  Muses.  To 
render  an  entertainment  perfect,  four  things  must 
concur — agreeable  company,  suitable  place,  convenient 
time,  and  careful  preparation.  The  guests  should  not 
be  loquacious  or  taciturn.  Silence  is  for  the  bed-cham- 
ber, and  eloquence  for  the  Forum,  but  neither  for  a 
feast.  The  conversation  ought  not  to  turn  on  anxious 
or  difficult  subjects,  but  should  be  cheerful  and  invi- 
ting, so  that  utility  may  be  combined  with  a  certain 
degree  of  pleasure  and  allurement.  This  will  be  best 
managed,  by  discoursing  of  those  things  which  relate 
to  the  ordinary  occurrences  or  affairs  of  life,  concern- 
ing which  one  has  not  leisure  to  talk  in  the  Forum, 
or  while  transacting  business.  The  master  of  the  feast 
should  rather  be  neat  and  clean  than  splendidly  atti- 
red ;  and  if  he  introduce  reading  into  the  entertain- 
ment, it  should  be  so  selected  as  to  amuse,  and  to  be 
neither  troublesome  nor  tedious.'  A  third  chapter  is 
entitled,  -m^  tha-^xruv ;  and  treats  of  the  rarer  delica- 
cies of  an  entertainment,  especially  foreign  luxuries. 
Au.  Gellius  has  given  us  the  import  of  some  verses, 
in  which  Varro  mentioned  the  different  countries 
which  supplied  the  most  exquisite  articles  of  food. 
Peacocks  came  from  Samos;  cranes  from  Melos ;  kids 
from  Ambracia ;  and  the  best  oysters  from  Tarentum.2 

i  Au.  Gellius,  Noel.  Attic.  Lib.  XIII.  c.  11. 
2  Ibid.  Lib.  VII.  c.  16. 


VARRO.  77 

Part  of  the  chapter  yvuh  *mm$  was  directed  against 
the  Latin  tragic  poets. 

What  remains  of  the  verses  interspersed  in  the  Me- 
nippean  satire,  is  too  trifling  to  enable  us  to  form  any 
accurate  judgment  of  the  poetical  talents  of  Varro. 

The  style  of  satire  introduced  by  Varro  was  imita- 
ted by  Lucius  Annaeus  Seneca,  in  his  satire  on  the 
deification  of  Claudius  Caesar,  who  was  called  on  earth 
Divus  Claudius.  The  Satyricon  of  Petronius  Arbi- 
ter, in  which  that  writer  lashed  the  luxury,  and  ava- 
rice, and  other  vices  of  his  age,  is  a  satire  of  the  Var- 
ronian  species,  prose  being  mingled  with  verse,  and 
jest  with  serious  remark.  Such,  too,  are  the, Emperor 
Julian's  Symposium  of  the  Ccesars,  in  which  he  cha- 
racterizes his  predecessors ;  and  his  MKroiruyw,  direct- 
ed against  the  luxurious  manners  of  the  citizens  of 
Antioch. 

Besides  the  works  of  Varro  above-mentioned,  there 
is  a  miscellaneous  collection  of  sentences  or  maxims 
which  have  been  attributed  to  him,  though  it  is  not 
known  in  what  part  of  his  numerous  writings  they 
were  originally  introduced.  Barthius  found  seventeen 
of  these  sentences  in  a  MS.  of  the  middle  age,  and 
printed  them  in  his  Adversaria.  Schneider  after- 
wards discovered,  in  the  Speculum  Historiale  of  Vin- 
cent de  Beauvais,  a  monk  of  the  thirteenth  century, 
a  much  more  ample  collection  of  them,  which  he  has 
inserted  in  his  edition  of  the  Scriptores  rei  Rustics.1 
They  consist  of  moral  maxims,  in  the  style  of  those 

1  Tom.  I.  p.  241. 


78  VARItO. 

preserved  from  the  Mimes  of  Publius  Syrus,  and  had 
doubtless  been  culled  as  flowers  from  the  works  of 
Varro,  at  a  time  when  the  immense  garden  of  taste 
and  learning,  which  he  planted,  had  not  yet  been  laid 
waste  by  the  hand  of  time,  or  the  spoiler.1 

Though  the  above  list  of  the  works  of  Varro  is  far 
from  complete,  a  sufficient  number  has  been  mention- 
ed to  justify  the  exclamation  of  Quintilian, — "  Quam 
multa,  immo  pene  omnia  tradidit  Varro  !"  and  the 
more  full  panegyric  of  Cicero, — "  His  works  brought 
us  home,  as  it  were,  while  we  were  foreigners  in  our 
own  city,  and  wandering  like  strangers,  so  that  we 
might  know  who  and  where  we  were  ;  for  in  them  are 
laid  open  the  chronology  of  his  country, — a  descrip- 
tion of  the  seasons, — the  laws  of  religion, — the  ordi- 
nances of  the  priests, — domestic  and  military  occur- 
rences,— the  situations  of  countries  and  places, — the 
names  of  all  things  divine  and  human, — the  breed  of 
animals, — moral  duties, — and  the  origin  of  things."2 

Nor  did  Varro  merely  delight  and  instruct  his  fel- 
low-citizens by  his  writings.   By  his  careful  attention, 

*  It  was  long  believed,  that  Pope  Gregory  the  First  had  de- 
stroyed the  works  of  Varro,  in  order  to  conceal  the  plagiarisms  of 
St  Augustine,  who  had  borrowed  largely  from  the  theological  and 
philosophic  vrritings  of  the  Roman  scholar.  This,  however,  is  not 
likely.  That  illustrious  Father  of  the  Christian  Church  is  con- 
stantly referring  to  the  learned  heathen,  without  any  apparent 
purpose  of  concealment ;  and  he  extols  him  in  terms  calculated  to 
attract  notice  to  the  subject  of  his  eulogy.  Nor  did  St  Augus- 
tine possess  such  meager  powers  of  genius,  as  to  require  him  to 
build  up  the  city  of  the  true  God  from  the  crumbling  fragments 
of  Pagan  temples. 

2  Academ.  Poster.  Lib.  I.  c.  3. 


VARRO.  79 

in  procuring  the  most  valuable  books,  and  establish- 
ing libraries,  he  provided,  perhaps,  still  more  effectu- 
ally than  by  his  own  learned  compositions,  for  the  pro- 
gressive improvement  and  civilization  of  his  country- 
men. The  formation  of  either  private  or  public  libra- 
ries was  late  of  taking  place  at  Rome,  for  the  Romans 
were  late  in  attending  to  literary  studies.  Tiraboschi 
quotes  a  number  of  writers  who  have  discovered  a  lib- 
rary in  the  public  records  preserved  at  Rome,1  and 
in  the  books  of  the  Sibyls.2  But  these,  he  observes, 
may  be  classed  with  the  library  which  Madero  found 
to  have  existed  before  the  flood,  and  that  belonging  to 
Adam,  of  which  Hilscherus  has  made  out  an  exact 
catalogue.3  From  Syracuse  and  Corinth  the  Romans 
brought  away  the  statues  and  pictures,  and  other  mo- 
numents of  the  fine  arts ;  but  we  do  not  learn  that 
they  carried  to  the  capital  any  works  of  literature  or 
science.  Some  agricultural  books  found  their  way  to 
Rome  from  Africa,  on  the  destruction  of  Carthage ; 
but  the  other  treasures  of  its  libraries,  though  they  fell 
under  the  power  of  a  conqueror  not  without  preten- 
sions to  taste  and  erudition,  were  bestowed  on  the 
African  princes  in  alliance  with  the  Romans.4 

Paulus  Emilius  is  said  by  Plutarch  to  have  allowed 
his  sons  to  choose  some  volumes  from  the  library  of 

1  Morhof,  Polyhistor.  Tom.  I.   Lib.  I.     Falsterus,  Hist.  Rei 
Liter,  ap.  Roman. 

2  Middendorp,  De  Accident.  Lib.  III. 

3  Tiraboschi,  Stor.  dell  Lett.  Ital.  Part.  III.  Lib.  III.  c.  8. 
*  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XVIII.  c.  3. 


80  VARRO. 

Perseus,  King  of  Macedon,1  whom  he  led  captive  to 
Rome  in  585.  But  the  honour  of  first  possessing  a 
library  in  Rome  is  justly  due  to  Sylla  ;  who,  on  the 
occupation  of  Athens,  in  667,  acquired  the  library  of 
Apellicon,  which  he  discovered  in  the  temple  of  Apol- 
lo. This  collection,  which  contained,  among  various 
other  books,  the  works  of  Aristotle  and  Theophrastus, 
was  reserved  to  himself  by  Sylla  from  the  plunder ; 
and,  having  been  brought  to  Rome,  was  arranged  by 
the  grammarian  Tyrannio,  who  also  supplied  and  cor- 
rected the  mutilated  text  of  Aristotle.2  Engaged,  as 
he  constantly  was,  in  domestic  strife  or  foreign  war- 
fare, Sylla  could  have  made  little  use  of  this  library, 
and  he  did  not  communicate  the  benefit  of  it  to  scho- 
lars, by  opening  it  to  the  public;  but  the  example  of 
the  Dictator  prompted  other  commanders  not  to  over- 
look the  libraries,  in  the  plunder  of  captured  cities, 
and  books  thus  became  a  fashionable  acquisition. 
Sometimes,  indeed,  these  collections  were  rather  proofs 
of  the  power  and  opulence  of  the  Roman  generals,  than 
of  their  literary  taste  or  talents.  A  certain  value  was 
now  affixed  to  manuscripts  ;  and  these  were,  in  con- 
sequence, amassed  by  them,  from  a  spirit  of  rapacity, 
and  the  principle  of  leaving  nothing  behind  which 
could  be  carried  off  by  force  or  stratagem.  In  one  re- 
markable instance,  however,  the  learning  of  the  pro- 
prietor fully  corresponded  to  the  literary  treasures 
which  he  had  collected.  Lucullus,  a  man  of  severe 
study,  and  wonderfully  skilled  iu  all  the  fine  arts, 

1  Plutarch,  in  Paul,  Mmil.  2  Id.  in  Sylla. 


VARRO.  81 

after  having  employed  many  years  in  the  cultivation 
of  literature,  and  the  civil  administration  of  the  re- 
public, was  unexpectedly  called,  in  consequence  of  a 
political  intrigue,  to  lead  on  the  Roman  army  in  the 
perilous  contest  with  Mithridates ;  and,  though  pre- 
viously unacquainted  with  military  affairs,  he  became 
the  first  captain  of  the  age,  with  little  farther  expe- 
rience, than  his  study  of  the  art  of  war,  during  the 
voyage  from  Rome  to  Asia.    His  attempts  to  intro- 
duce a  reform  in  the  corrupt  administration  of  the 
Asiatic  provinces,   procured  him   enemies,  through 
whose  means  he  was  superseded  in  the  command  of 
the  army,  by  one  who  was   not  superior  to  him  in 
talents,  and  was  far  inferior  in  virtue.     After  his  re- 
call from  Pontus,  and  retreat  to  a  private  station,  he 
offered  a  new  spectacle  to  his  countrymen.  He  did  not 
retire,  like  Fabricius  and  Cincinnatus,  to  plough  his 
farm,  and  eat  turnips  in  a  cottage — he  did  not,  like 
Africanus,  quit  his  country  in  disgust,  because  it  had 
unworthily  treated  him  ;  nor  did  he  spend  his  wealth 
and  leisure,  like  Sylla,  in  midnight  debauchery  with 
buffoons  and  parasites.     He  employed  the  riches  he 
had  acquired  during  his  campaigns  in  the  construc- 
tion of  delightful  villas,  situated  on  the  shore  of  the 
sea,  or  hanging  on  the  declivities  of  hills.    Gardens 
and  spacious  porticos,  which  he  adorned  with  all  the 
elegance  of  painting  and  sculpture,  made  the  Romans 
ashamed  of  their  ancient  rustic  simplicity.     These 
would  doubtless  be  the  objects  of  admiration  to  his 
contemporaries ;  but  it  was  his  library,  in  which  so 
many  copies  of  valuable  works  were  multiplied  or  pre- 

VOL.  II.  F 


82  -  VARttO. 

served,  and  his  distinguished  patronage  of  learning, 
that  claim  the  gratitude  of  posterity.  "  His  library," 
says  Plutarch,  "  had  walks,  galleries,  and  cabinets  be- 
longing to  it,  which  were  open  to  all  visitors ;  and  the 
ingenious  Greeks  resorted  to  this  abode  of  the  muses 
to  hold  literary  converse,  in  which  Lucullus  delighted 
to  join  them."1  Other  Roman  patricians  had  patron- 
ized literature,  by  extending  their  protection  to  a  fa- 
voured few,  as  the  elder  Scipio  Africanus  to  Ennius, 
and  the  younger  to  Terence ;  but  Lucullus  was  the 
first  who  encouraged  all  the  arts  and  sciences,  and  pro- 
moted learning  with  princely  munificence. 

But  the  slave  Tyrannio  vied  with  the  most  splendid 
of  the  Romans  in  the  literary  treasures  he  had  amassed. 
A  native  of  Pontus,  he  was  taken  prisoner  by  Lucul- 
lus, in  the  course  of  the  war  with  Mithridates  ;  and, 
having  been  brought  to  Rome,  he  was  given  to  Mu- 
raena,  from  whom  he  received  freedom.2  He  spent  the 
remainder  of  his  life  in  teaching  rhetoric  and  gram- 
mar. He  also  arranged  the  library  of  Cicero  at  An- 
tium,*  and  taught  his  nephew,  Quintus,  in  the  house 
of  the  orator.4  These  various  employments  proved  so 
profitable,  that  they  enabled  him  to  acquire  a  library 
of  30,000  volumes.5  Libraries  of  considerable  extent 
were  also  formed  by  Atticus  and  Cicero  ;  and  Varro 

1   Plutarch,  in  Lucullo.  2  Ibid. 

3  Epist.  ad  Attic.  Lib.  IV.  Ep.  4  and  8. 

4  Epist.  ad  Quint.  Frat.  Lib.  II.  Ep.  4.  According  to  some 
writers,  it  was  a  younger  Tyrannio,  the  disciple  of  the  elder,  who 
arranged  Cicero's  library,  and  taught  his  nephew. — Mater,  Ecole 
d' Alexandria,  Tom.  I.  p.  179* 

5  Suidas,  Lexic. 


VARRO.  83 

was  not  inferior  to  any  of  his  learned  contemporaries, 
in  the  industry  of  collecting  and  transcribing  manu- 
scripts, both  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  language. 

The  library  of  Varro,  however,  and  all  the  others 
which  we  have  mentioned,  were  private — open,  indeed, 
to  literary  men,  from  the  general  courtesy  of  the  pos- 
sessors, but  the  access  to  them  still  dependent  on  their 
good  will  and  indulgence.  Julius  Caesar  was  the  first 
who  formed  the  design  of  establishing  a  great  public 
library  ;  and  to  Varro  he  assigned  the  task  of  arran- 
ging the  books  which  he  had  procured.  This  plan, 
which  was  rendered  abortive  by  the  untimely  fate  of 
Caesar,  was  carried  into  effect  by  Asinius  Pollio,  who 
devoted  part  of  the  wealth  he  had  acquired  from  the 
spoils  of  war,  to  the  construction  of  a  magnificent  gal- 
lery, adjacent  to  the  Temple  of  Liberty,  which  he 
filled  with  books,  and  the  busts  of  the  learned.  Varro 
was  the  only  living  author  who,  in  this  public  library, 
had  the  honour  of  an  image,1  which  was  erected  to  him 
as  a  testimony  of  respect  for  his  universal  erudition. 
He  also  aided  Augustus  with  his  advice,  in  the  forma- 
tion of  the  two  libraries  which  that  emperor  establish- 
ed, and  which  was  part  of  his  general  system  for  the 
encouragement  of  science  and  learning.  When  tyrants 
understand  their  trade,  and  when  their  judgment  is 
equal  to  their  courage  or  craft,  they  become  the  most 
zealous  and  liberal  promoters  of  the  interests  of  learn- 
ing ;  for  they  know  that  it  is  for  their  advantage  to 
withdraw  the  minds  of  their  subjects  from  political  dis-. 

1  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  VII.  c.  30. 


84  VARRO. 

cussion,  and  to  give  them,  in  exchange,  the  consoling 
pleasures  of  imagination,  and  the  inexhaustible  occu- 
pations of  scientific  curiosity. 

Were  I  writing  the  history  of  Roman  arts,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  mention  that  Varro  excelled  in  his 
knowledge  of  all  those  that  are  useful,  and  in  his  taste 
for  all  those  that  are  elegant.  He  was  the  contriver 
of  what  may  be  considered  as  the  first  hour  clock  that 
was  made  in  Rome,  and  which  measured  time  by  a 
hand  entirely  moved  by  mechanism.  That  he  also 
possessed  a  Museum,  adorned  with  exquisite  works  of 
sculpture,  we  learn  from  Pliny,  who  mentions,  that  it 
contained  an  admirable  group,  by  the  statuary  Arche- 
laus,  formed  out  of  one  block  of  marble,  and  represent- 
ing a  lioness,  with  Cupids  sporting  around  her — some 
giving  her  drink  from  a  horn  ;  some  in  the  attitude 
of  putting  socks  on  her  paws,  and  others  in  the  act  of 
binding  her.  The  same  writer  acquaints  us,  that,  in 
the  year  692,  Varro,  who  was  then  Curule  iEdile,  cau- 
sed a  piece  of  painting,  in  fresco,  to  be  brought  from 
Sparta  to  Rome,  in  order  to  adorn  the  Comitium — 
the  whole  having  been  cut  out  entire,  and  enclosed  in 
cases  of  wood.  The  painting  was  excellent,  and  much 
admired  ;  but  what  chiefly  excited  astonishment,  was 
that  it  should  have  been  taken  from  the  wall  without 
injury,  and  transported  safe  to  Italy.1 

I  fear  I  have  too  long  detained  the  reader  with  this 
account  of  the  life  and  writings  of  Varro ;  yet  it  is  not 
unpleasing  to  dwell  on  such  a  character.  He  was  the 

Pliii.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XXXV.  c.  14. 


NIGID1US  FIGULUS.  85 

contemporary  of  Marius  and  Sylla,  of  Caesar  and  Pom- 
pey,  of  Antony  and  Octavius,  these  men  of  conten- 
tion and  massacre ;  and  amid  the  convulsions  into 
which  they  threw  their  country,  it  is  not  ungrateful  to 
trace  the  Secretum  Iter,  which  he  silently  pursued 
through  a  period  unparalleled  in  anarchy  and  crimes. 
Uninterrupted,  save  for  a  moment,  by  strife  and  am- 
bition, he  prosecuted  his  literary  labours  till  the  ex- 
treme term  of  his  prolonged  existence.  "  In  eodem 
enim  lectulo,"  says  Valerius  Maximus,  with  a  spirit 
and  eloquence  beyond  his  usual  strain  of  composition 
— "  In  eodem  enim  lectulo,  et  spiritus  ejus,  et  egre- 
giorum  operum  cursus  extinctus  est." 


NIGIDIUS  FIGULUS 

was  a  man  much  resembling  Varro,  and  next  to  him 
was  accounted  the  most  learned  of  the  Romans.1  He 
was  the  contemporary  of  Cicero,  and  one  of  his  chief 
advisers  and  associates  in  suppressing  the  conspiracy 
of  Catiline.2  Shortly  afterwards  he  arrived  at  the  dig- 
nity of  Praetor,  but  having  espoused  the  part  of  Pom- 
pey  in  the  civil  wars,  he  was  driven  into  banishment 
on  the  accession  of  Caesar  to  the  supreme  power,  and 
died  in  709,  before  Cicero  could  obtain  his  recall  from 
exile.3  He  was  much  addicted  to  judicial  astrology  ; 
and  ancient  writers  relate  a  vast  number  of  his  pre- 
dictions, particularly  that  of  the  empire  of  the  world 

1  Au.  Gellius,  Lib.  IV.  c.  9.  2  Plutarch,  in  Cicero. 

3  Chron.  Euseb. 


86  NIGIDIUS  FIGULUS. 

to  Augustus,  which  he  presaged  immediately  after  the 
birth  of  that  prince.1 

Nigidius  vied  with  Varro  in  multifarious  erudi- 
tion, and  the  number  of  his  works — grammar,  criti- 
cism, natural  history,  and  the  origin  of  man,  having 
successively  employed  his  pen.  His  writings  are  prai- 
sed by  Cicero,  Pliny,  Aulus  Gellius,  and  Macrobius ; 
but  they  were  rendered  almost  entirely  unfit  for  po- 
pular use  by  their  subtlety,  mysteriousness,  and  obscu- 
rity*— defects  to  which  his  cultivation  of  judicial  as- 
trology, and  adoption  of  the  Pythagorean  philosophy, 
may  have  materially  contributed.  Aulus  Gellius  gives 
many  examples  of  the  obscurity,  or  rather  unintelligi- 
bility,  of  his  grammatical  writings.3  His  chief  work 
was  his  Grammatical  Commentaries,  in  thirty  books, 
in  which  he  attempted  to  show,  that  names  and  words 
were  fixed  not  by  accidental  application,  but  by  a  cer- 
tain power  and  order  of  nature.  One  of  his  examples, 
of  terms  being  rather  natural  than  arbitrary,  was  ta- 
ken from  the  word  Flos,  in  pronouncing  which,  he  ob- 
served, that  we  use  a  certain  motion  of  the  mouth, 
agreeing  with  what  the  word  itself  expresses :  We  pro- 
trude, by  degrees,  the  tips  of  our  lips,  and  thrust  for- 
ward our  breath  and  mind  towards  those  with  whom 
we  are  engaged  in  conversation.  On  the  other  hand, 
when  we  say  nos,  we  do  not  pronounce  it  with  a  broad 
and  expanded  blast  of  the  voice,  nor  with  projecting  lips, 
but  we  restrain  our  breath  and  lips,  as  it  were,  within 
ourselves.  The  like  natural  signs  accompany  the  utter- 

1  Suetonius,  in  August,  c.  94. 

2  Au.  Gellius,  Noct.  Attic  Lib.  XIX.  c.  14.  *  Ibid. 


NIGIDIUS  FIGULUS.  87 

ance  of  the  words  tu  and  ego — tibi  and  mihi.i    Nigi- 
dius  also  wrote  works,  entitled  De  Animatibus,  De 
Mentis,  De  Extis,  and  a  great  many  treatises  on  the 
nature  of  the  gods.  All  these  have  long  since  perish- 
ed, except  a  very  few  fragments,  which  have  been  col- 
lected and  explained  by  Janus  Rutgersius,  in  the  third 
book  of  his  Varice  Lectiones,  published  at  Leyden  in 
1618  ;  4  to.    In  this  collection  he  has  also  inserted  a 
Greek  translation  of  another  lost  work  of  Nigidius,  on 
the  presages  to  be  drawn  from  thunder.    The  original 
Latin  is  said  to  have  been  taken  from  books  which  bore 
the  name  of  the  Etruscan  Tages,  the  supposed  founder 
of  the  science  of  divination.    The  Greek  version  was 
executed  by  Laurentius,  a  philosopher  of  the  age  of 
Justinian,   and   his   translation  was    discovered   by 
Meursius,  about  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, in  the  Palatine  library.  It  is  a  sort  of  Almanack, 
containing  presages  of  thunder  for  each  particular  day 
of  the  year,  and  beginning  with  June.    If  it  thunder 
on  the  13th  of  June,  the  life  or  fortunes  of  some  great 
person  are  menaced — if  on  the  19th  of  July,  war  is 
announced — if  on  the  5th  of  August,  it  is  indicated 
that  those  women,  with  whom  we  have  any  concern, 
will  become  somewhat  more  reasonable  than  they  have 
hitherto  proved.2 

With  Varro  and  Nigidius  Figulus,  may  be  classed 
Tiro,  the  celebrated  freedman  of  Cicero,  and  constant 

1  Au.  Gellius,  Lib.  X.  c.  4. 

2  See  farther,  with  regard  to  Nigidius  Figulus,  Bayle,  Diet. 
Histor.  Art.  Nigidius,  and  Mem.  de  I' Acad,  des  Inscriptions,  Tom. 
XXIX.  p.  190. 


88  ROMAN  HISTORY. 

assistant  in  all  his  literary  pursuits.  He  wrote  many 
books  on  the  use  and  formation  of  the  Latin  language, 
and  others  on  miscellaneous  subjects,  which  he  deno- 
minated Pandectas}  as  comprehending  every  sort  of 
literary  topic. 

Quintus  Cornificius,  the  elder,  was  also  a  very  gene- 
ral scholar.  He  composed  a  curious  treatise  on  the 
etymology  of  the  names  of  things  in  heaven  and  earth, 
in  which  he  discovered  great  knowledge,  both  of  Ro- 
man antiquities,  and  the  most  recondite  Grecian  li- 
terature. It  was  here  he  introduced  an  explication  of 
Homer's  dark  fable,  where  Jupiter,  and  all  the  gods, 
proceed  to  feast  for  twelve  days  in  Ethiopia.  The  work 
was  written  in  709,  during  the  time  of  Caesar's  last 
expedition  to  Spain,  and  was  probably  intended  as  a 
supplement  to  Varro's  treatise  on  a  similar  topic. 


HISTORY. 

From  our  supposing  that  those  things  which  affect- 
ed our  ancestors  may  affect  us,  and  that  those  which 
affect  us  must  affect  posterity,  we  become  fond  of  col- 
lecting memorials  of  prior  events,  and  also  of  preser- 
ving the  remembrance  of  incidents  which  have  occurred 
in  our  own  age.  The  historic  passion,  if  it  may  be  so 
termed,  thus  naturally  divides  itself  into  two  desires 
— that  of  indulging  our  own  curiosity,  and  of  relating 
what  has  occurred  to  ourselves  or  our  contemporaries. 

Monuments  accordingly  have  been  raised,  and  rude 

1  Au.  Gellius,  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  XIII.  c.  9- 


ROMAN  HISTORY.  89 

hymns  composed,  for  this  purpose,  by  people  who  had 
scarcely  acquired  the  use  of  letters.  Among  civilized 
nations,  the  passion  grows  in  proportion  to  the  means 
of  gratifying  it,  and  the  force  of  example  comes  to  be 
so  strongly  felt,  that  its  power  and  influence  are  soon 
historically  employed. 

The  Romans  were,  in  all  ages,  particularly  fond  of 
giving  instruction,  by  every  sort  of  example.  They 
placed  the  images  of  their  ancestors  in  the  Forum  and 
the  vestibules  of  their  houses,  so  that  these  venerable 
forms  everywhere  met  their  eyes ;  and  by  recalling 
the  glorious  actions  of  the  dead,  excited  the  living  to 
emulate  their  forefathers.  The  virtue  of  one  genera- 
tion was  thus  transfused,  by  the  magic  of  example, 
into  those  by  which  it  was  succeeded,  and  the  spirit 
of  heroism  was  maintained  through  many  ages  of  the 
republic — 

"  Has  olim  virtus  crevit  Romana  per  artes  : 
Namque  foro  in  medio  stabant  spirantia  signa 
Magnanimum  heroum  :  hie  Decios,  magnosque  Camillos 
Cernere  erat :  vivax  heroum  in  imagine  virtus, 
Invidiamque  ipsis  factura  nepotibus,  acri 
Urgebat  stimulo  Romanum  in  praelia  robur."1 

History,  therefore,  among  the  Romans,  was  not 
composed  merely  to  gratify  curiosity,  or  satiate  the  his- 
toric passion,  but  also  to  inflame,  by  the  force  of  ex- 
ample, and  urge  on  to  emulation,  in  warlike  prowess. 
An  insatiable  thirst  of  military  fame — an  unlimited 
ambition  of  extending  their  empire — an  unbounded 
confidence  in  their  own  force  and  courage — an  impe- 
1  Griffet,  De  Arte  Regnandi. 


90  ROMAN  HISTORY. 

tuous  overbearing  spirit,  with  which  all  their  enter- 
prises were  pursued,  composed,  in  the  early  days  of  the 
Republic,  the  characteristics  of  Romans.  To  foment, 
and  give  fresh  vigour  to  these,  was  a  chief  object  of 
history. — "  I  have  recorded  these  things,"  says  an  old 
Latin  annalist,  after  giving  an  account  of  Regulus, 
"  that  they  who  read  my  Commentaries  may  be  ren- 
dered, by  his  example,  greater  and  better." 

Accordingly,  the  Romans  had  journalists  or  annal- 
ists, from  the  earliest  periods  of  the  state.  The  An- 
nals of  the  Pontiffs  were  of  the  same  date,  if  we  may 
believe  Cicero,  as  the  foundation  of  the  city  ;*  but 
others  have  placed  their  commencement  in  the  reign 
of  Numa,2  and  Niebuhr  not  till  after  the  battle  of 
Regillus,  which  terminated  the  hopes  of  Tarquin.3  In 
order  to  preserve  the  memory  of  public  transactions, 
the  Pontifex  Maximus,  who  was  the  official  historian 
of  the  Republic,  annually  committed  to  writing,  on 
wooden  tablets,  the  leading  events  of  each  year,  and 
then  set  them  up  at  his  own  house  for  the  instruction 
of  the  people.4  These  Annals  were  continued  down 
to  the  Pontificate  of  Mucius,  in  the  year  629,  and 
were  called  Annates  Maximi,  as  being  periodically 
compiled  and  kept  by  the  Pontifex  Maximus,  or  Pub- 
lid,  as  recording  public  transactions.  Having  been  in- 
scribed on  wooden  tablets,  they  would  necessarily  be 
short,  and  destitute  of  all  circumstantial  detail ;  and 

1  Be  Oratore,  Lib.  II.  c.  13. 

2  Vopiscus,  Fit.  Tacili.  Imp. 

3  Rbmische  Geschichte,  Tom.  I.  p.  367- 

4  Cicero,  Be  Oratore,  Lib.  II.  c.  13. 


ROMAN  HISTORY.  91 

being  annually  formed  by  successive  Pontiffs,  could 
have  no  appearance  of  a  continued  history.  They  would 
contain,  as  Lord  Bolingbroke  remarks,  little  more  than 
short  minutes  or  memoranda,  hung  up  in  the  Pon- 
tiff's house,  like  the  rules  of  the  game  in  a  billiard  room: 
their  contents  would  resemble  the  epitome  prefixed  to 
the  books  of  Livy,  or  the  Register  of  Remarkable 
Occurrences  in  modern  Almanacks. 

But  though  short,  jejune,  and  unadorned,  still,  as 
records  of  facts,  these  annals,  if  spared,  would  have 
formed  an  inestimable  treasure  of  early  history.  The 
Roman  territory,  in  the  first  ages  of  the  state,  was  so 
confined,  that  every  event  may  be  considered  as  having 
passed  under  the  immediate  observation  of  the  sacred 
annalist.  Besides,  the  method  which,  as  Cicero  informs 
us,  was  observed  in  preparing  these  Annals,  and  the 
care  that  was  taken  to  insert  no  fact,  of  which  the 
truth  had  not  been  attested  by  as  many  witnesses  as 
there  were  citizens  at  Rome,  who  were  all  entitled  to 
judge  and  make  their  remarks  on  what  ought  either 
to  be  added  or  retrenched,  must  have  formed  the  most 
authentic  body  of  history  that  could  be  desired.  The 
memory  of  transactions  which  were  yet  recent,  and 
whose  concomitant  circumstances  every  one  could  re- 
member, was  therein  transmitted  to  posterity.  By 
these  means,  the  Annals  were  proof  against  falsifica- 
tion, and  their  veracity  was  incontestably  fixed. 

These  valuable  records,  however,  were,  for  the  most 
part,  consumed  in  the  conflagration  of  the  city,  con- 
sequent on  its  capture  by  the  Gauls — an  event  which 
was  to  the  early  history  of  Rome  what  the  English 


92  ROMAN  HISTORY. 

invasion  by  Edward  I.  proved  to  the  history  of  Scot- 
land. The  practice  of  the  Pontifex  Maxim  us  preser- 
ving such  records  was  discontinued  after  that  eventful 
period.  A  feeble  attempt  was  made  to  revive  it  to- 
wards the  end  of  the  second  Punic  war ;  and,  from 
that  time,  the  custom  was  not  entirely  dropped  till 
the  Pontificate  of  Mucius,  in  the  year  629.  It  is  to 
this  second  series  of  Annals,  or  to  some  other  late  and 
ineffectual  attempt  to  revive  the  ancient  Roman  his- 
tory, that  Cicero  must  allude,  when  he  talks  of  the 
Great  Annals,  in  his  work  De  Legibus,1  since  it  is 
undoubted  that  the  pontifical  records  of  events  previ- 
ous to  the  capture  of  Rome  by  the  Gauls,  almost  en- 
tirely perished  in  the  conflagration  of  the  city.2  Ac- 
cordingly, Livy  never  cites  these  records,  and  there  is 
no  appearance  that  he  had  any  opportunity  of  consult- 
ing them ;  nor  are  they  mentioned  by  Dionysius  of 
Halicarnassus,  in  the  long  catalogue  of  records  and 
memorials  which  he  had  employed  in  the  composition 
of  his  Historical  Antiquities.  The  books  of  the  Pon- 
tiffs, some  of  which  were  recovered  in  the  search  made 
to  find  what  the  flames  had  spared,  are,  indeed,  occa- 
sionally mentioned.  But  these  were  works  explaining 
the  mysteries  of  religion,  with  instructions  as  to  the 
ceremonies  to  be  observed  in  its  practical  exercise,  and 
could  have  been  of  no  more  service  to  Roman,  than  a 
collection  of  breviaries  or  missals  to  modern  history. 

i  Lib.  I.  c.  2. 

2  Quae  in  Commentariis  Pontificum  aliisque  publicis  privatisque 
erant  mouumentis,  incensa  urbe,  plerseque  interiere.  Livy,  Lib. 
VI.  c.  1. 


ROMAN  HISTORY.  93 

Statues,  inscriptions,  and  other  public  monuments, 
which  aid  in  perpetuating  the  memory  of  illustrious 
persons,  and  transmitting  to  posterity  the  services  they 
have  rendered  their  country,  were  accounted,  among 
the  Romans,  as  the  most  honourable  rewards  that 
could  be  bestowed  on  great  actions ;  and  virtue,  in 
those  ancient  times,  thought  no  recompense  more  wor- 
thy of  her  than  the  immortality  which  such  monu- 
ments seemed  to  promise.  Rome  having  produced 
so  many  examples  of  a  disinterested  patriotism  and 
valour,  must  have  been  filled  with  monuments  of  this 
description  when  taken  by  the  Gauls.  But  these  ho- 
norary memorials  were  thrown  down  along  with  the 
buildings,  and  buried  in  the  ruins.  If  any  escaped,  it 
was  but  a  small  number ;  and  the  greatest  part  of 
those  that  were  to  be  seen  at  Rome  in  the  eighth  cen- 
tury of  the  city,  were  founded  on  fabulous  traditions, 
which  proved  that  the  loss  of  the  true  monuments  had 
occasioned  the  substitution  of  false  ones.  Had  the 
genuine  monuments  been  preserved  at  Rome,  even  till 
the  period  when  the  first  regular  annals  began  to  be 
composed,  though  they  would  not  have  sufficed  to  re- 
store the  history  entirely,  they  would  have  served  at 
least  to  have  perpetuated  incontestably  the  memory  of 
various  important  facts,  to  have  fixed  their  dates,  and 
transmitted  the  glory  of  great  men  to  posterity. 

On  what  then,  it  will  be  asked,  was  the  Roman 
history  founded,  and  what  authentic  records  were  pre- 
served as  materials  for  its  composition  ?  There  were 
first  the  Leges  Begice.  These  were  diligently  searched 
for,  and  were  discovered  along  with  the  Twelve  Tables, 


94  ROMAN  HISTORY. 

after  the  sack  of  the  city  :  And  all  those  royal  laws 
which  did  not  concern  sacred  matters,  were  publicly 
exposed  to  be  seen  and  identified  by  the  people,1  that 
no  suspicion  of  forgery  or  falsification  might  descend 
to  posterity.  These  precautions  leave  us  little  room 
to  doubt  that  the  Leges  Regies,  and  Laws  of  the 
Tables,  were  preserved,  and  that  they  remained  as 
they  had  been  originally  promulgated  by  the  kings 
and  decemvirs.  Such  laws,  however,  would  be  of  no 
greater  service  to  Roman  history,  than  what  the  Re- 
giam  Majestatem  has  been  to  that  of  Scotland.  They 
might  be  useful  in  tracing  the  early  constitution  of 
the  state,  the  origin  of  several  customs,  ceremonies, 
public  offices,  and  other  points  of  antiquarian  research, 
but  they  could  be  of  little  avail  in  fixing  dates,  ascer- 
taining facts,  and  setting  events  in  their  true  light, 
which  form  the  peculiar  objects  of  civil  history. 

Treaties  of  peace,  which  were  the  pledges  of  the 
public  tranquillity  from  without,  being  next  to  the 
laws  of  the  greatest  importance  to  the  state,  much  care 
was  bestowed,  after  the  expulsion  of  the  Gauls,  in  re- 
covering as  many  of  them  as  the  flames  had  spared. 
Some  of  them  were  the  more  easily  restored,  from  ha- 
ving been  kept  in  the  temple  of  Jupiter  Capitolinus, 
which  the  fury  of  the  enemy  could  not  reach.2  Those 
which  had  been  saved,  continued  to  be  very  carefully 
preserved,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suspect  them  of 
having  been  falsified.  Among  the  treaties  which  were 
rescued  from  destruction,  Horace  mentions  those  of 

1  Livy,  Lib.  VI.  c.  1. 

2  Polybius,  Lib.  111.  c.  22,  25,  26.. 


ROMAN  HISTORY.  95 

the  Kings,  with  the  Gabii  and  the  Sabines  {Fcedera 
Regum.)1  The  former  was  that  concluded  by  Tar- 
quinius  Superbus,  and  which,  Dionysius  of  Halicar- 
nassus  informs  us,  was  still  preserved  at  Rome  in  his 
time,  in  the  temple  of  Jupiter  Fidius,  on  a  buckler 
made  of  wood,  and  covered  with  an  ox's  hide,  on  which 
the  articles  of  the  treaty  were  written  in  ancient  cha- 
racters.* Dionysius  mentions  two  treaties  with  the 
Sabines — the  first  was  between  Romulus  and  their 
king  Tatius  ;3  and  the  other,  the  terms  of  which  were 
inscribed  on  a  column  erected  in  a  temple,  was  con- 
cluded with  them  by  Tullus  Hostilius,  at  the  close  of 
a  Sabine  war.4  Livy  likewise  cites  a  treaty  made  with 
the  Ardeates  ;5  and  Polybius  has  preserved  entire  an- 
other entered  into  with  the  Carthaginians,  in  the  year 
of  the  expulsion  of  the  kings.6  Pliny  has  also  alluded 
to  one  of  the  conditions  of  a  treaty  which  Porsenna,  the 
ally  of  Tarquin,  granted  to  the  Roman  people.7  Now 
these  leagues  with  the  Gabii,  Sabines,  Ardeates,  and 
one  or  two  with  the  Latins,  are  almost  the  only  treaties 
we  find  anywhere  referred  to  by  the  ancient  Latin  his- 
torians ;  who  thus  seem  to  have  employed  but  little  di- 
ligence in  consulting  those  original  documents,  or  draw- 
ing from  them,  in  compiling  their  histories,  such  assist- 
ance as  they  could  have  afforded.  The  treaties  quoted 
by  Polybius  and  Pliny,  completely  contradict  the  rela- 
tions of  the  Latin  annalists ;  those  cited  by  Polybius 

1  Epist.  Lib.  II.  Ep.  l.       2  Lib.  IV.  p.  257-  ed.  Sylburg,  1586. 
3  Lib.  II.  p.  111.  *  Lib.  III.  p.  174. 

»  Lib.  IV.  c.  7.  6  Lib.  III.  c.  22. 

7  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XXXIV.  c.  14. 


06  ROMAN  HISTOllY. 

proving,  in  opposition  to  their  assertions,  that  the 
Carthaginians  had  boon  in  possession  of  a  great  part 
of  Sicily  about  a  century  previous  to  the  date  which 
I  iivv  has  fixed  to  their  first  expedition  to  that  island  : 
and  those  quoted  by  Pliny,  that  Porsenua,  instead  of 
treating  with  the  Romans  on  equal  terms,  as  repre- 
sented by  their  historians,  had  actually  prohibited  thoin 
from  employing  arms, — permitting  them  the  use  of 
iron  only  in  tilling  the  ground.1 

The  Libri  Lintei  (so  called  because  written  on 
linen)  are  cited  by  Livy  after  the  old  annalist  I  .icinius 
Maccr,  by  whom  they  appear  to  have  been  carefully 
studied.  These  books  were  kept  in  the  temple  of 
Juno  Moneta,  but  were  probably  of  less  importance 
than  the  other  public  records,  which  were  inscribed 
on  rolls  of  lead.  They  were  obviously  a  work  of  no 
great  extent,  since  Livy,  who  appeals  to  them  on  tour 
different  occasions  in  the  space  of  ten  years,  just  after 
the  degradation  of  the  decemvirs,  had  not  quoted  them 
before,  and  never  refers  to  them  again.  There  also  ap- 
pears to  have  been  different  copies  of  them  which  did 
not  exactly  agree,  and  Livy  seems  far  from  consider- 
ing their  authority  as  decisive  even  on  the  points  on 
which  reference  is  made  to  them. 

The  Memoirs  qf  the  Censors  were  journals  pre- 
served by  those  persons  who  held  the  office  of  Censor. 
They  were  transmitted  by  them  to  their  descendants 
as  so  many  sacred  pledges,  and  were  preserved  in  the 
families  which  had  been  rendered  illustrious  by  that 

I  Hist.  Xot.  Lib.  \\\IV.  c.14, 
*  Livy,  Lib.  IV.  c  33. 
6 


ROMAN  HISTORY.  97 

dignity.  They  formed  a  series  of  eulogies  on  those 
who  had  thus  exalted  the  glory  of  their  house,  and 
contained  a  relation  of  the  memorable  actions  per- 
formed by  them  in  discharge  of  the  high  censorial  of- 
fice with  which  they  had  been  invested.1  Hence  they 
must  be  considered  as  a  part  of  the  Family  Memoirs, 
which  were  unfortunately  the  great  and  corrupt  sources 
of  early  Roman  history. 

It  was  the  custom  of  the  ancient  families  of  Rome 
to  preserve  with  religious  care  everything  that  could 
contribute  to  perpetuate  the  glory  of  their  ancestry, 
and  confer  honour  on  their  lineage.  Thus,  besides 
the  titles  which  were  placed  under  the  smoky  images 
of  their  forefathers,  there  were  likewise  tables  in  their 
apartments  on  which  lay  books  and  memoirs  record- 
ing, in  a  style  of  general  panegyric,  the  services  they 
had  performed  for  the  state  during  their  exercise  of 
the  employments  with  which  they  had  been  dignified.2 

Had  these  Family  Memoirs  been  faithfully  com- 
posed, they  would  have  been  of  infinite  service  to  his- 
tory ;  and  although  all  other  monuments  had  perish- 
ed, they  alone  would  have  supplied  the  defect.  They 
were  a  record,  by  those  who  had  the  best  access  to 
knowledge,  of  the  high  offices  which  their  ancestors 
had  filled,  and  of  whatever  memorable  was  transacted 
during  the  time  they  had  held  the  exalted  situations 
of  Praetor  or  Consul :  Even  the  dates  of  events,  as 
may  be  seen  by  a  fragment  which  Dionysius  of  Hali- 

1  Dionys.  Halic  Lib.  I.  p.  60- 
1  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XXXV.  c.  % 
VOL.  II.  G 


98  ROMAN  HISTORY. 

carnassus  cites  from  them,  were  recorded  with  all  the 
appearance  of  accuracy.  Each  set  of  family  memoirs 
thus  formed  a  series  of  biographies,  which,  by  preserving 
the  memory  of  the  great  actions  of  individuals,  and 
omitting  nothing  that  could  tend  to  their  illustration, 
comprehended  also  the  principal  affairs  of  state,  in 
which  they  had  borne  a  share.  From  the  fragments 
of  the  genealogical  book  of  the  Porcian  family,  quoted 
by  Aulus  Gellius,  and  the  abstract  of  the  Memoirs  of 
the  Claudian  and  Livian  families,  preserved  by  Sue- 
tonius, in  the  first  chapters  of  his  Life  of  Tiberius,  we 
may  perceive  how  important  such  memoirs  would  have 
been,  and  what  light  they  would  have  thrown  on  history, 
had  they  possessed  the  stamp  of  fidelity.  But,  unfortu- 
nately, in  their  composition  more  regard  was  paid  to  fa- 
mily reputation  than  to  historical  truth.  Whatever 
tended  to  exalt  its  name  was  embellished  and  exagge- 
rated. Whatever  could  dim  its  lustre  was  studiously 
withdrawn.  Circumstances,  meanwhile,  became  pecu- 
liarly favourable  for  these  high  family  pretensions.  The 
destruction  of  the  public  monuments  and  annals  of  the 
Pontiffs,  gave  ample  scope  for  the  vanity  or  fertile 
imagination  of  those  who  chose  to  fabricate  titles  and 
invent  claims  to  distinction,  the  falsity  of  which  could 
no  longer  be  demonstrated.  "  All  the  monuments," 
says  Plutarch,  "  being  destroyed  at  the  taking  of 
Rome,  others  were  substituted,  which  were  forged  out 
of  complaisance  to  private  persons,  who  pretended  to 
be  of  illustrious  families,  though  in  fact  they  had  no 
relation  to  them."1    So  unmercifully  had  the  great  fa- 

1  In  Numa. 


ROMAN  HISTORY.  99 

milies  availed  themselves  of  this  favourable  oppor- 
tunity, that  Livy  complains  that  these  private  me- 
moirs were  the  chief  cause  of  the  uncertainty  in  which 
he  was  forced  to  fluctuate  during  the  early  periods  of 
his  history.  "  What  has  chiefly  confounded  the  his- 
tory," says  he,  "  is  each  family  ascribing  to  itself  the 
glory  of  great  actions  and  honourable  employments. 
Hence,  doubtless,  the  exploits  of  individuals  and  pub- 
lic monuments  have  been  falsified ;  nor  have  we  so 
much  as  one  writer  of  these  times  whose  authority  can 
be  depended  on."1  Those  funeral  orations  on  the  dead, 
which  it  was  the  custom  to  deliver  at  Rome,  and 
which  were  preserved  in  families  as  carefully  as  the 
memoirs,  also  contributed  to  augment  this  evil.  Ci- 
cero declares,  that  history  had  been  completely  falsi- 
fied by  these  funeral  panegyrics,  many  things  being 
inserted  in  them  which  never  were  performed,  or  ex- 
isted— False  triumphs,  supernumerary  consulships, 
and  forged  pedigrees.2 

Connected  with  these  prose  legends,  there  were  also 
the  old  heroic  ballads,  formerly  mentioned,  on  which 
the  annals  of  Ennius  were  in  a  great  measure  built, 
and  to  which  may  be  traced  some  of  those  wonderful 
incidents  of  Roman  history,  chiefly  contrived  for  the 
purpose  of  exalting  the  military  achievements  of  the 
country.  Many  things  which  of  right  belong  to  such 
ancient  poems,  still  exist  under  the  disguise  of  an 

1  Lib.  VIII.  c.  40. 

2  His  laudationibus  historia  rerum  nostrarum  est  facta  mendo- 
sior.  Multa  enim  scripta  sunt  in  iis,  quae  facta  non  sunt — falsi 
triumphi,  plures  consulatus,  genera  etiam  falsa.    Brutus,  c.  16. 


100  ROMAN  HISTORY. 

historical  clothing  in  the  narratives  of  the  Roman 
annalists.  Niebuhr,  the  German  historian  of  Rome, 
has  recently  analysed  these  legends,  and  taken  much 
from  the  Roman  history,  by  detecting  what  incidents 
rest  on  no  other  foundation  than  their  chimerical  or 
embellished  pictures,  and  by  shewing  how  incidents, 
in  themselves  unconnected,  have  by  their  aid  been  ar- 
tificially combined.  Such,  according  to  him,  were  the 
stories  of  the  birth  of  Romulus,  of  the  treason  of  Ta- 
tia,  the  death  of  the  Fabii,  and  the  incidents  of  an 
almost  complete  Epopee,  from  the  succession  of  Tar- 
quinius  Priscus  to  the  battle  of  Regillus.  These  old 
ballads,  being  more  attractive  and  of  easier  access  than 
authentic  records  and  monuments,  were  preferred  to 
them  as  authorities ;  and  even  when  converted  into 
prose,  retained  much  of  their  original  and  poetic  spirit. 
For  example,  it  was  feigned  in  them  that  Tullus  Hos- 
tilius  was  the  son  of  Hostus  Hostilius,  who  perished  in 
the  war  with  the  Sabines,  which,  according  to  chronolo- 
gy, would  make  Tullus  at  least  eighty  years  old  when 
he  mounted  the  throne ;  but  it  was  thought  a  fine  thing 
to  represent  him  as  the  son  of  a  genuine  Roman  hero, 
who  had  fallen  in  the  service  of  his  country.  Niebuhr, 
probably,  as  I  have  already  shown,  has  attributed  too 
much  to  these  old  heroic  ballads,  and  has  assigned  to 
them  an  extent  and  importance  of  which  there  are 
no  adequate  proofs.  But  I  strongly  suspect  that  the 
heroic  or  historical  poems  of  Ennius  had  formed  a 
principal  document  to  the  Roman  annalists  for  the 
transactions  during  the  Monarchy  and  earlier  times  of 
the  Republic,  and  had  been  appealed  to,  like  Fer- 


ROMAN  HISTORY.  101 

dousi's  Shah-Nameh,  for  occurrences  which  were  pro- 
bably rather  fictions  of  fancy  than  events  of  history. 

The  Greek  writers,  from  whom  several  fables  and 
traditions  were  derived  concerning  the  infancy  of 
Rome,  lived  not  much  higher  than  the  age  of  Fabius 
Pictor,  and  only  mention  its  affairs  cursorily,  while 
treating  of  Alexander  or  his  successors.  Polybius,  in- 
deed, considers  their  narratives  as  mere  vulgar  tradi- 
tions,1 and  Dionysius  says  they  have  written  some  few 
things  concerning  the  Romans,  which  they  have  com- 
piled from  common  reports,  without  accuracy  or  dili- 
gence. To  them  has  been  plausibly  attributed  those 
fables,  concerning  the  exploits  of  Romans,  which  bear 
so  remarkable  an  analogy  to  incidents  in  Grecian  his- 
tory.2 Like  to  these  in  all  respects  are  the  histories 
which  some  Romans  published  in  Greek  concerning 
the  ancient  transactions  of  their  own  nation. 

We  thus  see  that  the  authentic  materials  for  the 
early  history  of  Rome  were  meager  and  imperfect — 
that  the  annals  of  the  Pontiffs  and  public  monuments 
had  perished — -that  the  Leges  Jiegice,  Twelve  Tables, 
and  remains  of  the  religious  or  ritual  books  of  the 
Pontiffs,  could  throw  no  great  light  on  history,  and 
that  the  want  of  better  materials  was  supplied  by  false, 
and  sometimes  incredible  relations,  drawn  from  the 
family  traditions — "  ad  ostentationem  scence  gauclen- 
tis  miraculis  aptiora  quam  adfidem.^  The  mutila- 
ted inscriptions,  too,  the  scanty  treaties,  and  the  fami- 

i  Lib.  III.  c.  20. 

2  L'Evesque,  Hist.  Critique  de  la  Republique  Romaine,  T.  I, 

3  Livy,  Lib.  V.  c.  21. 


102  ROMAN  HISTORY. 

ly  memoirs,  became,  from  the  variations  in  the  lan- 
guage, in  a  great  measure  unintelligible  to  the  gene- 
ration which  succeeded  that  in  which  they  were  com- 
posed. Polybius  informs  us,  that  the  most  learned 
Romans  of  his  day  could  not  read  a  treaty  with  the 
Carthaginians,  concluded  after  the  expulsion  of  the 
kings.  Hence,  the  documents  for  history,  such  as  they 
were,  became  useless  to  the  historian,  or,  at  least,  were 
of  such  difficulty,  that  he  would  sometimes  mistake 
their  import,  and  be,  at  others,  deterred  from  investi- 
gation. 

When  all  this  is  considered,  and  also  that  Rome, 
in  its  commencement,  was  the  dwelling  of  a  rude  and 
ignorant  people,  subsisting  by  rapine — that  the  art  of 
writing,  the  only  sure  guardian  of  the  remembrance 
of  events,  was  little  practised — that  critical  examina- 
tion was  utterly  unknown  ;  and  that  the  writers  of  no 
other  nation  would  think  of  accurately  transmitting 
to  posterity  events,  which  have  only  become  interest- 
ing from  the  subsequent  conquests  and  extension  of 
the  Roman  empire,  it  must  be  evident,  that  the  ma- 
terials provided  for  the  work  of  the  historian  would 
necessarily  be  obscure  and  uncertain. 

The  great  general  results  recorded  in  Roman  history, 
during  the  first  five  centuries,  cannot,  indeed, be  denied. 
It  cannot  be  doubted  that  Rome  ultimately  triumphed 
over  the  neighbouring  nations,  and  obtained  possession 
of  their  territories ;  for  Rome  would  not  have  been  what 
we  know  it  was  in  the  sixth  century,  without  these  suc- 
cesses. But  there  exists,  in  the  particular  events  record- 
ed in  the  Roman  history,  sufficient  internal  evidence  of 


ItOAJAN  HISTORY.  103 

its  uncertainty,  or  rather  falsehood ;  and  here  I  do  not 
refer  to  the  lying  fables,  and  absurd  prodigies,  which 
the  annalists  may  have  inserted  in  deference  to  the 
prejudices  of  the  people,  nor  to  the  almost  incredible 
daring  and  endurance  of  Scaevola,  Codes,  or  Curtius, 
which  may  be  accounted  for  from  the  wild  spirit  of  a 
half-civilized  nation,  and  are  not  unlike  the  acts  we  hear 
of  among  Indian  tribes  ;  but  I  allude  to  the  total  im- 
probability of  the  historic  details  concerning  transac- 
tions with  surrounding  tribes,  and  the  origin  of  domes- 
tic institutions.  How,  for  example,  after  so  long  a 
series  of  defeats,  with  few  intervals  of  prosperity  inter- 
posed, could  the  Italian  states  have  possessed  resources 
sufficient  incessantly  to  renew  hostilities,  in  which  they 
were  always  the  aggressors  ?  And  how,  on  the  other 
hand,  should  the  Romans,  with  their  constant  prepon- 
derance of  force  and  fortune,  (if  the  repetition  and 
magnitude  of  their  victories  can  be  depended  on,)  have 
been  so  long  employed  in  completely  subjugating 
them  ?  The  numbers  slain,  according  to  Livy's  ac- 
count, are  so  prodigious,  that  it  is  difficult  to  conceive 
how  the  population  of  such  moderate  territories,  as  be- 
longed to  the  independent  Italian  communities,  could 
have  supplied  such  losses.  We,  therefore,  cannot  avoid 
concluding,  that  the  frequency  and  importance  of  these 
campaigns  were  magnified  by  the  consular  families  in- 
dulging in  the  vanity  of  exaggerating  the  achieve- 
ments of  their  ancestors.1  Sometimes  these  campaigns 
are  represented  as  carried  on  against  the  whole  nation 
of  Volsci,  Samnites,  or  Etruscans,  when,  in  fact,  only 

1  Bankes,  Civil  History  of  Rome,  Vol.  I. 


104  ROMAN  HISTORY. 

a  part  was  engaged ;  and,  at  other  times,  battles,  which 
never  were  fought,  have  been  extracted  from  the  fa- 
mily memoirs,  where  they  were  drawn  up  to  illustrate 
each  consulate ;  for  what  would  a  consul  have  been 
without  a  triumph  or  a  victory  ?  It  would  exceed  my 
limits  were  I  to  point  out  the  various  improbabilities 
and  evident  inconsistencies  of  this  sort  recorded  in  the 
early  periods  of  Roman  history.  With  regard,  again,  to 
the  domestic  institutions  of  Rome,  everything  (doubt- 
less for  the  sake  of  effect  and  dignity)  is  represented 
as  having  at  once  originated  in  the  refined  policy  and 
foresight  of  the  early  kings.  The  division  of  the  people 
into  tribes  and  curiae — the  relations  of  patron  and  client 
— the  election  of  senators — in  short,  the  whole  fabric 
of  the  constitution,  is  exhibited  as  a  preconcerted  plan 
of  political  wisdom,  and  not  (as  a  constitution  has  been 
in  every  other  state,  and  must  have  been  in  Rome) 
the  gradual  result  of  contingencies  and  progressive  im- 
provements, of  assertions  of  rights,  and  struggles  for 
power. 

The  opinion  entertained  by  Polybius  of  the  uncer- 
tainty of  the  Roman  history,  is  sufficiently  manifest 
from  a  passage  in  the  fourth  book  of  his  admirable 
work,  which  is  written  with  all  the  philosophy  and 
profound  inquiry  of  Tacitus,  without  any  of  his  appa- 
rent affectation. — "  The  things  which  I  have  under- 
taken to  describe,"  says  he,  "  are  those  which  I  my- 
self have  seen,  or  such  as  I  have  received  from  men 
who  were  eye-witnesses  of  them.  For,  had  I  gone 
back  to  a  more  early  period,  and  borrowed  my  ac- 
counts from  the  report  of  persons  who  themselves  had 


ROMAN  HISTORY.  105 

only  heard  them  before  from  others,  as  it  would  scarce- 
ly have  been  possible  that  I  should  myself  be  able  to 
discern  the  true  state  of  the  matters  that  were  then 
transacted,  so  neither  could  1  have  written  anything 
concerning  them  with  confidence."     What,  indeed, 
can  we  expect  to  know  with  regard  to  the  Kings  of 
Rome,  when  we  find  so  much  uncertainty  with  regard 
to  the  most  memorable  events  of  the  republic,  as  the 
period  of  the  first  creation  of  a  dictator  and  tribunes 
of  the  people  ?  The  same  doubt  exists  in  the  biogra- 
phy of  illustrious  characters.  Cicero  says,  that  Corio- 
lanus,  having  gone  over  to  the  Volsci,  repressed  the 
struggles  of  his  resentment  by  a  voluntary  death ; 
"  for,  though  you,  my  Atticus,"  he  continues,  "  have 
represented  his  death  in  a  different  manner,  you  must 
pardon  me  if  I  do  not  subscribe  to  the  justness  of 
your  representations."1    Atticus,  I  presume,  gave  the 
account  as  we  now  have  it,  that  he  was  killed  in  a  tu- 
mult of  the  Volsci,  and  Fabius  Pictor  had  written 
that  he  lived  till  old  age.2  Of  the  reliance  to  be  placed 
on  the  events  between  the  death  of  Coriolanus  and 
the  termination  of  the  second  Punic  war,  we  may 
judge,  from  the  uncertainty  which  prevailed  with  re- 
gard to  Scipio  Africanus,  a  hero,  of  all  others,  the  most 
distinguished,  and  who  flourished,  comparatively,  at 
a  recent  period.     Yet  some  of  the  most  important 
events  of  his  life  are  involved  in  contradiction  and  al- 
most hopeless  obscurity. — "  Cicero,"  says  Berwick,  in 
his  Memoirs  of  Scipio,  "  speaks  with  great  confidence 
of  the  year  in  which  he  died,  yet  Livy  found  so  great 
1  Brutus,  c.  11.  2  Livy,  Lib.  II.  c.  40. 


106  ROMAN  HISTORY. 

a  difference  of  opinion  among  historians  on  the  sub- 
ject, that  he  declares  himself  unable  to  ascertain  it. 
From  a  fragment  in  Polybius,  we  learn,  that,  in  his 
time,  the  authors  who  had  written  of  Scipio  were  ig- 
norant of  some  circumstances  of  his  life,  and  mistaken 
in  others ;  and,  from  Livy,  it  appears,  that  the  ac- 
counts respecting  his  life,  trial,  death,  funeral,  and  se- 
pulchre, were  so  contradictory,  that  he  was  not  able  to 
determine  what  tradition,  or  whose  writings,  he  ought 
to  credit." 

But,  although  the  early  events  of  Roman  history 
were  of  such  a  description,  that  Cicero  and  Atticus 
were  not  agreed  concerning  them — that  Polybius 
could  write  nothing  about  them  with  confidence ;  and 
that  Livy  would  neither  undertake  to  affirm  nor  re- 
fute them,  every  vestige  of  Roman  antiquity  had 
not  perished.  Though  the  annals  of  the  Pontiffs 
were  destroyed, — those  who  wrote,  who  kept,  and  had 
read  them,  could  not  have  lost  all  recollection  of 
the  facts  they  recorded.  Even  from  the  family  me- 
moirs, full  of  falsehoods  as  they  were,  much  truth 
might  have  been  extracted  by  a  judicious  and  acute 
historian.  The  journals  of  different  rival  families 
must  often  have  served  as  historical  checks  on  each 
other,  and  much  real  information  might  have  been 
gathered,  by  comparing  and  contrasting  the  vain-glo- 
rious lies  of  those  family-legends.1 

1  The  question  concerning  the  authenticity  or  uncertainty  of 
the  Roman  history,  was  long,  and  still  continues  to  he,  a  subject 
of  much  discussion  in  France. — "  At  Paris,"  said  Lord  Boling- 
broke,  "  they  have  a  set  of  stated  paradoxical  orations.  The  busi- 
ness of  one  of  these  was  to  show  that  the  history  of  Rome,  for  the 


ROMAN  HISTORY.  107 

Such  was  the  state  of  the  materials  for  Roman  his- 
tory, in  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century,  from  the 
building  of  the  city,  at  which  time  regular  annals  first 
began  to  be  composed  ;  and  notwithstanding  all  un- 

four  first  centuries  was  a  mere  fiction.  The  person  engaged  in  it 
proved  that  point  so  strongly,  and  so  well,  that  several  of  the  au- 
dience, as  they  were  coming  out,  said,  the  person  who  had  set 
that  question  had  played  hooty,  and  that  it  was  so  far  from  being 
a  paradox,  that  it  was  a  plain  and  evident  truth." — Spence's 
Anecdotes,  p.  197»  It  was  chiefly  in  the  Memoires  de  I'Academie 
des  Inscriptions,  &c.  that  this  literary  controversy  was  plied.  M. 
de  Pouilly,  in  the  Memoirs  for  the  year  1722,  produced  his  proofs 
and  arguments  against  the  authenticity.  He  was  weakly  opposed, 
in  the  following  year,  by  M.  Sallier,  and  defended  by  M.  Beau- 
fort, in  the  Memoirs  of  the  Academy,  and  at  greater  length  in 
his  Dissert,  sur  I' Incertitude  des  cinq  premiers  siecles  de  I'Hist. 
Romaine,  (1738,)  which  contains  a  clear  and  conclusive  exposi- 
tion of  the  state  of  the  question.  The  dispute  has  been  lately 
renewed  in  the  Memoirs  of  the  Institute,  in  the  proceedings  of 
which,  for  1815,  there  is  a  long  paper,  by  M.  Levesque,  main- 
taining the  total  uncertainty  of  the  Roman  history  previous  to 
the  invasion  of  the  Gauls ;  while  the  opposite  side  of  the  ques- 
tion has  been  strenuously  espoused  by  M.  Larcher.  This  contro- 
versy, though  it  commenced  in  France,  has  not  been  confined 
to  that  country.  Hoolce  and  Gibbon  have  argued  for  the  cer- 
tainty, (Miscell.  Works,  Vol.  IV.  p.  40,)  and  Cluverius  for  the 
uncertainty,  of  the  Roman  history,  (Ital.  Antiq.  Lib.  III.  c.  2.) 
Niebuhr,  the  late  German  historian  of  Rome,  considers  all  before 
Tullus  Hostilius  as  utterly  fabulous.  The  time  that  elapsed 
from  his  accession  to  the  war  with  Pyrrhus,  he  regards  as  a  pe- 
riod to  be  found  in  almost  every  history,  between  mere  fable  and 
authentic  record.  Beck,  in  the  introduction  to  his  German  trans- 
lation of  Ferguson's  Roman  Republic,  Ueber  die  Quellen  der  alte- 
sten  Romischen  Geschichte  tend  ihren  Werth,  has  attempted  to  vin- 
dicate the  authenticity  of  the  Roman  history  to  a  certain  extent; 
but  his  reasonings  and  citations  go  little  farther  than  to  prove, 
what  never  can  be  disputed,  that  there  is  much  truth  in  the  ge- 


108       •  FABIUS  PICTOR. 

favourable  circumstances,  much  might  have  been  done, 
even  at  that  period,  towards  fixing  and  ascertaining 
the  dates  and  circumstances  of  previous  events,  had 
the  earliest  annalist  of  Rome  been  in  any  degree  fitted 
for  this  difficult  and  important  task  ;  but,  unfortu- 
nately, 

QUINTUS  FABIUS  PICTOR, 

who  first  undertook  to  relate  the  affairs  of  Rome  from 
its  foundation,  in  a  formal  and  regular  order,  and  is 
thence  called  by  Livy  Scriptorum  antiquissimus,  ap- 
pears to  have  been  wretchedly  qualified  for  the  labour 
he  had  undertaken,  either  in  point  of  fidelity  or  re- 
search :  and  to  his  carelessness  and  inaccuracy,  more 
even  than  to  the  loss  of  monuments,  may  be  attri- 
buted the  painful  uncertainty,  which  to  this  day  hangs 
over  the  early  ages  of  Roman  history. 

Fabius  Pictor  lived  in  the  time  of  the  second  Pu- 
nic war.  The  family  received  its  cognomen  from 
Caius  Fabius,  who,  having  resided  in  Etruria,  and 
there  acquired  some  knowledge  of  the  fine  arts,  painted 
with  figures  the  temple  of  Sains,  in  the  year  45 0.1 

neral  outline  of  events — that  the  hings  were  expelled — that  the 
Etruscans  were  finally  subdued ;  and  that  consuls  were  created. 
He  admits,  that  much  rested  on  tradition  ;  but  tradition,  he  main- 
tains, is  so  much  interwoven  with  every  history,  that  it  cannot  be 
safely  thrown  away.  The  remainder  of  the  treatise  is  occupied 
with  a  feeble  attempt  to  show,  that  more  monuments  existed  at 
Rome  after  its  capture  by  the  Gauls,  than  is  generally  supposed, 
and  that  Fabius  Pictor  made  a  good  use  of  them. 
»  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XXXV.  c.  4. 


FABIUS  P1CT0H.  109 

Pliny  mentions  having  seen  this  piece  of  workman- 
ship, which  remained  entire  till  the  building  itself 
was  consumed,  in  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Claudius. 
The  son  of  the  painter  rose  to  the  highest  honours  of 
the  state,  having  been  Consul  along  with  Ogulnius 
Gallus,  in  the  year  485.  From  him  sprung  the  his- 
torian, who  was  consequently  grandson  of  the  first 
Fabius  Pictor.  He  was  a  provincial  quaestor  in  early 
youth,  and  in  528  served  under  the  Consul  Lucius 
iEmilius,  when  sent  to  repel  a  formidable  incursion  of 
the  Gauls,  who,  in  that  year,  had  passed  the  Alps 
in  vast  hordes.  He  also  served  in  the  second  Punic 
war,  which  commenced  in  534,  and  was  present  at 
the  battle  of  Thrasymene.  After  the  defeat  at  Can- 
nae, he  was  despatched  by  the  Senate  to  inquire  from 
the  oracle  of  Delphos,  what  would  be  the  issue  of  the 
war,  and  to  learn  by  what  supplications  the  wrath  of 
the  gods  might  be  appeased.1 

The  Annals  of  Fabius  Pictor  commenced  with  the 
foundation  of  the  city,  and  brought  down  the  series 
of  Roman  affairs  to  the  author's  own  time — that  is, 
to  the  end  of  the  second  Punic  war.  We  are  inform- 
ed by  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  that  for  the  great 
proportion  of  events  which  preceded  his  own  age,  Fa- 
bius Pictor  had  no  better  authority  than  vulgar  tra- 
dition.2 He  probably  found,  that  if  he  had  confined 
himself  to  what  was  certain  in  these  early  times,  his 
history  would  have  been  dry,  insipid,  and  incomplete. 

1  Hankius,  De  Romanar.  Rerum  Scriptor.  Pars  I.  c.  1. 
»  Lib.  VII. 


110  FABIUS  PICTOR. 

This  may  have  induced  him  to  adopt  the  fables,  which 
the  Greek  historians  had  vented  concerning  the  origin 
of  Rome,  and  to  insert  whatever  he  found  in  the  fa- 
mily traditions,  however  contradictory  or  uncertain. 
Dionysius  has  also  given  us  many  examples  of  his  im- 
probable narrations — his  inconsistencies — his  negli- 
gence in  investigating  the  truth  of  what  he  relates  as 
facts — and  his  inaccuracy  in  chronology.  "  I  cannot 
refrain,"  says  he,  when  speaking  of  the  age  of  Tar- 
quinius  Priscus,  "  from  blaming  Fabius  Pictor  for 
his  little  exactness  in  chronology  ;'n  and  it  appears 
from  various  other  passages,  that  all  the  ancient  his- 
tory of  Fabius  which  was  not  founded  on  hearsay, 
was  taken  from  Greek  authors,  who  had  little  oppor- 
tunity of  being  informed  of  Roman  affairs,  and  had 
supplied  their  deficiency  in  real  knowledge,  by  the 
invention  of  fables.  In  particular,  as  we  are  told  by 
Plutarch,2  he  followed  an  obscure  Greek  author,  Dio- 
des the  Peparethian,  in  his  account  of  the  foundation 
of  Rome,  and  from  this  tainted  source  have  flowed  all 
the  stories  concerning  Mars,  the  Vestal,  the  Wolf, 
Romulus,  and  Remus. 

It  is  thus  evident,  that  no  great  reliance  can  be 
placed  on  the  history  given  by  Fabius  Pictor,  of  the 
events  which  preceded  his  own  age,  and  which  hap- 
pened during  a  period  of  500  years  from  the  building 
of  the  city  ;  but  what  must  be  considered  as  more  ex- 
traordinary and  lamentable,  is,  that  although  a  sena- 
tor, and  of  a  distinguished  family,  he  gave  a  prejudiced 

1  Lib.  IV.  p.  234.  2  In  Romulo. 


FABIUS  PICTOR.  HI 

and  inaccurate  account  of  affairs  occurring  during  the 
time  he  lived,  and  in  the  management  of  which  he  had 
some  concern.  Polybius,  who  flourished  shortly  after 
that  time,  and  was  at  pains  to  inform  himself  accu- 
rately concerning  all  the  events  of  the  second  Punic 
war,  apologizes  for  quoting  Fabius  on  one  occasion  as 
an  authority.  u  It  will  perhaps  be  asked,"  says  he, 
"  how  I  came  to  make  mention  of  Fabius  :  It  is  not 
that  I  think  his  relation  probable  enough  to  deserve 
credit :  What  he  writes  is  so  absurd,  and  has  so  little 
appearance  of  truth,  that  the  reader  will  easily  remark, 
without  my  taking  notice  of  it,  the  little  reliance  that 
is  to  be  placed  on  that  author,  whose  inconsistency  is 
palpable  of  itself.  It  is,  therefore,  only  to  warn  such 
as  shall  read  his  history,  not  to  judge  by  the  title  of 
the  book,  but  by  the  things  it  contains — for  there  are 
many  people,  who,  considering  the  author  more  than 
what  he  writes,  think  themselves  obliged  to  believe 
everything  he  says,  because  a  senator  and  contempo- 
rary."! Polybius  also  accuses  him  of  gross  partiality 
to  his  own  nation,  in  the  account  of  the  Punic  war — 
allowing  to  the  enemy  no  praise,  even  where  they  de- 
served it,  and  uncandidly  aggravating  their  faults.2 
In  particular,  he  charges  him  with  falsehood  in  what 
he  has  delivered,  with  regard  to  the  causes  of  the  se- 
cond contest  with  the  Carthaginians.  Fabius  had  al- 
leged, that  the  covetousness  of  Hannibal,  which  he 
inherited  from  Asdrubal,  and  his  desire  of  ultimately 
ruling  over  his  own  country,  to  which  he  conceived  a 

i  Lib.  III.  c.  9-  2  Lib.  I. 


112  FABIUS  PICTOll. 

Roman  war  to  be  a  necessary  step,  were  the  chief 
causes  of  renewing  hostilities,  to  which  the  Carthagi- 
nian government  was  totally  averse.  Now,  Polybius 
asks  him,  if  this  were  true,  why  the  Carthaginian 
Senate  did  not  deliver  up  their  general,  as  was  re- 
quired, after  the  capture  of  Saguntum  ;  and  why  they 
supported  him,  during  fourteen  years'  continuance  in 
Italy,  with  frequent  supplies  of  money,  and  immense 
reinforcements.1 

The  sentiments  expressed  by  Dionysius  of  Halicar- 
nassus,  concerning  Fabius  Pictor's  relation  of  events, 
in  the  early  ages  of  Rome,  and  those  of  Polybius,2  on 
the  occurrences  of  which  he  was  himself  an  eye-wit- 

i  Lib.  III.  c.  8. 

2  Ernesti  has  attempted,  but  I  think  unsuccessfully,  to  support 
the  authenticity  of  the  Annals  of  Fabius  against  the  censures  of 
Polybius,  in  his  dissertation,  entitled,  Pro  Fabii  Fide  adversus 
"Polifbium,  inserted  in  his  Opuscula  Philologica,  Leipsic,  1746 — 
Lugd.  Bat.  1?64.  He  attempts  to  show,  from  other  passages,  that 
Polybius  was  a  great  detractor  of  preceding  historians,  and  that 
he  judged  of  events  more  from  what  was  probable  and  likely  to 
have  occurred,  than  from  what  actually  happened,  and  that  no  his- 
torian could  have  better  information  than  Fabius.  To  the  inter- 
rogatories which  Polybius  puts  to  Fabius,  with  regard  to  the 
causes  assigned  by  him  as  the  origin  of  the  second  Punic  war,  Er- 
nesti replies  for  him,  that  the  Senate  of  Carthage  could  no  more 
have  taken  the  command  from  Hannibal  in  Spain,  or  delivered 
him  up,  than  the  Roman  Senate  could  have  deprived  Caesar  of  his 
army,  when  on  the  banks  of  the  Rubicon  ;  and  as  to  the  support 
which  Hannibal  received  while  in  Italy,  it  is  answered,  that  it  was 
quite  consistent  with  political  wisdom,  and  the  practice  of  other 
nations,  for  a  government  involuntarily  forced  into  a  struggle,  by 
the  disobedience  or  evil  counsels  of  its  subjects,  to  use  every  exer- 
tion to  obtain  ultimate  success,  or  extricate  itself  with  honour,  from 
the  difficulties  in  which  it  had  been  reluctantly  involved. 


FABIUS  PICTOR.  113 

ness,  enable  us  to  form  a  pretty  accurate  estimate  of 
the  credit  due  to  his  whole  history.  Dionysius  hav- 
ing himself  written  on  the  antiquities  of  Rome,  was 
competent  to  deliver  an  opinion  as  to  the  works  of 
those  who  had  preceded  him  in  the  same  underta- 
king ;  and  it  would  rather  have  been  favourable  to 
the  general  view  which  he  has  adopted,  to  have  esta- 
blished the  credibility  of  Fabius.  We  may  also  safely 
rely  on  the  judgment  which  Polybius  has  passed,  con- 
cerning this  old  annalist's  relation  of  the  events  of  the 
age  in  which  he  lived,  since  Polybius  had  spared  no 
pains  to  be  thoroughly  informed  of  whatever  could  ren- 
der his  own  account  of  them  complete  and  unexcep- 
tionable. 

The  opinion  which  must  now  be  naturally  formed 
from  the  sentiments  entertained  by  these  two  eminent 
historians,  is  rather  confirmed  by  the  few  and  uncon- 
nected fragments  that  remain  of  the  Annals  of  Fa- 
bius Pictor,  as  they  exhibit  a  spirit  of  trifling  and  cre- 
dulity quite  unworthy  the  historian  of  a  great  repub- 
lic. One  passage  is  about  a  person  who  saw  a  mag- 
pie ;  another  about  a  man  who  had  a  message  brought 
to  him  by  a  swallow  ;  and  a  third  concerning  a  party 
of  loup-garous,  who,  after  being  transformed  into 
wolves,  recovered  their  own  figures,  and,  what  is  more, 
got  back  their  cast-off  clothes,  provided  they  had  ab- 
stained for  nine  years  from  preying  on  human  flesh  ! 

Such  were  the  merits  of  the  earliest  annalist  of 
Rome,  whom  all  succeeding  historians  of  the  state  co- 
pied as  far  as  he  had  proceeded,  or  at  least  implicitly 
followed  as  their  authority  and  guide  in  facts  and 

VOL.  II.  H 


114  CALPURNIUS  PISO. 

chronology.  Unfortunately,  his  character  as  a  senator, 
and  an  eye-witness  of  many  of  the  events  he  record- 
ed, gave  the  stamp  of  authenticity  to  his  work,  which 
it  did  not  intrinsically  deserve  to  have  impressed  on 
it.  His  successors  accordingly,  instead  of  giving 
themselves  the  pains  to  clear  up  the  difficulties  with 
which  the  history  of  former  ages  was  embarrassed, 
and  which  would  have  led  into  long  and  laborious  dis- 
cussions, preferred  reposing  on  the  authority  of  Fa- 
bius.  They  copied  him  on  the  ancient  times,  without 
even  consulting  the  few  monuments  that  remained, 
and  then  contented  themselves  with  adding  the  trans- 
actions subsequent  to  the  period  which  his  history 
comprehends.  Thus,  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus1  in- 
forms us  that  Cincius,  Cato  the  Censor,  Calpurnius 
Piso,  and  most  of  the  other  historians  who  succeeded 
him,  implicitly  adopted  Fabius'  story  of  the  birth  and 
education  of  Romulus  ;  and  he  adds  many  glaring  in- 
stances of  the  little  discernment  they  showed  in  follow- 
ing him  on  points  where,  by  a  little  investigation,  they 
might  have  discovered  how  egregiously  he  had  erred. 
Even  Livy  himself  admits,  that  his  own  account  of  the 
second  Punic  war  was  chiefly  founded  on  the  relations 
of  Fabius  Pictor.2 

This  ancient  and  dubious  annalist  was  succeeded 
by  Scribonius  Libo,  and  by  Calpurnius  Piso.  Libo 
served  under  Ser.  Galba  in  Spain,  and  on  his  return 
to  Home  impeached  his  commander  for  some  act  of 
treachery  towards  the  natives  of  that  province.    Piso 

1  Lib.  1.  p.  64. 

2  Fabium  uequalem  temporibus  hujusce  belli  potissimum  aucto- 
rem  habui.  Lib.  XXII.  c.  7- 


CALPURNIUS  PISO.  115 

was  Consul  along  with  Mucius  Scasvola  in  620,  the 
year  in  which  Tib.  Gracchus  was  slain.  Like  Fabius, 
he  wrote  Annals  of  Rome,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
state,  which  Cicero  pronounces  to  be  exiliter  scripti  r1 
But  although  his  style  was  jejune,  he  is  called  a  pro- 
found writer,  gravis  auctor,  by  Pliny  ;2  and  Au.  Gel- 
lius  says,  that  there  is  an  agreeable  simplicity  in  some 
parts  of  his  work — the  brevity  which  displeased  Cicero 
appearing  to  him  simplicissima  suavitas  et  rei  et  ora- 
tionis.3  He  relates  an  anecdote  of  Romulus,  who,  be- 
ing abroad  at  supper,  drank  little  wine,  because  he  was 
to  be  occupied  with  important  affairs  on  the  following 
day.  One  of  the  other  guests  remarked,  "  that  if  all 
men  did  as  he,  wine  would  be  cheap." — "  No,"  replied 
Romulus,  "  I  have  drunk  as  much  as  I  liked,  and 
wine  would  be  dearer  than  it  is  now  if  every  one  did 
the  same."  This  annalist  first  suggested  Varro's  famous 
derivation  of  the  word  Italy,  which  he  deduced  from 
Vitulus.  He  is  also  frequently  quoted  by  Plutarch 
and  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus.4  Niebuhr  thinks, 
that  of  all  the  Roman  annalists  he  is  chiefly  respon- 
sible for  having  introduced  into  history  the  fables  of 
the  ancient  heroic  ballads.5 

1  Brutus,  c.  27-  *  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XI.  53. 

3  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  XI.  c.  14. 

4  He  also  probably  suggested  to  Sallust  a  phrase  which  has  given 
much  scandal  in  so  grave  a  historian.  Cicero  says,  in  one  of  his 
letters,  (Epist.  Tamil.  Lib.  IX.  Ep.  22,)  "  At  vero  Piso,  in  anna- 
libus  suis,  queritur,  adolescentes  peni  deditos  esse." 

5  Romische  Geschichte,  Tom.  I.  p.  245. 

As  his  account  of  Roman  affairs  was  written  in  Greek,  I  omit 
in  the  list  of  Latin  annalists  Lucius  Cincius  Alimentus,  who  was 


116  FANNIUS. CCELIUS  ANTIPATER. 

About  the  same  time  with  Piso,  lived  two  histo 
rians,  who  were  both  called  Caius  Fannius,  and  were 
nearly  related  to  each  other.  One  of  them  was  son- 
in-law  of  Laelius,  and  served  under  the  younger  Sci- 
pio  at  the  final  reduction  of  Carthage.  Of  him  Cice- 
ro speaks  favourably,  though  his  style  was  somewhat 
harsh  ;l  but  his  chief  praise  is,  that  Sallust,  in  men- 
tioning the  Latin  historians,  while  he  gives  to  Cato 
the  palm  for  conciseness,  awards  it  to  Fannius  for  ac- 
curacy in  facts.2  Heeren  also  mentions,  that  he  was 
the  authority  chiefly  followed  by  Plutarch  in  his  lives 
of  the  Gracchi.3 

Ccelius  Antipater  was  contemporary  with  the  Grac- 
chi, and  was  the  master  of  Lucius  Crassus,  the  cele- 
brated orator,  and  other  eminent  men  of  the  day.  We 
learn  from  Valerius  Maximus,  that  he  was  the  autho- 
rity for  the  story  of  the  shade  of  Tiberius  Gracchus 
having  appeared  to  his  brother  Caius  in  a  dream,  to 
warn  him  that  he  would  suffer  the  same  fate  which  he 
had  himself  experienced  ;4  and  the  historian  testifies 

contemporary  with  Fabius,  having  been  taken  prisoner  by  Hanni- 
bal during  the  second  Punic  war.  But  though  his  history  was  in 
Greek,  he  wrote  in  Latin  a  biographical  sketch  of  the  Sicilian 
Rhetorician  Gorgias  Leontinus,  and  also  a  book,  De  Re  Militari, 
which  has  been  cited  by  Au.  Gellius,  and  acknowledged  by  Vege- 
tius  as  the  foundation  of  his  more  elaborate  Commentaries  on  the 
same  subject. 

1  Brutus,  c.  26. 

2  The  passage  is  a  fragment  from  the  first  book  of  Sallust's  lost 
history.     Mar.  Victorinus  in  prim.  Ciceronis  de  Inventione. 

3  De  Fontibus  et  Auctoritate  Vitarum  Parallel.  Plutarchi,  p.  134. 
Gotteng.  1820. 

4  Lib.  I.  c.  7. 


SEMPltONIUS  ASELLIO.  117 

that  he  had  heard  of  this  vision  from  many  persons 
during  the  lifetime  of  Caius  Gracchus.  The  chief 
subject  of  Antipater's  history,  which  was  dedicated  to 
Lselius,  consisted  in  the  events  that  occurred  during 
the  second  Punic  war.  Cicero  says,  that  he  was  for  his 
age  Scriptor  luculentus;1  that  he  raised  himself  consi- 
derably above  his  predecessors,  and  gave  a  more  lofty 
tone  to  history ;  but  he  seems  to  think  that  the  ut- 
most praise  to  which  he  was  entitled,  is,  that  he  ex- 
celled those  who  preceded  him,  for  still  he  possessed 
but  little  eloquence  or  learning,  and  his  style  was  yet 
unpolished.  Valerius  Maximus,  however,  calls  him 
an  authentic  writer,  (certus  auctor  ;2)  and  the  Empe- 
ror Hadrian  thought  him  superior  to  Sallust,  consis- 
tently with  that  sort  of  black-letter  taste  which  led 
him  to  prefer  Cato  the  Censor  to  Cicero,  and  Ennius 
to  Virgil.3 

Sempronius  Asellio  served  as  military  tribune  un- 
der the  younger  Scipio  Africanus,  in  the  war  of  Nu- 
mantia,4  which  began  in  614,  and  ended  in  621,  with 
the  destruction  of  that  city.  He  wrote  the  history  of 
the  campaigns  in  which  he  fought  under  Scipio,  in 
Spain,  in  at  least  40  books,  since  the  40th  is  cited  by 
Charisius.  His  work,  however,  was  not  written  for  a 
considerable  time  after  the  events  he  recorded  had  hap- 
pened :  That  he  wrote  subsequently  to  Antipater,  we 
have  the  authority  of  Cicero,  who  says  "  that  Ccelius 
Antipater  was  succeeded  by  Asellio,  who  did  not  imitate 

i  Brutus,  c.  26.  2  Lib.  I.  c.  7. 

3  Ml.  Spartianus,  in  Hadriano. 

*  Au.  Gellius,  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  II,  c.  13. 


118  QUINTUS  CATULUS. 

his  improvements,  but  relapsed  into  the  dulness  and 
unskilfulness  of  the  earliest  historians."1  This  does 
not  at  all  appear  to  have  been  Asellio's  own  opinion,  as, 
from  a  passage  extracted  by  Aulus  Gellius  from  the 
first  book  of  his  Annals,  he  seems  to  have  considered 
himself  as  the  undisputed  father  of  philosophic  his- 
tory.2 

Quintus  Lutatius  Catulus,  better  known  as  an  ac- 
complished orator  than  a  historian,  was  Consul  along 
with  Marius  in  the  year  651,  and  shared  with  him 
in  his  distinguished  triumph  over  the  Cimbrians. 
Though  once  united  in  the  strictest  friendship,  these 
old  colleagues  quarrelled  at  last,  during  the  civil  war 
with  Sylla ;  and  Catulus,  it  is  said,  in  order  to  avoid 
the  emissaries  despatched  by  the  unrelenting  Marius, 
to  put  him  to  death,  shut  himself  up  in  a  room  new- 
ly plastered,  and  having  kindled  a  fire,  was  suffocated 
by  the  noxious  vapours.  He  wrote  the  history  of  his 
own  consulship,  and  the  various  public  transactions  in 
which  he  had  been  engaged,  particularly  the  war  with 
the  Cimbrians.  Cicero,3  who  has  spoken  so  disadvan- 
tageous^ of  the  style  of  the  older  annalists,  admits 
that  Catulus  wrote  very  pure  Latin,  and  that  his  lan- 
guage had  some  resemblance  to  the  sweetness  of  Xe- 
nophon. 

Q.  Claudius  Quadrigarius  composed  Annals  of  Rome 
in  twenty-four  books,  which,  though  now  almost  en- 
tirely lost,  were  in  existence  as  late  as  the  end  of  the 
1 2th  century,  being  referred  to  by  John  of  Salisbury 

1  Be  Legibus,  Lib.  L  c.  2.      2  Lib.  V.  c.  18.     5  Brutus,  c  35. 


CLAUDIUS  QUADRIGARIUS.  119 

in  his  book  De  Nugis  Curialibus.  Some  passages, 
however,  are  still  preserved,  particularly  the  account 
of  the  defiance  by  the  gigantic  Gaul,  adorned  with  a 
chain,  to  the  whole  Roman  army,  and  his  combat  with 
Titus  Manlius,  afterwards  sirnamed  Torquatus,  from 
this  chain  which  he  took  from  his  antagonist.  "  Who 
the  enemy  was,"  says  Au.  Gellius,  "  of  how  great  and 
formidable  stature,  how  audacious  the  challenge,  and 
in  what  kind  of  battle  they  fought,  Q.  Claudius  has 
told  with  much  purity  and  elegance,  and  in  the  sim- 
ple unadorned  sweetness  of  ancient  language."1 

There  is  likewise  extant  from  these  Annals  the 
story  of  the  Consul  Q.  Fabius  Maximus  making  his 
father,  who  was  then  Proconsul,  alight  from  his  horse 
when  he  came  out  to  meet  him.  We  have  also  the 
letter  of  the  Roman  Consuls,  Fabricius  and  Q.  Emi- 
lius,  to  Pyrrhus,  informing  him  of  the  treachery  of  his 
confident,  Nicias,  who  had  offered  to  the  Romans  lo 
make  away  with  his  master  for  a  reward.  It  merits 
quotation,  as  a  fine  example  of  ancient  dignity  and 
simplicity. — "  Nos,  pro  tuis  injuriis,  continuo  animo, 
strenue  commoti,  inimiciter  tecum  bellare  studemus. 
Sed  communis  exempli  et  fidei  ergo  visum  est,  uti  te 
salvum  velimus  ;  ut  esset  quern  armis  vincere  possimus. 
Ad  nos  venit  Nicias  familiaris  tuus,  qui  sibi  pretium 
a  nobis  peteret,  si  te  clam  interfecisset :  Id  nos  nega- 
vimus  velle ;  neve  ob  earn  rem  quidquam  commodi  ex- 
pectaret :  Et  simul  visum  est,  ut  te  certiorem  facere- 
mus,  nequid  ejusmodi,  si  accidisset,  nostro  consilio 

1  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  IX.  c.  13. 


120  VALEItlUS  ANTIAS. 

putares  factum  :  et,  quid  nobis  non  placet,  pretio,  aut 
premio,  aut  dolis  pugnare." — The  Annals  of  Quadri- 
garius  must  at  least  have  brought  down  the  history  to 
the  civil  wars  of  Marius  and  Sylla,  since,  in  the  nine- 
teenth book,  the  author  details  the  circumstances  of 
the  defence  of  the  Piraeus  against  Sylla,  by  Archelaus, 
the  prefect  of  Mithridates.  As  to  the  style  of  these 
annals,  Aulus  Gellius  reports,  that  they  were  written 
in  a  conversational  manner.1 

Quintus  Valerius  Antias  also  left  Annals,  which 
must  have  formed  an  immense  work,  since  Priscian 
cites  the  seventy-fourth  book.  They  commenced  with 
the  foundation  of  the  city ;  but  their  accuracy  can- 
not be  relied  on,  as  the  author  was  much  addicted 
to  exaggeration.  Livy,  mentioning,  on  the  authority 
of  Antias,  a  victory  gained  by  the  Proconsul  Q.  Mi- 
nucius,  adds,  while  speaking  of  the  number  of  slain 
on  the  part  of  the  enemy,  "  Little  faith  can  be  given 
to  this  author,  as  no  one  was  ever  more  intemperate  in 
such  exaggerations ;"  and  Aulus  Gellius  mentions  a 
circumstance  which  he  had  affirmed,  contrary  to  the 
records  of  the  Tribunes,  and  the  authors  of  the  an- 
cient Annals.2  This  history  also  seems  to  have  been 
stuffed  with  the  most  absurd  and  superstitious  fables. 
A  nonsensical  tale  is  told  with  regard  to  the  manner 
in  which  Numa  procured  thunder  from  Jupiter ;  and 
stories  are  likewise  related  about  the  conflagration  of 
the  lake  Thrasimene,  before  the  defeat  of  the  Roman 
Consul,  and  the  flame  which  played  round  the  head 

»  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  XIII.  c.  28. 
a  Ibid.  Lib.  VII.  c.  19. 


LICINIUS  MACER.  121 

of  Servius  Tullius  in  his  childhood.  It  also  appears 
from  him,  that  the  Romans  had  judicial  trials,  as  hor- 
rible as  those  of  the  witches  which  disgraced  our  cri- 
minal record.  Q.  Nsevius,  before  setting  out  for  Sar- 
dinia, held  Questions  of  incantation  through  the  towns 
of  Italy,  and  condemned  to  death,  apparently  without 
much  investigation,  not  less  than  two  thousand  per- 
sons. This  annalist  denies,  in  another  passage,  the 
well-known  story  of  the  continence  of  Scipio,  and  al- 
leges that  the  lady  whom  he  is  generally  said  to  have 
restored  to  her  lover,  was  "  in  deliciis  amoribusque 
usurpata."1  His  opinion  of  the  moral  character  of  Sci- 
pio seems  founded  on  some  satirical  verses  of  Nsevius, 
with  regard  to  a  low  intrigue  in  which  he  was  de- 
tected in  his  youth.  But  whatever  his  private  amours 
may  have  been,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  was  inca- 
pable of  a  signal  exertion  of  generosity  and  continence 
in  the  presence  of  his  army,  and  with  the  eyes  of  two 
great  rival  nations  fixed  upon  his  conduct. 

.Licinius  Macer,  father  of  Licin.  Calvus,  the  dis- 
tinguished poet  and  orator  formerly  mentioned,2  was 
author  of  Annals,  entitled  Libri  Merum  Momana- 
rum.  In  the  course  of  these  he  'frequently  quotes 
the  Libri  Lintei.  He  was  not  considered  as  a  very 
impartial  historian,  and,  in  particular,  he  is  accused 
by  Livy  of  inventing  stories  to  throw  lustre  over  his 
own  family. 

L.  Cornelius  Sisenna  was  the  friend  of  Macer,  and 
coeval  with  Antias  and  Quadrigarius  i  but  he  far  ex- 

1  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  VI.  c.  8. 

2  See  above.  Vol.  I.  p.  491. 


122  SISENNA. 

celled  his  contemporaries,  as  well  as  predecessors,  in 
the  art  of  historical  narrative.  He  was  of  the  same 
family  as  Sylla,  the  dictator,  and  was  descended  from 
that  Sisenna  who  was  Praetor  in  570.  In  his  youth 
he  practised  as  an  orator,  and  is  characterized  by  Ci- 
cero as  a  man  of  learning  and  wit,  but  of  no  great  in- 
dustry or  knowledge  in  business.1  In  more  advanced 
life  he  was  Praetor  of  Achaia,  and  a  friend  of  Atticus. 
Vossius  says  his  history  commenced  after  the  taking 
of  Rome  by  the  Gauls,  and  ended  with  the  wars  of 
Marius  and  Sylla.  Now,  it  is  possible  that  he  may 
have  given  some  sketch  of  Roman  affairs  from  the 
burning  of  the  city  by  the  Gauls,  but  it  is  evident  he 
had  touched  slightly  on  these  early  portions  of  the 
history,  for  though  his  work  consisted  of  twenty,  or, 
according  to  others,  of  twenty-two  books,  it  appears 
from  a  fragment  of  the  second,  which  is  still  preserved, 
that  he  had  there  advanced  in  his  narrative  as  far  as 
the  Social  War,  which  broke  out  in  the  year  663.  The 
greater  part,  therefore,  I  suspect,  was  devoted  to  the 
history  of  the  civil  wars  of  Marius  ;  and  indeed  Vel- 
leius  Paterculus  calls  his  work  Opus  Belli  Civilis  Sul- 
lani.2  The  great  defect  of  his  history  consisted,  it  is 
said,  in  not  being  written  with  sufficient  political  free- 
dom, at  least  concerning  the  character  and  conduct  of 
Sylla,  which  is  regretted  by  Sallust  in  a  passage  bear- 
ing ample  testimony  to  the  merits  of  Sisenna  in  other 
particulars. — "  L».  Sisenna,"  says  he,  u  optume  et  di- 
ligentissime  omnium,  qui  eas  res  dixere  persecutus, 
parum  mihi  libero  ore  locutus  videtur."3  Cicero,  while 

1  Brutus,  c.  63.        2  Lib.  II.  c.  9-        3  Jugurtha,  c.  95. 


SISENNA.  123 

he  admits  his  superiority  over  his  predecessors,  adds, 
that  he  was  far  from  perfection,1  and  complains  that 
there  was  something  puerile  in  his  Annals,  as  if  he 
had  studied  none  of  the  Greek  historians  but  Clitar- 
chus.2  I  have  quoted  these  opinions,  since  we  must 
now  entirely  trust  to  the  sentiments  of  others,  in  the 
judgment  which  we  form  of  the  merits  of  Sisenna  ;  for 
although  the  fragments  which  remain  of  his  history 
are  more  numerous  than  those  of  any  other  old  Latin 
annalist,  being  about  150,  they  are  also  shorter  and 
more  unconnected.  Indeed,  there  are  scarcely  two  sen- 
tences anywhere  joined  together. 

The  great  defect,  then,  imputed  to  the  class  of  an- 
nalists above  enumerated,  is  the  meagerness  of  their 
relations,  which  are  stript  of  all  ornament  of  style — 
of  all  philosophic  observation  on  the  springs  or  conse- 
quences of  actions — and  all  characteristic  painting  of 
the  actors  themselves.  That  they  often  perverted  the 
truth  of  history,  to  dignify  the  name  of  their  country 
at  the  expense  of  its  foes,  is  a  fault  common  to  them 
with  many  national  historians — that  they  sometimes 
exalted  one  political  faction  or  chief  to  depreciate  an- 
other, was  almost  unavoidable  amid  the  anarchy  and 
civil  discord  of  Rome — that  they  were  credulous  in  the 
extreme,  in  their  relations  of  portents  and  prodigies, 
is  a  blemish  from  which  their  greater  successors  were 
not  exempted  :  The  easy  faith  of  Livy  is  well  known. 
Even  the  philosophic  Tacitus  seems  to  give  credit  to 
those  presages,  which  darkly  announced  the  fate  of 

1  Brutus,  c.  63.  2  De  Legibus,  Lib.  It  c.  2. 


124  jEmilius  scaurus. 

men  and  empires ;  and  Julius  Obsequens,  a  grave 
writer  in  the  most  enlightened  age  of  Rome,  collected 
in  one  work  all  the  portents  observed  from  its  founda- 
tion to  the  age  of  Augustus. 

The  period  in  which  the  ancient  annalists  flourish- 
ed, also  produced  several  biographical  works  ;  and  these 
being  lives  of  men  distinguished  in  the  state,  may  be 
ranked  in  the  number  of  histories. 

Lucius  Emilius  Scaurus,  who  was  born  in  591,  and 
died  in  666,  wrote  memoirs  of  his  own  life,  which  Ta- 
citus says  were  accounted  faithful  and  impartial.  They 
are  unfortunately  lost,  but  their  matter  may  be  con- 
jectured from  the  well-known  incidents  of  the  life  of 
Scaurus.  They  embraced  a  very  eventful  period,  and 
were  written  without  any  flagrant  breach  of  truth.  We 
learn  from  Cicero,  that  these  memoirs,  however  use- 
ful and  instructive,  were  little  read,  even  in  his  days, 
though  his  contemporaries  carefully  studied  the  Cyro- 
paedia  ;  a  work,  as  he  continues,  no  doubt  sufficiently 
elegant,  but  not  so  connected  with  our  affairs,  nor  in 
any  respect  to  be  preferred  to  the  merits  of  Scaurus.1 

Rutilius  Rufus,  who  was  Consul  in  the  year  649, 
also  wrote  memoirs  of  his  own  life.  He  was  a  man  of 
very  different  character  from  Scaurus,  being  of  distin- 

1  Brutus,  c.  29»  Some  persons  have  supposed  that  Cicero  did 
not  here  mean  Xenophon's  Cyropcedia,  but  a  life  of  Cyrus,  writ- 
ten by  Scaurus.  This,  indeed,  seems  at  first  a  more  probable  mean- 
ing than  that  he  should  have  bestowed  a  compliment  apparently  so 
extravagant  on  the  Memoirs  of  Scaurus ;  but  his  words  do  not 
admit  of  this  interpretation. — f*  Praeclaram  illam  quidem,  sed 
neque  tarn  rebus  nostris  aptam,  nee  tamen  Scauri  laudibus  ante- 
ponendam." 


SYLLA.  125 

guished  probity  in  every  part  of  his  conduct,  and  pos- 
sessing, as  we  are  informed  by  Cicero,  something  al- 
most of  sanctity  in  his  demeanour.  All  this  did  not 
save  him  from  an  unjust  exile,  to  which  he  was  con- 
demned, and  which  he  passed  in  tranquillity  at  Smyrna. 
These  biographical  memoirs  being  lost,  we  know  their 
merits  only  from  the  commendations  of  Livy,1  Plu- 
tarch,2 Velleius  Paterculus,3  and  Valerius  Maximus.4 
As  the  author  served  under  Scipio  in  Spain — under 
Scaevola  in  Asia,  and  under  Metellus  in  his  campaign 
against  Jugurtha,  the  loss  of  this  work  is  severely  to  be 
regretted. 

But  the  want  of  Sylla's  Memoirs  of  his  own  Life,  and 
of  the  affairs  in  which  he  had  himself  been  engaged,  is 
still  more  deeply  to  be  lamented  than  the  loss  of  those 
of  Scaurus  or  Rutilius  Rufus.  These  memoirs  were 
meant  to  have  been  dedicated  to  Lucullus,  on  condition 
that  he  should  arrange  and  correct  them.5  Sylla  was 
employed  on  them  the  evening  before  his  death,  and 
concluded  them  by  relating,  that  on  the  preceding  night 
he  had  seen  in  a  dream  one  of  his  children,  who  had 
died  a  short  while  before,  and  who,  stretching  out  his 
hand,  showed  to  him  his  mother  Metella,  and  exhort- 
ed him  forthwith  to  leave  the  cares  of  life,  and  hasten 
to  enjoy  repose  along  with  them  in  the  bosom  of  eter- 
nal rest.  "  Thus,"  adds  the  author,  who  accounted 
nothing  so  certain  as  what  was  signified  to  him  in 
dreams,  "  I  finish  my  days,  as  was  predicted  to  me  by 

i  Lib.  VII.  2  In  Mario. 

3  Lib.  II.  c.  13.  4  Lib.  II.  c.  5.  Lib.  VI  c.  4. 

5  Plutarch,  in  Luculb. 


120  SYLLA. 

the  Chaldeans,  who  announced  that  I  should  surmount 
envy  itself  by  my  glory,  and  should  have  the  good  for- 
tune to  fall  in  the  full  blossom  of  my  prosperity."1 
These  memoirs  were  sent  by  Epicadus,  the  freedman 
of  Sylla,  to  Lucullus,  in  order  that  he  might  put  to 
them  the  finishing  hand.  If  preserved,  they  would 
have  thrown  much  light  on  the  most  important  affairs 
of  Roman  history,  as  they  proceeded  from  the  persou 
who  must,  of  all  others,  have  been  the  best  informed 
concerning  them.  They  are  quoted  by  Plutarch  as 
authority  for  many  curious  facts,  as — that  in  the  great 
battle  by  which  the  Cimbrian  invasion  was  repelled, 
the  chief  execution  was  done  in  that  quarter  where 
Sylla  was  stationed ;  the  main  body,  under  Marius, 
having  been  misled  by  a  cloud  of  dust,  and  having  in 
consequence  wandered  about  for  a  long  time  without 
finding  the  enemy.2  Plutarch  also  mentions  that,  in 
these  Commentaries,  the  author  contradicted  the  cur- 
rent story  of  his  seeking  refuge  during  a  tumult  at  the 
commencement  of  the  civil  wars  with  Marius,  in  the 
house  of  his  rival,  who,  it  had  been  reported,  shel- 
tered and  dismissed  him  in  safety.  Besides  their  im- 
portance for  the  history  of  events,  the  Memoirs  of 
Sylla  must  have  been  highly  interesting,  as  developing, 
in  some  degree,  the  most  curious  character  in  Roman 
history.  "  In  the  loss  of  his  Memoirs,"  says  Black- 
well,  in  his  usual  inflated  style, "  the  strongest  draught 
of  human  passions,  in  the  highest  wheels  of  fortune 
and  sallies  of  power,  is  for  ever  vanished."J   The  cha- 

1  Plutarch,  In  Sylla. — Appian.  2  In  Mario. 

3  Memoirs  of  the  Court  of  Augustus,  Vol.  I. 


SYLLA.  127 

racter  of  Caesar,  though  greater,  was  less  incomprehen- 
sible than  that  of  Sylla  ;  and  the  mind  of  Augustus, 
though  unfathomable  to  his  contemporaries,  has  been 
sounded  by  the  long  line  of  posterity ;  but  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  analyse  the  disposition  which  inspired  the  in- 
consistent conduct  of  Sylla.  Gorged  with  power,  and 
blood,  and  vengeance>  he  seems  to  have  retired  from 
what  he  chiefly  coveted,  as  if  surfeited ;  but  neither 
this  retreat,  nor  old  age,  could  mollify  his  heart ;  nor 
could  disease,  or  the  approach  of  death,  or  the  remem- 
brance of  his  past  life,  disturb  his  tranquillity.  ~No  part 
of  his  existence  was  more  strange  than  its  termination; 
and  nothing  can  be  more  singular  than  that  he,  who, 
on  the  day  of  his  decease,  caused  in  mere  wantonness 
a  provincial  magistrate  to  be  strangled  in  his  presence, 
should,  the  night  before,  have  enjoyed  a  dream  so  ele- 
vated and  tender.  It  is  probable  that  the  Memoirs 
were  well  written,  in  point  of  style,  as  Sylla  loved  the 
arts  and  sciences,  and  was  even  a  man  of  some  learning, 
though  Caesar  is  reported  to  have  said,  on  hearing  his 
literary  acquirements  extolled,  that  he  must  have  been 
but  an  indifferent  scholar  who  had  resigned  a  dicta- 
torship. 

The  characteristic  of  most  of  the  annals  and  me- 
moirs which  I  have  hitherto  mentioned,  was  extreme 
conciseness.  Satisfied  with  collecting  a  mass  of  facts, 
their  authors  adopted  a  style  which,  in  the  later  ages 
of  Rome,  became  proverbially  meager  and  jejune.  Ci- 
cero includes  Claudius  Quadrigarius  and  Asellio  in 
the  same  censure  which  he  passes  on  their  predeces- 
sors, Fabius  Pictor,  Piso,  and  Fannius.  But  though, 


128  SYLLA. 

perhaps,  equally  barren  in  style,  much  greater  trust 
and  reliance  may  be  placed  on  the  annalists  of  the  time 
of  Marius  and  Sylla  than  of  the  second  Punic  war. 

Some  of  these  more  modern  annalists  wrote  the  His- 
tory of  Rome  from  the  commencement  of  the  state  ; 
others  took  up  the  relation  from  the  burning  of  Rome 
by  the  Gauls,  or  confined  themselves  to  events  which 
had  occurred  in  their  own  time.  Their  narratives  of 
all  that  passed  before  the  incursion  of  the  Gauls,  were 
indeed  as  little  authentic  as  the  relations  of  Fabius 
Pictor,  since  they  implicitly  followed  that  writer,  and 
made  no  new  researches  into  the  mouldering  monu- 
ments of  their  country.  But  their  accounts  of  what 
happened  subsequently  to  the  rebuilding  of  Rome,  are 
not  liable  to  the  same  suspicion  and  uncertainty ;  the 
public  monuments  and  records  having,  from  that  pe- 
riod, been  duly  preserved,  and  having  been  in  greater 
abundance  than  those  of  almost  any  other  nation  in 
the  history  of  the  world.  The  Roman  authors  pos- 
sessed all  the  auxiliaries  which  aid  historical  com- 
pilation— decrees  of  the  senate,  chiefly  pronounced 
in  affairs  of  state — leagues  with  friendly  nations — 
terms  of  the  surrender  of  cities — tables  of  triumphs, 
and  treaties,  which  were  carefully  preserved  in  the 
treasury  or  in  temples.  There  were  even  rolls  kept  of 
the  senators  and  knights,  as  also  of  the  number  of  the 
legions  and  ships  employed  in  each  war ;  but  the 
public  despatches  addressed  to  the  Senate  by  com- 
manders of  armies,  of  which  we  have  specimens  in 
Cicero's  Epistles,  were  the  documents  which  must  have 
chiefly  aided  historical  composition.    These  were  pro- 


SYLLA.  129 

bably  accurate  as  the  Senate,  and  people  in  general, 
were  too  well  versed  in  military  affairs  to  have  been 
easily  deluded,  and  legates  were  often  commissioned  by 
them  to  ascertain  the  truth  of  the  relations.  The  im- 
mense multitude  of  such  documents  is  evinced  by  the 
fact,  that  Vespasian,  when  restoring  the  Capitol,  found 
in  its  ruins  not  fewer  than  3000  brazen  tablets,  con- 
taining decrees  of  the  Senate  and  people,  concerning 
leagues,  associations,  and  immunities  to  whomsoever 
granted,  from  an  early  period  of  the  state,  and  which 
Suetonius  justly  styles,  instrumentum  imperii  pulcher- 
rimum  ac  vetustissimum.1  Accordingly,  when  the  later 
annalists  came  to  write  of  the  affairs  of  their  own  time, 
they  found  historical  documents  more  full  and  satisfac- 
tory than  those  of  almost  any  other  country.  But,  in 
addition  to  these  copious  sources  of  information,  it  will 
be  remarked,  that  the  annalists  themselves  had  often 
personal  knowledge  of  the  facts  they  related.  It  is 
true,  indeed,  that  historians  contemporary  with  the 
events  which  they  record,  are  not  always  best  qualified 
to  place  them  in  an  instructive  light,  since,  though 
they  may  understand  how  they  spring  out  of  prior  in- 
cidents, they  cannot  foresee  their  influence  on  future 
occurrences.  Of  some  things,  the  importance  is  over- 
rated, and  of  others  undervalued,  till  time,  which  has 
the  same  effect  on  events  as  distance  on  external  ob- 
jects, obscures  all  that  is  minute,  while  it  renders  the 
outlines  of  what  is  vast  more  distinct  and  perceptible. 
But  though  the  reach  of  a  contemporary  historian's 

1  In  Vespasiano,  c.  8. 
VOL.  II.  I 


130  SYLLA. 

mind  may  not  extend  to  the  issue  of  the  drama  which 
passes  before  him,  he  is  no  doubt  best  aware  of  the 
detached  incidents  of  each  separate  scene  and  act, 
and  most  fitted  to  detail  those  particulars  which  pos- 
terity may  combine  into  a  mass,  exhibiting  at  one 
view  the  grandeur  and  interest  of  the  whole.  Now, 
it  will  have  been  remarked  from  the  preceding  pages, 
that  all  the  Roman  annalists,  from  the  time  of  Fa- 
bius  Pictor  to  Sylla,  were  Consuls  and  Praetors,  com- 
manders of  armies,  or  heads  of  political  parties,  and 
consequently  the  principal  sharers  in  the  events  which 
they  recorded.  In  Greece,  there  was  an  earlier  separa- 
tion than  at  Rome,  between  an  active  and  a  speculative 
life.  Many  of  the  Greek  historians  had  little  part  in 
those  transactions,  the  remembrance  of  which  they 
have  transmitted.  They  wrote  at  a  distance,  as  it 
were,  from  the  scene  of  affairs,  so  that  they  contem- 
plated the  wars  and  dissensions  of  their  countrymen 
with  the  unprejudiced  eye  of  a  foreigner,  or  of  poste- 
rity. This  naturally  diffuses  a  calm  philosophic  spi- 
rit over  the  page  of  the  historian,  and  gives  abun- 
dant scope  for  conjecture  concerning  the  motives  and 
springs  of  action.  The  Roman  annalists,  on  the  other 
hand,  wrote  from  perfect  knowledge  and  remembrance ; 
they  were  the  persons  who  had  planned  and  executed 
every  project ;  they  had  fought  the  battles  they  de- 
scribed, or  excited  the  war,  the  vicissitudes  of  which 
they  recorded.  Hence  the  facts  which  their  pages  dis- 
closed, might  have  borne  the  genuine  stamp  of  truth, 
and  the  analysis  of  the  motives  and  causes  of  actions 
might  have  been  absolute  revelations.     Yet,  under 


SALLUST.  131 

these,  the  most  favourable  circumstances  for  historic 
composition,  prejudices  from  which  the  Greek  histo- 
rians were  exempt,  would  unconsciously  creep  in : 
Writers  like  Sylla  or  JEmilius  Scaurus,  had  much  to 
extenuate,  and  strong  temptations  to  set  down  much 
in  malice.1 

Nor  is  it  always  sufficient  to  have  witnessed  a  great 
event  in  order  to  record  it  well,  and  with  that  fulness 
which  converts  it  into  a  lesson  in  legislation,  ethics,  or 
politics.  Now,  the  Roman  annals  had  hitherto  been 
chiefly  a  dry  register  of  facts,  what  Lord  Bolingbroke 
calls  the  Nuntia  Vetustatis,  or  Gazette  of  Antiquity. 
A  history  properly  so  termed,  and  when  considered  as 
opposed  to  such  productions,  forms  a  complete  series 
of  transactions,  accompanied  by  a  deduction  of  their 
immediate  and  remote  causes,  and  of  the  consequences 
by  which  they  were  attended, — all  related,  in  their 
full  extent,  with  such  detail  of  circumstances  as  trans- 
ports us  back  to  the  very  time,  makes  us  parties  to  the 
counsels,  and  actors,  as  it  were,  in  the  whole  scene  of 
affairs.  It  is  then  alone  that  history  becomes  the  ma- 
gistra  vitce ;  and  in  this  sense 

SALLUST 

has  been  generally  considered  as  the  first  among  the 
Romans  who  merited  the  title  of  historian.    This  ce- 

1  Malheureux  sort  de  l'histoire  !  Lcs  spectateurs  sont  trop  pcu 
instruits,  et  les  acteurs  trop  interesses  pour  que  nous  puissions 
compter  sur  les  recits  des  uns  ou  des  autres. — Gibbon's  Miscell. 
Works,  Vol.  IV. 


132  SALLUST. 

lebrated  writer  was  born  at  Amiternum,  in  the  terri- 
tory of  the  Sabines,  in  the  year  668.  He  received  his 
education  at  Rome,  and,  in  his  early  youth,  appears  to 
have  been  desirous  to  devote  himself  to  literary  pursuits. 
But  it  was  not  easy  for  one  residing  in  the  capital  to 
escape  the  contagious  desire  of  military  or  political  dis- 
tinction. At  the  age  of  twenty-seven,  he  obtained  the 
situation  of  Quaestor,  which  entitled  him  to  a  seat  in 
the  Senate,  and  about  six  years  afterwards  he  was 
elected  Tribune  of  the  people.  While  in  this  office, 
he  attached  himself  to  the  fortunes  of  Caesar,  and 
along  with  one  of  his  colleagues  in  the  tribunate,  con- 
ducted the  prosecution  against  Milo  for  the  murder  of 
Clodius.  In  the  year  704,  he  was  excluded  from  the 
Senate,  on  pretext  of  immoral  conduct,  but  more  pro- 
bably from  the  violence  of  the  patrician  party,  to 
which  he  was  opposed.  Aulus  Gellius,  on  the  autho- 
rity of  Varro's  treatise,  Pius  aut  de  Pace,  informs  us 
that  he  incurred  this  disgrace  in  consequence  of  being 
surprised  in  an  intrigue  with  Fausta,  the  wife  of  Milo, 
by  the  husband,  who  made  him  be  scourged  by  his 
slaves.1  It  has  been  doubted,  however,  by  modern 
critics,  whether  it  was  the  historian  Sallust  who  was 
thus  detected  and  punished,  or  his  nephew,  Crispus 
Sallustius,  to  whom  Horace  has  addressed  the  second 
ode  of  the  second  book.  It  seems,  indeed,  unlikely, 
that  in  such  a  corrupt  age,  an  amour  with  a  woman  of 
Fausta's  abandoned  character,  should  have  been  the 
real  cause  of  his  expulsion  from  the  Senate.  After 
undergoing   this  ignominy,  which,  for  the  present, 

i  Noct.  Att.  Lib.  XVII.  c  18. 


SALLUST.  133 

baffled  all  his  hopes  of  preferment,  he  quitted  Rome, 
and  joined  his  patron,  Caesar,  in  Gaul.  He  continued 
to  follow  the  fortunes  of  that  commander,  and,  in  par- 
ticular, bore  a  share  in  the  expedition  to  Africa,  where 
the  scattered  remains  of  Pompey's  party  had  united. 
That  region  being  finally  subdued,  Sallust  was  left  by 
Caesar  as  Praetor  of  Numidia  ;  and  about  the  same 
time  he  married  Terentia,  the  divorced  wife  of  Cice- 
ro.   He  remained  only  a  year  in  his  government,  but 
during  that  period  he  enriched  himself  by  despoiling 
the  province.  On  his  return  to  Rome,  he  was  accused 
by  the  Numidians,  whom  he  had  plundered,  but  esca- 
ped with  impunity,  by  means  of  the  protection  of  Cae- 
sar, and  was  quietly  permitted  to  betake  himself  to  a 
luxurious  retirement  with  his  ill-gotten  wealth.     He 
chose  for  his  favourite  retreat  a  villa  at  Tibur,  which 
had  belonged  to  Caesar ;  and  he  also  built  a  magnificent 
palace  in  the  suburbs  of  Rome,  surrounded  by  de- 
lightful pleasure-grounds,  which  were  afterwards  well 
known  and  celebrated  by  the  name  of  the  Gardens  of 
Sallust.  One  front  of  this  splendid  mansion  faced  the 
street,  where  he  constructed  a  spacious  market-place, 
in  which  every  article  of  luxury  was  sold  in  abundance. 
The  other  front  looked  to  the  gardens,  which  were 
contiguous  to  those  of  Lucullus,  and  occupied  the 
valley  between  the  extremities  of  the  Quirinal  and 
Pincian  Hills.1  They  lay,  in  the  time  of  Sallust,  im- 
mediately beyond  the  walls  of  Rome,  but  were  inclu- 
ded within  the  new  wall  of  Aurelian.    In  them  every 
beauty  of  nature,  and  every  embellishment  of  art,  that 
1  Nardini  Roma  Antica.  Lib,  IV.  c.  7. 


134  SALLUST. 

could  delight  or  gratify  the  senses,  seem  to  have  been 
assembled.     Umbrageous  walks,  open  parterres,  and 
cool   porticos,    displayed    their   various    attractions. 
Amidst  shrubs  and  flowers  of  every  hue  and  odour, 
interspersed  with  statues  of  the  most  exquisite  work- 
manship, pure  streams  of  water  preserved  the  verdure 
of  the  earth  and  the  temperature  of  the  air ;    and 
while,  on  the  one  hand,  the  distant  prospect  caught 
the  eye,  on  the  other,  the  close  retreat  invited  to  re- 
pose or  meditation.1    These  gardens  included  within 
their  precincts  the  most  magnificent' baths,  a  temple 
to  Venus,  and  a  circus,  which  Sallust  repaired  and  or- 
namented.   Possessed  of  such  attractions,  the  Sallus- 
tian  palace  and  gardens  became,  after  the  death  of 
their  original  proprietor,  the  residence  of  successive 
emperors.    Augustus  chose  them  as  the  scene  of  his 
most  sumptuous  entertainments.  The  taste  of  Vespa- 
sian preferred  them  to  the  palace  of  the  Caesars.  Even 
the  virtuous  Nerva,  and  stern  Aurelian,  were  so  at- 
tracted by  their  beauty,  that,  while  at  Rome,  they 
were  their  constant  abode.    "  The  palace,"  says  Eus- 
tace, "  was  consumed  by  fire  on  the  fatal  night  when 
Alaric  entered  the  city.  The  temple,  of  singular  beau- 
ty, sacred  to  Venus,  was  discovered  about  the  middle 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  in  opening  the  grounds  of  a 
garden,  and  was  destroyed  for  the  sale  of  the  mate- 
rials :  Of  the  circus  little  remains,  but  masses  of  walls 
that  merely  indicate  its  site  ;  while  statues  and  mar- 
bles, found  occasionally,  continue  to  furnish  proofs  of 
its  former  magnificence."2    Many  statues  of  exquisite 
1  Steuart's  Salhisl,  Essay  I.      2  Classical  Tour,  Vol.  II.  c.  6. 


SALLUST.  135 

workmanship  have  been  found  on  the  same  spot ;  but 
these  may  have  been  placed  there  by  the  magnificence 
of  the  imperial  occupiers,  and  not  of  the  original  pro- 
prietor. 

In  his  urban  gardens,  or  villa  at  Tibur,  Sallust  pass- 
ed the  close  of  his  life,  dividing  his  time  between  lite- 
rary avocations  and  the  society  of  his  friends — among 
whom  he  numbered  Lucullus,  Messala,  and  Cornelius 
Nepos. 

Such  having  been  his  friends  and  studies,  it  seems 
highly  improbable  that  he  indulged  in  that  excessive 
libertinism  which  has  been  attributed  to  him,  on  the  er- 
roneous supposition  that  he  was  the  Sallust  mentioned 
by  Horace,  in  the  first  book  of  his  Satires.1  The  sub- 
ject of  Sallust's  character  is  one  which  has  excited 
some  investigation  and  interest,  and  on  which  very 
different  opinions  have  been  formed.  That  he  was  a 
man  of  loose  morals  is  evident ;  and  it  cannot  be  de- 
nied that  he  rapaciously  plundered  his  province,  like 
other  Roman  governors  of  the  day.  But  it  seems 
doubtful  if  he  was  that  monster  of  iniquity  he  has 
been  sometimes  represented.  He  was  extremely  un- 
fortunate in  the  first  permanent  notice  taken  of  his 
character  by  his  contemporaries.  The  decided  enemy 
of  Pompey  and  his  faction,  he  had  said  of  that  cele- 
brated chief,  in  his  general  history,  that  he  was  a  man 
"  oris  probi,  animo  inverecundo."  Lenaeus,  the  freed- 
man  of  Pompey,  avenged  his  master,  by  the  most  viru- 
lent abuse  of  his  enemy,2  in  a  work,  which  should  ra- 
ther be  regarded  as  a  frantic  satire  than  an  historical 

1  Sat.  Lib.  I.  Sat.  2.  2  Suetonius,  De  Grammalicis. 


136  SALLUST. 

document.  Of  the  injustice  which  he  had  done  to  the 
life  of  the  historian  we  may,  in  some  degree,  judge, 
from  what  he  said  of  him  as  an  author.  He  called 
him,  as  we  learn  from  Suetonius,  "  Nebulonem,  vita 
scriptisque  monstrosum  :  praeterea,  priscorum  Cato- 
nisque  ineruditissimum  furem."  The  Life  of  Sallust,  by 
Asconius  Pedianus,  which  was  written  in  the  age  of 
Augustus,  and  might  have  acted,  in  the  present  day, 
as  a  corrective,  or  palliative,  of  the  unfavourable  im- 
pression produced  by  this  injurious  libel,  has  unfortu- 
nately perished ;  and  the  next  work  on  the  subject  now 
extant,  is  a  professed  rhetorical  declamation  against 
the  character  of  Sallust,  which  was  given  to  the  world 
in  the  name  of  Cicero,  but  was  not  written  till  long 
after  the  death  of  that  orator,  and  is  now  generally 
assigned  by  critics,  to  a  rhetorician,  in  the  reign  of 
Claudius,  called  Porcius  Latro.  The  calumnies  in- 
vented or  exaggerated  by  Lenasus,  and  propagated  in 
the  scholastic  theme  of  Porcius  Latro,  have  been 
adopted  by  Le  Clerc,  professor  of  Hebrew  at  Amster- 
dam, and  by  Professor  Meisner,  of  Prague,1  in  their 
respective  accounts  of  the  Life  of  Sallust.  His  cha- 
racter has  received  more  justice  from  the  prefatory 
Memoir  and  Notes  of  De  Brosses,  his  French  trans- 
lator, and  from  the  researches  of  Wieland  in  Ger- 
many. 

From  what  has  been  above  said  of  Fabius  Pictor, 
and  his  immediate  successors,  it  must  be  apparent, 
that  the  art  of  historic  composition  at  Rome  was  in 
the  lowest  state,  and  that  Sallust  had  no  model  to  imi- 

1  Leben  des  Sallust. 


SALLUST.  137 

tate  among  the  writers  of  his  own  country.  He  there 
fore  naturally  recurred  to  the  productions  of  the  Greek 
historians.  The  native  exuberance,  and  loquacious  fa- 
miliarity of  Herodotus,  were  not  adapted  to  his  taste ; 
and  simplicity,  such  as  that  of  Xenophon,  is,  of  all 
things,  the  most  difficult  to  attain  :  He  therefore 
chiefly  emulated  Thucydides,  and  attempted  to  trans- 
plant into  his  own  language  the  vigour  and  concise- 
ness of  the  Greek  historian  ;  but  the  strict  imitation, 
with  which  he  has  followed  him,  has  gone  far  to  lessen 
the  effect  of  his  own  original  genius. 

The  first  book  of  Sallust  was  the  Conspiracy  of 
Catiline.  There  exists,  however,  some  doubt  as  to  the 
precise  period  of  its  composition.  The  general  opinion 
is,  that  it  was  written  immediately  after  the  author 
went  out  of  office  as  Tribune  of  the  People,  that  is,  in 
the  year  703  :  And  the  composition  of  the  Jugur- 
thine  War,  as  well  as  of  his  general  history,  are  fixed 
by  Le  Clerc  between  that  period  and  his  appointment 
to  the  Prsetorship  of  Numidia.  But  others  have  sup- 
posed that  they  were  all  written  during  the  space  which 
intervened  between  his  return  from  Numidia,  in  708, 
and  his  death,  which  happened  in  718,  four  years  pre- 
vious to  the  battle  of  Actium.  It  is  maintained  by  the 
supporters  of  this  last  idea,  that  he  was  too  much  en- 
gaged in  political  tumults  previous  to  his  administra- 
tion of  Numidia,  to  have  leisure  for  such  important 
compositions — that,  in  the  introduction  to  Catiline's 
Conspiracy,  he  talks  of  himself  as  withdrawn  from 
public  affairs,  and  refutes  accusations  of  his  voluptu- 
ous life,  which  were  only  applicable  to  this  period  ;  and 


138  SALLUST. 

that,  while  instituting  the  comparison  between  Caesar 
and  Cato,  he  speaks  of  the  existence  and  competition 
of  these  celebrated  opponents  as  things  that  had  pass- 
ed over — "  Sed  mea  memoria,  ingenti  virtute,  diversis 
moribus,  fuere  viri  duo,  Marcus  Cato  et  Caius  Cassar." 
On  this  passage,  too,  Gibbon  in  particular  argues,  that 
such  a  flatterer  and  party  tool  as  Sallust  would  not, 
during  the  life  of  Caesar,  have  put  Cato  so  much  on  a 
level  with  him  in  the  comparison  instituted  between 
them.  De  Brosses  agrees  with  Le  Clerc  in  thinking 
that  the  Conspiracy  of  Catiline  at  least  must  have  been 
written  immediately  after  703,  as  Sallust  would  not, 
subsequently  to  his  marriage  with  Terentia,  have  com- 
memorated the  disgrace  of  her  sister,  for  she,  it  seems, 
was  the  vestal  virgin  whose  intrigue  witb  Catiline  is 
recorded  by  our  historian.  But  whatever  may  be  the  fact 
as  to  Catiline's  Conspiracy,  it  is  quite  clear  that  the 
Jugurthine  War  was  written  subsequent  to  the  au- 
thor's residence  in  Numidia,  which  evidently  suggest- 
ed to  him  this  theme,  and  afforded  him  the  means  of 
collecting  the  information  necessary  for  completing  his 
work. 

The  subjects  chosen  by  Sallust  form  two  of  the 
most  important  and  prominent  topics  in  the  history 
of  Rome.  The  periods,  indeed,  which  he  describes, 
were  painful,  but  they  were  interesting.  Full  of  con- 
spiracies, usurpations,  and  civil  wars,  they  chiefly  ex- 
hibit the  mutual  rage  and  iniquity  of  embittered  fac- 
tions, furious  struggles  between  the  patricians  and 
plebeians,  open  corruption  in  the  senate,  venality  in 
the  courts  of  justice,  and  rapine  in  the  provinces.  This 


SALLUST.  139 

state  of  things,  so  forcibly  painted  by  Sallust,  produced 
the  Conspiracy,  and  even  in  some  degree  formed  the 
character  of  Catiline :  But  it  was  the  oppressive  debts 
of  individuals,  the  temper  of  Sylla's  soldiers,  and  the 
absence  of  Pompey  with  his  army,  which  gave  a  possi- 
bility, and  even  prospect  of  success  to  a  plot  which  af- 
fected the  vital  existence  of  the  commonwealth,  and 
which,  although  arrested  in  its  commencement,  was 
one  of  those  violent  shocks  which  hasten  the  fall  of  a 
state.  The  History  of  the  Jugurthine  War,  if  not  so 
important  or  menacing  to  the  vital  interests  and  imme- 
diate safety  of  Rome,  exhibits  a  more  extensive  field 
of  action,  and  a  greater  theatre  of  war.  No  prince,  ex- 
cept Mithridates,  gave  so  much  employment  to  the 
arms  of  the  Romans.  In  the  course  of  no  war  in  which 
they  had  ever  been  engaged,  not  even  the  second 
Carthaginian,  were  the  people  more  desponding,  and 
in  none  were  they  more  elated  with  ultimate  success. 
Nothing  can  be  more  interesting  than  the  account  of 
the  vicissitudes  of  this  contest.  The  endless  resources, 
and  hair-breadth  escapes  of  Jugurtha — his  levity,  his 
fickle  faithless  disposition,  contrasted  with  the  perse- 
verance and  prudence  of  the  Roman  commander,  Me- 
tellus,  are  all  described  in  a  manner  the  most  vivid 
and  picturesque. 

Sallust  had  attained  the  age  of  twenty-two  when 
the  conspiracy  of  Catiline  broke  out,  and  was  an  eye- 
witness of  the  whole  proceedings.  He  had,  therefore, 
sufficient  opportunity  of  recording  with  accuracy  and 
truth  the  progress  and  termination  of  the  conspiracy. 
Sallust  has  certainly  acquired  the  praise  of  a  veracious 


140  SALLUST. 

historian,  and  I  do  not  know  that  he  has  been  de- 
tected in  falsifying  any  fact  within  the  sphere  of  his 
knowledge.     Indeed  there  are  few  historical  composi- 
tions of  which  the  truth  can  be  proved  on  such  evi- 
dence as  the  Conspiracy  of  Catiline.     The  facts  de- 
tailed in  the  orations  of  Cicero,  though  differing  in 
some  minute  particulars,  coincide  in  everything  of 
importance,  and  highly  contribute  to  illustrate  and 
verify  the  work  of  the  historian.     But  Sallust  lived 
too  near  the  period  of  which  he  treated,  and  was  too 
much  engaged  in  the  political  tumults  of  the  day,  to 
give  a  faithful  account,  unvarnished  by  animosity  or 
predilection  ;  he  could  not  have  raised  himself  above 
all  hopes,  fears,  and  prejudices,  and  therefore  could  not 
in  all  their  extent  have  fulfilled  the  duties  of  an  im- 
partial writer.    A  contemporary  historian  of  such  tur- 
bulent times  would  be  apt  to  exaggerate  through  adu- 
lation, or  conceal  through  fear,  to  instil  the  precepts 
not  of  the  philosopher  but  partizan,  and  colour  facts 
into  harmony  with  his  own  system  of  patriotism  or 
friendship.     An  obsequious  follower  of  Caesar,  he  has 
been  accused  of  a  want  of  candour  in  varnishing  over 
the  views  of  his  patron  ;  yet  I  have  never  been  able  to 
persuade  myself  that  Caesar  was  deeply  engaged  in  the 
conspiracy  of  Catiline,  or  that  a  person  of  his  prudence 
should  have  leagued  with  such  rash  associates,  or  fol- 
lowed so  desperate  an  adventurer.  But  the  chief  objec- 
tion urged  against  Sallust's  impartiality,  is  the  feeble 
and  apparently  reluctant  commendation  which  he  be- 
stows on  Cicero,  who  is  now  acknowledged  to  have  been 
the  principal  actor  in  detecting  and  frustrating  the  con- 


SALLUST.  141 

spiracy.  Though  fond  of  displaying  his  talent  for 
drawing  characters,  he  exercises  none  of  it  on  Cicero, 
whom  he  merely  terms  "  homo  egregius  et  optumus 
Consul,"  which  was  but  cold  applause  for  one  who  had 
saved  the  commonwealth.  It  is  true,  that,  in  the  early 
part  of  the  history,  praise,  though  sparingly  bestowed, 
is  not  absolutely  withheld.  The  election  of  Cicero  to 
the  Consulship  is  fairly  attributed  to  the  high  opinion 
entertained  of  his  capacity,  which  overcame  the  dis- 
advantage of  his  obscure  birth.  The  mode  adopted  for 
gaining  over  one  of  Catiline's  accomplices,  and  fixing 
his  own  wavering  and  disaffected  colleague, — the  dex- 
terity manifested  in  seizing  the  Allobrogian  depu- 
ties with  the  letters,  and  the  irresistible  effect  produced, 
by  confronting  them  with  the  conspirators,  are  attri- 
buted exclusively  to  Cicero.  It  is  in  the  conclusion  of 
these  great  transactions  that  the  historian  withholds 
from  him  his  due  share  of  applause,  and  contrives  to 
eclipse  him  by  always  interposing  the  character  of  Cato, 
though  it  could  not  be  unknown  to  any  witness  of  the 
proceedings  that  Cato  himself,  and  other  senators,  pub- 
licly hailed  the  Consul,,  as  the  Father  of  his  country, 
and  that  a  public  thanksgiving  to  the  gods  was  decreed 
in  his  name,  for  having  preserved  the  city  from  con- 
flagration, and  the  citizens  from  massacre.1  This  omis- 
sion, which  may  have  originated  partly  in  enmity,  and 
partly  in  disgust  at  the  ill- disguised  vanity  of  the  Con- 
sul, has  in  all  times  been  regarded  as  the  chief  defect, 
and  even  stain,  in  the  history  of  the  Catilinarian  con- 
spiracy. 

Although  not  an  eye-witness  of  the  war  with  Ju- 
1  Bankes,  Civil  Hist,  of  Rome,  Vol.  II. 


142  SALLUST. 

gurtha,  Sallust's  situation  as  Praetor  of  Numidia, 
which  suggested  the  composition,  was  favourable  to 
the  authority  of  the  work,  by  affording  opportunity  of 
collecting  materials  and  procuring  information.  He 
examined  into  the  different  accounts,  written  as  well  as 
traditionary,  concerning  the  history  of  Africa,1  parti- 
cularly the  documents  preserved  in  the  archives  of 
King  Hiempsal,  which  he  caused  to  be  translated  for 
his  own  use,  and  which  proved  peculiarly  serviceable 
for  his  detailed  description  of  the  continent  and  inha- 
bitants of  Africa.  He  has  been  accused  of  showing,  in 
this  history,  an  undue  partiality  towards  the  character 
of  Marius,  and  giving,  for  the  sake  of  his  favourite 
leader,  an  unfair  account  of  the  massacre  at  Vacca.  But 
he  appears  to  me  to  do  even  more  than  ample  justice 
to  Metellus,  as  he  represents  the  war  as  almost  finish- 
ed by  him  previous  to  the  arrival  of  Marius,  though 
it  was,  in  fact,  far  from  being  concluded. 

Veracity  and  fidelity  are  the  chief,  and,  indeed,  the 
indispensable  duties  of  an  historian.  Of  all  the  orna- 
ments of  historic  composition,  it  derives  its  chief  em- 
bellishment from  a  graceful  and  perspicuous  style. 
That  of  the  early- annalists,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
was  inelegant  and  jejune ;  but  style  came  to  be  consider- 
ed, in  the  progress  of  history,  as  a  matter  of  primary 
importance.  It  is  unfortunate,  perhaps,  that  so  much 

1  The  authors  of  the  Universal  History  suppose  that  these 
books  were  PhcEnician  and  Punic  volumes,  carried  off  from  Car- 
thage by  Scipio,  after  its  destruction,  and  presented  by  him  to  Mi- 
cipsa;  and  they  give  a  curious  account  of  these  books,  of  which 
some  memory  still  subsists,  and  which  they  conjecture  to  have 
formed  part  of  the  royal  collection  of  Numidia. 


SALLUST.  143 

value  was  at  length  attached  to  it,  since  the  ancient 
historians  seldom  gave  their  authorities, and  considered 
the  excellence  of  history  as  consisting  in  fine  writing, 
more  than  in  an  accurate  detail  of  facts.  Sallust  evident- 
ly regarded  an  elegant  style  as  one  of  the  chief  merits  of 
an  historical  work.  His  own  style,  on  which  he  took  so 
much  pains,  was  carefully  formed  on  that  of  Thucydides, 
whose  manner  of  writing  was  in  a  great  measure  ori- 
ginal, and,  till  the  time  of  Sallust,  peculiar  to  himself. 
The  Roman  has  wonderfully  succeeded  in  imitating 
the  vigour  and  conciseness  of  the  Greek  historian,  and 
infusing  into  his  composition  something  of  that  dig- 
nified austerity,  which  distinguishes  the  works  of  his 
great  model ;  but  when  I  say  that  Sallust  has  imita- 
ted the  conciseness  of  Thucydides,  I  mean  the  rapid 
and  compressed  manner  in  which  his  narrative  is  con- 
ducted,—in  short,  brevity  of  idea,  rather  than  language. 
For  Thucydides,  although  he  brings  forward  only  the 
principal  idea,  and  discards  what  is  collateral,  yet  fre- 
quently employs  long  and  involved  periods.  Sallust, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  abrupt  and  sententious,  and  is 
generally  considered  as  having  carried  this  sort  of  bre- 
vity to  a  vicious  excess.  The  use  of  copulatives,  either 
for  the  purpose  of  connecting  his  sentences  with  each 
other,  or  uniting  the  clauses  of  the  same  sentence,  is  in 
a  great  measure  rejected.  This  omission  produces  a  mo- 
notonous effect,  and  a  total  want  of  that  flow  and  that 
variety,  which  are  the  principal  charms  of  the  historic 
period.  Seneca  accordingly  talks  of  the  "Amputata? 
sententiae,  et  verba  ante  expectatum  cadentia,"1  which 

1  Senec.  Epist.  114. 


144  SALLUST. 

the  practice  of  Sallust  had  rendered  fashionable.  Lord 
Monboddo  calls  his  style  incoherent,  and  declares  that 
there  is  not  one  of  his  short  and  uniform  sentences 
which  deserves  the  name  of  a  period ;  so  that  supposing 
each  sentence  were  in  itself  beautiful,  there  is  not  va- 
riety enough  to  constitute  fine  writing. 

It  was,  perhaps,  partly  in  imitation  of  Thucydides, 
that  Sallust  introduced  into  his  history  a  number  of 
words  almost  considered  as  obsolete,  and  which  were 
selected  from  the  works  of  the  older  authors  of  Rome, 
particularly  Cato  the  Censor.  It  is  on  this  point  he 
has  been  chiefly  attacked  by  Pollio,  in  his  letters  to 
Plancus.  He  has  also  been  taxed  with  the  opposite 
vice,  of  coining  new  words,  and  introducing  Greek 
idioms ;  but  the  severity  of  judgment  which  led  him 
to  imitate  the  ancient  and  austere  dignity  of  style, 
made  him  reject  those  sparkling  ornaments  of  compo- 
sition, which  were  beginning  to  infect  the  Roman 
taste,  in  consequence  of  the  increasing  popularity  of 
the  rhetoric  schools  of  declamation,  and  the  more  fre- 
quent intercourse  with  Asia.  On  the  whole,  in  the 
style  of  Sallust,  there  is  too  much  appearance  of  study, 
and  a  want  of  that  graceful  ease,  which  is  generally 
the  effect  of  art,  but  in  which  art  is  nowhere  disco- 
vered. The  opinion  of  Sir  J.  Checke,  as  reported  by 
Ascham  in  his  Schoolmaster,  contains  a  pretty  accu- 
rate estimate  of  the  merits  of  the  style  of  Sallust. 
"  Sir  J.  Checke  said,  that  he  could  not  recommend 
Sallust  as  a  good  pattern  of  style  for  young  men,  be- 
cause in  his  writings  there  was  more  art  than  nature, 
and  more  labour  than  art ;  and  in  his  labour,  also,  too 

1 


SALLUST.  145 

much  toil,  as  it  were,  with  an  uncontented  care  to 
write  better  than  he  could — a  fault  common  to  very 
many  men.  And,  therefore,  he  doth  not  express  the 
matter  livelily  and  naturally  with  common  speech,  as 
ye  see  Xenophon  doth  in  Greek,  but  it  is  carried  and 
driven  forth  artificially,  after  too  learned  a  sort,  as 
Thucydides  doth  in  his  orations.  *  And  how  cometh 
it  to  pass,'  said  I,  '  that  Caesar's  and  Cicero's  talk  is 
so  natural  and  plain,  and  Sallust's  writing  so  artificial 
and  dark,  when  all  the  three  lived  in  one  time  ?' — '  T 
will  freely  tell  you  my  fancy  herein,'  said  he  ;  *  Csesar 
and  Cicero,  beside  a  singular  prerogative  of  natural 
eloquence  given  unto  them  by  God,  were  both,  by  use 
of  life,  daily  orators  among  the  common  people,  and 
greatest  councillors  in  the  Senate-house  ;  and  there- 
fore gave  themselves  to  use  such  speech  as  the  mean- 
est should  well  understand,  and  the  wisest  best  allow, 
following  carefully  that  good  council  of  Aristotle,  Lo- 
quendum  ut  multi ;  sapiendum  ut  pauci.  But  Sallust 
was  no  such  man.' " 

Of  all  departments  of  history,  the  delineation  of  cha- 
racter is  that  which  is  most  trying  to  the  temper  and 
impartiality  of  the  writer,  more  especially  when  he  has 
been  contemporary  with  the  individuals  he  portrays, 
and  in  some  degree  engaged  in  the  transactions  he  re- 
cords. Five  or  six  of  the  characters  drawn  by  Sallust 
have  in  all  ages  been  regarded  as  master-pieces :  He 
has  seized  the  delicate  shades,  as  well  as  the  promi- 
nent features,  and  thrown  over  them  the  most  lively 
and  appropriate  colouring.  Those  of  the  two  princi- 
pal actors  in  his  tragic  histories  are  forcibly  given,  and 

VOL.  II.  K 


146  SALLUST. 

prepare  us  for  the  incidents  which  follow.  The  por- 
trait drawn  of  Catiline  conveys  a  vivid  idea  of  his 
mind  and  person, — his  profligate  untameahle  spirit, 
infinite  resources,  unwearied  application,  and  prevail- 
ing address.  We  behold,  as  it  were,  before  us  the 
deadly  paleness  of  his  countenance,  his  ghastly  eye,  his 
unequal  troubled  step,  and  the  distraction  of  his  whole 
appearance,  strongly  indicating  the  restless  horror  of 
a  guilty  conscience.  I  think,  however,  it  might  have 
been  instructive  and  interesting  had  we  seen  some- 
thing more  of  the  atrocities  perpetrated  in  early  life  by 
this  chief  conspirator.  The  historian  might  have  shown 
him  commencing  his  career  as  the  chosen  favourite  of 
Sylla,  and  the  instrument  of  his  monstrous  cruelties. 
The  notice  of  the  other  conspirators  is  too  brief,  and 
there  is  too  little  discrimination  of  their  characters. 
Perhaps  the  outline  was  the  same  in  all,  but  each  might 
have  been  individuated  by  distinctive  features.  The 
parallel  drawn  between  Cato  and  Caesar  is  one  of  the 
most  celebrated  passages  in  the  history  of  the  conspi- 
racy. Of  both  these  famed  opponents  we  are  presented 
with  favourable  likenesses.  Their  defects  are  thrown 
into  shade ;  and  the  bright  qualities  of  each  different 
species  which  distinguished  them,  are  contrasted  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  the  various  merits  by  which 
men  arrive  at  eminence. 

The  introductory  sketch  of  the  genius  and  manners 
of  Jugurtha  is  no  less  able  and  spirited  than  the  cha- 
racter of  Catiline.  We  behold  him,  while  serving  un- 
der Scipio,  as  brave,  accomplished,  and  enterprizing ; 
but  imbued  with  an  ambition,  which,  being  under  no 


SALLUST.  147 

control  of  principle,  hurried  him  into  its  worst  excess- 
es, and  rendered  him  ultimately  perfidious  and  cruel. 
The  most  singular  part  of  his  character  was  the  mix- 
ture of  boldness  and  irresolution  which  it  combined  ; 
but  the  lesson  we  receive  from  it,  lies  in  the  miseries  of 
that  suspicion  and  that  remorse  which  he  had  created 
in  his  own  mind  by  his  atrocities,  and  which  rendered 
him  as  wretched  on  the  throne,  or  at  the  head  of  his 
army,  as  in  the  dungeon  where  he  terminated  his  exist- 
ence. The  portraits  of  the  other  principal  characters,  who 
figured  in  the  Jugurthine  War,  are  also  well  brought 
out.  That  of  Marius,  in  particular,  is  happily  touched. 
His  insatiable  ambition  is  artfully  disguised  under  the 
mask  of  patriotism, — his  cupidity  and  avarice  are  con- 
cealed under  that  of  martial  simplicity  and  hardi- 
hood ;  but,  though  we  know  from  his  subsequent  ca- 
reer the  hypocrisy  of  his  pretensions,  the  character  of 
Marius  is  presented  to  us  in  a  more  favourable  light 
than  that  in  which  it  can  be  viewed  on  a  survey  of  his 
whole  life.  We  see  the  blunt  and  gallant  soldier,  and 
not  that  savage  whose  innate  cruelty  of  soul  was  just 
about  to  burst  forth  for  the  destruction  of  his  country- 
men. In  drawing  the  portrait  of  Sylla,  the  memor- 
able rival  of  Marius,  the  historian  represents  him  also 
such  as  he  appeared  at  that  period,  not  such  as  he 
afterwards  proved  himself  to  be.  We  behold  him  with 
pleasure  as  an  accomplished  and  subtle  commander, 
eloquent  in  speech,  and  versatile  in  resources ;  but 
there  is  no  trace  of  the  cold-blooded  assassin,  the  ty- 
rant, buffoon,  and  usurper. 

In  general,  Sallust's  painting  of  character  is  so 


148  SALLUST. 

strong,  that  we  almost  foresee  how  each  individual  will 
conduct  himself  in  the  situation  in  which  he  is  placed. 
Tacitus  attributes  all  the  actions  of  men  to  policy, — 
to  refined,  and  sometimes  imaginary  views  ;  but  Sal- 
lust,  more  correctly,  discovers  their  chief  springs  in  the 
passions  and  dispositions  of  individuals.  "  Salluste," 
says  St  Evremond,  "donne  autant  au  naturel,  que 
Tacite  a  la  politique.  Le  plus  grand  soin  du  premier 
est  de  bien  connoitre  le  gdnie  des  hommes ;  les  af- 
faires viennent  apres  naturellement,  par  des  actions  peu 
recherchees  de  ces  memes  personnes  qu'il  a  depeintes." 
History,  in  its  original  state,  was  confined  to  nar- 
rative ;  the  reader  being  left  to  form  his  own  reflec- 
tions on  the  deeds  or  events  recorded.  The  historic 
art,  however,  conveys  not  complete  satisfaction,  un- 
less these  actions  be  connected  with  their  causes, — the 
political  springs,  or  private  passions,  in  which  they 
originated.  It  is  the  business,  therefore,  of  the  histo- 
rian, to  apply  the  conclusions  of  the  politician  in  ex* 
plaining  the  causes  and  effects  of  the  transactions  he 
relates.  These  transactions  the  author  must  receive 
from  authentic  monuments  or  records,  but  the  remarks 
deduced  from  them  must  be  the  offspring  of  his  own 
ingenuity.  The  reflections  with  which  Sallust  intro- 
duces his  narrative,  and  those  he  draws  from  it,  are  so 
just  and  numerous  that  he  has  by  some  been  consider- 
ed as  the  father  of  philosophic  history.  It  must  al- 
ways, however,  be  remembered,  that  the  proper  ob- 
ject of  history  is  the  detail  of  national  transactions, 
— that  whatever  forms  not  a  part  of  the  narrative  is 
episodical,  and  therefore  improper,  if  it  be  too  long,  and 


SALLUST.  149 

do  not  grow  naturally  out  of  the  subject.  Now,  some 
of  the  political  and  moral  digressions  of  Sallust  are 
neither  very  immediately  connected  with  his  subject, 
nor  very  obviously  suggested  by  the  narration.  The 
discursive  nature  and  inordinate  length  of  the  intro- 
ductions to  his  histories  have  been  strongly  censured. 
The  first  four  sections  of  Catiline's  Conspiracy  have 
indeed  little  relation  to  that  topic.  They  might  as 
well  have  been  prefixed  to  any  other  history,  and  much 
better  to  a  moral  or  philosophic  treatise.  In  fact,  a  con- 
siderable part  of  them,  descanting  on  the  fleeting  nature 
of  wealth  and  beauty,  and  all  such  adventitious  or  tran- 
sitory possessions,  is  borrowed  from  the  second  oration 
of  Isocrates.  Perhaps  the  eight  following  sections  are 
also  disproportioned  to  the  length  of  the  whole  work ; 
but  the  preliminary  essay  they  contain,  on  the  degrada- 
tion of  Roman  manners  and  decline  of  virtue,  is  not 
an  unsuitable  introduction  to  the  conspiracy,  as  it  was 
this  corruption  of  morals  which  gave  birth  to  it,  and 
bestowed  on  it  a  chance  of  success.  The  preface  to  the 
Jugurthine  War  has  much  less  relation  to  the  subject 
which  it  is  intended  to  introduce.  The  author  dis- 
courses at  large  on  his  favourite  topics  the  superiority 
of  mental  endowments  over  corporeal  advantages,  and 
the  beauty  of  virtue  and  genius.  He  contrasts  a  life 
of  listless  indolence  with  one  of  honourable  activity ; 
and,  finally,  descants  on  the  task  of  the  historian  as  a 
suitable  exercise  for  the  highest  faculties  of  the  mind. 
Besides  the  conspiracy  of  Catiline  and  the  Jugur- 
thine War,  which  have  been  preserved  entire,  and 
from  which  our  estimate  of  the  merits  of  Sallust  must 


150  SALLUST. 

be  chiefly  formed,  he  was  author  of  a  civil  and  mili- 
tary history  of  the  republic,  in  five  books,  entitled, 
Historia  rerum  in  Republicd  JRomand  Gestarum. 
This  work,  inscribed  to  Lucullus,  the  son  of  the  cele- 
brated commander  of  that  name,  was  the  mature  fruit 
of  the  genius  of  Sallust,  having  been  the  last  history  he 
composed.  It  included,  properly  speaking,  only  a  pe- 
riod of  thirteen  years, — extending  from  the  resigna- 
tion of  the  dictatorship  by  Sylla,  till  the  promulga- 
tion of  the  Manilian  law,  by  which  Pompey  was  in- 
vested with  authority  equal  to  that  which  Sylla  had 
relinquished,  and  obtained,  with  unlimited  power  in 
the  east,  the  command  of  the  army  destined  to  act 
against  Mithridates.  This  period,  though  short,  com- 
prehends some  of  the  most  interesting  and  luminous 
points  which  appear  in  the  Roman  Annals.  During 
this  interval,  and  almost  at  the  same  moment,  the  re- 
public was  attacked  in  the  east  by  the  most  powerful 
and  enterprizing  of  the  monarchs  with  whom  it  had 
yet  waged  war ;  in  the  west,  by  one  of  the  most  skil- 
ful of  its  own  generals  ;  and  in  the  bosom  of  Italy,  by 
its  gladiators  and  slaves.  This  work  also  was  introdu- 
ced by  two  discourses — the  one  presenting  a  picture  of 
the  government  and  manners  of  the  Romans,  from 
the  origin  of  their  city  to  the  commencement  of  the 
civil  wars,  the  other  containing  a  general  view  of  the 
dissensions  of  Marius  and  Sylla ;  so  that  the  whole 
book  may  be  considered  as  connecting  the  termination 
of  the  Jugurthine  war,  and  the  breaking  out  of  Cati- 
line's conspiracy.  The  loss  of  this  valuable  production 
is  the  more  to  be  regretted,  as  all  the  accounts  of  Ro- 


SALLUST.  151 

man  history  which  have  been  written,  are  defective 
during  the  interesting  period  it  comprehended.  Near- 
ly 700  fragments  belonging  to  it  have  been  amassed, 
from  scholiasts  and  grammarians,  by  De  Brosses,  the 
French  translator  of  Sallust ;  but  they  are  so  short 
and  unconnected,  that  they  merely  serve  as  land-marks, 
from  which  we  may  conjecture  what  subjects  were 
treated  of,  and  what  events  were  recorded.  The  only 
parts  of  the  history  which  have  been  preserved  in  any 
degree  entire,  are  four  orations  and  two  letters.  Pom- 
ponius  Laetus  discovered  the  orations  in  a  MS.  of  the' 
Vatican,  containing  a  collection  of  speeches  from  Ro- 
man history.  The  first  is  an  oration  pronounced 
against  Sylla  by  the  turbulent  Marcus  JEmilius  Le- 
pidus  ;  who,  (as  is  well  known,)  being  desirous,  at  the 
expiration  of  his  year,  to  be  appointed  a  second  time 
Consul,  excited,  for  that  purpose,  a  civil  war,  and  ren- 
dered himself  master  of  great  part  of  Italy.  His 
speech  which  was  preparatory  to  these  designs,  was 
delivered  after  Sylla  had  abdicated  the  dictatorship, 
but  was  still  supposed  to  retain  great  influence  at 
Home.  He  is  accordingly  treated  as  being  still  the 
tyrant  of  the  state ;  and  the  people  are  exhorted  to 
throw  off  the  yoke  completely,  and  to  follow  the  speak- 
er to  the  bold  assertion  of  their  liberties.  The  second 
oration,  which  is  that  of  Lucius  Philippus,  is  an  invec- 
tive against  the  treasonable  attempt  of  Lepidus,  and 
was  calculated  to  rouse  the  people  from  the  apathy 
with  which  they  beheld  proceedings  that  were  likely 
to  terminate  in  the  total  subversion  of  the  govern- 
ment.   The  third  harangue  was  delivered  by  the  Tri- 


152  .  SALLUST. 

bime  Licinius  :  It  was  an  effort  of  that  demagogue  to 
depress  the  patrician,  and  raise  the  tribunitial  power, 
for  which  purpose  he  alternately  flatters  the  people, 
and  reviles  the  Senate.  The  oration  of  Marcus  Cotta 
is  unquestionably  a  fine  one.  He  addressed  it  to  the 
people,  during  the  period  of  his  Consulship,  in  order 
to  calm  their  minds,  and  allay  their  resentment  at  the 
bad  success  of  public  affairs,  which,  without  any 
blame  on  his  part,  had  lately,  in  many  respects,  been 
conducted  to  an  unprosperous  issue.  Of  the  two  let- 
ters which  are  extant,  the  one  is  from  Pompey  to  the 
Senate,  complaining,  in  very  strong  terms,  of  the  de- 
ficiency in  the  supplies  for  the  army  which  he  com- 
manded in  Spain  against  Sertorius ;  the  other  is 
feigned  to  be  addressed  from  Mithridates  to  Arsaces, 
King  of  Parthia,  and  to  be  written  when  the  affairs  of 
the  former  monarch  were  proceeding  unsuccessfully. 
It  exhorts  him,  nevertheless,  with  great  eloquence  and 
power  of  argument,  to  join  him  in  an  alliance  against 
the  Romans  :  for  this  purpose,  it  places  in  a  strong 
point  of  view  their  unprincipled  policy,  and  ambitious 
desire  of  universal  empire — all  which  could  not,  with- 
out this  device  of  an  imaginary  letter  by  a  foe,  have 
been  so  well  urged  by  a  national  historian.  It  con- 
cludes with  showing  the  extreme  danger  which  the 
Parthians  would  incur  from  the  hostility  of  the  Ro- 
mans, should  they  succeed  in  finally  subjugating  Pon- 
tus  and  Armenia.  The  only  other  fragment,  of  any 
length,  is  the  description  of  a  splendid  entertainment 
given  to  Metellus,  on  his  return,  after  a  year's  ab- 
sence, to  his  government  of  Farther  Spain.  It  appears, 


CAESAR.  153 

from  several  other  fragments,  that  Sallust  had  intro- 
duced, on  occasion  of  the  Mithridatic  war,  a  geogra- 
jmical  account  of  the  shores  and  countries  bordering  on 
the  Euxine,  in  the  same  manner  as  he  enters  into  a 
topographical  description  of  Africa,  in  his  history  of 
the  Jugurthine  War.  This  part  of  his  work  has  been 
much  applauded  by  ancient  writers  for  exactness  and 
liveliness  ;  and  is  frequently  referred  to,  as  the  high- 
est authority,  by  Strabo,  Pomponius  Mela,  and  other 
geographers. 

Besides  his  historical  works,  there  exist  two  politi- 
cal discourses,  concerning  the  administration  of  the 
government,  in  the  form  of  letters  to  Julius  Caesar, 
which  have  generally,  though  not  on  sufficient  grounds, 
been  attributed  to  the  pen  of  Sallust.1 

As  Sallust  has  obviously  imitated,  and,  in  fact,  re- 
sembles Thucydides,  so  has 


JULIUS  CAESAR, 

in  his  historical  works,  been  compared  to  Xenophon, 
the  first  memoir  writer  among  the  Greeks.  Simplici- 
ty is  the  characteristic  of  both,  but  Xenophon  has 
more  rhetorical  flow  and  sweetness  of  style,  and  he 

1  It  is  curious  into  what  gross  blunders  the  most  learned  and 
accurate  writers  occasionally  fall.  Fabricius,  speaking  of  these 
letters,  says,  "  Dure  orationes  (sive  epistolae  potius)  de  Rep.  ordi- 
nandi ad  Caesarem  missae,  cum  in  Hispanias  proficisceretur  contra 
Petreium  et  Afranium,  victo  Cn.  Pompeio" — Bibliothec.  Latin. 
Lib.  I.  c.  9- 


154  .  C^ESAlt. 

is  sometimes,  I  think,  a  little  mawkish  ;  while  the 
simplicity  of  Caesar,  on  the  other  hand,  borders,  per- 
haps, on  severity.  Caesar,  too,  though  often  circum- 
stantial, is  never  diffuse,  while  Xenophon  is  frequent- 
ly prolix,  without  being  minute  or  accurate.  "  In  the 
Latin  work,"  says  Young,  in  his,  History  of  Athens. 
"  we  have  the  commentaries  of  a  general  vested  with 
supreme  command,  and  who  felt  no  anxiety  about  the 
conduct  or  obedience  of  his  army—in  the  Greek,  we 
possess  the  journal  of  an  officer  in  subordinate  rank, 
though  of  high  estimation.  Hence  the  speeches  of  the 
one  are  replete  with  imperatorial  dignity,  those  of  the 
other  are  delivered  with  the  conciliatory  arts  of  argu- 
ment and  condescension.  Hence,  too,  the  mind  of 
Xenophon  was  absorbed  in  the  care  and  discipline  of 
those  under  his  command  ;  but  thence  we  are  better 
acquainted  with  the  Greek  army  than  with  that  of 
Caesar.  Caesar's  attention  was  ever  directed  to  those 
he  was  to  attack,  to  counteract,  or  to  oppose — Xeno- 
phon's  to  those  he  was  to  conduct.  For  the  same  rea- 
son, Xenophon  is  superficial  with  respect  to  any  pecu- 
liarities of  the  nations  he  passed  through ;  while  in 
Caesar  we  have  a  curious,  and  well-authenticated  de- 
tail, relative  to  the  Gauls,  the  Britons,  and  every  other 
enemy.  The  comparison,  however,  holds  in  this,  that 
Caesar,  like  Xenophon,  was  properly  a  writer  of  Me- 
moirs. Like  him,  he  aimed  at  nothing  farther  than 
communicating  facts  in  a  plain  familiar  manner ;  and 
the  account  of  his  campaign  was  only  drawn  up  as 
materials  for  future  history,  not  having  leisure  to  be- 
stow that  ornament  and  dress  which  history  requires." 


CAESAR.  155 

In  the  opinion  of  his  contemporaries,  however,  and  all 
subsequent  critics,  he  has  rendered  desperate  any  at- 
tempt to  write  the  history  of  the  wars  of  which  he 
treats.  "  Dum  voluit,"  says  Cicero,  "  alios  habere 
parata,  unde  sumerent,  qui  vellent  scribere  historiam, 
sanos  quidem  homines  a  scribendo  deterruit."  A  si- 
milar opinion  is  given  by  his  continuator  Hirtius, — 
"  Adeo  probantur  omnium  judicio  ut  prserepta,  non 
praebita,  facultas  scriptoribus  videatur." 

Caesar's  Commentaries  consist  of  seven  books  of  the 
Gallic,  and  three  of  the  civil  wars.  Some  critics,  how- 
ever, particularly  Floridus  Sabinus,1  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  attri- 
buting the  work  to  Suetonius.  Hardouin,  who  be- 
lieved that  most  of  the  works  now  termed  classical, 
were  forgeries  of  the  monks  in  the  thirteenth  century, 
also  tried  to  persuade  the  world,  that  the  whole  ac- 
count 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  evi- 
dence 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 
1  Lectiones  Subsecivce,  Lib.  I.  c.  3.  Lib.  II.  c.  2. 


156  CAESAR. 

of  a  nation,  they  embrace  events  of  the  highest  im- 
portance, 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  oppo- 
sed by  military  skill  and  prowess  only  second  to  its 
own,  he,  and  the  soldiers  he  commanded,  may  be  al- 
most extolled  in  the  words  in  which  Nestor  praised  the 
heroes  who  had  gone  before  him  : — 

Kx(>Ti?ot  ft-iv  \<rccv  km  Kctgnrcis  IfiXfcoyTO,"—* 

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  aid- 
ed by  all  the  influence  derived  from  the  constituted 
authority  of  the  state. 

Perhaps  the  most  interesting  part  of  the  whole  Com- 
mentaries, is  the  account  of  the  campaign  in  Spain 
against  Afranius  and  Petreius,  in  which  Caesar,  being 
reduced  to  extremities  for  want  of  provisions  and  fo- 
rage, (in  consequence  of  the  bridges  over  the  rivers,  be- 
tween which  he  had  encamped,  being  broken  down,)  ex- 
tricated himself  from  this  situation,  after  a  variety  of 
skilful  manoeuvres,  and  having  pursued  Pompey's  gene- 
rals into  Celtiberia,  and  back  again  to  Lerida,  forced 


CAESAR.  157 

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  Commen- 
taries 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,  af- 
fairs of  posts,  encampments,  retreats,  marches  in  face 
of  the  foe  through  woods  and  over  plains  or  moun- 
tains, passages  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,  Csesar  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  prin- 
ciple, 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  un- 
der his  immediate  directions,  he  possessed  the  best  in- 
formation with  regard  to  everything  of  which  he  wrote.1 

1  Asinius  Pollio,  however,  as  we  learn  from  Suetonius,  thought 
that  the  Commentaries  were  drawn  up  with  little  care  or  accuracy, 
that  the  author  was  very  credulous  as  to  the  actions  of  others,  and 
that  he  had  very  hastily  written  down  what  regarded  himself, 
with  the  intention,  which  he  never  accomplished,  of  afterwards 
revising  and  correcting. — Sueton.  in  Ccesar.  c.  56. 


158  C^ESAlt. 

In  general,  when  he  speaks  of  himself,  it  is  with- 
out affectation  or  arrogance.  He  talks  of  Caesar  as  of 
an  indifferent  person,  and  always  maintains  the  cha- 
racter which  he  has  thus  assumed ;  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  sustain- 
ed :  he  ingenuously  acknowledges  his  own  disaster  in 
the  affair  at  Dyracchium ;  he  admits  the  loss  of  96*0 
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  con- 
ceive 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  asso- 
ciates. Thus  he  gives  the  chief  credit  and  glory  of 
the  great  victory  over  Ariovistus  to  the  presence  of 
mind  displayed  by  Crassus,  who  promptly  made  the 
signal  to  a  body  of  men  to  advance  and  support  one 
of  the  wings  which  was  overpowered  by  the  multitude 
of  the  enemy,  and  was  beginning  to  give  way.     He 


CiESAR.  159 

does  not  even  omit  to  do  justice  to  the  distinguished 
and  generous  valour  of  the  two  centurions,  Pulfio  and 
Varenus,  or  of  the  centurion  Sextius  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  mili- 
tary question,  though  he  disapproves  Pompey's  mode 
of  waiting  for  the  attack  at  Pharsalia,  his  own  rea- 
sons for  a  contrary  opinion  are  urged  with  deference 
and  candour.  The  confident  hopes  which  were  enter- 
tained in  Pompey's  camp — the  pretensions  and  dis- 
putes of  the  leading  senators,  about  the  division  of 
patronage  and  offices,  and  the  confiscations  which  were 
supposed  to  be  just  falling  within  their  grasp,  fur- 
nished 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  anticipated  victory  with  luxury  and  festivity,  were 
matters  of  ocular  observation,  he  should  have  devoted 
some  few  passages  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  re- 
lating the  cruelty  of  the  former,  and  the  tyrannical 
ingenious  rapacity  of  the  latter.1 

1  Bankes,  Civil  Hist,  of  Rome,  Vol.11. 


160  •  C^JSAK. 

Whatever  concerns  the  events  of  the  civil  war  could 
noteasilyhave  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  Bri- 
tons, there  was  no  one  to  contradict  him.  Those  who  ac- 
companied 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  rea- 
son he  himself  assigns  for  the  undertaking  is,  that  he 
understood  supplies  had  been  thence  furnished  to  the 
enemy,  in  almost  all  the  Gallic  wars  ;  but  Suetonius 
asserts,  that  the  information  he  had  received  of  the 
quantity  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  no- 
tices they  afford.    Various  tracts,  chiefly  published  in 
the  Archceologia,  have  topographically  followed  the 
various  steps  of  Caesar's  progress,  particularly  his  pas- 
sage -across  the  Thames,  and  have  debated  the  situa- 
tion of  the  Portus  Iccius,  from  which  he  embarked 
for  Britain. 


CJESAIt.  161 

Caesar's  occasional  digressions  concerning  the  man- 
ners of  the  Gauls  and  Germans,  are  also  highly  interest- 
ing and  instructive,  and  are  the  only  accounts  to  be 
at  all  depended  on  with  regard  to  the  institutions  and 
customs  of  these  two  great  nations,  at  that  remote  pe- 
riod. 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  deli- 
vered concerning  that  country,  may  be  confidently  re- 
lied on.  His  intercourse  with  the  German  tribes  was 
occasional,  and  chiefly  of  a  military  description.  Some 
of  his  observations  on  their  manners — as  their  hospi- 
tality, the  continence  of  their  youth,  and  the  succes- 
sive 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  con- 
tradicted by  that  great  historian.  Caesar  declares  that 
they  have  no  sacrifices,  and  know  no  gods,  but  those, 
like  the  Sun  or  Moon,  which  are  visible,  and  whose 
benefits  they  enjoy.1  Tacitus  informs  us,  that  their 
chief  god  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.2     The 

1  Neque  Druides  habent,  qui  rebus  divinis  praesint ;  neque  sa- 
crificiis  student.  Deorum  numero  eos  solos  ducunt,  quos  cernunt, 
et  quorum  opibus  aperte  juvantur— • Solem,  et  Vulcanum,  et  Lu- 
nam:  reliquos  ne  fama.  quidem  acceperunt.     Lib.  VI.  c.  21. 

2  Deorum  maxim  e  Mercurium  colunt,  cui,  certis  diebus,  huma- 
nis  quoque  hostiis,  litare  fas  habent.  Herculem  ac  Martem  con- 
cessis  animalibus  placant  .  .  .  Lucos  ac  nemora  consecrant,  deo- 
rumque  nominibus  appellant  Secretum  illud,  quod  sola  reverentid 
vident.     De  Mor.  Germ.  c.  9- 

VOL.  II.  L 


162  CiESAR. 

researches  of  modern  writers  have  also  thrown  some 
doubts  on  the  accuracy  of  Caesar's  German  topogra- 
phy ;  and  Cluverius,  in  particular,  has  attempted  to 
show,  that  he  has  committed  many  errors  in  speaking 
both  of  the  Germans  and  Batavians.1 

As  the  Commentaries  of  Caesar  do  not  pretend  to 
the  elaborate  dignity  of  history,  the  author  can  scarce- 
ly 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  Sallust  or  Tacitus,  to  de- 
duce 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  pro- 
jects ;  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  suf- 
ficiently 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  les- 
sons of  instruction. 

No  person,  I  presume,  wishes  to  be  told,  for  the 

1  Germ.  Antiqua,  Lib.  I.  c.  3. 


CjEsak.  163 

twentieth  time,  that  the  style  of  Caesar  is  remarkable 
for  clearness  and  ease,  and  a  simplicity  more  truly 
noble  than  the  pomp  of  words.  Perhaps  the  most 
distinguishing  characteristic  of  his  style,  is  its  per- 
fect equality  of  expression.  There  was,  in  the  mind 
of  Caesar,  a  serene  and  even  dignity.  In  temper,  no- 
thing 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  un- 
adorned simplicity  of  an  ancient  Greek  statue,  may  be 
considered  as  the  highest  praise,  since  he  certainly  en- 
tertained 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  tan- 
quam  veste  detracto."  This  exquisite  purity  was  not 
insensibly  obtained,  as  the  Laelian  and  Mucian  Fa- 
milies are  said  to  have  acquired  it,  by  domestic  habit 
and  familiar  conversation,  but  by  assiduous  study  and 
thorough  knowledge  of  the  Latin  language,1  and  the 
practice  of  literary  composition,  to  which  Caesar  had 
been  accustomed  from  his  earliest  youth.2 

1  Brutus,  c.  72. 

2  See  Plutarch  In  Ccesare,  where  it  is  related  that  Caesar  wrote 
verses  and  speeches,  and  read  them  to  the  pirates  by  whom  he 
was  taken  prisoner,  on  his  return  to  Rome  from  Bithynia,  where 
he  had  sought  refuge  from  the  power  of  Sylla. 


164  CAESAR. 

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  Anco- 
rarii  funes,  a  word  nowhere  else  used  as  an  adjective — 
Antemittere  for  premittere,  and  summo  magistratu 
prmverat  for  magistratui.1  The  use  of  such  words  as 
collabejieret,  contabulatio,  detrimentosum,  explicitius, 
materiari,  would  lead  us  to  suspect  that  Caesar  had 
not  always  attended  to  the  rule  which  he  so  strong- 
ly laid  down  in  his  book  De  Analogid,  to  avoid,  as  a 
rock,  every  unusual  word  or  expression.  Bergerus, 
in  an  immense  quarto,  entitled  De  Naturali  Pul- 
chritudine  Orationis,  has  at  great  length  attempted 
to  show  that  Caesar  had  anticipated  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  abridgements,  amplifications,  tran- 
sitions, 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  Com- 
mentaries. 

Mankind  usually  judge  of  a  literary  composition  by 
its  intrinsic  merit,  without  taking  into  consideration 

1  Hist.  Critic.  Ling.  Lat.  p.  537- 


CAESAR.  165 

the  age  of  the  author,  the  celerity  with  which  it  was 
composed,  or  the  various  circumstances  under  which  it 
was  written  ;  and  in  this,  perhaps,  they  act  not  un- 
justly, 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  tu- 
mult and  anxiety  of  campaigns,  and  were  jotted  down 
from  day  to  day,  without  care  or  premeditation.  "  Ce- 
teri,"  says  Hirtius,  the  companion  of  Caesar's  expedi- 
tions, and  the  continuator  of  his  Commentaries, — 
"  Ceteri  quam  bene  atque  emendate  ;  nos  etiam  quam 
facile  atque  celeriter  eos  perscripserit  scimus." 

The  Commentaries,  De  JSello  Gallico,  and  De 
Bello  Civili,  are  the  only  productions  of  Caesar  which 
remain  to  us.  Several  ancient  writers  speak  of  his 
Epkemeris,  or  Diary  ;  but  it  has  been  doubted  whe- 
ther the  work,  so  termed  by  Plutarch,  Servius,  Sym- 
machus,  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  Epkemerides,  is  only  another  name 
for  the  Commentaries,  which,  in  fact,  may  be  consi- 
dered as  having  been  written  in  the  manner  and  form 
of  a  diary.  He  acknowledges,  that  several  passages, 
cited  by  Servius,  as  taken  from  these  Epkemerides, 
are  not  now  to  be  found  in  the  Commentaries  ;  but 
then  he  maintains  that  there  are  evidently  defects  (la- 
cuna) in  the  latter  work  ;  and  he  conjectures  that 
the  words  quoted  by  Servius,  are  part  of  the  lost 
passages  of  the  Commentaries.     This  opinion  is  fol- 


166  CAESAR. 

lowed  byVossius,  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  oppo- 
site theory.  He  believes  the  Ephemeris  to  have  been 
a  journal  of  the  author's  life.  He  admits,  that  a  passage 
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  Wo//.rn|oiaTa,  as 
Strabo  has  termed  them.  Besides,  Polyaenus  men- 
tions 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,  siuce  vehemence  and  the  power  of  exciting 
emotion,  (concitatio,)  are  mentioned  as  the  characteris- 
tics of  his  harangues.  Some  of  them  were  delivered  in 
behalf  of  clients,  and  on  real  business,  in  the  Forum  ; 


CiESAR.  167 

but  the  two  orations  entitled  Anticatones  were  mere- 
ly written  in  the  form  and  manner  of  accusations  be- 
fore 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  par- 
ticularly 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  pri- 
vate,— his  ambition,  affectation  of  singularity,  chur- 
lishness, 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  cum  maximis 
laudibus  meis."1 

These  two  rival  works  were  much  celebrated  at 
Home  ;  and  both  of  them  had  their  several  admirers, 
as  different  parties  and  interests  disposed  men  to  fa- 
vour the  subject,  or  the  author  of  each.  It  seems  also 
certain,  that  they  were  the  principal  cause  of  establish- 
ing 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.2     The  controversy  was  taken  up 

i  Epist.  ad  Attic.  Lib.  XII.  ep.  40. 

2  Middleton's  Life  of  Cicero,  Vol.  II.  p.  347,  2ded. 


168  C^ESAlt. 

by  Brutus,  the  nephew,  and  Fabius  Gallus,  an  admi- 
rer of  Cato :  it  was  renewed  by  Augustus,  who  na- 
turally espoused  the  royal  side  of  the  question,  and 
by  Thraseas  Psetus,  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  Augur  alia  and  Libri  Auspicio- 
rum,  which,  as  their  names  import,  were  books  ex- 
plaining the  different  auguries  and  presages  derived 
from  the  flight  of  birds.  To  the  same  circumstance 
we  may  attribute  his  work  on  the  motions  of  the  stars, 
DeMotu  Siderum,  which  explains  what  he  had  learn- 
ed in  Egypt  on  that  subject  from  Sosigenes,  a  peripa- 
tetic philosopher  of  Alexandria,  and  in  which,  if  we 
may  credit  the  elder  Pliny,  he  prognosticated  his  own 
death  on  the  ides  of  March.1 

The  composition  of  the  works  hitherto  mentioned 
naturally  enough  suggested  itself  to  a  high-priest, 
warrior,  aiid  politician,  who  was  also  fond  of  litera- 
ture, 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  ana- 
logies of  the  Latin  tongue,  which  was  addressed  to 
Cicero,  and  was  entitled,  like  the  preceding  work 
of  Varro  on  the  same  subject,  De  Analogia.  It  was 
written,  as  we  are  informed  by  Suetonius,  while  cross- 
ing the  Alps,  on  his  return  to  the  army  from  Hither 
1  Hist*  Nat.  Lib.  XVIII.  c.  26. 


CiESAR.  169 

Gaul,  where  he  had  gone  to  attend  the  assemblies  of 
that  province.1  In  this  book,  the  great  principle  esta- 
blished by  him  was,  that  the  proper  choice  of  words 
formed  the  foundation  of  eloquence  ;2  and  he  caution- 
ed authors  and  public  speakers  to  avoid  as  a  rock  every 
unusual  word  or  unwonted  expression.3  His  declen- 
sions, however,  of  some  nouns,  appear,  at  least  to  us,  not 
a  little  strange — as  turbo,  turbonis,  instead  of  turbi- 
nis  ;4  and  likewise  his  inflections  of  verbs, — as,  mor- 
deo,  memordi ;  pungo,  pepugi ;  spondeo,  spepondi.5 
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  neu- 
ters 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  iEolic  digamma.  Cassiodorus  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  autho- 
rity, 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  mo- 
dern Ana ;  but  Augustus  prevented  these  from  being 
made  public.     That  emperor  likewise,  in  a  letter  to 

1  Sueton.  In  Ccesar.  c.  56.  2  Cicero,  Brutus,  c.  72. 

3  Au.  Gellius,  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  I.  c.  10. 

4  Charisius,  Lib.  I.  5  Au.  Gellius,  Lib.  VII.  c.  9- 


170  CAESAR. 

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 
(Edipus,  and  a  poem  in  praise  of  Hercules.1  Another 
poem,  entitled  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  ;2  and  it  may  there- 
fore be  conjectured  to  have  been  a  poetical  relation  of 
the  incidents  which  occurred  during  that  journey,  em- 
bellished, perhaps,  with  descriptions  of  the  most  stri- 
king scenery  through  which  he  passed.  Two  epigrams, 
which  are  still  extant,  have  also  been  frequently  attri- 
buted to  him  ;  one  on  the  dramatic  character  of  Te- 
rence, already  quoted,3  and  another  on  a  Thracian  boy, 
who,  while  playing  on  the  ice,  fell  into  the  river  He- 
brus, — 

"  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  Germani- 
cus. 

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  em- 
pire. Extensive  as  their  conquests  had  been,  the  Ro- 
mans hitherto  had  done  almost  nothing  for  geography, 
considered  as  a  science.     Their  knowledge  was  con- 

1  Sueton.  In  Ccesar.  c.  56".  2  Ibid. 

3  See  above,  Vol.  I.  p.  305. 


CAESAR.  171 

fined  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.  iEthi- 
cus,  a  writer  of  the  fourth  century,  informs  us,  in  the 
preface  to  his  Cosmographies  that  this  great  man  ob- 
tained a  senatusconsultum,  by  which  a  geometrical  sur- 
vey 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  scien- 
tific labour  was  immediately  commenced,  but  was  not 
completed  till  mor*e  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  Sca- 
liger  and  Gassendi  ;*  and  it  has  been  since  maintain- 
ed, with  little  farther  alteration  than  that  introduced 
by  Pope  Gregory  XIII.  When  we  consider  the  imper- 
fection of  all  mathematical  instruments  in  the  time  of 
Caesar,  and  the  total  want  of  telescopes,  we  cannot  but 
view  with  admiration,  not  unmixed  with  astonish- 
ment, that  comprehensive  genius,  which,  in  the  in- 
fancy of  science,  could  surmount  such  difficulties,  and 

1  See  also  Blondellus,  Hist,  du  Calendrier  Romain.  Paris, 
1682,  4-to;  Bianchinus,  Dissert,  de  Calendario  et  Cyclo  Ccesaris, 
Rom.  1703,  folio;  and  Court  de  Gebelin,  Monde  Primit.  T.  IV. 


172  HIIIT1US. 

compute  a  system,  that  experienced  but  a  trifling  de- 
rangement 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  expedi- 
tions, which  are  now  usually  published  along  with  his 
own  Commentaries,  and  may  be  considered  as  their  sup- 
plement, 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  at- 
tack made  by  the  forces  of  the  republic  on  Antony's 
camp,  near  Modena. 

The  eighth  book  of  the  Gallic  war  contains  the  ac- 
count of  the  renewal  of  the  contest  by  the  states  of 
Gaul,  after  the  surrender  of  Alesia,  and  of  the  diffe- 
rent 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  Alexan- 
drian 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 


HIRT1US.  173 

during  his  rapid  campaigns  in  Pontus  against  Pharna- 
ces,  and  against  the  remains  of  the  Pompeian  party  in 
Africa,  where  they  had  assembled  under  Scipio,  and 
being  supported  by  Juba,  still  presented  a  formidable 
appearance.  He  collected,  however,  the  leading  events 
from  the  conversation  of  Caesar,1  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  appear- 
ance 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  imper- 
fect 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.2 

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  assembled,  in  the  ulterior  pro- 
vince of  that  country,  those  of  his  father's  party  who 
had  survived  the  disasters  in  Thessaly  and  Africa,  and 

1  Mihi  non  illud  quidem  accidit,  ut  Alexandrino  atque  Africano 
bello  interessem ;  quae  bella  tamen  ex  parte  nobis  Csesaris  sermone 
sunt  nota.     De  Bell.  Gall.  Lib.  VIII. 

2  Imperfecta  ab  rebus  gestis  Alexandria?  confeci,  usque  ad  exi- 
tum,  non  quidem  civilis  dissensionis,  cujusfinem  nullum  videmus, 
sed  vitae  Caesaris.     De  Bell.  Gall. 


174.  HIRTIUS. 

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  com- 
monly received,  attributes  it  to  Caius  Oppius,1  who 
wrote  the  Lives  of  Illustrious  Captains,  and  also  a  book 
to  prove,  that  the  ^Egyptian  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.2 

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  ta- 
ken 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  attri- 
buted to  Julius  Celsus,  who  was  contemporary  with 
Caesar,  and  was  reported  to  have  written  a  history 

1  Be  Hist.  Lat.  Lib.  I.  c.  13. 

2  Sueton.  In  Ccesar.   c.  72. 


ATTICUS.  175 

of  his  campaigns  ;  just  in  the  same  way  as  a  fabu- 
lous life  of  Alexander,  produced  in  the  middle  ages, 
passes  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  frag- 
ments have  descended  to  us.  Atticus,  however,  wrote 
Memoirs  of  Rome  from  the  earliest  periods,  and  also 
memoirs  of  its  principal  families,  as  the  Junian,  Cor- 
nelian, and  Fabian, — tracing  their  origin,  enumera- 
ting 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  consulship,  in 
which  he  discovered  and  suppressed  the  conspiracy  of 
Catiline.1  From  a  subsequent  letter  to  Atticus  we 
learn  that  Lucceius  had  promised  to  accomplish  the 
task  suggested  to  him.2  It  is  probable,  however,  that 
it  never  was  completed, — his  labour  having  been  in- 
terrupted 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,3 

1  Epist.  Famil,  Lib.  V.  Ep.  12.  2  Lib.  IV.  Ep.  6. 

3  Be  Ling,  hat.  Lib.  IV. 


176  BRUTUS. 

and  Pliny  refers  to  him  for  some  remarks  with  regard 
to  the  elephants  which  appeared  at  Pompey's  African 
triumph.1 

Brutus  is  also  said  to  have  written  epitomes  of  the 
meager  and  barren  histories  of  Fannius  and  Antipa- 
ter.  That  he  should  have  thought  of  abridging  nar- 
ratives so  proverbially  dry  and  jejune,  seems  altoge- 
ther inexplicable. 

The  works  of  an  historian  called  Csecina  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  pass  over  lightly,  many  to  curtail,  and  very 
many  absolutely  to  omit.  Thus  circumscribed,  re- 
stricted, and  broken  as  it  is,  what  pleasure  or  what 
useful  information  can  be  expected  from  the  recital  ?"2 

We  have  thus  traced  the  progress  of  historical  com- 
position among  the  Romans,  from  its  commencement 
to  the  time  of  Augustus.  There  is  no  history  so  dis- 
tinguished and  adorned  as  the  Roman,  by  illustrious 
characters;  and  the  circumstances  which  it  records 
produced  the  greatest  as  well  as  most  permanent  em- 
pire 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  un- 
certainty. Subsequently,  however,  to  the  second  Punic 
war,  the  Roman  historians  were,  for  the  most  part, 
themselves  engaged  in  the  affairs  of  which  they  treat, 

1  Hist  Nat.  Lib.  VIII.  c.  2. 

2  Epist.  Famil  Lib.  VI.  Ep.  7- 

1 


ROMAN  ORATORY.  177 

and  had  therefore,  at  least,  the  most  perfect  means  of 
communicating  accurate  information.  But  this  ad- 
vantage, 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  subject ;  that  he  should  be  of  no 
country  and  no  party ;  that  he  should  be  free  from  all 
passion,  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  impar- 
tially aloof  from  their  subject,  or  supplied  the  want  of 
historians  of  Carthage  and  of  Gaul,  by  whom  their  nar- 
ratives might  be  corrected,  and  their  colouring  soft- 
ened. 

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.1  Without  this  art,  wis- 
dom itself,  in  the  estimation  of  Cicero,  could  be  of 

i  "  Duae  sunt  artes,"  says  Cicero,  "  quae  possunt  locare  homines 
in  amplissimo  gradu  dignitatis :  una  imperatoris,  altera  oratoris 
boni :  Ab  hoc  enim  pacis  ornamenta  retinentur  j  ab  illo  belli  peri- 
cula  repelluntur."  Oral,  pro  Murcena,  c  1 4. 
VOL.  II.  M 


178  ROMAN  ORATORY. 

little  avail  for  the  advantage  or  glory  of  the  common- 
wealth.1 

During  the  existence  of  the  monarchy,  and  in  the  ear- 
ly ages  of  the  republic,  law  proceedings  were  not  nume- 
rous. Many  civil  suits  were  prevented  by  the  absolute 
dominion  which  a  Roman  father  exercised  over  his  fa- 
mily ;  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  pecula- 
tion at  home,  or  of  oppression  and  extortion  in  the  pro- 
vinces, which  disgraced  the  closing  periods  of  the  com- 
monwealth, and  furnished  themes  for  the  glowing  in- 
vective of  Cicero  and  Hortensius.  Hence  there  was 
little  room  for  the  exercise  of  legal  oratory ;  and  what- 
ever 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  re- 
cords the  wonderful  effects  which  Junius  Brutus,  Pub- 
licola,  and  Appius  Claudius,  produced  by  their  ha- 
rangues, in  allaying  seditions,  and  thwarting  pernicious 
counsels.  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  gives  us  a  for- 
mal speech,  which  Romulus,  by  direction  of  his  grand- 
father, made  to  the  people  after  the  building  of  the 
city,  on  the  subject  of  the  government  to  be  establish- 

1  Ratio  ipsa  in  haiic  senteutiam  ducit,  ut  existimem  sapientiam 
sine  eloquentia  parum  prodesse  civitatibus.  Rhetoricorum,  Lib.  I. 
c.  1. 


ROMAN  ORATORY.  179 

ed.1  There  are  also  long  orations  of  Servius  Tullius  ; 
and  great  part  of  the  Antiquities  of  Dionysius  is  oc- 
cupied with  senatorial  debates  during  the  early  ages 
of  the  republic.  But  though  the  orations  of  these  fa- 
thers of  Roman  eloquence  were  doubtless  delivered 
with  order,  gravity,  and  judgment,  and  may  have  pos- 
sessed 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  histori- 
ans. 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  mar- 
tial 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  illustration  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  passions  cor- 
responding to  those  with  which  they  were  themselves 
animated,  would  be  the  great  objects  of  an  eloquence 
supplied  by  nature  and  unimproved  by  study.  Quin- 
tilian  accordingly  informs  us,  that  though  there  ap- 
peared 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. 

1  Lib.  II. 


180  SEU.  GAI.BA. 

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  pos- 
sessing 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.  Ce- 
thegus 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  be- 
gan to  prevail.  Ser.  Galba,  by  the  warmth  and  ani- 
mation of  his  delivery,  eclipsed  Cato  and  all  his  con- 
temporaries. He  was  the  first  among  the  Romans  who 
displayed  the  distinguishing  talents  of  an  orator,  by 
embellishing  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  melt- 
ed his  judges  to  compassion,  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  lustre  with  which  his 
discourses  are  said  to  have  shone  when  given  forth  by 


SER.  GALBA.  181 

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  lan- 
guid from  its  point ;  "  which,"  continues  he,  "  never 
happened  to  those  who,  having  cultivated  a  more  stu- 
died and  polished  style  of  oratory,  wrote  as  they  spoke. 
Hence  the  mind  of  Laelius  yet  breathes  in  his  wri- 
tings, though  the  force  of  Galba  has  failed."  It  ap- 
pears, 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  accu- 
sed to  carry  their  cause  to  Galba,  as  it  would  be  de- 
fended 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.1  Hence  Cicero  surmises, 
that  though  Laelius  might  be  the  more  learned  and 
acute  disputant,  Galba  possessed  more  power  over  the 
passions;  he  also  conjectures,  that  the  former  had 
more  elegance,  but  the  latter  more  force  ;  and  he  con- 
cludes, that  the  orator  who  can  move  or  agitate  his 
judges,  farther  advances  his  cause  than  he  who  can 
instruct  them. 

1  Brutus,  c.  22. 


182  LiELIUS. 

Lselius  is  also  compared  by  Cicero  with  his  friend, 
the  younger  Scipio  Africanus,  in  whose  presence  this 
question  concerning  the  Silian  murder  was  debated. 
They  were  almost  equally  distinguished  for  their  elo- 
quence ;  and  they  resembled  each  other  in  this  re- 
spect, that  they  both  invariably  delivered  themselves 
in  a  smooth  manner,  and  never,  like  Galba,  exerted 
themselves  with  loudness  of  speech  or  violence  of  ges- 
ture J1  but  their  style  of  oratory  was  different, — La3- 
lius  affecting  a  much  more  ancient  phraseology  than 
that  adopted  by  his  friend.  Cicero  himself  seems  in- 
clined 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  in  oratory  that  it  had  effected 
in  every  branch  of  literature.  Marcus  Emilius  Lepi- 
dus  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  re- 
gularly polished  and  improved  by  art. 

Cicero  mentions  a  number  of  other  orators  of  the 
i  Be  Orat.  Lib.  I.  c-  60. 


L^ELIUS.  183 

same  age  with  Lepidus,  and  minutely  paints  their  pe- 
culiar 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  politi- 
cal 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  ora- 
tors 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  bright- 
est examples  of  eloquence.  Cicero  declares,  that  wis- 
dom without  eloquence  was  of  little  service  to  the 
state  ;l  and  from  the  political  circumstances  of  the 
times,  that  sort  of  oratory  was  most  esteemed  which 
had  most  sway  over  a  restless  and  ungovernable  mul- 
titude. The  situation  of  public  affairs  occasioned  those 
continual  debates  concerning  the  Agrarian  Laws,  and 
the  consequent  popularity  acquired  by  the  most  fac- 
tious demagogues.  Hence,  too,  those  frequent  im- 
peachments of  the  great — those  ambitious  designs  of 

1  Rhetoric,  seu  De  Inventione,  Lib.  I.  c  1. 


184  THE  GRACCHI. 

the  patricians — those  hereditary  enmities  in  particu- 
lar families — in  fine,  those  incessant  struggles  between 
the  Senate  and  plebeians,  which,  though  all  prejudi- 
cial 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  break- 
ing 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  Ro- 
man citizen  advanced  in  this  career,  so  much  nearer 
was  he  to  preferment,  so  much  the  greater  his  reputa- 
tion with  the  people  ;  and  when  elevated  to  the  dig- 
nified offices  of  the  state,  so  much  the  higher  his  as- 
cendency 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  im- 
perii,— an  instrument  of  government  in  the  power  of 
the  Senate,  who  used  every  precaution  to  retain  its  ex- 
clusive exercise.  It  was  the  great  bulwark  that  with- 
stood the  tide  of  popular  passion,  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  em- 
bankment, 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  con- 
duct, admits  that  both  were  consummate  orators ;  and 
this  he  testifies  from  the  recollection  of  persons  still 


THE  GRACCHI.  185 

surviving  in  his  day,  and  who  remembered  their  mode 
of  speaking.  Indeed,  the  wonderful  power  which  both 
brothers  exercised  over  the  people  is  a  sufficient  proof 
of  their  eloquence.  Tiberius  Gracchus  was  the  first 
who  made  rhetoric  a  serious  study  and  art.  In  his 
boyhood,  he  was  carefully  instructed  in  elocution  by 
his  mother  Cornelia  :  he  also  constantly  attended  the 
ablest  and  most  eloquent  masters  from  Greece,  and, 
as  he  grew  up,  he  bestowed  much  time  on  the  exer- 
cise of  private  declamation.  It  is  not  likely,  that,  gifted 
as  he  was  by  nature,  and  thus  instructed,  the  powers 
of  eloquence  should  long  have  remained  dormant  in 
his  bosom.  At  the  time  when  he  first  appeared  on  the 
turbulent  stage  of  Roman  life,  the  accumulation  of 
landed  property  among  a  few  individuals,  and  the  con- 
sequent abuse  of  exorbitant  wealth,  had  filled  Italy 
with  slaves  instead  of  citizens — had  destroyed  the  ha- 
bits of  rural  industry  among  the  people  at  large,  and 
leaving  only  rich  masters  at  the  head  of  numerous 
and  profligate  servants,  gradually  rooted  out  those 
middle  classes  of  society  which  constitute  the  strength, 
the  worth,  and  the  best  hopes  of  every  well-regulated 
commonwealth.  It  is  said,  that  while  passing  through 
Etruria  on  his  way  to  Numantia,  Tiberius  Gracchus 
found  the  country  almost  depopulated  of  freemen,  and 
thence  first  formed  the  project  of  his  Agrarian  law, 
which  was  originally  intended  to  correct  the  evils 
arising  from  the  immense  landed  possessions  of  the 
rich,  by  limiting  them  to  the  number  of  acres  specified 
in  the  ancient  enactments,1  and  dividing  the  con- 

1   Plutarch,  In  Tiber.  Grace  ho. 


186  THE  GRACCHI. 

quered  territories  among  the  poorer  citizens.  Prepa- 
ratory to  its  promulgation,  he  was  wont  to  assemble 
the  people  round  the  rostrum,  where  he  pleaded  for 
the  poor,  in  language  of  which  we  have  a  specimen  in 
Plutarch :  "  The  wild  beasts  of  Italy  have  their  dens 
to  retire  to — their  places  of  refuge  andrepose;  while  the 
brave  men  who  shed  their  blood  in  the  cause  of  their 
country,  have  nothing  left  but  fresh  air  and  sunshine. 
Without  houses,  without  settled  habitations,  they 
wander  from  place  to  place  with  their  wives  and  chil- 
dren ;  and  their  commanders  do  but  mock  them, 
when,  at  the  head  of  their  armies,  they  exhort  their 
soldiers  to  fight  for  their  sepulchres  and  altars.  For, 
among  such  numbers,  there  is  not  one  Roman  who  has 
an  altar  which  belonged  to  his  ancestors,  or  a  tomb  in 
which  their  ashes  repose.  The  private  soldiers  fight 
and  die  to  increase  the  wealth  and  luxury  of  the  great ; 
and  they  are  styled  sovereigns  of  the  world,  while  they 
have  not  a  foot  of  ground  they  can  call  their  own."1 
By  such  speeches  as  these,  the  people  were  exaspe- 
rated to  fury,  and  the  Senate  was  obliged  to  have  re- 
course to  Octavius,  who,  as  one  of  the  tribunes,  was 
the  colleague  of  Gracchus,  to  counteract  the  effects  of 
his  animated  eloquence.  Irritated  by  this  opposition, 
Gracchus  abandoned  the  first  plan  of  his  law,  which 
was  to  give  indemnification  from  the  public  treasury 
to  those  who  should  be  deprived  of  their  estates,  and 
proposed  a  new  bill,  by  which  they  were  enjoined 
forthwith  to  quit  those  lands  which  they  held  contrary 
to  previous  enactments.  On  this  subject  there  were  daily 

i  Plutarch,  hi  Tiber.  Graccho. 


THE  GltACCHI.  187 

disputes  between  him  and  Octavius  on  the  rostrum. 
Finding  that  his  plans  could  not  otherwise  he  accom- 
plished, he  resolved  on  the  expedient  of  deposing  his 
colleague ;  and  thenceforth,  to  the  period  of  his  death, 
his  speeches  (one  of  which  is  preserved  by  Plutarch) 
were  chiefly  delivered  in  persuasion  or  justification  of 
that  violent  measure. 

Caius  Gracchus  was  endued  with  higher  talents 
than  Tiberius,  but  the  resentment  he  felt  on  account 
of  his  brother's  death,  and  eager  desire  for  vengeance, 
led  him  into  measures  which  have  darkened  his  cha- 
racter with  the  shades  of  the  demagogue.  At  the 
time  of  his  brother's  death  he  had  only  reached  the 
age  of  twenty.  In  early  youth,  he  distinguished  him- 
self by  the  defence  of  one  of  his  friends  named  Vet- 
tius,  and  charmed  the  people  by  the  eloquence  which 
he  exerted.  He  appears  soon  afterwards  to  have  been 
impelled,  a,s  it  were,  by  a  sort  of  destiny,  to  the  same 
political  course  which  had  proved  fatal  to  his  brother, 
and  which  terminated  in  his  own  destruction.  His 
speeches  were  all  addressed  to  the  people,  and  were 
delivered  in  proposing  laws,  calculated  to  increase 
their  authority,  and  lessen  that  of  the  Senate, — as 
those  for  colonizing  the  public  lands,  and  dividing 
them  among  the  poor ;  for  regulating  the  markets,  so 
as  to  diminish  the  price  of  bread,  and  for  vesting  the 
judicial  power  in  the  knights.  A  fragment  of  his 
speech,  De  Legibus  Promulgatis,  is  said  to  have  been 
recently  discovered,  with  other  classical  remains,  in  the 
Ambrosian  Library.  Aulus  Gellius  also  quotes  from  this 
harangue,  a  passage,  in  which  the  orator  complained 


188  THE  GRACCHI. 

that  some  respectable  citizens  of  a  municipal  town 
in  Italy  had  been  scourged  with  rods  by  a  Roman 
magistrate.  Gellius  praises  the  conciseness,  neatness, 
and  graceful  ease  of  the  narrative,  resembling  drama- 
tic dialogue,  in  which  this  incident  was  related.  Simi- 
lar, but  only  similar  qualities,  appear  in  his  accusation 
of  the  Roman  legate,  who,  while  travelling  to  Asia  in 
a  litter,  caused  a  peasant  to  be  scourged  to  death,  for 
having  asked  his  slaves  if  it  was  a  corpse  they  were 
carrying.  "  The  relation  of  these  events,"  says  Gel- 
lius, "  does  not  rise  above  the  level  of  ordinary  con- 
versation. It  is  not  a  person  complaining  or  imploring, 
but  merely  relating  what  had  occurred  ;"  and  he  con- 
trasts this  tameness  with  the  energy  and  ardour  with 
which  Cicero  has  painted  the  commission  of  a  like 
enormity  by  Verres.1 

Though  similar  in  many  points  of  character,  and 
also  in  their  political  conduct,  there  was  a  marked  dif- 
ference in  the  style  of  eloquence,  and  forensic  de- 
meanour, of  the  two  brothers.  Tiberius,  in  his  looks 
and  gesture,  was  mild  and  composed — Caius,  earnest 
and  vehement ;  so  that  when  they  spoke  in  public, 
Tiberius  had  the  utmost  moderation  in  his  action,  and 
moved  not  from  his  place ;  whereas  Caius  was  the  first 
of  the  Romans,  who,  in  addressing  the  people,  walked 
to  and  fro  in  the  rostrum,  threw  his  gown  off  his 
shoulder,  smote  his  thigh,  and  exposed  his  arm  bare.2 
The  language  of  Tiberius  was  laboured  and  accurate, 
that  of  Caius  bold  and  figurative.     The  oratory  of 

1  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  X.  c.  S. 

2  Plutarch,  In  Tib.  Graccho. 


THE  GRACCHI.  189 

the  former  was  of  a  gentle  kind,  and  pity  was  the 
emotion  it  chiefly  raised — that  of  the  latter  was 
strongly  impassioned,  and  calculated  to  excite  terror. 
In  speaking,  indeed,  Caius  was  often  so  hurried  away 
by  the  violence  of  his  passion,  that  he  exalted  his  voice 
above  the  regular  pitch,  indulged  in  abusive  expres- 
sions, and  disordered  the  whole  tenor  of  his  oration. 
In  order  to  guard  against  such  excesses,  he  stationed 
a  slave  behind  him  with  an  ivory  flute,  which  was  mo- 
dulated so  as  to  lead  him  to  lower  or  heighten  the  tone 
of  his  voice,  according  as  the  subject  required  a  higher 
or  a  softer  key.  "  The  flute,"  says  Cicero,  "  you  may 
as  well  leave  at  home,  but  the  meaning  of  the  practice 
you  must  remember  at  the  bar."1 

In  the  time  of  the  Gracchi,  oratory  became  an  ob- 
ject of  assiduous  and  systematic  study,  and  of  careful 
education.  A  youth,  intended  for  the  profession  of 
eloquence,  was  usually  introduced  to  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  orators  of  the  city,  whom  he  attended 
when  he  had  occasion  to  speak  in  any  public  or  private 
cause,  or  in  the  assemblies  of  the  people,  by  which 
means  he  heard  not  only  him,  but  every  other  famous 
speaker.  He  thus  became  practically  acquainted  with 
business  and  the  courts  of  justice,  and  learned  the  arts 
of  oratoric  conflict,  as  it  were,  in  the  field  of  battle. 
"  It  animated,"  says  the  author  of  the  dialogue  De 
Causis  Corruptee  JEloquenti^, — "  it  animated  the  cou- 
rage, and  quickened  the  judgment  of  youth,  thus  to  re- 
ceive their  instructions  in  the  eye  of  the  world,  and  in 

1  De  Orator.  Lib.  III.  C  60.  Plutarch  and  Cicero's  accounts 
of  the  eloquence  of  C.  Gracchus,  seem  not  quite  consistent  with 
what  is  delivered  on  the  subject  by  Gellius. 


190  THE  GRACCHI. 

the  midst  of  affairs,  where  no  one  could  advance  an  ab- 
surd or  weak  argument,  without  being  exposed  by  his 
adversary,  and  despised  by  the  audience.  Hence,  they 
had  also  an  opportunity  of  acquainting  themselves  with 
the  various  sentiments  of  the  people,  and  observing 
what  pleased  or  disgusted  them  in  the  several  orators 
of  the  Forum.  By  these  means  they  were  furnished 
with  an  instructor  of  the  best  and  most  improving 
kind,  exhibiting  not  the  feigned  resemblance  of  elo- 
quence, but  her  real  and  lively  manifestation — not  a 
pretended  but  genuine  adversary,  armed  in  earnest  for 
the  combat — an  audience  ever  full  and  ever  new,  com- 
posed of  foes  as  well  as  of  friends,  and  amongst  whom 
not  a  single  expression  could  fall  but  was  either  cen- 
sured or  applauded." 

The  minute  attention  paid  by  the  young  orators  to 
all  the  proceedings  of  the  courts  of  justice,  is  evinced 
by  the  fragment  of  a  Diary,  which  was  kept  by  one  of 
them  in  the  time  of  Cicero,  and  in  which  we  have  a 
record,  during  two  days,  of  the  various  harangues  that 
were  delivered,  and  the  judgments  that  were  pro- 
nounced.1 

Nor  were  the  advantages  to  be  derived  from  ficti- 
tious oratorical  contests  long  denied  to  the  Roman 
youth.  The  practice  of  declaiming  on  feigned  sub- 
jects, was  introduced  at  Rome  about  the  middle  of 
its  seventh  century.  The  Greek  rhetoricians,  indeed, 
had  been  expelled,  as  well  as  the  philosophers,  towards 
the  close  of  the  preceding  century ;  but,  in  the  year 
661,  Plotius  Gallus,  a  Latin  rhetorician,  opened  a 

1  Funccius,  De  Virili  JEtate  Lai.  Ling.  c.  1.  §  24. 


ANTONY.  191 

declaiming  school  at  Rome.  At  this  period,  however, 
the  declamations  generally  turned  on  questions  of 
real  business,  and  it  was  not  till  the  time  of  Augus- 
tus, that  the  rhetoricians  so  far  prevailed,  as  to  intro- 
duce common-place  arguments  on  fictitious  subjects. 

The  eloquence  which  had  originally  ,been  culti- 
vated for  seditious  purposes,  and  for  political  advance- 
ment, began  now  to  be  considered  by  the  Roman 
youth  as  an  elegant  accomplishment.  It  was  pro- 
bably viewed  in  the  same  light  that  we  regard  horse- 
manship or  dancing,  and  continued  to  be  so  in  the  age 
of  Horace — 


"  Namque,  et  nobilis,  et  decens, 
Et  pro  sollicitis  non  tacitus  reis, 

Et  centum  puer  artium, 

Late  signa  feret  militiae  suee/'i 


Under  all  these  circumstances  it  is  evident,  that 
in  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century  oratory  would  be 
neglected  by  none ;  and  in  an  art  so  sedulously  studied, 
and  universally  practised,  many  must  have  been  pro- 
ficients. It  would  be  endless  to  enumerate  all  the  pub- 
lic speakers  mentioned  by  Cicero,  whose  catalogue  is 
rather  extensive  and  dry.  We  may  therefore  proceed  to 
those  two  orators,  whom  he  commemorates  as  having 
first  raised  the  glory  of  Roman  eloquence  to  an  equa- 
lity with  that  of  Greece — Marcus  Antonius,  and  Lu- 
cius Crassus. 

The  former,  sirnamed  Orator,  and  grandfather  of 
the  celebrated  triumvir,  was  the  most  employed  pa- 
tron of  his  time  ;  and,  of  all  his  contemporaries,  was 
1  Lib.  IV.  Od.i. 


192  ANTON  Y. 

chiefly  courted  by  clients,  as  he  was  ever  willing  to 
undertake  any  cause  which  was  proposed  to  him.  He 
possessed  a  ready  memory,  and  remarkable  talent  of 
introducing  everything  where  it  could  be  placed  with 
most  effect.  He  had  a  frankness  of  manner  which  pre- 
cluded any  suspicion  of  artifice,  and  gave  to  all  his 
orations  an  appearance  of  being  the  unpremeditated 
effusions  of  an  honest  heart.     But  though  there  was 
no  apparent  preparation  in  his  speeches,  he  always 
spoke  so  well,  that  the  judges  were  never  sufficiently 
prepared  against  the  effects  of  his  eloquence.  His  lan- 
guage was  not  perfectly  pure,  or  of  a  constantly  sus- 
tained elegance,  but  it  was  of  a  solid  and  judicious  cha- 
racter, well  adapted  to  his  purpose — his  gesture,  too, 
was  appropriate,  and  suited  to  the  sentiments  and 
language — his  voice  was  strong  and  durable,  though 
naturally  hoarse — but  even  this  defect  he  turned  to 
advantage,  by  frequently  and  easily  adopting  a  mourn- 
ful and  querulous  tone,  which,  in  criminal  questions, 
excited  compassion,  and  more  readily  gained  the  be- 
lief of  the  judges.    He  left,  however,  as  we  are  in- 
formed by  Cicero,  hardly  any  orations  behind  him,' 
having  resolved  never  to  publish  any  of  his  pleadings, 
lest  he  should  be  convicted  of  maintaining  in  one  cause 
something  which  was  inconsistent  with  what  he  had 
alleged  in  another.2 

The  first  oration  by  which  Antony  distinguished 
himself,  was  in  his  own  defence.  He  had  obtained  the 
quaestorship  of  a  province  of  Asia,  and  had  arrived  at 
Brundusium  to  embark  there,  when  his  friends  in- 

•    1  Cicero,  De  Oratore,  Lib.  II.  c.  2. 

«  Valer.  Maxim.  Lib.  VII.  c.  3. 

5 


ANTONY.  193 

formed  him  that  he  had  been  summoned  before  the 
Praetor  Cassius,  the  most  rigid  judge  in  Rome,  whose 
tribunal  was  termed  the  rock  of  the  accused.  Though 
he  might  have  pleaded  a  privilege,  which  forbade  the 
admission  of  charges  against  those  who  were  absent 
on  the  service  of  the  republic,  he  chose  to  justify  him- 
self in  due  form.  Accordingly,  he  returned  to  Rome, 
stood  his  trial,  and  was  acquitted  with  honour.1 

One  of  the  most  celebrated  orations  which  Antony 
pronounced,  was  that  in  defence  of  Norbanus,  who 
was  accused  of  sedition,  and  a  violent  assault  on  the 
magistrate,  iEmilius  Caepio.  He  began  by  attempting 
to  show  from  history,  that  seditions  may  sometimes 
be  justifiable  from  necessity  ;  that  without  them  the 
kings  would  not  have  been  expelled,  or  the  tribunes 
of  the  people  created.  The  orator  then  proceeded  to 
insinuate,  that  his  client  had  not  been  seditious,  but 
that  all  had  happened  through  the  just  indignation  of 
the  people  ;  and  he  concluded  with  artfully  attempt- 
ing to  renew  the  popular  odium  against  Caepio,  who 
had  been  an  unsuccessful  commander.2 

What  Cicero  relates  concerning  Antony's  defence 
of  Aquilius,  is  an  example  of  his  power  in  moving  the 
passions,  and  is,  at  the  same  time,  extremely  charac- 
teristic of  the  manner  of  Roman  pleading.  Antony, 
who  is  one  of  the  speakers  in  the  dialogue  De  Oratore, 
is  introduced  relating  it  himself.  Seeing  his  client, 
who  had  once  been  Consul  and  a  leader  of  armies,  re- 
duced to  a  state  of  the  utmost  dejection  and  peril,  he 

1  Valer.  Maxim.  Lib.  Ill,  c.  7 ;  and  Lib.  VI.  c.  8, 

2  De  Oratore,  Lib.  II.  c.  28,  29,  48,  49. 
VOL.  II.  N 


194  ANTONY. 

had  no  sooner  begun  to  speak,  with  a  view  towards 
melting  the  compassion  of  others,  than  he  was  melted 
himself.   Perceiving  the  emotion  of  the  judges  when 
he  raised  his  client  from  the  earth,  on  which  he  had 
thrown  himself,  he  instantly  took  advantage  of  this 
favourable  feeling.     He  tore  open  the  garments  of 
Aquilius,  and  showed  the  scars  of  those  wounds  which 
he  had  received  in  the  service  of  his  country.     Even 
the  stern  Marius  wept.     Him  the  orator  then  apos- 
trophized ;   imploring  his  protection,  and  invoking 
with  many  tears  the  gods,  the  citizens,  and  the  allies 
of  Rome.  "  But  whatever  I  could  have  said,"  remarks 
he  in  the  dialogue,  "  had  I  delivered  it  without  being 
myself  moved,  it  would  have  excited  the  derision,  in- 
stead of  the  sympathy,  of  those  who  heard  me."1 

Antony,  in  the  course  of  his  life,  had  passed  through 
all  the  highest  offices  of  the  state.     The  circumstan- 
ces of  his  death,  which  happened  in  666,  during  the 
civil  wars  of  Marius  and  Sylla,  were  characteristic  of 
his  predominant  talent.    During  the  last  proscription 
by  Marius,  he  sought  refuge  in  the  house  of  a  poor 
person,  whom  he  had  laid  under  obligations  to  him  in 
the  days  of  his  better  fortune.    But  his  retreat  being 
discovered,  from  the  circumstance  of  his  host  procu- 
ring for  him  some  wine  nicer  than  ordinary,  the  in- 
telligence was  carried  to  Marius,  who  received  it  with 
a  savage  shout  of  exultation,  and,  clapping  his  hands 
for  joy,  he  would  have  risen  from  table,  and  instantly 
repaired  to  the  place  where  his  enemy  was  concealed ; 
but,  being  detained  by  his  friends,  he  immediately  de- 

1   De  Orat&re,  Lib.  II.  c.  47. 


CRASSUS.  195 

spatched  a  party  of  soldiers,  under  a  tribune,  to  slay 
him.  The  soldiers  having  entered  his  chamber  for 
this  purpose,  and  Antony  suspecting  their  errand,  ad- 
dressed them  in  terms  of  such  moving  and  insinuating 
eloquence,  that  his  assassins  burst  into  tears,  and  had 
not  sufficient  resolution  to  execute  their  mission.  The 
officer  who  commanded  them  then  went  in,  and  cut 
off  his  head,1  which  he  carried  to  Marius,  who  affixed 
it  to  that  rostrum,  whence,  as  Cicero  remarks,  he  had 
ably  defended  the  lives  of  so  many  of  his  fellow-citi- 
zens ;2  little  aware  that  he  would  soon  himself  expe- 
rience, from  another  Antony,  a  fate  similar  to  that 
which  he  deplores  as  having  befallen  the  grandsire  of 
the  triumvir.' 

Crassus,  the  forensic  rival  of  Antony,  had  prepared 
himself  in  his  youth,  for  public  speaking,  by  digest- 
ing in  his  memory  a  chosen  number  of  polished  and 
dignified  verses,  or  a  certain  portion  of  some  oration 
which  he  had  read  over,  and  then  delivering  the  same 
matter  in  the  best  words  he  could  select.3  Afterwards, 
when  he  grew  a  little  older,  he  translated  into  Latin 
some  of  the  finest  Greek  orations,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  used  every  mental  and  bodily  exertion  to  improve 
his  voice,  his  action,  and  memory.  He  commenced  his 
oratorical  career  at  the  early  age  of  nineteen,  when  he 
acquired  much  reputation  by  his  accusation  of  C. 
Carbo  ;  and  he,  not  long  afterwards,  greatly  height- 
ened his  fame,  by  his  defence  of  the  virgin  Licinia. 
Another  of  the  best  speeches  of  Crassus,  was  that  ad- 

1  Plutarch,  In  Mario.   Valerius  Maximus,  Lib.  VIII.  c.  9. 

2  Cicero,  De  Oralore,  Lib.  III.  c.  3.         3  lb.  Lib.  I.  c.  '33. 


196  CRASSUS. 

M 
dressed  to  the  people  in  favour  of  the  law  of  Servilius 
Caepio,  restoring  in  part  the  judicial  power  to  the 
Senate,  of  which  they  had  been  recently  deprived,  in 
order  to  vest  it  solely  in  the  body  of  knights.  But  the 
most  splendid  of  all  the  appearances  of  Crassus,  was 
one  that  proved  the  immediate  cause  of  his  death,  which 
happened  in  662,  a  short  while  before  the  commence- 
ment of  the  civil  wars  of  Marius  and  Sylla ;  and  a  few 
days  after  the  time  in  which  he  is  supposed  to  have 
borne  his  part  in  the  dialogue  De  Oratore.  The  Con- 
sul Philippus  had  declared,  in  one  of  the  assemblies  of 
the  people,  that  some  other  advice  must  be  resorted  to, 
since,  with  such  a  Senate  as  then  existed,  he  could  no 
longer  direct  the  affairs  of  the  government.  A  full 
Senate  being  immediately  summoned,  Crassus  arraign- 
ed, in  terms  of  the  most  glowing  eloquence,  the  conduct 
of  this  Consul,  who,  instead  of  acting  as  the  political 
parent  and  guardian  of  the  Senate,  sought  to  deprive 
its  members  of  their  ancient  inheritance  of  respect  and 
dignity.  Being  farther  irritated  by  an  attempt  on  the 
part  of  Philippus,  to  force  him  into  compliance  with 
his  designs,  he  exerted,  on  this  occasion,  the  utmost 
efforts  of  his  genius  and  strength ;  but  he  returned 
home  with  a  pleuritic  fever,  of  which  he  died  in  the 
course  of  seven  days.  This  oration  of  Crassus,  fol- 
lowed as  it  was  by  his  almost  immediate  death,  made 
a  deep  impression  on  his  countrymen ;  who,  long  af- 
terwards, were  wont  to  repair  to  the  senate-house,  for 
the  purpose  of  viewing  the  spot  where  he  had  last  stood, 
and  fallen,  as  it  may  be  said,  in  defence  of  the  privi- 
leges of  his  order. 


CRASSUS.  197 

Crassus  left  hardly  any  orations  behind  him,  and 
he  died  while  Cicero  was  still  in  his  boyhood ;  yet 
that  author,  having  collected  the  opinions  of  those  who 
had  heard  him,  speaks  with  a  minute  and  apparently 
perfect  intelligence  of  his  mode  of  oratory.  He  was 
what  may  be  called  the  most  ornamental  speaker  that 
had  hitherto  appeared  in  the  Forum.  Though  not 
without  force,  gravity,  and  dignity,  these  were  happily 
blended  with  the  most  insinuating  politeness,  urba- 
nity, ease,  and  gaiety.  He  was  master  of  the  most 
pure  and  accurate  language,  and  of  perfect  elegance  of 
expression,  without  any  affectation,  or  unpleasant  ap- 
pearance of  previous  study.  Great  clearness  of  expo- 
sition distinguished  all  his  harangues  ;  and,  while  des- 
canting on  topics  of  law  or  equity,  he  possessed  an 
inexhaustible  fund  of  argument  and  illustration.  In 
speaking,  he  showed  an  uncommon  modesty,  which 
went  even  the  length  of  bashfulness.  When  a  young 
man,  he  was  so  intimidated  at  the  opening  of  a  speech, 
that  Q.  Maximus,  perceiving  him  overwhelmed  and 
disabled  by  confusion,  adjourned  the  court,  which  the 
orator  always  remembered  with  the  highest  sense  of 
gratitude.  This  diffidence  never  entirely  forsook  him  ; 
and,  after  the  practice  of  a  long  life  at  the  bar,  he  was 
frequently  so  much  agitated  in  the  exordium  of  his 
discourse,  that  he  was  observed  to  grow  pale,  and  to 
tremble  in  every  part  of  his  frame.1  Some  persons 
considered  Crassus  as  only  equal  to  Antony ;  others 
preferred  him  as  the  more  perfect  and  accomplished 
orator :  Antony  chiefly  trusted  to  his  intimate  ac- 

1  Cicero,  De  Orat.  Lib.  I.  c.  26,  27- 


198  sulpicius. 

quaintance  with  affairs  and  ordinary  life :  He  was  not, 
however,  so  destitute  of  knowledge  as  he  seemed ;  but 
he  thought  the  best  way  to  recommend  his  eloquence 
to  the  people,  was  to  appear  as  if  he  had  never  learned 
anything.1  Crassus,  on  the  other  hand,  was  well  in- 
structed in  literature,  and  showed  off  his  information 
to  the  best  advantage.  Antony  possessed  the  greater 
power  of  promoting  conjecture,  and  of  allaying  or  ex- 
citing suspicion,  by  apposite  and  well-timed  insinua- 
tions; but  no  one  could  have  more  copiousness  or 
facility  than  Crassus,  in  defining,  interpreting,  and 
discussing,  the  principles  of  equity.  The  language  of 
Crassus  was  indisputably  preferable  to  that  of  An- 
tony ;  but  the  action  and  gesture  of  Antony  were  as 
incontestably  superior  to  those  of  Crassus. 

Sulpicius  and  Cotta,  who  were  both  born  about  630, 
were  younger  orators  than  Antony  or  Crassus,  but 
were  for  some  time  their  contemporaries,  and  had  risen 
to  considerable  reputation  before  the  death  of  the  lat- 
ter and  assassination  of  the  former.  Sulpicius  lived 
for  some  years  respected  and  admired  ;  but,  about  the 
year  665,  at  the  first  breaking  out  of  the  dissensions 
between  Sylla  and  Marius,  being  then  a  tribune  of 
the  people,  he  espoused  the  part  of  Marius.  Plutarch 
gives  a  memorable  account  of  his  character  and  beha- 
viour at  this  conjuncture,  declaring  that  he  was  second 
to  none  in  the  most  atrocious  villainies.  Alike  unre- 
strained in  avarice  and  cruelty,  he  committed  the  most 
criminal  and  enormous  actions  without  hesitation  or 

1  Cicero,  De  Orat.  Lib.  II.  c.  1. 


sulpicius.  199 

reluctance.  He  sold  by  public  auction  the  freedom  of 
Rome  to  foreigners — telling  out  the  purchase-money  on 
counters  erected  for  that  purpose  in  the  Forum  !  He 
kept  3000  swordsmen  in  constant  pay,  and  had  always 
about  him  a  company  of  young  men  of  the  equestrian 
order,  ready  on  every  occasion  to  execute  his  com- 
mands ;  and  these  he  styled  his  anti-senatorian  band.1 
Cicero  touches  on  his  crimes  with  more  tenderness ; 
but  says,  that  when  he  came  to  be  tribune,  he  stript 
of  all  their  dignities  those  with  whom,  as  a  private 
individual,  he  had  lived  in  the  strictest  friendship.2 
Whilst  Marius  kept  his  ground  against  his  rival,  Sul- 
picius  transacted  all  public  affairs,  in  his  capacity  of 
tribune,  by  violence  and  force  of  arms.  He  decreed  to 
Marius  the  command  in  the  Mithridatic  war :  He 
attacked  the  Consuls  with  his  band  while  they  were 
holding  an  assembly  of  the  people  in  the  Temple  of 
Castor  and  Pollux,  and  deposed  one  of  them.3    Ma- 
rius, however,  having  been  at  length  expelled  by  the 
ascendency  of  Sylla,  Sulpicius  was  betrayed  by  one 
of  his  slaves,  and  immediately  seized  and  executed. 
"  Thus,"  says  Cicero,  "  the  chastisement  of  his  rash- 
ness went  hand  in  hand  with  the  misfortunes  of  his 
country ;  and  the  sword  cut  off  the  thread  of  that 
life,  which  was  then  blooming  to  all  the  honours  that 
eloquence  can  bestow."4 

Cicero  had  reached  the  age  of  nineteen,  at  the  pe- 
riod of  the  death  of  Sulpicius.  He  had  heard  him 
daily  speak  in  the  Forum,  and  highly  estimates  his 

1  Plutarch,  In  Sylla.  2  Be  Oratore,  Lib.  III.  c.  3. 

3  Plutarch,  In  Sj/lla.  4  De  Oratore,  Lib.  III.  c.  3. 


200  sulpicius. 

oratoric  powers.1  He  was  the  most  lofty,  and  what 
Cicero  calls  the  most  tragic,  orator  of  Rome.  His  at- 
titudes, deportment,  and  figure,  were  of  supreme  dig- 
nity— his  voice  was  powerful  and  sonorous — his  elo- 
cution rapid  ;  his  action  variable  and  animated. 

The  constitutional  weakness  of  Cotta  prevented  all 
such  oratorical  vehemence.  In  his  manner  he  was  soft 
and  relaxed  ;  but  everything  he  said  was  sober  and  in 
good  taste,  and  he  often  led  the  judges  to  the  same 
conclusion  to  which  Sulpicius  impelled  them.  "  No 
two  things,"  says  Cicero,  "  were  ever  more  unlike  than 
they  are  to  each  other.  The  one,  in  a  polite,  delicate 
manner,  sets  forth  his  subject  in  well-chosen  expres- 
sions. He  still  keeps  to  his  point ;  and,  as  he  sees  with 
the  greatest  penetration  what  he  has  to  prove  to  the 
court,  he  directs  to  that  the  whole  strength  of  his  rea- 
soning and  eloquence,  without  regarding  other  argu- 
ments. But  Sulpicius,  endued  with  irresistible  ener- 
gy, with  a  full  strong  voice,  with  the  greatest  vehe- 
mence, and  dignity  of  action,  accompanied  with  so 
much  weight  and  variety  of  expression,  seemed,  of  all 
mankind,  the  best  fitted  by  nature  for  eloquence." 

It  was  supposed  that  Cotta  wished  to  resemble  An- 
tony, as  Sulpicius  obviously  imitated  Crassus ;  but 
the  latter  wanted  the  agreeable  pleasantry  of  Crassus, 
and  the  former  the  force  of  Antony.  None  of  the  ora- 
tions of  Sulpicius  remained  in  the  time  of  Cicero — 
those  circulated  under  his  name  having  been  written 
by  Canutius  after  his  death.  The  oration  of  Cotta  for 
himself,  when  accused  on  the  Varian  law,  was  com- 

1  Brutus,  c.  89. 


HORTENSIUS.  201 

posed,  it  is  said,  at  his  request  by  Lucius  iElius ;  and, 
if  this  be  true,  nothing  can  appear  to  us  more  extraor- 
dinary, than  that  so  accomplished  a  speaker  as  Cotta 
should  have  wished  any  of  the  trivial  harangues  of 
JElius  to  pass  for  his  own. 

The  renown,  however,  of  all  preceding  orators,  was 
now  about  to  be  eclipsed  at  Rome ;  and  Hortensius 
burst  forth  in  eloquence  at  once  calculated  to  delight 
and  astonish  his  fellow-citizens.  This  celebrated  ora- 
tor was  born  in  the  year  640,  being  thus  ten  years 
younger  than  Cotta  and  Sulpicius.  His  first  appear- 
ance in  the  Forum  was  at  the  early  age  of  nineteen — 
that  is,  in  659 ;  and  his  excellence,  says  Cicero,  was  im- 
mediately acknowledged,  like  that  of  a  statue  by  Phi- 
dias, which  only  requires  to  be  seen  in  order  to  be  ad- 
mired.1 The  case  in  which  he  first  appeared  was  of 
considerable  responsibility  for  one  so  young  and  inex- 
perienced, being  an  accusation,  at  the  instance  of  the 
Roman  province  of  Africa,  against  its  governors  for 
rapacity.  It  was  heard  before  Scaevola  and  Crassus,  as 
judges — the  one  the  ablest  lawyer,  the  other  the  most 
accomplished  speaker,  of  his  age ;  and  the  young  ora- 
tor had  the  good  fortune  to  obtain  their  approbation, 
as  well  as  that  of  all  who  were  present  at  the  trial.2 
His  next  pleading  of  importance  was  in  behalf  of 
Nicomedes,  King  of  Bithynia,  in  which  he  even  sur- 
passed his  former  speech  for  the  Africans.3  After  this 
we  hear  little  of  him  for  several  years.  The  imminent 

1  Brutus,  c.  63.  2  Ibid. 

3  De  Oratore,  Lib.  III.  c.  61. 


202  HORTENSIUS. 

perils  of  the  Social  War,  which  broke  out  in  663,  in- 
terrupted, in  a  great  measure,  the  business  of  the  Fo- 
rum. Hortensius  served  in  this  alarming  contest  for 
one  year  as  a  volunteer,  and  in  the  following  season 
as  a  military  tribune.1  When,  on  the  re-establish- 
ment of  peace  in  Italy  in  6669  he  returned  to  Rome, 
and  resumed  the  more  peaceful  avocations  to  which 
he  had  been  destined  from  his  youth,  he  found  him- 
self without  a  rival.2  Crassus,  as  we  have  seen,  died 
in  662,  before  the  troubles  of  Marius  and  Sylla.  An- 
tony, with  other  orators  of  inferior  note,  perished  in 
666,  during  the  temporary  and  last  ascendency  of 
Marius,  in  the  absence  of  Sylla.  Sulpicius  was  put 
to  death  in  the  same  year,  and  Cotta  driven  into  ba- 
nishment, from  which  he  was  not  recalled  until  the 
return  of  Sylla  to  Rome,  and  his  election  to  the  dic- 
tatorship, in  670.  Hortensius  was  thus  left  for  some 
years  without  a  competitor ;  and,  after  670,  with  none 
of  eminence  but  Cotta,  whom  also  he  soon  outshone. 
His  splendid,  warm,  and  animated  manner,  was  pre- 
ferred to  the  calm  and  easy  elegance  of  his  rival.  Ac- 
cordingly, when  engaged  in  a  cause  on  the  same  side, 
Cotta,  though  ten  years  senior,  was  employed  to  open 
the  case,  while  the  more  important  parts  were  left  to 
the  management  of  Hortensius.3  He  continued  the 
undisputed  sovereign  of  the  Forum,  till  Cicero  return- 
ed from  his  quaestorship  in  Sicily,  in  679,  when  the  ta- 
lents of  that  orator  first  displayed  themselves  in  full 
perfection  and  maturity.    Hortensius  was  thus,  from 

1  Cicero,  Brutus,  c.  89.  2  Ibid.  5  Ibid. 


HORTENSIUS.  203 

666  till  679,  a  space  of  thirteen  years,  at  the  head 
of  the  Roman  bar ;  and  being,  in  consequence,  enga- 
ged during  that  long  period,  on  one  side  or  other,  in 
every  cause  of  importance,  he  soon  amassed  a  prodi- 
gious fortune.  He  lived,  too,  with  a  magnificence  cor- 
responding to  his  wealth.  An  example  of  splendour 
and  luxury  had  been  set  to  him  by  the  orator  Cras- 
sus,  who  inhabited  a  sumptuous  palace  in  Rome,  the 
hall  of  which  was  adorned  with  four  pillars  of  Hy- 
mettian  marble,  twelve  feet  high,  which  he  brought 
to  Rome  in  his  aedileship,  at  a  time  when  there  were 
no  pillars  of  foreign  marble  even  in  public  buildings.1 
The  court  of  this  mansion  was  ornamented  by  six 
lotus  trees,  which  Pliny  saw  in  full  luxuriance  in  his 
youth,  but  which  were  afterwards  burned  in  the  con- 
flagration in  the  time  of  Nero.  He  had  also  a  num- 
ber of  vases,  and  two  drinking-cups,  engraved  by  the 
artist  Mentor,  but  which  were  of  such  immense  value 
that  he  was  ashamed  to  use  them.2  Hortensius  had 
the  same  tastes  as  Crassus,  but  surpassed  him  and 
all  his  contemporaries  in  magnificence.  His  man- 
sion stood  on  the  Palatine  Hill,  which  appears  to 
have  been  the  most  fashionable  situation  in  Rome, 
being  at  that  time  covered  with  the  houses  of  Lu- 
tatius  Catulus,  iEmilius  Scaurus,  Clodius,  Catiline, 
Cicero,  and  Caesar.3  The  residence  of  Hortensius  was 
adjacent  to  that  of  Catiline  ;  and  though  of  no  great 
extent,  it  was  splendidly  furnished.    After  the  death 

1  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XVII.  c.  1. 

2  Ibid.  Lib.  XXXIII.  c.  11. 

3  Nardini,  Roma  Anlica,  Lib.  VI.  c  15. 


204  HOllTENSIUS. 

of  the  orator,  it  was  inhabited  by  Octavius  Caesar,1 
and  formed  the  centre  of  the  chief  imperial  palace, 
which  increased  from  the  time  of  Augustus  to  that 
of  Nero,  till  it  covered  a  great  part  of  the  Palatine 
Mount,  and  branched  over  other  hills.  Besides  his 
mansion  in  the  capital,  he  possessed  sumptuous  villas 
at  Tusculum,  Bauli,  and  Laurentum,  where  he  was 
accustomed  to  give  the  most  elegant  and  expensive  en- 
tertainments. He  had  frequently  peacocks  at  his  ban- 
quets, which  he  first  served  up  at  a  grand  augural 
feast,  and  which,  says  Varro,  were  more  commended 
by  the  luxurious,  than  by  men  of  probity  and  austeri- 
ty.2 His  olive  plantations  he  is  said  to  have  regularly 
moistened  and  bedewed  with  wine ;  and,  on  one  occa- 
sion, during  the  hearing  of  an  important  case,  in  which 
he  was  engaged  along  with  Cicero,  begged  that  he 
would  change  with  him  the  previously  arranged  order 
of  pleading,  as  he  was  obliged  to  go  to  the  country  to 
pour  wine  on  a  favourite  platanus,  which  grew  near 
his  Tusculan  villa.3  Notwithstanding  this  profusion, 
his  heir  found  not  less  than  10,000  casks  of  wine  in 
his  cellar  after  his  death.4  Besides  his  taste  for  wine, 
and  fondness  for  plantations,  he  indulged  a  passion  for 
pictures  and  fish-ponds.  At  his  Tusculan  villa,  he 
built  a  hall  for  the  reception  of  a  painting  of  the  ex- 
pedition of  the  Argonauts,  by  the  painter  Cydias, 
which  cost  the  enormous  sum  of  a  hundred  and  forty- 

1  Sueton.  in  Augusto,  c,  72. 

2  Varro,  De  lie  Rustica,  Lib.  III.  c.  6. 

3  Macrobius,  Saturnalia,  Lib.  III.  c  13. 

4  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XIV.  c.  14. 


HORTENSIUS.  205 

four  thousand  sesterces.1  At  his  country-seat,  near 
Bauli,  on  the  sea  shore,  he  vied  with  Lucullus  and 
Philippus  in  the  extent  of  his  fish-ponds,  which  were 
constructed  at  immense  cost,  and  so  formed  that  the 
tide  flowed  into  them.2  Under  the  promontory  of 
Bauli,  travellers  are  yet  shown  the  Piscina  ftfirabilis, 
a  subterraneous  edifice,  vaulted  and  divided  by  four 
rows  of  arcades,  and  which  is  supposed  by  some  anti- 
quarians to  have  been  a  fish-pond  of  Hortensius.  Yet 
such  was  his  luxury,  and  his  reluctance  to  diminish 
his  supply,  that  when  he  gave  entertainments  at  Bauli, 
he  generally  sent  to  the  neighbouring  town  of  Puteoli 
to  buy  fish  for  supper.3  He  had  a  vast  number  of 
fishermen  in  his  service,  and  paid  so  much  attention  to 
the  feeding  of  his  fish,  that  he  had  always  ready  a  large 
stock  of  small  fish  to  be  devoured  by  the  great  ones. 
It  was  with  the  utmost  difficulty  he  could  be  prevail- 
ed on  to  part  with  any  of  them  ;  and  Varro  declares, 
that  a  friend  could  more  easily  get  his  chariot  mules 
out  of  his  stable,  than  a  mullet  from  his  ponds.  He 
was  more  anxious  about  the  welfare  of  his  fish  than 
the  health  of  his  slaves,  and  less  solicitous  that  a  sick 
servant  might  not  take  what  was  unfit  for  him,  than 
that  his  fish  might  not  drink  water  which  was  un- 
wholesome.4 It  is  even  said,  that  he  was  so  passion- 
ately fond  of  a  particular  lamprey,  that  he  shed  tears 
for  her  untimely  death.5 

1  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XXXV.  c.  11. 

2  Varro,  Be  Re  Rustled,  Lib.  III.  c  3. 

3  Ibid.  Lib.  III.  c.  17.  4  Ibid. 
5  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  IX.  c.  55. 


206  HOKTENSIUS. 

The  gallery  at  the  villa,  which  was  situated  on  the 
little  promontory  of  Bauli,  and  looking  towards  Pu- 
teoli,  commanded  one  of  the  most  delightful  views  in 
Italy.  The  inland  prospect  towards  Cumae  was  exten- 
sive and  magnificent-  Puteoli  was  seen  along  the  shore 
at  the  distance  of  30  stadia,  in  the  direction  of  Pom- 
peii ;  and  Pompeii  itself  was  invisible  only  from  its 
distance.  The  sea  view  was  unbounded  ;  but  it  was  en- 
livened by  the  numerous  vessels  sailing  across  the  bay, 
and  the  ever  changeful  hue  of  its  waters,  now  saffron, 
azure,  or  purple,  according  as  the  breeze  blew,  or  as 
the  sun  ascended  or  declined.1 

Hortensius  possessed  another  villa  in  Italy,  which 
rivalled  in  its  sylvan  pomp  the  marine  luxuries  of 
Bauli.  This  mansion  lay  between  Ostia  and  Lavini- 
um,  (now  Pratica,)  near  to  the  town  of  Laurentum, 
so  well  remembered  from  ancient  fable  and  poetry,  as 
having  been  the  residence  of  King  Latinus,  at  the 
time  of  the  arrival  of  iEneas  in  Italy,  and  at  present 
known  by  the  name  of  Torre  di  Paterno.  The  town 
of  Laurentum  was  on  the  shore,  but  the  villa  of  Hor- 
tensius stood  to  the  north-east  at  some  distance  from 
the  coast, — the  grounds  subsequently  occupied  by  the 
villa  of  the  younger  Pliny  intervening  between  it  and 
Laurentum,  and  also  between  it  and  the  Tuscan  sea. 
Around  were  the  walks  and  gardens  of  patrician  vil 
las ;  on  one  side  was  seen  the  town  of  Laurentum, 
with  its  public  baths ;  on  the  other,  but  at  a  greater 
distance,  the  harbour  of  Ostia.    Near  the  house  were 

1  Cicer.  Acadcmica,  Lib.  II.  c.  25,  31,  33. 


HORTENSIUS.  207 

groves,  and  fields  covered  with  herds — beyond  were 
hills  clothed  with  woods.  The  horizon  to  the  north- 
east was  bounded  by  magnificent  mountains,  and  be- 
yond the  low  maritime  grounds,  which  lay  between 
the  port  of  Ostia  and  Laurentum,  there  was  a  distant 
prospect  of  the  Tuscan  sea.1 

Hortensius  had  here  a  wooded  park  of  fifty  acres, 
encompassed  with  a  wall.  This  enclosure  he  called  a 
nursery  of  wild  beasts,  all  which  came  for  their  pro- 
vender at  a  certain  hour,  on  the  blowing  of  a  horn — 
an  exhibition  with  which  he  was  accustomed  to  amuse 
the  guests  who  visited  him  at  his  Laurentian  villa. 
Varro  mentions  an  entertainment,  where  those  in- 
vited supped  on  an  eminence,  called  a  Triclinium,  in 
this  sylvan  park.  During  the  repast,  Hortensius 
summoned  his  Orpheus,  who,  having  come  with  his 
musical  instruments,  and  being  ordered  to  display  his 
talents,  blew  a  trumpet,  when  such  a  multitude  of 
deer,  boars,  and  other  quadrupeds,  rushed  to  the  spot 
from  all  quarters,  that  the  sight  appeared  to  the  de- 
lighted spectators  as  beautiful  as  the  courses  with  wild 
animals  in  the  great  Circus  of  the  iEdiles  !2 

The  eloquence  of  Hortensius  procured  him  not  only 
all  this  wealth  and  luxury,  but  the  highest  official 
honours  of  the  state.  He  was  iEdile  in  679,  Praetor 
in  682,  and  Consul  two  years  afterwards.  The  wealth 
and  dignities  he  had  obtained,  and  the  want  of  com- 
petition, made  him  gradually  relax  from  that  assi- 

1  Bonstetten,  Voyage  dans  le  Latium,  p.  152 — 160.  Nibby, 
Viaggio  Antiquario  ne  contorni  di  Ro?na,  T.  II. 

2  Varro,  Be  Re  Rustica,  Lib.  III.  c.  13. 


208  HORTENSIUS. 

duity  by  which  they  had  been  acquired,  till  the  in- 
creasing fame  of  Cicero,  and  particularly  the  glory  of 
his  consulship,  stimulated  him  to  renew  his  exertions. 
But  his  habit  of  labour  had  been  in  some  degree  lost, 
and  he  never  again  recovered  his  former  reputation. 
Cicero  partly  accounts  for  this  decline,  from  the  pecu- 
liar nature  and  genius  of  his  eloquence.1  It  was  of 
that  showy  species  called  Asiatic,  which  flourished  in 
the  Greek  colonies  of  Asia  Minor,  and  was  infinitely 
more  florid  and  ornamental  than  the  oratory  of  Athens, 
or  even  Rhodes,  being  full  of  brilliant  thoughts  and  of 
sparkling  expressions.  This  glowing  style  of  rhetoric, 
though  deficient  in  solidity  and  weight,  was  not  un- 
suitable in  a  young  man ;  and  being  farther  recom- 
mended by  a  beautiful  cadence  of  periods,  met  with 
the  utmost  applause.  But  Hortensius,  as  he  ad- 
vanced in  life,  did  not  prune  his  exuberance,  or 
adopt  a  chaster  eloquence ;  and  this  luxury,  and  glit- 
ter of  phraseology,  which,  even  in  his  earliest  years, 
had  occasionally  excited  ridicule  or  disgust  among  the 
graver  fathers  of  the  senatorial  order,  being  totally 
inconsistent  with  his  advanced  age  and  consular  dig- 
nity, which  required  something  more  serious  and  com- 
posed, his  reputation  diminished  with  increase  of 
years  ;  and  though  the  bloom  of  his  eloquence  might 
be  in  fact  the  same,  it  appeared  to  be  somewhat 
withered.2  Besides,  from  his  declining  health  and 
strength,  which  greatly  failed  in  his  latter  years,  he 
may  not  have  been  able  to  give  full  effect  to  that 

1  Cicero,  Brutus,  c.  95. 

-  Varro,  Be  Re  Rusticd.    Cicero,  Epist.  ad  Attic.  Lib.  V.  Ep.  2. 

4 


HORTENSIUS.  209 

showy  species  of  rhetoric  in  which  he  indulged.  A  con- 
stant toothache,  and  swelling  in  the  jaws,  greatly  im- 
paired his  power  of  elocution  and  utterance,  and  be- 
came at  length  so  severe  as  to  accelerate  his  end — 

"  ^Egrescunt  tenerse  fauces,  quum  frigoris  atri 
Vis  subiit,  vel  quum  ventis  agitabilis  aer 
Vertitur,  atque  ipsas  flatus  gravis  inficit  auras , 
Vel  rabidus  clamor  fracto  quum  forte  sonore 
Planum  radit  iter.     Sic  est  Hortensius  olim 
Absumptus  :  caussis  etenim  confectus  agendis 
Obticuit,  quum  vox,  domino  vivente,  periret, 
Et  nondum  exstincti  moreretur  lingua  diserti."1 

A  few  months,  however,  before  his  death,  which 
happened  in  703,  he  pleaded  for  his  nephew,  Messala, 
who  was  accused  of  illegal  canvassing,  and  who  was 
acquitted,  more  in  consequence  of  the  astonishing  ex- 
ertions of  his  advocate,  than  the  justice  of  his  cause.  So 
unfavourable,  indeed,  was  his  case  esteemed,  that  how- 
ever much  the  speech  of  Hortensius  had  been  ad- 
mired, he  was  received  on  entering  the  theatre  of  Cu- 
rio on  the  following  day,  with  loud  clamour  and  hisses, 
which  were  the  more  remarked,  as  he  had  never  met 
with  similar  treatment  in  the  whole  course  of  his  fo- 
rensic career.5;  The  speech,  however,  revived  all  the  an- 
cient admiration  of  the  public  for  his  oratorical  talents, 
and  convinced  them,  that  had  he  always  possessed  the 
same  perseverance  as  Cicero,  he  would  not  have  ranked 
second  to  that  orator.  Another  of  his  most  celebrated 
harangues  was  that  against  the  Manilian  law,  which 

1  Seren.  Samonicus,  De  Medicina,  c.  15. 

2  Cicero,  Epist.  Familiares,  Lib.  VIII.  Ep.  2. 
VOL.  II.  O 


210  HORTENSIUS. 

vested  Pompey  with  such  extraordinary  powers,  and 
was  so  warmly  supported  by  Cicero.  That  against 
the  sumptuary  law,  proposed  by  Crassus  and  Pompey, 
in  the  year  683,  which  tended  to  restrain  the  indul- 
gence of  his  own  taste,  was  well  adapted  to  Horten- 
sius'  style  of  eloquence ;  and  his  speech  was  highly 
characteristic  of  his  disposition  and  habits  of  life.  He 
declaimed,  at  great  length,  on  the  glory  of  Rome, 
which  required  splendour  in  the  mode  of  living  fol- 
lowed by  its  citizens.'  He  frequently  glanced  at  the 
luxury  of  the  Consuls  themselves,  and  forced  them  at 
length,  by  his  eloquence  and  sarcastic  declamation,  to 
relinquish  their  scheme  of  domestic  retrenchment. 

The  speeches  of  Hortensius,  it  has  been  already 
mentioned,  lost  part  of  their  effect  by  the  orator's  ad- 
vance in  years,  but  they  suffered  still  more  by  being 
transferred  to  paper.  As  his  chief  excellence  con- 
sisted in  action  and  delivery,  his  writings  were  much 
inferior  to  what  was  expected  from  the  high  fame  he 
had  enjoyed ;  and,  accordingly,  after  death,  he  re- 
tained little  of  that  esteem,  which  he  had  so  abun- 
dantly possessed  during  his  life.2  Although,  there- 
fore, his  orations  had  been  preserved,  they  would  have 
given  us  but  an  imperfect  idea  of  the  eloquence  of 
Hortensius  ;  but  even  this  aid  has  been  denied  us, 
and  we  must,  therefore,  now  chiefly  trust  for  his  ora- 
torical character  to  the  opinion  of  his  great  but  unpre- 
judiced rival.  The  friendship  and  honourable  competi- 
tion of  Hortensius  and  Cicero, present  an  agreeable  con- 

1  Bio.  Cassius,  Lib.  XXXIX. 

2  Quint.  Inst.  Oral.  Lib.  XI.  c.  3. 


HORTENSIUS.  211 

trast  to  the  animosities  of  iEschines  and  Demosthenes, 
the  two  great  orators  of  Greece.  It  was  by  means  of 
Hortensius  that  Cicero  was  chosen  one  of  the  college 
of  Augurs — a  service  of  which  his  gratified  vanity  ever 
appears  to  have  retained  an  agreeable  recollection.  In 
a  few  of  his  letters,  indeed,  written  during  the  de- 
spondency of  his  exile,  he  hints  a  suspicion  that  Hor- 
tensius had  been  instrumental  in  his  banishment,  with 
a  view  of  engrossing  to  himself  the  whole  glory  of  the 
bar  f  but  this  mistrust  ended  with  his  recall,  which 
Hortensius,  though  originally  he  had  advised  him  to 
yield  to  the  storm,  urged  on  with  all  the  influence  of 
which  he  was  possessed.  Hortensius  also  appears  to 
have  been  free  from  every  feeling  of  jealousy  or  envy, 
which  in  him  was  still  more  creditable,  as  his  rival 
was  younger  than  himself,  and  yet  ultimately  forced 
him  from  the  supremacy.  Such  having  been  their  sen- 
timents of  mutual  esteem,  Cicero  has  done  his  orato- 
rio talents  ample  justice — representing  him  as  endued 
with  almost  all  the  qualities  necessary  to  form  a  dis- 
tinguished speaker.  His  imagination  was  fertile — his 
voice  was  sweet  and  harmonious — his  demeanour  dig- 
nified— his  language  rich  and  elegant — his  acquaint- 
ance with  literature  extensive.  So  prodigious  was  his 
memory,  that,  without  the  aid  of  writing,  he  recol- 
lected every  word  he  had  meditated,  and  every  sen- 
tence of  his  adversary's  oration,  even  to  the  titles  and 
documents  brought  forward  to  support  the  case  against 
him — a  faculty  which  greatly  aided  his  peculiarly  hap- 
py art  of  recapitulating  the  substance  of  what  had 

1  Epist.  ad  Atticum,  Lib.  III.  Ep.  9,  &c. 


212  HORTENSIUS. 

been  said  by  his  antagonist  or  by  himself.1  He  also  origi- 
nally possessed  an  indefatigable  application;  and  scarce- 
ly a  day  passed  in  which  he  did  not  speak  in  the  Forum, 
or  exercise  himself  in  forensic  studies  or  preparation. 
But,  of  all  the  various  arts  of  oratory,  he  most  remark- 
ably excelled  in  a  happy  and  perspicuous  arrangement 
of  his  subject.  Cicero  only  reproaches  him,  and  that 
but  slightly,  with  showing  more  study  and  art  in  his 
gestures  than  was  suitable  for  an  orator.  It  appears, 
however,  from  Macrobius,  that  he  was  much  ridiculed 
by  his  contemporaries,  on  account  of  his  affected  ges- 
tures. In  pleading,  his  hands  were  constantly  in  mo- 
tion, whence  he  was  often  attacked  by  his  adversaries 
in  the  Forum  for  resembling  an  actor ;  .and,  on  one 
occasion,  he  received  from  his  opponent  the  appellation 
of  Rionysia,  which  was  the  name  of  a  celebrated  dan- 
cing girl.2  iEsop  and  Roscius  frequently  attended  his 
pleadings,  to  catch  his  gestures,  and  imitate  them  on 
the  stage.3  Such,  indeed,  was  his  exertion  in  action, 
that  it  was  commonly  said  that  it  could  not  be  deter- 
mined whether  people  went  to  hear  or  to  see  him.4  Like 
Demosthenes,  he  chose  and  put  on  his  dress  with  the 

1  As  a  proof  of  his  astonishing  memory,  it  is  recorded  by  Se- 
neca, that,  for  a  trial  of  his  powers  of  recollection,  he  remained  a 
whole  day  at  a  public  auction,  and  when  it  was  concluded,  he  re- 
peated in  order  what  had  been  sold,  to  whom,  and  at  what  price. 
His  recital  was  compared  with  the  clerk's  account,  and  his  me- 
mory was  found  to  have  served  him  faithfully  in  every  particular. 
Senec.  Prcef.  Lib.  I.  Controv. 

2  Aulus  Gellius,  Noct.  Attic.  Lib-  I.  c.  5. 

3  Valerius  Maximus,  Lib.  VIII.  c  10. 
*  Ibid. 


HOltTENSltTS.  213 

most  studied  care  and  neatness.  He  is  said,  not  only 
to  have  prepared  his  attitudes,  but  also  to  have  ad- 
justed the  plaits  of  his  gown  before  a  mirror,  when 
about  to  issue  forth  to  the  Forum  ;  and  to  have 
taken  no  less  care  in  arranging  them,  than  in  mould- 
ing the  periods  of  his  discourse.  He  so  tucked  up  his 
gown,  that  the  folds  did  not  fall  by  chance,  but  were 
formed  with  great  care,  by  means  of  a  knot  artfully 
tied,  and  concealed  in  the  plies  of  his  robe,  which  ap- 
parently flowed  carelessly  around  him.1  Macrobius 
also  records  a  story  of  his  instituting  an  action  of  da- 
mages against  a  person  who  had  jostled  him,  while 
walking  in  this  elaborate  dress,  and  had  ruffled  his 
toga,  when  he  was  about  to  appear  in  public  with  his 
drapery  adjusted  according  to  the  happiest  arrange- 
ment2— an  anecdote,  which,  whether  true  or  false, 
shows,  by  its  currency,  the  opinion  entertained  of  his 
finical  attention  to  everything  that  concerned  the 
elegance  of  his  attire,  or  the  gracefulness  of  his  figure 
and  attitudes.  He  also  bathed  himself  in  odoriferous 
waters,  and  daily  perfumed  himself  with  the  most  pre- 
cious essences.3  This  too  minute  attention  to  his  per- 
son, and  to  gesticulation,  appears  to  have  been  the  sole 
blemish  in  his  oratorical  character  ;  and  the  only-stain 
on  his  moral  conduct,  was  his  practice  of  corrupting 
the  judges  of  the  causes  in  which  he  was  employed — 
a  practice  which  must  be,  in  a  great  measure,  im- 
puted to  the  defects  of  the  judicial  system  at  Rome ; 

1  Macrobius,  Saturnalia,  Lib.  III.  c.  13. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Meiners,  Decadence  des  Mocurs  ckez  les  Remains. 


214  HORTENSIUS. 

for,  whatever  might  be  the  excellence  of  the  Roman 
laws,  nothing  could  be  worse  than  the  procedure  un- 
der which  they  were  administered.1 

1  Hortensius  was  first  married  to  a  daughter  of  Q.  Catulus, 
the  orator,  who  is  one  of  the  speakers  in  the  Dialogue  De  Ora* 
tore.  (Cicero,  De  Oratore,  Lib.  III.  c  6l.)  He  afterwards  ask- 
ed, and  obtained  from  Cato,  his  wife  Marcia;  who,  having  suc- 
ceeded to  a  great  part  of  the  wealth  of  Hortensius  on  his  death, 
was  then  taken  back  by  her  former  husband.  (Plutarch,  In  Ca- 
tone.)  By  his  first  wife,  Hortensius  had  a  son  and  daughter.  In 
his  son  Quintus,  he  was  not  more  fortunate  than  his  rival,  Cicero, 
in  his  son  Marcus.  Cicero,  while  Proconsul  of  Cilicia,  mentions, 
in  one  of  his  letters,  the  ruffian  and  scandalous  appearance  made 
by  the  younger  Hortensius  at  Laodicea,  during  the  shows  of  gla- 
diators.—" I  invited  him  once  to  supper,"  says  he,  "  on  his  fa- 
ther's account ;  and,  on  the  same  account,  only  once."  (Epist.  Ad 
Attic.  Lib.  VI.  Ep.  3.)  Such,  indeed,  was  his  unworthy  conduct, 
that  his  father  at  this  time  entertained  thoughts  of  disinheriting 
him,  and  making  his  nephew,  Messala,  his  heir  ;  but  in  this  inten- 
tion he  did  not  persevere.  (Valer.  Maxim.  Lib.  V.  c  9.)  After 
his  father's  death,  he  joined  the  party  of  Caesar,  (Cicero,  Epist. 
Ad  Att.  Lib.  X.  Ep.  16,  17,  18,)  by  whom  he  was  appointed  Pro- 
consul of  Macedonia ;  in  which  situation  he  espoused  the  side  of 
the  conspirators,  subsequently  to  the  assassination  of  Caesar.  (Ci- 
cero, Philip.  X.  c.  5  and  6.)  By  order  of  Brutus,  he  slew  Caius 
Antonius,  brother  to  the  Triumvir,  who  had  fallen  into  his  hands ; 
and,  being  afterwards  taken  prisoner  at  the  battle  of  Philippi,  he 
was  slain  by  Marc  Antony,  by  way  of  reprisal,  on  the  tomb  of 
his  brother.  (Plutarch,  In  M.  Bruto.) 

Hortensia,  the  daughter,  inherited  something  of  the  spirit  and 
eloquence  of  her  father.  A  severe  tribute  having  been  imposed  on 
the  Roman  matrons  by  the  Triumvirs,-  Antony,  Octavius,  and 
Lepidus,  she  boldly  pleaded  their  cause  before  these  noted  extor- 
tioners, and  obtained  some  alleviation  of  the  impost.  (Valer. 
Maxim.  Lib.  VIII.  c.  3.) 

Quintus,  the  son  of  the  orator,  left  two  children,  Q.  Horten- 
sius Corbio,  and  M.  Hortensius  Hortalus.     The  former  of  these 


CALVUS.  215 

Hortensius  has  received  more  justice  from  Cicero 
than  another  orator,  Licinius  Calvus,  who,  for  a  few 
years,  was  also  considered  as  his  rival  in  eloquence. 
Calvus  has  already  been  mentioned  as  an  elegant  poet; 
but  Seneca  calls  his  competition  with  Cicero  in  ora- 
tory, iniquissimam  litem.    His  style  of  speaking  was 
directly  the  reverse  of  that  of  Hortensius  :  he  affected 
the  Attic  taste  in  eloquence,  such  as  it  appeared  in 
what  he  conceived  to  be  its  purest  form — the  orations 
of  Lysias.  Hence  that  correct  and  slender  delicacy  at 
which  he  so  studiously  aimed,  and  which  he  conduct- 
was  a  monster  of  debauchery ;  and  is  mentioned  by  his  contempo- 
rary, Valerius  Maximus,  among  the  most  striking  examples  of 
those  descendants  who  have  degenerated  from  the  honour  of  their 
ancestors.    (Lib.  III.  c.  5.)    This  wretch,  not  being  likely  to  be- 
come a  father,  and  the  wealth  of  the  family  having  been  partly 
settled  on  the  wife  of  Cato,  partly  dissipated  by  extravagance,  and 
partly  confiscated  in  the  civil  wars,  Augustus  Caesar,  who  was  a 
great  promoter  of  matrimony,  gave  Hortensius  Hortalus  a  pecu- 
niary allowance  to  enable  him  to  marry,  in  order  that  so  illustri- 
ous a  family  might  not  become  extinct.  He  and  his  children,  how- 
ever, fell  into  want  during  the  reign  of  his  benefactor's  successor. 
Tacitus  has  painted,  with  his  usual  power  of  striking  delineation, 
that  humiliating  scene,  in  which  he  appeared,  with  his  four  chil- 
dren, to  beg  relief  from  the  Senate ;  and  the  historian  has  also  re- 
corded the  hard  answer  which  he  received  from  the  unrelenting 
Tiberius.     Perceiving,  however,  that  his  severity  was  disliked  by 
the  Senate,  the  Emperor  said,  that,  if  they  desired  it,  he  would 
give  a  certain  sum  to  each  of  Hortalus's  male  children.    They  re- 
turned thanks ;  but  Hortalus,  either  from  terror  or  dignity  of 
mind,  said  not  a  word ;  and,  from  this  time,  Tiberius  showing  him 
no  favour,  his  family  sunk  into  the  most  abject  poverty :    (Tacit. 
Atmal.  Lib.  II.  c.  37  and  38.)   And  such  were  the  descendants  of 
the  orator  with  the  park,  the  plantations,  the  ponds,  and  the  pic- 
tures ! 


216  •  CALVUS. 

ed  with  great  skill  and  elegance ;  but,  from  being  too 
much  afraid  of  the  faults  of  redundance  and  unsuit- 
able ornament,  he  refined  and  attenuated  his  discourse 
till  it  lost  its  raciness  and  spirit.  He  compensated, 
however,  for  his  sterility  of  language,  and  diminutive 
figure,  by  his  force  of  elocution,  and  vivacity  of  action. 
"  I  have  met  with  persons,"  says  Quintilian,  "  who 
preferred  Calvus  to  all  our  orators  ;  and  others  who 
were  of  opinion,  that  the  too  great  rigour  which  he 
exercised  on  himself,  in  point  of  precision,  had  debili- 
tated his  oratorical  talents.  Nevertheless,  his  speeches, 
though  chaste,  grave,  and  correct,  are  frequently  also 
vehement.  His  taste  of  writing  was  Attic ;  and  his 
untimely  death  was  an  injury  to  his  reputation,  if  he 
designed  to  add  to  his  compositions,  and  not  to  re- 
trench them."  His  most  celebrated  oration,  which  was 
against  the  unpopular  Vatinius,  was  delivered  at  the 
age  of  twenty.  The  person  whom  he  accused,  over- 
powered and  alarmed,  interrupted  him,  by  exclaiming 
to  the  judges,  "  Must  I  be  condemned  because  he  is 
eloquent  ?"  The  applause  he  obtained  in  this  case  may 
be  judged  of  from  what  is  mentioned  by  Catullus,  of 
some  one  in  the  crowd  clapping  his  hands  in  the  middle 
of  his  speech,  and  exclaiming,  "  O  what  an  eloquent 
little  darling  I"1  Calvus  survived  only  ten  years  after 
this  period,  having  died  at  the  early  age  of  thirty.  He 
left  behind  him  twenty-One  books  of  orations,  which 
are  said  to  have  been  much  studied  by  the  younger 
Pliny,  and  were  the  models  he  first  imitated.2 

1  Catull.  Carm.  53.  2  Pliny,  Epist.  Lib.  I.  ep.  2. 


CALIDIUS.  217 

Calvus,  though  a  much  younger  man  than  Cicero, 
died  many  years  before  him,  and  previous  to  the  com- 
position of  the  dialogue  Brutus.  Most  of  the  other 
contemporaries,  whom  Cicero  records  in  that  treatise 
on  celebrated  orators,  were  dead  also.  Among  an  in- 
finite variety  of  others,  he  particularly  mentions  Mar- 
cus Crassus,  the  wealthy  triumvir,  who  perished  in  the 
ill-fated  expedition  against  the  Parthians  ;  and  who, 
though  possessed  but  of  moderate  learning  and  capa- 
city, was  accounted,  in  consequence  of  his  industry  and 
popular  arts,  among  the  chief  forensic  patrons.  His 
language  was  pure,  and  his  subject  well  arranged ;  but 
in  his  harangues  there  were  none  of  the  lights  and 
flowers  of  eloquence, — all  things  were  expressed  in  the 
same  manner,  and  the  same  tone. 

Towards  the  conclusion  of  the  dialogue,  Cicero  men- 
tions so  many  of  his  predeceased  contemporaries,  that 
Atticus  remarks,  that  he  is  drawing  up  the  dregs  of 
oratory.  Calidius,  indeed,  seems  the  only  other  speaker 
who  merits  distinguished  notice.  He  is  characterized 
as  different  from  all  other  orators, — such  was  the  soft 
and  polished  language  in  which  he  arrayed  his  exqui- 
sitely delicate  sentiments.  Nothing  could  be  more 
easy,  pliable,  and  ductile,  than  the  turn  of  his  periods ; 
his  words  flowed  like  a  pure  and  limpid  stream,  with- 
out anything  hard  or  muddy  to  impede  or  pollute  their 
course ;  his  action  was  genteel,  his  mode  of  address 
sober  and  calm,  his  arrangement  the  perfection  of  art. 
"  The  three  great  objects  of  an  orator,"  says  Cicero, 
while  discussing  the  merits  of  Calidius,  "  are  to  in- 
struct, delight,  and  move.  Two  of  these  he  admirably 


218  CICERO. 

accomplished.  He  rendered  the  most  abstruse  subject 
clear  by  illustration,  and  enchained  the  minds  of  his 
hearers  with  delight.  But  the  third  praise  of  moving 
and  exciting  the  soul  must  be  denied  him  ;  he  had  no 
force,  pathos,  or  animation."1  Such,  indeed,  was  his 
want  of  emotion,  where  it  was  most  appropriate,  and 
most  to  be  expected,  that,  while  pleading  his  own 
cause  against  Q.  Gallius  for  an  attempt  to  poison  him, 
though  he  stated  his  case  with  elegance  and  perspicu- 
ity, yet  it  was  so  smoothly  and  listlessly  detailed,  that 
Cicero,  who  spoke  for  the  person  accused,  argued,  that 
the  charge  must  be  false  and  an  invention  of  his  own, 
as  no  one  could  talk  so  calmly,  and  with  such  indiffe- 
rence, of  a  recent  attempt  which  threatened  his  own 
existence.2 

These  were  the  most  renowned  orators  who  preceded 
the  age  of  Cicero,  or  were  contemporaries  with  him  ; 
and  before  proceeding  to  consider  the  oratorical  merits 
of  him  by  whom  they  have  been  all  eclipsed,  at  least 
in  the  eye  of  posterity,  it  may  be  proper,  for  a  single 
moment,  to  remind  the  reader  of  the  state  of  the  Ro- 
man law, — of  the  judicial  procedure,  and  of  the  ordi- 
nary practice  of  the  Forum,  at  the  time  when  he  com- 
menced and  pursued  his  brilliant  career  of  eloquence. 

The  laws  of  the  first  six  kings  of  Rome,  called  the 
Leges  Regiw,  chiefly  related  to  sacred  subjects, — re- 
gulations of  police, — divisions  of  the  different  orders 
in  the  state, — and  privileges  of  the  people.  Tarqui- 
nius  Superbus  having  laid  a  plan  for  the  establish- 
ment of  despotism  at  Rome,  attempted  to  abolish  every 

1  Brutus,  c.  80.  -  Ibid. 


ciceuo.  219 

law  of  his  predecessors  which  imposed  control  on  the 
royal  prerogative.  About  the  time  of  his  expulsion,1 
the  Senate  and  people,  believing  that  the  disregard  of 
the  laws  was  occasioned  by  their  never  having  been 
reduced  in  writing,  determined  to  have  them  assem- 
bled and  recorded  in  one  volume ;  and  this  task  was 
intrusted  by  them  to  Sextus  Papyrius,  a  patrician. 
Papyrius  accordingly  collected,  with  great  assiduity,  all 
the  laws  of  the  monarchs  who  had  governed  Rome  pre- 
viously to  the  time  of  Tarquin.  This  collection,  which 
is  sometimes  called  the  Leges  Regice,  and  sometimes 
the  Papyrian  Code,  did  not  obtain  that  confirmation  and 
permanence  which  might  have  been  expected.  Many 
of  the  Leges  Regice  were  the  result  of  momentary 
emergencies,  and  inapplicable  to  future  circumstances. 
Being  the  ordinances,  too,  of  a  detested  race,  and  being 
in  some  respects  but  ill  adapted  to  the  genius  and  tem- 
per of  a  republican  government,  a  great  number  of  them 
soon  fell  into  desuetude.2  The  new  laws  promulga- 
ted immediately  after  the  expulsion  of  the  kings,  re- 
lated more  to  those  constitutional  modifications  which 
were  rendered  necessary  by  so  important  a  revolution, 
than  to  the  civil  rights  of  the  citizen.  In  consequence 
of  the  dissensions  of  the  patricians  and  plebeians,  every 
Senatusconsultum  proceeding  from  the  deliberations 
of  the  Senate  was  negatived  by  the  veto  of  the  Tri- 

1  According  to  some  authorities  it  was  a  short  while  before,  and 
according  to  others  a  short  while  after,  the  expulsion  of  Tarquin. 

2  "Exactis  deinde  regibus  leges  hee  exoleverunt ;  iterumque 
ccepit  populus  Romanus  incerto  magis  jure  et  consuetudine  ali, 
quam  per  latam  legem." — Pompon.  L^etus,  De  Leg.  II.  §  3. 


220  •  cicEiio. 

bunes,  while  the  Senate,  in  return,  disowned  the  au- 
thority of  the  Plebiscita,  and  denied  the  right  of  the 
Tribunes  to  propose  laws.  There  was  thus  a  sort  of 
legal  interregnum  at  Rome ;  at  least,  there  were  no 
fixed  rules  to  which  all  classes  were  equally  subjected : 
and  the  great  body  of  the  people  were  too  often  the 
victims  of  the  pride  of  the  patricians  and  tyranny  of 
the  consular  government.  In  this  situation,  C.  Ter- 
entius  Arsa  brought  forward  the  law  known  by  the 
name  of  Terentilla,  of  which  the  object  was  the  elec- 
tion by  the  people  of  ten  persons,  who  should  compose 
and  arrange  a  body  of  laws  for  the  administration  of 
public  affairs,  as  well  as  decision  of  the  civil  rights  of 
individuals  according  to  established  rules.  The  Senate, 
who  maintained  that  the  dispensation  of  justice  was 
solely  vested  in  the  supreme  magistrates,  contrived,  for 
five  years,  to  postpone  execution  of  this  salutary  mea- 
sure ;  but  it  was  at  length  agreed,  that,  as  a  prepa- 
ratory step,  and  before  the  creation  of  the  Decemvirs, 
who  were  to  form  this  code,  three  deputies  should  be 
sent  to  Greece,  and  the  Greek  towns  of  Italy,  to  se- 
lect such  enactments  as  they  might  consider  best  adapt- 
ed to  the  manners  and  customs  of  the  Roman  people. 
The  delegates,  who  departed  on  this  embassy  to- 
wards the  close  of  the  year  300,  were  occupied  two 
years  in  their  important  mission.  From  what  cities 
of  Greece,  or  Magna  Graecia,  they  chiefly  borrowed 
their  laws,  has  been  a  topic  of  much  discussion,  and 
seems  to  be  still  involved  in  much  uncertainty;1  though 

1  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  c.  44. 


CICERO.  221 

Athens  is  most  usually  considered  as  having  been  the 
great  fountain  of  their  legislation. 

On  the  return  of  the  deputies  to  Rome,  the  office 
of  Consul  was  suppressed,  and  ten  magistrates,  called 
Decemvirs,  among  whom  these  deputies  were  inclu- 
ded, were  immediately  created.  To  them  was  confided 
the  care  of  digesting  the  prodigious  mass  of  laws  which 
had  been  brought  from  Greece.  This  task  they  ac- 
complished with  the  aid  of  Hermodorus,  an  exile  of 
Ephesus,  who  then  happened  to  be  at  Rome,  and  acted 
as  their  interpreter.  But  although  the  importation 
from  Greece  formed  the  chief  part  of  the  twelve  tables, 
it  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  ancient  laws  of  Rome 
were  entirely  superseded.  Some  of  the  Leges  Regice, 
which  had  no  reference  to  monarchical  government,  as 
the  laws  of  Romulus,  concerning  the  Patria  potestas, 
those  concerning  parricides,  the  removal  of  landmarks, 
and  insolvent  debtors,  had,  by  tacit  consent,  passed 
into  consuetudinary  law ;  and  all  those  which  were 
still  in  observance  were  incorporated  in  the  Decem- 
viral  Code ;  in  the  same  manner  as  the  institutions 
of  the  heroic  ages  of  Greece  formed  a  part  of  the  laws 
of  Solon  and  Lycurgus. 

Before  a  year  had  elapsed  from  the  date  of  their 
creation,  the  Decemvirs  had  prepared  ten  books  of 
laws;  which,being  engraved  on  wooden  or  ivory  tablets, 
were  presented  to  the  people,  and  received  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  Senate,  and  ratification  of  the  Comitia 
Centuriata.  Two  supplementary  tables  were  soon  af- 
terwards added,  in  consequence  of  some  omissions 
which  were  observed  and  pointed  out  to  the  Decern- 


222  cicero. 

virs.  In  all  these  tables  the  laws  were  briefly  express- 
ed. The  first  eight  related  to  matters  of  private  right, 
the  ninth  to  those  of  public,  and  the  tenth  to  those 
of  religious  concern.  These  ten  tables  established  very 
equitable  rules  for  all  different  ranks,  without  distinc- 
tion ;  but  in  the  two  supplemental  tables  some  invi- 
dious distinctions  were  introduced,  and  many  exclu- 
sive privileges  conferred  on  the  patricians. 

On  the  whole,  the  Decemvirs  appear  to  have  been 
very  well  versed  in  the  science  of  legislation.  Those 
who,  like  Cicero1  and  Tacitus,  possessed  the  Twelve 
Tables  complete,  and  who  were  the  most  competent 
judges  of  how  far  they  were  adapted  to  the  circum- 
stances and  manners  of  the  people,  have  highly  com- 
mended the  wisdom  of  these  laws.  Modern  detractors 
have  chiefly  objected  to  the  sanguinary  punishments 
they  inflicted,  the  principles  of  the  law  of  retaliation 
which  they  recognized,  and  the  barbarous  privileges 
permitted  to  creditors  on  the  persons  of  their  debtors. 
The  severer  enactments,  however,  of  the  Twelve 
Tables,  were  evidently  never  put  in  force,  or  so  soon 
became  obsolete,  that  the  Roman  laws  were  at  length 
esteemed  remarkable  for  the  mildness  of  their  punish- 
ments— the  penalties  of  scourging,  or  death,  being 
scarcely  in  any  case  inflicted  on  a  Roman  citizen. 

The  tables  on  which  the  Decemviral  Code  had  been 
inscribed,  were  destroyed  by  the  Gauls  at  the  sack  of 
the  city ;  but  such  pains  were  taken  in  recovering 
copies,  or  making  them  out  from  recollection,  that  the 
laws  themselves  were  almost  completely  re-established. 

1  De  Legibus,  Lib.  II.  c.  23.     De  Oratore,  Lib.  I.  c.  42. 


cicero.  2£3 

It  might  reasonably  have  been  expected  that  a  sys- 
tem of  jurisprudence,  carefully  extracted  from  the 
whole  legislative  wisdom  of  Italy  and  Greece,  should 
have  restored  in  the  commonwealth  that  good  order 
and  security  which  had  been  overthrown  by  the  uncer- 
tainty of  the  laws,  and  the  disputes  of  the  patricians 
and  plebeians.  But  the  event  did  not  justify  the  well- 
founded  expectation.  The  ambition  and  lawless  pas- 
sions of  the  chief  Decemvir  had  rendered  it  necessary 
for  him  and  his  colleagues  to  abdicate  their  authority 
before  they  had  settled  with  sufficient  precision  how 
their  enactments  were  to  be  put  in  practice  or  enfor- 
ced. It  thus  became  essential  to  introduce  certain 
formula  called  Legis  Actiones,  in  order  that  the  mode 
of  procedure  might  not  remain  arbitrary  and  uncer- 
tain. These,  consisting  chiefly  of  certain  symbolical 
gestures,  adapted  to  a  legal  claim  or  defence,  were  pre- 
pared by  Claudius  Coecus  about  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century  of  Rome,  but  were  intended  to  be  kept 
private  among  the  pontiffs  and  patrician  Jurisconsults, 
that  the  people  might  not  have  the  benefit  of  the  law 
without  their  assistance.  CI.  Flavius,  however,  a  se- 
cretary of  Claudius,  having  access  to  these  formularies, 
transcribed  and  communicated  them  to  the  people 
about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  of  Rome.  From 
this  circumstance  they  were  called  the  Jus  civile  Fla- 
vianum.  This  discovery  was  so  disagreeable  to  the 
patricians,  that  they  devised  new  legal  forms,  which 
they  kept  secret  with  still  more  care  than  the  others. 
But  in  553,  Sextus  iElius  Catus  divulged  them  again, 
and,  in  consequence,  these  last  prescripts  obtained  the 

vol.  ii. 


224  cicero. 

name  of  Jus  JElium,  which  may  be  regarded  as  the 
last  part  and  completion  of  the  Decemviral  laws ;  and 
it  continued  to  be  employed  as  the  form  of  process 
during  the  whole  remaining  period  of  the  existence  of 
the  commonwealth. 

As  long  as  the  republic  survived,  the  Twelve  Tables 
formed  the  foundation  of  the  Roman  law,  though 
they  were  interpreted  and  enlarged  by  such  new  en- 
actments as  the  circumstances  of  the  state  demanded.1 
Thus  the  Lex  Aquilia  and  Alinia  were  mere  modifica- 
tions of  different  heads  of  the  twelve  tables.  Most  of 
the  new  laws  were  introduced  in  consequence  of  the 
increase  of  empire  and  luxury,  and  the  conflicting  in- 
terests of  the  various  orders  in  the  state.  Laws,  pro- 
perly so  called,  were  proposed  by  a  superior  magistrate, 
as  the  Consul,  Dictator,  or  Praetor,  with  consent  of 
the  Senate ;  they  were  passed  by  the  whole  body  of 
the  people,  patricians  and  plebeians,  assembled  in  the 
Comitia  Centuriata,  and  bore  ever  after  the  name  of 
the  proposer. 

The  Plebiscita  were  enacted  by  the  plebeians  in 
the  Comitia  Tributa,  apart  from  the  patricians,  and 
independently  of  the  sanction  of  the  Senate,  at  the 
rogation  of  their  own  Tribunes,  instead  of  one  of 
the  superior  magistrates.  The  patricians  generally 
resisted  these  decrees,  as  they  were  chiefly  directed 
against  the  authority  of  the  Senate,  and  the  privileges 
of  the  higher  orders  of  the  state.     But,  by  the  Lex 

1  "  Decern  tabularum  leges/'  says  Livy,  "  nunc  quoque,  in  hoc 
immenso  aliarum  super  aliis  acervatarum  legum  cumulo,  fons  om- 
nis  publici  privatique  est  juris." 


CICERO.  225 

Horatia,  the  same  weight  and  authority  were  given 
to  them  as  to  laws  properly  so  termed,  and  thence- 
forth they  differed  only  in  name,  and  the  manner  in 
which  they  were  enacted. 

A  Senatusconsultum  was  an  ordinance  of  the  Se- 
nate on  those  points  concerning  which  it  possessed 
exclusive  authority  ;  but  rather  referred  to  matters  of 
state,  as  the  distribution  of  provinces,  the  application 
of  public  money,  and  the  like,  than  to  the  ordinary 
administration  of  justice. 

The  patricians,  being  deprived  by  the  Twelve  Tables 
of  the  privilege  of  arbitrarily  pronouncing  decisions, 
as  best  suited  their  interests ;  and  being  frustrated 
in  their  miserable  attempts  to  maintain  an  undue 
advantage  in  matters  of  form,  by  secreting  the  rules 
of  procedure  held  in  courts  of  justice,  they  had  now 
reserved  to  them  only  the  power  of  interpreting  to 
others  the  scope  and  spirit  of  the  laws.  Till  the  age, 
at  least,  of  Augustus,  the  Civil  law  was  completely  un- 
connected and  dissipated  ;  and  no  systematic,  acces- 
sible, or  authoritative  treatise  on  the  subject,  appeared 
during  the  existence  of  the  republic.1  The  laws  of 
the  Twelve  Tables  were  extremely  concise  and  ellip- 
tical ;  and  it  seems  highly  probable  that  they  were 
written  in  this  style,  not  for  the  sake  of  perspicuity, 
but  to  leave  all  that  required  to  be  supplied  or  inter- 
preted in  the  power  of  the  Patricians.2  The  changes, 
too,  in  the  customs  and  language  of  the  Romans,  ren- 

1  Cicero,  De  Oratore,  Lib.  II.  c  S3. 

2  Saint  Prix,  Hist,  du  Droit  Romain,  p.  23.  Ed.  Paris,  1821. 
VOL.  II.  P 


226  eicEiio. 

dered  the  style  of  the  Twelve  Tables  less  familiar  to 
each  succeeding  generation  ;  and  the  ambiguous  pas- 
sages were  but  imperfectly  explained  by  the  study  of 
legal  antiquarians.  It  was  the  custom,  likewise,  for 
each  successive  Praetor  to  publish  an  edict,  announcing 
the  manner  in  which  justice  was  to  be  distributed  by 
him — the  rules  which  he  proposed  to  follow  in  the 
decision  of  doubtful  cases ;  and  the  degree  of  relief 
which  his  equity  would  afford  from  the  precise  rigour 
of  ancient  statutes.  This  annual  alteration  in  forms, 
and  sometimes  even  in  the  principles  of  law,  introduced 
a  confusion,  which  persons  engrossed  with  other  occu- 
pations could  not  unravel.  The  obscurity  of  old  laws, 
and  fluctuating  jurisdiction  of  the  Praetors,  gave  rise  to 
that  class  of  men  called  Jurisconsults,  whose  business 
it  was  to  explain  legal  difficulties,  and  reconcile  statu- 
tory contradictions.  It  was  the  relation  of  patron  and 
client,  which  was  coeval  almost  with  the  city  itself, 
and  was  invested  with  a  sacred,  inviolable  character, 
that  gave  weight  to  the  dicta  of  those  who,  in  some 
measure,  came  in  place  of  the  ancient  patrons,  and 
usually  belonged  to  the  patrician  order. — "  On  the 
public  days  of  market  or  assembly,"  says  Gibbon, 
"  the  masters  of  the  art  were  seen  walking  in  the  Fo- 
rum, ready  to  impart  the  needful  advice  to  the  mean- 
est of  their  fellow-citizens,  from  whose  votes,  on  a  fu- 
ture occasion,  they  might  solicit  a  grateful  return.  As 
their  years  and  honours  increased,  they  seated  them- 
selves at  home  on  a  chair  or  throne,  to  expect  with  pa- 
tient gravity  the  visits  of  their  clients,  who,  at  the 
dawn  of  day,  from  the  town  and  country,  began  to 


CICERO.  227 

thunder  at  their  door.  The  duties  of  social  life,  and 
incidents  of  judicial  proceedings,  were  the  ordinary- 
subject  of  these  consultations ;  and  the  verbal  or  writ- 
ten opinions  of  the  jurisconsults  were  framed  according 
to  the  rules  of  prudence  and  law.  The  youths  of  their 
own  order  and  family  were  permitted  to  listen  ;  their 
children  enjoyed  the  benefit  of  more  private  lessons  ; 
and  the  Mucian  race  was  long  renowned  for  the  here- 
ditary knowledge  of  the  civil  law."1  Though  the  judges 
and  praetors  were  not  absolutely  obliged,  till  the  time 
of  the  emperors,  to  follow  the  recorded  opinions  of  the 
Jurisconsults,  they  possessed  during  the  existence  of 
the  republic  a  preponderating  weight  and  authority. 
The  province  of  legislation  was  thus  gradually  in- 
vaded by  these  expounders  of  ancient  statutes,  till  at 
length  their  recorded  opinions,  the  Responsa  Pruden- 
tum,  became  so  numerous,  and  of  such  authority,  that 
they  formed  the  greatest  part  of  the  system  of  Roman 
jurisprudence,  whence  they  were  styled  by  Cicero,  in 
his  oration  for  Csecina,  Jus  Civile. 

It  is  perfectly  evident,  however,  that  the  civil  law 
was  neither  much  studied  nor  known  by  the  ora- 
tors of  the  Senate  and  Forum.  Cicero,  in  his  trea- 
tise De  Oratore,  informs  us,  that  Ser.  Galba,  the  first 
speaker  of  his  day,  was  ignorant  of  law,  inexperienced 
in  civil  rights,  and  uncertain  as  to  the  institutions  of 
his  ancestors.  In  his  Brutus  he  says  nearly  the  same 
thing  of  Antony  and  Sulpicius,  who  were  the  two 
greatest  orators  of  their  age,  and  who,  he  declares, 

1  Decline  and  Fall  cf  the  Roman  Empire,  c.  44. 


228  cicero. 

knew  nothing  of  public,  private,  or  civil  law.  Antony 
in  particular,  always  expressed  a  contempt  for  the 
study  of  the  civil  law.1  Accordingly,  in  the  dialogue 
De  Oratore,  he  is  made  to  say,  "  I  never  studied  the 
civil  law,  nor  have  I  been  sensible  of  any  loss  from  my 
ignorance  of  it  in  those  causes  which  I  was  capable  of 
managing  in  our  courts.' 2  In  the  same  dialogue,  Scae- 
vola  says,  "  The  present  age  is  totally  ignorant  of  the 
laws  of  the  Twelve  Tables,  except  you,  Crassus,  who, 
led  by  curiosity,  rather  than  from  its  being  any  pro- 
vince annexed  to  eloquence,  studied  civil  law  under 
me."  In  his  oration  for  Mursena,  Cicero  talks  lightly 
of  the  study  of  the  civil  law,  and  treats  his  opponent 
with  scorn  on  account  of  his  knowledge  of  its  words  of 
style  and  forms  of  procedure.3  With  exception,  then, 
of  Crassus,  and  of  Scsevola,  who  was  rather  a  juriscon* 

1  Cicero,  Tie  Orat.  Lib.  I.  c.  57. 

2  Ibid.  Lib.  I.  c.  58. 

3  It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  Cicero,  in  other  passages 
of  his  works,  has  given  the  study  of  civil  law  high  encomiums,  par- 
ticularly in  the  following  beautiful  passage  delivered  in  the  person 
of  Crassus :  "  Senectuti  vero  celebrandse  et  ornandse  quid  hones- 
tius  potest  esse  perfugium,  quam  juris  interpretatio  ?  Equidem 
mihi  hoc  subsidium  jam  inde  ab  adolescentia  comparavi,  non  so- 
lum ad  causarum  usum  forensem,  sed  etiam  ad  decus  atque  orna- 
mentum  senectutis ;  ut  cum  me  vires  (quod  fere  jam  tempus  ad- 
ventat)deficere  coepissent,  ab  solitudine  domum  meam  vindicarem." 
(De  Oratore,  Lib.  I.  c.45.)  Schultingius,  the  celebrated  civilian,  in 
his  dissertation  De  Jurisprudent  a  Ciceronis,  tries  to  prove,  from 
various  passages  in  his  orations  and  rhetorical  writings,  that  Ci- 
cero was  well  versed  in  the  most  profound  and  nice  questions  of 
Roman  jurisprudence,  and  that  he  was  well  skilled  in  international 
law,  as  Grotius  has  borrowed  from  him  many  of  his  principles  and 
illustrations,  in  his  treatise  De  Jure  Belli  et  Paris. 


cicero.  229 

suit  than  a  speaker,  the  orators  of  the  age  of  Cicero, 
as  well  as  those  who  preceded  it,  were  uninstructed  in 
law,  and  considered  it  as  no  part  of  their  duty  to  ren- 
der themselves  masters,  either  of  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  jurisprudence,  or  the  municipal  institutions 
of  the  state.  Crassus,  indeed,  expresses  his  opinion, 
that  it  is  impossible  for  an  orator  to  do  justice  to  his 
client  without  some  knowledge  of  law,  particularly 
in  questions  tried  before  the  Centumviri,  who  had  cog- 
nizance of  points  with  regard  to  egress  and  regress  in 
property,  the  interests  of  minors,  and  alterations  in 
the  course  of  rivers  ;  and  he  mentions  several  cases, 
some  of  a  criminal  nature,  which  had  lately  occurred 
at  Rome,  where  the  question  hinged  entirely  on  the 
civil  law,  and  required  constant  reference  to  prece- 
dents and  authorities.  Antony,  however,  explains 
how  all  this  may  be  managed.  A  speaker,  for  example, 
ignorant  of  the  mode  of  drawing  up  an  agreement, 
and  unacquainted  with  the  forms  of  a  contract,  might 
defend  the  rights  of  a  woman  who  has  been  contracted 
in  marriage,  because  there  were  persons  who  brought 
everything  to  the  orator  or  patron,  ready  prepared, — 
presenting  him  with  a  brief,  or  memorial,  not  only  on 
matters  of  fact,  but  on  the  decrees  of  the  Senate,  the 
precedents  and  the  opinions  of  the  jurisconsults.  It 
also  appears  that  there  were  solicitors,  or  professors 
of  civil  law,  whom  the  orators  consulted  on  any 
point  concerning  which  they  wished  to  be  instructed, 
and  the  knowledge  of  which  might  be  necessary 
previous  to  their  appearance  in  the  Forum.  In 
this  situation,  the  harangue  of  the  orator  was  more 


230  CICERO. 

frequently  an  appeal  to  the  equity,  common  sense,  or 
feelings  of  the  judge,  than  to  the  laws  of  his  country. 
Now,  where  a  pleader  addresses  himself  to  the  equity 
of  his  judges,  he  has  much  more  occasion,  and  also 
much  more  scope,  to  display  his  eloquence,  than  where 
he  must  draw  his  arguments  from  strict  law,  statutes, 
and  precedents.  In  the  former  case,  many  circum- 
stances must  be  taken  into  account ;  many  personal 
considerations  regarded  ;  and  even  favour  and  inclina- 
tion, which  it  belongs  to  the  orator  to  conciliate,  by  his 
art  and  eloquence,  may  be  disguised  under  the  ap- 
pearance of  equity.  Accordingly,  Cicero,  while  speak- 
ing in  his  own  person,  only  says,  that  the  science  of 
law  and  civil  rights  should  not  be  neglected  ;  but  he 
does  not  seem  to  consider  it  as  essential  to  the  ora- 
tor of  the  Forum,  while  he  enlarges  on  the  necessity 
of  elegance  of  language,  the  erudition  of  the  scholar, 
a  ready  and  popular  wit,  and  a  power  of  moving  the 
passions.1 

That  these  were  the  arts  to  which  the  Roman  ora- 
tors chiefly  trusted  for  success  in  the  causes  of  their 
clients,  is  apparent  from  the  remains  of  their  discour- 
ses, and  from  what  is  said  of  the  mode  of  pleading  in 
the  rhetorical  treatises  of  Cicero.  "  Pontius,"  says 
Antony,  in  the  dialogue  so  often-quoted,  "  had  a  son, 
who  served  in  the  war  with  the  Cimbri,  and  whom  he 
had  destined  to  be  his  heir ;  but  his  father,  believing 
a  false  report  which  was  spread  of  his  death,  made  a 
will  in  favour  of  another  child.    The  soldier  returned 

1  Be  Oratore,  Lib.  I. 


CICERO.  231 

after  the  decease  of  his  parent ;  and,  had  you  been 
employed  to  defend  his  cause,  you  would  not  have  dis- 
cussed the  legal  doctrine  as  to  the  priority  or  validity 
of  testaments  ;  you  would  have  raised  his  father  from 
the  grave,  made  him  embrace  his  child,  and  recom- 
mend him,  with  many  tears,  to  the  protection  of  the 
Centumviri." 

Antony,  speaking  of  one  of  his  own  most  celebrated 
orations,  says,  that  his  whole  address  consisted,  1st,  in 
moving  the  passions  ;  2d,  in  recommending  himself; 
and  that  it  was  thus,  and  not  by  convincing  the  under- 
standing of  the  judges,  that  he  baffled  the  impeach- 
ment against  his  clients.1  Valerius  Maximus  has  sup- 
plied, in  his  eighth  book,  many  examples  of  unexpect- 
ed and  unmerited  acquittals,  as  well  as  condemnations, 
from  bursts  of  compassion  and  theatrical  incidents. 
The  wonderful  influence,  too,  of  a  ready  and  popular 
wit  in  the  management  of  causes,  is  apparent  from  the 
instances  given  in  the  second  book  De  Oratore  of  the 
effects  it  had  produced  in  the  Forum.  The  jests  which 
are  there  recorded,  though  not  very  excellent,  may  be 
regarded  as  the  finest  flowers  of  wit  of  the  Roman  bar. 
Sometimes  they  were  directed  against  the  opposite 
party,  his  patron,  or  witnesses ;  and,  if  sufficiently 
impudent,  seldom  failed  of  effect. 

That  the  principles  and  precepts  of  the  civil  law 
were  so  little  studied  by  the  Roman  orators,  and  hard- 
ly ever  alluded  to  in  their  harangues,  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  arts  of  persuasion,  and  wit,  and  excite- 

1  De  Oratore,  Lib.  II.  c.  49. 


232  CICERO. 

ment  of  the  passions,  were  all-powerful,  and  were  the 
great  engines  of  legal  discussion,  must  be  attributed 
to  the  constitution  of  the  courts  of  law,  and  the  nature 
of  the  judicial  procedure,  which,  though  very  imper- 
fect for  the  administration  of  justice,  were  well  adapt- 
ed to  promote  and  exercise  the  highest  powers  of  elo- 
quence. It  was  the  forms  of  procedure — the  descrip- 
tion of  the  courts  before  which  questions  were  tried — 
and  the  nature  of  these  questions  themselves1 — that 
gave  to  Roman  oratory  such  dazzling  splendour,  and 
surrounded  it  with  a  glory,  which  can  never  shine  on 
the  efforts  of  rhetoric  in  a  better-regulated  communi- 
ty, and  under  a  more  sober  dispensation  of  justice. 

The  great  exhibitions  of  eloquence  were,  1st,  In  the 
civil  and  criminal  causes  tried  before  the  Praetor,  or 
judges  appointed  under  his  eye.  2d,  The  discussions 
on  laws  proposed  in  the  assemblies  of  the  people.  3d, 
The  deliberations  of  the  Senate. 

The  Praetor  sat  in  the  Forum,  the  name  given  to 
the  great  square  situated  between  Mount  Palatine  and 
the  Capitol,  and  there  administered  justice.  Some- 
times he  heard  causes  in  the  Basil icae,  or  halls  which 
were  built  around  the  Forum  ;  but  at  other  times  the 
court  of  the  Praetor  was  held  in  the  area  of  the  Forum, 
on  which  a  tribunal  was  hastily  erected,  and  a  certain 
space  for  the  patron,  client,  and  witnesses,  was  railed 
off,  and  protected  from  the  encroachment  of  surround- 
ing spectators.  This  space  was  slightly  covered  above 
for  the  occasion  with  canvass,  but  being  exposed  to 

1  "  An  non  pudeat,  certam  creditam  pecuniam  periodis  postu- 
lare,  aut circa stillicidiaaffici?" — Quint.  Inst.  Oral.  Lib.  VIII.  c.3. 


cicero.  233 

the  air  on  all  sides,  the  court  was  an  open  one,  in  the 
strictest  sense  of  the  term.1 

From  the  time  of  the  first  Punic  war  there  were  two 
Praetors,  to  whom  the  cognizance  of  civil  suits  was  com- 
mitted,— the  Prcetor  urbanus  and  Prcetor  peregrinus. 
The  former  tried  the  causes  of  citizens  according  to  the 
Roman  laws ;  the  latter  judged  the  cases  of  allies  and 
strangers  by  the  principles  of  natural  equity  ;  but  as 
judicial  business  multiplied,  the  number  of  Praetors 
was  increased  to  six.  The  Praetor  was  the  chief  judge 
in  all  questions  that  did  not  fall  under  the  immediate 
cognizance  of  the  assemblies  of  the  people  or  the  Se- 
nate. Every  action,  therefore,  came,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, before  the  Praetor  ;  but  he  decided  only  in  civil 
suits  of  importance  :  and  if  the  cause  was  not  of  suffi- 
cient magnitude  for  the  immediate  investigation  of  his 
tribunal,  or  hinged  entirely  on  matters  of  fact,  he  ap- 
pointed one  or  more  persons  to  judge  of  it.  These 
were  chosen  from  a  list  of  judices  selecti,  which  was 
made  up  from  the  three  orders  of  senators,  knights, 
and  people.  If  but  one  person  was  appointed,  he  was 
properly  called  a  judex,  or  arbiter.  The  judex  deter- 
mined only  such  cases  as  were  easy,  or  of  small  im- 
portance ;  and  he  was  bound  to  proceed  according  to 
an  express  law,  or  a  certain  form  prescribed  to  him  by 
the  Praetor.  The  arbiter  decided  in  questions  of  equity 
which  were  not  sufficiently  defined  by  law,  and  his 
powers  were  not  so  restricted  by  the  Praetor  as  those 
of  the  ordinary  judex.   When  more  persons  than  one 

1  Polletus,  Historia  Fori  Rornani,  ap.  Supplement,  ad  Graevii  et 
Gronov.  antiquitat.  T.  I.  p.  351. 


234  CICERO. 

were  nominated  by  the  Praetor,  they  were  termed  Re- 
cuperatores,  and  they  settled  points  of  law  or  equity 
requiring  much  deliberation.  Certain  cases,  particu- 
larly those  relating  to  testaments  or  successions,  were 
usually  remitted  by  the  Praetor  to  the  Centumviri, 
who  were  1 05  persons,  chosen  equally  from  the  thirty- 
five  tribes.  The  Praetor,  before  sending  a  case  to  any 
of  those,  whom  1  may  call  by  the  general  name  of 
judges,  though,  in  fact,  they  more  nearly  resembled 
our  jury,  made  up  &  formula,  as  it  was  called,  or  issue 
on  which  they  were  to  decide ;  as,  for  example,  "  If 
it  be  proved  that  the  field  is  in  possession  of  Servi- 
lius,  give  sentence  against  Catulus,  unless  he  produce 
a  testament,  from  which  it  shall  appear  to  belong  to 
him." 

It  was  in  presence  of  these  judges  that  the  patrons 
and  orators,  surrounded  by  a  crowd  of  friends  and  re- 
tainers, pleaded  the  causes  of  their  clients.  They  com- 
menced with  a  brief  exposition  of  the  nature  of  the 
points  in  dispute.  Witnesses  were  afterwards  examin- 
ed, and  the  arguments  on  the  case  were  enforced  in  a 
formal  harangue.  A  decision  was  then  given,  accord- 
ing to  the  opinion  of  a  majority  of  the  judges.  The 
Centumviri  continued  to  act  as  judges  for  a  whole 
year  ;  but  the  other  judices  only  sat  till  the  particu- 
lar cause  was  determined  for  which  they  had  been  ap- 
pointed. They  remained,  however,  on  the  numerous 
list  of  the  judices  selecti,  and  were  liable  to  be  again 
summoned  till  the  end  of  the  year,  when  a  new  set  was 
chosen  for  the  judicial  business  of  the  ensuing  season. 
The  Praetor  had  the  power  of  reversing  the  decisions 


cicero.  235 

of  the  judges,  if  it  appeared  that  any  fraud  or  gross 
error  had  been  committed.  If  neither  was  alleged,  he 
charged  himself  with  the  duty  of  seeing  the  sentence 
which  the  judges  had  pronounced  carried  into  execu- 
tion. Along  with .  his  judicial  and  ministerial  func- 
tions, the  Praetor  possessed  a  sort  of  legislative  power, 
by  which  he  supplied  the  deficiency  of  laws  that  were 
found  inadequate  for  many  civil  emergencies.  Accord- 
ingly, each  new  Praetor,  as  we  have  already  seen,  when 
he  entered  on  his  office,  issued  an  edict,  announcing 
the  supplementary  code  which  he  intended  to  follow. 
Every  Praetor  had  a  totally  different  edict ;  and,  what 
was  worse,  none  thought  of  adhering  to  the  rules  which 
he  had  himself  traced  ;  till  at  length,  in  the  year  686, 
the  Cornelian  law,  which  met  with  much  opposition, 
prohibited  the  Praetor  from  departing  in  practice  from 
those  principles,  or  regulations,  he  had  laid  down  in  his 
edict. 

Capital  trials,  that  is,  all  those  which  regarded  the 
life  or  liberty  of  a  Roman  citizen,  had  been  held  in 
the  Comitia  Centuriata,  after  the  institution  of  these 
assemblies  by  Servius  Tullius ;  but  the  authority  of 
the  people  had  been  occasionally  delegated  to  Inqui- 
sitors, (Quczsitores,)  in  points  previously  fixed  by  law. 
For  some  time,  all  criminal  matters  of  consequence 
were  determined  in  this  manner  :  But  from  the  mul- 
tiplicity of  trials,  which  increased  with  the  extent  and 
vices  of  the  republic,  other  means  of  despatching  them 
were  necessarily  resorted  to.  The  Praetors,  originally, 
judged  only  in  civil  suits ;  but  in  the  time  of  Cicero, 
and  indeed  from  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  centu- 


236  CICERO. 

ry,  four  of  the  six  Praetors  were  nominated  to  preside 
at  criminal  trials — one  taking  cognizance  of  questions 
of  extortion — a  second  of  peculation — a  third  of  illegal 
canvass — and  the  last,  of  offences  against  the  state,  as 
the  Crimen  majestatis,  or  treason.  To  these,  Sylla,  in 
the  middle  of  the  seventh  century,  added  four  more, 
who  inquired  into  acts  of  public  or  private  violence. 
In  trials  of  importance,  the  Praetor  was  assisted  by  the 
counsel  of  select  judges  or  jurymen,  who  originally 
were  all  chosen  from  the  Senate,  and  afterwards  from 
the  order  of  Knights ;  but  in  Cicero's  time,  in  conse- 
quence of  a  law  of  Cotta,  they  were  taken  from  the 
Senators,  Knights,  and  Tribunes  of  the  treasury.  The 
number  of  these  assessors,  who  were  appointed  for  the 
year,  and  nominated  by  the  Praetor,  varied  from  300 
to  600 ;  and  from  them  a  smaller  number  was  chosen 
by  lot  for  each  individual  case.  Any  Roman  citizen 
might  accuse  another  before  the  Praetor ;  and  not  un- 
frequently  the  young  patricians  undertook  the  prose- 
cution of  an  obnoxious  magistrate,  merely  to  recom- 
mend themselves  to  the  notice  or  favour  of  their  coun- 
trymen. In  such  cases  there  was  often  a  competition 
between  two  persons  for  obtaining  the  management  of 
the  impeachment,  and  the  preference  was  determined 
by  a  previous  trial,  called  Divinatio.  This  preliminary 
point  being  settled,  and  the  day  of  the  principal  trial 
fixed,  the  accuser,  in  his  first  speech,  explained  the  na- 
ture of  the  case, — fortifying  his  statements  as  he  pro- 
ceeded by  proofs,  which  consisted  in  the  voluntary 
testimony  of  free  citizens,  the  declarations  of  slaves 
elicited  by  torture,  and  written  documents.     Cicero 


CICERO.  237 

made  little  account  of  the  evidence  of  slaves  ;  but  the 
art  of  extracting  truth  from  a  free  witness — of  exalt- 
ing or  depreciating  his  character — and  of  placing  his 
deposition  in  a  favourable  light,  was  considered  among 
the  most  important  qualifications  of  an  orator.  When 
the  evidence  was  concluded,  the  prosecutor  enforced 
the  proofs  by  a  set  speech,  after  which  the  accused  en- 
tered on  his  defence. 

But  though  the  cognizance  of  crimes  was  in  ordi- 
nary cases  delegated  to  the  Praetors,  still  the  Comitia 
reserved  the  power  of  judging;  and  they  actually  did 
judge  in  causes,  in  which  the  people,  or  tribunes,  who 
dictated  to  them,  took  an  interest,  and  these  were 
chiefly  impeachments  of  public  magistrates,  for  bribery 
or  peculation.  It  was  not  understood,  in  any  case, 
whether  tried  before  the  whole  people  or  the  Praetor, 
that  either  party  was  to  be  very  scrupulous  in  the  ob- 
servance of  truth.  The  judges,  too,  were  sometimes 
overawed  by  an  array  of  troops,  and  by  menaces.  Can- 
vassing for  acquittal  and  condemnation,  were  alike 
avowed,  and  bribery,  at  least  for  the  former  purpose, 
was  currently  resorted  to.  Thus  the  very  crimes  of 
the  wretch  who  had  plundered  the  province  intrusted 
to  his  care,  afforded  him  the  most  obvious  means  of 
absolution ;  and,  to  the  wealthy  peculator,  nothing 
could  be  more  easy  than  an  escape  from  justice,  except 
the  opportunity  of  accusing  the  innocent  and  unpro- 
tected. "  Foreign  nations,"  says  Cicero,  f  will  soon 
solicit  the  repeal  of  the  law,  which  prohibits  the  ex- 
tortions of  provincial  magistrates ;  for  they  will  argue, 
that  were  all  prosecutions  on  this  law  abolished,  their 


238  cicero. 

governors  would  take  no  more  than  what  satisfied  their 
own  rapacity,  whereas  now  they  exact  over  and  above 
this,  as  much  as  will  be  sufficient  to  gratify  their  pa- 
trons, the  Praetor  and  the  judges ;  and  that  though 
they  can  furnish  enough  to  glut  the  avarice  of  one 
man,  they  are  utterly  unable  to  pay  for  his  impunity 
in  guilt."1 

The  organization  of  the  judicial  tribunals  was 
wretched,  and  their  practice  scandalous.  The  Senate, 
Praetors,  and  Comitia,  all  partook  of  the  legislative 
and  judicial  power,  and  had  a  sort  of  reciprocal  right 
of  opposition  and  reversal,  which  they  exercised  to  gra- 
tify their  avarice  or  prejudices,  and  not  with  any  view 
to  the  ends  of  justice.  But  however  injurious  this  sys- 
tem might  be  to  those  who  had  claims  to  urge,  or  rights 
to  defend,  it  afforded  the  most  ample  field  for  the  ex- 
cursions of  eloquence.  The  Praetors,  though  the  su- 
preme judges,  were  not  men  bred  to  the  law — advan- 
ced in  years — familiarized  with  precedents — secure  of 
independence — and  fixed  in  their  stations  for  life. 
They  were  young  men  of  little  experience,  who  held 
the  office  for  a  season,  and  proceeded  through  it,  to 
what  were  considered  as  the  most  important  situations 
of  the  republic.  Though  their  procedure  was  strict  in 
some  trivial  points  of  preliminary  form,  devised  by  the 
ancient  Jurisconsults,  they  enjoyed,  in  more  essential 
matters,  a  perilous  latitude.  On  the  dangerous  pretext 
of  equity,  they  eluded  the  law  by  various  subtilties  or 
fictions  ;  and  thus,  without  being  endued  with  legis- 

1  In  Verrem,  Act.  I.  c.  14. 


(JICERO.  239 

lative  authority,  they  abrogated  ancient  enactments 
according  to  caprice.  It  was  worse  when,  in  civil  cases, 
the  powers  of  the  Praetor  were  intrusted  to  the  judges ; 
or  when,  in  criminal  trials,  the  jurisdiction  was  as- 
sumed by  the  whole  people.  The  inexperience,  igno- 
rance, and  popular  prejudices  of  those  who  were  to 
decide  them,  rendered  litigations  extremely  uncertain, 
and  dependent,  not  on  any  fixed  law  or  principle,  but 
on  the  opinions  or  passions  of  tumultuary  judges,  which 
were  to  be  influenced  and  moved  by  the  arts  of  oratory. 
This  furnished  ample  scope  for  displaying  all  that  in- 
teresting and  various  eloquence,  with  which  the  plead- 
ings of  the  ancient  orators  abounded.  The  means 
to  be  employed  for  success,  were  conciliating  favour, 
rousing  attention,  removing  or  fomenting  prejudice, 
but,  above  all,  exciting  compassion.  Hence  we  find, 
that  in  the  defence  of  a  criminal,  while  a  law  or  pre- 
cedent was  seldom  mentioned,  everything  was  intro- 
duced which  could  serve  to  gain  the  favour  of  the 
judges,  or  move  their  pity.  The  accused,  as  soon  as 
the  day  of  trial  was  fixed,  assumed  an  apparently  ne- 
glected garb  ;  and  although  allowed,  whatever  was  the 
crime,  to  go  at  large  till  sentence  was  pronounced,  he 
usually  attended  in  court  surrounded  by  his  friends, 
and  sometimes  accompanied  by  his  children,  in  order 
to  give  a  more  piteous  effect  to  the  lamentations  and 
exclamations  of  his  counsel,  when  he  came  to  that  part 
of  the  oration,  in  which  the  fallen  and  helpless  state 
of  his  client  was  to  be  suitably  bewailed.  Piso,  justly 
accused  of  oppression  towards  the  allies,  having  pros- 
trated himself  on  the  earth  in  order  to  kiss  the  feet  of 


240  CICERO. 

his  judges,  and  having  risen  with  his  face  defiled  with 
mud,  obtained  an  immediate  acquittal.  Even  where 
the  cause  was  good,  it  was  necessary  to  address  the 
passions,  and  to  rely  on  the  judge's  feelings  of  compas- 
sion, rather  than  on  his  perceptions  of  right.  Rutilius 
prohibited  all  exclamations  and  entreaties  to  be  used 
in  his  defence  :  He  even  forbade  the  accustomed  and 
expected  excitement  of  invocations,  and  stamping  with 
the  feet ;  and  "  he  was  condemned,"  says  Cicero, 
"  though  the  most  virtuous  of  the  Romans,  because 
his  counsel  was  compelled  to  plead  for  him  as  he  would 
have  done  in  the  republic  of  Plato."  It  thus  appears, 
that  it  was  dangerous  to  trust  to  innocence  alone,  and 
that  the  judges  were  the  capricious  arbiters  of  the  fate 
of  their  fellow-citizens,  and  not  (as  their  situation  so 
urgently  required)  the  inflexible  interpreters  of  the 
laws  of  their  exalted  country. 

But  if  the  manner  of  treating  causes  was  favour- 
able to  the  exertions  of  eloquence,  much  also  must  be 
allowed  for  the  nature  of  the  questions  themselves,  es- 
pecially those  of  a  criminal  description,  tried  before 
the  Praetor  or  people.  One  can  scarcely  figure  more 
glorious  opportunities  for  the  display  of  oratory,  than 
were  afforded  by  those  complaints  of  the  oppressed  and 
plundered  provinces  against  their  rapacious  governors. 
Prom  the  extensive  ramifications  of  the  Roman  power, 
there  continually  arose  numerous  cases  of  a  descrip- 
tion that  can  rarely  occur  in  other  countries,  and  which 
are  unexampled  in  the  history  of  Britain,  except  in  a 
memorable  impeachment,  which  not  merely  displayed, 
but  created  such  eloquence  as  can  be  called  forth  only 


CICERO.  241 

by  splendid  topics,  without  which  rhetorical  indigna- 
tion would  seem  extravagant,  and  attempted  pathos 
ridiculous. 

The  spot,  too,  on  which  the  courts  of  justice  assem- 
bled, was  calculated  to  inspire  and  heighten  eloquence. 
The  Roman  Forum  presented  one  of  the  most  splen- 
did spectacles  that  eye  could  behold,  or  fancy  conceive. 
This  space  formed  an  oblong  square  between  the  Pa- 
latine and  Capitoline  hills,  composed  of  a  vast  assem- 
blage of  sumptuous  though  irregular  edifices.  On  the 
side  next  the  Palatine  hill  stood  the  ancient  Senate- 
house,  and  Comitium,  and  Temple  of  Romulus  the 
Founder.  On  the  opposite  quarter,  it  was  bounded 
by  the  Capitol,  with  its  ascending  range  of  porticos, 
and  the  temple  of  the  tutelar  deity  on  the  summit. 
The  other  sides  of  the  square  were  adorned  with  basi- 
licas, and  piazzas  terminated  by  triumphal  arches ;  and 
were  bordered  with  statues,  erected  to  the  memory 
of  the  ancient  heroes  or  preservers  of  their  country.1 
Having  been  long  the  theatre  of  the  factions,  the  po- 
litics, the  intrigues,  the  crimes,  and  the  revolutions  of 
the  capital,  every  spot  of  its  surface  was  consecrated  to 
the  recollection  of  some  great  incident  in  the  domestic 
history  of  the  Romans;  while  their  triumphs  over  fo. 
reign  enemies  were  vividly  called  to  remembrance  by 
the  Rostrum  itself,  which  stood  in  the  centre  of  the 
vacant  area,  and  by  other  trophies  gained  from  van- 
quished nations : — 

1  Nardini,  Roma  Antica,  Lib.  V.  c.  2,  &c, 
VOL.  II.  q 


242  ciceuo. 

"  Et  cristee  capitum,  et  portarum  ingentia  claustra, 
Spiculaque,  clipeique,  ereptaque  rostra  carinis."1 

A  vast  variety  of  shops,  stored  with  a  profusion  of 
the  most  costly  merchandise,  likewise  surrounded  this 
heart  and  centre  of  the  world,  so  that  it  was  the  mart 
for  all  important  commercial  transactions.  Being 
thus  the  emporium  of  law,  politics,  and  trade,  it  be- 
came the  resort  of  men  of  business,  as  well  as  of  those 
loiterers  whom  Horace  calls  Forenses.  Each  Roman 
citizen,  regarding  himself  as  a  member  of  the  same  vast 
and  illustrious  family,  scrutinized  with  jealous  watch- 
fulness the  conduct  of  his  rulers,  and  looked  with  an- 
xious solicitude  to  the  issue  of  every  important  cause. 
In  all  trials  of  oppression  or  extortion,  the  Roman  mul- 
titude took  a  particular  interest, — repairing  in  such 
numbers  to  the  Forum,  that  even  its  spacious  square  was 
hardly  sufficient  to  contain  those  who  were  attracted 
to  it  by  curiosity ;  and  who,  in  the  course  of  the  trial, 
were  in  the  habit  of  expressing  their  feelings  by  shouts 
and  acclamations,  so  that  the  orator  was  ever  sur- 
rounded by  a  crowded  and  tumultuary  audience.  This 
numerous  assembly,  too,  while  it  inspired  the  orator 
with  confidence  and  animation,  after  he  toad  commen- 
ced his  harangue,  created  in  prospect  that  anxiety  which 
led  to  the  most  careful  preparation  previous  to  his  ap- 
pearance in  public.  The  apprehension  and  even  tre- 
pidation felt  by  the  greatest  speakers  at  Rome  on  the 
approach  of  the  day  fixed  for  the  hearing  of  momen- 
tous causes,  is  evident  from  many  passages  of  the  rhe- 
torical works  of  Cicero.    The  Roman  orator  thus  ad- 

1  Virg.  Mneid.  Lib.  VII. 


CICERO.  v  243 

dressed  his  judges  with  all  the  advantages  derived  both 
from  the  earnest  study  of  the  closet,  and  the  exhilara- 
tion imparted  to  him  by  unrestrained  and  promiscuous 
applause. 

2.  Next  to  the  courts  of  justice,  the  great  theatre 
for  the  display  of  eloquence,  was  the  Comitia,  or  as- 
semblies of  the  people,  met  to  deliberate  on  the  pro- 
posal of  passing  a  new  law,  or  abrogating  an  old  one. 
A  law  was  seldom  offered  for  consideration  but  some 
orator  was  found  to  dissuade  its  adoption  ;  and  as  in 
the  courts  of  justice  the  passions  of  the  judges  were 
addressed,  so  the  favourers  or  opposers  of  a  law  did  not 
confine  themselves  to  the  expediency  of  the  measure, 
but  availed  themselves  of  the  prejudices  of  the  people, 
alternately  confirming  their  errors,  indulging  their 
caprices,  gratifying  their  predilections,  exciting  their 
jealousies,  and  fomenting  their  dislikes.  Here,  more 
than  anywhere,  the  many  were  to  be  courted  by  the 
few — here,  more  than  anywhere,  was  created  that  ex- 
citement which  is  most  favourable  to  the  influence  of 
eloquence,  and  forms  indeed  the  element  in  which 
alone  it  breathes  with  freedom. 

3.  Finally,  the  deliberations  of  the  Senate,  which 
was  the  great  council  of  the  state,  afforded,  at  least  to 
its  members,  the  noblest  opportunities  for  the  exer- 
tions of  eloquence.  This  august  and  numerous  body 
consisted  of  individuals  who  had  reached  a  certain  age, 
who  were  possessed  of  a  certain  extent  of  property, 
who  were  supposed  to  be  of  unblemished  reputation, 
and  most  of  whom  had  passed  through  the  annual  ma- 
gistracies of  the  state.    They  were  consulted  upon  al- 


244  ciceiio. 

most  everything  that  regarded  the  administration  or 
safety  of  the  commonwealth.     The  power  of  making 
war  and  peace,  though  it  ultimately  lay  with  the  peo- 
ple assembled  in  the  ComitiaCenturiata,  was  generally 
left  by  them  entirely  to  the  Senate,  who  passed  a  de- 
cree of  peace  or  war  previous  to  the  suffrages  of  the 
Comitia.  The  Senate,  too,  had  always  reserved  to  it- 
self the  supreme  direction  and  superintendence  of  the 
religion  of  the  country,  and  distribution  of  the  public 
revenue — the  levying  or  disbanding  troops,  and  fixing 
the  service  on  which  they  should  be  employed — the 
nomination  of  governors  for  the  provinces — the  re- 
wards assigned  to  successful  generals  for  their  victo- 
ries, and  the  guardianship  of  the  state  in  times  of  civil 
dissension.     These  were  the  great  subjects  of  debate 
in  the  Senate,  and  they  were  discussed  on  certain  fixed 
days  of  the  year,  when  its  members  assembled  of  course, 
or  when  they  were  summoned  together  for  any  emer- 
gency.    They  invariably  met  in  a  temple,  or  other 
consecrated  place,  in  order  to  give  solemnity  to  their 
proceedings,  as  being  conducted  under  the  immediate 
eye  of  Heaven.     The  Consul,  who  presided,  opened 
the  business  of  the  day,  by  a  brief  exposition  of  the 
question  which  was  to  be  considered  by  the  assembly. 
He  then  asked  the  opinions  of  the  members  in  the 
order  of  rank  and  seniority.    Freedom  of  debate  was 
exercised  in  its  greatest  latitude  ;  for,  though  no  sena- 
tor was  permitted  to  deliver  his  sentiments  till  it  came 
to  his  turn,  he  had  then  a  right  to  speak  as  long  as  he 
thought  proper,  without  being  in  the  smallest  degree 
confined  to  the  point  in  question.    Sometimes,  indeed, 


cicero.  245 

the  Conscript  Fathers  consulted  on  the  state  of  the 
commonwealth  in  general ;  but  even  when  summoned 
to  deliberate  on  a  particular  subject,  they  seem  to  have 
enjoyed  the  privilege  of  talking  about  anything  else 
which  happened  to  be  uppermost  in  their  minds.  Thus 
we  find  that  Cicero  took  the  opportunity  of  delivering 
his  seventh  Philippic  when  the  Senate  was  consulted 
concerning  the  Appian  Way,  the  coinage,  and  Lu- 
perci — subjects  which  had  no  relation  to  Antony, 
against  whom  he  inveighed  from  one  end  of  his  ora- 
tion to  the  other,  without  taking  the  least  notice  of 
the  only  points  which  were  referred  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  senators.1  The  resolution  of  the  majority 
was  expressed  in  the  shape  of  a  decree,  which,  though 
not  properly  a  law,  was  entitled  to  the  same  reverence 
on  the  point  to  which  it  related  ;  and,  except  in  mat- 
ters where  the  interests  of  the  state  required  conceal- 
ment, all  pains  were  taken  to  give  the  utmost  publi- 
city to  the  whole  proceedings  of  the  Senate. 

The  number  of  the  Senate  varied,  but  in  the  time 
of  Cicero,  it  was  nearly  the  same  as  the  British  House 
of  Commons ;  but  it  required  a  larger  number  to  make 
a  quorum.  Sometimes  there  were  between  400  and  500 
members  present ;  but  200,  at  least  during  certain  sea- 
sons of  the  year,  formed  what  was  accounted  a  full  house. 
This  gave  to  senatorial  eloquence  something  of  the 

1  "  Parvis  de  rebus,"  says  he,  "  sed  fortasse  necessariis  consuli- 
mur,  Patres  conscripti.  De  Appia  via  et  de  moneta  Consul — De 
Lupercis  tribunus  plebis  refert.  Quarum  rerum  etsi  facilis  expli- 
cate videtur,  tamen  animus  aberrat  a  sententia,  suspensus  curis 
majoribus." — C.  J. 


246  ciceiio. 

spirit  and  animation  created  by  the  presence  of  a  po- 
pular assembly,  while  at  the  same  time  the  deliberative 
majesty  of  the  proceedings  required  a  weight  of  ar- 
gument and  dignity  of  demeanour,  unlooked  for  in  the 
Comitia,  or  Forum.  Accordingly,  the  levity,  ingenuity, 
and  wit,  which  were  there  so  often  crowned  with  suc- 
cess and  applause,  were  considered  as  misplaced  in  the 
Senate,  where  the  consular,  or  praetorian  orator,  had 
to  prevail  by  depth  of  reasoning,  purity  of  expression, 
and  an  apparent  zeal  for  the  public  good. 

It  was  the  authority  of  the  Senate,  with  the  calm 
and  imposing  aspect  of  its  deliberations,  that  gave 
to  Latin  oratory  a  somewhat  different  character  from 
the  eloquence  of  Greece,  to  which,  in  consequence  of 
the  Roman  spirit  of  imitation,  it  bore,  in  many  re- 
spects, so  close  a  resemblance.  The  power  of  the  Areo- 
pagus, which  was  originally  the  most  dignified  assem- 
bly at  Athens,  had  been  retrenched  amid  the  demo- 
cratic innovations  of  Pericles.  From  that  period, 
everything,  even  the  most  important  affairs  of  state, 
depended  entirely,  in  the  pure  democracy  of  Athens, 
on  the  opinion,  or  rather  the  momentary  caprice  of  an 
inconstant  people,  who  were  fond  of  pleasure  and  re- 
pose, who  were  easily  swayed  by  novelty,  and  were  con- 
fident in  their  power.  As  their  precipitate  decisions 
thus  often  hung  on  an  instant  of  enthusiasm,  the  ora- 
tor required  to  dart  into  their  bosoms  those  electric 
sparks  of  eloquence  which  inflamed  their  passions,  and 
left  no  corner  of  the  mind  fitted  for  cool  consideration. 
It  was  the  business  of  the  speaker  to  allow  them  no 
time  to  recover  from  the  shock,  for  its  force  would  have 


cicero.  247 

been  spent  had  they  been  permitted  to  occupy  them- 
selves with  the  beauties  of  style  and  diction.     "  Ap- 
plaud not  the  orator,"  says  Demosthenes,  at  the  end 
of  one  of  his  Philippics,  "  but  do  what  I  have  recom- 
mended.    I  cannot  save  you  by  my  words,  you  must 
save  yourselves  by  your  actions."     When  the  people 
were  persuaded,  everything  was  accomplished,  and  their 
decision  was  embodied  in  a  sort  of  decree  by  the  ora- 
tor.    The  people  of  Rome,  on  the  other  hand,  were 
more  reflective  and  moderate,  and  less  vain  than  the 
Athenians  ;  nor  was  the  whole  authority  of  the  state 
vested  in  them.     There  was,  on  the  contrary,  an  ac- 
cumulation of  powers,  and  a  complication  of  different 
interests  to  be  managed.    Theoretically,  indeed,  the 
sovereignty  was  in  the  people,  but  the  practical  govern- 
ment was  intrusted  to  the  Senate.     As  we  see  from 
Cicero's  third  oration,  De  Lege  Agrarid,  the  same 
affairs  were  often  treated  at  the  same  time  in  the  Senate 
and  on  the  Rostrum.  Hence,  in  the  judicial  and  legis- 
lative proceedings,  in  which,  as  we  have  seen,  the  feel- 
ings of  the  judges  and  prejudices  of  the  vulgar  were  so 
frequently  appealed  to,  some  portion  of  the  senatorial 
spirit  pervaded  and  controlled  the  popular  assemblies, 
restrained  the  impetuosity  of  decision,  and  gave  to 
those  orators  of  the  Forum,  or  Comitia,  who  had  just 
spoken,  or  were  to  speak  next  day  in  the  Senate,  a 
more  grave  and  temperate  tone,  than  if  their  tongues 
had  never  been  employed  but  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
pelling a  headlong  multitude. 

But  if  the  Greeks  were  a  more  impetuous  and  in- 
constant, they  were  also  a  more  intellectual  people  than 


248  cicero. 

the  Romans.  Literature  and  refinement  were  more 
advanced  in  the  age  of  Pericles  than  of  Pompey.  Now, 
in  oratory,  a  popular  audience  must  be  moved  by  what 
corresponds  to  the  feelings  and  taste  of  the  age.  With 
such  an  intelligent  race  as  the  Greeks,  the  orator  was 
obliged  to  employ  the  most  accurate  reasoning,  and 
most  methodical  arrangement  of  his  arguments.  The 
flowers  of  rhetoric,  unless  they  grew  directly  from  the 
stem  of  his  discourse,  were  little  admired.  The  Ro- 
mans, on  the  other  hand,  required  the  excitation  of 
fancy,  of  comparisons,  and  metaphors,  and  rhetorical 
decoration.  Hence,  the  Roman  orator  was  more  an- 
xious to  seduce  the  imagination  than  convince  the  un- 
derstanding ;  his  discourse  was  adorned  with  frequent 
digressions  into  the  field  of  morals  and  philosophy, 
and  he  was  less  studious  of  precision  than  of  ornament. 
On  the  whole,  the  circumstances  in  the  Roman  con- 
stitution and  judicial  procedure,  appear  to  have  won- 
derfully conspired  to  render 


CICERO 

an  accomplished  orator.  He  was  born  and  educated 
at  a  period  when  he  must  have  formed  the  most  exalt- 
ed idea  of  his  country.  She  had  reached  the  height 
of  power,  and  had  not  yet  sunk  into  submission  or  ser- 
vility. The  subjects  to  be  discussed,  and  characters 
to  be  canvassed,  were  thus  of  the  most  imposing  mag- 
nitude, and  could  still  be  treated  with  freedom  and 
independence.    The  education,  too,  which  Cicero  had 


cicero.  249 

received,  was  highly  favourable  to  his  improvement. 
He  had  the  first  philosophers  of  the  age  for  his  teach- 
ers, and  he  studied  the  civil  law  under  Scaevola,  the 
most  learned  jurisconsult  who  had  hitherto  appeared 
in  Rome.  When  he  came  to  attend  the  Forum,  he 
enjoyed  the  advantage  of  daily  hearing  Hortensius, 
unquestionably  the  most  eloquent  speaker  who  had  yet 
shone  in  the  Forum  or  Senate.  The  harangues  of  this 
great  pleader  formed  his  taste,  and  raised  his  emula- 
tion, and,  till  near  the  conclusion  of  his  oratorical 
career,  acted  as  an  incentive  to  exertions,  which  might 
have  abated,  had  he  been  left  without  a  competitor  in 
the  Forum.  The  blaze  of  Hortensius's  rhetoric  would 
communicate  to  his  rival  a  brighter  flame  of  eloquence 
than  if  he  had  been  called  on  to  refute  a  cold  and  in- 
animate adversary.  Still,  however,  the  great  secret  of 
his  distinguished  oratorical  eminence  was,  that  not- 
withstanding his  vanity,  he  never  fell  into  the  apathy 
with  regard  to  farther  improvement,  by  which  self- 
complacency  is  so  often  attended.  On  the  contrary, 
Cicero,  after  he  had  delivered  two  celebrated  orations, 
which  filled  the  Forum  with  his  renown,  so  far  from 
resting  satisfied  with  the  acclamations  of  the  capital, 
abandoned,  for  a  time,  the  brilliant  career  on  which  he 
had  entered,  and  travelled,  during  two  years,  through 
the  cities  of  Greece,  in  quest  of  philosophical  improve- 
ment and  rhetorical  instruction. 

With  powers  of  speaking  beyond  what  had  yet  been 
known  in  his  own  country,  and  perhaps  not  inferior  to 
those  which  had  ever  adorned  any  other,  he  possessed, 
in  a  degree  superior  to  all  orators,  of  whatever  age  or 


250  CICERO. 

nation,  a  general  and  discursive  acquaintance  with 
philosophy  and  literature,  together  with  an  admirable 
facility  of  communicating  the  fruits  of  his  labours,  in 
a  manner  the  most  copious,  perspicuous,  and  attrac- 
tive. To  this  extensive  knowledge,  by  which  his 
mind  was  enriched  and  supplied  with  endless  topics 
of  illustration — to  the  lofty  ideas  of  eloquence,  which 
perpetually  revolved  in  his  thoughts — to  that  image 
which  ever  haunted  his  breast,  of  such  infinite  and  su- 
perhuman perfection  in  oratory,  that  even  the  periods 
of  Demosthenes  did  not  fill  up  the  measure  of  his 
conceptions,1  we  are  chiefly  indebted  for  those  emana- 
tions of  genius,  which  have  given,  as  it  were,  an  im- 
mortal tongue  to  the  now  desolate  Forum  and  ruined 
Senate  of  Rome. 

The  first  oration  which  Cicero  pronounced,  at  least 
of  those  which  are  extant,  was  delivered  in  presence 
of  four  judges  appointed  by  the  Praetor,  and  with  Hor- 
tensius  for  his  opponent.  It  was  in  the  case  of  Quin- 
tius,  which  was  pleaded  in  the  year  672,  when  Cicero 
was  26  years  of  age,  at  which  time  he  came  to  the  bar 
much  later  than  was  usual,  after  having  studied  civil 
law  under  Mucius  Scaevola,  and  having  farther  quali- 
fied himself  for  the  exercise  of  his  profession  by  the 
study  of  polite  literature  under  the  poet  Archias,  as 
also  of  philosophy  under  the  principal  teachers  of  each 
sect  who  had  resorted  to  Rome.  This  case  was  under- 
taken by  Cicero,  at  the  request  of  the  celebrated  come- 
dian Roscius,  the  brother-in-law  of  Quintius  ;  but  it 

1  Orator,  c.  SO. 


CICERO.  251 

was  not  of  a  nature  well  adapted  to  call  forth  or  dis- 
play any  of  the  higher  powers  of  eloquence.  It  was  a 
pure  question  of  civil  right,  and,  in  a  great  measure, 
a  matter  of  form  ;  the  dispute  being  whether  his  cli- 
ent had  forfeited  his  recognisances,  and  whether  his 
opponent  Nasvius  had  got  legal  possession  of  his  effects 
by  an  edict  which  the  Praetor  had  pronounced,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  supposed  forfeiture.  But  even  here, 
where  the  point  was  more  one  of  dry  legal  discussion 
than  in  any  other  oration  of  Cicero,  we  meet  with 
much  invective,  calculated  to  excite  the  indignation  of 
the  judges  against  the  adverse  party,  and  many  pathe- 
tic supplications,  interspersed  with  high- wrought  pic- 
tures of  the  distresses  of  his  client,  in  order  to  raise 
their  sympathy  in  his  favour. 

Pro  Sext.  Roscio.  In  the  year  following  that  in 
which  he  pleaded  the  case  of  Quintius,  Cicero  under- 
took the  defence  of  Roscius  of  Ameria,  which  was  the 
first  public  or  criminal  trial  in  which  he  spoke.  The 
father  of  Roscius  had  two  mortal  enemies,  of  his  own 
name  and  district.  During  the  proscriptions  of  Sylla, 
he  was  assassinated  one  evening  at  Rome,  while  re- 
turning home  from  supper ;  and,  on  pretext  that  he 
was  in  the  list  of  the  proscribed,  his  estate  was  pur- 
chased for  a  mere  nominal  price  by  Chrysogonus,  a 
favourite  slave,  to  whom  Sylla  had  given  freedom,  and 
whom  he  had  permitted  to  buy  the  property  of 
Roscius  as  a  forfeiture.  Part  of  the  valuable  lands 
thus  acquired,  were  made  over  by  Chrysogonus  to  the 
Roscii.  These  new  proprietors,  in  order  to  secure  them- 
selves in  the  possession,  hired  Erucius,  an  informer 


252  cicero. 

and  prosecutor  by  profession,  to  charge  the  son  with 
the  murder  of  his  father,  and  they,  at  the  same  time, 
suborned  witnesses,  in  order  to  convict  him  of  the  par- 
ricide. From  dread  of  the  power  of  Sylla,  the  ac- 
cused had  difficulty  in  prevailing  on  any  patron  to 
undertake  his  cause ;  but  Cicero  eagerly  embraced 
this  opportunity  to  give  a  public  testimony  of  his  de- 
testation of  oppression  and  tyranny.  He  exculpates 
his  client,  by  enlarging  on  the  improbability  of  the 
accusation,  whether  with  respect  to  the  enormity  of 
the  crime  charged,  or  the  blameless  character  and  in- 
nocent life  of  young  Roscius.  He  shows,  too,  that 
his  enemies  had  completely  failed  in  proving  that 
he  laboured  under  the  displeasure  of  his  father,  or  had 
been  disinherited  by  him  ;  and,  in  particular,  that  his 
constant  residence  in  the  country  was  no  evidence  of 
this  displeasure — a  topic  which  leads  him  to  indulge 
in  a  beautiful  commendation  of  a  rural  life,  and  the 
ancient  rustic  simplicity  of  the  Romans.  But  while 
he  thus  vindicates  the  innocence  of  Roscius,  the  ora- 
tor has  so  managed  his  pleading,  that  it  appears  ra- 
ther an  artful  accusation  of  the  two  Roscii,  than  a  de- 
fence of  his  own  client.  He  tries  to  fix  on  them  the 
guilt  of  the  murder,  by  showing  that  they,  and  not 
the  son,  had  reaped  all  the  advantages  of  the  death  of 
old  Roscius,  and  that,  availing  themselves  of  the  strict 
law,  which  forbade  slaves  to  be  examined  in  evidence 
against  their  masters,  they  would  not  allow  those  who 
were  with  Roscius  at  the  time  of  his  assassination,  but 
had  subsequently  fallen  into  their  own  possession,  to 
be  put  to  the  torture.    The  whole  case  seems  to  have 


ciCEito.  253 

been  pleaded  with  much  animation  and  spirit,  but  the 
oration  was  rather  too  much  in  that  florid  Asiatic 
taste,  which  Cicero  at  this  time  had  probably  adopted 
from  imitation  of  Hortensius,  who  was  considered  as 
the  most  perfect  model  of  eloquence  in  the  Forum ; 
and  hence  the  celebrated  passage  on  the  punishment 
of  parricide,  (which  consisted  in  throwing  the  criminal, 
tied  up  in  a  sack,  into  a  river,)  was  condemned  by  the 
severer  taste  of  his  more  advanced  years.  "  Its  in- 
tention," he  declares,  "  was  to  strike  the  parricide  at 
once  out  of  the  system  of  nature,  by  depriving  him  of 
air,  light,  water,  and  earth,  so  that  he  who  had  de- 
stroyed the  author  of  his  existence  might  be  exclu- 
ded from  those  elements  whence  all  things  derived 
their  being.  He  was  not  thrown  to  wild  beasts,  lest 
their  ferocity  should  be  augmented  by  the  contagion  of 
such  guilt — he  was  not  committed  naked  to  the 
stream,  lest  he  should  contaminate  that  sea  which 
washed  away  all  other  pollutions.  Everything  in  na- 
ture, however  common,  was  accounted  too  good  for 
him  to  share  in  ;  for  what  is  so  common  as  air  to  the 
living,  earth  to  the  dead,  the  sea  to  those  who  float, 
the  shore  to  those  who  are  cast  up.  But  the  parricide 
lives  so  as  not  to  breathe  the  air  of  heaven,  dies  so  that 
the  earth  cannot  receive  his  bones,  is  tossed  by  the 
waves  so  as  not  to  be  washed  by  them,  so  cast  on  the 
shore  as  to  find  no  rest  on  its  rocks."  This  decla- 
mation was  received  with  shouts  of  applause  by  the 
audience;  yet  Cicero,  referring  to  it  in  subsequent 
works,  calls  it  the  exuberance  of  a  youthful  fancy, 
which  wanted  the  control  of  his  sounder  judgment, 


c254>  cicero. 

and,  like  all  the  compositions  of  young  men,  was  not 
applauded  so  much  on  its  own  account,  as  for  the  pro- 
mise it  gave  of  more  improved  and  ripened  talents.1 
This  pleading  is  also  replete  with  severe  and  sarcastic 
declamation  on  the  audacity  of  the  Roscii,  as  well  as 
the  overgrown  power  and  luxury  of  Chrysogonus ;  the 
orator  has  even  hazarded  an  insinuation  against  Sylla 
himself,  which,  however,  he  was  careful  to  palliate,  by 
remarking,  that  through  the  multiplicity  of  affairs,  he 
was  obliged  to  connive  at  many  things  which  his  fa- 
vourites did  against  his  inclination. 

Cicero's  courage  in  defending  and  obtaining  the 
acquittal  of  Roscius,  under  the  circumstances  in  which 
the  case  was  undertaken,  was  applauded  by  the  whole 
city.  By  this  public  opposition  to  the  avarice  of  an 
agent  of  Sylla,  who  was  then  in  the  plenitude  of  his 
power,  and  by  the  energy  with  which  he  resisted  an 
oppressive  proceeding,  he  fixed  his  character  for  a 
fearless  and  zealous  patron  of  the  injured,  as  much  as 
for  an  accomplished  orator.  The  defence  of  Roscius, 
which  acquired  him  so  much  reputation  in  his  youth, 
was  remembered  by  him  with  such  delight  in  his  old 
age,  that  he  recommends  to  his  son,  as  the  surest  path 
to  true  honour,  to  defend  those  who  are  unjustly  op- 
pressed, as  he-himself  had  done  in  many  causes,  but 
particularly  in  that  of  Roscius  of  Ameria,  whom  he 
had  protected  against  Sylla  himself,  in  the  height  of 
his  authority.2 


1   Orator,  c.  30.  spe  et  expectatione  laudati, 
a  De  Officiis,  Lib.  II.  c.  14. 


cicero.  255 

Immediately  after  the  decision  of  this  cause,  Ci- 
cero, partly  on  account  of  his  health,  and  partly  for 
improvement,  travelled  into  Greece  and  Asia,  where 
he  spent  two  years  in  the  assiduous  study  of  philoso- 
phy and  eloquence,  under  the  ablest  teachers  of  Athens 
and  Asia  Minor.    Nor  was  his  style  alone  formed  and 
improved  by  imitation  of  the  Greek  rhetoricians  :  his 
pronunciation  also  was  corrected,  by  practising  under 
Greek  masters,  from  whom  he  learned  the  art  of  com- 
manding his  voice,  and  of  giving  it  greater  compass 
and  variety  than  it  had  hitherto  attained.1    The  first 
cause  which  he  pleaded  after  his  return  to  Rome,  was 
that  of  Roscius,  the  celebrated  comedian,  in  a  dispute, 
which  involved  a  mere  matter  of  civil  right,  and  was 
of  no  peculiar  interest  or  importance.     All  the  ora- 
tions which  he  delivered  during  the  five  following 
years,  are  lost,  of  which  number  were  those  for  Marcus 
Tullius,  and  L.  Varenus,  mentioned  by  Priscian  as 
extant  in  his  time.     At  the  end  of  that  period,  how- 
ever, and  when  Cicero  was  now  in  the  thirty-seventh 
year  of  his  age,  a  glorious  opportunity  was  afforded 
for  the  display  of  his  eloquence,  in  the  prosecution  in- 
stituted against  Verres,  the  Praetor  of  Sicily,  a  crimi- 
nal infinitely  more  hateful  than  Catiline  or  Clodius, 
and  to  whom  the  Roman  republic,  at  least,  never  pro- 
duced an  equal  in  turpitude  and  crime.    He  was  now 
accused  by  the  Sicilians  of  many  flagrant  acts  of  in- 
justice, rapine,  and  cruelty,  committed  by  him  during 
his  triennial  government  of  their  island,  which  he  had 
done  more  to  ruin  than  all  the  arbitrary  acts  of  their 

1  Brutus,  c,  91. 


256  cicero. 

native  tyrants,  or  the  devastating  wars  between  the 
Carthaginians  and  Romans. 

In  the  advanced  ages  of  the  republic,  extortion  and 
violence  almost  universally  prevailed  among  those  ma- 
gistrates who  were  exalted  abroad  to  the  temptations 
of  regal  power,  and  whose  predecessors,  by  their  mo- 
deration, had  called  forth  in  earlier  times  the  applause 
of  the  world.  Exhausted  in  fortune  by  excess  of  luxu- 
ry, they  now  entered  on  their  governments  only  to  en- 
rich themselves  with  the  spoils  of  the  provinces  in- 
trusted to  their  administration,  and  to  plunder  the  in- 
habitants by  every  species  of  exaction.  The  first  laws 
against  extortion  were  promulgated  in  the  beginning 
of  the  seventh  century.  But  they  afforded  little  relief 
to  the  oppressed  nations,  who  in  vain  sought  redress 
at  Rome ;  for  the  decisions  there  depending  on  judges 
generally  implicated  in  similar  crimes,  were  more  cal- 
culated to  afford  impunity  to  the  guilty,  than  redress 
to  the  aggrieved.  This  undue  influence  received  ad- 
ditional weight  in  the  case  of  Verres,  from  the  high 
quality  and  connections  of  the  culprit. 

Such  were  the  difficulties  with  which  Cicero  had  to 
struggle,  in  entering  on  the  accusation  of  this  great 
public  delinquent.  This  arduous  task  he  was  earnestly 
solicited  to  undertake,  by  a  petition  from  all  the  towns 
of  Sicily,  except  Syracuse  and  Messina,  both  which 
cities  had  been  occasionally  allowed  by  the  plunderer 
to  share  the  spoils  of  the  province.  Having  accepted 
this  trust,  so  important  in  his  eyes  to  the  honour  of 
the  republic,  neither  the  far  distant  evidence,  nor  ir- 
ritating delays  of  all  those  guards  of  guilt  with  which 

5 


cicero.  257 

Verres  was  environed,  could  deter  or  slacken  his  ex- 
ertions. The  first  device  on  the  part  of  the  criminal, 
or  rather  of  his  counsel,  Hortensius,  to  defeat  the  ends 
of  justice,  was  an  attempt  to  wrest  the  conduct  of  the 
trial  from  the  hands  of  Cicero,  by  placing  it  in  those 
of  Caecilius,1  who  was  a  creature  of  Verres,  and  who 
now  claimed  a  preference  to  Cicero,  on  the  ground  of 
personal  injuries  received  from  the  accused,  and  a  par- 
ticular knowledge  of  the  crimes  of  his  pretended  ene- 
my. The  judicial  claims  of  these  competitors  had 
therefore  to  be  first  decided  in  that  kind  of  process 
called  Divinatio,  in  which  Cicero  delivered  his  oration, 
entitled,  Contra  Ccecilium,  and  shewed,  with  much 
power  of  argument  and  sarcasm,  that  he  himself  was 
in  every  way  best  fitted  to  act  as  the  impeacher  of 
Verres. 

Having  succeeded  in  convincing  the  judges  that 
Caecilius  only  wished  to  get  the  cause  into  his  own 
hands,  in  order  to  betray  it,  Cicero  was  appointed  to 
conduct  the  prosecution,  and  was  allowed  110  days  to 
make  a  voyage  to  Sicily,  in  order  to  collect  information 
for  supporting  his  charge.  He  finished  his  progress 
through  the  island  in  less  than  half  the  time  which 
had  been  granted  him.  On  his  return  he  found  that 
a  plan  had  been  laid  by  the  friends  of  Verres,  to  pro- 
crastinate the  trial,  at  least  till  the  following  season, 
when  they  expected  to  have  magistrates  and  judges 
who  would  prove  favourable  to  his  interests.     In  this 

1  Caecilius  was  a  Jew,  who  had  been  domiciled  in  Sicily ;  whence 
Cicero,  playing  on  the  name  of  Verres,  asks,  "  Quid  Judaeo  cum 
Verre  ?"  (a  boar.) 

VOL.  II.  R 


258  cicero. 

design  they  so  far  succeeded,  that  time  was  not  left  to 
go  through  the  cause  according  to  the  ordinary  forms 
and  practice  of  oratorical  discussion  in  the  course  of 
the  year :  Cicero,  therefore,  resolved  to  lose  no  time 
by  enforcing  or  aggravating  the  several  articles  of 
charge,  but  to  produce  at  once  all  his  documents  and 
witnesses,  leaving  the  rhetorical  part  of  the  perform- 
ance till  the  whole  evidence  was  concluded.  The  first 
oration,  therefore,  against  Verres,  which  is  extremely 
short,  was  merely  intended  to  explain  the  motives 
which  had  induced  him  to  adopt  this  unusual  mode 
of  procedure.  He  accordingly  exposes  the  devices  by 
which  the  culprit  and  his  cabal  were  attempting  to 
pervert  the  course  of  justice,  and  unfolds  the  eternal 
disgrace  that  would  attach  to  the  Roman  law,  should 
their  stratagems  prove  successful.  This  oration  was 
followed  by  the  deposition  of  the  witnesses,  and  re- 
cital of  the  documents,  which  so  clearly  established  the 
guilt  of  Verres,  that,  driven  to  despair,  he  submitted, 
without  awaiting  his  sentence,  to  a  voluntary  exile.1 
It  therefore  appears,  that  of  the  six  orations  against 
Verres,  only  one  was  pronounced.  The  other  five, 
forming  the  series  of  harangues  which  he  intended  to 
deliver  after  the  proof  had  been  completed,  were  sub- 
sequently published  in  the  same  shape  as  if  the  delin- 
quent had  actually  stood  his  trial,  and  was  to  have 
made  a  regular  defence. 

1  He  ultimately,  however,  met  with  a  well-merited  and  appro- 
priate fate.  Having  refused  to  give  up  his  Corinthian  vases  to 
Marc  Antony,  he  was  proscribed  for  their  sake,  and  put  to  death 
by  the  rapacious  Triumvir. 


ciceho.  259 

The  first  of  these  orations,  which  to  us  appears  ra- 
ther foreign  to  the  charge,  but  was  meant  to  render 
the  proper  part  of  the  accusation  more  probable,  ex- 
poses the  excesses  and  malversations  committed  by 
Verres  in  early  life,  before  his  appointment  to  the 
Praetorship  of  Sicily — his   embezzlement  of  public 
money  while  Quaestor  of  Gaul — his  extortions  under 
Dolabella  in  Asia,  and,  finally,  his  unjust,  corrupt,  and 
partial  decisions  while  in  the  office  of  Prcetor  Ur- 
banus  at  Rome,  which,  forming  a  principal  part  of  the 
oration,  the  whole  has  been  entitled  De  Prceturd  Ur- 
band.    In  the  following  harangue,  entitled  De  Juris- 
dictione  Siciliensi,  the  orator  commences  with  an  ele- 
gant eulogy  on  the  dignity,  antiquity,  and  usefulness 
of  the  province,  which  was  not  here  a  mere  idle  or  rhe- 
torical embellishment,  but  was  most  appropriately  in- 
troduced, as  nothing  could  be  better  calculated  to  ex- 
cite indignation  against  the  spoiler  of  Sicily,  than  the 
picture  he  draws  of  its  beauty  ;  after  which,  he  pro- 
ceeds to  give  innumerable  instances  of  the  flagrant  sale 
of  justice,  offices,  and  honours,  and,  among  the  last, 
even  of  the  priesthood  of  Jupiter.     The  next  oration 
is  occupied  with  the  malversations  of  Verres  concern- 
ing grain,  and  the  new  ordinances,  by  which  he  had 
contrived  to  put  the  whole  crops  of  the  island  at  the 
disposal  of  his  officers.     In  this  harangue  the  dry 
statements  of  the  prices  of  corn  are  rather  fatiguing ; 
but  the  following  oration,  De  Signis,  is  one  of  the 
most  interesting  of  his  productions,  particularly  as  il- 
lustrating the  history  of  ancient  art.     For  nearly  six 
centuries  Rome  had  been  filled  only  with  the  spoils 


260  CICEKO. 

of  barbarous  nations,  and  presentecLmerely  the  martial 
spectacle  of  a  warlike  and  conquering  people.  Subse- 
quently, however,  to  the  campaigns  in  Magna  Gr&cia, 
Sicily,  and  Greece,  the  Roman  commanders  displayed 
at  their  triumphs  costly  ornaments  of  gold,  pictures, 
statues,  and  vases,  instead  of  flocks  driven  from  the 
Sabines  orVolsci,the  broken  arms  of  the  Samnites,and 
empty  chariots  of  the  Gauls.  The  statues  and  paint- 
ings which  Marcellus  transported  from  Syracuse  to 
Rome,  first  excited  that  cupidity  which  led  the  Roman 
provincial  magistrates  to  pillage,  without  scruple  or 
distinction,  the  houses  of  private  individuals,  and  tem- 
ples of  the  gods.1  Marcellus  and  Mummius,  however, 
despoiled  only  hostile  and  conquered  countries.  They 
had  made  over  their  plunder  to  the  public,  and,  after 
it  was  conveyed  to  Rome,  devoted  it  to  the  embellish- 
ment of  the  capital ;  but  subsequent  governors  of  pro- 
vinces having  acquired  a  taste  for  works  of  art, began  to 
appropriate  to  themselves  those  masterpieces  of  Greece, 
which  they  had  formerly  neither  known  nor  esteemed. 
Some  contrived  plausible  pretexts  for  borrowing  valu- 
able works  of  art  from  cities  and  private  persons,  with- 
out any  intention  of  restoring  them  ;  while  others, 
less  cautious,  or  more  shameless,  seized  whatever  plea- 
sed them,  whether  public  or  private  property,  without 
excuse  or  remuneration.  But  though  this  passion  was 
common  to  most  provincial  governors,  none  of  them 
ever  came  up  to  the  full  measure  of  the  rapacity  of 
Verres,  who,  allowing  much  for  the  high  colouring  of 
the  counsel  and  orator,  appears  to  have  been  infected 

>  Livy,  Lib.  XXV.  c.  40. 


CICERO.  261 

with  a  sort  of  disease,  or  mania,  which  gave  him  an 
irresistible  propensity  to  seize  whatever  he  saw  or  heard 
of,  which  was  precious  either  in  materials  or  work- 
manship.   For  this  purpose  he  retained  in  his  service 
two  brothers  from  Asia  Minor,  on  whose  judgment  he 
relied  for  the  choice  of  statues  and  pictures,  and  who 
were  employed  to  search  out  everything  of  this  sort 
which  was  valuable  in  the  island.  Aided  by  their  sug- 
gestions, he  seized  tapestry,  pictures,  gold  and  silver 
plate,  vases,  gems,  and  Corinthian  bronzes,  till  he  li- 
terally did  not  leave  a  single  article  of  value  of  these 
descriptions  in  the  whole  island.  The  chief  objects  of 
this  pillage  were  the  statues  and  pictures  of  the  gods, 
which  the  Romans  regarded  with  religious  veneration; 
and  they,  accordingly,  viewed  such  rapine  as  sacrilege. 
Hence  the  frequent  adjurations  and  apostrophes  to 
the  deities  who  had  been  insulted,  which  are  introdu- 
ced in  the  oration.  The  circumstances  of  violence  and 
circumvention,  under  which  the  depredations  were 
committed,  are  detailed  with  much  vehemence,  and  at 
considerable  length.  Some  description  is  given  of  the 
works  of  sculpture  ;  and  the  names  of  the  statuaries  by 
whom  they  were  executed,  are  also  frequently  record- 
ed.   Thus,  we  are  told  that  Verres  took  away  from  a 
private  gentleman  of  Messina  the  marble  Cupid,  by 
Praxiteles :  He  sacrilegiously  tore  a  figure  of  Victory 
from  the  temple  of  Ceres — he  deprived  the  city  Tyn- 
daris  of  an  image  of  Mercury,  which  had  been  resto- 
red to  it  from  Carthage,  by  Scipio,  and  was  worship- 
ped by  the  people  with  singular  devotion  and  an  annual 
festival.  Some  of  the  works  of  art  were  openly  carried 


262  cicero. 

off — some  borrowed  under  plausible  pretences,  but 
never  restored,  and  others  forcibly  purchased  at  an  in- 
adequate value. 

If  the  speech  De  Signis  be  the  most  curious,  that 
De  Suppliciis  is  incomparably  the  finest  of  the  series 
of  Verrine  orations.  The  subject  afforded  a  wider  field 
than  the  former  for  the  display  of  eloquence,  and  it 
presents  us  with  topics  of  more  general  and  permanent 
interest.  Such,  indeed,  is  the  vehement  pathos,  and 
such  the  resources  employed  to  excite  pity  in  favour 
of  the  oppressed,  and  indignation  against  the  guilty, 
that  the  genius  of  the  orator  is  nowhere  more  conspi- 
cuously displayed — not  even  in  the  Philippics  or  Ca- 
tilinarian  harangues.  It  was  now  proved  that  Verres 
had  practised  every  species  of  fraud  and  depredation, 
and  on  these  heads  no  room  was  left  for  defence.  But 
as  the  duties  of  provincial  Prsetors  were  twofold — the 
administration  of  the  laws,  and  the  direction  of  war- 
like operations — it  was  suspected  that  the  counsel  of 
Verres  meant  to  divert  the  attention  of  the  judges 
from  his  avarice  to  his  military  conduct  and  valour. 
This  plea  the  orator  completely  anticipates.  His  mis- 
conduct, indeed,  in  the  course  of  the  naval  operations 
against  the  pirates,  forms  one  of  the  chief  topics  of 
Cicero's  bitter  invective.  He  demonstrates  that  the 
fleet  had  been  equipped  rather  for  show  than  for  ser- 
vice ;  that  it  was  unprovided  with  sailors  or  stores, 
and  altogether  unfit  to  act  against  an  enemy.  The 
command  was  given  to  Cleomenes,  a  Syracusan,  who 
was  ignorant  of  naval  affairs,  merely  that  Verres  might 
enjoy  the  company  of  his  wife  during  his  absence.  The 


cicero.  26.3 

description  of  the  sailing  of  the  fleet  from  Syracuse 
is  inimitable,  and  it  is  so  managed  that  the  whole 
seems  to  pass  before  the  eyes.  Verres,  who  had  not 
been  seen  in  public  for  many  months,  having  retired 
to  a  splendid  pavilion,  pitched  near  the  fountain  of 
Arethusa,  where  he  passed  his  time  in  company  of  his 
favourites,  amidst  all  the  delights  that  arts  and  luxury 
could  administer,  at  length  appeared,  in  order  to  view 
the  departure  of  the  squadron  ;  and  a  Roman  Praetor 
exhibited  himself,  standing  on  the  shore  in  sandals, 
with  a  purple  cloak  flowing  to  his  heels,  and  leaning 
on  the  shoulder  of  a  harlot !  The  fleet,  as  was  to  be 
expected,  was  driven  on  shore,  and  there  burned  by 
the  pirates,  who  entered  Syracuse  in  triumph,  and  re- 
tired from  it  unmolested.  Verres,  in  order  to  divert 
public  censure  from  himself,  put  the  captains  of  the 
ships  to  death  ;  and  this  naturally  leads  on  to  the  sub- 
ject which  has  given  name  to  the  oration, — the  cruel 
and  illegal  executions,  not  merely  of  Sicilians,  but 
Roman  citizens.  The  punishments  of  death  and  tor- 
ture usually  reserved  for  slaves,  but  inflicted  by  Verres 
on  freemen  of  Rome,  formed  the  climax  of  his  atroci- 
ties, which  are  detailed  in  oratorical  progression.  Af- 
ter the  vivid  description  of  his  former  crimes,  one 
scarcely  expects  that  new  terms  of  indignation  will  be 
found;  but  the  expressions  of  the  orator  become  more 
glowing,  in  proportion  as  Verres  grows  more  daring 
in  his  guilt.  The  sacred  character  borne  over  all  the 
world  by  a  Roman  citizen,  must  be  fully  remembered, 
in  order  to  read  with  due  feeling  the  description  of 
the  punishment  of  Gavius,  who  was  scourged,  and  then 


264  cicero. 

nailed  to  a  cross,  which,  by  a  refinement  in  cruelty, 
was  erected  on  the  shore,  and  facing  Italy,  that  he 
might  suffer  death  with  his  view  directed  towards  home 
and  a  land  of  liberty.  The  whole  is  poured  forth  in 
a  torrent  of  the  most  rapid  and  fervid  composition ; 
and  had  it  actually  flowed  from  the  lips  of  the  speaker, 
we  cannot  doubt  the  prodigious  effect  it  would  have  had 
on  a  Roman  audience,  and  on  Roman  judges.  In  the 
oration  De  Signis,  something,  as  we  have  seen,  is  lost 
to  a  modern  reader,  by  the  diminished  reverence  for 
'  the  mythological  deities ;  and,  in  like  manner,  we  can- 
not enter  fully  into  the  spirit  of  the  harangue  De 
Suppliciis,  which  is  planned  with  a  direct  reference 
to  national  feeling,  to  that  stern  decorum  which  could 
not  be  overstepped  without  shame,  and  that  adoration 
of  the  majesty  of  Rome,  which  invested  its  citizens 
with  inexpressible  dignity,  and  bestowed  on  them  an 
almost  inviolable  nature.  Hence  the  appearance  of 
Verres  in  public,  in  a  long  purple  robe,  is  represented 
as  the  climax  of  his  enormities,  and  the  punishment 
of  scourging  inflicted  on  a  Roman  citizen  is  treated 
(without  any  discussion  concerning  the  justice  of  the 
sentence)  as  an  unheard-of  and  unutterable  crime.  Yet 
even  those  parts  least  attractive  to  modern  readers,  are 
perfect  in  their  execution  ;  and  the  whole  series  of 
orations  will  ever  be  regarded  as  among  the  most  splen- 
did monuments  of  Tully's  transcendent  genius. 

In  the  renowned  cause  against  Verres,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  the  orator  displayed  the  whole  re- 
sources of  his  vast  talents.  Every  circumstance  con- 
curred to  stimulate  his  exertions  and  excite  his  elo- 


CICERO.  265 

queiice.  It  was  the  first  time  he  had  appeared  as  an 
accuser  in  a  public  trial — his  clients  were  the  injured 
people  of  a  mighty  province,  rivalling  in  importance 
the  imperial  state — the  inhabitants  of  Sicily  surround- 
ed the  Forum,  and  an  audience  was  expected  from 
every  quarter  of  Italy,  of  all  that  was  exalted,  intelli- 
gent, and  refined.  But,  chiefly,  he  had  a  subject, 
which,  from  the  glaring  guilt  of  the  accused,  and  the 
nature  of  his  crimes,  was  so  copious,  interesting,  and 
various,  so  abundant  in  those  topics  which  an  orator 
would  select  to  afford  full  scope  for  the  exercise  of  his 
powers,  that  it  was  hardly  possible  to  labour  tamely 
or  listlessly  in  so  rich  a  mine  of  eloquence.  Such  a 
wonderful  assemblage  of  circumstances  never  yet  pre- 
pared the  course  for  the  triumphs  of  oratory ;  so  great 
an  opportunity  for  the  exhibition  of  forensic  art  will, 
in  all  probability,  never  again  occur.  Suffice  it  to  say, 
that  the  orator  surpassed  by  his  workmanship  the  sin- 
gular beauty  of  his  materials  ;  and  instead  of  being 
overpowered  by  their  magnitude,  derived  from  the 
vast  resources  which  they  supplied  the  merit  of  an 
additional  excellence,  in  the  skill  and  discernment  of 
his  choice. 

The  infinite  variety  of  entertaining  anecdotes  with 
which  the  series  of  pleadings  against  Verres  abounds 
— the  works  of  art  which  are  commemorated — the  in- 
teresting topographical  descriptions — the  insight  af- 
forded into  the  laws  and  manners  of  the  ancient  Sici- 
lians— the  astonishing  profusion  of  ironical  sallies,  all 
conspire  to  dazzle  the  imagination  and  rivet  the  atten- 
tion of  the  reader ;  yet  there  is  something  in  the  idea 


266  cicero. 

that  they  were  not  actually  delivered,  which  detracts 
from  the  effect  of  circumstances  which  would  other- 
wise heighten  our  feelings.  It  appears  to  us  even  pre- 
posterous to  read,  in  the  commencement  of  the  second 
oration,  of  a  report  having  been  spread  that  Verres  was 
to  abandon  his  defence,  but  that  there  he  sat  braving 
his  accusers  and  judges  with  his  characteristic  impu- 
dence. The  exclamations  on  his  effrontery,  and  the 
adjurations  of  the  judges,  lose  their  force,  when  we  can- 
not help  recollecting  that  before  one  word  of  all  this 
could  be  pronounced,  the  person  against  whom  they 
were  directed  as  present  had  sneaked  off  into  volun- 
tary exile.  Whatever  effect  this  recollection  may  have 
had  on  the  ancients,  who  regarded  oratory  as  an  art, 
and  an  oration  as  an  elaborate  composition,  nothing 
can  be  more  grating  or  offensive  to  the  taste  and  feel- 
ings of  a  modern  reader,  whose  idea  of  eloquence  is 
that  of  something  natural,  heart-felt,  inartificial,  and 
extemporaneous. 

The  Sicilians,  though  they  could  scarcely  have  been 
satisfied  with  the  issue  of  the  trial,  appear  to  have  been 
sufficiently  sensible  of  Cicero's  great  exertions  in  their 
behalf.  Blainville,  in  his  Travels,  mentions,  that  while 
at  Grotta  Ferrata,  a  convent  built  on  the  ruins  of 
Cicero's  Tusculan  Villa,  he  had  been  shown  a  silver 
medal,  unquestionably  antique,  struck  by  the  Sicilians 
in  gratitude  for  his  impeachment  of  Verres.  One  side 
exhibits  a  head  of  Cicero,  crowned  with  laurel,  with 
the  legend  M.  T.  Ciceroni — on  the  reverse,  there  is 
the  representation  of  three  legs  extended  in  a  triangu- 
lar position,  in  the  form  of  the  three  great  capes  or 


cicero.  267 

promontories  of  Sicily,  with  the  motto, — "  Prostrate 
Verre  Trinacria" 

Pro  Fonteio.  It  is  much  to  be  regretted,  that  the 
oration  for  Fonteius,  the  next  which  Cicero  delivered, 
has  descended  to  us  incomplete.  It  was  the  defence  of 
an  unpopular  governor,  accused  of  oppression  by  the 
province  intrusted  to  his  administration  ;  and,  as  such, 
would  have  formed  an  interesting  contrast  to  the  ac- 
cusation of  Verres. 

Pro  Ccecind.  This  was  a  mere  question  of  civil 
right,  turning  on  the  effect  of  a  Praetorian  edict. 

Pro  Lege  Ma?iilid.  Hitherto  Cicero  had  only  ad- 
dressed the  judges  in  the  Forum  in  civil  suits  or  cri- 
minal prosecutions.  The  oration  for  the  Manilian  law, 
which  is  accounted  one  of  the  most  splendid  of  his 
productions,  was  the  first  in  which  he  spoke  to  the 
whole  people  from  the  rostrum.  It  was  pronounced  in 
favour  of  a  law  proposed  by  Manilius,  a  tribune  of  the 
people,  for  constituting  Pompey  sole  general,  with  ex- 
traordinary powers,  in  the  war  against  Mithridates  and 
Tigranes,  in  which  Lucullus  at  that  time  commanded. 
The  chiefs  of  the  Senate  regarded  this  law  as  a  dan- 
gerous precedent  in  the  republic ;  and  all  the  authori- 
ty of  Catulus,  and  eloquence  of  Hortensius,  were  di- 
rected against  it.  It  has  been  conjectured,  that  in 
supporting  pretensions  which  endangered  the  public 
liberty,  Cicero  was  guided  merely  by  interest,  since  an 
opposition  to  Pompey  might-  have  prevented  his  own 
election  to  the  consulship,  which  was  now  the  great 
object  of  his  ambition.  His  life,  however,  and  wri- 
tings, will  warrant  us  in  ascribing  to  him  a  different, 


268  CICERO. 

though  perhaps  less  obvious  motive.  With  the  love 
of  virtue  and  the  republic,  which  glowed  so  intensely 
in  the  breast  of  this  illustrious  Roman,  that  less  noble 
passion,  the  immoderate  desire  of  popular  fame,  was 
unfortunately  mingled.  "  Fame,"  says  a  modern  his- 
torian, "  was  the  prize  at  which  he  aimed ;  his  weak- 
ness of  bodily  constitution  sought  it  through  the  most 
strenuous  labours — his  natural  timidity  of  mind  pur- 
sued it  through  the  greatest  dangers.  Pompey,  who 
had  fortunately  attained  it,  he  contemplated  as  the 
happiest  of  men,  and  was  led,  from  this  illusion  of 
fancy,  not  only  to  speak  of  him,  but  really  to  think  of 
him,"  (till  he  became  unfortunate,)  "  with  a  fondness 
of  respect  bordering  on  enthusiasm.  The  glare  of  glory 
that  surrounded  Pompey,  concealed  from  Cicero  his 
many  and  great  imperfections,  and  seduced  an  honest 
citizen,  and  finest  genius  in  Rome,  a  man  of  unpa- 
ralleled industry,  and  that  generally  applied  to  the 
noblest  purposes,  into  the  prostitution  of  his  abilities 
and  virtues,  for  exalting  an  ambitious  chief,  and  in- 
vesting him  with  such  exorbitant  and  unconstitutional 
powers,  as  virtually  subverted  the  commonwealth."1 

In  defending  this  pernicious  measure,  Cicero  di- 
vided his  discourse  into  two  parts — showing,  first,  that 
the  importance  and  imminent  dangers  of  the  contest 
in  which  the  state  was  engaged,  required  the  unusual 
remedy  proposed — and,  secondly,  that  Pompey  was 
the  fittest  person  to  be  intrusted  with  the  conduct  of 
the  war.     This  leads  to  a  splendid  panegyric  on  that 

1  Gillies,  History  of  Greece,  Part  II.  T.  IV.  c.  27- 


CICERO.  269 

renowned  commander,  in  which,  while  he  does  justice 
to  the  merits  of  his  predecessor,  Lucullus,  he  enlarges 
on  the  military  skill,  valour,  authority,  and  good  for- 
tune of  this  present  idol  of  his  luxuriant  imagination, 
with  all  the  force  and  beauty  which  language  can  af- 
ford. He  fills  the  imagination  with  the  immensity  of 
the  object,  kindles  in  the  breast  an  ardour  of  affec- 
tion and  gratitude,  and,  by  an  accumulation  of  circum- 
stances and  proofs,  so  aggrandizes  his  hero,  that  he 
exalts  him  to  something  more  than  mortal  in  the 
minds  of  his  auditory ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  every 
word  inspires  the  most  perfect  veneration  for  his  cha- 
racter, and  the  most  unbounded  confidence  in  his  in- 
tegrity and  judgment.  The  whole  world  is  exhibited 
as  an  inadequate  theatre  for  the  actions  of  such  a  su- 
perior genius ;  while  all  the  nations,  and  potentates 
of  the  earth,  are  in  a  manner  called  as  witnesses  of  his 
valour  and  his  truth.  By  enlarging  on  these  topics, 
by  the  most  solemn  protestations  of  his  own  sincerity, 
and  by  adducing  examples  from  antiquity,  of  the  state 
having  been  benefited  or  saved,  by  intrusting  unli- 
mited power  to  a  single  person,  he  allayed  all  fears  of 
the  dangers  which  it  was  apprehended  might  result  to 
the  constitution,  from  such  extensive  authority  being 
vested  in  one  individual — and  thus  struck  the  first 
blow  towards  the  subversion  of  the  republic  ! 

Pro  Cluentio.  This  is  a  pleading  for  Cluentius, 
who,  at  his  mother's  instigation,  was  accused  of  having 
poisoned  his  stepfather,  Oppianicus.  Great  part  of 
the  harangue  appears  to  be  but  collaterally  connected 
with  the  direct  subject  of  the  prosecution.  Oppianicus, 


S270  cicKito. 

it  seems,  had  been  formerly  accused  by  Cluentius, 
and  found  guilty  of  a  similar  attempt  against  his  life ; 
but  after  his  condemnation,  a  report  became  current 
that  Cluentius  had  prevailed  in  the  cause  by  corrupt- 
ing the  judges,  and,  to  remove  the  unfavourable  im- 
pression thus  created  against  his  client,  Cicero  recurs 
to  the  circumstances  of  that  case.  In  the  second  part 
of  the  oration,  which  refers  to  the  accusation  of  poi- 
soning Oppianicus,  he  finds  it  necessary  to  clear  his 
client  from  two  previous  charges  of  attempts  to  poison. 
In  treating  of  the  proper  subject  of  the  criminal  pro- 
ceedings, which  does  not  occupy  above  a  sixth  part  of 
the  whole  oration,  he  shows  that  Cluentius  could  have 
had  no  access  or  opportunity  to  administer  poison  to 
his  father,  who  was  in  exile ;  that  there  was  nothing 
unusual  or  suspicious  in  the  circumstances  of  his  death  ; 
and  that  the  charge  originated  in  the  machinations  of 
Cluentius'  unnatural  mother,  against  whom  he  inveighs 
with  much  force,  as  one  hurried  along  blindfold  by  guilt 
— who  acts  with  such  folly  that  no  one  can  account  her 
a  rational  creature — with  such  violence  that  none  can 
imagine  her  to  be  a  woman — with  such  cruelty,  that 
none  can  call  her  a  mother.  The  whole  oration  dis- 
closes such  a  scene  of  enormous  villainy — of  murders, 
by  poison  and  assassination — of  incest,  and  subornation 
of  witnesses,  that  the  family  history  of  Cluentius  may 
be  regarded  as  the  counterpart  in  domestic  society,  of 
what  the  government  of  Verres  was  in  public  life. 
Though  very  long,  and  complicated  too,  in  the  sub- 
ject, it  is  one  of  the  most  correct  and  forcible  of  all 
Cicero's  judicial  orations  ;  and,  under  the  impression 


CICERO.  271 

that  it  comes  nearer  to  the  strain  of  a  modern  plead- 
ing than  any  of  the  others,  it  has  been  selected  by 
Dr  Blair  as  the  subject  of  a  minute  aualysis  and  cri- 
ticism.1 

De  Lege  Agrarid  tontra  Rullum.  In  his  dis- 
course Pro  Lege  Manilla,  the  first  of  the  delibera- 
tive kind  addressed  to  the  assembly  of  the  people,  Ci- 
cero had  the  advantage  of  speaking  for  a  favourite  of 
the  multitude,  and  against  the  chiefs  of  the  Senate ; 
but  he  was  placed  in  a  very  different  situation  when 
he  came  to  oppose  the  Agrarian  law.  This  had  been  for 
300  years  the  darling  object  of  the  Roman  tribes — the 
daily  attraction  and  rallying  word  of  the  populace — 
the  signal  of  discord,  and  most  powerful  engine  of  the 
seditious  tribunate.  The  first  of  the  series  of  orations 
against  the  Agrarian  law,  now  proposed  by  Rullus, 
was  delivered  by  Cicero  in  the  Senate-house,  shortly 
after  his  election  to  the  consulship :  The  second  and 
third  were  addressed  to  the  people  from  the  rostrum. 
The  scope  of  the  present  Agrarian  law  was,  to  ap- 
point Decemvirs  for  the  purpose  of  selling  the  public 
domains  in  the  provinces,  and  to  recover  from  the  ge- 
nerals the  spoils  acquired  in  foreign  wars,  by  which 
a  fund  might  be  formed  for  the  purchase  of  lands  in 
Italy,  particularly  Campania — to  be  equally  divided 
among  the  people.  Cicero,  in  his  first  oration,  of 
which  the  commencement  is  now  wanting,  quieted  the 
alarms  of  the  Senate,  by  assuring  them  of  his  resolu- 
tion to  oppose  the  law  with  his  utmost  power.  When 
the  question  came  before  the  people,  he  did  not 
1  Lectures  on  Rhetoric,  &e.  Vol.  II.  Lect.  XXVIII. 


!*72  CICEKO. 

fear  to  encounter  the  Tribunes  on  their  own  terri- 
tory, and  most  popular  subject ;  he  did  not  hesitate 
to  make  the  rabble  judges  in  their  own  cause,  though 
one  in  which  their  passions,  interests,  and  prejudices, 
and  those  of  their  fathers,  had  been  engaged  for  so 
many  centuries.  Conscious  of  his  superiority,  he  in- 
vited the  Tribunes  to  ascend  the  rostrum,  and  argue 
the  point  with  him  before  the  assembled  multitude ; 
but  the  field  was  left  clear  to  his  argument  and  elo- 
quence, and  by  alternately  flattering  the  people,  and 
ridiculing  the  proposer  of  the  law,  he  gave  such  a  turn 
to  their  inclinations,  that  they  rejected  the  proposition 
as  eagerly  as  they  had  before  received  it. 

But  although  the  Tribunes  were  unable  to  cope  with 
Cicero  in  the  Forum,  they  subsequently  contrived  to 
instil  suspicions  into  the  minds  of  the  populace,  with 
regard  to  his  motives  in  opposing  the  Agrarian  law. 
These  imputations  made  such  an  impression  on  the 
city,  that  he  found  it  necessary  to  defend  himself 
against  them,  in  a  short  speech  to  the  people.  It  has 
been  disputed,  whether  this  third  oration  was  the  last 
which  Cicero  pronounced  on  occasion  of  this  Agrarian 
law.  In  the  letters  to  Atticus,  while  speaking  of  his 
consular  orations,  he  says,  "  that  among  those  sent, 
was  that  pronounced  in  the  Senate,  and  that  address- 
ed to  the  people,  on  the  Agrarian  law."1  These  are 
the  first  and  second  of  the  speeches,  which  we  now 
have  against  Rullus  ;  but  he  also  mentions,  that  there 
were  two  apospasmatia,  as  he  calls  them,  concerning 

1  Lib.  II.  Ep.  1. 

5 


ciCERO.  273 

the  Agrarian  law.  Now,  what  is  at  present  called  the 
third,  was  probably  the  first  of  these  two,  and  the  last 
must  have  perished. 

Pro  Rabirio.  About  the  year  654,  Saturninus,  a 
seditious  Tribune,  had  been  slain  by  a  party  attached 
to  the  interests  of  the  Senate.  Thirty-six  years  after- 
wards, Rabirius  was  accused  of  accession  to  this  mur- 
der, by  Labienus,  subsequently  well  known  as  Caesar's 
lieutenant  in  Gaul.  Hortensius  had  pleaded  the  cause 
before  the  Duumvirs,  Caius  and  Lucius  Caesar,  by 
whom  Rabirius  being  condemned,  appealed  to  the  peo- 
ple, and  was  defended  by  Cicero  in  the  Comitia.  The 
Tribune,  it  seems,  had  been  slain  in  a  tumult  during 
a  season  of  such  danger,  that  a  decree  had  been  pass- 
ed by  the  Senate,  requiring  the  Consuls  to  be  careful 
that  the  republic  received  no  detriment.  This  was  sup- 
posed to  sanction  every  proceeding  which  followed  in 
consequence ;  and  the  design  of  the  popular  party,  in 
the  impeachment  of  Rabirius,  was  to  attack  this  pre- 
rogative of  the  Senate.  Cicero's  oration  on  this  con- 
tention between  the  Senatorial  and  Tribunitial  power, 
gives  us  more  the  impression  of  prompt  and  unstudied 
eloquence  than  most  of  his  other  harangues.  It  is, 
however,  a  little  obscure,  partly  from  the  circumstance 
that  the  accuser  would  not  permit  him  to  exceed  half 
an  hour  in  the  defence.  The  argument  seems  to  have 
been,  that  Rabirius  did  not  kill  Saturninus  ;  but  that 
even  if  he  had  slain  him,  the  action  was  not  merely 
legal,  but  praiseworthy,  since  all  citizens  had  been  re- 
quired to  arm  in  aid  of  the  Consuls. 

VOL.  II.  s 


274  CICERO. 

It  was  believed,  that  in  spite  of  the  exertions  of 
Cicero,  Rabirius  would  have  been  condemned,  had  not 
the  Praetor  Metellus  devised  an  expedient  for  dissol- 
ving the  Comitia,  before  sentence  could  be  passed. 
The  cause  was  neither  farther  prosecuted  at  this  time, 
nor  subsequently  revived ;  the  public  attention  being 
now  completely  engrossed  by  the  imminent  dangers 
of  the  Catilinarian  Conspiracy,  which  was  discovered 
during  the  consulship  of  Cicero. 

Contra  Catilinam.  The  detection  and  suppression 
of  that  nefarious  plot,  form  the  most  glorious  part  of 
the  political  life  of  Cicero  ;  and  the  orations  he  pro- 
nounced against  the  chief  conspirator,  are  still  regarded 
as  the  most  splendid  monuments  of  his  eloquence.  It 
was  no  longer  to  defend  the  rights  and  prerogatives 
of  a  municipal  town  or  province,  nor  to  move  and  per- 
suade a  judge  in  favour  of  an  unfortunate  client,  but 
to  save  his  country  and  the  republic,  that  Cicero  as- 
cended theRostrum.  The  conspiracy  of  Catiline  tended 
to  the  utter  extinction  of  the  city  and  government. 
Cicero,  having  discovered  his  design,  (which  was  to 
leave  Rome  and  join  his  army,  assembled  in  different 
parts  of  Italy,  while  the  other  conspirators  remained 
within  the  walls,  to  butcher  the  Senators  and  fire  the 
capital,)  summoned  the  Senate  to  meet  in  the  Temple 
of  Jupiter  Stator,  with  the  intention  of  laying  before 
it  the  whole  circumstances  of  the  plot.  But  Catiline 
having  unexpectedly  appeared  in  the  midst  of  the 
assembly,his  audacity  impelled  the  consular  orator  into 
an  abrupt  invective,  which  is  directly  addressed  to  the 
traitor,  and  commences  without  the  preamble  by  which 


CICERO.     "  275 

most  of  his  other  harangues  are  introduced.  In  point 
of  effect,  this  oration  must  have  heen  perfectly  elec- 
tric. The  disclosure  to  the  criminal  himself  of  his 
most  secret  purposes — their  flagitious  nature,  threaten- 
ing the  life  of  every  one  present — the  whole  course  of 
his  villainies  and  treasons,  blazoned  forth  with  the 
fire  of  incensed  eloquence — and  the  adjuration  to  him, 
by  flying  from  Rome,  to  free  his  country  from  such  a 
pestilence,  were  all  wonderfully  calculated  to  excite 
astonishment,  admiration,  and  horror.  The  great  ob- 
ject of  the  whole  oration,  was  to  drive  Catiline  into 
banishment ;  and  it  appears  somewhat  singular,  that 
so  dangerous  a  personage,  and  who  might  have  been 
so  easily  convicted,  should  thus  have  been  forced,  or 
even  allowed,  to  withdraw  to  his  army,  instead  of  being 
seized  and  punished.  Catiline  having  escaped  un- 
molested to  his  camp,  the  conduct  of  the  Consul  in  not 
apprehending,  but  sending  away  this  formidable  ene- 
my, had  probably  excited  some  censure  and  discon- 
tent ;  and  the  second  Catilinarian  oration  was  in  con- 
sequence delivered  by  Cicero,  in  an  assembly  of  the 
people,  in  order  to  justify  his  driving  the  chief  conspi- 
rator from  Rome.  A  capital  punishment,  he  admits, 
ought  long  since  to  have  overtaken  Catiline,  but  such 
was  the  spirit  of  the  times,  that  the  existence  of  the 
conspiracy  would  not  have  been  believed,  and  he  had 
therefore  resolved  to  place  his  guilt  in  a  point  of  view 
so  conspicuous,  that  vigorous  measures  might  without 
hesitation  be  adopted,  both  against  Catiline  and  his  ac- 
complices. He  also  takes  this  opportunity  to  warn  his 
audience  against  those  bands  of  conspirators  who  still 


276  CICERO. 

lurked  within  the  city,  and  whom  he  divides  into  va- 
rious classes,  describing,  in  the  strongest  language,  the 
different  degrees  of  guilt  and  profligacy  by  which  they 
were  severally  characterized. 

Manifest  proofs  of  the  whole  plot  having  been  at 
length  obtained,  by  the  arrest  of  the  ambassadors  from 
the  Allobroges,  with  whom  the  conspirators  had  tam- 
pered, and  who  were  bearing  written  credentials  from 
them  to  their  own  country,  Cicero,  in  his  third  ora- 
tion, laid  before  the  people  all  the  particulars  of  the 
discovery,  and  invited  them  to  join  in  celebrating  a 
thanksgiving,  which  had  been  decreed  by  the  Senate 
to  his  honour,  for  the  preservation  of  his  country. 

The  last  Catilinarian  oration  was  pronounced  in  the 
Senate,  on  the  debate  concerning  the  punishment  to 
be  inflicted  on  the  conspirators.  Silanus  had  propo- 
sed the  infliction  of  instant  death,  while  Caesar  had 
spoken  in  favour  of  the  more  lenient  sentence  of  per- 
petual imprisonment.  Cicero  does  not  precisely  de- 
clare for  any  particular  punishment ;  but  he  shows 
that  his  mind  evidently  inclined  to  the  severest,  by 
dwelling  on  the  enormity  of  the  conspirators'  guilt,  and 
aggravating  all  their  crimes  with  much  acrimony  and 
art.  His  sentiments  finally  prevailed  ;  and  those  con- 
spirators, who  had  remained  in  Rome,  were  strangled 
under  his  immediate  superintendence. 

In  these  four  orations,  the  tone  and  style  of  each  of 
them,  particularly  of  the  first  and  last,  is  very  different, 
and  accommodated  with  a  great  deal  of  judgment  to 
the  occasion,  and  to  the  circumstances  under  which 
they  were  delivered.  Through  the  whole  series  of  the 


CICERO.  277 

Catilinarian  orations,  the  language  of  Cicero  is  well 
calculated  to  overawe  the  wicked,  to  confirm  the  good, 
and  encourage  the  timid.  It  is  of  that  description 
which  renders  the  mind  of  one  man  the  mind  of  a 
whole  assembly,  or  a  whole  people.1 

Pro  Murcend. — The  Comitia  being  now  held  in 
order  to  choose  Consuls  for  the  ensuing  year,  Junius 
Silanus  and  Muraena  were  elected.  The  latter  candi- 
date had  for  his  competitor  the  celebrated  jurisconsult 
Sulpicius  Rufus ;  who,  being  assisted  by  Cato,  charged 
Muraena  with  having  prevailed  by  bribery  and  cor- 
ruption. This  impeachment  was  founded  on  the  Cal- 
purnian  law,  which  had  lately  been  rendered  more 
strict,  on  the  suggestion  of  Sulpicius,  by  a  Senatus- 
consultum.  Along  with  this  accusation,  the  profligacy 
of  Murasna's  character  was  objected  to,  and  also  the 
meanness  of  his  rank,  as  he  was  but  a  knight  and  sol- 
dier, whereas  Sulpicius  was  a  patrician  and  lawyer. 
Cicero  therefore  shows,  in  the  first  place,  that  he  am- 
ply merited  the  consulship,  from  his  services  in  the 
war  with  Mithridates,  which  introduces  a  comparison 
between  a  military  and  forensic  life.  While  he  pays 
his  usual  tribute  of  applause  to  cultivated  eloquence, 
he  derides  the  forms  and  phraseology  of  the  juriscon- 
sults, by  whom  the  civil  law  was  studied  and  practised. 

1  Wolf,  in  the  preface  to  his  edition  of  the  Oration  for  Marcel- 
lus,  mentions  having  seen  a  scholastic  declamation,  entitled,  Ora- 
tio  Catilince,  in  M.  Ciceronem.  It  concludes  thus, — "  Me  consula- 
rem  patricium,  civem  et  amicum  reipublicae  a  faucibus  inimici  con- 
sulis  eripite  ;  supplicem  atque  insontem  pristinae  claritudini,  om- 
nium civium  gratise,  et  benevolentiae  vestree  restitute.     Amen. 


278  cicero.. 

As  to  the  proper  subject  of  the  accusation,  bribery  in 
his  election,  it  seems  probable  that  Mursena  had  been 
guilty  of  some  practices  which,  strictly  speaking,  were 
illegal,  yet  were  warranted  by  custom.  They  seem  to 
have  consisted  in  encouraging  a  crowd  to  attend  him 
on  the  streets,  and  in  providing  shows  for  the  enter- 
tainment of  the  multitude ;  which,  though  expected 
by  the  people,  and  usually  overlooked  by  the  magis- 
trates, appeared  heinous  offences  in  the  eye  of  the 
rigid  and  stoical  Cato.  Aware  of  the  weight  added  to 
the  accusation  by  his  authority,  Cicero,  in  order  to 
obviate  this  influence,  treats  his  stoical  principles  in 
the  same  tone  which  he  had  already  used  concerning 
the  profession  of  Sulpicius.  In  concluding,  he  avails 
himself  of  the  difficulties  of  the  times,  and  the  yet  un- 
suppressed  conspiracy  of  Catiline,  which  rendered  it 
unwise  to  deprive  the  city  of  a  Consul  well  qualified 
to  defend  it  in  so  dangerous  a  crisis. 

This  case  was  one  of  great  expectation,  from  the  dig- 
nity of  the  prosecutors,  and  eloquence  of  the  advocates 
for  the  accused.  Before  Cicero  spoke,  it  had  been  plead- 
ed byHortensius,andCrassus  the  triumvir;  and  Cicero, 
in  engaging  in  the  cause,  felt  the  utmost  desire  to  sur- 
pass these  rivals  of  his  eloquence.  Such  was  his  anxiety, 
that  he  slept  none  during  the  whole  night  which  pre- 
ceded the  hearing  of  the  cause ;  and  being  thus  ex- 
hausted with  care,  his  eloquence  on  this  occasion  fell 
short  of  that  of  Hortensius.1  He  shows ,  however,  much 
delicacy  and  art  in  the  manner  in  which  he  manages 

1  Funccius,  De  Viril.  Mtat.  Ling.  Lai.  Pars,  II.  c  2. 


CICERO.  279 

the  attack  on  the  philosophy  of  Cato,  and  profession 
of  Sulpicius,  both  of  whom  were  his  particular  friends, 
and  high  in  the  estimation  of  the  judges  he  addressed.1 

Pro  Valerio  Flacco. — Flaccus  had  aided  Cicero  in 
his  discovery  of  the  conspiracy  of  Catiline,  and,  in  re- 
turn, was  defended  by  him  against  a  charge  of  extor- 
tion and  peculation,  brought  by  various  states  of  Asia 
Minor,  which  he  had  governed  as  Pro-praetor. 

Pro  Cornelio  Sylla. — Sylla,  who  was  afterwards  a 
great  partizan  of  Caesar's,  was  prosecuted  for  having 
been  engaged  in  Catiline's  conspiracy ;  but  his  accu- 
ser, Torquatus,  digressing  from  the  charge  against 
Sylla,  turned  his  raillery  on  Cicero  ;  alleging,  that  he 
had  usurped  the  authority  of  a  king  ;  and  asserting, 
that  he  was  the  third  foreign  sovereign  who  had  reign- 
ed at  Rome  after  Numa  and  Tarquin.  Cicero,  there- 
fore, in  his  reply,  had  not  only  to  defend  his  client, 
but  to  answer  the  petulant  raillery  by  which  his  an- 
tagonist attempted  to  excite  envy  and  odium  against 
himself.  He  admits  that  he  was  a  foreigner  in  one  sense 
of  the  word,  having  been  born  in  a  municipal  town  of 
Italy,  in  common  with  many  others  who  had  rendered 
the  highest  services  to  the  city ;  but  he  repels  the 
insinuation  that  he  usurped  any  kingly  authority  ;  and 
being  instigated  by  this  unmerited  attack,  he  is  led 
on  to  the  eulogy  of  his  own  conduct  and  consulship, 
— a  favourite  subject,  from  which  he  cannot  altoge- 
ther depart,  even  when  he  enters  more  closely  into  the 
grounds  of  the  prosecution. 

1  Aonius  Palearius  wrote  a  declamation  in  answer  to  this  speech, 
entitled,  Contra  Murcenam. 


280  CICERO. 

For  this  defence  of  Cornelius  Sylla,  Cicero  private- 
ly received  from  his  client  the  sum  of  20,000  sester- 
ces, which  chiefly  enabled  him  to  purchase  his  mag- 
nificent house  on  the  Palatine  Hill. 

Pro  Archid. — This  is  one  of  the  orations  of  Cicero 
on  which  he  has  succeeded  in  bestowing  the  finest 
polish,  and  it  is  perhaps  the  most  pleasing  of  all  his 
harangues.  Archias  had  been  his  preceptor,  and,  after 
having  obtained  much  reputation  by  his  Greek  poems, 
on  the  triumphs  of  Lucullus  over  Mithridates,  and  of 
Marius  over  the  Cimbri,  was  now  attempting  to  cele- 
brate the  Consulship  of  Cicero  ;  so  that  the  orator,  in 
pleading  his  cause,  expected  to  be  requited  by  the 
praises  of  his  muse. 

This  poet  was  a  native  of  Antioch,  and,  having  come 
to  Italy  in  early  youth,  was  rewarded  for  his  learning 
and  genius  with  the  friendship  of  the  first  men  in  the 
state,  and  with  the  citizenship  of  Heraclea,  a  confede- 
rate and  enfranchised  town  of  Magna  Grsecia.  A  few 
years  afterwards,  a  law  was  enacted,  conferring  the 
rights  of  Roman  citizens  on  all  who  had  been  admit- 
ted to  the  freedom  of  federate  states,  provided  they 
had  a  settlement  in  Italy  at  the  time  when  the  law 
was  passed,  and  had  asserted  the  privilege  before  the 
Praetor  within  sixty  days  from  the  period  at  which  it 
was  promulgated.  After  Archias  had  enjoyed  the  be- 
nefit of  this  law  for  more  than  twenty  years,  his  claims 
were  called  in  question  by  one  Gracchus,  who  now  at- 
tempted to  drive  him  from  the  city,  under  the  enact- 
ment expelling  all  foreigners  who  usurped,  without 
due  title,  the  name  and  attributes  of  Roman  citizens. 


CICERO.  281 

The  loss  of  records,  and  some  other  circumstances, 
having  thrown  doubts  on  the  legal  right  of  his  client, 
Cicero  chiefly  enlarged  on  the  dignity  of  literature  and 
poetry,  and  the  various  accomplishments  of  Archias, 
which  gave  him  so  just  a  claim  to  the  privileges  he 
enjoyed.  He  beautifully  describes  the  influence  which 
study  and  a  love  of  letters  had  exercised  on  his  own 
character  and  conduct.  He  had  thence  imbibed  the 
principle,  that  glory  and  virtue  should  be  the  darling 
objects  of  life,  and  that  to  attain  these,  all  difficulties, 
or  even  dangers,  were  to  be  despised.  But,  of  all  names 
dear  to  literature  and  genius,  that  of  poet  was  the  most 
sacred :  hence  it  would  be  an  extreme  of  disgrace 
and  profanation,  to  reject  a  bard  who  had  employed 
the  utmost  efforts  of  his  art  to  make  Rome  immortal 
by  his  muse,  and  had  possessed  such  prevailing  power 
as  to  touch  with  pleasure  even  the  stubborn  and  in- 
tractable soul  of  Marius. 

The  whole  oration  is  interspersed  with  beautiful 
maxims  and  sentences,  which  have  been  quoted  with 
delight  in  all  ages.  There  appears  in  it,  however,  per- 
haps too  much,  and  certainly  more  than  in  the  other 
orations,  of  what  Lord  Monboddo  calls  continuity. 
"  We  have  in  it,"  observes  he,  speaking  of  this  ora- 
tion, "  strings  of  antitheses,  the  figure  of  like  endings, 
and  a  perfect  similarity  of  the  structure,  both  as  to 
the  grammatical  form  of  the  words,  and  even  the  num- 
ber of  them."1  The  whole,  too,  is  written  in  a  style 
of  exaggeration  and  immoderate  praise.    The  orator 

1  Origin  and  Progress  of  Language,  Book  IV. 


282  cicero. 

talks  of  the  poet  Archias,  as  if  the  whole  glory  of 
Rome,  and  salvation  of  the  commonwealth,  depended 
on  his  poetical  productions,  and  as  if  the  smallest  in- 
jury offered,  to  him  would  render  the  name  of  Rome 
execrable  and  infamous  in  all  succeeding  generations. 

Pro  Cn.  Plancio. — The  defence  of  Plancius  was 
one  of  the  first  orations  pronounced  by  Cicero  after  his 
return  from  banishment.  Plancius  had  been  Quaestor 
of  Macedon  when  Cicero  came  to  that  country  during 
his  exile,  and  had  received  him  with  honours  propor- 
tioned to  his  high  character,  rather  than  his  fallen  for- 
tunes. In  return  for  this  kindness,  Cicero  undertook 
his  defence  against  a  charge,  preferred  by  a  disappoint- 
ed competitor,  of  bribery  and  corruption  in  suing  for 
the  aedileship. 

Pro  Sextio. — This  is  another  oration  produced  by 
the  gratitude  of  Cicero,  and  the  circumstances  of  his 
banishment.  Sextius,  while  Tribune  of  the  people, 
had  been  instrumental  in  procuring  his  recall,  and 
Cicero  requited  this  good  office  by  one  of  the  longest 
and  most  elaborate  of  his  harangues.  The  accusation, 
indeed,  was  a  consequence  of  his  interposition  in  fa- 
vour of  the  illustrious  exile ;  for  when  about  to  pro- 
pose his  recall  to  the  people,  he  was  violently  attacked 
by  the  Clodian  faction,  and  left  for  dead  on  the  street. 
His  enemies,  however,  though  obviously  the  aggres- 
sors, accused  him  of  violence,  and  exciting  a  tumult. 
This  was  the  charge  against  which  Cicero  defended 
him.  The  speech  is  valuable  for  the  history  of  the 
times ;  as  it  enters  into  all  the  recent  political  events  in 
which  Cicero  had  borne  so  distinguished  a  part.  The 


CICERO.  283 

orator  inveighs  against  his  enemies,  the  Tribune  Clo- 
dius,  and  the  Consuls  Gabinius  and  Piso,  and  details 
all  the  circumstances  connected  with  his  own  banish- 
ment and  return,  occasionally  throwing  in  a  word  or 
two  about  his  client  Sextius. 

Contra  Vatinium. — Vatinius,  who  belonged  to  the 
Clodian  faction,  appeared,  at  the  trial  of  Sextius,  as  a 
witness  against  him.  This  gave  Cicero  an  opportunity 
of  interrogating  him  ;  and  the  whole  oration  being  a 
continued  invective  on  the  conduct  of  Vatinius,  poured 
forth  in  a  series  of  questions,  without  waiting  for  an 
answer  to  any  of  them,  has  been  entitled,  Interrogatio. 

Pro  Ccelio. — Middleton  has  pronounced  this  to  be 
the  most  entertaining  of  the  orations  which  Cicero  has 
left  us,  from  the  vivacity  of  wit  and  humour  with  which 
he  treats  the  gallantries  of  Clodia,  her  commerce  with 
Caelius,  and  in  general  the  gaieties  and  licentiousness 
of  youth. 

Caelius  was  a  young  man  of  considerable  talents  and 
accomplishments,  who  had  been  intrusted  to  the  care 
of  Cicero  on  his  first  introduction  to  the  Forum  ;  but 
having  imprudently  engaged  in  an  intrigue  with  Clo- 
dia, the  well-known  sisteivof  Clodius,  and  having  after- 
wards deserted  her,  she  accused  him  of  an  attempt  to 
poison  her,  and  of  having  borrowed  money  from  her  in 
order  to  procure  the  assassination  of  Dio,  the  Alexan- 
drian ambassador.  In  this,  as  in  most  other  prosecu- 
tions of  the  period,  a  number  of  charges,  unconnected 
with  the  main  one,  seem  to  have  been  accumulated,  in 
order  to  give  the  chief  accusation  additional  force  and 
credibility.  Cicero  had  thus  to  defend  his  client  against 


284  CICERO. 

the  suspicions  arising  from  the  general  libertinism  of 
his  conduct.  He  justifies  that  part  of  it  which  related 
to  his  intercourse  with  Clodia,  by  enlarging  on  the 
loose  character  of  this  woman,  whom  he  treats  with 
very  little  ceremony ;  and,  in  order  to  place  her  dis- 
solute life  in  a  more  striking  point  of  view,  he  conjures 
up  in  fancy  one  of  her  grim  and  austere  ancestors  of 
the  Clodian  family  reproaching  her  with  her  shameful 
degeneracy.  All  this  the  orator  was  aware  would  not 
be  sufficient  for  the  complete  vindication  of  his  client ; 
and  it  is  curious  to  remark  the  ingenuity  with  which 
the  strenuous  advocate  of  virtue  and  regularity  of  con- 
duct palliates,  on  this  occasion,  the  levities  of  youth, — 
not,  indeed,  by  lessening  the  merits  of  strict  morality, 
but  by  representing  those  who  withstand  the  seduc- 
tions of  pleasure  as  supernaturally  endued. 

This  oration  was  a  particular  favourite  of  one  who 
was  long  a  distinguished  speaker  in  the  British  Senate. 
"By  the  way,"  says  Mr  Fox,  in  a  letter  to  AVakefield, 
"  I  know  no  speech  of  Cicero  more  full  of  beautiful 
passages  than  this  is,  nor  where  he  is  more  in  his  ele- 
ment. Argumentative  contention  is  what  he  by  no 
means  excels  in  ;  and  he  is  never,  I  think,  so  happy 
as  when  he  has  an  opportunity  of  exhibiting  a  mixture 
of  philosophy  and  pleasantry  ;  and  especially  when  he 
can  interpose  anecdotes  and  references  to  the  authori- 
ty of  the  eminent  characters  in  the  history  of  his  coun- 
try. No  man  appears,  indeed,  to  have  had  such  real 
respect  for  authority  as  he ;  and  therefore,  when  he 
speaks  upon  that  subject,  he  is  always  natural  and  in 
earnest ;  and  not  like  those  among  us,  who  are  so  often 


CICEKO.  285 

declaiming  about  the  wisdom  of  our  ancestors,  without 
knowing  what  they  mean,  or  hardly  ever  citing  any 
particulars  of  their  conduct,  or  of  their  dicta."1 

De  Provinciis  Consularibus.  The  government  of 
Gaul  was  continued  to  Caesar,  in  consequence  of  this 
oration,  so  that  it  may  be  considered  as  one  of  the  im- 
mediate causes  of  the  ruin  of  the  Roman  Republic, 
which  it  was  incontestibly  the  great  wish  of  Cicero  to 
protect  and  maintain  inviolate.  But  Cicero  had  evi- 
dently been  duped  by  Caesar,  as  he  formerly  had  near- 
ly been  by  Catiline,  and  as  he  subsequently  was  by 
Octavius,  Pollio,  and  every  one  who  found  it  his  inte- 
rest to  cajole  him,  by  proclaiming  his  praises,  and  pro- 
fessing ardent  zeal  for  the  safety  of  the  state.  So  little 
had  he  penetrated  the  real  views  of  Caesar,  that  we 
find  him  asking  the  Senate,  in  this  oration,  what  pos- 
sible motive  or  inducement  Caesar  could  have  to  re- 
main in  the  province  of  Gaul,  except  the  public  good , 
"  For  would  the  amenity  of  the  regions,  the  beauty 
of  the  cities,  or  civilization  of  the  inhabitants,  detain 
him  there — or  can  a  return  to  one's  native  country  be 
so  distasteful?" 

Pro  Cornelio  Balbo. — Balbus  was  a  native  of  Ca- 
diz, who  having  been  of  considerable  service  to  Pom- 
pey,  during  his  war  in  Spain,  against  Sertorius,  had, 
in  return,  received  the  freedom  of  Rome  from  that 
commander,  in  virtue  of  a  special  law,  by  which  he 
had  obtained  the  power  of  granting  this  benefit  to 
whom  he  chose.    The  validity  of  Pompey's  act,  how- 

1  Correspondence,  p.  85. 


286  CICERO. 

ever,  was  now  questioned,  on  the  ground  that  Cadiz 
was  not  within  the  terms  of  that  relation  and  alliance 
to  Rome,  which  could,  under  any  circumstances,  en- 
title its  citizens  to  such  a  privilege.  The  question, 
therefore,  was,  whether  the  inhabitants  of  a  federate 
state,  which  had  not  adopted  the  institutions  and  civil 
jurisprudence  of  Rome,  could  receive  the  rights  of 
citizenship.  This  point  was  of  great  importance  to  the 
municipal  towns  of  the  Republic,  and  the  oration 
throws  considerable  light  on  the*  relations  which  ex- 
isted between  the  provinces  and  the  capital. 

In  Pisonem. — Piso  having  been  recalled  from  his 
government  of  Macedon,  in  consequence  of  Cicero's 
oration,  De  Provinciis  Consular ibas,  he  complained, 
in  one  of  his  first  appearances  in  the  Senate,  of  the 
treatment  he  had  received,  and  attacked  the  orator, 
particularly  on  the  score  of  his  poetry,  ridiculing  the 
well-known  line, 

"  Cedant  arma  togae— concedat  laurea  linguae." 

Cicero  replied  in  a  bitter  invective,  in  which  he  ex- 
posed the  whole  life  and  conduct  of  his  enemy  to  pub- 
lic contempt  and  detestation.  The  most  singular 
feature  of  this  harangue  is  the  personal  abuse  and 
coarseness  of  expression  it  contains,  which  appear  the 
more  extraordinary  when  we  consider  that  it  was  de- 
livered in  the  Senate-house,  and  directed  against  an 
individual  of  such  distinction  and  consequence  as  Piso. 
Cicero  applies  to  him  the  opprobrious  epithets  of  bel- 
luatJuriay  carnifex,Jurcifer,  &c. ;  he  banters  him  on 
his  personal  deformities,  and  upbraids  him  with  his 


CICERO.  287 

ignominious  descent  on  one  side  of  the  family,  while, 
on  the  other,  he  had  no  resemblance  to  his  ancestors, 
except  to  the  sooty  complexion  of  their  images. 

Pro  Milotie. — When  Milo  was  candidate  for  the 
Consulship,  the  notorious  demagogue  Clodius  sup- 
ported his  competitors,  and  during  the  canvass,  party 
spirit  grew  so  violent,  that  the  two  factions  often  came 
to  blows  within  the  walls  of  the  city.  While  these 
dissensions  were  at  their  height,  Clodius  and  Milo 
met  on  the  Appian  Way — the  former  returning  from 
the  country  towards  Rome,  and  the  latter  setting  out 
for  Lanuvium,  both  attended  by  a  great  retinue.  A 
quarrel  arose  among  their  followers,  in  which  Clodius 
was  wounded  and  carried  into  a.  house  in  the  vicinity. 
By  order  of  Milo,  the  doors  were  broken  open,  his 
enemy  dragged  out,  and  assassinated  on  the  highway. 
The  death  of  Clodius  excited  much  confusion  and  tu- 
mult at  Rome,  in  the  course  of  which  the  courts  of 
justice  were  burned  by  a  mob.  Milo  having  returned 
from  the  banishment  into  which  he  had  at  first  with- 
drawn, was  impeached  for  the  crime  by  the  Tribunes 
of  the  people  ;  and  Pompey,  in  virtue  of  the  autho- 
rity conferred  on  him  by  a  decree  of  the  Senate,  no- 
minated a  special  commission  to  inquire  into  the  mur- 
der committed  on  the  Appian  Way.  In  order  to  pre- 
serve the  tranquillity  of  the  city,  he  placed  guards  in 
the  Forum,  and  occupied  all  its  avenues  with  troops. 
This  unusual  appearance,  and  the  shouts  of  the  Clo- 
dian  faction,  which  the  military  could  not  restrain,  so 
discomposed  the  orator,  that  he  fell  short  of  his  usual 
excellence.     The  speech  which  he  actually  delivered, 


288  cicero. 

was  taken  down  in  writing,  and  is  mentioned  by  As- 
ocnius  Pedianus  as  still  extant  in  his  time.  But  that 
beautiful  harangue  which  we  now  possess,  is  one 
which  was  retouched  and  polished,  as  a  gift  for  Milo, 
after  he  had  retired  in  exile  to  Marseilles. 

In  the  oration,  as  we  now  have  it,  Cicero  takes  his 
exordium  from  the  circumstances  by  which  he  was  so 
much,  though,  as  he  admits,  so  causelessly  discon- 
certed ;  since  he  knew  that  the  troops  were  not  placed 
in  the  Forum  to  overawe,  but  to  protect.  In  entering 
on  the  defence,  he  grants  that  Clodius  was  killed,  and 
by  Milo  ;  but  he  maintains  that  homicide  is,  on  many 
occasions,  justifiable,  and  on  none  more  so  than  when 
force  can  only  be  repelled  by  force,  and  when  the 
slaughter  of  the  aggressor  is  necessary  for  self-pre- 
servation. These  principles  are  beautifully  illustrated, 
and  having  been,  as  the  orator  conceives,  sufficiently 
established,  are  applied  to  the  case  under  considera- 
tion. He  shows,  from  the  circumstantial  evidence  of 
time  and  place — the  character  of  the  deceased — the 
retinue  by  which  he  was  accompanied — his  hatred  to 
Milo — the  advantages  which  would  have  resulted  to 
him  from  the  death  of  his  enemy,  and  the  expressions 
proved  to  have  been  used  by  him,  that  Clodius  had 
laid  an  ambush  for  Milo.  Cicero,  it  is  evident,  had 
here  the  worst  of  the  cause.  The  encounter  appears, 
in  fact,  to  have  been  accidental ;  and  though  the  ser- 
vants of  Clodius  may,  perhaps,  have  been  the  assail- 
ants, Milo  had  obviously  exceeded  the  legitimate 
bounds  of  self-defence.  The  orator  accordingly  en- 
forces the  argument,  that  the  assassination  of  Clodius 


cicero.  289 

was  an  act  of  public  benefit,  which,  in  a  consultation 
of  Milo's  friends,  was  the  only  one  intended  to  have 
been  advanced,  and  was  the  sole  defence  adopted  in 
the  oration  which  Brutus  is  said  to  have  prepared  for 
the  occasion.  Cicero,  while  he  does  not  forego  the 
advantage  of  this  plea,  maintains  it  hypothetically, 
contending  that  even  ^Milo  had  openly  pursued  and 
slain  Clodius  as  a  common  enemy,  he  might  well 
boast  of  having  freed  the  state  from  so  pernicious  and 
desperate  a  citizen.  To  add  force  to  this  argument, 
he  takes  a  rapid  view  of  the  various  acts  of  atrocity 
committed  by  Clodius,  and  the  probable  situation  of 
the  Republic,  were  he  to  revive.  When  the  minds  of 
the  judges  were  thus  sufficiently  prepared,  he  ascribes 
his  tragical  end  to  the  immediate  interposition  of  the 
providential  powers,  specially  manifested  by  his  fall 
near  the  temple  of  Bona  Dea,  whose  mysteries  he 
had  formerly  profaned.  Having  excited  sufficient  in- 
dignation against  Clodius,  he  concludes  with  moving 
commiseration  for  Milo — representing  his  love  for  his 
country  and  fellow-citizens, — the  sad  calamity  of  exile 
from  Borne, — and  his  manly  resignation  to  whatever 
punishment  might  be  inflicted  on  him. 

The  argument  in  this  oration  was  perhaps  as  good 
as  the  circumstances  admitted ;  but  we  miss  through 
the  whole  that  reference  to  documents  and  laws,  which 
gives  the  stamp  of  truth  to  the  orations  of  Demos- 
thenes. Each  ground  of  defence,  taken  by  itself,  is 
deficient  in  argumentative  force.  Thus,  in  maintain- 
ing that  the  death  of  Clodius  was  of  no  benefit  to  Milo, 
he  has  taken  too  little  into  consideration  the  hatred 

VOL.  II.  T 


290  CICERO. 

and  rancour  mutually  felt  by  the  heads  of  political 
factions :  but  he  supplies  his  weakness  of  argument  by 
illustrative  digressions,  flashes  of  wit,  bursts  of  elo- 
quence, and  appeals  to  the  compassion  of  the  judges, 
on  which  he  appears  to  have  placed  much  reliance.1 
On  the  whole,  this  oration  was  accounted,  both  by  Ci- 
cero himself  and  by  his  contemporaries,  as  the  finest 
effort  of  his  genius ;  which  confirms  what  indeed  is 
evinced  by  the  whole  history  of  Roman  eloquence, 
that  the  judges  were  easily  satisfied  on  the  score  of 
reasoning,  and  attached  more  importance  to  pathos, 
and  wit,  and  sonorous  periods,  than  to  fact  or  law. 

Pro  Rabirio  Postumo. — This  is  the  defence  of  Ra- 
birius,  who  was  prosecuted  for  repayment  of  a  sum 
which  he  was  supposed  to  have  received,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  Proconsul  Gabinius,  from  King  Ptole- 
my, for  having  placed  him  on  the  throne  of  Egypt, 
contrary  to  the  injunctions  of  the  Senate. 

Pro  Ligario. — This  oration  was  pronounced  after 
Caesar,  having  vanquished  Pompey  in  Thessaly,  and 
destroyed  the  remains  of  the  Republican  party  in  Afri- 
ca, assumed  the  supreme  administration  of  affairs  at 
Rome.  Merciful  as  the  conqueror  appeared,  he  was 
understood  to  be  much  exasperated  against  those  who, 
after  the  rout  at  Pharsalia,  had  renewed  the  war  in 
Africa.  Ligarius,  when  on  the  point  of  obtaining  a 
pardon,  was  formally  accused  by  his  old  enemy  Tube- 
ro,  of  having  borne  arms  in  that  contest.  The  Dicta- 
tor himself  presided  at  the  trial  of  the  case,  much 

1  Jenisch,  Parallel  der  beiden  grosten  Redner  des  Altherthwn, 
p.  154,  ed.  Berlin,  1821. 


CICERO.  291 

prejudiced  against  Ligarius,  as  was  known  from  his 
having  previously  declared,  that  his  resolution  was 
fixed,  and  was  not  to  be  altered  by  the  charms  of  elo- 
quence. Cicero,  however,  overcame  his  prepossessions, 
and  extorted  from  him  a  pardon.  The  countenance 
of  Caesar,  it  is  said,  changed,  as  the  orator  proceeded 
in  his  speech  ;  but  when  he  touched  on  the  battle  of 
Pharsalia,  and  described  Tubero  as  seeking  his  life, 
amid  the  ranks  of  the  army,  the  Dictator  became  so 
agitated,  that  his  body  trembled,  and  the  papers  which 
he  held  dropped  from  his  hand.1 

This  oration  is  remarkable  for  the  free  spirit  which 
it  breathes,  even  in  the  face  of  that  power  to  which  it 
was  addressed  for  mercy.  But  Cicero,  at  the  same 
time,  shows  much  art  in  not  overstepping  those  limits, 
within  which  he  knew  he  might  speak  without  offence, 
and  in  seasoning  his  freedom  with  appropriate  compli- 
ments to  Caesar,  of  which,  perhaps,  the  most  elegant  is, 
that  he  forgot  nothing  but  the  injuries  done  to  himself. 
This  was  the  person  whom,  in  the  time  of  Pompey, 
he  characterized  as  rnonstrum  et  portentum  tyrannum, 
and  whose  death  he  soon  afterwards  celebrated  as  di- 
vinum  in  rempublicam  heneficium ! 

The  oration  of  Tubero  against  Ligarius,  was  extant 
in  Quintilian's  time,  and  probably  explained  the  cir- 
cumstances which  induced  a  man,  who  had  fought  so 
keenly  against  Caesar  at  Pharsalia,  to  undertake  the 
prosecution  of  Ligarius. 

Pro  Rege  Dejotaro. — Dejotarus  was  a  Tetrarch  of 
Galatia,  who  obtained  from  Pompey  the  realm  of  Ar- 

1  Plutarch,  In  Cicero. 


292  cicero. 

menia,  and  from  the  Senate  the  title  of  King.  In  the 
civil  war  he  had  espoused  the  cause  of  his  benefactors. 
Caesar,  in  consequence,  deprived  him  of  Armenia,  but 
was  subsequently  reconciled  to  him,  and,  while  prose- 
cuting the  war  against  Pharnaces,  visited  him  in  his 
original  states  of  Galatia.  Some  time  afterwards,  Phi- 
dippus,  the  physician  of  the  king,  and  his  grandson 
Castor,  accused  him  of  an  attempt  to  poison  Caesar, 
during  the  stay  which  the  Dictator  had  made  at  his 
court.  Cicero  defended  him  in  the  private  apartments 
of  Caesar,  and  adopted  the  same  happy  union  of  free- 
dom and  flattery,  which  he  had  so  successfully  employ- 
ed in  the  case  of  Ligarius.  Caesar,  however,  pronoun- 
ced no  decision  on  the  one  side  or  other. 

Philippica. — The  remaining  orations  of  Cicero  are 
those  directed  against  Antony,  of  whose  private  life  and 
political  conduct  they  present  us  with  a  full  and  gla- 
ring picture.  The  character  of  Antony,  next  to  that  of 
Sylla,  was  the  most  singular  in  the  annals  of  Rome, 
and  in  some  of  its  features  bore  a  striking  resemblance 
to  that  of  the  fortunate  Dictator.  Both  were  pos- 
sessed of  uncommon  military  talents — both  were  im- 
bued with  cruelty  which  makes  human  nature  shud- 
der— both  were  inordinately  addicted  to  luxury  and 
pleasure — and  both,  for  men  of  their  powers  of  mind 
and  habits,  had  apparently,  at  least,  a  strange  super- 
stitious reliance  on  destiny,  portents,  and  omens.  Yet 
there  were  strong  shades  of  distinction  even  in  those 
parts  of  their  characters  in  which  we  trace  the  closest 
resemblance  :  The  cruelty  of  Sylla  was  more  delibe- 
rate and  remorseless — that  of  Antony,  more  regard- 


CICERO.  293 

less  and  unthinking — and  amid  all  the  atrocities  of 
the  latter,  there  burst  forth  occasional  gleams  of  gene- 
rosity and  feeling.  But  then  Sylla  was  a  man  of  much 
greater  discernment  and  penetration — a  much  more 
profound  and  successful  dissembler — and  he  was  pos- 
sessed of  many  refined  and  elegant  accomplishments, 
of  which  the  coarser  Antony  was  destitute.  Sylla 
gratified  his  voluptuousness,  but  Antony  was  ruled  by 
it.  The  former  indulged  in  pleasure  when  within  his 
grasp,  but  ease,  power,  and  revenge,  were  his  great  and 
ultimate  objects :  The  chief  aim  of  the  latter,  was  the 
sensual  pleasure  to  which  he  was  subservient.  Sylla 
would  never  have  been  the  slave  of  Cleopatra,  or  the 
dupe  of  Octavius.  Hence  the  wide  difference  be- 
tween the  destiny  of  the  triumphant  Dictator,  whose 
chariot  rolled  on  the  wheels  of  Fortune  to  the  close  of 
his  career,  and  the  sad  fate  of  Antony.  Yet  that  very 
fate  has  mitigated  the  abhorrence  of  posterity,  and 
weakness  having  been  added  to  wickedness,  has  unac- 
countably palliated,  in  our  eyes,  the  faults  of  the  soft 
Triumvir,  now  more  remembered  as  the  devoted  lover 
of  Cleopatra,  than  as  the  chief  promoter  of  the  Pro- 
scriptions. 

The  Philippics  against  Antony,  like  those  of  De- 
mosthenes, derive  their  chief  beauty  from  the  noble 
expression  of  just  indignation,  which  indeed  composes 
many  of  the  most  splendid  and  admired  passages  of 
ancient  eloquence.  They  were  all  pronounced  during 
the  period  which  elapsed  between  the  assassination  of 
Caesar,  and  the  defeat  of  Antony  at  Modena.  Soon 
after  Caesar's  death,  Cicero,  fearing  danger  from  An- 


294  CICERO. 

tony,  who  held  a  sort  of  military  possession  of  the 
city,  resolved  on  a  voyage  to  Greece.  Being  detained, 
however,  by  contrary  winds,  after  he  had  set  out,  and 
having  received  favourable  intelligence  from  his  friends 
at  Rome,  he  determined  to  return  to  the  capital.  The 
Senate  assembled  the  day  after  his  arrival,  in  order, 
at  the  suggestion  of  Antony,  to  consider  of  some  new 
and  extraordinary  honours  to  the  memory  of  Caesar. 
To  this  meeting  Cicero  was  specially  summoned  by 
Antony,  but  he  excused  himself  on  pretence  of  indis- 
position, and  the  fatigue  of  his  journey.  He  appeared, 
however,  in  his  place,  when  the  Senate  met  on  the 
following  day,  in  absence  of  Antony,  and  delivered 
the  first  of  the  orations,  afterwards  termed  Philippics, 
from  the  resemblance  they  bore  to  those  invectives 
which  Demosthenes  poured  forth  against  the  great  foe 
of  the  independence  of  Greece.  Cicero  opens  his  speech 
by  explaining  the  motives  of  his  recent  departure  from 
Rome — his  sudden  return,  and  his  absence  on  the  pre- 
ceding day — declaring,  that  if  present,  he  would  have 
opposed  the  posthumous  honours  decreed  to  the  usurp- 
er. His  next  object,  after  vindicating  himself,  being 
to  warn  the  Senate  of  the  designs  of  Antony,  he  com- 
plains that  he  had  violated  the  most  solemn  and 
authentic  even  of  Caesar's  laws ;  and  at  the  same  time 
enforced,  as  ordinances,  what  were  mere  jottings, 
found,  or  pretended  to  have  been  found,  among  the 
Dictator's  Memoranda,,  after  his  death. 

Antony  was  highly  incensed  at  this  speech,  and 
summoned  another  meeting  of  the  Senate,  at  which  he 
again  required  the  presence  of  Cicero.    These  two  ri- 


CICERO.  295 

vals  seem  to  have  been  destined  never  to  meet  in  the 
Senate-house.  Cicero,  being  apprehensive  of  some 
design  against  his  life,  did  not  attend  ;  so  that  the 
oration  of  Antony,  in  his  own  justification,  which  he 
had  carefully  prepared  in  intervals  of  leisure  at  his 
villa,  near  Tibur,  was  unanswered  in  the  Senate.  The 
second  Philippic  was  penned  by  Cicero  in  his  closet, 
as  a  reply  to  this  speech  of  Antony,  in  which  he  had 
been  particularly  charged  with  having  been  not  merely 
accessory  to  the  murder  of  Caesar,  but  the  chief  contri- 
ver of  the  plot  against  him.  Some  part  of  Cicero's 
oration  was  thus  necessarily  defensive,  but  the  larger 
portion,  which  is  accusatory,  is  one  of  the  severest  and 
most  bitter  invectives  ever  composed,  the  whole  being 
expressed  in  terms  of  the  most  thorough  contempt 
and  strongest  detestation  of  Antony.  By  laying  open 
his  whole  criminal  excesses  from  his  earliest  youth,  he 
exhibits  one  continued  scene  of  debauchery,  faction, 
rapine,  and  violence  ;  but  he  dwells  with  peculiar  hor- 
ror on  his  offer  of  the  diadem  to  Caesar,  at  the  festival 
of  the  Lupercalia — his  drunken  debauch  at  the  once 
classic  villa  of  Terentius  Varro — and  his  purchase  of 
the  effects  that  belonged  to  the  great  Pompey — on 
which  last  subject  he  pathetically  contrasts  the  mo- 
desty and  decorum  of  that  renowned  warrior,  once  the 
Favourite  of  Fortune,  and  darling  of  the  Roman  peo- 
ple, with  the  licentiousness  of  the  military  adventurer 
who  now  rioted  in  the  spoils  of  his  country.  In  con- 
cluding, he  declares,  on  his  own  part,  that  in  his  youth 
he  had  defended  the  republic,  and,  in  his  old  age,  he 
would  not  abandon  its  cause. — "  The  sword  of  Cati- 


296  cicero. 

line  I  despised ;  and  never  shall  I  dread  that  of  An- 
tony." This  oration  is  adorned  with  all  the  charms  of 
eloquence,  and  proves,  that  in  the  decline  of  life  Cicero 
had  not  lost  one  spark  of  the  fire  and  spirit  which 
animated  his  earlier  productions.  Although  not  de- 
livered in  the  Senate,  nor  intended  to  he  published 
till  things  were  actually  come  to  an  extremity,  and 
the  affairs  of  the  republic  made  it  necessary  to  render 
Antony's  conduct  and  designs  manifest  to  the  people, 
copies  of  the  oration  were  sent  to  Brutus,  Cassius,  and 
other  friends  of  the  commonwealth  :  hence  it  soon  got 
into  extensive  circulation,  and,  by  exciting  the  ven- 
geance of  Antony,  was  a  chief  cause  of  the  tragical 
death  of  its  author. 

The  situation  of  Antony  having  now  become  pre- 
carious, from  the  union  of  Octavius  with  the  party  of 
the  Senate,  and  the  defection  of  two  legions,  he  abrupt- 
ly quitted  the  city,  and  placing  himself  at  the  head  of 
his  army,  marched  into  Cisalpine  Gaul,  which,  since  the 
death  of  Caesar,  had  been  occupied  by  Decimus  Bru- 
tus, one  of  the  conspirators.  The  field  being  thus  left 
clear  for  Cicero,  and  the  Senate  being  assembled,  he 
pronounced  the  third  Philippic,  of  which  the  great 
object  was  to  induce  it  to  support  Brutus,  by  placing 
an  army  at  the  disposal  of  Octavius,  along  with  the 
two  Consuls  elect,  Hirtius  and  Pansa.  He  exhorts  the 
Senate  to  this  measure,  by  enlarging  on  the  merits  of 
Octavius  and  Brutus,  and  concludes  with  proposing 
public  thanks  to  these  leaders,  and  to  the  legions  which 
had  deserted  the  standard  of  Antony. 

From  the  Senate,  Cicero  proceeded  directly  to  the 


CICERO.  297 

Forum,  where,  in  his  fourth  Philippic,  he  gave  an  ac- 
count to  the  people  of  what  had  occurred,  and  ex- 
plained to  them,  that  Antony,  though  not  nominally, 
had  now  been  actually  declared  the  enemy  of  his  coun- 
try. This  harangue  was  so  well  received  by  an  au- 
dience the  most  numerous  that  had  ever  listened  to 
his  orations,  that,  speaking  of  it  afterwards,  he  declares 
he  would  have  reaped  sufficient  fruit  from  the  exer- 
tions of  his  whole  life,  had  he  died  on  the  day  it  was 
pronounced,  when  the  whole  people,  with  one  voice 
and  mind,  called  out  that  he  had  twice  saved  the  re- 
public.1 

Brutus  being  as  yet  unable  to  defend  himself  in  the 
field,  withdrew  into  Modena,  where  he  was  besieged 
by  Antony.  Intelligence  of  this  having  been  brought 
to  Rome,  Cicero,  in  his  fifth  Philippic,  endeavoured 
to  persuade  the  Senate  to  proclaim  Antony  an  enemy 
of  his  country,  in  opposition  to  Calenus,  who  proposed, 
that  before  proceeding  to  acts  of  hostility,  an  embassy 
should  be  sent  for  the  purpose  of  admonishing  An- 
tony to  desist  from  his  attempt  on  Gaul,  and  submit 
himself  to  the  authority  of  the  Senate.  After  three 
days'  successive  debate,  Cicero's  proposal  would  have 
prevailed,  had  not  one  of  the  Tribunes  interposed  his 
negative,  in  consequence  of  which  the  measure  of  the 
embassy  was  resorted  to.  Cicero,  nevertheless,  before 
any  answer  could  be  received,  persisted,  in  his  sixth  and 
seventh  Philippics,  in  asserting  that  any  accommoda- 
tion with  a  rebel  such  as  Antony,  would  be  equally  dis- 
graceful and  dangerous  to  the  republic.  The  deputies 

1  Philip.  VI.  c.  l. 


298  cicero. 

having  returned,  and  reported  that  Antony  would  con- 
sent to  nothing  which  was  required  of  him,  the  Senate 
declared  war  against  him — employing,  however,  in  their 
decree,  the  term  tumult,  instead  of  war  or  rebellion. 
Cicero,  in  his  eighth  Philippic,  expostulated  with  them 
on  their  timorous  and  impolitic  lenity  of  expression. 
In  the  ninth  Philippic,  pronounced  on  the  following 
day,  he  called  on  the  Senate  to  erect  a  statue  to  one 
of  the  deputies,  Servius  Sulpicius,  who,  while  labour- 
ing under  a  severe  distemper,  had,  at  the  risk  of  his 
life,  undertaken  the  embassy,  but  had  died  before  he 
could  acquit  himself  of  the  commission  with  which  he 
was  charged.  The  proposal  met  with  considerable  op- 
position, but  it  was  at  length  agreed  that  a  brazen 
statue  should  be  erected  to  him  in  the  Forum,  and 
that  an  inscription  should  be  placed  on  the  base,  im- 
porting that  he  had  died  in  the  service  of  the  re- 
public. 

The  Philippics,  hitherto  mentioned,  related  chiefly 
to  the  affairs  of  Cisalpine  Gaul,  the  scene  of  the  con- 
test between  D.  Brutus  and  Antony.  A  long  period 
was  now  elapsed  since  the  Senate  had  received  any  in- 
telligence concerning  the  chiefs  of  the  conspiracy,  Mar- 
cus Brutus  and  Cassius,  the  former  of  whom  had  sei- 
zed on  the  province  of  Macedonia,  while  the  latter 
occupied  Syria.  Public  despatches,  however,  at  length 
arrived  from  M.  Brutus,  giving  an  account  of  his  suc- 
cessful proceedings  in  Greece.  The  Consul  Pansa, 
having  communicated  the  contents  at  a  meeting  of  the 
Senate,  and  having  proposed  for  him  public  thanks 
and  honours,  Calenus,  a  creature  of  Antony,  objected, 


CICERO.  299 

and  moved,  that  as  what  he  had  done  was  without 
lawful  authority,  he  should  be  required  to  deliver  up 
his  army  to  the  Senate,  or  the  proper  governor  of  the 
province.  Cicero,  in  his  tenth  Philippic,  replied,  in  a 
transport  of  eloquent  and  patriotic  indignation,  to  this 
most  unjust  and  ruinous  proposal,  particularly  to  the 
assertion  by  which  it  was  supported,  that  veterans 
would  not  submit  to  be  commanded  by  Brutus.  He 
thus  succeeded  in  obtaining  from  the  Senate  an  ap- 
probation of  the  conduct  of  Brutus,  a  continuance  of 
his  command,  and  pecuniary  assistance. 

About  the  same  time  accounts  arrived  from  Asia, 
that  Dolabella,  on  the  part  of  Antony,  had  taken 
possession  of  Smyrna,  and  there  put  Trebonius,  one  of 
the  conspirators,  to  death.  On  receiving  this  intelli- 
gence, a  debate  arose  concerning  the  choice  of  a  gene- 
ral to  be  employed  against  Dolabella,  and  Cicero,  in  his 
eleventh  Philippic,  strenuously  maintained  the  right 
of  Cassius,  who  was  then  in  Greece,  to  be  promoted  to 
that  command.  In  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth,  he  again 
warmly  and  successfully  opposed  the  sending  a  depu- 
tation to  Antony.  All  farther  mention  of  pacification 
was  terminated  by  the  joyful  tidings  of  the  total  de- 
feat of  Antony  before  Modena,  by  the  army  under 
Octavius,  and  the  Consuls  Hirtius  and  Pansa — the 
latter  of  whom  was  mortally  wounded  in  the  conflict. 
The  intelligence  excited  incredible  joy  at  Rome, 
which  was  heightened  by  the  unfavourable  reports 
that  had  previously  prevailed.  The  Senate  met  to  de- 
liberate on  the  despatches  of  the. Consuls  communica- 


300  CICERO. 

ting  the  event.  Never  was  there  a  finer  opportunity 
for  the  display  of  eloquence,  than  what  was  afforded 
to  Cicero  on  this  occasion ;  of  which  he  most  glorious- 
ly availed  himself  in  the  fourteenth  Philippic.  The 
excitation  and  tumult  consequent  on  a  great  recent 
victory,  give  wing  to  high  flights  of  eloquence,  and 
also  prepare  the  minds  of  the  audience  to  follow  the 
ascent.  The  success  at  Modena  terminated  a  long 
period  of  anxiety.  It  was  for  the  time  supposed  to 
have  decided  the  fate  of  Antony  and  the  Republic ; 
and  the  orator,  who  thus  saw  all  his  measures  justi- 
fied, must  have  felt  the  exultation,  confidence,  and 
spirit,  so  favourable  to  the  highest  exertions  of  elo- 
quence. This,  with  the  detestable  character  of  the 
conquered  foe, — the  wounds  of  Pansa,  who  was  once 
suspected  by  the  Republic,  but  by  his  faithful  zeal 
had  gradually  obtained  its  confidence,  and  at  length 
sealed  his  fidelity  with  his  blood, — the  rewards  due 
to  the  surviving  victors, — the  honours  to  be  paid  to 
those  who  had  fallen  in  defence  of  their  country, — the 
thanksgivings  to  be  rendered  to  the  immortal  gods, — 
all  afforded  topics  of  triumph,  panegyric,  and  pathos, 
which  have  been  seldom  supplied  to  the  orator  in  any 
age  or  country.  In  extolling  those  who  had  fallen, 
Cicero  dwells  on  two  subjects ;  one  appertaining  to 
the  glory  of  the  heroes  themselves,  the  other  to  the 
consolation  of  their  friends  and  relatives.  He  proposes 
that  a  splendid  monument  should  be  erected,  in  com- 
mon to  all  who  had  perished,  with  an  inscription  re- 
cording their  names  and  services  ;  and  in  recommend- 


CICERO.  301 

ing  this  tribute  of  public  gratitude,  he  breaks  out  into 
a  funeral  panegyric,  which  has  formed  a  more  lasting 
memorial  than  the  monument  he  suggested. 

This  was  the  last  Philippic  and  last  oration  which 
Cicero  delivered.  The  union  of  Antony  and  Octavius 
soon  after  annihilated  the  power  of  the  Senate  ;  and 
Cicero,  like  Demosthenes,  fell  the  victim  of  that  indig- 
nant eloquence  with  which  he  had  lashed  the  enemies 
of  his  country  : — 

**  Eloquio  sed  uterque  periit  orator ;  utrumque 
Largus  et  exundans  letho  dedit  ingenii  fons. 
Ingenio  manus  est  et  cervix  caesa,  nee  unquam 
Sanguine  causidici  maduerunt  rostra  pusilli."1 

Besides  the  complete  orations  above  mentioned, 
Cicero  delivered  many,  of  which  only  fragments  re- 
main, or  which  are  now  entirely  lost.  All  those  which 
he  pronounced  during  the  five  years  intervening  be- 
tween his  election  to  the  Qusestorship  and  the  iEdile- 
ship  have  perished,  except  that  for  M.  Tullius,  of 
which  the  exordium  and  narrative  were  brought  to 
light  at  the  late  celebrated  discovery  by  Mai,  in  the 
Ambrosian  library  at  Milan.  Tullius  had  been  forcibly 
dispossessed  {vi  armatd)  by  one  of  the  Fabii  of  a  farm 
he  held  in  Lucania ;  and  the  whole  Fabian  race  were 
prosecuted  for  damages,  under  a  law  of  Lucullus, 
whereby,  in  consequence  of  depredations  committed  in 
the  municipal  states  of  Italy,  every  family  was  held 
responsible  for  the  violent  aggressions  of  any  of  its 
tribe.    A  large  fragment  of  the  oration  for  Scaurus 

1  Juvenal,  Satir.  X.  v.  118. 


302  CICERO. 

forms  by  far  the  most  valuable  portion  of  the  discovery 
in  the  Ambrosian  library.  The  oration,  indeed,  is  not 
entire,  but  the  part  we  have  of  it  is  tolerably  well  con- 
nected. The  charge  was  one  of  provincial  embezzle- 
ment, and  in  the  exordium  the  orator  announces  that 
he  was  to  treat,  1st,  of  the  general  nature  of  the  accu- 
sation itself;  2d,  of  the  character  of  the  Sardinians; 
3d,  of  that  of  Scaurus ;  and,  lastly,  of  the  special  charge 
concerning  the  corn.  Of  these,  the  first  two  heads  are 
tolerably  entire ;  and  that  in  which  he  exposes  the 
faithless  character  of  the  Sardinians,  and  thus  shakes 
the  credibility  of  the  witnesses  for  the  prosecution,  is 
artfully  managed.  The  other  fragments  discovered  in 
the  Ambrosian  library  consist  merely  of  detached  sen- 
tences, of  which  it  is  almost  impossible  to  make  a  con- 
nected meaning.  Of  this  description  is  the  oration 
In  P.  Clodium ;  yet  still,  by  aid  of  the  Commentary 
found  along  with  it,  we  are  enabled  to  form  some  no- 
tion of  the  tenor  of  the  speech.  The  well-known  story 
of  Clodius  finding  access  to  the  house  of  Caesar,  in  fe- 
male disguise,  during  the  celebration  of  the  mysteries 
of  Bona  Dea,  gave  occasion  to  this  invective.  A  sort 
of  altercation  had  one  day  passed  in  the  Senate  be- 
tween Cicero  and  Clodius,  soon  after  the  acquittal  of 
the  latter  for  this  offence,  which  probably  suggested 
to  Cicero  the  notion  of  writing  a  connected  oration, 
inveighing  against  the  vices  and  crimes  of  Clodius, 
particularly  his  profanation  of  the  secret  rites  of  the 
goddess,  and  the  corrupt  means  by  which  he  had  ob- 
tained his  acquittal.  In  one  of  his  epistles  to  Atticus, 
Cicero  gives  a  detailed  account  of  this  altercation, 


CICERO.  303 

which  certainly  does  not  afford  us  a  very  dignified  no- 
tion of  senatorial  gravity  and  decorum. 

Of  those  orations  of  Cicero  which  have  entirely  pe- 
rished, the  greatest  loss  has  heen  sustained  by  the  dis- 
appearance of  the  defence  of  Cornelius,  who  was  ac- 
cused of  practices  against  the  state  during  his  tribune-, 
ship.  This  speech,  which  was  divided  into  two  great 
parts,  was  continued  for  four  successive  days,  in  pre- 
sence of  an  immense  concourse  of  people,  who  testified 
their  admiration  of  its  bright  eloquence  by  repeated 
applause.1  The  orator  himself  frequently  refers  to  it 
as  among  the  most  finished  of  his  compositions  ;2  and 
the  old  critics  cite  it  as  an  example  of  genuine  elo- 
quence, f  Not  merely,"  says  Quintilian,  "  with  strong, 
but  with  shining  armour  did  Cicero  contend  in  the 
cause  of  Cornelius."  We  have  also  to  lament  the  loss 
of  the  oration  for  C.  Piso,  accused  of  oppression  in 
his  government — of  the  farewell  discourse  delivered  to 
the  Sicilians,  (Quum  Qucestor  Lilybceo  discederet,)  in 
which  he  gave  them  an  account  of  his  administration, 
and  promised  them  his  protection  at  Rome — of  the 
invective  pronounced  in  the  Senate  against  Metellus, 
in  answer  to  a  harangue  which  that  Tribune  had  de- 
livered to  the  people  concerning  Cicero's  conduct,  in 
putting  the  confederates  of  Catiline  to  death  without 
trial ;  and,  finally,  of  the  celebrated  speech  De  Pro- 
scriptorum  Liberis,  in  which,  on  political  grounds,  he 
opposed,  while  admitting  their  justice,  the  claims  of 
the  children  of  those  whom  Sylla  had  proscribed  and 

i  Quintil.  Inst.  Orat.  Lib.  V. 
2  Orator,  c.  67,  70. 


304  CICERO. 

disqualified  from  holding  any  honours  in  the  state,  and 
who  now  applied  to  he  relieved  from  their  disabilities. 
The  success  which  he  obtained  in  resisting  this  de- 
mand, is  described  in  strong  terms  by  Pliny  :  "  Te 
orante,  proscriptorum  liberos  honores  petere  puduit."1 
A  speech  which  is  now  lost,  and  which,  though  after- 
wards reduced  to  writing,  must  have  been  delivered 
extempore,  afforded  another  strong  example  of  the 
persuasiveness  of  his  eloquence.  The  appearance  of 
the  Tribune,  Roscius  Otho,  who  had  set  apart  seats 
for  the  knights  at  the  public  spectacles,  having  one 
day  occasioned  a  disturbance  at  the  theatre,  Cicero, 
on  being  informed  of  the  tumult,  hastened  to  the  spot, 
and,  calling  out  the  people  to  the  Temple  of  Bellona, 
he  so  calmed  them  by  the  magic  of  his  eloquence,  that, 
returning  immediately  to  the  theatre,  they  clapped 
their  hands  in  honour  of  Otho,  and  vied  with  the 
knights  in  giving  him  demonstrations  of  respect.2  One 
topic  which  he  touched  on  in  this  oration,  and  the  only 
one  of  which  we  have  any  hint  from  antiquity,  was  the 
rioters'  want  of  taste,  in  creating  a  tumult,  while  Ros- 
cius was  performing  on  the  stage.3  This  speech,  the 
orations  against  the  Agrarian  law,  and  that  De  Pro- 
scriptorum Liberis,  have  long  been  cited  as  the  strong- 
est examples  of  the  power  of  eloquence  over  the  pas- 
sions of  mankind  :  And  it  is  difficult  to  say,  whether 
the  highest  praise  be  due  to  the  orator,  who  could  per- 
suade, or  to  the  people,  who  could  be  thus  induced  to 

1  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  VII.  c.  30. 

2  Plutarch,  In  Cicer. 

3  Macrobius,  SaturnaU  Lib.  III.  c.  14. 

5 


CICERO.  305 

relinquish  the  most  tempting  expectations  of  property 
and  honours,  and  the  full  enjoyment  of  their  favourite 
amusements. 

In  the  age  of  that  declamation  which  prevailed  at 
Rome  from  the  time  of  Tiherius  to  the  fall  of  the  em- 
pire, it  was  the  practice  of  rhetoricians  to  declaim  on 
similar  topics  with  those  on  which  Cicero  had  deliver- 
ed, or  was  supposed  to  have  delivered,  harangues.  It 
appears  from  Aulus  Gellius,1  that  in  the  age  of  Mar- 
cus Aurelius  doubts  were  entertained  with  regard  to 
the  authenticity  of  certain  orations  circulated  as  pro- 
ductions of  Cicero.  He  was  known  to  have  delivered 
four  speeches  almost  immediately  after  his  recall  from 
banishment,  on  subjects  closely  connected  with  his  ex- 
ile. The  first  was  addressed  to  the  Senate,2  and  the 
second  to  the  people,  a  few  days  subsequently  to  his 
return  ;3  the  third  to  the  college  of  Pontiffs,  in  order 
to  obtain  restitution  of  a  piece  of  ground  on  the  Pala- 
tine hill,  on  which  his  house  had  formerly  stood,  but 
had  been  demolished,  and  a  temple  erected  on  the  spot, 
with  a  view,  as  he  feared,  to  alienate  it  irretrievably 
from  the  proprietor,  by  thus  consecrating  it  to  religious 
purposes.4  The  fourth  was  pronounced  in  consequence 
of  Clodius  declaring  that  certain  menacing  prodigies, 
which  had  lately  appeared,  were  indubitably  occasion- 
ed by  the  desecration  of  this  ground,  which  the  Pon- 
tiffs had  now  discharged  from  religious  uses.  Four  ora- 
tions, supposed  to  have  been  delivered  on  those  occa- 
sions, and  entitled,  Post  JReditum  in  Senatu,  Ad  Qui- 

1  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  I.  c.  7.         2  Dio  Cassius,  XXXIX.  c.  9. 
3  Epist.  Ad  Attic.  Lib.  IV.  Ep.  1.  4  Ibid.  Ep.  2. 

VOL.  II.  U 


306  CICERO. 

rites  post  JReditum,  Pro  domo  sua  ad  Pontifices,  De 
Haruspicum  Responsis,  were  published  in  all  the 
early  editions  of  Cicero,  without  any  doubts  of  their  au- 
thenticity being  hinted  by  the  commentators,  and  were 
also  referred  to  as  genuine  authorities  by  Middleton 
in  his  Life  of  Cicero.  At  length,  about  the  middle  of 
last  century,  the  well-known  dispute  having  arisen  be- 
tween Middleton  and  Tunstall,  concerning  the  letters 
to  Brutus,  Markland  engaged  in  the  controversy  ;  and 
his  remarks  on  the  correspondence  of  Cicero  and  Bru- 
tus were  accompanied  with  a  "  Dissertation  on  the 
Four  Orations  ascribed  to  M.  T.  Cicero,"  published  in 
1745,  which  threw  great  doubts  on  their  authenticity. 
Middleton  made  no  formal  reply  to  this  part  of  Mark- 
land's  observations ;  but  he  neither  retracted  his  opi- 
nion nor  changed  a  word  in  his  subsequent  edition  of 
the  Life  of  Cicero. 

Soon  afterwards,  Ross,  the  editor  of  Cicero's  Epis- 
tolce  FamiliareSy  and  subsequently  Bishop  of  Exeter, 
ironically  showed,  in  his  "  Dissertation,  in  which  the 
defence  of  P.  Sulla,  ascribed  to  Cicero,  is  clearly  proved 
to  be  spurious,  after  the  manner  of  Mr  Marklaud," 
that,  on  the  principles  and  line  of  argument  adopted 
by  his  opponent,  the  authenticity  of  any  one  of  the 
orations  might  be  contested.  This  jeu  d'esprit  of 
Bishop  Ross  was  seriously  confuted  in  a  "  Disserta- 
tion, in  which  the  Objections  of  a  late  Pamphlet  to 
the  Writings  of  the  Ancients,  after  the  manner  of  Mr 
Markland,  are  clearly  Answered ;  and  those  Passages 
in  Tully  corrected,  on  which  some  of  the  Objections 
are  founded. — 1746."  This  dissertation  was  printed  by 
Bowyer,  and  he  is  generally  believed  to  have  been  the 


CICERO.  307 

author  of  it.1  In  Germany,  J.  M.  Gesner,  with  all  the 
weight  attached  to  his  opinion,  and  Thesaurus,  stren- 
uously defended  these  orations  in  two  prelections,  held 
in  1753  and  1754,  and  inserted  in  the  3d  volume  of 
the  new  series  of  the  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Aca- 
demy at  Gottingen,  under  the  title  Cicero  Restitutus, 
in  which  he  refuted,  one  by  one,  all  the  objections  of 
Markland. 

After  this,  although  the  Letters  of  Brutus  were  no 
longer  considered  as  authentic,  literary  men  in  all 
countries — as  De  Brosses,  the  French  translator  of 
Sallust,  Ferguson,  Saxius,  in  his  Onomasticon,  and 
Rhunkenius — adopted  the  orations  as  genuine.  Er- 
nesti,  in  his  edition  of  Cicero,  makes  no  mention  of 
the  existence  of  any  doubts  respecting  them  ;  and,  in 
his  edition  of  Fabricius,2  alludes  to  the  controversy 
concerning  them  as  a  foolish  and  insignificant  dispute. 
A  change  of  opinion,  however,  was  produced  by  an 
edition  of  the  four  orations  which  Wolfius  published 
at  Berlin  in  1801,  to  which  he  prefixed  an  account  of 
the  controversy,  and  a  general  view  of  the  arguments 
of  Markland  and  Gesner.  The  observations  of  each, 
relating  to  particular  words  and  phrases,  are  placed 
below  the  passages  as  they  occur,  and  are  followed  by 
Wolf's  own  remarks,  refuting,  to  the  utmost  of  his 

1  See  Nichol's  Literary  Anecdotes.  Harles,  also,  seems  to  sup- 
pose that  Bishop  Ross  was  in  earnest : — "  Orationem  pro  Sulla 
spuriam  esse  audacter  pronunciavit  vir  quidam  doctus  in — A  Dis- 
sertation, in  which  the  defence  of  P.  Sulla,  &c.  is  proved  to  be 
spurious." — Hables,  Introduct.  in  Notitiam  Literat.  Rom.  Tom. 
II.  p.  153. 

2  Bib.  Lat.  Lib.  I.  c.  8. 


308  CICERO. 

power,  the  opinions  of  Gesner,  and  confirming  those 
of  Markland.  Schutz,  the  late  German  editor  of  Ci- 
cero, has  completely  adopted  the  notions  of  Wolf ;  and 
by  printing  these  four  harangues,  not  in  their  order  in 
the  series,  but  separately,  and  at  the  end  of  the  whole, 
along  with  the  discarded  correspondence  between  Ci- 
cero and  Brutus,  has  thrown  them  without  the  classi- 
cal pale  as  effectually  as  Lambinus  excluded  the  once- 
recognized  orations,  In  pace,  and  Antequam  iret  in 
Exilium.  In  the  fourth  volume  of  his  new  edition  of 
the  works  of  Cicero  now  proceeding  in  Germany,  Beck 
has  followed  the  opinion  of  Wolf,  after  an  impartial 
examination  of  the  different  arguments  in  his  notes, 
and  in  an  excursus  crittcus  devoted  to  this  subject. 

Markland  and  Wolf  believe,  that  these  harangues 
were  written,  as  a  rhetorical  exercise,  by  some  de- 
claimer,  who  lived  not  long  after  Cicero,  probably  in 
the  time  of  Tiberius,  and  who  had  before  his  eyes 
some  orations  of  Cicero  now  lost,  (perhaps  those  which 
he  delivered  on  his  return  from  exile,)  from  which 
the  rhetorician  occasionally  borrowed  ideas  or  phrases, 
not  altogether  unworthy  of  the  orator's  genius  and 
eloquence.  But,  though  they  may  contain  some  in- 
sulated Ciceronian  expressions,  it  is  utterly  denied 
that  these  orations  can  be  the  continued  composition 
of  Cicero.  The  arguments  against  their  authenticity 
are  deduced,  first,  from  their  matter ;  and,  secondly, 
from  their  style.  These  critics  dwell  much  on  the 
numerous  thoughts  and  ideas  inconsistent  with  the 
known  sentiments,  or  unsuitable  to  the  disposition  of 
the  author, — on  the  relation  of  events,  told  in  a  diffc- 


ciceiio.  309 

rent  manner  from  that  in  which  they  have  been  re- 
corded by  him  in  his  undoubted  works, — and,  finally, 
on  the  gross  ignorance  shown  of  the  laws,  institu- 
tions, and  customs  of  Rome,  and  even  of  the  events 
passing  at  the  time.  Thus  it  is  said,  in  one  of  these 
four  orations,  that,  on  some  political  occasion,  all 
the  senators  changed  their  garb,  as  also  the  Praetors 
and  iEdiles,  which  proves,  that  the  author  was  igno- 
rant that  all  iEdiles  and  Praetors  were  necessarily  se- 
nators, since,  otherwise,  the  special  mention  of  them 
would  be  superfluous  and  absurd.  What  is  still 
stronger,  the  author,  in  the  oration  Ad  Quirites  post 
reditum,  refers  to  the  speech  in  behalf  of  Gabinius, 
which  was  not  pronounced  till  699,  three  years  subse- 
quently to  Cicero's  recall ;  whereas  the  real  oration, 
Ad  Quirites,  was  delivered  on  the  second  or  third  day 
after  his  return.  With  regard  to  the  style  of  these  ha- 
rangues, it  is  argued,  that  the  expressions  are  affected, 
the  sentences  perplexed,  and  the  transitions  abrupt ; 
and  that  their  languor  and  want  of  animation  render 
them  wholly  unworthy  of  Cicero.  Markland  particu- 
larly points  out  the  absurd  repetition  of  what  the 
declaimer  had  considered  Ciceronian  phrases, — as, 
"  Aras,  focos,  penates — Deos  immortales — Res  incre- 
dibiles — Esse  videatur."  Of  the  orations  individually 
he  remarks,  and  justly,  that  the  one  delivered  by  Cicero 
in  the  Senate  immediately  after  his  return,  was  known 
to  have  been  prepared  with  the  greatest  possible  care, 
and  to  have  been  committed  to  writing  before  it  was 
pronounced ;  while  the  fictitious  harangue  which  we 
now  have  in  its  place,  is,  at  all  events,  quite  unlike  any- 


310  CICERO. 

thing  that  Cicero  would  have  produced  with  elaborate 
study.  The  second  is  a  sort  of  compendium  of  the 
first,  and  the  same  ideas  and  expressions  are  slavishly 
repeated ;  which  implies  a  barrenness  of  invention, 
and  sterility  of  language,  that  cannot  be  supposed  in 
Cicero.  Of  the  third  oration  he  speaks,  in  his  letters 
to  Atticus,  as  one  of  his  happiest  efforts  ;*  but  nothing 
can  be  more  wretched  than  that  which  we  now  have 
in  its  stead, — the  first  twelve  chapters,  indeed,  being 
totally  irrelevant  to  the  question  at  issue. 

The  oration  for  Marcellus,  the  genuineness  of  which 
has  also  been  called  in  question,  is  somewhat  in  a  dif- 
ferent style  from  the  other  harangues  of  Cicero  ;  for, 
though  entitled  Pro  Marcello,  it  is  not  so  much  a 
speech  in  his  defence,  as  a  panegyric  on  Caesar,  for 
having  granted  the  pardon  of  Marcellus  at  the  inter- 
cession of  the  Senate.  Marcellus  had  been  one  of  the 
most  violent  opponents  of  the  views  of  Caesar.  He  had 
recommended  in  the  Senate,  that  he  should  be  de- 
prived of  the  province  of  Gaul :  he  had  insulted  the 
magistrates  of  one  of  Caesar's  new-founded  colonies ; 
and  had  been  present  at  Pharsalia  on  the  side  of  Pom- 
pey.  After  that  battle  he  retired  to  Mitylene,  where 
he  was  obliged  to  remain,  being  one  of  the  few  adver- 
saries to  whom  the  conqueror  refused  to  be  reconciled. 
The  Senate,  however,  one  day  when  Caesar  was  present, 
with  an  united  voice,  and  in  an  attitude  of  supplication, 
having  implored  his  clemency  in  favour  of  Marcellus, 
and  their  request  having  been  granted,  Cicero,  though 
he  had  resolved  to  preserve  eternal  silence,  being 

1  Lib.  IV.  Ep.  2. 


CICERO.  311 

moved  by  the  occasion,  delivered  one  of  the  most  strain- 
ed encomiums  that  has  ever  been  pronounced. 

In  the  first  part  he  extols  the  military  exploits  of 
Caesar  ;  but  shows,  that  his  clemency  to  Marcellus 
was  more  glorious  than  any  of  his  other  actions,  as  it 
depended  entirely  on  himself,  while  fortune  and  his 
army  had  their  share  in  the  events  of  the  war.  In  the 
second  part  he  endeavours  to  dispel  the  suspicions 
which  it  appears  Caasar  still  entertained  of  the  hostile 
intentions  of  Marcellus,  and  takes  occasion  to  assure 
the  Dictator  that  his  life  was  most  dear  and  valuable 
to  all,  since  on  it  depended  the  tranquillity  of  the 
state,  and  the  hopes  of  the  restoration  of  the  common- 
wealth. 

This  oration,  which  Middleton  declares  to  be  supe- 
rior to  anything  extant  of  the  kind  in  all  antiquity, 
and  which  a  celebrated  French  critic  terms,  "  Le  dis- 
cours  le  plus  noble,  le  plus  pathetique,  et  en  meme 
terns  le  plus  patriotique,  que  la  reconnaissance,  l'ami- 
tie,  et  la  vertu,  puissent  inspirer  a  une  ame  elevee  et 
sensible,"  continued  to  be  not  only  of  undisputed  au- 
thenticity, but  one  of  Cicero's  most  admired  produc- 
tions, till  Wolf,  in  the  preface  and  notes  to  a  new  edi- 
tion of  it,  printed  in  1802,  attempted  to  show,  that 
it  was  a  spurious  production,  totally  unworthy  of  the 
orator  whose  name  it  bore,  and  that  it  was  written  by 
some  declaimer,  soon  after  the  Augustan  age,  not  as 
an  imposition  upon  the  public,  but  as  an  exercise, — 
according  to  the  practice  of  the  rhetoricians,  who  were 
wont  to  choose,  as  a  theme,  some  subject  on  which 
Cicero  had  spoken.     In  his  letters  to  Atticus,  Cicero 


312  CICERO. 

says,  that  he  had  returned  thanks  to  Caesar  pluribus 
verbis.  This  Middleton  translates  a  long  speech ; 
but  Wolf  alleges  it  can  only  mean  a  few  words,  and 
never  can  be  interpreted  to  denote  a  full  oration,  such 
as  that  which  we  now  possess  for  Marcellus.  That 
Cicero  did  not  deliver  a  long  or  formal  speech,  is  evi- 
dent, he  contends,  from  the  testimony  of  Plutarch, 
who  mentions,  in  his  Life  of  Cicero,  that,  a  short  time 
afterwards,  when  the  orator  was  about  to  plead  for 
Ligarius,  Caesar  asked,  how  it  happened  that  he  had 
not  heard  Cicero  speak  for  so  long  a  period, — which 
would  have  been  absurd  if  he  had  heard  him,  a  few 
months  before,  pleading  for  Marcellus.  Being  an  ex- 
temporary effusion,  called  forth  by  an  unforeseen  oc- 
casion, it  could  not  (he  continues  to  urge)  have  been 
prepared  and  written  beforehand  ;  nor  is  it  at  all  pro- 
bable, that,  like  many  other  orations  of  Cicero,  it  was 
revised  and  made  public  after  being  delivered.  The 
causes  which  induced  the  Roman  orators  to  write  out 
their  speeches  at  leisure,  were  the  magnitude  and  pub- 
lic importance  of  the  subject,  or  the  wishes  of  those  in 
whose  defence  they  were  made,  and  who  were  anxious 
to  possess  a  sort  of  record  of  their  vindication.  But  none 
of  these  motives  existed  in  the  present  case.  The  mat- 
ter was  of  no  importance  or  difficulty  ;  and  we  know 
that  Marcellus,  who  was  a  stern  republican,  was  not 
at  all  gratified  by  the  intervention  of  the  senators,  or 
conciliated  by  the  clemency  of  Caesar.  As  to  internal 
evidence,  deduced  from  the  oration,  Wolf  admits,  that 
there  are  interspersed  in  it  some  Ciceronian  sentences ; 
and  how  otherwise  could  the  learned  have  been  so 


CICERO.  313 

egregiously  deceived  ?  but  the  resemblance  is  more  in 
the  varnish  of  the  style  than  in  the  substance.  We 
have  the  words  rather  than  the  thoughts  of  Cicero  ; 
and  the  rounding  of  his  periods,  without  their  energy 
and  argumentative  connection.  He  adduces,  also, 
many  instances  of  phrases  unusual  among  the  classics, 
and  of  conceits  which  betray  the  rhetorician  or  sophist. 
His  extolling  the  act  of  that  day  on  which  Caesar  par- 
doned Marcellus  as  higher  than  all  his  warlike  ex- 
ploits, would  but  have  raised  a  smile  on  the  lips  of  the 
Dictator ;  and  the  slighting  way  in  which  the  cause 
of  the  republic  and  Pompey  are  mentioned,  is  totally 
different  from  the  manner  in  which  Cicero  expressed 
himself  on  these  delicate  topics,  even  in  presence  of 
Caesar,  in  his  authentic  orations  for  Deiotarus  and 
Ligarius. 

It  is  evident,  at  first  view,  that  many  of  Wolf's  ob- 
servations are  hypercritical ;  and  that  in  his  argument 
concerning  the  encomiums  on  Caesar,  and  the  over- 
rated importance  of  his  clemency  to  Marcellus,  he  does 
not  make  sufficient  allowance  for  Cicero's  habit  of  ex- 
aggeration, and  the  momentary  enthusiasm  produced 
by  one  of  those  transactions, 

— — — — "  Quae,  dum  geruntur, 


Percellunt  animos."- 


Accordingly,  in  the  year  following  that  of  Wolf's  edi- 
tion, Olaus  Wormius  published,  at  Copenhagen,  a 
vindication  of  the  authenticity  of  this  speech.  To  the 
argument  adduced  from  Plutarch,  he  answers,  that 
some  months  had  elapsed  between  the  orations  for 


314  CICERO. 

Marcellus  and  Ligarius,  which  might  readily  be  called 
a  long  period,  by  one  accustomed  to  hear  Cicero  ha- 
rangue almost  daily  in  the  Senate  or  Forum.  Besides, 
the  phrase  of  Plutarch,  Xiyovros,  may  mean  pleading 
for  some  one,  which  was  not  the  nature  of  the  speech 
for  Marcellus.  As  to  the  motive  which  led  to  write 
and  publish  the  oration,  Cicero,  above  all  men,  was 
delighted  with  his  own  productions,  and  nothing  can 
be  more  probable  than  that  he  should  have  wished  to 
preserve  the  remembrance  of  that  memorable  day, 
which  he  calls  in  his  letters,  diem  illam pulcherrimam. 
It  was  natural  to  send  the  oration  to  Marcellus,  in 
order  to  hasten  his  return  to  Rome,  and  it  must  have 
been  an  acceptable  thing  to  Csesar,  thus  to  record  his 
fearlessness  and  benignity.  With  regard  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  Pompey  and  the  republican  party  are 
talked  of,  it  is  evident,  from  his  letters,  that  Cicero 
was  disgusted  with  the  political  measures  of  that  fac- 
tion, that  he  wholly  disapproved  of  their  plan  of  the 
campaign,  and  foreseeing  a  renewal  of  Sylla's  proscrip- 
tions in  the  triumph  of  the  aristocratic  power,  he  did 
not  exaggerate  in  so  highly  extolling  the  humanity  of 
Caesar. 

The  arguments  of  Wormius  were  expanded  and 
illustrated  by  Weiske,  In  Commentario  perpetuo  et 
pleno  in  Orat.  Ciceronis  pro  Marcello,  published  at 
Leipsic,  in  1805,1  while,  on  the  other  hand,  Spalding, 

1  "  Cum  Appendice  De  Oratione,  quae  vulgo  fertur,  M.  T.  Ci- 
ceronis pro  Q.  Ligario,"  in  which  the  author  attempts  to  abjudi- 
cate from  Cicero  the  beautiful  oration  for  Ligarius,  which  shook 
even  the  soul  of  Csesar,  while  he  has  translated  into  his  own  Ian- 


CICERO.  315 

in  his  De  Oratione  pro  Marcello  Disputatio,  publish- 
ed in  1808,  supported  the  opinions  of  Wolfius. 

The  controversy  was  in  this  state,  and  was  consi- 
dered as  involved  in  much  doubt  and  obscurity,  when 
Aug.  Jacob,  in  an  academical  exercise,  printed  at 
Halle  and  Berlin,  in  1813,  and  entitled  De  Oratione 
quee  inscribitur  pro  Marcello,  Ciceroni  vel  abjudi- 
cata  vel  adjudicata,  Qucestio  novaque  conjectura, 
adopted  a  middle  course.  Finding  such  dissimilarity 
in  the  different  passages  of  the  oration,  some  being 
most  powerful,  elegant,  and  beautiful,  while  others 
were  totally  futile  and  frigid,  he  was  led  to  believe  that 
part  had  actually  flowed  from  the  lips  of  Cicero,  but 
that  much  had  been  subsequently  interpolated  by  some 
rhetorician  or  declaimer.  He  divides  his  whole  trea- 
tise into  four  heads,  which  comprehend  all  the  various 
points  agitated  on  the  subject  of  this  oration  :  1.  The 
testimony  of  different  authors  tending  to  prove  the 
authenticity  or  spuriousness  of  the  production :  2.  The 
history  of  the  period,  with  which  every  genuine  ora- 
tion must  necessarily  concur :  3.  The  genius  and  man- 
ner of  Cicero,  from  which  no  one  of  his  orations  could 
be  entirely  remote :  4.  The  style  and  phraseology, 
which  must  be  correct  and  classical.  In  the  prosecu- 
tion of  his  inquiry  in  these  different  aspects  of  the 

guage  the  two  wretched  orations,  Post  Reditum,  and  Ad  Quirites, 
insisting  on  the  legitimacy  of  both,  and  enlarging  on  their  truly 
classical  beauties  !  In  his  Preface,  he  has  pleasantly  enough  pa- 
rodied the  arguments  of  Wolf  against  the  oration  for  Marcellus, 
ironically  showing  that  they  came  not  from  that  great  scholar,  but 
from  a  pseudo  Wolf,  who  had  assumed  his  name. 


316  CICERO. 

subject,  the  author  successively  reviews  the  opinions 
and  judgments  of  his  predecessors,  sometimes  agree- 
ing with  Wolf  and  his  followers,  at  other  times,  and 
more  frequently,  with  their  opposers.  He  thinks  that 
the  much-contested  phrase, pluribus  verbis,  may  mean 
a  long  oration,  as  Cicero  elsewhere  talks  of  having 
pleaded  for  Cluentius,  pluribus  verbis,  though  the 
speech  in  his  defence  consists  of  58  chapters.  Besides, 
Cicero  only  says  that  he  had  returned  thanks  to  Csesar, 
pluribus  verbis.  Now,  the  whole  speech  does  not  con- 
sist of  thanks  to  Caesar,  being  partly  occupied  in  re- 
moving the  suspicions  which  he  entertained  of  Mar- 
cellus.  With  regard  to  the  encomiums  on  Csesar, 
which  Spalding  has  characterized  as  abject  and  ful- 
some, and  totally  different  from  the  delicate  compli- 
ments addressed  to  him  in  the  oration  for  Deiotarus 
or  Ligarius,  Jacob  reminds  his  readers  that  the  ha- 
rangues could  have  no  resemblance  to  each  other,  the 
latter  being  pleadings  in  behalf  of  the  accused,  and 
the  former  a  professed  panegyric.  Nor  can  any  one 
esteem  the  eulogies  on  Caesar  too  extravagant  for  Ci- 
cero, when  he  remembers  the  terms  in  which  the  orator 
had  formerly  spoken  of  Roscius,  Archias,  and  Pom- 
pey. 

Schutz,  the  late  German  editor  of  Cicero,  has  sub- 
scribed to  the  opinion  of  Wolf,  and  has  published  the 
speech  for  Marcellus,  along  with  the  other  four  doubt- 
ful harangues  at  the  end  of  the  genuine  orations. 

But  supposing  that  these  five  contested  speeches 
are  spurious,  a  sufficient  number  of  genuine  orations 
remain  to  enable  us  to  distinguish  the  character  of 


CICERO.  317 

Cicero's  eloquence.  Ambitious  from  his  youth  of  the 
honours  attending  a  fine  speaker,  he  early  travelled  to 
Greece,  where  he  accumulated  all  the  stores  of  know- 
ledge and  rules  of  art,  which  could  be  gathered  from 
the  rhetoricians,  historians,  and  philosophers,  of  that 
intellectual  land.  While  he  thus  extracted  and  im- 
bibed the  copiousness  of  Plato,  the  sweetness  of  Iso- 
crates,  and  force  of  Demosthenes,  he,  at  the  same  time, 
imbued  his  mind  with  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the 
laws,  constitution,  antiquities,  and  literature,  of  his 
native  country.  Nor  did  he  less  study  the  peculiar 
temper,  the  jealousies,  and  enmities  of  the  Roman  peo- 
ple, both  as  a  nation  and  as  individuals,  without  a 
knowledge  of  which,  his  eloquence  would  have  been 
unavailing  in  the  Forum  or  Comitia,  where  so  much 
was  decided  by  favouritism  and  cabal.  By  these 
means,  he  ruled  the  passions  and  deliberations  of  his 
countrymen  with  almost  resistless  sway — upheld  the 
power  of  the  Senate — stayed  the  progress  of  tyranny 
— drove  the  audacious  Catiline  from  Rome — directed 
the  feelings  of  the  state  in  favour  of  Pompey — shook 
the  strong  mind  of  Caesar — and  kindled  a  flame  by 
which  Antony  had  been  nearly  consumed.  But  the 
main  secret  of  his  success  lay  in  the  warmth  and  in- 
tensity of  his  feelings.  His  heart  swelled  with  pa- 
triotism, and  was  dilated  with  the  most  magnificent 
conceptions  of  the  glory  of  Rome.  Though  it  throb- 
bed with  the  fondest  anticipations  of  posthumous  fame, 
the  momentary  acclaim  of  a  multitude  was  a  chord 
to  which  it  daily  and  most  readily  vibrated ;  while, 
at  the  same  time,  his  high  conceptions  of  oratory 


318  ciceko. 

counteracted  the  bad  effect  which  this  exuberant  va- 
nity might  otherwise  have  produced.  Thus,  when  two 
speakers  were  employed  in  the  same  cause,  though 
Cicero  was  the  junior,  to  him  was  assigned  the  perora- 
tion, in  which  he  surpassed  all  his  contemporaries ; 
and  he  obtained  this  pre-eminence  not  so  much  on  ac- 
count of  his  superior  genius  or  knowledge  of  law,  as  be- 
cause he  was.  more  moved  and  affected  himself,  without 
which  he  would  never  have  moved  or  affected  his  judges. 

With  such  natural  endowments,  and  such  acquire- 
ments, he  early  took  his  place  as  the  refuge  and  sup- 
port of  his  fellow-citizens  in  the  Forum,  as  the  arbi- 
ter of  the  deliberations  of  the  Senate,  and  as  the  most 
powerful  defender  from  the  Rostrum  of  the  political 
interests  of  the  commonwealth. 

Cicero  and  Demosthenes  have  been  frequently  com- 
pared. Suidas  says,  that  one  Cicilus,  a  native  of  Sicily, 
whose  works  are  now  lost,  was  the  first  to  institute  the 
parallel,  and  they  have  been  subsequently  compared, 
in  due  form,  by  Plutarch  and  Quintilian,  and,  (as  far 
as  relates  to  sublimity,)  by  Longinus,  among  the  an- 
cients ;  and  among  the  moderns,  by  Herder,  in  his 
Philosophical  History  of  Man,  and  by  Jenisch,  in  a 
German  work  devoted  to  the  subject.1  Rapin,  and  all 
other  French  critics,  with  the  exception  of  Fenelon, 
give  the  preference  to  Cicero. 

From  what  has  already  been  said,  it  is  sufficiently 
evident  that  Cicero  had  not  to  contend  with  any  of 
those  obstructions  from  nature  which  Demosthenes 
encountered  ;  and  his  youth,  in  place  of  being  spent 

1  Paral.  der  Bcyden  Groslcn  Rcdncr  des  AUkerthums. 


CICERO.  319 

like  that  of  the  Greek  orator,  in  remedying  and  sup- 
plying defects,  was  unceasingly  employed  in  pursuit 
of  the  improvements  auxiliary  to  his  art.  But  if  Cicero 
derived  superior  advantages  from  nature,  Demosthenes 
possessed  other  advantages,  in  the  more  advanced  pro- 
gress of  his  country  in  refinement  and  letters,  at  the 
era  in  which  he  appeared.  Greek  literature  had  reach- 
ed its  full  perfection  before  the  birth  of  Demosthenes, 
but  Cicero  was,  in  a  great  measure,  himself  the  crea- 
tor of  the  literature  of  Rome,  and  no  prose  writer  of 
eminence  had  yet  existed,  after  whom  he  could  model 
his  phraseology.  In  other  external  circumstances,  they 
were  placed  in  situations  not  very  dissimilar.  But 
Cicero  had  a  wider,  and  perhaps  more  beautiful  field, 
in  which  to  expatiate  and  to  exercise  his  powers.  The 
wide  extent  of  the  Roman  empire,  the  striking  virtues 
and  vices  of  its  citizens,  the  memorable  events  of  its 
history,  supplied  an  endless  variety  of  great  and  in- 
teresting topics  ;  whereas  many  of  the  orations  of  De- 
mosthenes are  on  subjects  unworthy  of  his  talents. 
Their  genius  and  capacity  were  in  many  respects  the 
same.  Their  eloquence  was  of  that  great  and  com- 
prehensive kind,  which  dignifies  every  subject,  and 
gives  it  all  the  force  and  beauty  it  is  capable  of  recei- 
ving. "  I  judge  Cicero  and  Demosthenes,"  says 
Quintilian,  "  to  be  alike  in  most  of  the  great  qualities 
they  possessed.  They  were  alike  in  design,  in  the 
manner  of  dividing  their  subject,  and  preparing  the 
minds  of  the  audience ;  in  short,  in  everything  be- 
longing to  invention."     But  while  there  was  much 


320  ciCEiio. 

similarity  in  their  talents,  there  was  a  wide  difference 
in  their  tempers  and  characters.  Demosthenes  was  of 
an  austere,  harsh,  melancholy  disposition,  obstinate 
and  resolute  in  all  his  undertakings :  Cicero  was  of  a 
lively,  flexible,  and  wavering  humour.  This  seems  the 
chief  cause  of  the  difference  in  their  eloquence  ;  but 
the  contrasts  are  too  obvious,  and  have  been  too  often 
exhibited  to  be  here  displayed.  No  person  wishes  to 
be  told,  for  the  twentieth  time,  that  Demosthenes 
assumes  a  higher  tone,  and  is  more  serious,  vehement, 
and  impressive,  than  Cicero  ;  while  Cicero  is  more  in- 
sinuating, graceful,  and  affecting :  That  the  Greek 
orator  struck  on  the  soul  by  the  force  of  his  argument, 
and  ardour  of  his  expressions  ;  while  the  Roman  made 
his  way  to  the  heart,  alternately  moving  and  allaying 
the  passions  of  his  hearers,  by  all  the  arts  of  rhetoric, 
and  by  conforming  lo  their  opinions  and  prejudices. 

Cicero  was  not  only  a  great  orator,  but  has  also  left 
the  fullest  instructions  and  the  most  complete  histori- 
cal details  on  the  art  which  he  so  gloriously  practised. 
His  precepts  are  contained  in  the  dialogue  JDe  Ora- 
tore  and  the  Orator ;  while  the  history  of  Roman 
eloquence  is  comprehended  in  the  dialogue  entitled, 
Brutus,  sive  JDe  Claris  Oratoribus. 

In  his  youth,  Cicero  had  written  and  published 
some  undigested  observations  on  the  subject  of  elo- 
quence ;  but  considering  these  as  unworthy  of  the  cha- 
racter and  experience  he  afterwards  acquired,  he  ap- 
plied himself  to  write  a  treatise  on  the  art  which  might 


CICERO.  321 

be  more  commensurate  to  his  matured  talents.     He 
himself  mentions  several  Sicilians  and  Greeks,  who 
had  written  on  oratory.1    But  the  models  he  chiefly 
followed,  were  Aristotle,  in  his  books  of  rhetoric  ;2  and 
Isocrates,  the  whole  of  whose  theories  and  precepts  he 
has  comprehended  in  his  rhetorical  works.     He  has 
thrown  his  ideas  on  the  subject  into  the  form  of  dia- 
logue or  conference,  a  species  of  composition,  which, 
however  much  employed  by  the  Greeks,  had  not  hi- 
therto been  attempted  at  Rome.     This  mode  of  wri- 
ting presented  many  advantages  :  By  adopting  it  he 
avoided  that  dogmatical  air,  which  a  treatise  from  him 
on  such  a  subject  would  necessarily  have  worn,  and 
was  enabled  to  instruct  without  dictating  rules.    Dia- 
logue, too,  relieved  monotony  of  style,  by  affording  op- 
portunity of  varying  it  according  to  the  characters  of  the 
different  speakers — it  tempered  the  austerity  of  pre- 
cept by  the  cheerfulness  of  conversation,  and  developed 
each  opinion  with  the  vivacity  and  fulness  naturally 
employed  in  the  oral  discussion  of  a  favourite  topic. 
Add  to  this,  the  facility  which  it  presented  of  paying 
an  acceptable  compliment  to  the  friends  who  were  in- 
troduced as  interlocutors,  and  its  susceptibility  of  agree- 
able description  of  the  scenes  in  which  the  persons  of 
the  dialogue  were  placed — a  species  of  embellishment, 
for  which  ample  scope  was  afforded  by  the  numerous  vil- 
las of  Cicero,  situated  in  the  most  beautiful  spots  of  Ita- 
ly, and  in  every  variety  of  landscape,  from  the  Alban 
heights  to  the  shady  banks  of  the  Liris,  or  glittering 
shore  of  Baiae.  As  a  method  of  communicating  know- 

1  Brutus,  c.  12,  &c.         2  Epist.  Famil.  Lib.  I.  Ep.  9. 
VOL.  II.  X 


322  ciCEito. 

ledge,  however,  (except  in  discussions  which  are  ex- 
tremely simple,  and  susceptible  of  much  delineation 
of  character,)  the  mode  of  dialogue  is,  in  many  respects, 
extremely  inconvenient.  "  By  the  interruptions  which 
are  given,"  says  the  author  of  the  Life  of  Tasso,  in 
his  remarks  on  the  dialogues  of  that  poet, — "  By  the 
interruptions  which  are  given,  if  a  dialogue  be  at  all 
dramatic — by  the  preparations  and  transitions,  order 
and  precision  must,  in  a  great  degree,  be  sacrificed.  In 
reasoning,  as  much  brevity  must  be  used  as  is  consist- 
ent with  perspicuity  ;  but  in  dialogue,  so  much  ver- 
biage must  be  'employed,  that  the  scope  of  the  argu- 
ment is  generally  lost.  The  replies,  too,  to  the  ob- 
jections of  the  opponent,  seem  rather  arguments  ad 
hominem,  than  possessed  of  the  value  of  abstract 
truth  ;  so  that  the  reader  is  perplexed  and  bewildered, 
and  concludes  the  inquiry,  beholding  one  of  the  cha- 
racters puzzled,  indeed,  and  perhaps  subdued,  but  not 
at  all  satisfied  that  the  battle  might  not  have  been 
better  fought,  and  more  victorious  arguments  ad- 
duced." 

The  dialogue  De  Oratore  was  written  in  the  year 
698,  when  Cicero,  disgusted  with  the  political  dissen- 
sions of  the  capital,  had  retired,  during  part  of  the 
summer,  to  the  country  :  But,  according  to  the  sup- 
position of  the  piece,  the  dialogue  occurred  in  662. 
The  author  addresses  it  to  his  brother  in  a  dedication, 
strongly  expressive  of  his  fondness  for  study ;  and, 
after  some  general  observations  on  the  difficulty  of  the 
oratoric  art,  and  the  numerous  accomplishments  re- 
quisite to  form  a  complete  orator,  he  introduces  his 


cicero.  323 

dialogue,  or  rather  the  three  dialogues,  of  which  the 
performance  consists.  Dialogue  writing  may  be  exe- 
cuted either  as  direct  conversation,  in  which  none  but 
the  speakers  appear,  and  where,  as  in  the  scenes  of  a 
play,  no  information  is  afforded,  except  from  what  the 
persons  of  the  drama  say  to  each  other ;  or  as  the  re- 
cital of  the  conversation,  where  the  author  himself  ap- 
pears, and  after  a  preliminary  detail  concerning  the 
persons  of  the  dialogue,  and  the  circumstances  of  time 
and  place  in  which  it  was  held,  proceeds  to  give 
an  account  of  what  passed  in  the  discourse  at  which 
he  had  himself  been  present,  or  the  import  of  which 
was  communicated  to  him  by  some  one  who  had 
attended  and  borne  his  part  in  the  conference.  It  is 
this  latter  method  that  has  been  followed  by  Cicero, 
in  his  dialogues  De  Oratore.  He  mentions  in  his 
own.  person,  that  during  the  celebration  of  certain  fes- 
tivals at  Rome,  the  orator  Crassus  retired  to  his  villa 
at  Tusculum,  one  of  the  most  delightful  retreats  in 
Italy,  whither  he  was  accompanied  by  Antony,  his 
most  intimate  friend  in  private  life,  but  most  formi- 
dable rival  in  the  Forum ;  and  by  his  father-in-law, 
Scaevola,  who  was  the  greatest  jurisconsult  of  his  age, 
and  whose  house  in  the  city  was  resorted  to  as  an 
oracle,  by  men  of  the  highest  rank  and  dignity.  Cras- 
sus was  also  attended  by  Cotta  and  Sulpicius,  at  that 
time  the  two  most  promising  orators  of  Rome,  the 
former  of  whom  afterwards  related  to  Cicero  (for  the 
author  is  not  supposed  to  be  personally  present)  the 
conversation  which  passed  among  these  distinguished 
men,  as  they  reclined  on  the  benches  under  a  plane- 


324  CICERO. 

tree,  that  grew  on  one  of  the  walks  surrounding  the 
villa.  It  is  not  improbable,  that  some  such  conversation 
may  have  been  actual lly  held,  and  that  Cicero,  not- 
withstanding his  age,  and  the  authority  derived  from 
his  rhetorical  reputation,  may  have  chosen  to  avail 
himself  of  the  circumstance,  in  order  to  shelter  his 
opinions  under  those  of  two  ancient  masters,  who,  pre- 
viously to  his  own  time,  were  regarded  as  the  chief 
organs  of  Roman  eloquence. 

Crassus,  in  order  to  dissipate  the  gloom  which  had 
been  occasioned  by  a  serious,  and  even  melancholy  con- 
versation, on  the  situation  of  public  affairs,  turned  the 
discourse  on  oratory.  The  sentiments  which  he  ex- 
presses on  this  subject,  are  supposed  to  be  those  which 
Cicero  himself  entertained.  In  order  to  excite  the  two 
young  men,  Cotta  and  Sulpicius,  to  prosecute  with 
ardour  the  career  they  had  so  successfully  commenced, 
he  first  enlarges  on  the  utility  and  excellence  of  ora- 
tory ;  and  then,  proceeding  to  the  object  which  he  had 
principally  in  view,  he  contends  that  an  almost  uni- 
versal knowledge  is  essentially  requisite  to  perfection 
in  this  noble  art.  He  afterwards  enumerates  those 
branches  of  knowledge  which  the  orator  should  acquire, 
and  the  purposes  to  which  he  should  apply  them  :  he 
inculcates  the  necessity  of  an  acquaintance  with  the 
antiquities,  manners,  and  constitution  of  the  republic 
—the  constant  exercise  of  written  composition — the 
study  of  gesture  at  the  theatre — the  translation  of  the 
Greek  orators — reading  and  commenting  on  the  phi- 
losophers, reading  and  criticizing  the  poets.  The  ques- 
tion hence  arises,  whether  a  knowledge  of  the  civil  law 


cicero.  325 

be  serviceable  to  the  orator  ?  Crassus  attempts  to  prove 
its  utility  from  various  examples  of  cases,  where  its 
principles  required  to  be  elucidated ;  as  also  from  the 
intrinsic  nobleness  of  the  study  itself,  and  the  superior 
excellence  of  the  Roman  law  to  all  other  systems  of 
jurisprudence.  Antony,  who  was  a  mere  practical 
pleader,  considered  philosophy  and  civil  law  as  useless 
to  the  orator,  being  foreign  to  the  real  business  of  life. 
He  conceived  that  eloquence  might  subsist  without 
them,  andthat  with  regard  to  the  other  accomplishments 
enumerated  by  Crassus,  they  were  totally  distinct  from 
the  proper  office  and  duty  of  a  public  speaker.  It  is 
accordingly  agreed,  that  on  the  following  day  Antony 
should  state  his  notions  of  the  acquirements  appropri- 
ate to  an  orator.  Previous  to  the  commencement  of 
the  second  conversation,  the  party  is  joined  by  Catulus 
and  Julius  Caesar,  (grand-uncle  to  the  Dictator,)  two 
of  the  most  eminent  orators  of  the  time,  the  former 
being  distinguished  by  his  elegance  and  purity  of  dic- 
tion, the  latter  by  his  turn  for  pleasantry.  Having  met 
Scaevola,  on  his  way  from  Tusculum  to  the  villa  of  Lse- 
lius,  and  having  heard  from  him  of  the  interesting  con- 
versation which  had  been  held,  the  remainder  of  which 
had  been  deferred  till  the  morrow,  they  came  over  from 
a  neighbouring  villa  to  partake  of  the  instruction  and 
entertainment.  In  their  presence,  and  in  that  of  Cras- 
sus, Antony  maintains  his  favourite  system,  that  elo- 
quence is  not  an  art,  because  it  depends  not  on  know- 
ledge. Imitation  of  good  models,  practice,  and  minute 
attention  to  each  particular  case,  which  should  be 
scrupulously  examined  in  all  its  bearings,  are  laid  down 


326  CICERO. 

by  him  as  the  foundations  of  forensic  eloquence.  The 
great  objects  of  an  orator  being,  in  the  first  place,  to 
recommend  himself  to  his  clients,  and  then  to  prepos- 
sess the  audience  and  judges  in  their  favour,  Antony 
enlarges  on  the  practice  of  the  bar,  in  conciliating,  in- 
forming, moving,  and  undeceiving  those  on  whom  the 
decision  of  causes  depends  ;  all  which  is  copiously  il- 
lustrated by  examples  drawn  from  particular  questions, 
which  had  occurred  at  Rome  in  cases  of  proof,  strict 
law,  or  equity.    The  chief  weight  and  importance  is 
attributed  to  moving  the  springs  of  the  passions. 
Among  the  methods  of  conciliation  and  prepossession, 
humour  and  drollery  are  particularly  mentioned.  Cas- 
sar  being  the  oratorical  wit  of  the  party,  is  requested 
to  give  some  examples  of  forensic  jests.   Those  he  af- 
fords are  for  the  most  part  wretched  quibbles,  or  per- 
sonal reflections  on  the  opposite  parties,  and  their  wit- 
nesses.    The  length  of  the  dissertation,  however,  on 
this  topic,  shows  the  important  share  it  was  consider- 
ed as  occupying  among  the  qualifications  of  the  ancient 
orator. 

Antony  having  thus  explained  the  mechanical  part 
of  the  orator's  duty,  it  is  agreed,  that  in  the  afternoon 
Crassus  should  enter  on  the  embellishments  of  rheto- 
ric. In  the  execution  of  the  task  assigned  him,  he 
treats  of  all  that  relates  to  what  may  be  called  the  or- 
namental part  of  oratory — pronunciation,  elocution, 
harmony  of  periods,  metaphors,  sentiments,  action, 
(which  he  terms  the  predominant  power  in  eloquence,) 
expression  of  countenance,  modulation  of  voice,  and 


CICERO.  327 

all  those  properties  which  impart  a  finished  grace  and 
dignity  to  a  public  discourse. 

Cicero  himself  highly  approved  of  this  treatise  on 
Oratory,  and  his  friends  regarded  it  as  one  of  his  best 
productions.  The  style  of  the  dialogue  is  copious, 
without  being  redundant,  as  is  sometimes  the  case  in 
the  orations.  It  is  admirable  for  the  diversity  of  cha- 
racter in  the  speakers,  the  general  conduct  of  the  piece, 
and  the  variety  of  matter  it  contains.  It  comprehends, 
I  believe,  everything  valuable  in  the  Greek  works  on 
rhetoric,  and  also  many  excellent  observations,  sug- 
gested by  the  author's  long  experience,  acquired  in  the 
numerous  causes,  both  public  and  private,  which  he 
conducted  in  the  Forum,  and  the  important  discussions 
in  which  he  swayed  the  counsels  of  the  Senate.  As  a 
composition,  however,  I  cannot  consider  the  dialogue 
De  Oratore  altogether  faultless.  It  is  too  little  dra- 
matic for  a  dialogue,  and  occasionally  it  expands  into 
continued  dissertation ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  by 
adopting  the  form  of  dialogue,  a  rambling  and  desul- 
tory effect  is  produced  in  the  discussion  of  a  subject, 
where,  of  all  others,  method  and  close  connection  were 
most  desirable.  There  is  also  frequently  an  assumed 
liveliness  of  manner,  which  seems  forced  and  affected 
in  these  grave  and  consular  orators. 

The  dialogue  entitled  Brutus,  sive  De  Claris  Ora- 
toribus,  was  written,  and  is  also  feigned  to  have  taken 
place,  after  Caesar  had  attained  to  sovereign  power, 
though  he  was  still  engaged  in  the  war  against  Scipio 
in  Africa.  The  conference  is  supposed  to  be  held 
among  Cicero,  Atticus,  and  Brutus,  (from  whom  it 


328  CICERO. 

has  received  its  name,)  near  a  statue  of  Plato,  which 
stood  in  the  pleasure-grounds  of  Cicero's  mansion,  at 
Rome. 

Brutus  having  experienced  the  clemency  of  the  con- 
queror, whom  he  afterwards  sacrificed,  left  Italy,  in 
order  to  amuse  himself  with  an  agreeable  tour  through 
the  cities  of  Greece  and  Asia.  In  a  few  months  he  re- 
turned to  Rome,  resigned  himself  to  the  calm  studies 
of  history  and  rhetoric,  and  passed  many  of  his  leisure 
hours  in  the  society  of  Cicero  and  Atticus.  The  first 
part  of  the  dialogue,  among  these  three  friends,  con- 
tains a  few  slight,  but  masterly  sketches,  of  the  most 
celebrated  speakers  who  had  flourished  in  Greece ;  but 
these  are  not  so  much  mentioned  with  an  historical  de- 
sign, as  to  support  by  examples  the  author's  favourite 
proposition,  that  perfection  in  oratory  requires  profi- 
ciency in  all  the  arts.  The  dialogue  is  chiefly  occupied 
with  details  concerning  Roman  orators,  from  the  ear- 
liest ages  to  Cicero's  own  time.  He  first  mentions 
such  speakers  as  Appius  Claudius  and  Fabricius,  of 
whom  he  knew  nothing  certain,  whose  harangues  had 
never  been  committed  to  writing,  or  were  no  longer 
extant,  and  concerning  whose  powers  of  eloquence  he 
could  only  derive  conjectures,  from  the  effects  which 
they  produced  on  the  people  and  Senate,  as  recorded 
in  the  ancient  annals.  The  second  class  of  orators  are 
those,  like  Cato  the  Censor,  and  the  Gracchi,  whose 
speeches  still  survived,  or  of  whom  he  could  speak  tra- 
ditionally, from  the  report  of  persons  still  living  who 
had  heard  them.  A  great  deal  of  what  is  said  concern- 
ing this  set  of  orators,  rests  on  the  authority  of  Hor- 


CICERO.  329 

tensius,  from  whom  Cicero  derived  his  information.1 
The  third  class  are  the  deceased  contemporaries  of  the 
author,  whom  he  had  himself  seen  and  heard ;  and  he 
only  departs  from  his  rule  of  mentioning  no  living 
orator  at  the  special  request  of  Brutus,  who  expresses 
an  anxiety  to  learn  his  opinion  of  the  merits  of  Mar- 
cellus  and  Julius  Caesar.  Towards  the  conclusion,  he 
gives  some  account  of  his  own  rise  and  progress,  of 
the  education  he  had  received,  and  the  various  me- 
thods which  he  had  practised  in  order  to  reach  those 
heights  of  eloquence  he  had  attained. 

This  work  is  certainly  of  the  greatest  service  to  the 
history  of  Roman  eloquence ;  and  it  likewise  throws 
considerable  light  on  the  civil  transactions  of  the  re- 
public, as  the  author  generally  touches  on  the  princi- 
pal incidents  in  the  lives  of  those  eminent  orators 
whom  he  mentions.  It  also  gives  additional  weight 
and  authority  to  the  oratorical  precepts  contained  in 
his  other  works,  since  it  shows,  that  they  were  found- 
ed, not  on  any  speculative  theories,  but  on  a  minute 
observation  of  the  actual  faults  and  excellencies  of  the 
most  renowned  speakers  of  his  age.  Yet,  with  all  these 
advantages,  it  is  not  so  entertaining  as  might  be  ex- 
pected. The  author  mentions  too  many  orators,  and 
says  too  little  of  each,  which  gives  his  treatise  the  ap- 
pearance rather  of  a  dry  catalogue,  than  of  a  literary 
essay,  or  agreeable  dialogue.  He  acknowledges,  in- 
deed, in  the  course  of  it,  that  he  had  inserted  in  his 
list  of  orators  many  who  possessed  little  claim  to  that 

1  Epist.  ad  Attic.  Lib.  XII.  Ep.  5,  &c. 


330  CICERO. 

appellation,  since  he  designed  to  give  an  account  of  all 
the  Romans,  without  exception,  who  had  made  it  their 
study  to  excel  in  the  arts  of  eloquence. 

The  Orator,  addressed  to  Brutus,  and  written  at 
his  solicitation,  was  intended  to  complete  the  subjects 
examined  in  the  dialogues,  De  Oratore,  and  De  Cla- 
ris Oratoribus.  It  contains  the  description  of  what 
Cicero  conceived  necessary  to  form  a  perfect  orator, — 
a  character  which,  indeed,  nowhere  existed,  but  of 
which  he  had  formed  the  idea  in  his  own  imagination. 
He  admits,  that  Attic  eloquence  approached  the  near- 
est to  perfection ;  he  pauses,  however,  to  correct  a 
prevailing  error,  that  the  only  genuine  Atticism  is  a 
correct,  plain,  and  slender  discourse,  distinguished  by 
purity  of  style,  and  delicacy  of  taste,  but  void  of  all 
ornament  and  redundance.  In  the  time  of  Cicero, 
there  was  a  class  of  orators,  including  several  men  of 
parts  and  learning,  and  of  the  first  quality,  who,  while 
they  acknowledged  the  superiority  of  his  genius,  yet 
censured  his  diction  as  not  truly  Attic,  some  calling 
it  loose  and  languid,  others  tumid  and  exuberant. 
These  speakers  affected  a  minute  and  fastidious  cor- 
rectness, pointed  sentences,  short  and  concise  pe- 
riods, without  a  syllable  to  spare  in  them — as  if  the 
perfection  of  oratory  consisted  in  frugality  of  words, 
and  the  crowding  of  sentiments  into  the  narrowest 
possible  compass.  The  chief  patrons  of  this  taste 
were  Brutus  and  Licinius  Calvus.  Cicero,  while 
he  admitted  that  correctness  was  essential  to  elo- 
quence, contended,  that  a  nervous,  copious,  animated, 
and  even  ornate  style,  may  be  truly  Attic ;  since, 


CICERO.  331 

otherwise,  Lysias  would  be  the  only  Attic  orator,  to 
the  exclusion  of  Isocrates,  and  even  Demosthenes 
himself.  He  accordingly  opposed  the  system  of  these 
ultra- Attic  orators,  whom  he  represents  as  often  de- 
serted in  the  midst  of  their  harangues ;  for  although 
their  style  of  rhetoric  might  please  the  ear  of  a  critic, 
it  was  not  of  that  sublime,  pathetic,  or  sonorous  spe- 
cies, of  which  the  end  was  not  only  to  instruct,  but  to 
move  an  audience, — whose  excitement  and  admiration 
form  the  true  criterions  of  eloquence. 

The  remainder  of  the  treatise  is  occupied  with  the 
three  things  to  be  attended  to  by  an  orator, — what  he 
is  to  say,  in  what  order  his  topics  are  to  be  arranged, 
and  how  they  are  to  be  expressed.  In  discussing  the 
last  point,  the  author  enters  very  fully  into  the  collo- 
cation of  words,  and  that  measured  cadence,  which,  to 
a  certain  extent,  prevails  even  in  prose ; — a  subject 
on  which  Brutus  wished  particularly  to  be  instructed, 
and  which  he  accordingly  treats  in  detail. 

This  tract  is  rather  confusedly  arranged  ;  and  the 
dissertation  on  prosaic  harmony,  though  curious,  ap- 
pears to  us  somewhat  too  minute  in  its  object  for 
the  attention  of  an  orator.  Cicero,  however,  set  a  high 
value  on  this  production  ;  and,  in  a  letter  to  Lepta, 
he  declares,  that  whatever  judgment  he  possessed  on 
the  subject  of  oratory,  he  had  thrown  it  all  into  that 
work,  and  was  ready  to  stake  his  reputation  on  its 
merits.1 

The  Topica  may  also  be  considered  as  another  work 
on  the  subject  of  rhetoric.  Aristotle,  as  is  well  known, 

1  Epist.  Famil.  Lib.  VI.  Ep.  18. 


332  cicero. 

wrote  a  book  with  this  title.  The  lawyer,  Caius  Tre- 
batius,  a  friend  of  Cicero,  being  curious  to  know  the 
contents  and  import  of  the  Greek  work,  which  he  had 
accidentally  seen  in  Cicero's  Tusculan  library,  but  being 
deterred  from  its  study  by  the  obscurity  of  the  writer, 
(though  it  certainly  is  not  one  of  the  most  difficult  of 
Aristotle's  productions,)  requested  Cicero  to  draw  up 
this  extract,  or  commentary,  in  order  to  explain  the 
various  topics,  or  common-places,  which  are  the  foun- 
dation of  rhetorical  argument.  Of  this  request  Cicero 
was  some  time  afterwards  reminded  by  the  view  of 
Velia,  (the  marine  villa  of  Trebatius,)  during  a  coast- 
ing voyage  which  he  undertook,  with  the  intention  of 
retiring  to  Greece,  in  consequence  of  the  troubles 
which  followed  the  death  of  Caesar.  Though  he  had 
neither  Aristotle  nor  any  other  book  at  hand  to  assist 
him,  he  drew  it  up  from  memory  as  he  sailed  along, 
and  finished  it  before  he  arrived  at  Rhegium,  whence 
he  sent  it  to  Trebatius.1 

This  treatise  shows,  that  Cicero  had  most  diligently 
studied  Aristotle's  Topics.  It  is  not,  however,  a  trans- 
lation, but  an  extract  or  explanation  of  that  work ; 
and,  as  it  was  addressed  to  a  lawyer,  he  has  taken  his 
examples  chiefly  from  the  civil  law  of  the  Romans, 
which  he  conceived  Trebatius  would  understand  better 
than  illustrations  drawn,  like  those  of  Aristotle,  from 
the  philosophy  of  the  Greeks. 

It  is  impossible  sufficiently  to  admire  Cicero's  in- 
dustry and  love  of  letters,  which  neither  the  inconve- 
niences of  a  sea  voyage,  which  he  always  disliked,  nor 

1  Epist.  Famil  Lib.  VII.  Ep.  19. 


cicero.  333 

the  harassing  thoughts  of  leaving  Italy  at  such  a  con- 
juncture, could  divert  from  the  calm  and  regular  pur- 
suit of  his  favourite  studies. 

The  work  De  Partitione  Rhetoricd,  is  written  in 
the  form  of  a  dialogue  between  Cicero  and  his  son  ;  the 
former  replying  to  the  questions  of  the  latter  concern- 
ing the  principles  and  doctrine  of  eloquence.  The 
tract  now  entitled  De  Optimo  genere  Oratorum,  was 
originally  intended  as  a  preface  to  a  translation  which 
Cicero  had  made  from  the  orations  of  iEschines  and 
Demosthenes  in  the  case  of  Ctesipho,  in  which  an  ab- 
surd and  trifling  matter  of ceremony  hasbecome  the  basis 
of  an  immortal  controversy.  In  this  preface  he  reverts 
to  the  topic  on  which  he  had  touched  in  the  Orator 
— the  mistake  which  prevailed  in  Rome,  that  Attic 
eloquence  was  limited  to  that  accurate,  dry,  and  sub- 
tle manner  of  expression,,  adopted  in  the  orations  of 
Lysias.  It  was  to  correct  this  error,  that  Cicero  un- 
dertook a  free  translation  of  the  two  master-pieces  of 
Athenian  eloquence ;  the  one  being  an  example  of 
vehement  and  energetic,  the  other  of  pathetic  and 
ornamental  oratory.  It  is  probable  that  Cicero  was 
prompted  to  these  repeated  inquiries  concerning  the 
genuine  character  of  Attic  eloquence,  from  the  reproach 
frequently  cast  on  his  own  discourses  by  Brutus,  Cal- 
vus,  and  other  sterile,  but,  as  they  supposed  themselves, 
truly  Attic  orators,  that  his  harangues  were  not  in  the 
Greek,  but  rather  in  the  Asiatic  taste, — that  is,  nerve- 
less, florid,  and  redundant. 

It  appears,  that  in  Rome,  as  well  as  in  Greece,  oratory 
was  generally  considered  as  divided  into  three  different 


3f34  cicero. 

styles — the  Attic,  Asiatic,  and  Rhodian.  Quintilian, 
at  least,  so  classes  the  various  sorts  of  oratory  in  a  pas- 
sage, in  which  he  also  shortly  characterizes  them  by  those 
attributes  from  which  they  were  chiefly  distinguishable. 
"  Mihi  autem,"  says  he,  "  orationis  differentiam  fecisse 
et  dicentium  etaudientium  naturae  videntur,quod^4#«- 
ci  limati  quidem  et  emuncti  nihil  inane  aut  redundans 
ferebant.  Asiana  gens,  tumidior  alioquin  et  jactan- 
tior,  vaniore  etiam  dicendi  gloria  inflata  est.  Tertium 
mox  qui  hsec  dividebant  adjecerunt  genus  Rhodium, 
quod  velut  medium  esse,  atque  ex  utroque  mixtum  vo- 
lunt."1  Brutus  and  Licinius  Calvus,  as  we  have  seen, 
affected  the  slender,  polished,  and  somewhat  barren 
conciseness  of  Attic  eloquence.  The  speeches  of  Hor- 
tensius,  and  a  few  of  Cicero's  earlier  harangues,  as 
that  for  Sextus  Roscius,  afforded  examples  of  the 
copious,  florid,  and  sometimes  tumid  style  of  Asiatic 
oratory.  The  later  orations  of  Cicero,  refined  by  his 
study  and  experience,  were,  I  presume,  nearly  in 
the  Rhodian  taste.  That  celebrated  school  of  elo- 
quence had  been  founded  by  iEschines,  the  rival  of 
Demosthenes,  when,  being  banished  from  his  native 
city  by  the  influence  of  his  competitor,  he  had  retired 
to  the  island  of  Rhodes.  Inferior  to  Demosthenes  in 
power  of  argument  and  force  of  expression,  he  sur- 
passed him  in  copiousness  and  ornament.  The  school 
which  he  founded,  and  which  subsisted  for  centuries 
after  his  death,  admitted  not  the  luxuries  of  Asiatic 
diction  ;  and  although  the  most  ornamental  of  Greece, 
continued  ever  true  to  the  principles  of  its  great  Athe- 

1  Inst.  Orat.  Lib.  XII.  c  10. 


ciceiio.  ,         335 

nian  master.  A  chief  part  of  the  two  years  during  which 
Cicero  travelled  in  Greece  and  Asia  was  spent  at 
Rhodes,  and  his  principal  teacher  of  eloquence  at  Rome 
was  Molo  the  Rhodian,  from  whom  he  likewise  after- 
wards received  lessons  at  Rhodes.  The  great  difficulty 
which  that  rhetorician  encountered  in  the  instruction 
of  his  promising  disciple,  was,  as  Cicero  himself  in- 
forms us,  the  effort  of  containing  within  its  due  and 
proper  channel  the  overflowings  of  a  youthful  imagi- 
nation.1 Cicero's  natural  fecundity,  and  the  bent  of 
his  own  inclination,  preserved  him  from  the  risk  of 
dwindling  into  ultra-Attic  slenderness  ;  but  it  is  not 
improbable,  that  from  the  example  of  Hortensius  and 
his  own  copiousness,  he  might  have  swelled  out  to 
Asiatic  pomp,  had  not  his  exuberance  been  early  re- 
duced by  the  seasonable  and  salutary  discipline  of  the 
Rhodian. 

Cicero,  in  his  youth,  also  wrote  the  Rhetorica,  sen 
de  Inventione  Rhetorica,  of  which  there  are  still  ex- 
tant two  books,  treating  of  the  part  of  rhetoric  that 
relates  to  invention.  This  is  the  work  mentioned  by 
Cicero,  in  the  commencement  of  the  treatise  De  Ora- 
tore,  as  having  been  published  by  him  in  his  youth. 
It  is  generally  believed  to  have  been  written  in  666, 
when  Cicero  was  only  twenty  years  of  age,  and  to  have 
originally  contained  four  books.  Schiitz,  however,  the 
German  editor  of  Cicero,  is  of  opinion,  that  he  never 

i  Brutus,  c-  91*  Is  dedit  operam  (si  modo  id  consequi  potuit) 
ut  nimis  redundantes  nos  juvenili  quadam  dicendi  impunitate  et 
licentia  reprimeret,  et  quasi  extra  ripas  diffluentes  coerceret. 


336  cicero. 

wrote,  or  at  least,  never  published,  more  than  the  two 
books  we  still  possess. 

A  number  of  sentences  in  these  two  books  of  the 
Rhetorica,  seu  de  Jnventione,  coincide  with  passages 
in  the  Rhetoricum  ad  Herennium,  which  is  usually 
published  along  with  the  works  of  Cicero,  but  is  not 
of  his  composition.  Purgold  thinks  that  the  Rhetor, 
ad  Herennium  was  published  first,  and  that  Cicero 
copied  from  it  those  corresponding  passages.1  It  ap- 
pears, however,  a  little  singular,  that  Cicero  should 
have  borrowed  so  largely,  and  without  acknowledg- 
ment, from  a  recent  publication  of  one  of  his  contem- 
poraries. To  account  for  this  difficulty  some  critics 
have  supposed,  that  the  anonymous  author  of  the 
Rhetor,  ad  Herennium  was  a  rhetorician,  whose  lec- 
tures Cicero  had  attended,  and  had  inserted  in  his  own 
work  notes  taken  by  him  from  these  prelections,  be- 
fore they  were  edited  by  their  author.2  Some,  again, 
have  imagined,  that  Cicero  and  the  anonymous  author 
were  fellow-students  under  the  same  rhetorician,  and 
that  both  had  thus  adopted  his  ideas  and  expressions ; 
while  others  believe,  that  both  copied  from  a  common 
Greek  original.  But  then,  in  opposition  to  this  last 
theory,  it  has  been  remarked,  that  the  Latin  words 
employed  by  both  are  frequently  the  same  ;  and  there 
are  the  same  references  to  the  history  of  Rome,  and 
of  its  ancient  native  poets,  with  which  no  Greek  writer 
can  be  supposed  to  have  had  much  acquaintance. 

1  Observat.  Critic,  in  Sophoc.  et  Ciceron.     Lips.  1802. 
'  Fuhrmann,  Handbuch  der  Classisch.  Literat. 


CICERO.  337 

Who  the  anonymous  author  of  the  Rhetor.  ad  He- 
rennium  actually  was,  has  been  the  subject  of  much 
learned  controversy,  and  the  point  remains  still  unde- 
termined. Priscian  repeatedly  cites  it  as  the  work  of 
Cicero  ;  whence  it  was  believed  to  be  the  production 
of  Cicero  by  Laurentius  Valla,  George  of  Trebizond, 
Politian,  and  other  great  restorers  of  learning  in  the 
fifteenth  century ;  and  this  opinion  was  from  time  to 
time,  though  feebly,  revived  by  less  considerable  wri- 
ters in  succeeding  periods.  It  seems  now,  however, 
entirely  abandoned ;  but,  while  all  critics  and  commen- 
tators agree  in  abjudicating  the  work  from  Cicero, 
they  differ  widely  as  to  the  person  to  whom  the  pro- 
duction should  be  assigned.  Aldus  Manutius,  Sigo- 
nius,  Muretus,  and  Riccobonus,  were  of  opinion,  that 
it  was  written  by  Q.  Cornificius  the  elder,  who  was 
Caesar's  Quaestor  during  the  civil  war,  and  subsequent- 
ly his  lieutenant  in  Africa,  of  which  province,  after 
the  Dictator's  death,  he  kept  possession  for  the  repub- 
lican party,  till  he  was  slain  in  an  engagement  with 
one  of  the  generals  of  Octavius.  The  judgment  of 
these  scholars  is  chiefly  founded  on  some  passages  in 
Quintilian,  who  attributes  to  Cornificius  several  criti- 
cal and  philological  definitions  which  coincide  with 
those  introduced  in  the  Bhetorica  ad  Herennium. 
Gerard  Vossius,  however,  has  adopted  an  opinion,  that 
if  at  all  written  by  a  person  of  that  name,  it  must 
have  been  by  the  younger  Cornificius,1  who  was  born 
in  662,  and,  having  followed  the  party  of  Octavius, 
was  appointed  Consul  by  favour  of  the  Triumvirate  in 
1  De  Nat.  et  Const.  Rhetor,  c.  IS. 

VOL.  II.  Y 


338  cicero. 

718.  Raphael  Regius  also  seems  inclined  to  attri- 
bute the  work  to  Cornificius  the  son.1  But  if  the  style 
be  considered  too  remote  from  that  of  the  age  of  Cicero, 
to  be  ascribed  to  any  of  his  contemporaries,  he  con- 
ceives it  may  be  plausibly  conjectured  to  have  been  the 
production  of  Timolaus,  one  of  the  thirty  tyrants  in 
the  reign  of  Gallienus.  Timolaus  had  a  brother  called 
Herenianus,  to  whom  his  work  may  have  been  dedi- 
cated, and  he  thinks  that  Timolaus  ad  Herenianum 
may  have  been  corrupted  into  Tattius  ad  Heren- 
nium.  J.  C.  Scaliger  attributes  the  work  to  Gallio,  a 
rhetorician  in  the  time  of  Nero2 — an  opinion  which 
obtained  currency  in  consequence  of  the  discovery  of 
a  MS.  copy  of  the  Rhetorica  ad  Herennium,  with  the 
name  of  Gallio  prefixed  to  it.3 

Sufficient  scope  being  thus  left  for  new  conjectures, 
Schiitz,  the  German  editor  of  Cicero,  has  formed  a 
new  hypothesis  on  the  subject.  Cicero's  tract  De  In- 
ventione  having  been  written  in  his  early  youth,  the 
period  of  its  composition  may  be  placed  about  672. 
From  various  circumstances,  which  he  discusses  at 
great  length,  Schiitz  concludes  that  the  Rhetorica  ad 
Herennium  was  the  work  which  was  first  written,  and 
consequently  previous  to  672.  Farther,  the  Rhetorica 
ad  Herennium  must  have  been  written  subsequently 
to  665,  as  it  mentions  the  death  of  Sulpicius,  which 

1  Dissert.  Utrum  ars  Rhetorica  ad  Herennium  Ciceroni  Jalsd 
inscribitur. 

2  De  Be  Poet.  Lib  III.  c.  31.  and  31. 

3  See  P.  Burmanni  Secund.  In  Praef.  ad  Rhetoric,  ad  Heren- 
nium.   Also  Fabricius,  Bib.  Lat.  Lib.  I.  c.  8. 


CICERO.  3S9 

happened  in  that  year.  The  time  thus  limited  cor- 
responds very  exactly  with  the  age  of  M.  Ant.  Gnipho, 
who  was  horn  in  the  year  640 ;  and  him  Schutz  con- 
siders as  the  real  author  of  the  Rhetorica  ad  Heren- 
nium. This  he  attempts  to  prove,  by  showing,  that 
many  things  which  Suetonius  relates  of  Gnipho,  in 
his  work  De  Claris  Rhetoribus,  agree  with  what  the 
author  of  the  Rhetorica  ad  Herennium  delivers  con- 
cerning himself  in  the  course  of  that  production.  It 
is  pretty  well  established,  that  both  Gnipho  and  the 
anonymous  author  of  the  Rhetorica  ad  Herennium 
were  free-born,  had  good  memories,  understood  Greek, 
and  were  voluminous  authors.  It  is  unfortunate,  how- 
ever, that  these  characteristics,  except  the  first,  were 
probably  common  to  almost  all  rhetoricians ;  and 
Schutz  does  not  allude  to  any  of  the  more  particular 
circumstances  mentioned  by  Suetonius,  as  that  Gnipho 
was  a  Gaul  by  birth,  that  he  studied  at  Alexandria, 
and  that  he  taught  rhetoric  in  the  house  of  the  father 
of  Julius  Caesar. 

Cicero,  who  was  unquestionably  the  first  orator,  was 
as  decidedly  the  most  learned  philosopher  of  Rome ; 
and  while  he  eclipsed  all  his  contemporaries  in  elo- 
quence, he  acquired,  towards  the  close  of  his  life,  no 
small  share  of  reputation  as  a  writer  on  ethics  and  me- 
taphysics. His  wisdom,  however,  was  founded  entire- 
ly on  that  of  the  Greeks,  and  his  philosophic  writings 
were  chiefly  occupied  with  the  discussion  of  questions 
which  had  been  agitated  in  the  Athenian  schools,  and 
from  them  had  been  transmitted  to  Italy.    The  dis- 


340  CICERO. 

quisition  respecting  the  certainty  or  uncertainty  of 
human  knowledge,  with  that  concerning  the  supreme 
good  and  evil,  were  the  inquiries  which  he  chiefly  pur- 
sued ;  and  the  notions  which  he  entertained  of  these 
subjects,  were  all  derived  from  the  Portico,  Academy, 
or  Lyceum. 

The  leading  principles  of  the  chief  philosophic  sects 
of  Greece  flowed  originally  from  Socrates— 


From  whose  mouth  issued  forth 


Mellifluous  streams,  that  watered  all  the  schools 
Of  Academics,  Old  and  New ;"' 

and  who  has  been  termed  by  Cicero2  the  perennial 
source  of  philosophy,  much  more  justly  than  Homer  has 
been  styled  the  fountain  of  all  poetry.  Though  some- 
what addicted  to  them  from  education  and  early  ha- 
bit, Socrates  withdrew  philosophy  from  those  obscure 
and  intricate  physical  inquiries,  in  which  she  had  been 
involved  by  the  founders  and  followers  of  the  Ionic 
school,  and  from  the  subtle  paradoxical  hypotheses  of 
the  sophists  who  established  themselves  at  Athens  in 
the  time  of  Pericles.  It  being  his  chief  aim  to  improve 
the  condition  of  mankind,  and  to  incline  them  to  dis- 
charge the  several  duties  of  the  stations  in  which  they 
had  been  placed,  this  moral  teacher  directed  his  exa- 
minations to  the  nature  of  vice  and  virtue,  of  good 
and  evil.  To  accomplish  the  great  object  he  had  in 
view,  his  practice  was  to  hazard  no  opinion  of  his  own, 
but  to  refute  prevalent  errors  and  prejudices,  by  invol- 

1  Paradise  Regained. 

•  De  Orat.  Lib.  I.  c.  10.  Ab  illo  fonte  et  capite  Socrate. 


CICERO.  341 

ving  the  pretenders  to  knowledge  in  manifest  absur- 
dity, while  he  himself,  as  if  in  contrast  to  the  presump- 
tion of  the  sophists,  always  professed  that  he  knew 
nothing.  This  confession  of  ignorance,  which  amount- 
ed to  no  more  than  a  general  acknowledgment  of  the 
imbecility  of  the  human  understanding,  and  was  mere- 
ly designed  to  convince  his  followers  of  the  futility 
of  those  speculations  which  do  not  rest  on  the  firm 
basis  of  experience,  or  to  teach  them  modesty  in  their 
inquiries,  and  diffidence  in  their  assertions,  having  been 
interpreted  in  a  different  sense  from  that  in  which  it 
was  originally  intended,  gave  rise  to  the  celebrated 
dispute  concerning  the  certainty  of  knowledge. 

The  various  founders  of  the  philosophic  sects  of 
Greece,  imbibed  that  portion  of  the  doctrines  of  So- 
crates which  suited  their  own  tastes  and  views,  and 
sometimes  perverted  his  high  authority  even  to  dog- 
matical or  sophistical  purposes.  It  is  from  Plato  we 
have  derived  the  fullest  account  of  his  system ;  but 
this  illustrious  disciple  had  also  greatly  extended  his 
knowledge  by  his  voyages  to  Egypt,  Sicily,  and  Magna 
Graecia.  Hence  in  the  Academy  which  he  founded, 
(while,  as  to  morals,  he  continued  to  follow  Socrates,) 
he  superadded  the  metaphysical  doctrines  of  Pytha- 
goras ;  in  physics,  which  Socrates  had  excluded  from 
philosophy,  he  adopted  the  system  of  Heraclitus ;  and 
he  borrowed  his  dialectics  from  Euclid  of  Megara. 
The  recondite  and  eisoteric  tenets  of  Pythagoras— 
the  obscure  principles  of  Heraclitus — the  superhuman 
knowledge  of  Empedocles,  and  the  sacred  Arcana  of 
Egyptian  priests,  have  diffused  over  the  page  of  Plato 


342  cicero. 

a  majesty  and  mysticism  very  different  from  what  we 
suppose  to  have  been  the  familiar  tone  of  instruction 
employed  by  his  great  master,  of  whose  style  at  least, 
and  manner,  Xenophon  probably  presents  us  with  a 
more  faithful  image. 

In  Greece,  the  heads  of  sects  were  succeeded  in  their 
schools  or  academies  as  in  a  domain  or  inheritance. 
Speusippus,  the  nephew  of  Plato,  continued  to  de- 
liver lectures  in  the  Academy,  as  did  also  four  other 
successive  masters,  Xenocrates,  Polemo,  Crates,  and 
Crantor,  all  of  whom  retained  the  name  of  Academics, 
and  taught  the  doctrines  of  their  master  without  mix- 
ture or  corruption.  But  on  the  appointment  of  Xeno- 
crates to  the  chair  of  the  Academy,  Aristotle,  the 
most  eminent  of  Plato's  scholars,  had  betaken  himself 
to  another  Gymnasium,  called  the  Lyceum,  which  be- 
came the  resort  of  the  Peripatetics.  The  commanding 
genius  of  their  founder  enlarged  the  sphere  of  know- 
ledge and  intellect,  devised  the  rules  of  logic,  and 
traced  out  the  principles  of  rhetorical  and  poetical  cri- 
ticism :  But  the  sect  which  he  exalted  to  unrivalled 
celebrity,  though  differing  in  name  from  the  contem- 
porary Academics,  coincided  with  them  generally  in 
all  the  principal  points  of  physical  and  moral  philoso- 
phy, and  particularly  in  those  concerning  which  the 
Romans  chiefly  inquired.  "  Though  they  differed  in 
terms,"  says  Cicero, "  they  agreed  in  things,1  and  those 
persons  are  grossly  mistaken  who  imagine  that  the  old 
Academics,  as  they  are  called,  are  any  other  than  the 

1  Academ.  Lib.  II.  c.  5. 


CICERO.  343 

Peripatetics."  Accordingly,  we  find  that  both  believed 
in  the  superintending  care  of  Providence,  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  and  a  future  state  of  reward  and 
punishment.  The  supreme  good  they  placed  in  virtue, 
with  a  sufficiency  of  the  chief  external  advantages  of 
nature,  as  health,  riches,  and  reputation.  Such  enjoy- 
ments they  taught,  when  united  with  virtue,  make  the 
felicity  of  man  perfect ;  but  if  virtuous,  he  is  capable 
of  being  happy,  (though  not  entirely  so,)  without 
them. 

Plato,  in  his  mode  of  communicating  instruction, 
and  promulgating  his  opinions,  had  not  strictly  ad- 
hered to  the  method  of  his  master  Socrates.  He  held 
the  concurrence  of  memory,  with  a  recent  impression, 
to  be  a  criterion  of  truth,  and  he  taught  that  opinions 
might  be  formed  from  the  comparison  of  a  preseut 
with  a  recollected  perception.  But  his  successors,  both 
in  the  Academy  and  Lyceum,  departed  from  the  So- 
cratic  method  still  more  widely.  They  renounced  the 
maxim,  of  affirming  nothing ;  and  instead  of  explain- 
ing everything  with  a  doubting  reserve,  they  convert- 
ed philosophy,  as  it  were,  into  an  art,  and  formed  a 
system  of  opinions,  which  they  delivered  to  their  dis- 
ciples as  the  peculiar  tenets  of  their  sect.  They  incul- 
cated the  belief,  that  our  knowledge  has  its  origin  in 
the  senses — that  the  senses  themselves  do  not  judge 
of  truth,  but  the  mind  through  them  beholds  things 
as  they  really  are — that  is,  it  perceives  the  ideas  which 
always  subsist  in  the  same  state,  without  change  ;  so 
that  the  senses,  through  the  medium  of  the  mind,  may 
be  relied  on  for  the  ascertainment  of  truth.  Such  was 


344  cicero. 

the  state  of  opinions  and  instruction  in  the  Academy 
when  Arcesilaus,  who  was  the  sixth  master  of  that 
school  from  Plato,  and  in  his  youth  had  heard  the  les- 
sons of  Pyrrho  the  sceptic,  resolved  to  reform  the  dog- 
matic system  into  which  his  predecessors  had  fallen, 
and  to  restore,  as  he  conceived,  in  all  its  purity,  the 
Socratic  system  of  affirming  nothing  with  certainty. 
This  founder  of  the  New,  or  Middle  Academy  as  it 
is  sometimes  called,  denied  even  the  certain  truth  of 
the  proposition,  that  we  know  nothing,  which  Socrates 
had  reserved  as  an  exception  to  his  general  principle. 
While  admitting  that  there  is  an  actual  certainty  in 
the  nature  of  things,  he  rejected  the  evidence  hoth  of 
the  senses  and  reason  as  positive  testimony ;  and  as 
he  denied  that  there  existed  any  infallible  criterion  of 
truth  or  falsehood,  he  maintained  that  no  wise  man 
ought  to  give  any  proposition  whatever  the  sanction  of 
his  assent.  He  differed  from  the  Sceptics  or  Pyr- 
rhonists  only  in  this,  that  he  admitted  degrees  of  pro- 
bability, whereas  the  Sceptics  fluctuated  in  total  un- 
certainty. 

As  Arcesilaus  renounced  all  pretensions  to  the  cer- 
tain determination  of  any  question,  he  was  chiefly  em- 
ployed in  examining  and  refuting  the  sentiments  of 
others.  His  principal  opponent  was  his  contemporary, 
Zeno,  the  founder  of  the  stoical  philosophy,  which 
ultimately  became  the  chief  of  those  systems  which 
flourished  at  Rome.  The  main  point  in  dispute  be- 
tween Zeno  and  Arcesilaus,  was  the  evidence  of  the 
senses.  Arcesilaus  denied  that  truth  could  be  ascer- 
tained by  their  assistance,  because  there  is  no  criterion 


CICERO.  345 

by  which  to  distinguish  false  and  delusive  objects  from 
such  as  are  real.  Zeno,  on  the  other  hand,  maintain- 
ed that  the  evidence  of  the  senses  is  certain  and  clear, 
provided  they  be  perfect  in  themselves,  and  without 
obstacle  to  prevent  their  effect.  Thus,  though  on  dif- 
ferent principles,  the  founder  of  the  Stoics  agreed  with 
the  Peripatetics  and  old  Academicians,  that  there  ex- 
isted certain  means  of  ascertaining  truth,  and  conse- 
quently that  there  was  evident  and  certain  knowledge. 
Arcesilaus,  though  he  did  not  deny  that  truth  exist- 
ed, would  neither  give  assent  nor  entertain  opinions, 
because  appearances  could  never  warrant  his  pronoun- 
cing on  any  object  or  proposition  whatever.  Nor  did 
the  Stoics  entertain  opinions ;  but  they  refrained  from 
this,  because  they  thought  that  everything  might  be 
perceived  with  certainty. 

Arcesilaus,  while  differing  widely  from  the  teachers 
of  the  old  Platonic  Academy  in  his  ideas  as  to  the 
certainty  of  knowledge,  retained  their  system  concern- 
ing the  supreme  good,  which,  like  them,  he  placed  in 
virtue,  accompanied  by  external  advantages.  This  was 
another  subject  of  contest  with  Zeno,  who,  as  is  well 
known,  placed  the  supreme  good  in  virtue  alone, — 
health,  riches,  and  reputation,  not  being  by  him  ac- 
counted essential,  nor  disease,  poverty,  and  ignominy, 
injurious  to  happiness. 

The  systems  promulgated  in  the  old  and  new  Aca- 
demy, and  the  stoical  Portico,  were  those  which  be- 
came most  prevalent  in  Rome.  But  the  Epicurean 
opinions  were  also  fashionable  there.  The  philosophy 
of  Epicurus  has  been  already  mentioned  while  speak- 


346  CICERO. 

ing  of  Lucretius.  Moschus  of  Phoenicia,  who  lived 
before  the  Trojan  war,  is  said  to  have  been  the  inven- 
tor of  the  Atomic  system,  which  was  afterwards  adopt- 
ed and  improved  by  Leucippus  and  Democritus,  whose 
works,  as  Cicero  expresses  it,  were  the  source  from 
which  flowed  the  streams  that  watered  the  gardens  of 
Epicurus.1  To  the  evidence  of  the  senses  this  teacher 
attributed  such  weight,  that  he  considered  them  as 
an  infallible  rule  of  truth.  The  supreme  good  he 
placed  in  pleasure,  and  the  chief  evil  in  pain.  His 
scholars  maintained,  that  by  pleasure,  or  rather  hap- 
piness, he  meant  a  life  of  wisdom  and  temperance ; 
but  a  want  of  clearness  and  explicitness  in  the  defini- 
tion of  what  constituted  pleasure,  has  given  room  to 
his  opponents  for  alleging  that  he  placed  consummate 
felicity  in  sensual  gratification. 

It  was  long  before  a  knowledge  of  any  portion  of 
Greek  philosophy  was  introduced  at  Rome.  For  600 
years  after  the  building  of  the  city,  those  circum- 
stances did  not  arise  in  that  capital  which  called  forth 
and  promoted  philosophy  in  Greece.  The  ancient 
Romans  were  warriors  and  agriculturists.  Their  edu- 
cation was  regulated  with  a  view  to  an  active  life,  and 
rearing  citizens  and  heroes,  not  philosophers.  The 
Campus  Martins  was  their  school ;  the  tent  their 
Lyceum,  and  the  traditions  of  their  ancestors,  and  re- 
ligious rites,  their  science, — they  were  taught  to  act, 
to  believe,  and  to  obey,  not  to  reason  or  discuss. 
Among  them  a  class  of  men  may  indeed  have  existed 

»  De  Naiur.  Deor.  Lib.  I.  c.  43. 


CICERO.  347 

not  unlike  the  seven  sages  of  Greece — men  distin- 
guished by  wisdom,  grave  saws,  and  the  services  they 
had  rendered  to  their  country  ;  but  these  were  not 
philosophers  in  our  sense  of  the  term.  The  wisdom 
they  inculcated  was  not  sectarian,  but  resembled  that 
species  of  philosophy  cultivated  by  Solon  and  Lycur- 
gus,  which  has  been  termed  political  by  Brucker,  and 
which  was  chiefly  adapted  to  the  improvement  of 
states,  and  civilization  of  infant  society.  At  length, 
however,  in  the  year  586,  when  Perseus,  King  of  Ma- 
cedon,  was  finally  vanquished,  his  conqueror  brought 
with  him  to  Rome  the  philosopher  Metrodorus,  to  aid 
in  the  instruction  of  his  children.1  Several  philoso- 
phers, who  had  been  retained  in  the  court  of  that  un- 
fortunate monarch,  auguring  well  from  this  incident, 
followed  Metrodorus  to  Italy ;  and  about  the  same 
time  a  number  of  Achaeans,  of  distinguished  merit, 
who  were  suspected  to  have  favoured  the  Macedo- 
nians, were  summoned  to  Rome,  in  order  to  account 
for  their  conduct.  The  younger  Scipio  Africanus,  in 
the  course  of  the  embassy  to  which  he  was  appointed 
by  the  Senate,  to  the  kings  of  the  east,  who  were  in 
alliance  with  the  republic,  having  landed  at  Rhodes, 
took  under  his  protection  the  Stoic  philosopher  Panae- 
tius,2  who  was  a  native  of  that  island,  and  carried  him 
back  to  Rome,  where  he  resided  in  the  house  of  his 
patron.  Pansetius  afterwards  went  to  Athens,  where 
he  became  one  of  the  most  distinguished  teachers  of 


*  Pliny,  Hist  Nat.  Lib.  XXXV.  ell. 
3  Mem.  de  VInrtit.  Uoyale,  Tom.  XXX. 


348  CICERO. 

the  Portico,1  and  composed  a  number  of  philosophical 
treatises,  of  which  the  chief  was  that  on  the  Duties 
of  Man. 

But  though  the  philosophers  were  encouraged  and 
cherished  by  Scipio,  Lselius,  Scaevola,  and  others  of  the 
more  mild  and  enlightened  Romans,  they  were  viewed 
with  an  eye  of  suspicion  by  the  grave  Senators  and 
stern  Censors  of  the  republic.  Accordingly,  in  the 
year  592,  only  six  years  after  their  first  arrival  in 
Rome,  the  philosophers  were  banished  from  the  city 
by  a  formal  decree  of  the  Senate.2  The  motives  for  is- 
suing this  rigorous  edict  are  not  very  clearly  ascer- 
tained. A  notion  may  have  been  entertained  by  the 
severer  members  of  the  commonwealth,  that  the  esta- 
blished religion  and  constitution  of  Rome  might  suf- 
fer by  the  discussion  of  speculative  theories,  and  that 
the  taste  for  science  might  withdraw  the  minds  of 
youth  from  agriculture  and  arms.  This  dread,  so  na- 
tural to  a  rigid,  laborious,  and  warlike  people,  would 
be  increased  by  the  degraded  and  slavish  character  of 
the  Greeks,  which,  having  been  an  accompaniment, 
might  be  readily  mistaken  for  a  consequence,  of  their 
progress  in  philosophy.  As  most  of  the  philosophers, 
too,  had  come  from  the  states  of  a  hostile  monarch,  the 
Senate  may  have  feared,  lest  they  should  inspire  sen- 

1  Cicero  styles  him  Princeps  Stoicorum,  (De  Divin.  Lib.  II. 
c.  47,)  and  eruditissimum  hominem,  et  paene  divinum.  (Pro  Mu- 
rcena,  c.  31.) 

2  Censuerunt  ut  M.  Pomponius  Praetor  animadverteret  uti  e 
republica  fideque  sua  videretur  Ronisc  ne  essent.  (Au.  Gellius, 
Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  XV.  c  11.) 


CICERO.  249 

timents  in  the  minds  of  youth,  not  altogether  patrio- 
tic or  purely  republican. 

"  Sed  vetuere  patres  quod  non  potuere  vetare." 

Though  driven  from  Rome,  many  of  the  Greek  philo- 
sophers took  up  their  residence  in  the  municipal  towns 
of  Italy.  By  the  intercession  likewise  of  Scipio  Afri- 
canus,  an  exception  was  made  in  favour  of  Panaetius 
and  the  historian  Polybius,  who  were  permitted  to  re- 
main in  the  capital.  The  spirit  of  inquiry,  too,  had 
been  raised,  and  the  mind  had  received  an  impulse 
which  could  not  be  arrested  by  any  senatorial  decree, 
and  on  which  the  slightest  incident  necessarily  be- 
stowed an  accelerated  progress. 

The  Greek  philosophers  returned  to  Rome  in  the 
year  598,  under  the  sacred  character  of  ambassadors, 
on  occasion  of  a  political  complaint  which  had  been 
made  against  the  Athenians,  and  from  which  they 
found  it  necessary  to  defend  themselves.  Notwith- 
standing the  disrespect  with  which  philosophers  had 
recently  been  treated  in  Italy,  the  Athenians  resolved 
to  dazzle  the  Romans  by  a  grand  scientific  embassy. 
The  three  envoys  chosen  were  at  that  time  the  heads 
of  the  three  leading  sects  of  Greek  philosophers, — 
Diogenes,  the  Stoic, — Critolaus,  the  Peripatetic,  and 
Carneades  of  Cyrene,  who  now  held  the  place  of  Ar- 
cesilaus  in  the  new  Academy.  Besides  their  philo- 
sophical learning,  they  were  well  qualified  by  their 
eloquence,  (a  talent  which  had  always  great  influ- 
ence with  the  Romans,)  to  persuade  and  bring  over 
the  minds  of  men  to  their  principles.     Such,  indeed, 


350  CICERO. 

were  their  extraordinary  powers  of  speaking  and  rea- 
soning, that  it  was  commonly  said  at  Rome  that  the 
Athenians  had  sent  orators,  not  to  persuade,  but  to 
compel.1  During  the  period  of  their  embassy  at  Rome 
they  lectured  to  crowded  audiences  in  the  most  public 
parts  of  the  city.  The  immediate  effect  of  the  display 
which  these  philosophic  ambassadors  made  of  their 
eloquence  and  wisdom,  was  to  excite  in  the  Roman 
youth  an  ardent  thirst  after  knowledge,  which  now 
became  a  rival  in  their  breasts  to  the  love  of  military 
glory.2  Scipio,  Laelius,  and  Furius,  showed  the  strong- 
est inclination  for  these  new  studies,  and  profited 
most  by  them  ;  but  there  was  scarcely  a  young  patri- 
cian who  was  not  in  some  degree  attracted  by  the  mo- 
dest simplicity  of  Diogenes,  the  elegant,  ornamental, 
and  polished  discourse  of  Critolaus,  or  the  vehement, 
rapid,  and  argumentative  eloquence  of  Carneades.3 
The  principles  inculcated  by  Diogenes,  who  professed 
to  teach  the  art  of  reasoning,  and  of  separating  truth 
from  falsehood,  received  their  strongest  support  from 
the  jurisconsults,  most  of  whom  became  Stoics ;  and 
in  consequence  of  their  responses,  we  find  at  this  day 
that  the  stoical  philosophy  exercised  much  influence  on 
Roman  jurisprudence,  and  that  many  principles  and 
divisions  of  the  civil  law  have  been  founded  on  its  fa- 
vourite maxims.  Of  these  philosophic  ambassadors, 
however,  Carneades  was  the  most  able  man,  and  the 
most  popular  teacher.     "  He  was  blessed,"  says  Cice- 

1  JElhn,  Histor.  Far.    Lib.  III.  c.  17- 

2  Plutarch,  In  Catonc. 

3  Au.  Gellius,  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  VII.  c.  14. 


CICERO.  351 

ro,  "  with  a  divine  quickness  of  understanding  and 
command  of  expression."1  "  In  his  disputations,  he 
never  defended  what  he  did  not  prove,  and  never  at- 
tacked what  he  did  not  overthrow."2  By  some  he  has 
been  considered  and  termed  the  founder  of  a  third 
Academy,  hut  there  appears  to  be  no  solid  ground  for 
such  a  distinction.  In  his  lectures,  which  chiefly  turned 
on  ethics,  he  agreed  with  both  Academies  as  to  the 
supreme  good,  placing  it  in  virtue  and  the  primary 
gifts  of  nature.  Like  Arcesilaus,  he  was  a  zealous 
advocate  for  the  uncertainty  of  human  knowledge,  but 
he  did  not  deny,  with  him,  that  there  were  truths,  but 
only  maintained  that  we  could  not  clearly  discern 
them.3  The  sole  other  difference  in  their  tenets,  is  one 
not  very  palpable,  mentioned  by  Lucullus  in  the  Aca~ 
demica.  Arcesilaus,  it  seems,  would  neither  assent 
to  anything  nor  opine.  Carneades,  though  he  would 
not  assent,  declared  that  he  would  opine  ;  under  the 
constant  reservation,  however,  that  he  was  merely  opi- 
nionating,  and  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  posi- 
tive comprehension  or  perception.4  In  this,  Lucullus, 
who  was  a  follower  of  the  old  Academy,  thinks  Car- 
neades the  most  absurd  and  inconsistent  of  the  two. 
Carneades  succeeded  to  the  old  dispute  between  the 
Academics  and  Stoics,  and  in  his  prelections  he  com- 

1  De  Oratore,  Lib.  III.  c  18. 

2  Ibid.  Lib.  II.  c.  38. 

3  Hsec  in  philosophic  ratio  contra  omnia  disserendi,  nullamque 
rem  aperte  judicandi,  profecta  a  Socrate,  repetita  ab  Arcesilao, 
confirmata  a  Carneade,  usque  ad  nostram  viguit  eetatem.  De  Nat. 
Dear.  Lib.  I.  c.  5. 

*  Academ.  Prior.  Lib.  II.  c.  48. 


352  cicero. 

bated  the  arguments  employed  by  Chrysippus,1  in  his 
age  the  chief  pillar  of  the  Portico,  as  Arcesilaus  had 
formerly  maintained  the  controversy  with  Zeno,  its 
founder.  He  differed  from  the  Pyrrhonists,  by  admit- 
ting the  real  existence  of  good  and  evil,  and  by  allow- 
ing different  degrees  of  probability,2  while  his  scepti- 
cal opponents  contended  that  there  was  no  ground  for 
embracing  or  rejecting  one  opinion  more  than  another. 
Carneades  was  no  less  distinguished  by  his  artful  and 
versatile  talents  for  disputation,  than  his  vehement 
and  commanding  oratory.  But  his  extraordinary 
powers  of  persuasion,  and  of  maintaining  any  side  of  an 
argument,  for  which  the  academical  philosophy  pecu- 
liarly qualified  him,  were  at  length  abused  by  him, 
to  the  scandal  of  the  serious  and  inflexible  Romans. 
Thus,  we  are  told,  that  he  one  day  delivered  a  discourse 
before  Cato,  with  great  variety  of  thought  and  copious- 
ness of  diction,  on  the  advantages  of  a  rigid  observance 
of  the  rules  of  justice.  Next  day,  in  order  to  fortify 
his  doctrine  of  the  uncertainty  of  human  knowledge, 
he  undertook  to  refute  all  his  former  arguments.3 
It  is  likely  that  his  attack  on  justice  was  a  piece  of 
pleasantry,  like  Erasmus'  Encomium  of  Folly ;  and 
many  of  his  audience  were  captivated  by  his  ingenui- 
ty ;  but  the  Censor  immediately  insisted,  that  the  af- 
fairs which  had  brought  these  subtle  ambassadors  to 

»  Valer.  Max.  Lib.  VIII.  c.  7- 
2  Academ.  Prior.  Lib.  II.  c.  31. 

a  Quintil.  Inst.  Oral.  Lib.  XI  I,  c.  1.   Lactant.  Instit.  Lib.  V. 
c  14. 

5 


CICERO.  853 

Rome,  should  be  forthwith  despatched  by  the  Senate, 
in  order  that  they  might  be  dismissed  with  all  possible 
expedition.1  Whether  Cato  entertained  serious  appre- 
hensions, as  is  alleged  by  Plutarch,  that  the  military 
virtues  of  his  country  might  be  enfeebled,  and  its  con- 
stitution undermined,  by  the  study  of  philosophy, 
may,  I  think,  be  questioned.  It  is  more  probable  that 
he  dreaded  the  influence  of  the  philosophers  themselves 
on  the  opinions  of  his  fellow-citizens,  and  feared  lest 
their  eloquence  should  altogether  unsettle  the  princi- 
ples of  his  countrymen,  or  mould  them  to  whatever 
form  they  chose.  Lactantius,  too,  in  a  quotation  from 
Cicero's  treatise  JDe  Ilepublicd,  affords  what  may  be 
considered  as  an  explanation  of  the  reason  why  Car- 
neades'  lecture  against  justice  was  so  little  palatable 
to  the  Censor,  and  probably  to  many  others  of  the 
Romans.  One  of  the  objections  which  he  urged  against 
justice,  or  rather  against  the  existence  of  a  due  sense 
of  that  quality,  was,  that  if  such  a  thing  as  justice 
were  to  be  found  on  earth,  the  Romans  would  resign 
their  conquests,  and  return  to  their  huts  and  original 
poverty.2  Cato  likewise  appears  to  have  had  a  con- 
siderable spirit  of  personal  jealousy  and  rivalry ;  while, 
at  the  same  time,  his  national  pride  led  him  to  scorn 
all  the  arts  of  a  country  which  the  Roman  arms  had 
subdued. 

Carneades  promulgated  his  opinions  only  in  his  elo- 
quent lectures  ;  and  it  is  not  known  that  he  left  any 

»  Plutarch,  In  Catone.    Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  VII.  c.  SO. 
2  Divin.  Institut.  Lib.  V.  c  16. 
VOL.  II.  Z 


354  cicero 

writings  of  importance  behind  him.1  But  his  oral  in- 
structions had  made  a  permanent  impression  on  the 
Roman  youth,  and  the  want  of  a  written  record  of  his 
principles  was  amply  supplied  by  his  successor  Clito- 
machus,  who  was  by  birth  a  Carthaginian,  and  was 
originally  called  Asdrubal.  He  had  fled  from  his  own 
country  to  Athens  during  the  siege  of  Carthage,  by 
the  Romans,  in  the  third  Punic  war  ;2  and  in  the  year 
623  he  went  from  Greece  to  Italy,  to  succeed  Car- 
neades  in  the  school  which  he  had  there  established. 
Clitomachus  was  a  most  voluminous  author,  having 
written  not  less  than  four  ample  treatises  on  the  ne- 
cessity of  withholding  the  assent  from  every  proposi- 
tion whatever.  One  of  these  tracts  was  dedicated  to 
Lucilius,  the  satiric  poet,3  and  another  to  the  Consul 
Censorinus.  The  essence  of  the  principles  which  he 
maintained  in  these  works,  has  been  extracted  by  Ci- 
cero, and  handed  down  to  us  in  a  passage  inserted  in 
the  Academica.  It  is  there  said,  that  the  resemblances 
of  things  are  of  such  a  nature  that  some  of  them  ap- 
pear probable,  and  others  not ;  but  this  is  no  sufficient 
ground  for  supposing  that  some  objects  may  be  cor- 
rectly perceived,  since  many  falsities  are  probable, 
whereas  no  falsity  can  be  accurately  perceived  or  known : 
The  Academy  never  attempted  to  deprive  mankind 
of  the  use  of  their  senses,  by  denying  that  there  are 
such  things  as  colour,  taste,  and  sound  ;  but  it  denied 
that  there  exists  in  these  qualities  any  criterion  or  cha- 

1  Plutarch,  De  Fortilud.  Alexandri. 

2  Diog.  Laert.  In  CUtomacho. 

3  Cicero,  Academic.  Prior.  Lib.  II.  c  32. 


CICERO.  355 

racteristic  of  truth  and  certainty.  A  wise  man,  there- 
fore, is  said,  in  a  double  sense,  to  withhold  his  assent ; 
in  one  sense,  when  it  is  understood  that  he  absolute- 
ly assents  to  no  proposition  ;  in  another,  when  he  sus- 
pends answering  a  question,  without  either  denying 
or  affirming.  He  ought  never  to  assent  implicitly  to 
any  proposition,  and  his  answer  should  be  withheld 
until,  according  to  probability,  he  is  in  a  condition  to 
reply  in  the  affirmative  or  negative.  But  as  Cicero 
admits,  that  a  wise  man,  who,  on  every  occasion,  sus- 
pends his  assent,  may  yet  be  impelled  and  moved  to 
action,  he  leaves  him  in  full  possession  of  those  mo- 
tives which  excite  to  action,  together  with  a  power  of 
answering  in  the  affirmative  or  negative  to  certain 
questions,  and  of  following  the  probability  of  objects ; 
yet  still  without  giving  them  his  assent.1 

Clitomachus  was  succeeded  by  Philo  of  Larissa, 
who  fled  from  Greece  to  Italy,  during  the  Mithrida- 
tic  war,  and  revived  at  Rome  a  system  of  philosophy, 
which  by  this  time  began  to  be  rather  on  the  decline. 
Cicero  attended  his  lectures,  and  imbibed  from  them 
the  principles  of  the  new  Academy,  to  which  he  ulti- 
mately adhered.  Philo  published  two  treatises,  expla- 
natory of  the  doctrines  of  the  new  Academy,  which 
were  answered  in  a  work  entitled  Sosus,  by  Antiochus 
of  Ascalon,  who  had  been  a  scholar  of  Philo,  but  after- 
wards abjured  the  innovations  of  the  new  Academy, 
and  returned  to  the  old,  as  taught  by  Plato  and  his 
immediate  successors, — uniting  with  it,  however,  some 

1  Academic.  Prior.  Lib.  II.  c.  32. 


356  cicEito. 

portion  of  the  systems  of  Aristotle  and  Zeno.1  In 
his  own  age,  Antiochus  was  the  chief  support  of  the 
original  principles  of  the  Academy,  and  was  patron- 
ized by  all  those  at  Rome,  who  were  still  attached  to 
them,  particularly  by  Lucullus,  who  took  the  philoso- 
pher along  with  him  to  Alexandria,  when  he  went 
there  as  Quaestor  of  Egypt. 

In  the  circumstances  of  Rome,  the  first  steps  to- 
wards philosophical  improvement,  were  a  general  abate- 
ment of  that  contempt  which  had  been  previously  en- 
tertained for  philosophical  studies — a  toleration  of  in- 
struction— the  power  of  communicating  wisdom  with- 
out shame  or  restraint,  and  its  cordial  reception  by  the 
Roman  youth.  This  proficiency,  which  necessarily 
preceded  speculation  or  invention,  had  already  taken 
place.  Partly  through  the  instructions  of  Greek  phi- 
losophers who  resided  at  Rome,  and  partly  by  means 
of  the  practice  which  now  began  to  prevail,  of  sending 
young  men  for  education  to  the  ancient  schools  of  wis- 
dom, philosophy  made  rapid  progress,  and  almost  every 
sect  found  followers  or  patrons  among  the  higher  or- 
ders of  the  Roman  citizens. 

From  the  earliest  times,  however,  till  that  of  Cicero, 
Greek  philosophy  was  chiefly  inculcated  by  Greeks. 
There  was  no  Roman  who  devoted  himself  entirely  to 
metaphysical  contemplation,  and  who,  like  Epicurus, 
Aristotle,  and  Zeno,  lounged  perpetually  in  a  garden, 
paced  about  in  a  Lyceum,  or  stood  upright  in  a  por- 
tico. The  Greek  philosophers  passed  their  days,  if  not 

1  Mater,  Ecole  d'Alexandrie,  Tom.  II.  p.  131. 


cicero.  357 

in  absolute  seclusion,  at  least  in  learned  leisure  and 
retirement.  Speculation  was  the  employment  of  their 
lives,  and  their  works  were  the  result  of  a  whole  age 
of  study  and  reflection.1  The  Romans,  on  the  other 
hand,  regarded  philosophy,  not  as  the  business  of  life, 
but  as  an  elegant  relaxation,  or  the  means  of  aiding 
their  advancement  in  the  state.  They  heard  with  at- 
tention the  ingenious  disputes  agitated  among  the 
Greeks,  and  perused  their  works  with  pleasure  ;  but 
with  all  this  taste  for  philosophy,  they  had  not  suffi- 
cient leisure  to  devise  new  theories.  The  philosophers 
of  Rome  were  Scipio,  Cato,  Brutus,  Lucullus — men 
who  governed  their  country  at  home,  or  combated  her 
enemies  abroad.  They  had,  indeed,  little  motive  to 
invent  new  systems,  since  so  many  were  presented  to 
them,  ready  formed,  that  every  one  found. in  the  doc- 
trines of  some  Greek  sect,  tenets  which  could  be  suffi- 
ciently accommodated  to  his  own  disposition  and  situa- 
tion. In  the  same  manner  as  the  plunder  of  Syracuse 
or  Corinth  supplied  Rome  with  her  statues  and  pic- 
tures, and  rendered  unnecessary  the  exertions  of  native 
artists  ;  and  as  the  dramas  of  Euripides  and  Menan- 
der  provided  sufficient  materials  for  the  Roman  stage ; 
so  the  Garden,  Porch,  and  Academy,  furnished  such 

1  Dans  la  Grece,  apres  ces  epreuves,  commencoit  enfin  la  vie 
champetre  dans  les  jardins  du  Lycee  ou  de  1' Academic,  ou  Ton 
entreprenoit  un  cours  de  philosophic,  que  les  veritables  amateurs 
avoient  l'art  singulier  de  ne  jamais  finir.  lis  restoient  toute  leur 
vie  attaches  a  quelque  chef  de  secte  comme  Metrodore  a  Epicure, 
mouroient  dans  les  ecoles,  et  etoient  ensuite  enterres  a  1'ombre  de 
ces  memes  arbustes,  sous  lesquels  ils  avoient  tant  medite.  (De 
■Pauw,  Recherches  Philosophiques  sur  les  Grecs,  T.  II.) 


358  cicero. 

variety  of  systems,  that  new  inventions  or  speculations 
could  easily  be  dispensed  with.  The  prevalence,  too, 
of  the  principles  of  that  Academy,  which  led  to  doubt 
of  all  things,  must  have  discouraged  the  formation  of 
new  and  original  theories.  Nor  were  even  the  Greek 
systems,  after  their  introduction  into  Italy,  classed  and 
separated  as  they  had  been  in  Greece.  Most  of  the 
distinguished  men  of  Rome,  however,  in  the  time  of 
Cicero,  were  more  inclined  to  one  school  than  another, 
and  they  applied  the  lessons  of  the  sect  which  they 
followed  with  more  success,  perhaps,  than  their  mas- 
ters, to  the  practical  purposes  of  active  life.  The  ju- 
risconsults, chief  magistrates,  and  censors,  adopted  the 
Stoical  philosophy,  which  had  some  affinity  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Roman  constitution,  and  which  they  con- 
sidered best  calculated  for  ruling  their  fellow-citizens, 
as  well  as  meliorating  the  laws  and  morals  of  the  state. 
The  orators  who  aspired  to  rise  by  eloquence  to  the 
highest  honours  of  the  republic,  had  recourse  to  the 
lessons  of  the  new  Academy,  which  furnished  them 
with  weapons  for  disputation ;  while  those  who  sighed 
for  the  enjoyment  of  tranquillity,  amid  the  factions 
and  dangers  of  the  commonwealth,  retired  to  the  Gar- 
dens of  Epicurus.  But  while  subscribing  to  the  lead- 
ing tenets  of  a  sect,  they  did  not  strive  to  gain  follow- 
ers with  any  of  the  spirit  of  sectarism ;  and  it  frequent- 
ly happened,  that  neither  in  principle  nor  practice  did 
they  adopt  all  the  doctrines  of  the  school  to  which  they 
chiefly  resorted.  Thus  Caesar,  who  was  accounted  an 
Epicurean,  and  followed  the  Epicurean  system  in  some 
things,  as  in  his  belief  of  the  materiality  and  mortal- 


CICERO.  359 

ity  of  the  soul,  doubtless  held  in  little  reverence  those 
ethical  precepts,  according  to  which, 

c<  Nihil  in  nostro  corpore  prosunt, 
Nee  fama,  neque  nobilitas,  nee  gloria  regni." 

Lucretius  was  a  sounder  Epicurean,  and  gave  to  the 
precepts  of  his  master  all  the  dignity  and  grace  which 
poetical  embellishment  could'  bestow.  But  Atticus, 
the  well-known  friend  and  correspondent  of  Cicero, 
was  perhaps  the  most  perfect  example  ever  exhibited 
of  genuine  and  practical  Epicurism. 

The  rigid  and  inflexible  Cato,  was,  both  in  his  life 
and  principles,  the  great  supporter  of  the  Stoical  phi- 
losophy— conducting  himself,  according  to  an  expres- 
sion of  Cicero,  as  if  he  had  lived  in  the  polity  of  Plato, 
and  not  amid  the  dregs  of  Romulus.  The  old  Acade- 
my boasted  among  its  adherents  Lucullus,  the  con- 
queror of  Mithridates — the  Lorenzo  of  Roman  arts 
and  literature — whose  palaces  rivalled  the  porticos  of 
Greece,  and  whose  library,  with  its  adjacent  schools  and 
galleries,  was  the  resort  of  all  who  were  distinguish- 
ed for  their  learning  and  accomplishments.  Whilst 
Quaestor  of  Macedonia,  and  subsequently,  while  he 
conducted  the  war  against  Mithridates,  Lucullus  ha 
enjoyed  frequent  opportunities  of  conversing  with  the 
Greek  philosophers,  and  had  acquired  such  a  relish  for 
philosophical  studies,  that  he  devoted  to  them  all  the 
leisure  he  could  command.1  At  Rome,  his  constant 
companion  was  Antiochus  of  Ascalon,  who,  though  a 

1  Cicero,  Academ.  Prior.  Lib.  II.  c.  4. 


360  CICERO. 

pupil  of  Philo,  became  himself  a  zealous  supporter  of 
the  old  Academy ;  aud  accordingly,  Lucullus,  who 
favoured  that  system,  often  repaired  to  his  house,  to 
partake  in  the  private  disputations  which  were  there 
carried  on  against  the  advocates  for  the  new  or  middle 
Academy.  The  old  Academy  also  numbered  among 
its  votaries  Varro,  the  most  learned  of  the  Romans, 
and  Brutus,  who  was  destined  to  perform  so  tragic  a 
part  on  the  ensanguined  stage  of  his  country. 

Little  was  done  by  these  eminent  men  to  illustrate 
or  enforce  their  favourite  systems  by  their  writings. 
Even  the  productions  of  Varro  were  calculated  rather 
to  excite  to  the  study  of  philosophy,  than  to  aid  its 
progress.  The  new  Academy  was  more  fortunate  in 
the  support  of  Cicero,  who  has  asserted  and  vindicated 
its  principles  with  equal  industry  and  eloquence.  From 
their  first  introduction,  the  doctrines  of  the  new  Aca- 
demy had  been  favourably  received  at  Rome.  The  te- 
nets of  the  dogmatic  philosophers  were  so  various  and 
contradictory,  were  so  obstinately  maintained,  and  rest- 
ed on  such  precarious  foundations,  that  they  afforded 
much  scope  and  encouragement  to  scepticism.  The 
plausible  arguments  by  which  the  most  discordant  opi- 
nions were  supported,  led  to  a  distrust  of  the  existence 
of  absolute  truth,  and  to  an  acquiescence  in  such  pro- 
bable conclusions,  as  were  adequate  to  the  practical 
purposes  of  life.  The  speculations,  too,  of  the  new 
Academy,  were  peculiarly  fitted  to  the  duties  of  a  pub- 
lic speaker,  as  they  left  free  the  field  of  disputation, 
and  habituated  him  to  the  practice  of  collecting  argu- 
ments from  all  quarters,  on  every  doubtful  question. 


CICERO.  361 

Hence  it  was  that  Cicero  addicted  himself  to  this  sect, 
and  persuaded  others  to  follow  his  example.  It  has 
been  disputed,  if  Cicero  was  really  attached  to  the 
new  Academic  system,  or  had  merely  resorted  to  it  as 
being  best  adapted  for  furnishing  him  with  oratorical 
arguments  suited  to  all  occasions.  At  first,  its  adop- 
tion was  subsidiary  to  his  other  plans.  But,  towards 
the  conclusion  of  his  life,  when  he  no  longer  maintain- 
ed the  place  he  was  wont  to  hold  in  the  Senate  or  the 
Forum,  and  when  philosophy  formed  the  occupation 
"  with  which  existence  was  just  tolerable,  and  without 
which  it  would  have  been  intolerable,"1  he  doubtless 
became  convinced  that  the  principles  of  the  new  Aca- 
demy, illustrated  as  they  had  been  by  Carneades  and 
Philo,  formed  the  soundest  system  which  had  descend- 
ed to  mankind  from  the  Schools  of  Athens. 

The  attachment,  however,  of  Cicero  to  the  Acade- 
mic philosophy,  was  free  from  the  exclusive  spirit  of 
sectarism,  and  hence  it  did  not  prevent  his  extracting 
from  other  systems  what  he  found  in  them  conform- 
able to  virtue  and  reason.  His  ethical  principles,  in 
particular,  appear  Eclectic,  having  been,  in  a  great 
measure,  formed  from  the  opinions  of  the  Stoics.  Of 
most  Greek  sects  he  speaks  with  respect  and  esteem. 
For  the  Epicureans  alone,  he  seems  (notwithstanding 
his  friendship  for  Atticus)  to  have  entertained  a  deci- 
ded aversion  and  contempt. 

The  general  purpose  of  Cicero's  philosophical  works, 
was  rather  to  give  a  history  of  the  ancient  philosophy, 

1  Epist.  Familiares. 


36'2  CICERO. 

than  dogmatically  to  inculcate  opinions  of  his  own. 
It  was  his  great  aim  to  explain  to  his  fellow-citizens, 
in  their  own  language,  whatever  the  sages  of  Greece 
had  taught  on  the  most  important  subjects,  in  order  to 
enlarge  their  minds  and  reform  their  morals  ;  while, 
at  the  same  time,  he  exercised  himself  in  the  most 
useful  employment  which  now  remained  to  him — a 
superior  force  having  deprived  him  of  the  privilege  of 
serving  his  country  as  an  orator  or  Consul. 

Cicero  was  in  many  respects  well  qualified  for  the 
arduous  but  noble  task  which  he  had  undertaken,  of 
naturalizing  philosophy  in  Rome,  and  exhibiting  her, 
according  to  the  expression  of  Erasmus,  on  the  Stage 
of  life.  He  was  a  man  of  fertile  genius,  luminous  un- 
derstanding, sound  judgment,  and  indefatigable  in- 
dustry— qualities  adequate  for  the  cultivation  of  rea- 
son, and  sufficient  for  the  supply  of  subjects  of  medi- 
tation. Never  was  philosopher  placed  in  a  situation 
more  favourable  for  gathering  the  fruits  of  an  expe- 
rience employed  on  human  nature  and  civil  society,  or 
for  observing  the  effects  of  various  qualities  of  the 
mind  on  public  opinion  and  on  the  actions  of  men.  He 
lived  at  the  most  eventful  crisis  in  the  fate  of  his 
country,  and  in  the  closest  connection  with  men  of  va- 
rious and  consummate  talents,  whose  designs,  when 
fully  developed  by  the  result,  must  have  afforded,  on 
reflection,  a  splendid  lesson  in  the  philosophy  of  mind. 
But  this  situation,  in  some  respects  so  favourable,  was 
but  ill  calculated  for  revolving  abstract  ideas,  or  for 
meditating  on  those  abstruse  and  internal  powers,  of 
which  the  consequences  are  manifested  in  society  and 


C*CERO.  363 

the  transactions  of  life.  Accordingly,  Cicero  appears 
to  have  been  destitute  of  that  speculative  disposition 
which  leads  us  to  penetrate  into  the  more  recondite 
and  original  principles  of  knowledge,  and  to  mark  the 
internal  operations  of  thought.  He  had  cultivated 
eloquence  as  clearing  the  path  to  political  honours,  and 
had  studied  philosophy,  as  the  best  auxiliary  to  elo- 
quence. But  the  contemplative  sciences  only  attract- 
ed his  attention,  in  so  far  as  they  tended  to  elucidate 
ethical,  practical,  and  political  subjects,  to  which  he 
applied  a  philosophy  which  was  rather  that  of  life  than 
of  speculation. 

In  the  writings  of  Cicero,  accordingly,  everything 
deduced  from  experience  and  knowledge  of  the  world 
— every  observation  on  the  duties  of  society,  is  clearly 
expressed,  and  remarkable  for  justness  and  acuteness. 
But  neither  Cicero,  nor  any  other  Roman  author,  pos- 
sessed sufficient  subtlety  and  refinement  of  spirit,  for 
the  more  abstruse  discussions,  among  the  labyrinths 
of  which  the  Greek  philosophers  delighted  to  find  a 
fit  exercise  for  their  ingenuity.  Hence,  all  that  re- 
quired research  into  the  ultimate  foundation  of  truths, 
or  a  more  exact  analysis  of  common  ideas  and  percep- 
tions— all,  in  short,  that  related  to  the  subtleties  of 
the  Greek  schools,  is  neither  so  accurately  expressed, 
nor  so  logically  connected. 

In  theoretic  investigation,  then, — in  the  explica- 
tion of  abstract  ideas — in  the  analysis  of  qualities  and 
perceptions,  Cicero  cannot  be  regarded  as  an  inventor 
or  profound  original  thinker,  and  cannot  be  ranked 
with  Plato  and  Aristotle,  those  mighty  fathers  of  an> 


364  CICERO. 

cient  philosophy,  who  carried  back  their  inquiries  into 
the  remotest  truths  on  which  philosophy  rests.  Where 
he  does  attempt  fixing  new  principles,  he  is  neither 
very  clear  nor  consistent ;  and  it  is  evident,  that  his 
general  study  of  all  systems  had,  in  some  degree,  un- 
settled his  belief,  and  had  better  qualified  him  to  dis- 
pute on  either  side  with  the  Academics,  than  to  exa- 
mine the  exact  weight  of  evidence  in  the  scale  of  rea- 
son, or  to  exhibit  a  series  of  arguments,  in  close  and 
systematic  arrangement,  or  to  deduce  accurate  conclu- 
sions from  established  and  certain  principles.  His 
philosophic  dialogues  are  rather  to  be  considered  as 
popular  treatises,  adapted  to  the  ordinary  comprehen- 
sion of  well-informed  men,  than  profound  disquisitions, 
suited  only  to  a  Portico  or  Lyceum.  They  bespeak 
the  orator,  even  in  the  most  serious  inquiries.  Ele- 
gance and  fine  writing,  their  author  appears  to  have 
considered  as  essential  to  philosophy ;  and  historic,  or 
even  poetical  illustration,  as  its  brightest  ornament. 
The  peculiar  merit,  therefore,  of  Cicero,  lay  in  the 
happy  execution  of  what  had  never  been  before  at- 
tempted— the  luminous  and  popular  exposition  of  the 
leading  principles  and  disputes  of  the  ancient  schools 
of  philosophy,  with  judgments  concerning  them,  and 
the  application  of  results,  deduced  from  their  various 
doctrines  to  the  peculiar  manners  or  employments  of 
his  countrymen.  Hence,  though  it  may  be  honouring 
Cicero  too  highly,  to  term  his  works,  with  Gibbon,  a 
Repository  of  Reason,  they  are  at  least  a  Miscellany 
of  Philosophic  Information,  which  has  become  doubly 
valuable,  from  the  loss  of  the  writings  of  many  of  those 


CICERO.  365 

philosophers,  whose  opinions  he  records ;  and  though 
the  merit  of  originality  rests  with  the  Greek  schools, 
no  compositions  transmitted  from  antiquity  present  so 
concise  and  comprehensive  a  view  of  the  opinions  of 
the  Greek  philosophers.1 

That  the  mind  of  Cicero  was  most  amply  stored 
with  the  learning  of  the  Greek  philosophers,  and  that 
he  had  the  whole  circle  of  their  wisdom  at  his  com- 
mand, is  evident,  from  the  rapidity  with  which  his 
works  were  composed — having  been  all  written,  except 
the  treatise  De  Legibus,  during  the  period  which 
elapsed  from  the  battle  of  Pharsalia  till  his  death ;  and 
the  greater  part  of  them  in  the  course  of  the  year 
708. 

It  is  justly  remarked  by  Goerenz,  in  the  introduc- 
tion to  his  edition  of  the  book  De  Finibus,2  and  as- 
sented to  by  Schiitz,3  thatut  seems  scarcely  possible, 
that  those  numerous  philosophical  works,  which  are  as- 
serted to  have  been  composed  by  Cicero  in  the  year  708, 
could  have  been  begun  and  finished  in  one  year ;  and 
that  such  speed  of  execution  leads  us  to  suppose,  that 
either  the  materials  had  been  long  collected,  or  that  the 
productions  themselves  were  little  more  than  versions. 
In  his  Academica,  Cicero  remarks, — "Ego  autem, 
dum  me  ambitio,  dum  honores,  dum  causae,  dum  rei- 
publicae  non  solum  cura,  sed  quaedam  etiam  procuratio 
multis  officiis  implicatum  et  constrictum  tenebat,  haec 
inclusa  habebam ;  et,  ne  obsolescerent,  renovabam, 

1  Garve,  Anmerk.  zu  Buchern  von  den  Pflichten.  Breslau,  1819* 
Schoell,  Hist.  Abrege"e  de  la  Litterat.  Romaine. 

8  P.  XII.  3  Ciceron.  Opera,  Tom.  XIII.  p.  15. 


366  cicero. 

quum  Hcebat,  legendo.  Nunc  vero  et  fortunae  gravis- 
simo  percussus  vulnere,  et  administratione  reipublicae 
liberatus,  doloris  medicinam  a  philosophia  peto,  et  otii 
oblectationem  hanc,  honestissimam  judico."  It  is  not 
easy  to  determine,  as  Schutz  remarks,  whether,  by 
the  expression  "  haec  inclusa  habebam,"  Cicero  means 
merely  the  writings  of  philosophical  authors,  or  trea- 
tises and  materials  for  treatises  by  himself.  "  We 
ought,  however,"  proceeds  Schutz,  "  the  less  to  wonder 
that  Cicero  composed  so  many  works  in  so  short  a  time, 
when  we  read  the  following  passage  in  a  letter  to  At- 
ticus,  written  in  July  708 — *  De  lingua  Latina  securi 
es  animi,  dices,  qui  talia  conscribis  !  xiroy^atpot.  sunt ; 
minore  labore  fiunt :  verba  tantum  affero,  quibus  abun- 
do  ;n  which  words,  according  to  Gronovius,  imply, 
that  the  philosophic  writings  of  Cicero  are  little  more 
than  versions  from  the  Greek." 

In  the  laudable  attempt  of  naturalizing  philosophy 
at  Rome,  the  difficulty  which  Lucretius  had  encoun- 
tered, in  embodying  in  Latin  verse  the  precepts  of 
Epicurus, — 

"  Propter  egestatem  linguae  rerumque  novitatem," 

must  have  been  almost  as  powerfully  felt  by  Cicero. 
Philosophy  was  still  little  cultivated  among  the  Ro- 
mans ;  and  no  people  will  invent  terms  for  thoughts 
or  ideas  with  which  it  is  little  occupied.  One  of  his 
letters  to  Atticus  is  strongly  expressive  of  the  trouble 
which  he  had  in  interpreting  the  philosophic  terms  of 
Greece  in  his  native  tongue.2    Thus,  for  example,  he 

i  Epist.  ad  Attic.  Lib.  XII.  Ep.  52. 
•  Epist.  Lib.  XIII.  Ep.  21. 


CICERO.  367 

could  find  no  Latin  word  equivalent  to  the  £r«%»»  or 
that  withholding  of  assent  from  all  propositions,  which 
the  new  Academy  professed.  The  language  of  the 
Greeks  had  been  formed  along  with  their  philosophy. 
Their  terms  of  physics  had  their  origin  in  the  ancient 
Theogonies,  or  the  speculations  of  the  Milesian  sage ; 
and  Plato  informs  us,  that  one  might  make  a  course 
of  moral  philosophy  in  travelling  through  Attica  and 
reading  the  inscriptions  engraved  on  the  tombs,  pil- 
lars, and  monuments,  erected  in  the  earliest  ages  near 
the  public  ways  and  centre  of  villages.1  Hence,  in 
Greece,  words  naturally  became  the  apposite  signs  of 
speculative  and  moral  ideas ;  but  in  Rome,  a  foreign 
philosophy  had  to  be  inculcated  in  a  tongue  which  was 
already  completely  formed,  which  was  greatly  inferior 
in  flexibility  and  precision  to  the  Greek ;  and  which, 
though  Cicero  certainly  used  some  liberties  in  this  re- 
spect, had  too  nearly  reached  maturity,  to  admit  of 
much  innovation.  Its  words,  accordingly,  did  not  al- 
ways precisely  express  the  subtle  notions  signified  in 
the  original  language,  whence  there  was  often  an  ap- 
pearance of  obscurity  in  the  idea,  and  of  a  defect  in  con- 
clusions, drawn  from  premises  which  were  indefinite, 
or  which  differed  by  a  shade  of  meaning  from  those 
established  in  Greece. 

Aware  of  this  difficulty,  and  conscious,  perhaps,  that 
he  possessed  not  precision  and  originality  of  thinking 
sufficient  to  recommend  a  formal  treatise,  Cicero  adopt- 
ed the  mode  of  writing  in  dialogues,  in  which  rheto- 
rical difFuseness,  and  looseness  of  definition,  might  be 

1  Dialog.  Hipparckus. 


368  cicero. 

overlooked,  and  in  which  ample  scope  would  be  afford- 
ed for  the  ornaments  of  language. 

It  was  by  oral  discourse  that  knowledge  was  chiefly 
communicated  at  the  dawn  of  science,  when  books 
either  did  not  exist,  or  were  extremely  rare.  In  the 
Porch,  in  the  Garden,  or  among  the  groves  of  the  Aca- 
demy, the  philosopher  conferred  with  his  disciples, 
listened  to  their  remarks,  and  replied  to  their  objec- 
tions. Socrates,  in  particular,  was  accustomed  thus  to 
inculcate  his  moral  lessons  ;  and  it  was  natural  for  the 
scholars,  who  recorded  them,  to  follow  the  manner  in 
which  they  had  been  disclosed.  Of  these  disciples, 
Plato,  who  was  the  most  distinguished,  readily  adopted 
a  form  of  composition,  which  gave  scope  to  his  own  fer- 
tile and  poetical  imagination ;  while,  at  the  same  time, 
it  enabled  him  more  accurately  to  paint  his  great 
master.  One  of  his  chief  objects,  too,  was  to  represent 
the  triumph  of  Socrates  over  the  Sophists  ;  and  if  a 
writer  wish  to  cover  an  opponent  with  ridicule,  per- 
haps no  better  mode  could  be  devised,  than  to  set  him 
up  as  a  man  of  straw  in  a  dialogue.  As  argumentative 
victory,  or  the  embarrassment  of  the  antagonist  of  So- 
crates, was  often  all  that  was  aimed  at,  it  was  unne- 
cessary to  be  very  scrupulous  about  the  means,  and, 
considered  in  this  view,  the  agreeable  irony  of  that 
philosopher — the  address  with  which,  by  seeming  to 
yield,  he  ensnares  the  adversary — his  quibbles — his 
subtle  distinctions,  and  perplexing  interrogatories,  dis- 
play consummate  skill,  and  produce  considerable  dra- 
matic effect ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  the  scenery  and 
circumstances  of  the  dialogue  are  often  described  with 


cicero.  369 

a  richness  and  beauty  of  imagination,  which  no  philo- 
sophic writer  has  as  yet  surpassed.1 

When  Cicero,  towards  the  close  of  his  long  and 
meritorious  life,  employed  himself  in  transferring  to 
Rome  the  philosophy  of  Greece,  he  appears  to  have 
been  chiefly  attracted  by  the  diffusive  majesty  of  Plato, 
whose  intellectual  character  was  in  many  respects  con- 
genial to  his  own.  His  dialogues  in  so  far  resemble 
those  of  Plato,  that  the  personages  are  real,  and  of 
various  characters  and  opinions ;  while  the  circum- 
stances of  time  and  place  are,  for  the  most  part, 
as  completely  fictitious  as  in  his  Greek  models.  Yet 
there  is  a  considerable  difference  in  the  manner  of 
Cicero's  Dialogues,  from  those  of  the  great  founder 
of  the  Academy.  Plato  ever  preserved  something  of 
the  Socratic  method  of  giving  birth  to  the  thoughts 
of  others — of  awakening,  by  interrogatories,  the  sense 
of  truth,  and  supplanting  errors.  But  Cicero  himself, 
or  the  person  who  speaks  his  sentiments,  always  takes 
the  lead  in  the  conference,  and  gives  us  long,  and  often 
uninterrupted  dissertations.  His  object,  too,  appears 
to  have  been  not  so  much  to  cover  his  adversaries  with 
ridicule,  or  even  to  prevail  in  the  argument,  as  to  pay 
a  complimentary  tribute  to  his  numerous  and  illus- 
trious friends,  or  to  recall,  as  it  were,  from  the  tomb, 
the  departed  heroes  and  sages  of  his  country. 

In  the  form  of  dialogue,  Cicero  has  successively 
treated  of  Law,  Metaphysics,  Theology,  and  Morals. 

De  Legibus. — Of  this  dialogue  there  are  only  three 

1  Black's  Life  of  Tasso,  Vol.  II. 
VOL.  II.  2  A 


370  CICERO. 

books  now  extant,  and  even  in  these  considerable 
chasms  occur.  A  conjecture  has  been  recently  hazard- 
ed by  a  learned  German,  in  an  introduction  to  a  trans- 
lation of  the  dialogue,  that  these  three  books,  as  we 
now  have  them,  were  not  written  by  Cicero,  but  that 
they  are  mere  excerpts  taken  from  his  lost  writings, 
by  some  monk  or  father  of  the  church.1  There  are  few 
works,  however,  in  which  more  genuine  marks  of  the 
master-hand  of  Cicero  may  be  traced,  than  in  the  tract 
De  Legibus ;  and  the  connection  between  the  diffe- 
rent parts  is  too  closely  preserved,  to  admit  of  the  no- 
tion that  it  has  been  made  up  in  the  manner  which 
this  critic  supposes.  Another  conjecture  is,  that  it 
formed  part  of  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  books  of 
Cicero's  lost  treatise  De  Republicd.  This  surmise, 
however,  was  highly  improbable,  since  Cicero,  in  the 
course  of  the  work  De  Legibus,  refers  to  that  De  Re- 
publicd as  a  separate  production,  and  it  is  now  proved 
to  be  chimerical  by  the  discovery  of  Mai.  The  dia- 
logue De  Legibus,  however,  seems  to  have  been 
drawn  up  as  a  kind  of  supplement  to  that  De  Repub- 
licd, being  intended  to  point  out  what  laws  would  be 
most  suitable  to  the  perfect  republic,  which  the  author 
had  previously  described.2 

As  to  the  period  of  composition,  it  thus  manifestly 
appears  to  have  been  written  subsequently  to  the  dia- 
logue De  Republicd ;    and  it  is  evident,  from  his 

1  Hulsemann,  Uber  die  Principicn  und  den  Geist  der  Gesetze. 
Leipsic,  1802. 

2  Quaeque^-de  optima  republica  sentiremus,  in  sex  libris  ante 
diximus ;  accommodabimus  hoc  tempore  leges  ad  ilium,  quern  pro- 
bamus  civitatiis  statum.     De  Legib.  Lib.  III.  c.  2. 


CICERO.  371 

letters  to  his  brother  Quintus,  that  the  work  De 
Republicd  was  begun  in  699,  and  finished  in  700,1 
so  that  the  dialogue  De  Legibus  could  not  have 
been  composed  before  that  year.  It  is  farther  clear, 
that  it  was  written  after  the  year  701,  since  he  ob- 
viously alludes  in  it  to  the  murder  of  Clodius, — boast- 
ing that  his  chief  enemy  was  now  not  only  deprived 
of  life,  but  wanted  sepulture,  and  the  accustomed  fune- 
ral obsequies.2  Now,  it  is  well  known  that  Clodius 
was  slain  in  701,  and  that  his  dead  body  was  dragged 
naked  by  a  lawless  mob  into  the  Forum,  where  it  was 
consumed  amid  the  conflagration  raised  in  the  Senate- 
house.  It  is  equally  evident  that  the  treatise  De  Le- 
gibus was  written  before  that  De  Finibus,  composed 
in  708,  since,  in  the  former  work,  the  author  alludes 
to  the  questions  which  we  find  discussed  in  the  lat- 
ter, as  controversies  which  he  is  one  day  to  take  up.3 
But  it  is  demonstrable  that  the  dialogue  De  Legi- 
bus was  written  even  previous  to  the  battle  of  Phar- 
salia,  which  was  fought  in  705,  since  the  author 
talks  in  it  of  Pompey  as  of  a  person  still  alive,  and 
in  the  plenitude  of  glory.4  Chapman,  in  his  disser- 
tation De  JEtate  Librorum  De  Legibus,  subjoined 
to  Tunstall's  Latin  letter  to  Middleton,  concerning 
the  epistles  to  Brutus,  thinks  that  it  was  not  writ- 
ten till  the  year  709-     He  is  of  opinion,  that  what 

i  Epist.  ad  Quint.  Frat.  Lib.  II.  Ep.  14.     Lib.  III.   Ep.  5 
and  6. 

2  De  Legib.  Lib,  II.  c.  17. 

3  De  Legib.  Lib.  I.  c.  20. 

4  Hominis  Amicissimi,  Cn.  Pompeii,  laudes  illustrabit.  Lib.  I. 
c.  3. 


372  CICERO. 

is  said  of  Pompey,  and  the  allusions  to  the  mur- 
der of  Clodius,  as  to  a  recent  event,  were  only  in- 
tended to  suit  the  time  in  which  the  dialogue  takes 
place :  But  then  it  so  happens,  that  no  historical  pe- 
riod whatever  is  assigned  by  the  author  of  the  dia- 
logue, as  the  date  of  its  actual  occurrence.  Chapman 
also  maintains,  that  this  is  the  only  mode  of  account- 
ing for  the  work  De  Legibus  not  being  mentioned  in 
the  treatise  De  Divinatione,  where  Cicero's  other  phi- 
losophical productions  are  enumerated.  The  reason  of 
this  omission,  however,  might  be,  that  the  work  De 
Legibus  never  was  made  public  by  the  author  ;  and, 
indeed,  with  exception  of  the  first  book,  the  whole  is 
but  a  sketch  or  outline  of  what  he  intended  to  write, 
and  is  far  from  having  received  the  polish  and  perfec- 
tion of  those  performances  which  he  circulated  him- 
self. 

The  discussion  De  Legibus  is  carried  on,  in  the 
shape  of  dialogue,  by  Cicero,  his  brother  Quintus,  and 
Atticus.  Of  these  Cicero  is  the  chief  interlocutor. 
The  scene  is  laid  amid  the  walks  and  pleasure-grounds 
of  Cicero's  villa  of  Arpinum,  which  lay  about  three 
miles  from  the  town  of  that  name,  and  was  situated 
in  a  mountainous  but  picturesque  region  of  the  ancient 
territory  of  the  Samnites,  now  forming  part  of  the 
kingdom  of  Naples.  This  house  was  the  original  seat 
of  the  family  of  Cicero,  who  was  born  in  it  during 
the  life  of  his  grandfather,  while  it  was  yet  small  and 
humble  as  the  Sabine  cottage  of  Curius  or  Cincin- 
natus  ;  but  his  father  had  gradually  enlarged  and  em- 
bellished it,  till  it  became  a  spacious  and  elegant  man- 


ciceuo.  373 

sion,  where,  as  his  health  was  infirm,  he  passed  the 
greater  part  of  his  life  in  literary  retirement.1  Cicero 
was  thus  equally  attracted  to  this  villa  by  the  many 
pleasing  and  tender  recollections  with  which  it  was 
associated,  and  by  the  amenity  of  the  situation,  which 
was  the  most  retired  and  delightful,  even  in  that  re- 
gion of  enchanting  landscape.  It  was  closely  sur- 
rounded by  a  grove,  and  stood  not  far  from  the  con- 
fluence of  the  Fibrenus  with  the  Liris.  The  former 
stream,  which  murmured  over  a  rocky  channel,  was 
remarkable  for  its  clearness,  rapidity,  and  coolness ; 
and  its  sloping  verdant  banks  were  shaded  with  lofty 
poplars.2  "  Many  streams,"  says  Mr  Kelsall,  one  of 
our  latest  Italian  tourists,  "  which  are  celebrated  in 
story  and  song,  disappoint  the  traveller, — 

'  Dumb  are  their  fountains,  and  their  channels  dry/— 

but,  in  the  course  of  long  travels,  I  never  met  with  so 
abundant  and  lucid  a  current  as  the  Fibrenus ;  the 
length  of  the  stream  considered,  which  does  not  ex- 
ceed four  miles  and  a  half.  It  flows  with  great  rapi- 
dity, and  is  about  thirty  or  thirty-five  feet  in  width 
near  the  Ciceronian  isles.  It  is  generally  fifteen  and 
even  twenty  in  depth ;  ■  largus  et  exundans,'  like  the 
genius  of  him  who  had  so  often  trodden  its  banks. 
The  water,  even  in  the  intensest  heats,  still  retains 
its  icy  coldness ;  and,  although  the  thermometer  was 
above  80°  in  the  shade,  the  hand,  plunged  for  a  few 
seconds  into  the  Fibrenus,  caused  a  complete  numb- 

1  De  Legibus,  Lib.  II.  c.  1. 

2  Ibid.  Lib.  I.  c.  5. 


374  cicero. 

ness."1  Near  to  the  house,  the  Fibrenus  was  divided 
into  two  equal  streams  by  a  little  island,  which  was 
fringed  with  a  few  plane-trees,  and  on  which  stood  a 
portico,2  where  Cicero  often  retired  to  read  or  meditate, 
and  composed  some  of  his  sublimest  harangues.  Just 
below  this  islet,  each  branch  of  the  stream  rushed  by  a 
sort  of  cascade,  into  the  cerulean  Liris,3  on  which  the 
Fibrenus  bestowed  additional  freshness  and  coolness, 
and  after  this  union  received  the  name  of  the  more 
noble  river.4  The  epithet  taciturnus,  applied  to  the 
Liris  by  Horace,  and  quietus,  by  Silius  Italicus, 
must  be  understood  only  of  the  lower  windings  of 
its  course.  No  river  in  Italy  is  so  noisy  as  the  Liris 
about  Arpino  and  Cicero's  villa ;  for  the  space  of  a 
mile  and  a  half  after  receiving  the  Fibrenus,  it  formed 
no  less  than  six  cascades,  varying  in  height  from  three 
to  twenty  feet.5  This  spot,  embellished  with  all  the 
ornaments  of  hills  and  valleys,  and  wood  and  water- 
falls, was  one  of  Cicero's  most  favourite  retreats. 
When  Atticus  first  visited  it,  he  was  so  charmed,  that, 
instead  of  wondering  as  before  that  it  was  such  a  fa- 
vourite residence  of  his  friend,  he  expressed  his  sur- 
prise that  he  ever  retired  elsewhere ;°  declaring,  at  the 
same  time,  his  contempt  of  the  marble  pavements, 
arched  ceilings,  and  artificial  canals  of  magnificent 

1  Excursion  from  Rome  to  Arpino,  p.  89«  Ed.  Geneva,  1820. 

2  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XXXI.  c.  2. 

3  "  Cseruleus  nos  Liris  amat." — Martial.  Lib.  XIII.  Ep.  83. 
See  also  Lucan,  Lib.  II. 

4  De  Legibus,  Lib.  II.  e.  2. 

5  Kelsall,  Excursion,  p.  11 6. 
"  De  Legibus,  Lib.  II.  c.  1. 


CICERO.  375 

villas,  compared  with  the  tranquillity  and  natural 
beauties  of  Arpinum.  Cicero,  indeed,  appears  at 
one  time  to  have  thought  of  the  island,  formed  by 
the  Fibrenus,  as  the  place  most  suitable  for  the  monu- 
ment which  he  intended  to  raise  to  his  beloved  daugh- 
ter Tullia.1 

The  situation  of  this  villa  was  close  to  the  spot 
where  now  stands  the  city  of  Sora.2  "  The  Liris," 
says  Eustace,  "  still  bears  its  ancient  name  till  it 
passes  Sora,  when  it  is  called  the  Garigliano.  The 
Fibrenus,  still  so  called,  falls  into  it  a  little  below  Sora, 
and  continues  to  encircle  the  island  in  which  Cicero 
lays  the  scene  of  the  dialogue  De  Legibus.  Arpi- 
num, also,  still  retains  its  name."3  Modern  travellers 
bear  ample  testimony  to  the  scenery  round  Sora  being 
such  as  fully  justifies  the  fond  partiality  of  Cicero, 
and  the  admiration  of  Atticus.  "Nothing,"  says  Mr 
Kelsall,  "  can  be  imagined  finer  than  the  surrounding 
landscape.  The  deep  azure  of  the  sky,  unvaried  by 
a  single  cloud — Sora  on  a  rock  at  the  foot  of  the  pre- 
cipitous Apennines — both  banks  of  the  Garigliano 
covered  with  vineyards — the  fragor  aquarum,  allu- 
ded to  by  Atticus  in  the  work  De  Legibus — the  cool- 
ness, rapidity,  and  ultramarine  hue  of  the  Fibrenus, 
— the  noise  of  its  cataracts — the  rich  turquoise  colour 
of  the  Liris — the  minor  Apennines  round  Arpino, 
crowned  with  umbrageous  oaks  to  their  very  sum- 
mits, present  scenery  hardly  elsewhere  to  be  equalled, 

i  Epist.  ad  Attic.  Lib.  XII.  Ep.  12. 

2  Classic  Tour  through  Italy,  by  Sir  R.  C.  Hoare,  Vol.  I.  p.  293. 

s   Classical  Tour,  Vol.  II.  c.  Q. 


376  cicero. 

certainly  not  to  be  surpassed,  even  in  Italy."1  The  spot 
where  Cicero's  villa  stood,  was,  in  the  time  of  Middle- 
ton,  possessed  by  a  convent  of  monks,  and  was  called 
the  Villa  of  St  Dominic.  It  was  built  in  the  year  1030, 
from  the  fragments  of  the  Arpine  villa  ! 

"  Art,  Glory,  Freedom,  fail — but  Nature  still  is  fair." 

The  first  conference,  De  Legibus,  is  held  in  a  walk 
on  the  banks  of  the  Fibrenus  ;  the  other  two  in  the 
island  which  it  formed,  and  which  Cicero  called  Amal- 
thea,  from  a  villa  belonging  to  Atticus  in  Epirus. 
These  three  books  are  all  that  are  now  extant.  It  ap- 
pears, however,  that,  at  the  commencement  of  the  fifth 
dialogue,  the  sun  having  then  passed  the  meridian, 
and  its  beams  striking  in  such  a  direction  that  the 
speakers  were  no  longer  sheltered  from  its  rays  by  the 
young  plane-trees,  which  had  been  recently  planted, 
they  left  the  island,  and  descending  to  the  banks  of 
the  Liris,  finished  their  discourse  under  the  shade  of 
the  alder-trees,  which  stretched  their  branches  over  its 
margin.2 

An  ancient  oak,  which  stood  in  Cicero's  pleasure- 

1  Classical  Excursion  from  Rome  to  Arpino,  p.  99-  Cicero  al- 
ways considered  the  citizens  of  Arpinum  as  under  his  particular 
protection  and  patronage ;  and  it  is  pleasant  to  find,  that  its  mo- 
dern inhabitants  still  testify,  in  various  ways,  due  veneration  for 
their  illustrious  townsman.  Their  theatre  is  called  the  Teatro 
Tulliano,  of  which  the  drop-scene  is  painted  with  a  bust  of  the 
orator ;  and  even  now,  workmen  are  employed  in  building  a  new 
town-hall,  with  niches,  destined  to  receive  statues  of  Marius  and 
Cicero. 

2  Macrob.  Saturnal.  Lib.  VI.  c.  4. 


cicero.  377 

grounds,  led  Atticus  to  inquire  concerning  the  augury 
which  had  been  presented  to  Marius,  a  native  of  Ar- 
pinum,  from   that  very  oak,  and  which  Cicero  had 
celebrated  in   a  poem  devoted   to  the    exploits    of 
his  ferocious   countryman.      Cicero  hints,  that  the 
portent  was  all  a  fiction  ;  which  leads  to  a  discussion 
on  the  difference  between  poetry  and  history,  and 
the  poverty  of  Rome  in  the  latter  department.    As 
Cicero,  owing  to  the  multiplicity  of  affairs,  had  not 
then  leisure  to  supply  this  deficiency,  he  is  requested 
by  his  guests,  to  give  them,  in  the  meanwhile,  a  dis- 
sertation on  Laws — a  subject  with  which  he  was  so 
conversant,  that  he  could  require  no  previous  prepa- 
ration.  It  is  agreed,  that  he  should  not  treat  of  parti- 
cular or  arbitrary  laws, — as  those  concerning  Stillicide, 
and  the  forms  of  judicial  procedure — but  should  trace 
the  philosophic  principles  of  jurisprudence  to  their 
remotest  sources,     From  this  recondite  investigation 
he  excludes  the  Epicureans,  who  decline  all  care  of 
the  republic,  and  bids  them  retire  to  their  gardens. 
He  entreats  that  the  new  Academy  should  be  silent, 
since  her  bold  objections  would  soon  destroy  the  fair 
and  well-ordered  structure  of  his  lofty  system.    Zeno, 
Aristotle,  and  the  immediate  followers  of  Plato,  he 
represents  as  the  teachers  who  best  prepare  a  citi- 
zen for  performing  the  duties  of  social  life.  Them  he 
professes  chiefly  to  follow ;  and,  in  conformity  with 
their  system,  he  announces  in  the  first  book,  which 
treats  of  laws  in  general,  that  man  being  linked  to  a 
supreme  God  by  reason  and  virtue,  and  the  whole 
species  being  associated  by  a  communion  of  feelings 


378  CICERO. 

and  interests,  laws  are  alike  founded  on  divine  autho- 
rity and  natural  benevolence. 

According  to  this  sublime  hypothesis,  the  whole 
universe  forms  one  immense  commonwealth  of  gods 
and  men,  who  participate  of  the  same  essence,  and  are 
members  of  the  same  community.  Reason  prescribes 
the  law  of  nature  and  nations ;  and  all  positive  insti- 
tutions, however  modified  by  accident  or  custom,  are 
drawn  from  the  rule  of  right  which  the  Deity  has  in- 
scribed on  every  virtuous  mind.  Some  actions,  there- 
fore, are  just  in  their  own  nature,  and  ought  to  be 
performed,  not  because  we  live  in  a  society  where  po- 
sitive laws  punish  those  who  pay  no  regard  to  them, 
but  for  the  sake  of  that  equity  which  accompanies 
them,  independently  of  human  ordinances.  These  prin- 
ciples may  be  applicable  to  laws  in  a  certain  sense ; 
but,  in  fact,  it  is  rather  moral  right  and  justice  than 
laws  that  the  author  discusses — for  bad  or  pernicious 
laws  he  does  not  admit  to  be  laws  at  all.  To  do  jus- 
tice, to  love  mercy,  and  to  worship  God  with  a  pure 
heart,  were,  doubtless,  laws  in  his  meaning,  (that  is, 
they  were  right,)  previous  to  their  enactment,  and  no 
human  enactment  to  the  contrary  could  abrogate  them. 
His  principles,  however,  apply  to  laws  in  this  sense, 
and  not  to  arbitrary  civil  institutions. 

Having,  in  the  first  discourse,  laid  open  the  origin 
of  laws,  and  source  of  obligations,  he  proceeds,  in  the 
remaining  books,  to  set  forth  a  body  of  laws  conform- 
able to  his  own  plan  and  ideas  of  a  well-ordered  state ; 
— announcing,  in  the  first  place,  those  which  relate  to 
religion  and  the  worship  of  the  gods  ;  secondly,  such  as 


CICERO.  379 

prescribe  the  duties  and  powers  of  magistrates.  These 
laws  are,  for  the  most  part,  taken  from  the  ancient 
government  and  customs  of  Rome,  with  some  little  mo- 
dification calculated  to  obviate  or  heal  the  disorders  to 
which  the  republic  was  liable,  and  to  give  its  constitu- 
tion a  stronger  bias  in  favour  of  the  aristocratic  faction. 
The  species  of  instruction  communicated  in  these  two 
books,  has  very  little  reference  to  the  sublime  and  ge- 
neral principles  with  which  the  author  set  out.  Many 
of  his  laws  are  arbitrary  municipal  regulations.  The 
number  of  the  magistrates,  the  period  of  the  duration 
of  their  offices,  with  the  suffrages  and  elections  in  the 
Comitia,  were  certainly  not  founded  in  the  immu- 
table laws  of  God  or  nature ;  and  the  discussion 
concerning  them  has  led  to  the  belief,  that  the  second 
and  third  books  merely  comprehended  a  collection  of 
facts,  from  which  general  principles  were  to  be  subse- 
quently deduced. 

At  the  end  of  the  third  book  it  is  mentioned,  that 
the  executive  power  of  the  magistracy,  and  rights  of 
the  Roman  citizens,  still  remain  to  be  discussed.  In 
what  number  of  books  this  plan  was  accomplished,  is 
uncertain.  Macrobius,  as  we  have  seen,  quotes  the  fifth 
book  ;x  and  Goerenz  thinks  it  probable  there  were  six, 
— the  fourth  being  on  the  executive  power,  the  fifth  on 
public,  and  the  sixth  on  private  rights. 

What  authors  Cicero  chiefly  followed  and  imitated 
in  his  work  De  Legibus,  has  been  a  celebrated  contro- 
versy since  the  time  of  Turnebus.     It  seems  now  to 

1  Saturnal.  Lib.  VI.  c.  4. 


380  CICERO. 

be  pretty  well  settled,  that,  in  substance  and  prin- 
ciples, he  followed  the  Stoics ;  but  that  he  imitated 
Plato  in  the  style  and  dress  in  which  he  arrayed  his 
sentiments  and  opinions.  That  philosopher,  as  is  well 
known,  after  writing  on  government  in  general,  drew 
up  a  body  of  laws  adapted  to  that  particular  form  of 
it  which  he  had  delineated.  In  like  manner,  Cieero 
chose  to  deliver  his  sentiments,  not  by  translating 
Plato,  but  by  imitating  his  manner  in  the  explication 
of  them,  and  adapting  everything  to  the  constitution 
of  his  own  country.  The  Stoic  whom  he  principally 
followed,  was  probably  Chrysippus,  who  wrote  a  book 
Ile^i  No^y,1  some  passages  of  which  are  still  extant,  and 
exhibit  the  outlines  of  the  system  adopted  in  the  first 
book  JDe  Legibus.  What  of  general  discussion  ap- 
pears in  the  third  book  is  taken  from  Theophrastus, 
Dio,  and  Panaetius  the  Stoic. 

De  Finibus  JSonorum  et  Malorum. — This  work  is 
a  philosophical  account  of  the  various  opinions  enter- 
tained by  the  Greeks  concerning  the  Supreme  Good 
and  Extreme  Evil,  and  is  by  much  the  most  subtle 
and  difficult  of  the  philosophic  writings  of  Cicero.  It 
consists  of  five  books,  of  that  sort  of  dialogue,  in 
which,  as  in  the  treatise  De  Oratore,  the  discourse  is 
not  dramatically  represented,  but  historically  related 
by  the  author.  The  constant  repetition  of  "  said  I," 
and  "  says  he,"  is  tiresome  and  clumsy,  and  not  near- 
ly so  agreeable  as  the  dramatic  form  of  dialogue,  where 
the  names  of  the  different  speakers  are  alternately  pre- 

1  Diogenes  Lacrtius,  Lib.  VII. 


CICERO.  381 

fixed,  as  in  a  play.  The  whole  is  addressed  to  Marcus 
Brutus  in  an  Introduction,  where  the  author  excuses 
his  study  of  philosophy,  which  some  persons  had  blamed 
as  unbecoming  his  character  and  dignity.  The  confer- 
ence in  the  first  two  books  is  supposed  to  be  held  at 
Cicero's  Cuman  villa,  which  was  situated  on  the  hills 
of  old  Cumse,  and  commanded  a  prospect  of  theCampi 
Phlegraei,  the  bay  of  Puteoli,  with  its  islands,  the  Por- 
tus  Misenus  the  harbour  of  theRoman  fleet,  andBaiae, 
the  retreat  of  the  most  wealthy  patricians.  Here  Cice- 
ro received  a  visit  from  Lucius  Torquatus,  a  confirmed 
Epicurean,  and  from  a  young  patrician,  Caius  Tria- 
rius,  who  is  a  mute  in  the  ensuing  colloquy.  Torqua- 
tus engages  their  host  in  philosophical  discussion,  by 
requesting  to  know  his  objections  to  the  Epicurean 
system.  These  Cicero  states  generally  ;  but  Torqua- 
tus, in  his  answer,  confines  himself  to  the  question  of 
the  Supreme  Good,  which  he  placed  in  pleasure.  This 
tenet  he  supports  on  the  principle,  that,  of  all  things, 
Virtue  is  the  most  pleasurable ;  that  we  ought  to  fol- 
low its  laws,  in  consequence  of  the  serenity  and  satis- 
faction arising  from  its  practice ;  and  that  honourable 
toil,  or  even  pain,  are  not  always  to  be  avoided,  as  they 
often  prove  necessary  means  towards  obtaining  the 
most  exquisite  gratifications.  Cicero,  in  his  refuta- 
tion, which  is  contained  in  the  second  book,  gives 
rather  a  different  representation  of  the  philosophy 
of  Epicurus,  from  his  great  poetic  contemporary  Lu- 
cretius. The  term  &mn,  (voluptas,)  used  by  Epi- 
curus to  express  his  Supreme  Good,  can  only,  as  Ci- 
cero maintains,  mean  sensual  enjoyment,  and  can  ne- 


382  cicero. 

ver  be  so  interpreted  as  to  denote  tranquillity  of  mind. 
But  supposing  virtue  to  be  cultivated  merely  as  pro- 
ductive of  pleasure,  or  as  only  valuable  because  agree- 
able— a  cheat,  who  had  no  remorse  or  conscience, 
might  enjoy  the  summum  bonum  in  defrauding  a  right- 
ful owner  of  his  property ;  and  no  act  would  thus  be 
accounted  criminal,  if  it  escaped  the  brand  of  public 
infamy.  On  the  other  hand,  if  pain  be  accounted 
the  Supreme  Evil,  how  can  any  man  enjoy  felicity, 
when  this  greatest  of  all  misfortunes  may  at  any  mo- 
ment seize  him  ? 

In  the  third  and  fourth  books,  the  scene  of  the 
dialogue  is  changed.  In  order  to  inspect  some  books 
of  Aristotelian  philosophy,  Cicero  walks  over  to  the 
villa  of  young  Lucullus,  to  whom  he  had  been  ap- 
pointed guardian,  by  the  testament  of  his  illustrious 
father.  Here  he  finds  Cato  employed  in  perusing 
certain  works  of  Stoical  authors ;  and  a  discussion 
arises  on  that  part  of  the  Stoical  system,  relating  to 
the  Supreme  Good,  which  Cato  placed  in  virtue  alone. 
Cicero,  in  his  answer  to  Cato,  attempts  to  reconcile 
this  tenet  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Academic  philo- 
sophy, which  he  himself  professed,  by  showing  that  the 
difference  between  them  consisted  only  in  the  import 
affixed  to  the  term  good — the  Academic  sect  assign- 
ing a  pre-eminence  to  virtue,  but  admitting  that  ex- 
ternal advantages  are  good  also  in  their  degree.  Now, 
the  Stoics  would  not  allow  them  to  be  good,  but  merely 
valuable,  eligible,  or  preferable;  so  that  the  sects 
could  be  reconciled  in  sentiment,  if  the  terms  were 
but  a  little  changed.   The  Academical  system  is  fully 


cicero.  383 

developed  in  the  fifth  book,  in  a  dialogue  held  within 
the  Academy  ;  and,  at  the  commencement,  the  asso- 
ciations which  that  celebrated,  though  then  solitary- 
spot,  was  calculated  to  awaken,  are  finely  described. 
"  I  see  before  me,"  says  Piso,  "  the  perfect  form  of 
Plato,  who  was  wont  to  dispute  in  this  very  place : 
These  gardens  not  only  recall  him  to  my  memory,  but 
present  his  very  person  to  my  senses— I  fancy  to  my- 
self that  here  stood  Speusippus — there  Xenocrates — 
and  here,  on  this  bench,  sat  his  disciple  Polemo.  To 
me,  our  ancient  Senate-house  seems  peopled  with  the 
like  visionary  forms ;  for  often  when  I  enter  it,  the 
shades  of  Scipio,  of  Cato,  and  of  Laelius,  and,  in  par- 
ticular, of  my  venerable  grandfather,  rise  up  to  my 
imagination."  Here  Piso,  who  was  a  great  Platonist, 
gives  an  account,  in  the  presence  of  Cicero  and  Ci- 
cero's brother  Quintus,  of  the  hypothesis  of  the  old 
Academy  concerning  moral  good,  which  was  also  that 
adopted  by  the  Peripatetics.  According  to  this  sys- 
tem, the  summum  bonum  consists  in  the  highest  im- 
provement of  all  the  mental  and  bodily  faculties.  The 
perfection,  in  short,  of  everything  consistent  with  na- 
ture, enters  into  the  composition  of  supreme  felicity. 
Virtue,  indeed,  is  the  highest  of  all  things,  but  other 
advantages  must  also  be  valued  according  to  their 
worth.  Even  pleasures  become  ingredients  of  hap- 
piness, if  they  be  such  as  are  included  in  the  prima 
naturce,  or  primary  advantages  of  nature.  Cicero 
seems  to  approve  this  system,  and  objects  only  to  one 
of  the  positions  of  Piso,  That  a  wise  man  must  be  al- 
ways happy.     Our  author  thus  contrasts  with  each 


384  cicero. 

other  the  different  systems  of  Greek  philosophy,  par- 
ticularly the  Epicurean  with  the  Stoical  tenets;  and 
hence,besides  refuting  them  in  his  own  person,  he  makes 
the  one  baffle  the  other,  till  he  arrives  at  what  is  most 
probable,  the  utmost  length  to  which  the  middle  or 
new  Academy  pretended  to  reach.  The  chief  part  of 
the  work  JDe  Finibus,  is  taken  from  the  best  writings 
of  the  different  philosophers  whose  doctrines  he  ex- 
plains. The  first  book  closely  follows  the  tract  of  Epi- 
curus, Kvpiur  eTegwv.  Cicero's  second  book,  in  which  he 
refutes  Epicurism,  is  borrowed  from  the  stoic  Chry- 
sippus,  who  wrote  ten  books  Of  the  beautiful,  and  of 
pleasure,  (Hegi  t«  kx\v  kai  mg  ridovng,)  wherein  he  can- 
vassed the  Epicurean  tenets  concerning  the  Supreme 
Good  and  Evil.  His  third  book  is  derived  from  a 
treatise  of  the  same  Chrysippus,  entitled  n^i  teXccv.1 
The  fourth,  where  he  refutes  the  Stoics,  is  from  the 
writings  of  Polemo,  who,  following  the  example  of  his 
master  Xenocrates,  amended  the  Academic  doctrines, 
and  nearly  accommodated  them  on  this  subject  of 
Good  and  Evil  to  the  opinions  of  the  ancient  Peripa- 
tetics. Some  works  of  Antiochus  of  Ascalon,  who,  in 
the  time  of  Cicero,  was  the  head  of  the  old  Academy, 
supplied  the  materials  for  the  concluding  dialogue. 

The  work  De  Finibus  was  written  in  708,  and 
though  begun  subsequently  to  the  Academica,  was 
finished  before  it.  The  period,  however,  of  the  three 
different  conferences  of  which  it  consists,  is  laid  a  con- 
siderable time  before  the  date  of  its  publication.  It  is 
evident  that  the  first  dialogue  is  supposed  to  be  held 

»  Diog.  Laert.  Lib.  VIT. 

5 


CICERO.  385 

in  703,  since  Torquatus,  the  principal  speaker,  who 
perished  in  the  civil  war,  is  mentioned  as  Prcetor  De- 
signatus,  and  this  praetorship  he  bore  in  the  year  704. 
The  following  conference  is  placed  subsequently,  at 
least,  to  the  death  of  the  great  Lucullus,  who  died  in 
70 1.  The  last  dialogue  is  carried  more  than  thirty  years 
back,  being  laid  in  674,  when  Cicero  was  in  his  twenty- 
seventh  year,  and  was  attending  the  lessons  of  the 
Athenian  philosophers.  For  this  change,  the  reason 
seems  to  have  been,  that  as  Piso  was  the  fittest  person 
whom  the  author  could  find  to  support  the  doctrines  of 
the  old  Academy,  and  as  he  had  renounced  his  friend- 
ship during  the  time  of  the  disturbances  occasioned  by 
the  Clodian  faction,  it  became  necessary  to  place  the 
conference  at  a  period  when  they  were  fellow- students 
at  Athens.  The  critics  have  observed  some  anachro- 
nisms in  this  last  book,  in  making  Piso  refer  to  the 
other  two  dialogues,  of  which  he  had  no  share,  and 
could  have  had  no  kuowledge,  as  being  held  at  a  later 
period  than  that  of  the  conference  he  attended. 

Academica. — This  work  is  termed  Academica,  ei- 
ther because  it  chiefly  relates  to  the  Academic  philo- 
sophy, or  because  it  was  composed  at  the  villa  of  Pu- 
teoli,  where  a  grove  and  portico  were  called  by  Cicero, 
from  an  affected  imitation  of  the  Athenians,  his  Aca- 
demy.1 There  evidently  existed  what  may  be  termed 
two  editions  of  the  Academica,  neither  of  which  we 
now  possess  perfect — what  we  have  being  the  second 
book  of  the  first  edition,  and  the  first  of  the  second. 
In  the  first  edition,  the  speakers  were  Cicero  himself, 

1  PHn.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XXXI.  c.  3. 
VOL.  II.  2  B 


386  Cicero. 

Catulus,  Lucullus,  and  Hortensius.    The  first  book 
was  inscribed  Catulus,  and  the  second  Lucullus,  these 
persons  being  the  chief  interlocutors  in  their  respec- 
tive divisions.  The  first  dialogue,  or  Catulus,  was  held 
in  the  villa  of  that  senator.    Every  word  of  it  is  un- 
fortunately lost,  but  the  import  may  be  gathered,  from 
the  references  to  it  in  the  Lucullus,  or  second  book, 
which  is  still  extant.    It  appears  to  have  contained  a 
sketch  of  the  history  of  the  old  and  the  new  Academy, 
and  then  to  have  entered  minutely  into  the  doctrines 
and  principles  of  the  latter,  to  which  Catulus  was 
attached.     Catulus  explained  them  as  they  had  been 
delivered  by  Carneades,  whose  lectures  his  father  had 
attended,  and  in  his  old  age  imparted  their  substance 
to  his  son.  He  refuted  the  philosophy  of  Philo,  where 
that  writer  differed  from  Carneades,  (which,  though 
of  the  new  Academy,  he  did  in  some  particulars,)  and 
also  the  opinions  of  Antiochus,  who  followed  the  old 
Academy.     Hortensius  seems  to  have  made  a  short 
reply,  but  the  more  ample  discussion  of  the  system  of 
the  old  Academy  was  reserved  for  Lucullus.  Previous, 
however,  to  entering  on  this  topic,  our  philosophers 
pass  over  from  the  Cuman  villa  of  Catulus  to  that  of 
Hortensius,  at  Bauli,  one  of  the  many  magnificent 
seats  belonging  to  that  orator,  and  situated  a  little 
above  the  luxurious  Baise,  in  the  direction  towards  Cu- 
mse,  on  an  inlet  of  the  Bay  of  Naples.  Here  they  had 
resolved  to  remain  till  a  favourable  breeze  should 
spring  up,  which  might  carry  Lucullus  to  his  Neapo- 
litan, and  Cicero  to  his  Pompeian  villa.  While  await- 
ing this  opportunity,  they  repaired  to  an  open  gallery, 


cicero.  387 

which  looked  towards  the  sea,  whence  they  descried 
the  vessels  sailing  across  the  bay,  and  the  ever  change- 
ful hue  of  its  waters,  which  appeared  of  a  saffron  co- 
lour under  the  morning  beam,  but  became  azure  at  noon, 
till,  as  the  day  declined,  they  were  rippled  by  the  wes- 
tern breeze,  and  empurpled  by  the  setting  sun.1  Here 
Lucullus  commenced  his  defence  of  the  old  Academy, 
and  his  disputation  against  Philo,  according  to  what 
he  had  learned  from  the  philosopher  Antiochus,  who 
had  accompanied  him  to  Alexandria,  when  he  went 
there  as  Quaestor  of  Egypt.  While  residing  in  that 
city,  two  books  of  Philo  arrived,  which  excited  the 
philosophic  wrath  of  Antiochus,  and  gave  rise  to  much 
oral  discussion,  as  well  as  to  a  book  from  his  pen,  en- 
titled Sosus,  in  which  he  attempted  to  refute  the  doc- 
trines so  boldly  promulgated  by  Philo.  Lucullus  was 
thus  enabled  fully  and  faithfully  to  detail  the  argu- 
ments of  the  chief  supporter  and  reviver  in  those  later 
ages  of  the  old  Platonic  Academy.  His  discourse  is 
chiefly  directed  against  that  leading  principle  of  the 
new  Academy,  which  taught  that  nothing  can  be  known 
or  ascertained.  Recurring  to  nature,  and  the  consti- 
tution of  man,  he  confirms  the  faith  we  have  in  our 
external  senses,  and  the  mental  conclusions  deduced 
from  them.  To  this  Cicero  replies,  from  the  writings 
of  Clitomachus,  and  of  course  enlarges  on  the  delusion 
of  the  senses — the  false  appearances  we  behold  in 
sleep,  or  while  under  the  influence  of  phrensy,  and  the 
uncertainty  of  everything  so  fully  demonstrated  by  the 
different  opinions  of  the  greatest  philosophers,  on  the 

1  Academ.  Prior.  Libt  II.  c.  33. 


388  cicero. 

most  important  of  all  subjects,  the  Providence  of  the 
Gods — the  Supreme  Good  and  Evil,  and  the  forma- 
tion of  the  world. 

These  two  books,  the  Catulus  and  Lucullus,  of 
which,  as  already  mentioned,  the  last  alone  is  extant, 
were  written  after  the  termination  of  the  civil  wars, 
and  a  copy  of  them  sent  by  Cicero  to  Atticus.  It  oc- 
curred, however,  to  the  author  soon  afterwards,  that 
the  characters  introduced  were  not  very  suitable  to 
the  subjects  discussed,  since  Catulus  and  Lucullus, 
though  both  ripe  scholars,  and  well-educated  men, 
could  not,  as  statesmen  and  generals,  be  supposed  to 
be  acquainted  with  all  the  minutice  of  philosophic  con- 
troversy contained  in  the  books  bearing  their  names. 
While  deliberating  if  he  should  not  rather  put  the 
dialogue  into  the  lips  of  Cato  and  Brutus,  he  received 
a  letter  from  Atticus,  acknowledging  the  present  of 
his  work,  but  mentioning  that  their  common  friend, 
Varro,  was  displeased  to  find  that  none  of  his  treatises 
were  addressed  to  him,  or  inscribed  with  his  name. 
This  intimation,  and  the  incongruity  of  the  former 
characters  with  the  subject,  determined  the  author  to 
dedicate  the  work  to  Varro,  and  to  make  him  the  prin- 
cipal speaker  in  the  dialogue.1  This  change,  and  the 
reflection,  perhaps,  on  certain  defects  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  old  work,  as  also  the  discovery  of  consi- 
derable omissions,  particularly  with  regard  to  the  te- 
nets of  Arcesilaus,  the  founder  of  the  new  Academy, 
induced  him  to  remodel  the  whole,  to  add  in  some 

1  Epist.  Famil.  Lib.  IX.  Ep.  8. 


CICERO.  389 

places,  to  abridge  in  others,  and  to  bestow  on  it  more 
lustre  and  polish  of  style.  In  this  new  form,  the  Aca- 
demica  consisted  of  four  books,  a  division  which  was 
better  adapted  for  treating  his  subject :  But  of  these 
four,  only  the  first  remains.  The  dialogue  it  contains 
is  supposed  to  be  held  during  a  visit  which  Atticus 
and  Cicero  paid  to  Varro,  in  his  villa  near  Cumae.  His 
guests  entreat  him  to  give  an  account  of  the  princi- 
ples of  the  old  Academy,  from  which  Cicero  and  At- 
ticus had  long  since  withdrawn,  but  to  which  Varro 
had  continued  steadily  attached.  This  first  book  pro- 
bably comprehends  the  substance  of  what  was  con- 
tained in  the  Catulus  of  the  former  edition.  Varro, 
in  complying  with  the  request  preferred  to  him,  de- 
duces the  origin  of  the  old  Academy  from  Socrates ; 
he  treats  of  its  doctrines  as  relating  to  physics,  logic, 
and  morals,  and  traces  its  progress  under  Plato  and 
his  legitimate  successors.  Cicero  takes  up  the  dis- 
course when  this  historical  account  is  brought  down 
to  Arcesilaus,  the  founder  of  the  new  Academy.  But 
the  work  is  broken  off  in  the  most  interesting  part, 
and  just  as  the  author  is  entering  on  the  life  and  lec- 
tures of  Carneades,  who  introduced  the  new  Academy 
at  Rome.  Cicero,  however,  while  he  styles  it  the  new 
Academy,  will  scarcely  allow  it  to  be  new,  as  it  was  in 
fact  the  most  genuine  exposition  of  those  sublime  doc- 
trines which  Plato  had  imbibed  from  Socrates.  The 
historical  sketch  of  the  Academic  philosophy  having 
been  nearly  concluded  in  the  first  book,  the  remaining 
books,  which  are  lost,  contained  the  disputatious  part. 
In  the  second  book  the  doctrines  of  Arcesilaus  were 


390  CICERO. 

explained ;  and  from  one  of  the  few  short  fragments 
preserved,  there  appears  to  have  been  a  discussion  con- 
cerning the  remarkable  changes  that  occur  in  the  co- 
lour of  objects,  and  the  complexion  of  individuals,  in 
consequence  of  the  alterations  they  undergo  in  posi- 
tion or  age,  which  was  one  of  Arcesilaus'  chief  argu- 
ments against  the  certainty  of  evidence  derived  from 
the  senses.  The  third  and  fourth  books  probably  con- 
tained the  doctrines  of  Carneades  and  Philo,  with 
Varro's  refutation  of  them,  according  to  the  principles 
of  Antiochus.  From  a  fragment  of  the  third  book, 
preserved  by  Nonius,  it  appears  that  the  scene  of  the 
dialogue  was  there  transferred  to  the  banks  of  the 
Lucrine  lake,  which  lay  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of 
Varro's  Cuman  villa.1 

These  four  books  formed  the  work  which  Cicero 
wished  to  be  considered  as  the  genuine  and  improved 
Academics.  The  former  edition,  however,  which  he 
had  sent  to  Atticus,  had  gone  abroad,  and  as  he  could 
not  recall  it,  he  resolved  to  complete  it,  by  prefixing 
an  introductory  eulogy  of  Catulus  to  the  first,  and  of 
Lucullus  to  the  second  book, — extolling,  in  particu- 
lar, the  incredible  genius  of  the  latter,  which  enabled 
him,  though  previously  inexperienced  in  the  art  of 
war,  merely  by  conversation  and  study,  during  his  voy- 
age from  Rome,  to  land  on  the  coast  of  Asia,  with 
the  acquirements  of  a  consummate  commander,  and  to 
extort  the  admission  from  his  antagonist,  Mithridates, 

1  Et  ut  nos  nunc  sedemus  ad  Lucrinum,  pisciculosque  exsultan- 
tes  videmus.     De  propriet.  Serm.  c.  1.  335.  voc.  exsultare. 


CICERO.  391 

who  had  coped  with  Sylla,  that  he  was  the  first  of  war- 
riors. 

This  account  of  the  two  editions  of  the  Academics, 
which  was  first  suggested  by  Talaeus,1  has  been  adopt- 
ed by  Goerenz  ;2  and  it  appears  to  me  completely  con- 
firmed by  the  series  of  Cicero's  letters  to  Atticus,  con- 
tained in  the  13th  book  of  his  Epistles.  It  is  by  no 
means, however, unanimously  assented  toby  theFrench 
and  German  commentators.  Lambinus,  seeing  that 
Nonius  quoted,  as  belonging  to  the  fourth  book  of  the 
Acade?nica,  passages  which  we  find  in  the  Lucullus, 
or  second  book  of  the  first  edition,  considered  and  in- 
scribed it  as  the  fourth  of  the  new  edition,  instead  of 
the  second  of  the  old,  in  which  he  was  followed  by 
many  subsequent  editors  ;  but  this  is  easily  accounted 
for,  since  the  new  edition,  being  remodelled  on  the 
old,  many  things  in  the  last  or  second  book  of  the  old 
edition  would  naturally  be  transferred  to  the  fourth  or 
last  of  the  new,  and  be  so  cited  by  those  grammarians 
who  wrote  when  the  whole  work  was  extant.  Ranitz 
denies  that  there  ever  were  two  editions  of  the  Aca- 
demica  made  public,  or  preserved,  and  that,  so  far  from 
the  last  three  books  being  lost,  the  Lucullus  contains 
the  whole  of  these  three,  but  from  the  error  of  tran- 
scribers they  have  been  run  into  each  other.3     This 

1  Epist.  Dedicat.  ad  Prcelect.  in  Cic.  Acad. 

2  Introduct,  in  Academic.     Ed.  Lips.  1810. 

3  Nee  esse,  nee  dici  posse  novum  opus,  ac  penitus  mutatum  ; 
sed  tantummodo  correctum,  magis  politum,  et  quoad  formam  et 
dictionem,  hie  et  illic,  splendidius  mutatum.  De  Lib.  Cic.  Aca- 
dem.  Comment. 


392  CICERO. 

critic  is  right,  indeed,  in  the  notion  he  entertains,  that 
Cicero  wished  the  first  edition  of  the  Academica  to 
be  destroyed,  or  to  fall  into  oblivion,  but  it  does  not 
follow  that  either  of  these  wishes  was  accomplished  ; 
and  indeed  it  is  proved,  from  Cicero's  own  letters,  that 
the  older  edition  had  passed  into  extensive  circulation. 
Tusculance  Disputationes,  are  so  called  by  Cicero, 
from  having  been  held  at  his  seat  near  Tusculum — 
a  town  which  stood  on  the  summit  of  the  Alban  hill, 
about  a  mile  higher  up  than  the  modern  Frescati, 
and  communicated  its  name  to  all  the  rural  retreats 
in  its  neighbourhood.  This  was  Cicero's  chief  and 
most  favourite  villa.  "  It  is,"  says  he,  "  the  only  spot 
in  which  I  completely  rest  from  all  my  uneasiness, 
and  all  my  toils." — "  It  stood,"  says  Eustace,  "  on  one 
of  the  Tumuli,.or  beautiful  hills  grouped  together  on 
the  Alban  Mount.  It  is  bounded  on  the  south  by  a 
deep  dell,  with  a  streamlet  that  falls  from  the  rock, 
then  meanders  through  the  recess,  and  disappears  in 
its  windings.  Eastward  rises  the  lofty  eminence,  once 
crowned  with  Tusculum — Westward,  the  view  de- 
scends, and  passing  over  the  Campagna,  fixes  on  Rome, 
and  the  distant  mountains  beyond  it. — On  the  south, 
a  gentle  swell  presents  a  succession  of  vineyards  and  or- 
chards ;  and  behind  it  towers  the  summit  of  the  Alban 
Mount,  once  crowned  with  the  temple  of  Jupiter  La- 
tiaris.  Thus  Cicero,  from  his  portico,  enjoyed  the 
noblest  and  most  interesting  view  that  could  be  ima- 
gined to  a  Roman  and  a  Consul ;  the  temple  of  the  tu- 
telary divinity  of  the  empire,  the  seat  of  victory  and 
triumph,  and  the  theatre  of  his  glorious  labours, — 


CICERO.  393 

the  Capital  of  the  World."1  A  yet  more  recent  tra- 
veller informs  us,  that  "  the  situation  of  the  ancient 
Tusculum  is  delightful.  The  road  which  leads  to  it 
is  shaded  with  umbrageous  woods  of  oak  and  ilex. 
The  ancient  trees  and  soft  verdant  meadows  around 
it,  almost  remind  us  of  some  of  the  loveliest  scenes  of 
England ;  and  the  little  brook  that  babbles  by,  was 
not  the  less  interesting  from  the  thought,  that  its 
murmurs  might  perchance  have  once  soothed  the  ear 
of  Cicero."2 
.  The  distance  of  Tusculum  from  Rome,  which  was 
only  four  leagues,  afforded  Cicero  an  easy  retreat 
from  the  fatigues  of  the  Senate  and  Forum.  Being 
the  villa  to  which  he  most  frequently  resorted,  he  had 
improved  and  adorned  it  beyond  all  his  other  man- 
sions, and  rendered  its  internal  elegance  suitable  to 
its  majestic  situation.  It  had  originally  belonged  to 
Sylla,  by  whom  it  was  highly  ornamented.  In  one  of 
its  apartments  there  was  a  painting  of  his  victory  near 
Nola,  during  the  Marsic  war,  in  which  Cicero  had 
served  under  him  as  a  volunteer.  But  its  new  mas- 
ter had  bestowed  on  this  seat  a  more  classical  and 
Grecian  air.  He  had  built  several  halls  and  galleries  in 
imitation  of  the  schools  and  porticos  of  Athens,  which 
he  termed  Gymnasia.  One  of  these,  which  he  named 
the  Academia,  was  erected  at  a  little  distance  from 
the  villa,  on  the  declivity  of  the  hill  facing  the  Alban 
Mount.3    Another  Gymnasium,  which  he  called  the 

1  Classical  Tour,  Vol.  II.  c.  8.     • 

2  Rome  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  Vol.  III.  Let.  Q3. 

3  De  Finihus,  Lib.  III.  and  IV.  Kelsall,  Excursion  from  Rome 
to  Arpino,  p.  193. 


394  cicero. 

Lyceum,  stood  higher  up  the  hill  than  the  Academy  : 
It  was  adjacent  to  the  villa,  and  was  chiefly  designed  for 
philosophical  conferences.  Cicero  had  given  a  general 
commission  to  Atticus,  who  spent  much  of  his  time 
in  Greece,  to  purchase  any  elegant  or  curious  piece  of 
Grecian  art,  in  painting  or  sculpture,  which  his  refined 
taste  might  select  as  a  suitable  ornament  for  his  Tus- 
culan  villa.  He,  in  consequence,  received  from  his 
friend  a  set  of  marble  Mercuries,  with  brazen  heads, 
with  which  he  was  much  pleased  ;  but  he  was  parti- 
cularly delighted  with  a  sort  of  compound  emblemati- 
cal figures  called  Hermathence  and  Hermeraclce  re- 
presenting Mercury  and  Minerva,  or  Mercury  and 
Hercules,  jointly  on  one  base  ;  for,  Hercules  being  the 
proper  deity  of  the  Gymnasium,  Minerva  of  the  Aca- 
demy, and  Mercury  common  to  both,  they  precisely 
suited  the  purpose  for  which  he  desired  them  to  be  pro- 
cured. One  of  these  Minerval  Mercuries  pleased  him 
so  wonderfully,  and  stood  in  such  an  advantageous  po- 
sition, that  he  declared  the  whole  Academy  at  Tuscu- 
lum  appeared  to  have  been  contrived  in  order  to  receive 
it.1  So  intent  was  he  on  embellishing  this  Tusculan 
villa  with  all  sorts  of  Grecian  art,  that  he  sent  over  to 
Atticus  the  plans  and  devices  for  his  ceilings,  which 
were  of  stucco-work,  in  order  to  bespeak  various  pieces 
of  sculpture  and  painting  to  be  inserted  in  the  com- 
partments ;  as  also  the  covers  for  two  of  his  wells  or 
fountains,  which,  by  the  custom  of  those  times,  were 
often  formed  after  some  elegant  pattern,  and  adorned 
with  figures  in  relief.2 

1  Epist.  ad  Attic.  Lib.  I.  Ep.  1. 

2  Middleton's  Life  of  Cicero,  Vol.  I.  p.  142. 


CICERO.  395 

La  Grotta  Ferrata,  a  convent  of  Basilian  friars,  is 
now,  according  to  Eustace,  built  on  the  site  of  Cicero's 
Tusculan  villa.  Nardini,  who  wrote  about  the  year 
1650,  says,  that  there  had  been  recently  found,  among 
the  ruins  of  Grotta  Ferrata,  a  piece  of  sculpture, 
which  Cicero  himself  mentions  in  one  of  his  Familiar 
Epistles.  In  the  middle  of  last  century,  there  yet 
remained  vast  subterranean  apartments,  as  well  as  a 
great  circumference  and  extent  of  ruins.1  But  these, 
it  would  appear,  have  been  still  farther  dilapidated 
since  that  period.  "  Scarce  a  trace,"  says  Eustace,  "  of 
the  ruins  of  Tusculum  is  now  discoverable :  Great 
part  remained  at  the  end  of  the  10th  century,  when  a 
Greek  monk  from  Calabria  demolished  it,  and  erected 
on  the  site,  the  monastery  of  Grotta  Ferrata.  At  each 
end  of  the  portico  is  fixed  in  the  wall  a  fragment  of 
basso  relievo.  One  represents  a  philosopher  sitting 
with  a  scroll  in  his  hand,  in  a  thinking  posture — in 
the  other,  are  four  figures  supporting  the  feet  of  a  fifth 
of  colossal  size,  supposed  to  represent  Ajax.  These, 
with  the  beautiful  pillars  which  support  the  church, 
are  the  only  remnants  of  the  decorations  and  furniture 
of  the  ancient  villa.  *  Conjiciant,'  says  an  inscription 
near  the  spot,  ■  quce  et  quanta fuerunt?  "2 

1  Blainville's  Travels,  Vol.  II. 

2  Eustace,  Classical  Tour,  Vol.  II.  c  8.  Grotta  Ferrata  was  long 
considered  both  by  travellers  (Addison,  Letters  on  Italy,  Blainville, 
Travels,  &c.)  and  antiquarians  (Calmet,  Hist.  Univers.  Cluverius, 
Italic.  Antiq.)  as  the  site  of  Cicero's  Tusculan  villa.  The  opinion 
thus  generally  received,  was  first  deliberately  called  in  question 
by  Zuzzeri,  in  a  dissertation  published  in  1 746,  entitled  Sopra  un' 
antica  Villa  scoperta  sopra  Frescati  nell  appartenenze  della  nuova 


396  CICERO. 

When  Caesar  had  attained  the  supremacy  at  Rome, 
and  Cicero  no  longer  gave  law  to  the  Senate,  he  be- 
came the  head  of  a  sort  of  literary  or  philosophical  so- 
ciety. Filelfo,  who  delivered  public  lectures  at  Home, 
on  the  Tusculan  Disputations,  attempted  to  prove 
that  he  had  stated  meetings  of  learned  men  at  his 
house,  and  opened  a  regular  Academy  at  Tusculum.1 
This  notion  was  chiefly  founded  on  a  letter  of  Cicero 
to  Pastus,  where  he  says  that  he  had  followed  the 
example  of  the  younger  Dionysius,  who,  being  expell- 
ed from  Syracuse,  taught  a  school  at  Athens.    At  all 

villa  dell  collegio  Romano.  This  writer  places  the  site  close  to  the 
villa  and  convent  of  Ruffinella,  which  is  higher  up  the  hill  than 
Grotta  Ferrata,  lying  between  Frescati  and  the  town  of  Tuscu- 
lum. He  was  answered  by  Cardoni,  a  monk  of  the  Basilian  order  of 
Grotta  Ferrata,  in  his  Disceptatio  Apologetica  dc  Tusculano  Cicero- 
nis,  Romse,  1757*  Cardoni  chiefly  rests  his  argument  on  a  passage 
of  Strabo,  where  that  geographer  says,  that  the  Tusculan  hill  is  fer- 
tile, well  watered,  and  surrounded  with  beautiful  villas.  Now  Car- 
doni, referring  to  this  passage  (which  applies  to  the  Tusculan  hill 
in  general)  solely  to  the  Tusculan  villa,  argues  somewhat  unfairly, 
that  Strabo's  description  answers  to  Grotta  Ferrata,  but  not  to 
Ruffinella.  (p.  8,  &c.)  Nibby,  in  his  Viaggio  Antiquario,  sup- 
ports the  claims  of  Ruffinella,  on  the  authority  of  a  passage  in 
Frontinus,  which  he  interprets  with  no  greater  candour  or  suc- 
cess. (T.  II.  p.  41.)  With  exception  of  Eustace,  however,  all  mo- 
dern travellers,  whose  works  I  have  consulted,  declare  in  favour  of 
Ruffinella.  "  At  the  convent  of  Ruffinella,  says  Forsyth,  farther  up 
the  hill  than  Grotta  Ferrata,  his  (Cicero's)  name  was  found 
stamped  on  some  ancient  tiles,  which  should  ascertain  the  situa- 
tion of  a  villa  in  preference  to  any  moveable." — Remarks  on  Italy, 
p.  281.  See  also  Rome  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  Vol.  III.  Let- 
ter 92,  and  KelsalPs  Classical  Excursion,  p.  192. 

1  Alex,  ab  Alexandro,  Dies  Gcnialcs,  Lib.  I.  c.  23.  Rossmini, 
Vita  di  Filelfo,  T-  III.  p.  59-  Ed.  Milan,  1808,  3  Tom.  8vo. 


cicero.  397 

events,  it  was  his  custom,  in  the  opportunities  of  his 
leisure,  to  carry  some  friends  with  him  from  Home  to 
the  country,  where  the  entertainments  they  enjoyed 
were  chiefly  speculative.  In  this  manner,  Cicero,  on 
one  occasion,  spent  five  days  at  his  Tusculan  villa ;  and 
after  employing  the  morning  in  declamation  and  rhe- 
torical exercises,  retired  in  the  afternoon  with  his 
friends  to  the  gallery,  called  the  Academy,  which  he 
had  constructed  for  the  purpose  of  philosophical  con- 
ference. Here  Cicero  daily  offered  to  maintain  a  thesis 
on  any  topic  proposed  to  him  hy  his  guests  ;  and  the 
five  dialogues  thus  introduced,  were,  as  we  are  in- 
formed by  the  author,  afterwards  committed  to  writing, 
nearly  in  the  words  which  had  actually  passed.1  They 
were  completed  early  in  709,  and,  like  so  many  of  his 
other  works,  are  dedicated  to  Brutus — each  conference 
being  at  the  same  time  furnished  with  an  introduction 
expatiating  on  the  excellence  of  philosophy,  and  the 
advantage  of  naturalizing  the  wisdom  of  the  Greeks, 
by  transfusing  it  into  the  Latin  language.  In  the 
first  dialogue,  entitled  JDe  Contemnendd  Morte,  one 
of  the  guests,  who  is  called  the  Auditor  through  the 
remainder  of  the  performance,  asserts,  that  death 
is  an  evil.  This  proposition  Cicero  immediately  pro- 
ceeds to  refute,  which  naturally  introduces  a  disquisi- 
tion on  the  immortality  of  the  soul — a  subject  which, 
in  the  pages  of  Cicero,  continued  to  be  involved  in 
the  same  doubt  and  darkness  that  had  veiled  it  in  the 
schools  of  Greece, 

1  Tusc.  Disp.  Lib.  II.  c.  3.     Lib.  III.  c.  3. 


398  cicero. 

It  is  true,  that  in  the  ancient  world  some  notion  had 
been  entertained,  and  by  a  few  some  hope  had  been 
cherished,  that  we  are  here  only  in  the  infancy  of  our 
existence,  and  that  the  grave  might  be  the  porch  of 
immortality,  and  not  the  goal  of  our  career.  The  na- 
tural love  that  we  have  for  life,  amidst  all  its  miseries 
—the  grief  that  we  sometimes  feel  at  being  torn  from 
all  that  is  dear  to  us — the  desire  for  posterity  and  for 
posthumous  fame — the  humiliating  idea,  that  the 
thoughts  which  wander  through  eternity,  should  be 
the  operations  of  a  being  destined  to  flutter  for  a  mo- 
ment on  the  surface  of  the  earth,  and  then  for  ever  to 
be  buried  in  its  bosom — all,  in  short,  that  is  selfish, 
and  all  that  is  social  in  our  nature,  combined  in  giving 
importance  to  the  inquiry,  If  the  thinking  principle 
was  to  be  destroyed  by  death,  or  if  that  great  change 
was  to  be  an  introduction  to  a  future  state  of  exist- 
ence. Having  thus  a  natural  desire  for  the  truth  of 
this  doctrine,  the  philosophers  of  antiquity  anxiously 
devised  arguments,  which  might  justify  their  hopes. 
Sometimes  they  deduced  them  from  metaphysical  spe- 
culations— the  spirituality,  unity,  and  activity  of  the 
soul — sometimes  from  its  high  ideas  of  things  moral 
and  intellectual.  Is  it  possible,  they  asked,  that  a  being 
of  such  excellence  should  be  here  imprisoned  for  a  term 
of  years,  only  to  be  the  sport  of  the  few  pleasures  and 
the  many  pains  which  chequer  this  mortal  life  ?  Is 
not  its  future  destination,  seen  in  that  satiety  and  dis- 
relish, which  attend  all  earthly  enjoyments — in  those 
desires  of  the  mind  for  things  more  pure  and  intellec- 
tual than  are  here  supplied — in  that  longing  and  en- 


cicero.  399 

deavour,  which  we  feel  after  something  above  us,  and 
perfective  of  our  nature  ?  At  other  times,  they  have 
found  arguments  in  the  unequal  distribution  of  re- 
wards and  punishments ;  and  in  our  sighs  over  the 
misfortunes  of  virtue,  they  have  recognized  a  princi- 
ple, which  points  to  a  future  state  of  things,  where 
that  shall  be  discovered  to  be  good  which  we  now  la- 
ment as  evil,  and  where  the  consequences  of  vice  and 
virtue  shall  be  more  fully  and  regularly  unfolded,  than 
in  this  inharmonious  scene.  They  have  then  looked 
abroad  into  nature,  and  have  seen,  that  if  death  fol- 
lows life,  life  seemingly  emanates  from  death,  and  that 
the  cheerful  animations  of  spring  succeed  to  the  dead 
horrors  of  winter.  They  have  observed  the  wonderful 
changes  that  take  place  in  some  sentient  beings — they 
have  considered  those  which  man  himself  has  under- 
gone—and, charmed  by  all  these  speculations,  they 
have  indulged  in  the  pleasing  hope,  that  our  death 
may,  like  our  birth,  be  the  introduction  to  a  new  state 
of  existence.  But  all  these  fond  desires — all  these 
longings  after  immortality,  were  insufficient  to  dispel 
the  doubts  of  the  sage,  or  to  fill  the  moralist  with  con- 
fidence and  consolation.  The  wisest  and  most  virtuous 
of  the  philosophers  of  antiquity,  and  who  most  strong- 
ly indulged  the  hope  of  immortality,  is  represented  by 
an  illustrious  disciple  as  expressing  himself  in  a  man- 
ner which  discloses  his  sad  uncertainty,  whether  he 
was  to  be  released  from  the  tomb,  or  for  ever  confined 
within  its  barriers. 

In  the  age  of  Cicero,  the  existence  of  a  world  be- 
yond the  grave  was  still  covered  with  shadows,  clouds, 


400  CICERO. 

and  darkness.  "  Whichsoever  of  the  opinions  concern- 
ing the  substance  of  the  soul  be  true,"  says  he,  in  his 
first  Tusculan  Disputation,  "  it  will  follow,  that  death 
is  either  a  good,  or  at  least  not  an  evil — for  if  it  be 
brain,  blood,  or  heart,  it  will  perish  with  the  whole 
body — if  fire,  it  will  be  extinguished — if  breath,  it 
will  be  dissipated — if  harmony,  it  will  be  broken — not 
to  speak  of  those  who  affirm  that  it  is  nothing ;  but 
other  opinions  give  hope,  that  the  vital  spark,  after  it 
has  left  the  body,  may  mount  up  to  Heaven,  as  its 
proper  habitation." 

Cicero  then  proceeds  to  exhaust  the  whole  Platonic 
reasoning  for  the  soul's  immortality,  and  its  ascent  to 
the  celestial  regions,  where  it  will  explore  and  traverse 
all  space — receiving,  in  its  boundless  flight,  infinite 
enjoyment.  From  his  system  of  future  existence,  Ci- 
cero excludes  all  the  gloomy  fables  feigned  of  the  de- 
scent to  Avernus,  the  pale  murky  regions,  the  sluggish 
stream,  the  gaunt  hound,  and  the  grim  boatman.  But 
even  if  death  is  to  be  considered  as  the  total  extinction 
of  sense  and  feeling,  our  author  still  denies  that  it 
should  be  accounted  an  evil.  This  view  he  strongly  sup- 
ports, from  a  consideration  of  the  insignificance  of  those 
pleasures  of  which  we  are  deprived,  and  beautifully 
illustrates,  from  the  fate  of  many  characters  distin- 
guished in  history,  who,  by  an  earlier  death,  would 
have  avoided  the  greatest  ills  of  life.  Had  Metellus 
died  sooner,  he  would  not  have  laid  his  sons  on  the 
funeral  pile — had  Pompey  expired,  when  the  inhabi- 
tants of  all  Italy  were  decked  with  wreaths  and  gar- 
lands, as  testimonies  of  joy  for  his  restoration  to  health 

5 


CICEltO.  401 

from  the  fever  with  which  he  was  seized  in  Campania, 
he  would  not  have  taken  arms  unprepared  for  the  con- 
test, nor  fled  his  home  and  country  ;  nor,  having  lost 
a  Roman  army,  would  he  have  fallen  on  a  foreign  shore 
by  the  sword  of  a  slave.1  He  completes  these  illus- 
trations by  reference  to  his  own  misfortunes ;  and  the 
arguments  which  he  deduced  from  them,  received,  in  a 
few  months,  a  strong  and  melancholy  confirmation. — 
"  Etiam  ne  mors  nobis  expedit  ?  qui  et  domesticis  et 
forensibus  solatiis  ornamentisque  privati,  certe,  si  ante 
occidissemus,  mors  nos  a  malis,  non  a  bonis  abstrax- 
isset." 

The  same  unphilosophical  guest,  who  had  asserted 
that  death  was  a  disadvantage,  and  whom  Cicero,  in 
charity  to  his  memory,  does  not  name,  is  doomed,  in 
the  second  dialogue,  De  Tolerando  Dolore,  to  an- 
nounce the  still  more  untenable  proposition,  that  pain 
is  an  evil.  But  Cicero  demonstrated,  that  its  suffer- 
ings may  be  overcome,  not  by  remembrance  of  the 
silly  Epicurean  maxim, — "  Short  if  severe,  and  light  if 
long,"  but  by  fortitude  and  patience ;  and  he  accord- 
ingly censures  those  philosophers,  who  have  represent- 
ed pain  in  too  formidable  colours,  and  reproaches  those 
poets,  who  have  described  their  heroes  as  yielding  to 
its  influence. 

In  the  third  book,  JDe  JEgritudine  Leniendd,  the 
author  treats  of  the  best  alleviations  of  sorrow.    To 

1  Juvenal,  I  think,  had  probably  this  passage  of  the  Tusculan 
Disputations  in  view,  in  the  noble  and  pathetic  lines  of  his  tenth 
Satire— 

"  Provida  Pompeio  dederat  Campania  febres,"  &c. 

VOL.  II.  2  c 


402  CICERO. 

foresee  calamities,  and  be  prepared  for  them,  is  either 
to  repel  their  assaults,  or  to  mitigate  their  severity. 
After  they  have  occurred,  we  ought  to  remember,  that 
grieving  is  a  folly  which  cannot  avail  us,  and  that  mis- 
fortunes are  not  peculiar  to  ourselves,  but  are  the  com- 
mon lot  of  humanity.  The  sorrow  of  which  Cicero 
here  treats,  seems  chiefly  that  occasioned  by  depriva- 
tion of  friends  and  relatives,  to  which  the  recent  loss 
of  his  daughter  Tullia,  and  the  composition  of  his  trea- 
tise De  Consolatione,  had  probably  directed  his  atten- 
tion. 

The  fourth  book  treats  De  Reliquis  animi  Pertur- 
bationibus,  including  all  those  passions  and  vexations, 
which  the  author  considers  as  diseases  of  the  soul. 
These  he  classes  and  defines — pointing  out,  at  the 
same  time,  the  remedy  or  relief  appropriate  to  each  dis- 
quietude.   In  the  fifth  book,  in  which  he  attempts  to 
prove  that  virtue  alone  is  sufficient  for  perfect  felici- 
ty— Virtutem  ad  beate  vivendum  se  ipsa  esse  conten- 
tam — he  coincides  more  completely  with  the  opinions 
of  the  Stoics,  than  in  his  work  De  Finibus,  where  he 
seems  to  assent  to  the  Peripatetic  doctrine,  "  that 
though  virtue  be  the  chief  good,  the  perfection  of  the 
other  qualities  of  nature  enters  into  the  composition 
of  supreme  happiness." 

In  these  Tusculan  Disputations,  which  treat  of  the 
subjects  most  important  and  subservient  to  the  hap- 
piness of  life,  the  whole  discourse  is  in  the  mouth  of 
Tully  himself; — the  Auditor,  whose  initial  letter  some 
editors  have  whimsically  mistaken  for  that  of  Atticus, 
being  a  mere  man  of  straw.  He  is  set  up  to  announce 


CICERO.  403 

what  is  to  be  represented  as  an  untenable  proposition ; 
but  after  this  duty  is  performed,  no  English  hearer  or 
Welsh  uncle  could  have  listened  with  less  dissent  and 
interruption.  The  great  object  of  Cicero's  continued 
lectures,  is  by  fortifying  the  mind  with  practical  and 
philosophical  lessons,  adapted  to  the  circumstances  of 
life,  to  elevate  us  above  the  influence  of  all  its  passions 
and  pains. 

The  first  conference,  which  is  intended  to  diminish 
the  dread  of  death,  is  the  best ;  but  they  are  all  agree- 
able, chiefly  from  the  frequent  allusion  to  ancient  fa- 
ble, the  events  of  Greek  and  Roman  history,  and  the 
memorable  sayings  of  heroes  and  sages.  There  is  some- 
thing in  the  very  names  of  such  men  as  Plato  and 
Epaminondas,  which  bestows  a  sanctity  and  fervour 
on  the  page.  The  references  also  to  the  ancient  Latin 
poets,  and  the  quotations  from  their  works,  particular- 
ly the  tragic  dramas,  give  a  beautiful  richness  to  the 
whole  composition ;  and  even  on  the  driest  topics,  the 
mind  is  relieved  by  the  recurrence  of  extracts  charac- 
teristic of  the  vigour  of  the  Roman  Melpomene,  who, 
though  unfit,  as  in  Greece, 

**  To  wake  the  soul  by  tender  strokes  of  art," 

long  trod  the  stage  with  dignity  and  elevation. 

Paradoxa. — This  tract  contains  a  defence  of  six  pe- 
culiar opinions  or  paradoxes  of  the  Stoics,  somewhat  of 
the  description  of  those  which  Cato  was  wont  to  pro- 
mulgate in  the  Senate.  These  are,  that  what  is  mo- 
rally fitting  (honestum)  is  alone  good, — that  the  vir- 
tuous can  want  nothing  for  complete  happiness — that 


401  CICERO- 

there  are  no  degrees  in  crimes  or  good  actions — that 
every  fool  is  mad — that  the  wise  alone  are  wealthy — 
that  the  wise  man  alone  is  free,  and  that  every  fool  is 
a  slave.  These  absurd  and  quibbling  positions,  the  au- 
thor supports,  in  a  manner  certainly  more  ingenious 
than  philosophical.  The  Paradoxa,  indeed,  seem  to 
have  been  written  as  a  sort  of  exercise  of  rhetorical 
wit,  rather  than  as  a  serious  disquisition  in  philosophy ; 
and  each  paradox  is  personally  applied  or  directed 
against  an  individual.  There  is  no  precision  whatever 
in  the  definitions  ;  the  author  plays  on  the  ambiguity 
of  the  words,  bonum  and  dives,  and  his  arguments 
frequently  degenerate  into  particular  examples,  which 
are  by  no  means  adequate  to  support  his  general  pro- 
position. 

De  Naturd  Deorum. — Of  the  various  philosophi- 
cal works  of  Cicero,  the  most  curious  perhaps,  and  im- 
portant, is  that  on  the  Nature  of  the  Gods.  It  is  ad- 
dressed to  Brutus,  and  is  written  in  dialogue.  This 
form  of  composition,  besides  the  advantages  already 
pointed  out,  is  peculiarly  fitted  for  subjects  of  delicacy 
and  danger,  where  the  author  dreads  to  expose  him- 
self to  reproach  or  persecution.  On  this  account  chiefly 
it  seems  to  have  been  adopted  by  the  disciples  of  So- 
crates. That  philosopher  had  fallen  a  victim  to  popu- 
lar fury, — to  those  imputations  of  impiety  which  have 
so  often  and  so  successfully  been  repeated  against  phi- 
losophers. In  the  schools  of  his  disciples,  a  double 
doctrine  seems  to  have  been  adopted  for  the  purpose 
of  escaping  persecution,  and  Plato  probably  considered 
the  form-  of  dialogue  as  best  calculated  to  secure  him 


CICERO.  405 

from  the  imputations  of  his  enemies.  It  was  thus,  in 
later  times,  that  Galileo  endeavoured  to  shield  him- 
self from  the  attacks  of  error  and  injustice,  and  ima- 
gined, that  by  presenting  his  conclusions  in  the  Pla- 
tonic manner,  he  would  shun  the  malignant  vigilance 
of  the  Court  of  Inquisition.1 

In  the  dialogue  De  Naturd  Deorum,  the  author 
presents  the  doctrines  of  three  of  the  most  distinguish- 
ed sects  among  the  ancients — the  Epicureans,  the  Sto- 
ics, and  the  Academics — on  the  important  subject  of 
the  Nature  of  the  Divine  Essence,  and  of  Providence. 
He  introduces  three  illustrious  persons  of  his  country, 
each  elucidating  the  tenets  of  the  sect  that  he  pre- 
ferred, and  contending  for  them,  doubtless,  with  the 
chief  arguments  which  the  learning  or  talents  of  the 
author  himself  could  supply.  Cicero  represents  him- 
self as  having  gone  to  the  house  of  C.  Cotta  the  Pon- 
tifex  Maximus,  whom  he  found  sitting  in  his  study 
with  C.  Velleius,  a  Senator,  who  professed  the  prin- 
ciples of  Epicurus,  and  Q.  Lucilius  Balbus,  a  support- 
er of  the  doctrines  of  the  Stoics. — '*  As  soon  as  Cotta 
saw  me,  '  You  are  come,'  says  he,  *  very  seasonably, 
for  I  have  a  dispute  with  Velleius  upon  an  important 
subject,  in  which,  considering  the  nature  of  your  stu- 
dies, it  is  not  improper  for  you  to  join.' — *  Indeed,' 
said  I,  *  I  am  come  very  seasonably,  as  you  say,  for 
here  are  three  chiefs  of  the  three  principal  sects  met 

1  Some  of  the  advantages*and  disadvantages  of  the  method  of 
writing  in  dialogue,  are  stated  by  Mr  Hume,  in  the  introduction 
to  his  Dialogues  concerning  Natural  Religion,  (London,  1779*  8vo,) 
a  work  apparently  modelled  on  Cicero's  Nature  of  the  Gods. 


406  CICERO. 

together.' "  Cotta  himself  is  a  new  Academic,  and  he 
proceeds  to  inform  Cicero  that  they  were  discoursing 
on  the  nature  of  the  gods,  a  topic  which  had  always 
appeared  to  him  very  obscure,  and  that  therefore  he 
had  prevailed  on  Velleius  to  state  the  sentiments  of 
Epicurus  upon  the  subject.  Velleius  is  requested  to 
go  on  with  his  arguments ;  and  after  recapitulating 
what  he  had  already  said,  "  with  the  confidence  pecu- 
liar to  his  sect,  dreading  nothing  so  much  as  to  seem 
to  doubt  about  anything,  he  began,  as  if  he  had  just 
then  descended  from  the  council  of  the  gods."1 

The  discourse  of  Velleius  consists,  in  a  considerable 
degree,  of  raillery  and  declamations  directed  against 
the  doctrines  of  different  sects,  of  which  he  enumerates 
a  great  variety,  and  which  supposes  in  Cicero  exten- 
sive philosophical  erudition,  or  rather,  perhaps,  from 
the  slight  manner  in  which  they  are  passed  over,  that 
he  had  taken  his  account  of  them  from  some  ancient 
Diogenes  Laertius,  or  Stanley.2 — "  I  have  hitherto," 

1  In  the  English  extracts  from  Cicero  De  Nat.  Deor.  I  have 
availed  myself  of  a  very  good  but  anonymous  translation,  printed 
Lond.  1741,  8vo. 

2  In  the  Herculanensia,  (p.  22,)  Sir  William  Drummond  con- 
tends, at  considerable  length,  that  a  work  On  Piety  according  to 
Epicurus,  (neg<  Ev<rtfii7ag  kxt  Emx-S^ov,)  of  which  a  fragment  has 
been  discovered  at  Herculaneum,  was  the  prototype  of  a  consider- 
able part  of  the  discourse  of  Velleius.  The  reader  will  find  a  ver- 
sion of  the  passages,  in  which  a  resemblance  appears,  in  the  Quar- 
terly Review,  (No.  V.)  where  it  is  also  remarked,  "  that  Sir  Wil- 
liam seems  to  us  to  have  failed  altogether  in  rendering  it  probable 
that  Cicero  had  ever  seen  this  important  fragment,  the  passages  in 
which  there  is  any  resemblance,  relating,  without  exception,  to 
what  each  author  is  reporting  of  the  doctrines  of  certain  older  phi- 


CICERO.  407 

says  Velleius,  M  rather  exposed  the  dreams  of  dotards 
than  the  opinions  of  philosophers  ;  and  whoever  con- 
siders how  rashly  and  inconsiderately  their  tenets  are 
advanced,  must  entertain  a  veneration  for  Epicurus, 
and  rank  him  in  the  number  of  those  beings  who  are 
the  subject  of  this  dispute,  for  he  alone  first  founded 
the  existence  of  the  gods,  on  the  impression  which  na- 
ture herself  hath  made  on  the  minds  of  men." 

Velleius  having  concluded  his  discourse,  (the  re- 
mainder of  which  can  now  have  little  interest  as  rela- 
ting to  the  form  of  the  gods  and  their  apathy,)  Cotta, 
after  some  compliments  to  him,  enters  on  a  confuta- 
tion of  what  he  had  advanced ;  and,  while  admitting 
that  there  are  gods,  he  pronounces  the  reasons  given 
by  Velleius  for  their  existence  to  be  altogether  insuffi- 
cient. He  then  proceeds  to  attack  the  other  positions 
of  Velleius,  with  regard  to  the  form  of  the  gods,  and 
their  exemption  from  the  labours  of  creation  and  pro- 

losophers,  as  expressed  in  their  works  ;  and  the  reports  are  not  by 
any  means  so  precisely  similar  as  to  induce  us  to  suppose  that  Ci- 
cero had  even  taken  the  very  justifiable  liberty  of  saving  himself 
some  little  trouble,  by  making  use  of  another  author's  abstract, 
from  Chrysippus,  and  from  Diogenes  the  Babylonian."  Schiitz, 
the  German  editor  of  Cicero,  enumerates  some  works,  which  he 
thinks  Cicero  had  read,  and  others,  which  he  seems  to  have  known 
merely  from  summaries  and  abridgements.  The  following  is  his 
conjecture  with  regard  to  the  writings  of  Epicurus  : — "  Epicuri 
denique  xv^ixg  do^xg,  ejus  xxyovx  seu  libros,  de  Judicio,  item  7rsg< 
tyvo-ius,  et  yngt  o<rtoTi)Tog,  non  ex  aliorum  tantum  testimoniis,  sed 
ex  sua  ipsius  lectione  ei  notos  fuisse,  facile,  tot  locis  ubi  de  eo  agi- 
tur  inter  se  collatis,  intelligitur."  (Cicer.  Opera,  Tom.  XV.  p. 
27.)  Perhaps  the  treatise,  Tlty  'OrtoriTos,  was  a  similar  work  to  that, 
ITegi  Ev<rtjii1x$. 


408  ciceuo. 

vidence.  His  arguments  against  Anthropomorphism 
are  excellent ;  and  in  reply  to  the  hypothesis  of  Epi- 
curus concerning  the  indolence  of  the  gods,  he  inquires, 
"  What  reason  is  there  that  men  should  worship  the 
gods,  when  the  gods,  as  you  say,  not  only  do  not  re- 
gard men,  but  are  entirely  careless  of  everything,  and 
absolutely  do  nothing  ?  But  they  are,  you  say,  of  so 
glorious  a  nature,  that  a  wise  man  is  induced  by  their 
excellence  to  adore  them.  Can  there  be  any  glory  in 
that  nature,  which  only  contemplates  its  own  happi- 
ness, and  neither  will  do,  nor  does,  nor  ever  did  any- 
thing ?  Besides,  what  piety  is  due  to  a  being  from 
whom  you  receive  nothing,  or  how  are  you  indebted 
to  him  who  bestows  no  benefits  ?" 

When  Cotta  has  concluded  his  refutation  of  Vel- 
leius,  with  which  the  first  book  closes,  Balbus  is  next 
requested  to  give  the  sentiments  of  the  Stoics,  on  the 
subject  of  the  gods,  to  which,  making  a  slight  excuse,  he 
consents.  His  first  argument  for  their  existence,  after 
shortly  alluding  to  the  magnificence  of  the  world,  and 
the  prevalence  of  the  doctrine,  is  "  the  frequent  ap- 
pearance of  the  gods  themselves.  In  the  war  with  the 
Latins,"  he  continues,  "  when  A.  Posthumius,  the 
Dictator,  attacked  Octavius  Mamilius,  the  Tusculan, 
at  Regillus,  Castor  and  Pollux  were  seen  fighting  in 
our  army  on  horseback,  and  since  that  time  the  same 
offspring  of  Tyndarus  gave  notice  of  the  defeat  of  Per- 
seus ;  for  P.  Vatienus,  grandfather  of  the  present  youth 
of  that  name,  coming  in  the  night  to  Rome,  from  his 
government  of  Reate,  two  young  men  on  white  horses 
appeared  to  him,  and  told  him  King  Perseus  was  that 


CICERO.  409 

day  taken  prisoner.  This  news  he  carried  to  the  Se- 
nate, who  immediately  threw  him  into  prison,  for 
speaking  inconsiderately  on  a  state  affair  ;  but  when 
it  was  confirmed  by  letters  from  Paullus,  he  was  re- 
compensed by  the  Senate  with  land  and  exemption. 
The  voices  of  the  Fauns  have  been  often  heard,  and 
deities  have  appeared  in  forms  so  visible,  that  he  who 
doubts  must  be  hardened  in  stupidity  or  impiety." 

Balbus,  after  farther  arguing  for  the  existence  of 
the  gods,  from  events  consequent  on  auguries  and  au- 
spices, proceeds  to  what  is  more  peculiarly  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Stoics.  He  remarks, — "  that  Cleanthes, 
one  of  the  most  distinguished  philosophers  of  that  sect, 
imputes  the  idea  of  the  gods  implanted  in  the  minds 
of  men,  to  four  causes — The  first,  is  what  I  just  now 
mentioned,  a  pre-knowledge  of  future  things  :  The 
second,  is  the  great  advantages  we  enjoy  from  the  tem- 
perature of  the  air,  the  fertility  of  the  earth,  and  the 
abundance  of  various  kinds  of  benefits  :  The  third,  is 
the  terror  with  which  the  mind  is  affected  by  thunder, 
tempests,  snow,  hail,  devastation,  pestilence,  earth- 
quakes, often  attended  with  hideous  noises,  showers 
of  stones,  and  rain  like  drops  of  blood.  His  fourth 
cause,"  continues  Balbus,  "  and  that  the  strongest,  is 
drawn  from  the  regularity  of  the  motion,  and  revolu- 
tion of  the  heavens,  the  variety,  and  beauty,  and  or- 
der of  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars ;  the  appearance  only 
of  which  is  sufficient  to  convince  us  they  are  not  the 
effects  of  chance ;  as  when  we  enter  into  a  house,  a 
school,  or  court,  and  observe  the  exact  order,  disci- 
pline, and  method  therein,  we  cannot  suppose  they  are 


410  CICEltO. 

so  regulated  without  a  cause,  but  must  conclude  there 
is  some  one  who  commands,  and  to  whom  obedience  is 
paid  ;  so  we  have  much  greater  reason  to  think  that 
such  wonderful  motions,  revolutions,  and  order  of  those 
many  and  great  bodies,  no  part  of  which  is  impaired 
by  the  vast  infinity  of  age,  are  governed  by  some  in- 
telligent being." 

This  argument  is  very  well  stated,  but  Balbus,  in 
a  considerable  degree,  weakens  its  effect,  by  proceed- 
ing to  contend,  that  the  world,  or  universe  itself,  (the 
stoical  deity,)  and  its  most  distinguished  parts,  the  sun, 
moon,  and  stars,  are  possessed  of  reason  and  wisdom. 
This  he  founds  partly  on  a  metaphysical  argument, 
partly  on  the  regularity,  beauty,  and  order  of  their 
motions. 

Balbus,  after  various  other  remarks,  enters  on  the 
topic  of  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  its  government 
by  the  providence  of  the  gods.  He  justly  observes, 
that  nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to  suppose  that 
a  world,  so  beautifully  adorned,  could  be  formed  by 
chance,  or  by  a  fortuitous  concourse  of  atoms.1    "  He 

i  In  his  Dialogues  on  Natural  Religion,  Mr  Hume  puts  two  very 
good  remarks  into  the  mouth  of  one  gf  his  characters.  Speaking 
of  Cicero's  argument  for  a  Deity,  deduced  from  the  grandeur  and 
magnificence  of  nature,  he  observes,  u  If  this  argument,  I  say,  had 
any  force  in  former  ages,  how  much  greater  must  it  have  at  pre- 
sent, when  the  bounds  of  nature  are  so  infinitely  enlarged,  and  such 
a  magnificent  scene  is  opened  to  us  I"  P.  103. — Again,  in  mention- 
ing that  the  infidelity  of  Galen  was  cured  by  the  study  of  anato- 
my, (which  was  much  more  extended  by  him  than  it  had  been  in 
the  days  of  Cicero,)  he  says,  "  And  if  the  infidelity  of  Galen,  even 
when  these  natural  sciences  were  still  imperfect,  could  not  with- 


CICERO.  411 

who  believes  this  possible,"  says  he,  "  may  as  well  be- 
lieve, that  if  a  great  number  of  the  one-and-twenty 
letters,  composed  either  of  gold,  or  any  other  metal, 
were  thrown  on  the  ground,  they  would  fall  into  such 
order  as  legibly  to  form  the  Annals  of  Ennius.  I 
doubt  whether  fortune  could  make  a  single  verse  of 
them."  He  quotes  a  very  beautiful  passage  from  a  now 
lost  work  of  Aristotle,  in  which  that  philosopher  urges 
the  argument  that  may  be  deduced  from  providential 
design,  with  more  soundness  and  imagination  than  are 
usual  with  him.  Balbus  then  proceeds  to  display  the 
marks  of  deliberate  plan  in  the  universe,  beginning 
with  astronomy.  In  treating  of  the  constellations,  he 
makes  great  use  of  Cicero's  poetical  version  of  Aratus, 
much  of  which  he  is  supposed,  perhaps  with  little  pro- 
bability, or  modesty  in  the  author,  to  have  by  heart ; 
and,  accordingly,  we  are  favoured  with  a  considerable 
number  of  these  verses.  He  also  adduces  manifold 
proofs  of  design  and  sovereign  wisdom,  from  a  consi- 
deration of  plants,  land  animals,  fishes,  and  the  struc- 
ture of  the  human  body ;  a  subject  on  which  Cicero 
discovers  more  anatomical  knowledge  than  one  should 
have  expected.  Balbus  also  contends  that  the  gods  not 
only  provide  for  mankind  universally,  but  for  indivi- 
duals. '*  The  frequent  appearances  of  the  gods,"  he 
observes,  "  demonstrate  their  regard  for  cities  and  par- 
ticular men.    This,  indeed,  is  also  apparent  from  the 

stand  such  striking  appearances,  to  what  pitch  of  pertinacious  ob- 
stinacy must  a  philosopher  in  this  age  have  attained,  who  can  now 
doubt  of  a  Supreme  Intelligence !"  P.  23 — See  also  Lactantius, 
De  Opificio  Dei. 


412  CICERO. 

foreknowledge  of  events,  which  we  receive  either  sleep- 
ing or  waking." 

Cicero  makes  Balbus,  in  the  conclusion  of  his  dis- 
course, express  but  little  confidence  in  his  own  argu- 
ments.— "  This  is  almost  the  whole,"  says  he, "  that  has 
occurred  to  my  mind,  on  the  nature  of  the  gods,  and 
that  I  thought  proper  to  advance.  Do  you,  Cotta,  if 
I  may  advise,  defend  the  same  cause.  Remember  that 
in  Rome  you  keep  the  first  rank — remember  you  are 
Pontifex.  It  is  a  pernicious  and  impious  custom, 
either  seriously  or  seemingly  to  argue  against  the 
gods." 

In  the  third  book  of  this  very  remarkable  work, 
Cicero  exhibits  Cotta  as  refuting  the  doctrines  of  Bal- 
bus. "  But  before  I  enter  on  the  subject,"  says  Cotta, 
"I  have  a  word  to  say  concerning  myself;  for  I  am 
greatly  influenced  by  your  authority,  and  your  exhort- 
ation at  the  conclusion  of  your  discourse,  to  remem- 
ber I  was  Cotta,  and  Pontifex ;  by  which,  I  presume, 
you  intimated  that  I  should  defend  the  religion  and 
ceremonies  which  we  received  from  our  ancestors : 
Truly,  I  always  have,  and  always  will  defend  them, 
nor  shall  the  arguments,  either  of  the  learned  or  un- 
learned, ever  remove  the  opinions  I  have  imbibed  con- 
cerning the  worship  of  the  immortal  gods.  In  matters 
of  religion,  I  submit  to  the  rules  of  the  High  Priests, 
T.  Coruncanius,  P.  Scipio,  and  P.  Scsevola.  These, 
Balbus,"  continues  he,  "  are  my  sentiments,  both  as  a 
priest  and  Cotta.  But  you  must  bring  me  to  your 
opinion  by  the  force  of  your  reason ;  for  a  philosopher 
should  prove  to  me  the  religion  he  would  have  me 


CICEKO.  412 

embrace ;  but  I  must  believe  without  proof  the  reli- 
gion of  our  ancestors." 

The  Pontifex  thus  professing  to  believe  the  exist- 
ence of  the  gods  merely  on  the  authority  of  his  an- 
cestors, proceeds  to  ridicule  this  very  authority.  He 
represents  the  appearances  of  Castor  and  Pollux,  and 
those  others  adduced  by  Balbus,  as  idle  tales.  "  Do 
you  take  these  for  fabulous  stories  ?"  says  Balbus.  "  Is 
not  the  temple  built  by  Posthumius,  in  honour  of  Cas- 
tor and  Pollux,  to  be  seen  in  the  Forum  ?  Is  not  the 
decree  of  the  Senate  concerning  Vatienus  still  sub- 
sisting ?  Ought  not  such  authorities  to  move  you  ?" 
— "  You  oppose  me,"  replies  Cotta,  "  with  stories ; 
but  I  ask  reasons  of  you." 

A  chasm  here  follows  in  the  original,  in  which  Cotta 
probably  stated  the  reasons  of  his  scepticism,  in  spite 
of  the  acts  of  the  Senate,  and  so  many  public  memo- 
rials of  supernatural  facts.  "  You  believe,"  continues 
Cotta,  "  that  the  Decii,  in  devoting  themselves  to 
death,  appeased  the  gods.  How  great,  then,  was  the 
iniquity  of  the  gods,  that  they  could  not  be  appeased, 
but  at  the  price  of  such  noble  blood  ! — As  to  the  voice 
of  the  Fauns,  I  never  heard  it ;  if  you  assure  me  you 
have,  I  shall  believe  you ;  though  I  am  absolutely  ig- 
norant what  a  Faun  is.  Truly,  Balbus,  you  have  not 
yet  proved  the  existence  of  the  gods.  I  believe  it,  in- 
deed, but  not  from  any  arguments  of  the  Stoics.  Cle- 
anthes,  you  said,  attributes  the  idea  that  men  have  of 
the  gods  to  four  causes.  The  first  is  a  foreknowledge 
of  future  events ;  the  second, — tempests  and  other 
shocks  of  nature  ;  the  third, — the  utility  and  plenty 


414  CICERO. 

of  things  we  enjoy  ;  the  fourth, — the  invariable  order 
of  the  stars  and  heavens.  Foreknowledge  I  have  al- 
ready answered.  With  regard  to  tempests  in  the  air, 
the  sea,  and  the  earth,  I  own,  that  many  people  are 
affrighted  by  them,  and  imagine  that  the  immortal 
gods  are  the  authors  of  them.  But  the  question  is  not, 
whether  there  be  people  who  believe  there  are  gods, 
but  whether  there  are  gods  or  not.  As  to  the  two  other 
causes  of  Cleanthes,  one  of  which  is  derived  from  the 
plenty  we  enjoy,  the  other  from  the  invariable  order 
of  the  seasons  and  heavens,  I  shall  treat  on  them  when 
I  answer  your  discourse  concerning  the  providence  of 
the  gods." 

In  the  meantime,  Cotta  goes  on  to  refute  the  Stoical 
notions  with  regard  to  the  reason  and  understanding 
attributed  to  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars.  He  then  pro- 
ceeds to  controvert,  and  occasionally  to  ridicule,  the 
opinions  entertained  of  numerous  heathen  gods ;  the 
three  Jupiters,  and  other  deities,  and  sons  of  deities. 
— *'  You  call  Jupiter  and  Neptune  gods,"  says  he  ; 
"  their  brother  Pluto,  then,  is  one ;  Charon,  also,  and 
Cerberus,  are  gods,  but  that  cannot  be  allowed.  Nor 
can  Pluto  be  placed  among  the  deities  ;  how  then  can 
his  brothers  ?"  Cotta  next  ridicules  the  Stoics  for  the 
delight  they  take  in  the  explication  of  fables,  and  in 
the  etymology  of  names  ;  after  which  he  says,  "  Let 
us  proceed  to  the  two  other  parts  of  our  dispute.  1st, 
Whether  there  is  a  Divine  Providence  that  governs 
the  world  ?  and,  lastly,  Whether  that  Providence  par- 
ticularly regards  mankind  ?  For  these  are  the  remain- 
ing propositions  of  your  discourse." 


CICERO.  415 

There  follows  a  considerable  hiatus  in  the  original, 
so  that  we  are  deprived  of  all  the  arguments  of  Cotta 
on  the  proposition  maintained  by  Balbus,  that  there  is 
a  Divine  Providence  which  governs  the  world.  At 
the  end  of  this  chasm,  we  find  him  quoting  long  pas- 
sages from  tragedies,  and  arguing  against  the  advan- 
tages of  reason,  from  the  ill  use  which  has  been  made 
of  it.  He  then  adduces  a  number  of  instances,  drawn 
from  history  and  observation,  of  fortunate  vice,  and  of 
wrecked  and  ruined  virtue,  in  order  to  overturn  the 
doctrine  of  particular  providence ;  contending,  that 
as  no  family  or  state  can  be  supposed  to  be  formed 
with  any  judgment  or  discipline,  if  there  are  no  re- 
wards for  good  actions,  or  punishment  for  bad,  so  we 
cannot  believe  that  a  Divine  Providence  regulates  the 
world,  when  there  is  no  distinction  between  the  honest 
and  the  wicked. 

"  This,"  concludes  Cotta,  "  is  the  purport  of  what 
I  had  to  say  concerning  the  nature  of  the  gods,  not 
with  a  design  to  destroy  their  existence,  but  merely  to 
show  what  an  obscure  point  it  is,  and  with  what  diffi- 
culties an  explanation  of  it  is  attended."  Balbus  ob- 
serving that  Cotta  had  finished  his  discourse,  "  You 
have  been  very  severe,"  says  he,  "  against  the  being 
of  a  Divine  Providence,  a  doctrine  established  by  the 
Stoics,  with  piety  and  wisdom ;  but,  as  it  grows  too 
late,  I  shall  defer  my  answer  to  another  day." — "  There 
is  nothing,"  replied  Cotta,  "  I  desire  more  than  to  be 
confuted." — "The  conversation  ended  here,  and  we 
parted.  Velleius  judged  that  the  arguments  of  Cotta 


416  CICERO. 

were  the  truest,  but  those  of  Balbus  seemed  to  me  to 
have  the  greater  probability." 

It  seems  likely  that  this  profession  or  pretext,  that 
the  discourse  is  left  unfinished,  may  (like  the  occa- 
sional apologies  of  Cotta)  be  introduced  to  save  ap- 
pearances.1 It  is  evident,  however,  that  Cicero  intend- 
ed to  add,  at  least,  new  prefaces  to  the  two  latter  books 
of  this  work,  probably  from  suspecting,  as  he  went  on, 
that  the  discourses  are  too  long  to  have  taken  place  in 
one  day,  as  they  are  now  represented.  Balbus  says, 
in  the  second  book,  "  Velut  a  te  ipso,  hesterno  die 
dictum  est."2  Fulvius  Ursinus  had  remarked  that  this 
was  an  inadvertence,  either  in  Cicero  or  a  transcriber, 
as  the  discourse  is  continued  throughout  the  same  day. 
That  it  was  not  owing  to  a  transcriber,  or  to  any  in- 
advertence in  Cicero,  but  to  a  design  of  altering  the 
introductions  to  the  second  and  third  books,  appears 

1  There  was  published,  Bononice,  1811,  M.  T.  Ciceronis  de  Na- 
turd  Deorum  Liber  Quartus :  e  pervetusto  Codice  MS.  Membra- 
naceo  nunc  primum  edidit  P.  Seraphinus  Ord.  Fr.  Min.— This  tract 
was  republished,  (Oxonii,  1813,)  by  Mr  Lunn,  who  says,  iu  a  pre- 
fatory note,  that  "  he  entertains  no  doubt,  from  the  opinion  of 
several  of  his  friends,  of  this  production  being  a  literary  forgery." 
Of  this,  indeed,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  as  appears  among  various 
other  proofs,  from  the  minute  account  of  the  Jews.—"  Sed  etiam 
plures  adhibere  deos  vel  divos,  a  quibus  ipsi  regantur,  quos  nomine 
Elohim  designare  soleant,  secundi  ordinis,"  &c.  (p.  12.)— There  is 
some  humour  in  the  manner  in  which  the  Italian  editor,  in  a  pre- 
face written  in  the  rude  style  of  a  simple  friar,  obtests  that  the 
wo  rk  is  not  a  forgery.— "  Sed  ne  quis  existimet,  me  ipsum  fecisse 
hunc  librum,  testor,  detestor,  obtestor,  et  contestor,  per  S.  Fran- 
ciscum  Assissium,  me  talem  facere  non  posse,  qui  sacris  incumbere 
cogor,  nee  profanis  possum,"  &c. 

2  C.  29. 

5 


CICERO.  417 

from  a  passage  in  book  third,  where  Cotta  says  to  Bal- 
bus,  "  Omniaque,  quae  a  te  nudiustertius  dicta  sunt."1 
Now,  it  is  extremely  unlikely  that  there  should  have 
been  two  such  instances  of  inadvertency  in  the  author, 
or  carelessness  in  the  copyist. 

The  work  on  the  Nature  of  the  Gods,  though  in 
many  respects  a  most  valuable  production,  and  a  con- 
vincing proof  of  the  extensive  learning  of  its  author, 
gives  a  melancholy  picture  of  the  state  of  his  mind. 
Unfitted  to  bear  adversity,  and  borne  down  by  the 
calamities  of  his  country,  and  the  death  of  his  beloved 
daughter,  (misfortunes  of  which  he  often  complains,) 
Cicero  seems  to  have  become  a  sceptic,  and  occasion- 
ally to  have  doubted  even  of  a  superintending  Provi- 
dence. Warburton  appears  to  be  right  in  supposing, 
that  Cicero  was  advanced  in  years  before  he  seriously 
adopted  the  sceptical  opinions  of  the  new  Academy. 
"  This  farther  appears,"  says  he,  after  some  remarks 
on  this  head,  "  from  a  place  in  his  Nature  of  the  Gods, 
where  he  says,  that  his  espousing  the  new  Academy 
of  a  sudden,  was  a  thing  altogether  unlooked  for.3 
The  change,  then,  was  late,  and  after  the  ruin  of  the 
republic,  when  Cicero  retired  from  business,  and  had 
leisure  in  his  recess  to  plan  and  execute  this  noble  un- 
dertaking. So  that  a  learned  critic  appears  to  have 
been  mistaken,  when  he  supposed  the  choice  of  the 

1C.7. 

2  Multis  etiam  sensi  mirabile  videri,  earn  nobis  potissimum  pro- 
batam  esse  philosophiam,quae  lucem  eriperet^et  quasi  noctem  quan- 
dam  rebus  offunderet,  desertseque  discipline  et  jampridem  relictae 
patrocinium  nee  opinatum  a  nobis  esse  susceptum. — (DeNat.  Dear. 
Lib.  I.  c.  3.) 

VOL.  II.  2  D 


418  ciceuo. 

new  Academy  was  made  in  his  youth.  '  This  sect,' 
says  he,  *  did  best  agree  with  the  vast  genius,  and  am- 
bitious spirit,  of  young  Cicero.'  "l 

It  appears  not,  however,  to  have  been,  as  Warbur- 
ton  supposes,  altogether  from  a  systematic  plan,  of  ex- 
plaining to  his  countrymen  the  philosophy  of  the 
Greeks,  that  Cicero  became  a  sceptic  ;  but  partly  from 
gloomy  views  of  nature  and  providence.  It  seems  dif- 
ficult otherwise  to  account  for  the  circumstance,  that 
Cotta,  an  ancient  and  venerable  Consul,  the  Pontifex 
of  the  metropolis  of  the  world,  should  be  introduced 
as  contending,  even  against  an  Epicurean,  for  the  non- 
existence of  the  gods.  Lord  Bolingbroke  has  justly 
remarked,  "  that  Cotta  disputes  so  vehemently,  and 
his  arguments  extend  so  far,  that  Tully  makes  his  own 
brother  accuse  him  directly,  and  himself  by  conse- 
quence indirectly,  of  atheism. — *  Studio  contra  Stoicos 
disserendi  deos  mihi  videtur  funditus  tollere.'  Now, 
what  says  Tully  in  his  own  name  ?  He  tells  his  bro- 
ther that  Cotta  disputes  in  that  manner,  rather  to  con- 
fute the  Stoics  than  to  destroy  the  religion  of  man- 
kind.— ?  Magis  quam  ut  hominum  deleat  religionem.' 
But  Quintus  answers,  that  is,  Tully  makes  him  an- 
swer, he  was  not  the  bubble  of  an  artifice,  employed 
to  save  the  appearance  of  departing  from  the  public 
religious  institutions. — '  Ne  communi  jure  migrare 
videatur.'  "2  Cotta,  indeed,  goes  so  far  in  his  attack  on 

i  Warburton,  Divine  Legation,  Vol.  II.  p.  168.  Ed.  1755.  War- 
burton  here  alludes  to  Bentley — Remarks  on  a  late  Discourse  of 
Free-thinking,  Part  II.  Rem.  53. 

2  Bolingbroke' s  Works,  Vol.  VIII.  p.  81.  ed.  8vo. 


CICERO.  419 

Providence,  that  Lord  Bolingbroke,  who  is  not  him- 
self a  model  of  orthodoxy,  takes  up  the  other  side  of 
the  question  against  the  Roman  Pontiff,  and  pleads 
the  cause  of  Providence  with  no  little  reason  and  elo- 
quence.1 

In  the  foregoing  analysis,  or  abridgement  of  the  work 
on  the  Nature  of  the  Gods,  it  will  have  been  remark- 
ed, that  two  chasms  occur  in  the  argument  of  Cotta. 
Olivet  enters  into  some  discussion  with  regard  to  the 
latter  and  larger  chasm.  "  I  cannot,"  says  he,  "  see 
any  justice  in  the  accusation  against  the  primitive 
Christians,  of  having  torn  this  passage  out  of  all  the 
MSS.  What  appearance  is  there,  that  through  a  pious 
motive  they  should  have  erased  this  any  more  than 
many  others  in  the  same  book,  which  they  must  un- 
doubtedly have  looked  upon  as  no  less  pernicious  ?" 
Olivet  seems  inclined  to  suspect  the  Pagans  ;  but,  in 
my  opinion,  the  chasms  in  the  discourse  of  Cotta,  if 
not  accidental,  are  to  be  attributed  rather  to  Christian 
than  Pagan  zeal.  Arnobius,  indeed,  speaking  of  this 
work,  says,  That  many  were  of  opinion  that  it  ought 
to  have  been  destroyed  by  the  Roman  Senate,  as  the 
Christian  faith  might  be  approved  by  it,  and  the  au- 
thority of  antiquity  subverted.2  There  is  no  evi- 
dence, however,  that  any  such  destruction  or  mutila- 
tion was  attempted  by  the  Pagans ;  and  we  find  that 

1  Bolingbroke's  Works,  Vol.  VIII.  p.  266,  278. 

2  Fuerint  qui  judicarent  oportere  statui  per  Senatum  ut  abolean- 
tur  haec  scripta,  quibus  religio  Christiana  comprobetur,  et  vetus- 
tatis  opprimatur  auctoritas. — Arnobius,  Adversus  Gentes,  Lib. 
III. 


420  CICERO. 

the  satire  directed  against  the  heathen  deities  has 
been  permitted  to  remain,  while  the  chasms  intervene 
in  portions  of  the  work,  which  might  have  been  sup- 
posed by  a  pious  zealot,  to  bear,  in  some  measure, 
against  the  Christian,  as  well  as  the  Pagan  faith.  In 
the  first  of  them,  the  Pontifex  begins,  and  is  proceed- 
ing to  contend,  that  in  spite  of  Acts  of  the  Senate, 
temples,  statues,  and  other  commemorations  of  miracu- 
lous circumstances,  all  such  prodigies  were  nothing  but 
mere  fables,  however  solemnly  attested,  or  generally 
believed.  Now,  the  transcriber  might  fear,  lest  a 
similar  inference  should  be  drawn  by  the  sceptic,  to 
that  which  has  in  fact  been  deduced  by  the  English 
translator  of  this  work,  in  the  following  passage  of  a 
note : — "  Hence  we  see  what  little  credit  ought  to  be 
paid  to  facts,  said  to  be  done  out  of  the  ordinary  course 
of  nature.  These  miracles  are  well  attested  :  They  were 
recorded  in  the  annals  of  a  great  people — believed  by 
many  learned  and  otherwise  sagacious  persons,  and  re- 
ceived as  religious  truths  by  the  populace ;  but  the 
testimonies  of  ancient  records,  the  credulity  of  some 
learned  men,  and  the  implicit  faith  of  the  vulgar,  can 
never  prove  that  to  have  been,  which  is  impossible  in 
the  nature  of  things  ever  to  be."  At  the  beginning 
of  the  other  and  larger  chasm,  Cotta  was  proceeding 
to  argue  against  the  proposition  of  the  Stoics,  that 
there  is  a  Divine  Providence  which  governs  the  world. 
Now,  there  is  a  considerable  analogy  between  the  sys- 
tem of  the  ancient  Stoics,  and  the  Christian  scheme 
of  Providence,  both  in  the  theoretical  doctrine,  and  in 
the  practical  inference,  of  the  propriety  of  a  cheerful 


CICERO.  421 

and  unqualified  submission  to  the  chain  of  events — to 
the  dispensations  of  nature  in  the  Stoical,  and  of  God 
in  the  purer  doctrine.  To  Christian  zeal,  therefore, 
rather  than  to  Pagan  prudence,  we  must  attribute  the 
two  chasms  which  now  intervene  in  the  discourse  of 
Cotta. 

In  the  remarks  which  have  been  now  offered  on  this 
work,  De  Naturd  Deorum,  I  trust  I  have  brought  no 
unfounded^or  uncharitable  accusation  against  Cicero. 
He  was  a  person,  at  least  in  his  own  age  and  coun- 
try, of  unrivalled  talents  and  learning — he  was  a  great, 
and,  on  the  whole,  a  good  man — but  his  mind  was 
sensitive,  and  feeble  against  misfortune.  There  are 
aeras,  and  moments  perhaps  in  every  aera,  when  we  are 
ready  to  exclaim  with  Brutus,  "  That  virtue  is  an 
empty  name  :"  And  the  doubts  and  darkness  of  such 
a  mind  as  that  of  Cicero,  enriched  with  all  the  powers 
of  genius,  and  all  the  treasures  of  philosophy,  afford  a 
new  proof  of  the  necessity  for  the  appearance  of  that 
Divine  Messenger,  who  was  then  on  the  eve  of  de- 
scending upon  earth. 

DeDivinatione. — The  long  account  which  has  been 
given  of  the  dialogue  on  the  Nature  of  the  Gods,  ren- 
ders it  unnecessary  to  say  much  on  the  work  De  Di- 
vinatione.  This  treatise  may  be  considered,  in  some 
measure,  as  a  supplement  to  that  De  Naturd  Deo- 
rum. The  religion  of  the  Romans  consisted  of  two 
different  branches — the  worship  of  the  gods,  and  the 
observation  of  the  signs  by  which  their  will  was  sup- 
posed to  be  revealed.  Cicero  having  already  discussed 
what  related  to  the  nature  and  worship  of  the  gods, 


429  cicero. 

a  treatise  on  Divination  formed  a  natural  continua- 
tion of  the  subject.1  In  his  work  on  this  topic,  which 
was  one  almost  peculiar  to  the  Romans,  Cicero  pro- 
fesses to  relate  the  substance  of  a  conversation  held  at 
Tusculum  with  his  brother,  in  which  Quintus,  on  the 
principles  of  the  Stoics,  supported  the  credibility  of 
divination,  while  Cicero  himself  controverted  it.  The 
dialogue  consists  of  two  books,  the  first  of  which  com- 
prehends an  enumeration  by  Quintus  of  the  different 
kinds  or  classes  of  divination,  with  the  reasons  or  pre- 
sumptions in  their  favour.  The  second  book  contains 
the  refutation  by  Cicero  of  his  brothers  arguments. 

Quintus,  while  walking  with  his  brother  in  the  Ly- 
ceum at  Tusculum,  begins  his  observations  by  stating, 
that  he  had  read  the  third  book  which  Cicero  had 
lately  written,  on  the  Nature  of  the  Gods,  in  which 
Cotta  seemed  to  contend  for  atheism,  but  had  by  no 
means  been  able  to  refute  Balbus.  He  remarks,  at 
the  same  time,  that  the  subject  of  divination  had  not 
been  treated  of  in  these  books,  perhaps  in  order  that 
it  might  be  separately  discussed  more  fully,  and  that 
he  would  gladly,  if  his  brother  had  leisure  and  incli- 
nation, state  his  own  opinions  on  the  subject.  The  an- 
swer of  Cicero  is  very  noble. — "  Ego  vero,  inquam, 
Philosophise,  Quinte,  semper  vaco.  Hoc  autem  tem- 
pore, quum  sit  nihil  aliud  quod  libenter  agere  pos- 

1  In  the  preface  to  the  second  book  of  this  treatise,  Be  Divi- 
nalione,  Cicero,  enumerating  his  late  philosophical  compositions, 
says,  "  Quibus  libris  editis,  tres  libri  perfecti  sunt  De  Natura 
Deorum  *  *  quae  ut  plene  essent  cumulateque  perfecta,  De  Divi- 
natione  ingressi  sumus  his  libris  scribere.— (De  Div.  Lib.  II.  c.  1.) 


CICERO.  423 

sim  multo  magis  aveo  audire  de  divinatione  quid  sen- 
tias." 

Quintus,  after  observing  that  divinations  of  various 
kinds  have  been  common  among  all  people,  remarks, 
and  afterwards  frequently  repeats,  that  it  is  no  argu- 
ment against  different  modes  of  divination,  that  we 
cannot  explain  how  or  why  certain  things  happen.  It 
is  sufficient,  that  we  know  from  experience  and  histo- 
ry, that  they  do  happen.1  He  contends  that  Cicero 
himself  supports  the  doctrine  of  divination,  in  the 
poem  on  his  Consulship,  from  which  he  quotes  a  long 
passage,  sufficient  to  console  us  for  the  loss  of  that 
work.  He  argues,  that  although  events  may  not  al- 
ways succeed  as  predicted,  it  does  not  follow  that 
divination  is  not  an  art,  more  than  that  medicine 
is  not  an  art,  because  cures  may  not  always  be  ef- 
fected. In  the  course  of  this  book  we  have  a  com- 
plete account  of  the  state  contrivances  which  were 
practised  by  the  Roman  government,  to  instil  among 
the  people  those  hopes  and  fears  whereby  it  regu- 
lated public  opinion,  in  which  view  it  has  been  justly 
termed  a  chapter  in  the  history  of  man.  The  great 
charm,  however,  of  this  first  book,  consists  in  the 
number  of  histories  adduced  by  Quintus,  in  proof 
of  the  truth  of  different  kinds  of  omens,  dreams, 
portents,  and  divinations. — "  Negemus  omnia,"  says 
he,  w  comburamus  annales."  He  states  various  cir- 
cumstances consistent  with   his   and   his   brother's 

1  Hoc  sura  contentus,  quod,  etiamsi,  quomodo  quidque  fiat, 
ignorem,  quid  fiat,  intelligo. 


424  CICERO. 

own  knowledge ;  and,  among  others,  two  remarkable 
dreams,  one  of  which  had  occurred  to  Cicero,  and  one 
to  himself.  He  asks  if  the  Greek  history  be  also  a 
fable. — "  Num  etiam  Grsecorum  historia  mentita  est?" 
and,  in  short,  throughout  takes  the  following  high 
ground : — "  Quid  est,  igitur,  cur  dubitandum  sit, 
quin  sint  ea,  quae  disputavi,  verissima?  Si  ratio  mecum 
facit,  si  eventa,  si  populi,  si  nationes,  si  Graeci,  si 
barbari,  si  majores  etiam  nostri,  si  summi  philosophi, 
si  poetae,  et  sapientissimi  viri  qui  res  publicas  consti- 
tuerunt,  qui  urbes  condiderunt ;  si  denique  hoc  sem- 
per ita  putatum  est :  an  dum  bestiae  loquantur,  ex- 
spectamus,  hominum  consentiente  auctoritate,  contenti 
non  sumus  ?'* 

The  second  book  of  this  work  is  introduced  by  a 
preface,  in  which  Cicero  enumerates  the  philosophical 
treatises  which  he  had  lately  written.  He  then  pro- 
ceeds to  state,  that  at  the  conclusion  of  the  discourse 
of  Quintus,  which  was  held  while  they  were  walking 
in  the  Lyceum,  they  sat  down  in  the  library,  and  he 
began  to  reply  to  his  brother's  arguments.  His  com- 
mencement is  uncommonly  beautiful. — "  Atque  ego ; 
Accurate  tu  quidem,  inquam,  Quinte,  et  Stoice  Stoi- 
corum  sententiam  defendisti:  quodque  me  maxime 
delectat,  plurimis  nostris  exemplis  usus  es,  et  iis  qui- 
dem claris  et  illustribus.  Dicendum  est  mihi  igitur 
ad  ea,  quae  sunt  a  te  dicta,  sed  ita,  nihil  ut  affirmem, 
quaeram  omnia,  dubitans  plerumque,  et  mihi  ipse  dif- 
fidens."2  It  is  unnecessary  to  give  any  summary  of  the 
arguments  of  Cicero  against  auguries,  auspices,  astro- 

1  C.  38.  s  C.  3. 


cicero.  425 

logy,  lots,  dreams,  and  every  species  of  omens  and  pro- 
digies. His  discourse  is  a  masterpiece  of  reasoning  ; 
and  if  sufficiently  studied  during  the  dark  ages  of 
Europe,  would  have  sufficed,  in  a  great  degree,  to 
have  prevented  or  dispelled  the  superstitious  gloom. 
Nothing  can  be  finer  than  the  concluding  chapter  on 
the  evils  of  superstition,  and  Cicero's  efforts  to  extir- 
pate it,  without  injuring  religion.  The  whole  thread, 
too,  of  his  argumentative  eloquence,  is  interwoven 
and  strengthened  by  curious  and  interesting  stories. 
As  a  specimen  of  the  agreeable  manner  in  which 
these  are  introduced,  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  may 
be  cited : — M  Vetus  autem  illud  Catonis  admodum 
scitum  est,  qui  mirari  se  aiebat,  quod  non  rideret  ha- 
ruspex,  haruspicem  quum  vidisset.  Quota  enim  quae- 
que  res  evenit  praedicta  ab  ipsis  ?  Aut  si  evenit  quip- 
piam,  quid  afferri  potest,  cur  non  casu  id  evenerit? 
Rex  Prusias,  quum  Annibali  apud  eum  exsulanti  de- 
pugnari  placeret,  negabat  se  audere,  quod  exta  pro- 
hiberent.  An  tu,  inquit,  carunculae  vitulinae  mavis, 
quam  imperatori  veteri,  credere  ?  Quid  ?  Ipse  Caesar, 
quum  a  summo  haruspice  moneretur,  ne  in  Africam 
ante  brumam  transmitteret,  nonne  transmisit  ?  Quod 
ni  fecisset,  uno  in  loco  omnes  adversariorum  copiae 
convenissent.  Quid  ego  haruspicum  responsa  com- 
memorem,  (possum  equidem  innumerabilia,)  quae  aut 
nullos  habuerunt  exitus,  aut  contrarios  ?  Hoc  civili 
bello,  Dii  Immortales  !  Quam  multa  luserunt — quae 
nobis  in  Graeciam  Roma  responsa  haruspicum  missa 
sunt  ?  Quae  dicta  Pompeio  ?  Etenim  ille  admodum 
extis  et  ostentis  movebatur.     Non  lubet  commemo- 


426  CICERO. 

rare,  nee  vero  necesse  est,  tibi  prsesertim,  qui  inter- 
fuisti.  Vides  tamen,  omnia  fere  contra,  ac  dicta  sunt, 
evenisse."  One  great  charm  of  all  the  philosophical 
works  of  Cicero,  and  particularly  of  this  treatise,  con- 
sists in  the  anecdotes  with  which  they  abound.  This 
practice  of  intermingling  histories,  might  have  been 
partly  owing  to  Tully's  habits  as  a  pleader — partly 
to  the  works  having  been  composed  in  "  narrative  old 
age."  His  moral  conclusions  seem  thus  occasionally 
to  have  the  certainty  of  physical  experiments,  by  the 
support  which  they  receive  from  occurrences,  sug- 
gested to  him  by  his  wide  experience ;  while,  at  the 
same  time, — 

"  His  candid  style,  like  a  clean  stream  does  slide, 
And  his  bright  fancy,  all  the  way, 
Doth  like  the  sun-shine  on  it  play."1 

De  Fato. — This  tract,  which  is  the  last  of  Cicero's 
philosophical  works,  treats  of  a  subject  which  occupied 
as  important  a  place  in  the  metaphysics  and  theology 
of  the  ancients,  as  free  will  and  necessity  have  filled 
in  modern  speculation.  The  dialogue  De  Fato  is 
held  in  the  villa  of  Cicero,  called  the  Puteolan  or  the 
Academia,  which  was  situated  on  the  shore  of  Baiae, 
between  the  lake  Avernus  and  the  harbour  of  Puteoli. 
It  stood  in  the  curve  of  the  bay,  and  almost  on  the 
beach,  so  as  to  enjoy  the  breezes  and  murmurs  of  the 
sea.  The  house  was  built  according  to  the  plan  of 
the  Academy  at  Athens,  being  adorned  with  a  portico 
and  grove,  for  the  purposes  of  philosophical  confe- 

1  Cowley. 


CICERO.  427 

rence  ;'  and  with  a  gallery,  which  surrounded  a  square 
court  in  the  centre.  "  Twelve  or  thirteen  arches  of 
the  Puteolan  villa,"  says  Mr  Kelsall,  "  are  still  seen 
on  the  side  next  the  vineyard,  and,  intermixed  as  they 
are  with  trees,  are  very  picturesque  seen  from  the  sea. 
These  ruins  are  about  one  mile  from  Pozzuolo,  and 
have  always  been  styled  V Accidentia  di  Cicerone.  Pli- 
ny is  very  circumstantial  in  the  description  of  the  site, 
'  Ah  Averno  lacu  Puteolos  tendentious  imposita  lit- 
tori.'  The  classical  traveller  will  not  forget  that  the 
Puteolan  villa  is  the  scene  of  some  of  the  orator's  phi- 
losophical works.  I  searched  in  vain  for  the  mineral 
spring  commemorated  by  Laurea  Tullius,  in  the  well- 
known  complimentary  verses  preserved  by  Pliny ;  for 
it  was  defaced  by  the  convulsions  which  the  whole  of 
this  tract  experienced  in  the  16th  century,  so  poeti- 
cally described  in  Gray's  hexameters."  After  the  death 
of  Cicero,  the  villa  was  acquired  by  Antistius  Vetus, 
who  repaired  and  improved  it.  It  was  subsequently 
possessed  by  the  Emperor  Hadrian,  who,  while  expi- 
ring here,2  breathed  out  the  celebrated  address  to  his 
fleeting,  fluttering  soul,  on  its  approaching  departure 
for  those  cold  and  pallid  regions,  that  must  have 
formed  in  his  fancy  such  a  gloomy  contrast  to  the 

1  PHn.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XXXI.  c.  2. 

2  At  least  so  says  Middleton,  (Vol.  III.  p.  297.0  and  he  quotes 
as  his  authority  Spartian's  Life  of  Hadrian,  (c.  25.)  Spartian, 
however,  only  tells,  that  he  was  buried  at  Cicero's  villa  of  Pu- 
teoli — "  Apud  ipsas  Baj  as  periit,  invisusque  omnibus  sepultus  est 
in  villa  Ciceroniana  Puteolis." 


428  cicero. 

glowing  sunshine  and  animated  shore  which  he  left 
with  so  much  reluctance. 

The  dialogue  is  held  between  Cicero  and  Hirtius, 
on  one  of  the  many  occasions  on  which  they  met  to 
consult  concerning  the  situation  of  public  affairs. 
Hirtius  was  the  author  of  the  Commentaries  on  the 
Civil  Wars,  and  perished  a  few  months  afterwards,  at 
the  battle  of  Modena,  in  the  moment  of  victory.  The 
wonderful  events  which  had  recently  occurred,  and  the 
miserable  fate  of  so  many  of  the  greatest  and  most 
powerful  of  the  Homans,  naturally  introduced  a  con- 
versation on  destiny.  We  have  now  neither  the  com- 
mencement nor  conclusion  of  the  dialogue  ;  but  some 
critics  have  supposed  that  it  originally  consisted  of 
two  books,  and  that  the  fragment  we  at  present  pos- 
sess formed  part  of  the  second  book — an  opinion  which 
seems  justified  by  a  passage  in  the  seventeenth  chap- 
ter of  the  second  book,  where  the  first  conversation  is 
cited  :  Others,  however,  refer  these  words  to  a  sepa- 
rate and  previous  work  on  Fate.  The  part  of  the  dia- 
logue now  extant,  contains  a  refutation  of  the  doctrine 
of  Chrysippus  the  Stoic,  which  was  that  of  fatality. 
"  The  spot,"  says  Eustace,  "  the  subject,  the  speakers, 
both  fated  to  perish  in  so  short  a  time,  during  the 
contest  which  they  both  foresaw,  and  endeavoured  in 
vain  to  avert,  were  circumstances  which  give  a  pe- 
culiar interest  to  this  dialogue,  and  increase  our  re- 
gret that  it  has  not  reached  us  in  a  less  mutilated 
state."1 

1  Classical  Tour,  Vol.  II.  c.  11. 


cicero.  429 

I  have  now  enumerated  what  may  be  strictly  re- 
garded as  the  philosophical  and  theological  writings 
of  Cicero.  Some  of  the  advantages  to  be  derived 
from  these  productions,  have  already  been  pointed  out 
during  our  progress.  But  on  a  consideration  of  the 
whole,  it  is  manifest  that  the  chief  profit  accruing 
from  them,  is  the  satisfactory  evidence  which  they 
afford  of  the  little  reason  we  have  to  regret  the  loss 
of  the  writings  of  Zeno,  Cleanthes,  Chrysippus,  and 
other  Greek  philosophers.  The  intrinsic  value  of 
these  works  of  Cicero,  consists  chiefly  in  what  may  be 
called  the  Roman  portion  of  them — in  the  anecdotes 
of  distinguished  Romans,  and  of  the  customs  and  opi- 
nions of  that  sovereign  people. 

We  now  proceed  to  the  moral  writings  of  Cicero, 
of  which  the  most  important  is  the  work  He  Officiis. 
The  ancient  Romans  had  but  an  imperfect  notion  of 
moral  obligations ;  their  virtues  were  more  stern  than 
amiable,  and  their  ardent  exclusive  patriotism  restrict- 
ed the  wide  claims  of  philanthropy,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  of  domestic  duties,  on  the  other.  Pansetius,  a 
Greek  philosopher,  who  resided  at  Rome,  in  the  time 
of  Scipio,  wrote  a  book  entitled  n^/  KocQwovrog.  He 
divided  his  subject  according  to  the  threefold  consi- 
derations which  he  conceived  should  operate  in  deter- 
mining our  resolutions  with  regard  to  the  performance 
of  moral  duties  ;  1.  Whether  the  thing  itself  be  vir- 
tuous or  shameful ;  2.  Whether  it  conduce  to  utility 
and  the  enjoyment  of  life  ;  3.  What  choice  is  to  be 
made  when  an  apparent  utility  seems  to  clash  with 
virtue.  Cicero  followed  nearly  the  same  arrangement. 


430  CICERO. 

In  the  first  book  he  treats  of  what  is  virtuous  in  itself, 
and  shows  in  what  manner  our  duties  are  founded  in 
morality  and  virtue — in  the  right  perception  of  truth, 
justice,  fortitude,  and  decorum ;  which  four  qualities 
are  referred  to  as  the  constituent  parts  of  virtue,  and 
the  sources  from  which  all  our  duties  are  drawn.    In 
the  second  book,  the  author  enlarges  on  those  duties 
which  relate  to  utility,  the  improvement  of  life,  and 
the  means  employed  for  the  attainment  of  wealth  and 
power.    This  division  of  the  work  principally  regards 
political  advancement,  and  the  honourable  means  of 
gaining  popularity,  as  generosity,  courtesy,  and  elo- 
quence. Thus  far  Cicero  had,  in  all  probability,  close- 
ly followed  the  steps  of  Panaetius.  Garve,  in  his  com- 
mentary on  this  work,1  remarks,  that  it  is  quite  clear, 
when  he  comes  to  the  more  subtle  and  philosophic 
parts  of  his  subject,  that  Cicero  translates  from  the 
Greek,  and  that  he  has  not  always  found  words  in  his 
own  language  to  express  the  nicer  distinctions  of  the 
Greek  schools.    The  work  of  Panaetius,  however,  was 
left  imperfect,  and  did  not  treat  of  the  third  part  of 
the  subject,  the  choice  and  distinction  to  be  made  when 
there  was  a  jarring  or  inconsistency  between  virtue 
and  utility.     On  this  topic,  accordingly,  Cicero  was 
left  to  his  own  resources.     The  discussion,  of  course, 
relates  only  to  the  subordinate  duties,  as  the  true  and 
undoubted  honestum  never  can  be  put  in  competition 
with  private  advantage,  or  be  violated  for  its  sake.  As 
to  the  minor  duties,  the  great  maxim  inculcated  is  that 

1    Phibsophische  Anmerhmgen  zu   Cicero's  Buchern  von  den 
Pflichten.    Preslau,  1819- 


CICERO.  431 

nothing  should  be  accounted  useful  or  profitable  but 
what  is  strictly  virtuous,  and  that,  in  fact,  there  ought 
to  be  no  separation  of  the  principles  of  virtue  and  uti- 
lity. Cicero  enters  into  some  discussion,  however,  and 
affords  some  rules  to  enable  us  to  form  a  just  estimate 
of  both  in  cases  of  doubt,  where  seeming  utility  comes 
into  competition  with  virtue.  Accordingly,  he  pro- 
poses and  decides  a  good  many  questions  in  casuistry, 
in  order  to  fix  in  what  situations  one  may  seek  private 
gain  with  honour.  He  takes  his  examples  from  Ro- 
man history,  and  particularly  considers  the  case  of 
Regulus  in  the  obligation  of  his  oath,  and  the  advice 
which  he  gave  to  the  Roman  Senate.  The  author  dis- 
claims having  been  indebted  to  any  preceding  writers 
on  this  subject ;  but  it  appears,  from  what  he  after- 
wards states,  that  the  sixth  book  of  the  work  of  He- 
cato,  a  scholar  of  Panaetius,  was  full  of  questions  of 
this  kind :  As,  for  example — If  something  must  be 
thrown  into  the  sea  to  lighten  a  vessel  in  a  storm,  whe- 
ther one  should  sacrifice  a  valuable  horse,  or  a  worth- 
less slave  ?  Whether,  if,  during  a  shipwreck,  a  fool 
has  got  hold  of  a  plank,  a  wise  man  ought  to  take  it  • 
from  him,  if  he  be  able  ?  If  one,  unknowingly,  re- 
ceives bad  money  for  his  goods,  may  he  pay  it  away  to 
a  third  hand,  after  he  is  aware  that  it  is  bad  ?  Dio- 
genes, it  seems,  one  of  the  three  philosophic  ambassa- 
dors who  came  to  Rome  from  Athens,  in  the  end  of 
the  sixth  century,  maintained  the  affirmative  of  this 
last  proposition. 

The  subject  being  too  extensive  for  dialogue,  (the 
form  of  his  other  philosophical  treatises,)  the  author 


432  CICERO. 

has  addressed  the  work  JDe  Officiis  to  his  son,  and 
has  represented  it  as  written  for  his  instruction.  "  It 
is,"  says  Kelsall,  "  the  nohlest  present  ever  made  by 
a  parent  to  a  child."  Cicero  declares,  that  he  intend- 
ed to  treat  in  it  of  all  the  duties  ;*  but  it  is  general- 
ly considered  to  have  been  chiefly  drawn  up  as  a  ma- 
nual of  political  morality,  and  as  a  guide  to  young 
Romans  of  his  son's  age  and  distinction,  which  might 
enable  them  to  attain  political  eminence,  and  to  tread 
with  innocence  and  safety  "  the  slippery  steeps  of 
power." 

De  Senectute. 


"  O  Thou  all  eloquent,  whose  mighty  mind 
Streams  from  the  depths  of  ages  on  mankind, 
Streams  like  the  day — who  angel-like  hast  shed 
Thy  full  effulgence  on  the  hoary  head ; 
Speaking  in  Cato's  venerable  voice— 
'  Look  up  and  faint  not — faint  not,  but  rejoice' — 
From  thy  Elysium  guide  us."2 

The  treatise  De  Senectute  is  not  properly  a  dia- 
logue, but  a  continued  discourse,  delivered  by  Cato  the 
Censor,  at  the  request  of  Scipio  and  Lselius.  It  is, 
however,  one  of  the  most  interesting  pieces  of  the  kind 
which  have  descended  to  us  from  antiquity ;  and  no 
reader  can  wonder  that  Cicero  experienced  such  plea- 
sure in  its  composition,  that  the  delightful  employ- 
ment, not  only,  as  he  says,  made  him  forget  the  infir- 
mities of  old  age,  but  rendered  that  portion  of  exist- 
ence agreeable.  In  consequence  of  the  period  of  life  to 


1  Lib.  I.  c.  39.  *  Rogers,  Human  Life. 

a 


CICERO.  433 

which  Cicero  had  attained,  at  the  time  of  its  compo- 
sition, and  the  circumstances  in  which  he  was  then 
placed,  it  must,  indeed,  have  been  penned  with  pecu- 
liar interest  and  feeling.  It  was  written  by  him  in 
his  63d  year,  and  is  addressed  to  his  friend  Atticus, 
(who  had  reached  the  same  term  of  existence,)  with 
a  view  of  rendering  to  both  the  accumulating  burdens 
of  age  as  light  as  possible.  In  order  to  give  his  pre- 
cepts the  greater  force,  he  represents  them  as  delivered 
by  the  elder  Cato,  (while  flourishing  in  the  eighty- 
fourth  year  of  a  vigorous  and  useful  old  age,)  on  occa- 
sion of  young  Scipio  and  Laelius  expressing  their  ad- 
miration at  the  wonderful  ease  with  which  he  still  bore 
the  load  of  life.  This  affords  the  author  an  opportu- 
nity of  entering  into  a  full  explanation  of  his  ideas  on 
the  subject.  His  great  object  is  to  show  that  the  clo- 
sing period  of  life  may  be  rendered,  not  only  tolerable, 
but  comfortable,  by  internal  resources  of  happiness. 
He  reduces  those  causes  which  are  commonly  supposed 
to  constitute  the  infelicity  of  advanced  age,  under  four 
general  heads  : — That  it  incapacitates  from  mingling 
in  the  affairs  of  the  world — that  it  produces  infirmi- 
ties of  body — that  it  disqualifies  for  the  enjoyment  of 
sensual  gratifications — and  that  it  brings  us  to  the 
verge  of  death.  Some  of  these  supposed  disadvan- 
tages, he  maintains,  are  imaginary,  and  for  any  real 
pleasures  of  which  old  men  are  deprived,  others  more 
refined  and  higher  may  be  substituted.  The  whole 
work  is  agreeably  diversified  and  illustrated  by  exam- 
ples of  eminent  Roman  citizens,  who  had  passed  a  re- 
spected and  agreeable  evening  of  life.  Indeed,  so  much 

VOL.  II.  2  E 


434  CICERO. 

is  said  of  those  individuals  who  reached  a  happy  old 
age,  that  it  may  rather  be  styled  a  Treatise  on  Old 
Men,  than  on  Old  Age.  On  the  last  point,  the  near 
approach  of  death,  it  is  argued,  conformably  to  the 
first  book  of  the  Tusculan  Questions,  that  if  death 
extinguish  the  soul's  existence,  it  is  utterly  to  be  dis- 
regarded, but  much  to  be  desired,  if  it  convey  her  to 
a  happier  region.  The  apprehension  of  future  punish- 
ment, as  in  the  Tusculan  Disputations,  is  laid  entire- 
ly aside,  and  it  is  assumed  as  a  principle,  that,  after 
death,  we  either  shall  not  be  miserable,  or  be  superla- 
tively happy.  In  other  respects,  the  tract  JDe  Senec- 
tute  almost  seems  a  confutation  of  the  first  book  of  the 
Tusculan  Questions,  which  is  chiefly  occupied  in  show- 
ing the  wretchedness  of  long-protracted  existence.  The 
sentiments  put  into  the  mouth  of  Cato,  are  acknow- 
ledged by  Cicero  as  his  own ;  but,  notwithstanding 
this,  and  also  a  more  elegant  and  polished  style  of 
composition  than  could  be  expected  from  the  Censor, 
many  characteristics  of  his  life,  conversation,  and  man- 
ners, are  brought  before  us — his  talk  is  a  little  boast- 
ful, and  his  sternness,  though  softened  down  by  old 
age  into  an  agreeable  gossipping  garrulity,  is  still  vi- 
sible ;  and,  on  the  whole,  the  discourse  is  so  mana- 
ged, that  we  experience,  in  reading  it,  something  of 
that  complaisant  respect,  which  we  feel  in  intercourse 
with  a  venerable  old  man,  who  has  around  him  so  much 
of  the  life  to  come,  as  to  be  purified  at  least  from  the 
grosser  desires  of  this  lower  world. 

It  has  been  remarked  as  extraordinary,  that,  amidst 
the  anxious  enumeration  of  the  comforts  of  age,  those 


cicero.  435 

arising  from  domestic  society  are  not  mentioned  by 
Cicero ;  but  his  favourite  daughter  Tullia  was  now  no 
more,  and  the  husband  of  Terentia,  the  father  of  Mar- 
cus Cicero,  and  the  father-in-law  of  Dolabella,  may 
have  felt  something  on  that  subject,  of  which  he  was 
willing  to  spare  himself  the  recollection.  But  though 
he  has  omitted  what  we  number  among  its  chief  con- 
solations, still  he  has  represented  advanced  age  under 
too  favourable  a  view.  He  denies,  for  instance,  that 
the  memory  is  impaired  by  it — asserting,  that  every- 
thing continues  to  be  remembered,  in  which  we  take 
an  interest,  for  that  no  old  man  ever  yet  forgot  where 
he  had  concealed  his  treasure.  He  has,  besides,  only 
treated  of  an  old  age  distinguished  by  deeds  or  learn- 
ing, and  terminating  a  life  great  and  glorious  in  the 
eyes  of  men.  The  table  of  the  old  man  whom  he  de- 
scribes, is  cheered  by  numerous  friends,  and  his  pre- 
sence, wherever  he  appears,  is  hailed  by  clients  and 
dependants.  All  his  examples  are  drawn  from  the 
higher  and  better  walks  of  life.  In  the  venerable  pic- 
ture of  the  Censor,  we  have  no  traces  of  second  child- 
hood, or  of  the  slippered  pantaloon,  or  of  that  melan- 
choly and  almost  frightful  representation,  in  the  tenth 
satire  of  Juvenal.  But  even  persons  of  the  station,  and 
dignity,  and  talents  of  Cato,  are,  in  old  age,  liable  to 
weaknesses  and  misfortunes,  with  which  the  pleasing 
portrait,  that  Tully  has  drawn,  is  in  no  way  disfigu- 
red : — 

"  In  life's  last  scene,  what  prodigies  surprise, 
Fears  of  the  brave,  and  follies  of  the  wise  ! 
From  Marlborough's  eyes  the  tears  of  dotage  flow, 
And  Swift  expires  a  driveller  and  a  show." 


436  cicero. 

The  treatise  De  Senectute  has  been  versified  by 
Denham,  under  the  title  of  Cato  Major.  The  sub- 
ject of  the  evils  of  old  age  is  divided,  as  by  Cicero, 
into  four  parts.  "  I  can  neither,"  says  he,  in  his  pre- 
face, "  call  this  piece  Tully's  nor  my  own,  being  much 
altered  from  the  original,  not  only  by  the  change  of  the 
style,  but  by  addition  and  subtraction."  In  fact,  the 
fine  sentiments  are  Cicero's — the  doggerel  English 
verse,  into  which  he  has  converted  Cicero's  classical 
prose,  his  own.  The  fourth  part,  on  the  approach  of 
death,  is  that  which  is  best  versified. 

This  tract  is  also  the  model  of  the  dialogue  Spu- 
rinna,  or  the  Comforts  of  Old  Age,  by  Sir  Thomas 
Bernard.  Hough,  Bishop  of  Worcester,  who  is  in  his 
ninetieth  year  at  the  date  of  the  conference,  supposed 
to  be  held  in  1739,  is  the  Cato  of  the  dialogue.  The 
other  interlocutors  are,  Gibson,  Bishop  of  .London, 
and  Mr  Lyttleton,  subsequently  Lord  Lyttleton.  Af- 
ter considering,  in  the  same  manner  as  Cicero,  the 
disadvantages  of  old  age,  the  English  author  proceeds 
to  treat  of  its  advantages,  and  the  best  mode  of  increa- 
sing its  comforts.  Many  ideas  and  arguments  are  de- 
rived from  Cicero ;  but  among  the  consolations  of  ad- 
vanced age,  the  promises  of  revelation  concerning  a 
future  state  of  happiness,  to  which  the  Roman  was  a 
stranger,  are  prominently  brought  forward,  and  the 
illustrations  are  chiefly  drawn  from  British,  instead  of 
Grecian  or  Roman  history. 

De  Amicitid. — In  this,  as  in  all  his  other  dialogues, 
Cicero  has  most  judiciously  selected  the  persons  whom 
he  introduces  as  speakers.     They  were  men  of  emi- 


cicero.  437 

nence  in  the  state ;  and  though  deceased,  the  Romans 
had  such  a  just  veneration  for  their  ancestors,  that 
they  would  listen  with  the  utmost  interest  even  to  the 
supposed  conversation  of  the  ancient  heroes  or  sages 
of  their  country.  Such  illustrious  names  bestowed  ad- 
ditional dignity  on  what  was  delivered,  and  even  now 
affect  us  with  sentiments  of  veneration  far  superior  to 
that  which  is  felt  for  the  itinerant  sophists,  who,  with 
the  exception  of  Socrates,  are  the  chief  speakers  in  the 
dialogues  of  Plato. 

The  memorable  and  hereditary  friendship  which 
subsisted  between  Laelius  and  the  younger  Scipio  Afri- 
canus,  rendered  them  the  most  suitable  characters 
from  whom  the  sentiments  expressed  on  this  delight- 
ful topic  could  be  supposed  to  flow.  Their  mutual 
and  unshaken  attachment  threw  an  additional  lustre 
over  the  military  glory  of  the  one,  and  the  contem- 
plative wisdom  of  the  other.  "  Such,"  says  Cicero  in 
the  introduction  to  the  treatise  JDe  Republicd,  "  was 
the  common  law  of  friendship  between  them,  that 
Laelius  adored  Africanus  as  a  god,  on  account  of  his 
transcendent  military  fame;  and  that  Scipio,  when 
they  were  at  home,  revered  his  friend,  who  was  older 
than  himself,  as  a  father."1  The  kindred  soul  of  Ci- 
cero appears  to  have  been  deeply  struck  with  this  de- 
lightful assemblage  of  all  the  noblest  and  loveliest 
qualities  of  our  nature.     The  friendship  which  sub- 

1  "  Fuit  enim  hoc  in  amicitia  quasi  quoddam  jus  inter  illos,  ut 
militiae,  propter  eximiam  belli  gloriam,  Africanum  ut  deum  coleret 
Laelius ;  dorni  vicissim  Laelium,  quod  eetate  antecedebat,  observa- 
ret  in  parentis  loco  Scipio." 


438  CICERO. 

sisted  between  himself  and  Atticus  was  another  beau- 
tiful example  of  a  similar  kind :  And  the  dialogue 
De  Amicitid  is  accordingly  addressed  with  peculiar 
propriety  to  Atticus,  who,  as  Cicero  tells  him  in  his 
dedication,  could  not  fail  to  discover  his  own  portrait 
in  the  delineation  of  a  perfect  friend.  This  treatise 
approaches  nearer  to  dialogue  than  that  De  Senec- 
tute,  for  there  is  a  story,  with  the  circumstances  of  time 
and  place.  Fannius,  the  historian,  and  Mucius  Scae- 
vola,  the  Augur,  both  sons-in-law  of  Laelius,  paid  him 
a  visit  immediately  after  the  sudden  and  suspicious 
death  of  Scipio  Africanus.  The  recent  loss  which 
Laelius  had  thus  sustained,  leads  to  an  eulogy  on  the 
inimitable  virtues  of  the  departed  hero,  and  to  a  dis- 
cussion on  the  true  nature  of  that  tie  by  which  they 
had  been  so  long  connected.  Cicero,  while  in  his 
earliest  youth,  had  been  introduced  by  his  father  to 
Mucius  Scaevola ;  and  hence,  among  other  interesting 
matters  which  he  enjoyed  an  opportunity  of  hearing, 
he  was  one  day  present  while  Scaevola  related  the  sub- 
stance of  the  conference  on  Friendship,  which  he  and 
Fannius  had  held  with  Laelius  a  few  days  after  the 
death  of  Scipio.  Many  of  the  ideas  and  sentiments 
which  the  mild  Laelius  then  uttered,  are  declared  by 
Scaevola  to  have  originally  flowed  from  Scipio,  with 
whom  the  nature  and  laws  of  friendship  formed  a  fa- 
vourite topic  of  discourse.  This,  perhaps,  is  not  en- 
tirely a  fiction,  or  merely  told  to  give  the  stamp  of 
authenticity  to  the  dialogue.  Some  such  conversation 
was  probably  held  and  related ;  and  I  doubt  not,  that 
a  few  of  the  passages  in  this  celebrated  dialogue  re- 


cicero.  439 

fleet  the  sentiments  of  Laelius,  or  even  of  Africanus 
himself. 

The  philosophical  works  of  Cicero,  which  have  been 
hitherto  enumerated,  are  complete,  or  nearly  so.  But 
it  is  well  known  that  he  was  the  author  of  many  other 
productions  which  have  now  been  entirely  lost,  or  of 
which  only  fragments  remain. 

Of  these,  the  most  important  was  the  Treatise  De 
Republicd,  which,  in  the  general  wreck  of  learning, 
shared  the  fate  of  the  institutions  it  was  intended  to 
celebrate.  The  greater  part  of  this  dialogue  having  dis- 
appeared along  with  the  Origines  of  Cato,  the  works 
of  Varro,  and  the  History  of  Sallust,  we  have  been  de- 
prived of  all  the  writings  which  would  have  thrown 
the  most  light  on  the  Roman  institutions,  manners, 
and  government — of  everything,  in  short,  which  phi- 
losophically traced  the  progress  of  Rome,  from  its  ori- 
ginal barbarism  to  the  perfection  which  it  had  attain- 
ed in  the  age  of  the  second  Scipio  Africanus. 

There  are  few  monuments  of  ancient  literature,  of 
which  the  disappearance  had  excited  more  regret,  than 
that  of  the  work  De  Republican  which  was  long  believed 
to  have  been  the  grand  repository  of  all  the  political 
wisdom  of  the  ancients.  The  great  importance  of  the 
subject — treated,  too,  by  a  writer  at  once  distinguished 
by  his  genius  and  former  official  dignity ;  the  pride 
and  predilection  with  which  the  author  himself  speaks 
of  it,  and  the  sublimity  and  beauty  of  the  fragment  en- 
titled Somnium  Scipionis,  preserved  from  it  by  Macro- 
bius,  all  concurred  to  exalt  this  treatise  in  the  ima- 
gination of  the  learned,  and  to  exasperate  their  vexa- 


440  CICERO. 

tion  at  its  loss.  The  fathers  of  the  church,  particu- 
larly Lactantius,  had  afforded  some  insight  into  the 
arguments  employed  in  it  on  different  topics ;  several 
fragments  existed  in  the  works  of  the  grammarians, 
and  a  complete  copy  was  extant  as  late  as  the  11th 
century.  Since  that  time  the  literary  world  have  been 
flattered  at  different  periods  with  hopes  of  its  disco- 
very ;  but  it  is  only  within  the  last  few  years  that  such 
a  portion  of  it  has  been  recovered,  as  may  suffice,  in 
a  considerable  degree,  to  satisfy  curiosity,  though  not 
perhaps  to  fulfil  expectation. 

It  is  well  known  to  many,  and  will  be  mentioned 
more  fully  in  the  AjypendtX;,  that  owing  to  a  scarcity 
of  papyrus  and  parchment,  it  was  customary,  at  dif- 
ferent times,  to  erase  old,  in  order  to  admit  new,  wri- 
ting. To  a  MS.  of  this  kind,  the  name  of  Palimpsest 
has  been  given — a  term  made  use  of  by  Cicero  him- 
self. In  a  letter  to  the  lawyer  Trebatius,  who  had 
written  to  him  on  such  a  sheet,  Cicero  says,  "  that 
while  he  must  praise  him  for  his  parsimony  in  employ- 
ing a  palimpsest,  he  cannot  but  wonder  what  he  had 
erased  to  scribble  such  a  letter,  except  it  were  his  law 
notes  :  For  I  cannot  think,"  adds  he,  "  that  you  would 
efface  my  letter  to  substitute  your  own."1  This  practice 
became  very  common  in  the  middle  ages,  when  both 
the  papyrus  and  parchment  were  scarce,  and  when  the 
classics  were,  with  few  exceptions,  no  longer  the  ob- 

1  Epist  Famil.  Lib.  VII.  ep.  18.  In  palimpsesto,  laudo  equi- 
dem  parsimoniam,  sed  miror,  quid  in  ilia  chartula  fuerit,  quod 
delere  malueris  quam  haec  non  scribere,  nisi  forte  tuas  formulas  : 
non  enim  puto  te  meas  epistolas  delere,  ut  reponas  tuas. 


CICERO.  441 

jects  of  interest.  Montfaucon  had  remarked,  that  these 
obliterated  MSS.  were  perhaps  more  numerous  than 
those  which  had  been  written  on  for  the  first  time.1 
But  though  in  some  cases  the  original  writing  was  still 
visible  on  close  observation,  no  practical  use  was  made 
of  such  inspection  till  Angelo  Mai  published  some 
fragments  recovered  from  palimpsest  MSS.  in  the  Am- 
brosian  library,  of  which  he  was  keeper.  Encouraged 
by  his  success,  he  persevered  in  this  new  pursuit,  and 
published  at  intervals  fragments  of  considerable  value. 
At  length,  being  called  to  Rome  as  a  recompense  for 
his  learned  labours,  Mai  prosecuted  in  the  Vatican 
those  noble  researches  which  he  had  commenced  at 
Milan ;  and  it  is  to  him  we  now  owe  the  discovery 
and  publication  of  a  considerable  portion  of  Cicero 
De  Republicd,  which  had  been  expunged,  (it  is  suppo- 
sed in  the  6th  century,)  and  crossed  by  a  new  writing, 
which  contained  a  commentary  by  St  Augustine  on 
the  Psalms.2 

1  Mem.  de  VAcadem.  des  Inscriptions,  fyc.  Tom.  VI. 

2  Mai  published  the  De  Reptcblica  at  Rome,  with  a  preface, 
giving  a  history  of  his  discovery,  notes,  and  an  index  of  emenda- 
tions. It  was  reprinted  from  this  edition  at  London,  without 
change,  1823;  also  at  Paris,  1823,  with  the  notes  of  Mai,  and  ex- 
cerpts from  his  preface;  and  cur  a  Steinacker  at  Leipsic,  1823. 
To  this  German  edition  there  is  a  prefatory  epistle  by  Hermann, 
which  I  was  disappointed  to  find  contained  only  some  observations 
on  a  single  passage  of  the  De  Republicd,  with  regard  to  the  divi- 
sion of  the  citizens  into  classes  by  Servius  Tullius.  In  the  same 
year  an  excellent  French  translation  was  published  by  M.  Ville- 
main,  accompanied  with  an  introductory  review  of  the  work  he 
translates ;  as  also  notes  and  dissertations  on  those  topics  of  Edu- 
cation, Manners,  and  Religion,  which  he  supposes  to  have  formed 
the  subjects  of  the  last  three  books  which  have  not  yet  been  reco- 
vered. 


442  cicero. 

The  work  De  Republicd  was  begun  by  Cicero  in 
the  month  of  May,  in  the  year  699,  when  the  au- 
thor was  in  the  fifty-second  year  of  his  age,  so  that, 
of  all  his  philosophical  writings,  it  was  at  least  the 
earliest  commenced.  In  a  letter  to  his  brother  Quin- 
tus,  he  tells  him  that  he  had  employed  himself  in  his 
Cum  an  and  Pompeian  villas,  in  writing  a  large  and 
laborious  political  work ;  that,  should  it  succeed  to 
his  mind,  it  would  be  well,  but,  if  not,  he  would  cast 
it  into  that  sea  which  was  in  view  when  he  wrote  it ; 
and,  as  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  be  idle,  commence 
some  other  undertaking.1  He  had  proceeded,  however, 
but  a  little  way,  when  he  repeatedly  changed  the 
whole  plan  of  the  work ;  and  it  is  curious  to  perceive, 
that  an  author  of  so  perfect  a  genius  as  Cicero,  had 
similar  advices  from  friends,  and  the  same  discourage- 
ment, and  doubts,  and  irresolution,  which  agitate  in- 
ferior writers. 

"W  hen  he  had  finished  the  first  and  second  books, 
they  were  read  to  some  of  his  friends  at  his  Tusculan 
villa.  Sallust,  who  was  one  of  the  company  present, 
advised  him  to  change  his  plan,  and  to  treat  the  sub- 
ject in  his  own  person — alleging  that  the  introduc- 
tion of  those  ancient  philosophers  and  statesmen,  to 
whom  Cicero  had  assigned  parts  in  the  dialogue,  in- 
stead of  adding  gravity,  gave  a  fictitious  air  to  the  ar- 
gument, which  would  have  greater  weight  if  delivered 
from  Cicero  himself,  as  being  the  work,  not  of  a  so- 
phist or  contemplative  theorist,  but  of  a  consular  sena- 

1  Episi.  ad  Quint.  Fral.  Lib.  II.  ep.  14. 


CICERO.  443 

tor  and  statesman,  conversant  in  the  greatest  affairs, 
and  writing  only  what  his  own  experience  had  taught 
him  to  be  true.  These  reasons  seemed  to  Cicero  very 
plausible,  and  for  some  time  made  him  think  of  altering 
his  plan,  especially  since,  by  placing  the  scene  of  the 
dialogue  so  far  back,  he  had  precluded  himself  from 
touching  on  those  important  revolutions  in  the  Repub- 
lic, which  were  later  than  the  period  to  which  he  had 
confined  himself.  But  after  some  deliberation,  feeling 
reluctant  to  throw  away  the  two  books  which  were  al- 
ready finished,  and  with  which  he  was  much  pleased, 
he  resolved  to  adhere  to  his  original  plan.1  And  as  he 
had  preferred  it  from  the  first,  for  the  sake  of  avoid- 
ing offence,  so  he  pursued  it  without  any  other  alte- 
ration than  that  he  now  limited  to  six  what  he  had 
before  proposed  to  extend  to  nine  books.  These  six 
were  made  public  previously  to  his  departure  for  the 
government  of  Cilicia.  While  there,  he  received  the 
epistolary  congratulations  of  his  friends  on  their  suc- 
cess,2 and  in  his  answers  he  discloses  all  the  delight  of 
a  gratified  and  successful  author.3 

Mai  discusses  at  considerable  length  the  question, 
To  whom  the  treatise  De  Republicd  was  dedicated. 
The  beginning  of  the  procemium  to  the  first  book, 
which  might  have  determined  this  point,  is  lost ;  but 
the  author  says,  "  Disputatio  repetenda  memoria  est, 
quae  mihi,  tibique  quondam  adolescentulo,  est  a  P.  Ru- 

i  Epist.  ad  Quint.  Frat.  Lib.  III.  ep.  5  and  6. 

2  Caelius  ad  Ciceronem,  Epist.  Famil.  Lib.  VIII.  ep.  1.     Tui 
libri  politici  omnibus  vigent. 

3  Epist.  ad  Attic.  Lib.  VI. 


444  CICERO. 

tilio  Rufo,  Zmyrnae  cum  simul  essemus,  complures 
dies  exposita."  Cicero  was  at  Smyrna  in  the  twenty- 
ninth  year  of  his  age,  and  it  is  evident  that  his  compa- 
nion, to  whom  this  treatise  is  dedicated,  was  younger 
than  himself,  as  he  says,  "  Mihi,  tibique  quondam 
adolescentulo"  Atticus  was  two  years  older  than  Ci- 
cero, and  therefore  could  not  be  the  person.  In  fact, 
there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that  the  treatise  De 
Republicd  was  dedicated  to  its  author's  younger  bro- 
ther Quintus,  who,  as  we  know  from  the  procemium  of 
the  last  book,  De  Finibus,  was  with  Cicero  at  Athens 
during  the  voyage,  in  the  course  of  which  he  touched 
at  Smyrna — who  probably  attended  him  to  Asia, — and 
whose  age  suited  the  expression  "  mihi,  tibique  adoles- 
centulo."  Add  to  this,  that  Cicero,  when  he  mentions 
to  his  brother,  (in  the  passage  of  the  letter  above  re- 
ferred to,)  that  he  meant  to  alter  the  plan  of  his  work, 
says,  "  Nunc  loqu^r  ipse  tecum,  et  tarn  en  ilia  quae 
institueram  ad  te,  si  Romam  venero,  mittam."1  The 
work  in  its  first  concoction,  therefore,  was  addressed 
to  Quintus,  and,  as  the  author,  after  some  hesitation, 
published  it  nearly  in  its  original  form,  it  can  scarcely 
be  doubted  that  it  was  still  dedicated  to  his  brother. 

The  first  book  De  Reptiblicd,  which  was  one  of 
those  read  by  Cicero  to  Sallust  and  some  other  friends, 
in  his  Tusculan  villa,  is,  as  already  mentioned,  im- 
perfect at  the  commencement.  Not  much,  however, 
seems  to  be  wanting,  and  a  prologue  of  considerable 
length  still  remains,  in  which  the  author  (pleading, 

1  Epist.  ad  Quint.  Frat.  Lib.  III.  ep.  6. 


CICERO.  445 

perhaps,  his  own  cause)  combats  the  opinions  of  phi- 
losophers, who,  preferring  a  contemplative  to  an  active 
life,  blame  those  who  engage  in  public  affairs.  To  the 
former  he  opposes  the  example  of  many  wise  and  great 
men,  and  answers  those  objections  to  a  busy  political 
life,  which  have  been  repeatedly  urged  against  it.  This 
prologue  contains  some  good  reasoning,  and,  like  all 
the  writings  of  its  illustrious  author,  displays  a  no- 
ble patriotic  feeling.  He  remarks,  that  he  had  enter- 
ed into  this  discussion  as  introductory  to  a  book  con- 
cerning the  republic,  since  it  seemed  proper,  as  prefa- 
tory to  such  a  work,  to  combat  the  sentiments  of  those 
who  deny  that  a  philosopher  should  be  a  statesman. 
"  As  to  the  work  itself,"  says  he,  addressing  (as  I  have 
supposed)  his  brother,  "  I  shall  lay  down  nothing 
new  or  peculiar  to  myself,  but  shall  repeat  a  discussion 
which  once  took  place  among  the  most  illustrious 
men  of  their  age,  and  the  wisest  of  our  state,  such  as 
it  was  related  to  myself,  and  to  you  when  a  youth,  by 
P.  Rutilius  Rufus,  when  we  were  with  him  some 
days  at  Smyrna — in  which  discussion  nothing  of  im- 
portance to  the  right  constitution  of  a  commonwealth, 
appears  to  have  been  omitted." 

The  author  then  proceeds  to  mention,  that  during 
the  consulship  of  Tuditanus  and  Aquilius,  (as  he  had 
heard  from  Rufus,)  the  younger  Scipio  Africanus  de- 
termined to  pass  the  Latin  festivals  (Latinse  Ferise) 
in  his  gardens,  where  some  of  his  most  intimate  friends 
had  promised  to  visit  him.  The  first  of  these  who 
makes  his  appearance  is  his  nephew,  Quintus  Tubero, 
a  person  devoted  to  the  Stoical  philosophy,  and  noted 


446  ciceho. 

for  the  austerity  of  his  manners.  A  remark  which 
Tubero  makes  about  two  suns,  a  prodigy  which,  it 
seems,  had  lately  appeared  in  the  heavens,  leads  Scipio 
to  praise  Socrates  for  his  abandonment  of  physical  pur- 
suits, as  neither  very  useful  to  man,  nor  capable  of  being 
thoroughly  investigated — a  sentiment  (by  the  way) 
which,  with  all  due  submission  to  the  Greek  philoso- 
pher, does  little  credit  to  his  sagacity,  as  physical  in- 
quiries have  been  not  only  highly  useful  to  mankind, 
but  are  almost  the  only  subjects  in  which  accurate 
science  has  been  attained.  Furius,  Philus,  and  Ru- 
tilius,  who  is  stated  to  have  related  the  discussion 
to  Cicero,  now  enter,  and,  at  last,  comes  Laelius,  at- 
tended by  his  friend,  Spurius  Mummius,  (brother  to 
the  well-known  connoisseur  in  the  fine  arts  who  took 
Corinth,)  and  by  his  two  sons-in-law,  C.  Fannius  and 
Q.  Scaevola.  After  saluting  them,  Scipio,  as  it  was 
now  winter,  takes  them  to  a  sunny  spot,  in  a  meadow, 
and  in  proceeding  thither,  the  party  is  joined  by  M. 
Manilius. 

"  In  this  choice  of  his  principal  speakers,  Cicero," 
as  has  been  well  remarked,  "  was  extremely  judicious 
and  happy.  It  was  necessary  that  the  persons  selected 
should  have  been  distinguished  both  as  statesmen  and 
as  scholars,  in  order  that  a  philosophical  discussion 
might  appear  consistent  with  their  known  characters, 
and  that  a  high  political  reputation  might  give  au- 
thority to  their  remarks  on  government.  Scipio  and 
Laelius  united  both  these  requisites  in  a  remarkable 
degree.  They  were  among  the  earliest  of  the  Romans 
who  added  the  graces  of  Grecian  taste  and  learning  to 


CICERO.  447 

the  manly  virtues  of  their  own  ruder  country.  These 
accomplishments  had  refined  and  polished  their  cha- 
racters, without  at  all  detracting  from  their  force  and 
purity.  The  very  name  of  the  Scipios,  the  duo  ful- 
mina  belli,  was  the  symbol  of  military  talent,  patriot- 
ism, and  magnanimity :  Lselius  was  somewhat  less 
distinguished  in  active  life ;  but  enjoyed,  on  the  other 
hand,  a  still  higher  reputation  for  contemplative  wis- 
dom."1 

After  the  party  had  been  all  seated,  the  subject  of 
the  two  suns  is  resumed ;  and  Laelius,  while  he  re- 
marks that  they  had  enough  to  occupy  attention  in 
matters  more  at  hand,  adds,  that  since  they  were  at 
present  idle,  he,  for  his  part,  had  no  objection  to  hear 
Philus,  who  was  fond  of  astronomical  pursuits,  on  the 
subject.  Philus,  thus  encouraged,  proceeds  to  give  an 
account  of  a  kind  of  Orrery,  which  had  been  formed  by 
Archimedes,  and  having  been  brought  to  Rome  by 
Marcellus,  its  structure,  as  well  as  uses,  had  on  one 
occasion,  when  Philus  was  present,  been  explained  by 
C.  Sulpicius  Gallus.  The  application  of  this  explana- 
tion to  the  phenomenon  of  the  two  suns  is  lost,  as  a 
hiatus  of  eight  pages  here  occurs  in  the  palimpsest. 
Probably,  the  solution  of  the  problem  would  not,  if  ex- 

1  The  above  quotation  is  from  the  XL.  Number  of  the  North 
American  Review,  July,  1823.  It  is  highly  creditable  to  the  scho- 
larship of  our  Transatlantic  brethren,  that  the  work  De  Republica, 
should,  on  its  first  publication,  have  been  the  subject  of  an  article 
in  one  of  their  principal  literary  journals,  while,  as  far  as  I  know, 
the  reviews  of  this  ancient  land  of  colleges  and  universities,  have 
passed  over,  in  absolute  silence,  the  most  important  classical  dis- 
covery since  the  age  of  the  Medici. 


448  cicero. 

tant,  make  a  great  figure  in  the  Philosophical  Trans- 
actions. But  one  cannot  fail  to  admire  the  discursive 
and  active  genius  of  Cicero,  who  considered  all  know- 
ledge as  an  object  deserving  ardent  pursuit.1 

1  I  do  not  know  that  this  distinguishing  feature  of  the  charac- 
ter of  Cicero  has  been  anywhere  so  well  described  as  in  the  follow- 
ing passage  of  M.  Villemain,  in  which  he  has  introduced  in  this 
respect  a  beautiful  comparison  between  Cicero  and  the  most  illus- 
trious writer  of  his  own  nation.  Talking  of  the  digression- con- 
cerning the  Parhelion  and  Orrery,  he  admits  it  was  little  to  the 
purpose,  but  he  adds,  "  Peut  on  se  defendre  d'un  mouvement  de 
respect,  quand  on  songe  a.  ce  beau  caractere  de  curiosite  philoso- 
phique,  a  ce  gout  universel  de  la  science  dont  fut  anime  Ciceron, 
et  qui  au  milieu  d'une  vie  agitee  par  tant  de  travaux,  et  dans  un 
6tat  de  civilisation  encore  denue  de  secours,  lui  lit  rechercher  avec 
un  insatiable  ardeur  tous  les  moyens  de  connoissances  nouvelles  et 
de  lumieres  ? 

"  Cet  homme  qui  avait  si  laborieusement  medite  Tart  de  l'elo- 
quence,  et  le  pratiquait  chaque  jour  dans  le  Forum,  dans  le  senat, 
dans  les  tribunaux ;  ce  grand  orateur,  qui  meme  pendant  son  con- 
sulat  plaidait  encore  des  causes  privees,  au  milieu  d'une  vie  toute 
de  gloire,  d'agitations,  et  de  perils,  dans  ce  mouvement  d'inquu'- 
tudes  et  d'affaires  atteste  par  cette  foule  de  lettres  si  admirables  et 
si  rapidement  ecrites,  £tudiait  encore  tout  ce  que  dans  son  siecle 
il  etait  possible  de  savoir.  II  avait  cultivait  la  poesie  :  il  avait  ap- 
profondi  et  transports  chez  les  Romains  toutes  les  philosophies  de 
la  Grece ;  il  cherchait  a  recueillir  les  notions  encore  imparfaites 
des  sciences  physiques.  Nous  voyons  meme  par  une  de  ses  lettres 
qu'il  s'occupa  de  faire  un  traite  technique  de  geographic,  a  pen 
pres  comme  Voltaire  compilait  laborieusement  un  abrege  chro- 
nologique  de  l'histoire  d'Allemagne.  Ces  deux  genies  ont  eu  en 
effet  ce  caractere  distinctif  de  meler  aux  plus  brillans  tresors  de 
l'imagination  et  de  gout,  l'ardeur  de  toutes  les  connoissances,  et  cette 
activite  intellectuelle  qui  ne  s'  arrete,  ni  ne  se  lasse  jamais. 

"  Sans  doute  il  y  avoit  entre  eux  de  grands  dissemblances,  sur- 
tout  dans  cette  vocation  predominante  qui  entrainait  l'un  vers 
l'eloquence  et  1 'autre  vers  la  poesie  ;  sans  doute  aussi  la  diversite 


CICERO.  449 

At  the  end  of  the  hiatus,  we  find  Scipio,  in  refer- 
ence to  Gallus's  astronomical  knowledge,  which  had 
been  celebrated  by  Philus,  relating,  that  when  his  fa- 
ther, Paulus  iEmilius,  commanded  in  Macedonia,  the 
army  being  terrified  by  an  eclipse,  Gallus  had  calmed 
their  fears  by  explaining  the  phenomenon — an  anec- 
dote, which,  with  another  similar  to  it  here  told  of 
Pericles,  proves  the  value  of  physical  pursuits,  and 
their  intimate  connection  with  the  affairs  of  life.  This 
inference  seems  to  have  been  drawn  in  a  passage  which 
is  lost ;  and  several  beautiful  sentiments  follow,  simi- 
lar to  some  of  those  in  the  Somnium  Scipionis,  on  the 
calm  exquisite  delights  of  meditation  and  science,  and 
on  the  littleness  of  all  earthly  things,  when  compared 
with  immortality  or  the  universe.  "  Quid  porro,"  says 
Scipio,  in  the  most  elevated  tone  of  moral  and  intellec- 
tual grandeur — "  quid  porro  aut  praeclarum  putet  in 
rebus  humanis,  qui  haec  deorum  regna  perspexerit  ?  aut 
diuturnum,  qui  cognoverit  quid  sit  aeternum  ?  aut  glo- 
riosum,  qui  viderit  quam  parva  sit  terra,  primum  uni- 
versa,  deinde  ea  pars  ejus  quam  homines  incolant, 
quam  que  nos  in  exigua.  ejus  parte  adfixi,  plurimis  ig- 
notissimi  gentibus,  speremus  tamen  nostrum  nomen 
volitare  et  vagari  latissime  ?   Agros,  vero,  et  aedificia, 

des  temps  et  des  situations  mettait  plus  de  difference  encore  entre 
l'auteur  Francais  de  dix  huitieme  siecle,  et  le  Consul  de  la  repub- 
lique  Romaine :  mais  cette  ardeur  de  tout  savoir,  ce  mouvement 
de  la  pensee  qui  s'appliquait  egalement  a  tout,  forme  un  trait  emi- 
nent qui  les  rapproche ;  et  peutetre  le  sentiment  confus  de  cette 
verite  agissait  il  sur  Voltaire  dans  l'admiration  si  vivement  sen- 
tie,  si  serieuse,  que  cet  esprit  contempteur  de  tant  de  renommees 
antiques  exprima  toujours  pour  le  genie  de  Ciceron."-— P.  LXII. 
VOL.  II.  2  F 


450  CICERO. 

et  pecudes,  et  immensum  argenti  pondus  atquc  auri, 
qui  bona  nee  putare  nee  appellare  soleat,  quod  earum 
rerum  videatur  ei,  levis  fructus,  exiguus  usus,  incertus 
dominatus,  saepe  enim  teterrimorum  hominum  im- 
mensa  possessio.  Quam  est  hie  fortunatus  putandus, 
cui  soli  vere  liceat  omnia  non  Quiritium  sed  sapien- 
tium  jure  pro  suis  vindicare  !  nee  civili  nexo,  sed  com- 
muni  lege  naturae,  quae  vetat  ullam  rem  esse  cujusquam 
nisi  ejus  qui  tractare  et  uti  sciat :  qui  imperia  consul- 
atusque  nostros  in  necessariis  non  in  expetendis  rebus 
muneris  fungendi  gratia  subeundos,  non  praemiorum 
aut  gloriae  causa  adpetendos  putet :  qui  denique  ut 
Africanum  avum  meum  scribit  Cato  solitum  esse  di- 
cere,  possit  idem  de  se  praedicare,  nunquam  se  plus 
agere,  quam  nihil  cum  ageret ;  nunquam  minus  solum 
esse,  quam  cum  solus  esset. 

"  Quis  enim  putare  vere  potest  plus  egisse  Diony- 
sium  turn  cum  omnia  moliendo  eripuerit  civibus  suis 
libertatem,  quam  ejus  civem  Archimedem,  cum  istam 
ipsam  Sphaeram,  nihil  cum  agere  videretur,  efFecerit  ? 
Quis  autem  non  magis  solos  esse  qui  in  foro  turbaque 
quicum  conloqui  libeat  non  babeaut,  quam  qui  nullo 
arbitro  vel  secum  ipsi  loquantur,  vel  quasi  doctissimo- 
rum  hominum  in  concilio  adsint  cum  eorum  inventis 
scriptisque  se  oblectent  ?  Quis  vero  divitiorem  quem- 
quam  putet,  quam  eum  cui  nihil  desit,  quod  quidem 
natura  desideret  ?  aut  potentiorem  quam  ilium,  qui 
omnia  quae  expetat,  consequatur  ?  aut  beatiorem  quam 
qui  sit  omni  perturbatione  animi  liberatus  ?" 

Laelius,  however,  is  no  way  moved  by  these  sono- 
rous arguments ;  and  still  persists  in  affirming,  that 


CICERO.  451 

the  most  important  of  all  studies  are  those  which  re- 
late to  the  Republic,  and  that  it  concerned  them  to 
inquire,  not  why  two  suns  had  appeared  in  heaven, 
but  why,  in  the  present  circumstances,  (alluding  to  the 
projects  of  the  Gracchi,)  there  were  two  senates,  and 
almost  two  peoples.  In  this  state  of  things,  therefore, 
and  since  they  had  now  leisure,  their  fittest  object 
would  be  to  learn  from  Scipio  what  he  deemed  the  best 
condition  of  a  commonwealth.  Scipio  complies  with 
this  request,  and  begins  with  defining  a  republic : 
"  Est  igitur  respublica  res  populi — populus  autem  non 
omnis  hominum  coetus  quoquo  modo  congregatus,  sed 
coetus  multitudinis  juris  consensu."  In  entering  on 
the  nature  of  what  he  had  thus  defined,  he  remounts 
to  the  origin  of  society,  which  he  refers  entirely  to  that 
social  spirit  which  is  one  of  the  principles  of  our  na- 
ture, and  not  to  hostility,  or  fear,  or  compact.  A  peo- 
ple, when  united,  may  be  governed  by  one,  by  several, 
or  by  a  multitude,  any  one  of  which  simple  forms  may 
be  tolerable  if  well  administered,  but  they  are  liable 
to  corruptions  peculiar  to  themselves.  Of  these  three 
simple  forms,  Scipio  prefers  the  monarchical ;  and  for 
this  choice  he  gives  his  reasons,  which  are  somewhat 
metaphysical  and  analogical.  But  though  he  more 
approves  of  a  pure  regal  government  than  of  the  two 
other  simple  forms,  he  thinks  that  none  of  them  are 
good,  and  that  a  perfect  constitution  must  be  compound- 
ed of  the  three.  "  Quod  cum  ita  sit,  tribus  primis  ge- 
neribus  longe  prasstat,  mea  sententia,  regium  ;  regio 
autem  ipsi  praestabit  id  quod  erit  aequatum  et  temper- 
atum  ex  tribus  optimis  rerum  publicarum  modis. 
Placet  enim  esse  quiddam  in  re  publica.  prsestans  et 


452  cicero. 

regale ;  esse  aliud  auctoritate  principum  partum  ac  tri- 
butum ;  esse  quasdam  res  servatas  judicio  voluntatique 
multitudinis.  Hsec  constitutio  primum  habet  aequa- 
litatem  quamdam  magnam,  qua,  carere  diutius  vix  pos- 
sunt  liberi ;  deinde  firmitudinem." 

In  this  panegyric  on  a  mixed  constitution,  Cicero 
has  taken  his  idea  of  a  perfect  state  from  the  Roman 
commonwealth — from  its  consuls,  senate,  and  popular 
assemblies.  Accordingly,  Scipio  proceeds  to  affirm, 
that  of  all  constitutions  which  had  ever  existed,  no 
one,  either  as  to  the  distribution  of  its  parts  or  disci- 
pline, was  so  perfect  as  that  which  had  been  establish- 
ed by  their  ancestors  ;  and  that,  therefore,  he  will  con- 
stantly have  his  eye  on  it  as  a  model  in  all  that  he 
means  to  say  concerning  the  best  form  of  a  state. 

This  explains  what  was  the  chief  scope  of  Cicero  in 
his  work  De  Republica — an  eulogy  on  the  Roman 
government,  such  as  it  was,  or  he  supposed  it  to  have 
been,  in  the  early  ages  of  the  commonwealth.  In  the 
time  of  Cicero,  when  Rome  was  agitated  by  the  plots 
of  Catiline,  and  factions  of  Clodius,  with  the  pro- 
scriptions of  Sylla  but  just  terminated,  and  the  usurp- 
ation of  Caesar  impending,  the  Roman  constitution 
had  become  as  ideal  as  the  polity  of  Plato ;  and  in  its 
best  times  had  never  reached  the  perfection  which 
Cicero  attributes  to  it.  But  when  a  writer  is  disgust- 
ed with  the  present,  and  fearful  for  the  future,  he  is 
ever  ready  to  form  an  Utopia  of  the  past.1 

1  This  first  book  occupied  in  the  palimpsest  211  pages.  Of 
these,  72  are  wanting ;  but  two  short  fragments  belonging  to  this 
book  are  to  be  found  in  Lactantius  and  Nonius,  so  that  about  a 
third  of  the  book  is  still  lost. 


cicero.  453 

In  the  second  book,  which,  like  the  first,  is  imper- 
fect at  the  beginning,  (though  Mai  seems  to  think 
that  only  a  few  words  are  wanting,)  Scipio  records  a 
saying  of  Cato  the  Censor,  that  the  constitution  of 
Rome  was  superior  to  that  of  all  other  states,  because 
they  had  been  modelled  by  single  legislators,  as  Crete 
by  Minos,  and  Sparta  by  Lycurgus,  whereas  the  Ro- 
man commonwealth  was  the  result  of  the  gradually 
improved  experience  and  wisdom  of  ages.  "  To  bor- 
row, therefore,"  says  he,  "  a  word  from  Cato,  I  shall 
go  back  to  the  origin  of  the  Roman  state ;  and  show 
it  in  its  birth,  childhood,  youth,  and  maturity — a  plan 
which  seems  preferable  to  the  delineation  of  an  ima- 
ginary republic  like  that  of  Plato." 

Scipio  now  begins  with  Romulus,  whose  birth,  in- 
deed, he  seems  to  treat  as  a  fable ;  but  in  the  whole 
succeeding  development  of  the  Roman  history,  he,  or, 
in  other  words,  Cicero,  exercises  little  criticism,  and 
indulges  in  no  scepticism.  He  admires  the  wisdom 
with  which  Romulus  chose  the  site  of  his  capital — not 
placing  it  in  a  maritime  situation,  where  it  would  have 
been  exposed  to  many  dangers  and  disadvantages,  but 
on  a  navigable  river,  with  all  the  conveniences  of  the 
sea. — "  Qui  potuit  igitur  divinitus  et  utilitates  com- 
plecti  maritimas  Romulus  et  vitia  vitare  ?  quam  quod 
urbem  perennis  amnis  et  sequabilis  et  in  mare  late  in- 
fluentis  posuit  in  ripa,  quo  posset  urbs  et  accipere  ex 
mari  quo  egeret,  et  reddere  quo  redundaret :  eodemque 
ut  flumine  res  ad  victum  cultumque  maxime  necessa- 
rias  non  solum  mari  absorberet  sed  etiam  advectas  ac- 
ciperet  ex  terra :  ut  mihi  jam  turn  divinasse  ille  videa- 


454  cicero. 

tur,  hanc  urbem  sedem  aliquando  ut  domum  summo 
esse  imperio  praebituram  :  nam  hanc  rerum  tautam 
potentiam  non  ferme  facilius  alia  in  parte  Italia?  posi- 
ta  urbs  tenere  potuisset." — In  like  manner  he  praises 
the  sagacity  of  the  succeeding  rulers  of  the  Roman 
state.  "  Faithful  to  his  plan,"  says  M.  Villemain, 
"  of  referring  all  to  the  Roman  constitution,  and  of 
forming  rather  a  history  than  a  political  theory,  Cicero 
proceeds  to  examine,  as  it  were  chronologically,  the 
state  of  Rome  at  the  different  epochs  of  its  duration, 
beginning  with  its  kings.  This  plan,  if  it  produced 
any  new  light  on  a  very  dark  subject,  would  have  much 
more  interest  for  us  than  ideas  merely  speculative.  But 
Cicero  scarcely  deviates  from  the  common  traditions, 
which  have  often  exercised  the  scepticism  of  the  learn- 
ed. He  takes  the  Roman  history  nearly  as  we  now 
have  it,  and  his  reflections  seem  to  suppose  no  other 
facts  than  those  which  have  been  so  eloquently  record- 
ed by  Livy."  But  although,  for  the  sake  of  illustra- 
tion, and  in  deference  to  common  opinion,  he  argues 
on  the  events  of  early  Roman  history,  as  delivered  by 
vulgar  tradition,  it  is  evident  that,  in  his  own  belief, 
they  were  altogether  uncertain  ;  and  if  any  new  au- 
thority on  that  subject  were  wanting,  Cicero's  might 
be  added  in  favour  of  their  total  uncertainty  ;  for  Lse- 
lius  thus  interrupts  his  account  of  Ancus  Martius — 
"  Laudandus  etiam  iste  rex — sed  obscura  est  historia 
Romana ;"  and  Scipio  replies,  "  lta  est :  sed  tempo- 
rum  illorum  tantum  fere  regum  illustrata  sunt  nomi- 
na." 

At  the  close  of  Scipio's  discourse,  which  is  a  per- 


cicero.  455 

petual  panegyric  on  the  successive  governments  of 
Rome,  and,  with  exception  of  the  above  passage,  an 
uncritical  acquiescence  in  its  common  history,  Tubero 
remarks,  that  Cicero  had  rather  praised  the  Roman 
government,  than  examined  the  constitution  of  com- 
monwealths in  general,  and  that  hitherto  he  had  not 
explained  by  what  discipline,  manners,  and  laws,  a 
state  is  to  be  constituted  or  preserved.  Scipio  replies, 
that  this  is  to  be  a  farther  subject  of  discussion ;  and  he 
seems  now  to  have  adopted  a  more  metaphysical  tone : 
But  of  the  remainder  of  the  book  only  a  few  fragments 
exist ;  from  which,  however,  it  appears,  that  a  ques- 
tion was  started,  how  far  the  exact  observance  of  jus- 
tice in  a  state  is  politic  or  necessary.  This  discussion, 
at  the  suggestion  of  Scipio,  is  suspended  till  the  suc- 
ceeding day.1 

As  the  third  book  of  Cicero's  treatise  began  a  se- 
cond day's  colloquy,  it  was  doubtless  furnished  with 
a  procemium,  the  greater  part  of  which  is  now  lost, 
as  also  a  considerable  portion  of  the  commencement  of 
the  dialogue.  Towards  the  conclusion  of  the  preceding 
book,  Scipio  had  touched  on  the  subject,  how  far  the  ob- 
servance of  justice  is  useful  to  a  state,  and  Philus  had 
proposed  that  this  topic  should  be  treated  more  fully, 
as  an  opinion  was  prevalent,  that  policy  occasionally 
required  injustice.  Previously  to  the  discovery  of  Mai, 
we  knew  from  St  Augustine,  De  Civitate  Dei,  that 
in  the  third  book  of  the  treatise  De  Republicd,  Phi- 

1  Mai  cannot  exactly  state  how  much  of  the  second  book  is  want- 
ing in  the  palimpsest,  but  he  thinks  probably  a  third  part ;  enough 
remains  of  it  to  console  the  reader  for  the  loss. 


456  cicero. 

lus,  as  a  disputant,  undertook  the  cause  of  injustice, 
and  was  answered  by  Laelius.  In  the  fragment  of  the 
third  book,  Philus  excuses  himself  from  becoming  (so 
to  speak)  the  devil's  advocate ;  but  at  length  agrees 
to  offer,  not  his  own  arguments  on  the  subject,  but 
those  of  Carneades,  who,  some  years  before,  had  one 
day  pleaded  the  cause  of  justice  at  Rome,  and  next 
day  overturning  his  own  arguments,  became  the  pa- 
tron of  injustice.  Philus  accordingly  proceeds  to  con- 
tend, that  if  justice  were  something  real,  it  would  be 
everywhere  the  same,  whereas,  in  one  nation,  that  is 
reckoned  equitable  and  holy,  which  in  another  is  un- 
just and  impious ;  and,  in  like  manner,  in  the  same 
city,  what  is  just  at  one  period,  becomes  unjust  at  an- 
other. In  the  palimpsest,  these  sophisms,  which  have 
been  revived  in  modern  times  by  Mandeville  and 
others,  are  interrupted  by  frequent  chasms  in  the  MS. 
Laelius,  as  we  learn  from  St  Augustine,  and  from  a 
passage  in  Aulus  Gellius,  was  requested  by  all  present 
to  undertake  the  defence  of  justice ;  but  his  discourse, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  sentences,  is  wholly  want- 
ing in  the  palimpsest.  At  the  close  he  is  highly  com- 
plimented by  Scipio,  but  a  large  hiatus  again  inter- 
venes. After  this,  Scipio  is  found  contending,  that 
wealth  and  power,  Phidian  statues,  or  the  most  mag- 
nificent public  works,  do  not  constitute  a  republic,  but 
the  res  populi,  the  good  of  the  whole,  and  not  of  any 
single  governing  portion  of  the  state.  He  then  con- 
cludes with  affirming,  that  of  all  forms  of  government, 
the  purely  democratic  is  the  worst,  and  next  to  that, 
an  unmixed  aristocracy. 


CICERO.  457 

Of  the  fourth  book  only  one  leaf  remains  in  the 
palimpsest,  the  contents  of  which  seem  to  confirm 
what  we  learn  from  other  sources,  that  it  treated  of 
Education  and  Morals.  It  is  particularly  to  be  re- 
gretted that  this  book  has  disappeared.  It  is  easy  to 
supply  abstract  discussions  about  justice,  democracy, 
and  power,  and,  if  they  be  not  supplied,  little  injury 
is  sustained  ;  but  the  loss  of  details  relating  to  man- 
ners and  customs,  from  such  a  hand  as  that  of  Cicero, 
is  irreparable.  The  fifth  book  is  nearly  as  much  mu- 
tilated as  the  fourth,  and  of  the  sixth  not  a  frag- 
ment remains  in  the  palimpsest,  so  that  Mai's  dis- 
covery has  added  nothing  to  the  beautiful  extract 
from  this  book,  entitled  the  Somnium  Scipionis,  pre- 
served by  Macrobius.  The  conclusion  of  the  work  De 
Republicd,  had  turned  on  immortality  of  fame  here, 
and  eternity  of  existence  elsewhere.  The  Somnium 
Scipionis  is  intended  to  establish,  under  the  form  of 
a  poetical  fiction,  the  sublime  dogma  of  the  soul's  im- 
mortality, and  was  probably  introduced  at  the  con- 
clusion of  the  work,  for  the  purpose  of  adding  the  hopes 
and  fears  of  future  retribution  to  the  other  motives 
to  virtuous  exertion.  In  illustration  of  this  sublime 
topic,  Scipio  relates  that,  in  his  youth,  when  he  first 
served  in  Africa,  he  visited  the  court  of  Massinissa, 
the  steady  friend  of  the  Romans,  and  particularly  of 
the  Cornelian  family.  During  the  feasts  and  enter- 
tainments of  the  day,  the  conversation  turned  on  the 
words  and  actions  of  the  first  great  Scipio.  His 
adopted  grandchild  having  retired  to  rest,  the  shade 


458  ciCEiio. 

of  the  departed  hero  appeared  to  him  in  sleep,  darkly 
foretold  the  future  events  of  his  life,  and  encouraged 
him  to  tread  in  the  paths  of  patriotism  and  true  glory, 
by  announcing  the  reward  provided  in  Heaven  for 
those  who  have  deserved  well  of  their  country. 

I  have  thought  it  proper  to  give  this  minute  ac- 
count of  the  treatise  De  Republicd,  for  the  sake  of 
those  who  may  not  have  had  an  opportunity  of  con- 
sulting Mai's  publication,  and  who  may  be  curious  to 
know  somewhat  of  the  value  and  extent  of  his  disco- 
very. On  the  whole,  I  suspect  that  the  treatise  will 
disappoint  those  whose  expectations  were  high,  espe- 
cially if  they  thought  to  find  in  it  much  political  or 
statistical  information.  It  corresponds  little  to  the  idea 
that  one  would  naturally  form  of  a  political  work  from 
the  pen  of  Cicero — a  distinguished  statesman,  always 
courted  by  the  chiefs  of  political  parties,  and  at  one 
time  himself  at  the  head  of  the  government  of  his 
country.  But,  on  reflection,  it  will  not  appear  sur- 
prising that  we  receive  from  this  work  so  little  insight 
into  the  doubtful  and  disputed  points  of  Roman  po- 
lity. Those  questions,  with  regard  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  Senate  was  filled  up — the  force  of  decrees 
of  the  people,  and  the  rank  of  the  different  jurisdic- 
tions, which  in  modern  times  have  formed  subjects  of 
discussion,  had  not  become  problems  in  the  time  of 
Cicero.  The  great  men  whom  he  introduces  in  con- 
versation together,  understood  each  other  on  such  to- 
pics, by  a  word  or  suggestion ;  and  I  am  satisfied 
that  those  parts  of  the  treatise  De  Republicd,  which 


cicero.  459 

are  lost,  contained  as  little  that  could  contribute  to 
the  solution  of  such  difficulties,  as  the  portions  that 
have  been  recovered. 

But  though  the  work  of  Cicero  will  disappoint  those 
who  expect  to  find  in  it  much  political  information, 
still,  as  in  his  other  productions,  every  page  exhibits  a 
rich  and  glowing  magnificence  of  style,  ever  subjected 
to  the  controul  of  a  taste  the  most  correct  and  pure.  It 
contains,  like  all  his  writings,  some  passages  of  ex- 
quisite beauty,  and  everywhere  breathes  an  exalt- 
ed spirit  of  virtue  and  patriotism.  The  Latin  lan- 
guage, so  noble  in  itself,  and  dignified,  assumes  addi- 
tional majesty  in  the  periods  of  the  Roman  Consul, 
and  adds  an  inexpressible  beauty  and  loftiness  to 
the  natural  sublimity  of  his  sentiments.  No  writings, 
in  fact,  are  so  full  of  moral  and  intellectual  grandeur 
as  those  of  Cicero,  none  are  more  calculated  to  elevate 
and  purify  our  nature — to  inculcate  the  tu  vero 
enitere,  in  the  path  of  knowledge  and  virtue,  and 
to  excite  not  merely  a  fond  desire,  or  idle  longing, 
but  strenuous  efforts  after  immortality.  Indeed,  the 
whole  life  of  the  Father  of  his  Country  was  a  noble 
fulfilment,  and  his  sublime  philosophic  works  are  but 
an  expansion  of  that  golden  precept,  tu  vero  enitere, 
enjoined  from  on  high,  to  his  great  descendant,  by  the 
Spirit  of  the  first  Africanus.1 

About  a  century  after  the  revival  of  letters,  when 
mankind  had  at  length  despaired  of  any  farther  dis- 
covery of  the  philosophic  writings  of  Cicero,  the  learn- 
ed men  of  the  age  employed  themselves  in  collecting 

1  Sotnnium  Scipionis. 


460  CICERO. 

the  scattered  fragments  of  his  lost  works,  and  arran- 
ging them  according  to  the  order  of  the  books  from 
which,  they  had  been  extracted.  Sigonius  had  thus 
united  the  detached  fragments  of  the  work  De  Re- 
publicd,  and  he  made  a  similar  attempt  to  repair  an- 
other lost  treatise  of  Cicero,  entitled  De  Consolatione. 
But  in  this  instance  he  not  merely  collected  the  frag- 
ments, but  connected  them  by  sentences  of  his  own 
composition.  The  work  De  Consolatione  was  written 
by  Cicero  in  the  year  708,  on  occasion  of  the  death  of 
his  much-loved  Tullia,  with  the  design  of  relieving  his 
own  mind,  and  consecrating  to  all  posterity  the  virtues 
and  memory  of  his  daughter.1  In  this  treatise,  he  set 
out  with  the  paradoxical  propositions,  that  human  life 
is  a  punishment,  and  that  men  are  brought  into  the 
world  only  to  pay  the  forfeit  of  their  sins.2  Cicero 
chiefly  followed  Crantor  the  Academic,3  who  had  left 
a  celebrated  piece  on  the  same  topic ;  but  he  inserted 
whatever  pleased  him  in  any  other  author  who  had 
written  on  the  subject.  He  illustrated  his  precepts,  as 
he  proceeded,  by  examples  from  Roman  history,  of 
eminent  characters  who  had  borne  a  similar  loss  with 
that  which  he  had  himself  sustained,  or  other  severe 
misfortunes,  with  remarkable  constancy,4 — dwelling 
particularly  on  the  domestic  calamities  of  Q.  Maxi- 
mus,  who  buried  a  consular  son ;  of  iEmilius  Paullus, 
who  lost  two  sons  in  two  days  ;  and  of  M.  Cato,  who 

1  Epist.  ad  Attic.  Lib.  XII.  Ep.  14. 

2  Lactantius,  Divin.  Inst.  Lib.  III.  c.  18.  Luendorum  scelerum 
causa  nasci  homines. 

3  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  I.  Pref. 
*  De  Divin.  Lib.  II.  c.  9. 


CICERO.  461 

had  been  deprived  of  a  son,  who  was  Praetor-Elect.1 
Sigonius  pretended,  that  the  patched-up  treatise  De 
Consolatione,  which  he  gave  to  the  public,  was  the 
lost  work  of  Cicero,  of  which  he  had  discovered  a  MS. 
The  imposture  succeeded  for  a  considerable  time,  but 
was  at  length  detected  and  pointed  out  by  Riccoboni.2 
Cicero  also  wrote  a  treatise  in  two  books,  addressed 
to  Atticus,  on  the  subject  of  Glory,  which  was  the 
predominant  and  most  conspicuous  passion  of  his  soul. 
It  was  composed  in  the  year  710,  while  sailing  along 
the  delightful  coast  of  the  Campagna,  on  his  voyage 
to  Greece : — 

"  On  as  he  moved  along  the  level  shore, 
These  temples,  in  their  splendour  eminent 
Mid  arcs,  and  obelisks,  and  domes,  and  towers, 
Reflecting  back  the  radiance  of  the  west, 
Well  might  he  dream  of  Glory  !"3 

This  treatise  was  extant  in  the  14th  century.  A  copy 
had  been  presented  to  Petrarch,  from  his  .vast  collec- 
tion of  books,  by  Raymond  Soranzo,  a  Sicilian  lawyer.4 
Petrarch  long  preserved  this  precious  volume  with 
great  care,  and  valued  it  highly.  Unfortunately  a  man 
called  Convenoli,  who  resided  at  Avignon,  and  who 
had  formerly  been  his  preceptor,  begged  and  obtained 
the  loan  of  it ;  and  having  afterwards  fallen  into  indi- 
gent circumstances,  pawned  it  for  the  relief  of  his  ne- 

i  Tusc.  Disput.  Lib.  III.  c,  28. 

2  Scharfii,  Dissert,  de  vero  auctore  Consolationis.  Miscell.  Lips. 
Observ.  130. 

3  Rogers'  Lines,  written  at  Pcestum. 

*■  Petrarch,  Epist.  Rer.  Senil.  Lib.  XV.  Ep.  1. 


462  Cicero. 

cessities,  to  some  unknown  person,  from  whom  Pe- 
trarch never  could  regain  its  possession.  Two  copies, 
however,  were  still  extant  in  the  subsequent  century, 
one  in  a  private  library  at  Nuremburg,  and  another  in 
that  of  a  Venetian  nobleman,  Bernard  Giustiniani, 
who,  dying  in  1489,  bequeathed  his  books  to  a  monas- 
tery of  nuns,  to  whom  Petrus  Alcyonius  was  physi- 
cian. Filelfo  was  accused,  though  on  no  good  founda- 
tion, of  having  burned  the  Nuremburg  copy,  after  in- 
serting passages  from  it  in  his  treatise  De  Contemptu 
Mundi}  But  the  charge  of  destroying  the  original 
MS.  left  by  Giustiniani  to  the  nuns,  has  been  urged 
against  Alcyonius  on  better  grounds,  and  with  more 
success.  Paulus  Manutius,  of  wliose  printing-press 
Alcyonius  had  been  at  one  time  corrector,  charged 
him  with  having  availed  himself  of  his  free  access  to 
the  library  of  the  nuns,  whose  physician  he  was,  to 
purloin  the  treatise  De  Gloria,  and  with  having  de- 
stroyed it,  to  conceal  his  plagiarisms,  after  inserting 
from  it  various  passages  in  his  dialogue  De  Exilio? 
The  assertion  of  Manutius  is  founded  only  on  the  dis- 
appearance of  the  MS., — the  opportunities  possessed 
by  Alcyonius  of  appropriating  it,  and  his  own  critical 
opinion  of  the  dialogue  De  Exilio,  in  which  he  con- 
ceives that  there  are  many  passages  composed  in  a  style 
evincing  a  writer  of  talents  far  superior  to  those  of  its 
nominal  author.  This  accusation  was  repeated  by 
Paulus  Jovius  and  others.3    Mencken,  in  the  preface 

1  Varillas,  Vie  de  Louis  XL  Menagiana,  Tom,  II. 

2  In  Comment.  Epist.  Ad  Attic.  XV.  27- 

3  Eulogia, 


CICERO.  463 

to  his  edition  of  the  dialogue  De  Exilio,  has  main- 
tained the  innocence  of  Alcyonius,  and  has  related  a 
conversation  which  he  had  with  Bentley  on  the  sub- 
ject, in  the  course  of  which  that  great  scholar  declared, 
that  he  found  nothing  in  the  work  of  Alcyonius  which 
could  convict  him  of  the  imputed  plagiarism.1  He  has 
been  defended  at  greater  length  by  Tiraboschi,  on  the 
strong  grounds  that  Giustiniani  lived  after  the  inven- 
tion of  printing,  and  that  had  he  actually  been  in  pos- 
session of  Cicero's  treatise  De  Gloria,  he  would  doubt- 
less have  published  it — that  it  is  not  said  to  what  mo- 
nastery of  nuns  Giustiniani  bequeathed  this  precious 
MS. — that  the  charge  against  Alcyonius  was  not  ad- 
vanced till  after  his  death,  although  his  dialogue  De 
Exilio  was  first  printed  in  1522,  and  he  survived  till 
1527 ;  and,  finally,  that  so  great  a  proportion  of  it  re- 
lates to  modern  events,  that  there  are  not  more  than 
a  few  pages  which  could  possibly  have  been  pilfered 
from  Cicero,  or  any  writer  of  his  age.2  M.  Bernardi, 
in  a  dissertation  subjoined  to  a  work  above  mention- 
ed, De  la  JRepublique,  has  revived  the  accusation,  at 
least  to  a  certain  extent,  by  quoting  various  passages 
from  the  work  of  Alcyonius,  which  are  not  well  con- 
nected with  the  others,  and  which,  being  of  a  superior 
order  of  composition,  may  be  conjectured  to  be  those 
he  had  detached  from  the  treatise  of  Cicero.  On  the 
whole,  the  question  of  the  theft  and  plagiarism  of 

1  Mencken,  Prosf.  P.  Alcyoni  de  Exilio,  Lips.  1707« 

2  Tiraboschi,  Stor.  dell  Letter.  Ital.  Part.  III.  Lib.  III.  c.  4. 
§  14. — Ginguene  thinks  that  Tiraboschi  has  completely  succeeded 
in  justifying  Alcyonius.   Hist.  Litter,  d'ltal.  T.  VII.  p.  254. 


464  cicero. 

Alcyonius  still  remains  undecided,  and  will  probably 
continue  so  till  the  discovery  of  some  perfect  copy  of 
the  tract  De  Gloria — an  event  rather  to  be  earnestly 
desired  than  reasonably  anticipated. 

A  fourth  lost  work  of  Cicero,  is  his  Hortensius, 
sive  de  Philosophia.  Besides  the  orator  after  whom 
it  is  named,  Catulus,  Lucullus,  and  Cicero  himself, 
were  speakers  in  the  dialogue.  In  the  first  part,  where 
Hortensius  discourses,  it  was  intended  to  exalt  elo- 
quence above  philosophy.  To  his  arguments  Cicero 
replied,  showing  the  service  that  philosophy  rendered 
to  eloquence,  even  in  an  imperfect  state  of  the  social 
progress,  and  its  superior  use  in  an  improved  condi- 
tion of  society,  in  which  there  should  be  no  wrong, 
and  consequently  no  tribunals  of  justice.  All  this 
appears  from  the  account  given  of  the  Hortensius 
by  St  Augustine,  who  has  also  quoted  from  it  many 
beautiful  passages — declaring,  at  the  same  time,  that 
it  was  the  perusal  of  this  work  which  first  inspired  him 
with  a  love  of  wisdom. — "  Viluit  mihi  repente  omnis 
vana  spes,  et  immortalitatem  sapientiae  concupiscebam 
aestu  cordis  incredibili."1  This  dialogue  continued  to 
be  preserved  for  a  long  period  after  the  time  of  St 
Augustine,  since  it  is  cited  as  extant  in  his  own  age 
by  the  famous  Roger  Bacon.2 

It  was  not  till  after  the  aera  of  Augustus,  that  works 
originally  destined  for  the  public  assumed  the  name 

1  Confess,  III.  4,  and  De  Fit.  Beata.  procem. 

2  Tunstall,  Observations  on  the  Epistles  between  Cicero  and  Bru- 
tus, p.  20.     Ed.  London,  1744. 


ciceuo.  465 

and  form  of  letters.  But  several  collections  of  epistles, 
written,  during  the  period  on  which  we  are  now  en- 
gaged, to  relatives  or  friends  in  private  confidence, 
were  afterwards  extensively  circulated.  Those  of  Cor- 
nelia, the  daughter  of  the  elder  Scipio  Africanus,  and 
mother  of  the  Gracchi,  addressed  chiefly  to  her-  sons, 
were  much  celebrated ;  but  the  most  ample  collection 
now  extant,  is  that  of  the  Letters  of  Cicero. 

These  may  be  divided  into  four  parts, — 1.  The 
Epistolae  Familiares,  or  Miscellaneous  Correspond- 
ence ;  2.  Those  to  Atticus ;  3.  To  his  brother  Quin- 
tus  ;  4.  To  Brutus. 

The  correspondence,  usually  entitled  Ad  Familia- 
res, includes  a  period  of  about  twenty  years,  commen- 
cing immediately  after  Cicero's  consulate,  and  ending 
a  few  months  before  his  death.  The  letters  which  this 
collection  comprehends,  are  so  extremely  miscellaneous, 
that  it  is  impossible  even  to  run  over  their  contents. 
Previous  to  the  battle  of  Pharsalia,  it  chiefly  con- 
sists of  epistles  concerning  the  distribution  of  consular 
provinces,  and  the  political  intrigues  relating  to  that 
constantly  recurring  subject  of  contention, — recom- 
mendatory letters  sent  with  acquaintances  going  into 
the  provinces — details  to  absent  friends,  with  regard 
to  the  state  of  parties  at  Rome,  particularly  the  de- 
signs of  Pompey  and  Caesar,  and  the  factions  of 
Milo  and  Clodius;  and,  finally,  entertaining  anec- 
dotes concerning  the  most  popular  and  fashionable 
amusements  of  the  Capital. 

Subsequently  to  the  battle  of  Pharsalia,  and  during 
the  supremacy  of  Caesar,  the  letters  are  principally  ad- 

VOL.  II.  2  G 


466  ciceko. 

dressed  to  the  chiefs  of  the  Pompeian  party,  who  were 
at  that  time  in  banishment  for  their  adherence  to  the 
same  cause  in  which  Cicero  had  been  himself  engaged. 
These  epistles  are  chiefly  occupied  with  consolatory 
reflections  on  the  adverse  circumstances  in  which  they 
were  placed,  and  accounts  of  his  own  exertions  to  ob- 
tain their  recall.  In  the  perusal  of  these  letters,  it  is 
painful  and  humiliating  to  observe  the  gratification 
which  Cicero  evidently  appears  to  have  received  at  this 
period,  from  the  attentions,  not  merely  of  Caesar,  but 
of  his  creatures  and  favourites,  as  Balbus,  Hirtius,  and 
Pansa. 

After  the  assassination  of  Caesar,  the  correspond- 
ence for  the  most  part  relates  to  the  affairs  of  the  Re- 
public, and  is  directed  to  the  heads  of  the  conspiracy, 
or  to  leading  men  in  the  state,  as  Lepidus  and  Asi- 
nius  Pollio,  who  were  then  in  the  command  of  armies, 
and  whom  he  anxiously  exhorts  to  declare  for  the  com- 
monwealth, and  stand  forward  in  opposition  to  Antony. 

There  are  a  good  many  letters  inserted  in  this  col- 
lection, addressed  to  Cicero  by  his  friends.  The  great- 
est number  are  from  his  old  client  Ccelius,  who  ap- 
pears to  have  been  an  admirable  gossip.  They  are 
written  to  Cicero,  during  his  absence  from  Rome,  in 
his  government  of  Cilicia,  and  give  him  news  of  party 
politics — intelligence  of  remarkable  cases  tried  in  the 
Forum — and  of  the  fashionable  scandal  of  the  day. 
The  great  object  of  Ccelius  seems  to  have  been  to  ob- 
tain in  return,  the  dedication  of  one  of  Cicero's  works, 
and  a  cargo  of  panthers  from  Asia,  for  his  exhibition 
of  games  to  the  Roman  people.    Towards  the  conclu- 


cicero.  467 

sion,  there  are  a  good  many  letters  from  generals,  who 
were  at  the  head  of  armies  in  the  provinces  at  the 
death  of  Caesar,  and  continued  their  command  during 
the  war  which  the  Senate  waged  against  Antony. 
All  of  them,  but  particularly  Asinius  Pollio,  and  Le- 
pidus,  appear  to  have  acted  with  consummate  treachery 
and  dissimulation  towards  Cicero  and  the  Senate.  On 
the  whole,  though  the  Epistolce  Familiares  were  pri- 
vate letters,  and  though  some  private  affairs  are  treat- 
ed of  in  them,  they  chiefly  relate  to  public  concerns, 
comprehending,  in  particular,  a  very  full  history  of 
Cicero's  government  in  Cilicia,  the  civil  dissensions  of 
Rome,  and  the  war  between  Pompey  and  Caesar.  Sel- 
dom, however,  do  they  display  any  flashes  of  that  elo- 
quence with  which  the  orator  was  so  richly  endued ; 
and  no  transaction,  however  important,  elevated  his 
style  above  the  level  of  ordinary  conversation. 

The  Epistolce  ad  Atticum,  are  also  of  great  service 
for  the  History  of  Rome.  "  Whoever,"  says  Cornelius 
Nepos, "  reads  these  letters  of  Cicero,  will  not  want  for 
a  connected  history  of  the  times.  So  well  does  he  de- 
scribe the  views  of  the  leading  men,  the  faults  of  gene- 
rals, and  the  changes  of  parties  in  the  state,  that  no- 
thing is  wanting  for  our  information ;  and  such  was 
his  sagacity,  we  are  almost  led  to  believe  that  it  was  a 
ki  nd  of  divination  ;  for  Cicero  not  only  foretold  what 
afterwards  happened  in  his  own  lifetime,  but,  like  a 
prophet,  predicted  events  which  are  now  come  to 
pass."1    Along  with  this  knowledge,  we  obtain  more 

1   Fit.  Attici.  c.  16. 


468  cicero. 

insight  into  Cicero's  private  character,  than  from  the 
former  series  of  letters,  where  he  is  often  disguised  in 
the  political  mask  of  the  great  theatre  on  which  he 
acted,  and  where  many  of  his  defects  are  concealed 
under  the  graceful  folds  of  the  toga.  It  was  to  Atti- 
cus  that  he  most  freely  unbosomed  his  thoughts — 
more  completely  than  even  to  Tullia,  Terentia,  or 
Tiro.  Hence,  while  he  evinces  in  these  letters  much 
affection  for  his  family — ardent  zeal  for  the  interests 
of  his  friends — strong  feelings  of  humanity  and  jus- 
tice— warm  gratitude  to  his  benefactors,  and  devoted 
love  to  his  country,  he  has  not  repressed  his  vanity,  or 
concealed  the  faults  of  a  mental  organization  too  sus- 
ceptible of  every  impression.  His  sensibility,  indeed, 
was  such,  that  it  led  him  to  think  his  misfortunes 
were  peculiarly  distinguished  from  those  of  all  other 
men,  and  that  neither  himself  nor  the  world  could  ever 
sufficiently  deplore  them :  hence  the  querulous  and 
plaintive  tone  which  pervades  the  whole  correspond- 
ence, and  which,  in  the  letters  written  during  his  exile, 
resembles  more  the  wailings  of  the  Tristia  of  Ovid, 
than  what  might  be  expected  from  the  first  statesman, 
orator,  and  philosopher  of  the  Roman  Republic.  In 
every  page  of  them,  too,  we  see  traces  of  his  incon- 
sistencies and  irresolution — his  political,  if  not  his  per- 
sonal timidity — his  rash  confidence  in  prosperity,  his 
alarm  in  danger,  his  despondence  in  adversity — his 
too  nice  jealousies  and  delicate  suspicions — his  prone- 
ness  to  offence,  and  his  unresisting  compliance  with 
those  who  had  gained  him  by  flattery,  and  hypocriti- 
cal professions  of  attachment  to  the  commonwealth. 


cicero.  469 

Atticus,  it  is  clear,  was  a  bad  adviser  for  his  fame,  and 
perhaps  for  his  ultimate  safety ;  and  to  him  may  be 
in  a  great  measure  attributed  that  compromising  con- 
duct which  has  detracted  so  much  from  the  dignity  of 
his  character.  "  You  succeeded,"  says  Cicero,  speak- 
ing of  Caesar  and  Pompey,  "  in  persuading  me  to  keep 
well  with  the  one,  because  he  had  rendered  me  ser- 
vices, and  with  the  other,  because  he  possessed  great 
power."1  Again,  "  I  followed  your  advice  so  punc- 
tually, that  neither  of  them  had  a  favourite  beyond 
myself;"  and  after  the  war  had  actually  broken  out, 
"  I  take  it  very  kind  that  you,  in  so  friendly  a  man- 
ner, advise  me  to  declare  as  little  as  possible  for  either 
party."2  Such  fatal  counsels,  it  is  evident,  accorded  too 
well  with  his  own  inclinations,  and  palliated,  perhaps, 
to  himself  the  weaknesses  to  which  he  gave  way. 
These  weaknesses  of  Cicero  it  would,  indeed,  be  in 
vain  to  deny ;  but  his  feelings  are  little  to  be  envied 
who  can  think  of  them  without  regret,  or  speak  of 
them  without  indulgence. 

It  is  these  letters,  however,  which  have  handed 
down  the  remembrance  of  Atticus  to  posterity,  and 
have  rendered  his  name  almost  as  universally  known 
as  that  of  his  illustrious  correspondent.  "  Nomen  At- 
tici  perire,"  says  Seneca,  "  Ciceronis  Epistolae  non  si- 
nunt.  Nihil  illi  profuissent  gener  Agrippa,  et  Tiberius 
progener,  et  Drusus  Caesar  pronepos.  Inter  tarn  magna 
nomina  taceretur  nisi  Cicero  ilium  applicuisset." 

Perhaps  the  most  interesting  correspondence  of  Ci- 

1  Epist.  Lib.  VII.  Ep.  1. 
»  Epist.  Lib.  VII.  Ep.  26. 


470  CICERO. 

cero  is  that  with  his  brother  Quintus,  who  was  some 
years  younger  than  the  orator.  He  attained  the  dig- 
nity of  Praetor  in  693,  and  afterwards  held  a  govern- 
ment in  Asia  as  Pro  praetor  for  four  years.  He  re- 
turned to  Rome  at  the  moment  in  which  his  brother 
was  driven  into  exile  ;  and  for  some  time  afterwards* 
was  chiefly  employed  in  exerting  himself  to  obtain  his 
recall.  As  Caesar's  lieutenant,  he  served  with  credit  in 
Gaul ;  but  espoused  the  republican  party  at  the  break- 
ing out  of  the  civil  war.  He  was  pardoned,  however,  by 
Caesar,  and  was  slain  by  the  blood-thirsty  triumvirate 
established  after  his  death.  Quintus  was  a  man  of 
warm  affections,  and  of  some  military  talents,  but  of 
impatient  and  irritable  temper.  The  orator  had  evi- 
dently a  high  opinion  of  his  qualifications,  and  has 
introduced  him  as  an  interlocutor  in  the  dialogues  De 
Legibus  and  De  Divinatione. 

The  correspondence  with  Quintus  is  divided  into 
three  books.  The  first  letter  in  the  collection,  is  one 
of  the  noblest  productions  of  the  kind  which  has  ever 
been  penned.  It  is  addressed  to  Quintus  on  occasion 
of  his  government  in  Asia  being  prolonged  for  a  third 
year.  Availing  himself  of  the  rights  of  an  elder  bro- 
ther, as  well  as  of  the  authority  derived  from  his  supe- 
rior dignity  and  talents,  Cicero  counsels  and  exhorts 
his  brother  concerning  the  due  administration  of  his 
province,  particularly  with  regard  to  the  choice  of  his 
subordinate  officers,  and  the  degree  of  trust  to  be  re- 
posed in  them.  He  earnestly  reproves  him,  but  with 
much  fraternal  tenderness  and  affection,  for  his  prone- 
ness  to  resentment ;  and  he  concludes  with  a  beauti- 


CICERO.  471 

ful  exhortation,  to  strive  in  all  respects  to  merit  the 
praise  of  his  contemporaries,  and  bequeath  to  poste- 
rity an  untainted  name.  The  second  letter  transmits 
to  Quintus  an  account  of  some  complaints  which  Ci- 
cero had  heard  in  Rome,  with  regard  to  his  brother's 
conduct  in  the  administration  of  his  government.  The 
two  following  epistles,  which  conclude  the  first  book, 
are  written  from  Thessalonica,  in  the  commencement 
of  his  exile.  The  first  of  these,  beginning,  "  Mi  fra- 
ter, mi  frater,  mi  frater,"  written  in  a  sad  state  of  agi- 
tation and  depression,  is  a  fine  specimen  of  eloquent 
and  pathetic  expostulation.  It  is  full  of  strong  and 
almost  unbounded  expressions  of  attachment,  and  ex- 
hibits much  of  that  exaggeration,  both  in  sentiment 
and  language,  in  which  Cicero  indulged  so  frequently 
in  his  orations. 

The  second  and  third  books  of  letters,  addressed  to 
his  brother  in  Sardinia  and  Gaul,  give  an  interesting 
account  of  the  state  of  public  affairs  during  the  years 
697,  698,  and  part  of  699,  as  also  of  his  subsisting  do- 
mestic relations  during  the  same  period. 

Along  with  his  letters  to  Quintus,  there  is  usually 
printed  an  epistle,  or  memoir,  which  Quintus  addressed 
to  his  brother  when  he  stood  candidate  for  the  consul- 
ship, and  which  is  entitled  De  Petitione  Consulates. 
It  gives  advice  with  regard  to  the  measures  he  should 
pursue  to  attain  his  object,  particularly  inculcating 
the  best  means  to  gain  private  friends,  and  acquire 
general  popularity.  But  though  professedly  drawn  up 
merely  for  the  use  of  his  brother,  it  appears  to  have 
been  intended  by  the  author  as  a  guide,  or  manual, 


472  cicero. 

for  all  who  might  be  placed  in  similar  circumstances. 
It  is  written  with  considerable  elegance,  and  perfect 
purity  of  style,  and  forms  an  important  document  for 
the  history  of  the  Roman  republic,  as  it  affords  us  a 
clearer  insight  than  we  can  derive  from  any  other 
work  now  extant,  into  the  intrigues  resorted  to  by  the 
heads  of  parties  to  gain  the  suffrages  of  the  people. 

The  authenticity  of  the  Correspondence  between 
Cicero  and  Brutus,  has  formed  the  subject  of  a  lite- 
rary controversy,  perhaps  the  most  celebrated  which 
has  ever  occurred,  except  that  concerning  the  Epistles 
of  Phalaris. 

It  is  quite  ascertained,  that  a  correspondence  had 
been  carried  on  between  Cicero  and  Brutus  ;  and  a 
collection  of  the  letters  which  had  passed  between 
them,  extending  to  not  less  than  eight  books,  existed 
for  several  ages  after  Cicero's  death.  They  were  all 
written  during  the  period  which  elapsed  from  the  as- 
sassination of  Caesar  to  the  tragical  end  of  the  orator, 
which  comprehended  about  a  year  and  a  half;  and  it 
appears  from  the  fragments  of  them,  cited  by  Plutarch 
and  the  grammarians,  that  they  chiefly  related  to  the 
memorable  political  events  of  that  important  interval, 
and  to  a  literary  controversy  which  subsisted  between 
Cicero  and  Brutus,  with  regard  to  the  attributes  of 
perfect  eloquence.1 

1  A  few  unimportant  letters  which  had  passed  between  these 
two  great  men,  during  Cicero's  proconsulship  in  Cilicia,  were  in- 
cluded among  the  Epistolce  Familiares,  and  are  of  undisputed  au- 
thenticity. It  does  not  seem  clear,  whether  they  ever  formed  part 
of  the  great  collection  of  eight  books,  which  contained  the  sub- 
sequent correspondence  between  Cicero  and  Brutus. 


cicero.  473 

This  collection  is  mentioned,  and  passages  cited 
from  it,  by  Quintilian,  Plutarch,  and  even  Nonius 
Marcellus,1  who  lived  about  the  year  400.  After  this, 
all  trace  of  it  is  lost,  till,  in  the  fourteenth  century, 
we  find  some  of  the  disputed  letters  in  the  possession 
of  Petrarch  ;  and  it  has  been  conjectured  that  Pe- 
trarch himself  was  the  discoverer  of  them.2  Eighteen 
of  these  letters,  which  were  all  that  were  then  known, 
were  published  at  Rome  in  1470.  Many  years  after- 
wards, five  more,  but  in  a  mutilated  state,  were  found 
in  Germany,  and  these,  in  all  subsequent  editions, 
were  printed  along  with  the  original  eighteen.  All  the 
letters  relate  to  the  situation  of  public  affairs  after 
the  death  of  Csesar.  They  contain  a  good  deal  of  re- 
crimination :  Brutus  blaming  Cicero  for  his  danger- 
ous elevation  of  Octavius,  and  conferring  honours  on 
him  too  profusely ;  Cicero  censuring  Brutus  for  hav- 
ing spared  the  life  of  Antony  at  the  time  of  the  con- 
spiracy. 

Now  the  point  in  dispute  is,  If  these  twenty-three 
letters  be  parts  of  the  original  eight  books  of  the  ge- 
nuine correspondence  of  Cicero  and  Brutus,  so  often 
cited  by  Plutarch,  Quintilian,  and  Nonius  ;  or  if  they 
be  the  forgery  of  some  monk  or  sophist,  during  the 
dark  ages  which  elapsed  between  the  time  of  Nonius 
and  Petrarch. 

1  Middleton's  Pref.  to  the  Epistles  of  Cicero  and  Brutus,  p.  4. 
London,  1743. 

2  Tunstall,  Observations,  &c.  p.  27- 


474  cicero. 

From  their  very  first  appearance,  the  eighteen  let- 
ters, which  had  come  into  the  possession  of  Petrarch, 
passed  among  the  learned  for  original  epistles  of  Ci- 
cero and  Brutus  ;  and  the  five  discovered  in  Germany, 
though  douhted  for  a  while,  were  soon  received  into 
the  same  rank  with  the  others.  Erasmus  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  who  suspected  the  whole  to  be  the  de- 
clamatory composition  of  some  rhetorician  or  sophist. 
They  continued,  however,  to  be  cited  by  every  other 
commentator,  critic,  and  historian,  as  the  unquestion- 
able remains  of  the  great  author  to  whom  they  were 
ascribed.  Middleton,  in  particular,  in  his  Life  of  Ci- 
cero, freely  referred  to  them  as  biographical  authori- 
ties, along  with  the  Familiar  Epistles,  and  those  to 
Atticus. 

Matters  were  in  this  situation,  when  Tunstall,  in 
1741,  addressed  a  Latin  Epistle  to  Middleton,  writ- 
ten professedly  to  introduce  a  proposal  for  a  new  edi- 
tion of  Cicero's  letters  to  Atticus,  and  his  brother 
Quintus.  In  the  first  part  of  this  epistle,  he  attempt- 
ed to  retrieve  the  original  readings  of  these  authentic 
treasures  of  Ciceronian  history,  and  asserted  their  ge- 
nuine sense  against  the  corruptions  or  false  interpre- 
tations of  them,  which  had  led  to  many  erroneous  con- 
clusions in  Middleton's  Life  of  Cicero.  In  the  second 
part,  he  denies  the  authenticity  of  the  whole  corre- 
spondence between  Cicero  and  Brutus,  which  he  al- 
leges is  the  production  of  some  sophist  or  scholiast  of 
the  middle  ages,  who  probably  wrote  them,  according 
to  the  practice  of  those  days,  as  an  exercise  for  his 


ciCEiio.  475 

rhetorical  talents,  and  with  the  view  either  of  draw- 
ing up  a  supplement  to  the  Epistles  to  Atticus,  so  as 
to  carry  on  the  history  from  the  period  at  which  they 
terminate,  or  to  vindicate  Cicero's  character  from  the 
imputation  of  rashness,  in  throwing  too  much  power 
into  the  hands  of  Octavius.  Tunstall  farther  thinks, 
that  the  leading  subject  of  these  letters  was  suggest- 
ed to  the  sophist  by  a  passage  in  Plutarch's  Life  of 
Brutus,  where  it  is  mentioned  that  Brutus  had  remon- 
strated with  Cicero,  and  complained  of  him  to  their 
mutual  friend  Atticus,  for  the  court  he  paid  to  Octa- 
vius, which  showed  that  his  aim  was  not  to  procure 
liberty  for  his  country,  but  a  kind  master  to  himself. 

Middleton  soon  afterwards  published  an  English 
translation  of  the  whole  correspondence  between  Bru- 
tus and  Cicero,  with  notes  ;  and,  in  a  prefatory  dis- 
sertation, written  with  considerable  and  unprovoked 
asperity,  he  attempted  to  vindicate  the  authority  of  the 
epistles,  and  to  answer  the  objections  of  Tunstall.  His 
adversary  replied  in  an  immense  English  work,  of 
more  than  400  pages,  entitled,  "  Observations  on  the 
present  Collection  of  Epistles  between  Cicero  and 
Brutus,  representing  several  evident  marks  of  Forgery 
in  those  Epistles,  in  Answer  to  the  late  Pretences  of 
Dr  Middleton:  1744." 

It  is  difficult  to  give  any  sketch  of  the  argumentative 
part  of  this  famed  controversy,  as  the  merit  of  all  such 
discussion  consists  in  the  extreme  accuracy  and  mi- 
nuteness of  investigation.  The  main  scope,  however, 
of  the  objections,  is  thus  generally  exhibited  by  Tun- 


476  cicero. 

stall  in  his  Latin  epistle.  He  declares,  "  that  as  he 
came  fresh  from  the  perusal  of  Cicero's  genuine  letters, 
he  perceived  that  those  to  Brutus  wanted  the  beauty 
and  copiousness  of  the  Ciceronian  diction — that  the 
epistles,  both  of  Brutus  and  Cicero,  were  drawn  in  the 
same  style  and  manner  of  colouring,  and  trimmed  up 
with  so  much  art  and  diligence,  that  they  seemed  to 
proceed  rather  from  scholastic  subtlety  and  medita- 
tion, than  from  the  genuine  acts  and  affairs  of  life — 
that  when,  both  before  and  after  the  date  of  the  let- 
ters to  Atticus,  several  epistles  had  been  addressed 
from  Brutus  to  Cicero,  and  from  Cicero  to  Brutus,  it 
was  strange  that  those  which  preceded  the  letters  to 
Atticus  should  have  been  lost,  and  those  alone  remain 
which  appear  to  have  been  industriously  designed  for 
an  epilogue  to  the  Epistles  to  Atticus — that  such  rea- 
sons induced  him  to  suspect,  but  on  looking  farther 
into  the  letters  themselves,  he  discovered  many  ab- 
surdities in  the  sense,  many  improprieties  in  the  lan- 
guage, many  remarkable  predictions  of  future  events, 
both  on  Brutus's  side  and  Cicero's;  but  what  was 
most  material,  a  great  number  of  historical  facts,  not 
only  quite  new,  but  wholly  altered,  and  some  even  ap- 
parently false,  and  contradictory  to  the  genuine  works 
of  Cicero." 

Such  was  the  state  of  the  controversy,  as  it  stood 
between  Tunstall  and  Middleton.  In  1745,  the  year 
after  Middleton  had  published  his  translation  of  the 
epistles,  Markland  engaged  in  this  literary  contest, 
and  came  forward  in  opposition  to  the  authenticity 


CICERO.  477 

of  the  letters,  by  publishing  his  "  Remarks  on  the 
Epistles  of  Cicero  to  Brutus,  and  of  Brutus  to  Cicero, 
in  a  Letter  to  a  Friend."  The  arguments  of  Tun- 
stall  had  chiefly  turned  on  historical  inconsistencies— 
those  of  Markland  principally  hinge  on  phrases  to  be 
found  in  the  letters,  which  are  not  Ciceronian,  or  even 
of  pure  latinity. 

I  must  here  close  this  long  account  of  the  writings 
of  Cicero — of  Cicero,  distinguished  as  the  Consul  of 
the  republic — as  the  father  and  saviour  of  his  country 
— but  not  less  distinguished  as  the  orator,  philosopher, 
and  moralist  of  Rome. — "  Salve  primus  omnium  Pa- 
rens Patriae  appellate, — primus  in  toga  triumphum 
linguaeque  lauream  merite,  et  facundise,  Latiarumque 
Literarum  parens  :  atque  (ut  Dictator  Caesar,  hostis 
quondam  tuus,  de  te  scripsit,)  omnium  triumphorum 
lauream  adepte  majorem  ;  quanto  plus  est,  ingenii 
Romani  terminos  in  tantum  promovisse,  quam  impe- 


.In  the  former  volume  of  this  work,  I  had  traced  the 
progress  of  the  language  of  the  Romans,  and  treated 
of  the  different  poets  by  whom  it  was  adorned  till  the 
era  of  Augustus.  I  had  chiefly  occasion,  in  the  course 
of  that  part  of  my  inquiry,  to  compare  the  poetical 

1  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat. 


478  cicero. 

productions  of  Rome  with  those  of  Greece,  and  to  show 
that  the  Latin  poetry  of  this  early  age,  being  modelled 
on  that  of  Athens  or  Alexandria,  had  acquired  an  air  of 
preparation  and  authorship,  and  appeared  to  have  been 
written  to  obtain  the  cold  approbation  of  the  public, 
or  smiles  of  a  Patrician  patron,  while  the  native  lines 
of  the  Grecian  bards  seem  to  be  poured  forth  like  the 
Delphic  oracles,  because  the  god  which  inspired  them 
was  too  great  to  be  contained  within  the  bosom.  In 
the  prose  compositions  of  the  Romans,  which  have  been 
considered  in  the  present  volume,  though  the  exem- 
plaria  Grceca  were  still  the  models  of  style,  we  have 
not  observed  the  same  servility  of  imitation.  The 
agricultural  writers  of  Latium  treated  of  a  subject  in 
a  great  measure  foreign  to  the  maritime  feelings  and 
commercial  occupations  of  the  Greeks ;  while,  in  the 
Latin  historians,  orators,  and  philosophers,  we  listen 
to  a  tone  of  practical  utility,  derived  from  the  familiar 
acquaintance  which  their  authors  exercised  with  the 
affairs  of  life.  The  old  Latin  historians  were  for  the 
most  part  themselves  engaged  in  the  affairs  they  re- 
lated, and  almost  every  oration  of  Cicero  was  actually 
delivered  in  the  Senate  or  Forum.  Among  the  Ro- 
mans, philosophy  was  not,  as  it  had  been  with  many 
of  the  Greeks,  an  academic  dream  or  speculation, 
which  was  substituted  for  the  realities  of  life.  In 
Rome,  philosophic  inquiries  were  chiefly  prosecuted 
as  supplying  arguments  and  illustrations  to  the  patron 
for  his  conflicts  in  the  Forum,  and  as  guiding  the  ci- 
tizen in  the  discharge  of  his  duties  to  the  common- 


CICERO. 


479 


wealth.  Those  studies,  in  short,  alone  were  valued, 
which,  as  it  is  beautifully  expressed  by  Cicero,  in  the 
person  of  Laelius — "  Efficiant  ut  usui  civitati  simus : 
id  enim  esse  prseclarissimum  sapientiae  munus,  maxi- 
mumque  virtutis  documentum  puto." 


ACADEMIi         CICEIOKIS, 


APPENDIX. 


VOL.  II. 


2  II 


"  Some  felt  the  silent  stroke  of  mouldering  age, 
Some  hostile  fury,  some  religious  rage  : 
Barbarian  blindness,  Christian  zeal  conspire, 
And  Papal  piety,  and  Gothic  fire." 

Pope's  Epistle  to  Adduon 


APPENDIX. 


In  order  to  be  satisfied  as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  works  com- 
monly called  Classical,  it  is  important  to  ascertain  in  what  man- 
ner they  were  given  to  the  public  by  their  respective  authors— 
to  trace  how  they  were  preserved  during  the  long  night  of  the 
dark  ages — and  to  point  out  by  whom  their  perishing  remains 
were  first  discovered  at  the  return  of  light.  Nor  will  it  be  un- 
interesting to  follow  up  this  sketch  by  an  enumeration  of  the 
principal  Editions  of  the  Classics  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
pages,  and  of  the  best  Translations  of  them  which,  from  time  to 
time,  have  appeared  in  the  Italian,  French,  and  English  lan- 
guages. 

The  manuscripts  of  the  Latin  Classics,  during  the  existence  of 
the  Roman  republic  and  empire,  may  be  divided  into  what  have 
been  called  notata  and  perscripta.  The  former  were  those  written 
by  the  author  himself,  or  his  learned  slaves,  in  contractions  or 
signs  which  stood  for  syllables  and  words  ;  the  latter,  those  which 
were  fully  transcribed  in  the  ordinary  characters  by  the  librarius, 
who  was  employed  by  the  bibliopoles,  or  booksellers,  to  prepare  the 
productions  of  an  author  for  public  sale. 

The  books  written  in  the  hand  of  the  authors  were  probably  not 
very  legible,  at  least  if  we  may  judge  of  ethers  by  Cicero.  His 
brother  Quintus  had  complained  that  he  could  not  read  his  letters, 
and  Cicero  says  in  reply  :  "  Scribis  te  meas  literas  superiores  vix 
legere  potuisse ;  hoc  facio  semper  ut  quicumque  calamus  in  manus 
meas  venerit,  eo  sic  utar  tamquam  bono."1 

1  Epitt.  ad  Quint.  FraU  Lib.  II.  Ep.  15. 


484  APPENDIX. 

But  the  works, — at  least  the  prose  works,— of  the  Romans  were 
seldom  written  out  in  the  hand  of  the  author,  and  were  generally 
dictated  hyhim  to  some  slave  or  freedm an  instructed  in  penmanship. 
It  is  well  known  that  many  of  the  orations  of  Cicero,  Cato,  and  their 
great  rhetorical  contemporaries,  were  taken  down  by  short-hand 
writers  stationed  in  the  Senate  or  Forum.  But  even  the  works  most 
carefully  prepared  in  the  closet  were  notata,  in  a  similar  manner, 
by  slaves  and  freedmen.  There  was  no  part  of  his  learned  com- 
positions on  which  Cicero  took  more  pains,  or  about  which  his 
thoughts  were  more  occupied,1  than  the  dedication  of  the  Acade- 
mica  to  Varro,  and  even  this  he  dictated  to  his  slave  Spintharus, 
though  he  did  so  slowly,  word  by  word,  and  not  in  whole  sen- 
tences to  Tiro,  as  was  his  practice  in  his  other  productions. 
"  Male  mihi  sit,"  says  he  in  a  letter  to  Atticus,  "  si  umquam 
quidquam  tarn  enitar.  Ergo  ne  Tironi  quidem  dictavi,  qui  totas 
pcriochas  persequi  solet,  sed  Spintharo  syllabatim."2 

This  practice  of  authors  dictating  their  works  created  a  neces- 
sity, or  at  least  a  conveniency,  of  writing  with  rapidity,  and  of 
employing  contractions,  or  conventional  marks,  in  almost  every 
word. 

Accordingly,  from  the  earliest  periods  of  Roman  literature, 
words  were  contracted,  or  were  signified  by  notes,  which  some- 
times stood  for  more  than  one  letter,  sometimes  for  syllables,  and 
at  other  times  for  whole  words.  Funccius,  who  maintains  that 
Adam  was  the  first  short-hand  writer,3  has  asserted,  with  more 
truth,  that  the  Romans  contracted  their  words  from  the  remotest 
ages  of  the  republic,  and  to  a  greater  degree  than  any  other  an- 
cient nation.  Sometimes  the  abbreviations  consisted  merely  in 
writing  the  initial  letter  instead  of  the  whole  word.  Thus  P.  C. 
stood  for  Patres  Conscripti ;  C.  R.,  for  Civis  Romanus ;  S.  N.  L., 
for  Socii  Nominis  Latini.  This  sort  of  contraction  being  employed 
in  words  frequently  recurring,  and  which  in  one  sense  might  be 
termed  public,  and  being  also  universally  recognized,  would  rare- 
ly produce  any  misapprehension  or  mistake-  But  frequently  the 
abbreviations  were  much  more  complex,  and  the  leading  letters  of 


1  Epi.it.  Ad.  Attic.  Lib.  XIII.  passim,  cd.  Schutz.         2  Ibid.  Epist.  25. 
3  Dc  Pueritia  Ling.  Lat.  c.  I.  §  10.     Adamum  scribcndi  atque  signaudi 
modum  prasmonstrasse  primitus  ratio  ipsa  persuadet. 


APPENDIX.  485 

words  in  less  common  use  being  notata,  the  contractions  became 
of  much  more  difficult  and  dubious  interpretation.  For  example, 
Meit.  expressed  meminit ;  Acus.,  Acerbus ;  Quit.,  quaerit ;  Ror., 
Rhetor. 

For  the  sake,  however,  of  yet  greater  expedition  in  writing, 
and  perhaps,  in  some  few  instances,  for  the  purpose  of  secrecy, 
signs  or  marks,  which  could  be  currently  made  with  one  dash  or 
scratch  of  the  stylus,  and  without  lifting  or  turning  it,  came  to 
be  employed,  instead  of  those  letters  which  were  themselves  the 
abbreviations  of  words.  Some  writers  have  supposed  that  these 
signs  were  entirely  arbitrary,1  whilst  others  have,  with  more  pro- 
bability, maintained  that  their  forms  can  be  resolved  or  analysed 
into  the  figures,  or  parts  of  the  figures,  of  the  letters  themselves 
which  they  were  intended  to  represent,  though  they  have  often 
departed  far  from  the  shape  of  the  original  characters.2  Ennius 
is  said  to  have  invented  1100  of  these  signs,3  which  he  no  doubt 
employed  in  his  multifarious  compositions.  Others  came  into 
gradual  use  in  the  manual  operation  of  writing  with  rapidity  to 
dictation.  Tiro,  the  favourite  freedman  of  Cicero,  greatly  in- 
creased the  number,  and  brought  this  sort  of  tachygraphy  to  its 
greatest  perfection  among  the  Romans. 

In  consequence  of  this  fashion  of  authors  dictating  their  works, 
expedition  came  to  be  considered  of  the  utmost  importance ;  it 
was  regarded  as  the  chief  accomplishment  of  an  amanuensis;  and 
he  alone  was  considered  as  perfect  in  his  art,  whose  pen  could 
equal  the  rapidity  of  utterance  : 

Hie  et  scriptor  erit  felix,  cui  litera  verbura  est, 
Quique  notis  linguam  superet,  cursumque  loquentis, 
Excipiens  Ion  gas  per  nova  compendia  voces.4 

These  lines  were  written  by  a  poet  of  the  age  of  Augustus,  and 
it  appears  from  Martial,6  Ausonius,6  and  Prudentius,  that  this 
system  of  dictation  by  the  author,  and  rapid  notation  by  his 


1  Lennep,  De  Tirone,  p.  ^^.    Ed.  Amsteld.  1804. 

2  Kopp,  PalcEOgraphia  Critica.    Ed.  Manheim,  1817-     2  Tom.  4to. 

3  Isidorus,  Originum,  Lib.  I.  c.  21. 

4  Manilius,  Astronom.  Lib.  IV.  v.  197- 

5  Lib.  XIV.  Epig.  202.  6  Epigr.  138. 


486  APPENDIX. 

amanuensis,  continued  in  practice  during  the  later  ages  of  the 
empire. 

Such  was  the  mode  in  which  most  of  the  writings  of  the  an- 
cients came  originally  from  their  authors,  and  were  delivered  to 
those  friends  who  were  desirous  to  possess  copies,  or  to  the  book- 
sellers to  be  perscripta,  or  transcribed,  for  publication. 

There  exists  sufficient  proof  of  the  high  estimation  in  which 
accurate  transcriptions  of  the  works  of  their  own  writers  were  held 
by  the  Romans.  The  correctness  of  printing,  however,  could  not 
be  expected.  In  the  original  notation,  some  mistakes  might  pro- 
bably be  made  from  carelessness  of  pronunciation  in  the  author 
who  dictated,  and  haste  in  his  amanuensis ;  but  the  great  source 
of  errors  in  MSS.  was  the  blunders  made  by  the  librarius  in  copy- 
ing out  from  the  noted  exemplar.  There  was  the  greatest  ambi- 
guity and  doubt  in  the  interpretation,  both  of  words  contracted 
in  the  ordinary  character  and  in  the  artificial  signs.  Sometimes 
the  same  word  was  expressed  by  different  letters ;  thus  MR.  MT. 
MTR.  all  expressed  Mater.  Sometimes,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
same  set  of  letters  expressed  different  words ;  for  instance,  ACT. 
signified  Actor,  Auctoritas,  and  Haclenus.  The  collocation  of  the 
letters  was  often  inverted  from  the  order  in  which  they  stood  in 
the  word  when  fully  expressed ;  and  frequently  one  letter  had  not 
merely  its  own  power,  but  that  of  several  others.  Thus  AMO. 
signified  animo,  because  M  had  there  not  only  its  own  force,  but, 
as  its  shape  in  some  measure  announces,  the  power  of  ni  also. 
Matters  were  still  worse,  when  not  only  abbreviations,  but  signs 
had  been  resorted  to.  These  were  variously  employed  by  different 
writers,  and  were  also  differently  interpreted  by  transcribers. 
Some  of  these  signs  were  extremely  similar  in  form  :  it  was 
scarcely  possible  to  discriminate  the  sign  which  denoted  the 
syllable  ab  from  that  which  expressed  the  syllable  urn  ;  and  the 
signs  of  the  syllables  is  and  it  were  nearly  undistinguishable ;  while 
ad  and  at  were  precisely  the  same.  The  mark  which  expressed  the 
word  talis,  being  a  little  more  sloped  or  inclined,  expressed  qualis  ; 
and  the  difference  in  the  Tironian  signs  which  stood  for  the  com- 
plete words  Ager  and  Amicus,  was  scarcely  perceptible.1 

The  ancient  Latin  writers  also  employed  a  number  of  marks  to 
denote  the  accents  of  words,  and  the  quantities  of  syllables.    The 

1  Kopp,  Palaogiaphia  Critha. 


APPENDIX.  487 

oldest  writers,  as  Livius  Andronicus  and  Naevius,  always  placed 
two  vowels  when  a  syllable  was  to  be  pronounced  long.1  Attius, 
the  great  tragic  author,  was  the  first  to  relinquish  this  usage ; 
and  after  his  time,  in  conformity  to  the  new  practice  which  he  had 
adopted,  a  certain  mark  was  placed  over  the  long  vowels.  When 
this  custom  also  (which  is  stigmatized  by  Quintilian  as  ineptis- 
simus2)  fell  into  disuse,  the  mark  was  frequently  misunderstood, 
and  Funccius  has  given  several  examples  of  corruptions  and  false 
readings  from  the  mistake  of  transcribers,  who  supposed  that  it 
was  intended  to  express  an  m,  an  n,  or  other  letters.3 

In  addition  to  all  this,  little  attention  was  paid  to  the  separa- 
tion of  words  and  sentences,  and  the  art  of  punctuation  was  but 
imperfectly  understood. 

Finally,  and  above  all,  the  orthography  of  Latin  was  extreme- 
ly fluctuating  and  uncertain.  We  have  seen,  in  an  early  part  of 
this  work,  how  it  varied  in  the  time  of  the  republic,  and  it,  in  fact, 
never  became  fixed.  Mai  talks  repeatedly,  in  his  preface,  of  the 
strange  inconsistencies  of  spelling  in  the  Codex,  which  contained 
Cicero's  work  De  Republica  ;  and  Cassiodorus,  who  of  all  his  con- 
temporaries chiefly  cultivated  literature  during  the  reign  of  the 
barbarians  in  Italy,  often  regrets  that  the  ancient  Romans  had 
left  their  orthography  encumbered  with  the  utmost  difficulties. 
"  Orthographia,"  says  he,  "  apud  Grsecos  plerumque  sine  ambi- 
guitate  probatur  expressa ;  inter  Latinos  vero  sub  ardua  difficul- 
tate  relicta  monstratur ;  unde  etiam  modo  studium  magnum  lec- 
toris  inquiret," 

In  consequence  of  this  dictation  to  short-hand,  and  this  uncer- 
tain orthography,  we  find  that  the  corruption  of  the  classics  had 
begun  at  a  very  early  period.  The  ninth  Satire  of  Lucilius  was 
directed  against  the  ridiculous  blunders  of  transcribers,  and  con- 
tained rules  for  greater  correctness.  Cicero,  in  his  letters  to  his 
brother  Quintus,  bitterly  complains  of  the  errors  of  copyists, — 
"  De  Latinis  vero,  quo  me  vertam,  nescio ;  ita  mendose  et  scri- 
buntur,  et  veneunt."4  Strabo  says,  that  in  his  time  booksellers 
employed  ignorant  transcribers,  who  neglected  to  compare  what 
they  wrote  with  the  exemplar  ;  which,  he  adds,  has  occurred  in 

1  Quintil.  Inst.  Orator.  Lib.  I.  c.  3.  2  Ibid. 

3  Funccius,  De  Virili  JEtat.  Ling.  Lat.  Pars  II.  c.  8.  §  9. 

4  Epitt.M  Quint.  Frat.  Lib.  III.  Ep.  o. 


488  APPENDIX. 

many  works,  copied  for  the  purpose  of  being  sold,  both  at  Rome 
and  Alexandria.1  Martial,  too,  thus  cautions  his  reader  against 
the  mistakes  occasioned  by  the  inaccuracy  and  haste  of  the  ven- 
ders of  books,  and  the  transcribers  whom  they  employed  : 

*•  Si  qua  videbuntur  chartis  tibi,  lector,  in  istis, 

Sive  obscura  nimis,  sive  Latina  parum  ; 
Non  meus  est  error  :  nocuit  Librarius  illis, 

Dum  properat  versus  annumerare  tibi."2 

Aulus  Gellius  repeatedly  complains  of  the  inaccuracy  of  copies  in 
his  time  :  We  learn  from  him,  that  the  writings  of  the  greatest 
Classics  were  already  corrupted  and  falsified,  not  only  by  the  ca- 
sual errors  of  copyists,  but  by  the  deliberate  perversions  of  cri- 
tics, who  boldly  altered  everything  that  was  too  elegant  or  poeti- 
cal for  their  own  taste  and  understanding.3  To  the  numerous 
corruptions  in  the  text  of  Sallust  he  particularly  refers.4 

The  practice,  too,  of  abridging  larger  works,  particularly  his- 
tories, and  extracting  from  them,  was  injurious  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  MSS.  This  practice,  occasioned  by  the  scarcity  of  paper, 
began  as  early  as  the  time  of  Brutus,  who  extracted  even  from 
the  meagre  annals  of  his  country.  These  excerpts  seldom  com- 
pensated for  the  originals,  but  made  them  be  neglected,  and  in 
consequence  they  were  lost. 

It  seems  also  probable,  that  the  destruction  of  the  treasures  of 
classical  literature  commenced  at  a  very  early  period.  Varro's 
library,  which  was  the  most  extensive  private  collection  of  books 
in  Italy,  was  ruined  and  dispersed  when  his  villa  was  occupied  by 
Antony  ;*>  and  some  of  his  own  treatises,  as  that  addressed  to  Pom- 
pey  on  the  duties  of  the  Consulship,  were  irretrievably  lost.  Pre- 
vious to  the  art  of  printing,  books,  in  consequence  of  their  great 
scarcity  and  value,  were  chiefly  heaped  up  in  public  libraries. 
Several  of  these  were  consumed  in  the  fire,  by  which  so  many 
temples  were  burned  to  the  ground  in  the  reign  of  Nero,6  parti- 
cularly the  library  in  the  temple  of  Apollo,  on  the  Palatine  Hill, 
which  was  founded  by  Augustus,  and  contained  all  the  Roman 
poets  and  historians  previous  to  his  age.   This  literary  establish- 

»  Geograph.  Lib.  XIII.  2  Lib.  II.  Ep.  8. 

8  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  II.  c.  14.  et  passim.  *  Ibid.  Lib.  XX.  c.  6. 

5  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  III.  c  10. 

6  Tacit.  Annal.  Lib.  XV.  c.  38—41. 


APPENDIX.  489 

ment  having  been  restored  as  far  as  was  possible  by  Domitian,  suf- 
fered a  second  time  by  the  flames ;  and  the  extensive  library  of 
the  Capitol  perished  in  a  fire  during  the  reign  of  Commodus.1 
When  it  is  considered,  that  at  these  periods  the  copies  of  Latin 
works  were  few,  and  chiefly  confined  within  the  walls  of  Rome, 
some  notion  may  be  formed  of  the  extent  of  the  loss  sustained  by 
these  successive  conflagrations. 

From  the  portentous  aera  of  the  death  of  Pertinax,  the  brief 
reign  of  each  succeeding  emperor  ended  in  assassination,  civil  war, 
and  revolution.  The  imperial  throne  was  filled  by  soldiers  of  for- 
tune, who  came  like  shadows,  and  like  shadows  departed.  Rome 
at  length  ceased  to  be  the  fixed  and  habitual  residence  of  her 
sovereigns,  who  were  now  generally  employed  at  a  distance  in  the 
field,  in  repelling  foreign  enemies,  or  repressing  usurpers.  While 
it  is  certain,  that  during  this  period  many  of  the  finest  monu- 
ments of  the  arts  were  destroyed,  and  some  of  the  most  splendid 
works  of  architecture  defaced,  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  the 
frail  texture  of  the  parchment,  or  papyrus,  should  have  resisted 
the  stroke  of  sudden  ruin,  or  the  gradual  mouldering  of  neglect. 

But  the  chief  destruction  took  place  after  the  removal  of  the 
seat  of  empire  by  Constantine.  The  loss  of  so  many  classical 
works  subsequently  to  that  rera,  has  been  attributed  chiefly  to 
the  irruption  of  the  northern  barbarians ;  but  it  was  fully  as 
much  owing  to  the  blind  zeal  of  the  early  Christians.  Many  of 
the  public  libraries  were  placed  in  temples,  and  hence  were  the 
more  exposed  to  the  fury  of  the  proselytes  to  the  new  faith.  This 
devastation  began  in  Italy  in  the  fourth  century,  before  the  bar- 
barians had  penetrated  to  the  heart  of  the  empire ;  and,  in  the 
same  century,  if  Sulpicius  Severus  may  be  credited,  Bishop  Mar- 
tin undertook  a  crusade  against  the  temples  of  the  Gauls.2  St 
Augustine,  St  Jerome,  and  Lactantius,  indeed,  knew  the  classics 
well ;  but  they  considered  them  as  a  sort  of  forbidden  fruit :  and 
St  Jerome,  as  he  himself  informs  us,  was  whipped  by  an  angel  for 
perusing  Plautus  and  Cicero.3  The  following  or  fifth  century, 
was  distinguished  by  the  first  capture  of  Rome,  and  its  successive 


1  Joann.  Sarisberiensis,  De  Nug.  Curial.  Lib.  VIII.  c.  19.     Lursenius, 
Dissert.  De  Bibliothecis  Veterum,  p.  297. 

2  Sulp.  Severus,  De  Martini  Vita,  c.  16. 

3  Ejpist.  XVIII.  Opera. 


490  APPENDIX. 

devastations  by  Alaric,  Geuseric,  and  Attila.  In  the  latter  part 
of  the  century,  Milan,  too,  was  plundered ;  which,  next  to  Rome, 
was  the  chief  repository  of  books  in  Italy. 

Monachism,  which,  in  its  first  institution,  particularly  in  the 
east,  had  been  so  destructive  of  literary  works,  became,  when 
more  advanced  in  its  progress,  a  chief  cause  of  their  preservation. 
When  the  monks  were  at  length  united,  in  a  species  of  civil  union, 
under  the  fixed  rules  of  St  Benedict,  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth 
century,  the  institution  contributed,  if  not  to  the  diffusion  of  li- 
terature, at  least  to  the  preservation  of  literary  works.  There 
was  no  prohibition  in  the  ordinances  of  St  Benedict  against  the 
reading  of  classical  writings,  as  in  those  of  St  Isidore :  and  the 
consequence  was,  that  wherever  any  abbot,  or  even  monk,  had  a 
taste  for  letters,  books  were  introduced  into  the  convent.  We 
have  a  remarkable  example  of  this  in  the  instance  of  Cassiodorus, 
whose  genius,  learning,  and  virtue,  shed  a  lustre  on  one  of  the 
darkest  periods  of  Italian  history.  After  his  pre-eminent  services 
as  a  minister  of  state  during  the  reign  of  Theodoric,  and  regency 
of  Amalasuntha,  he  retired,  in  the  year  540,  when  he  had  reach- 
ed the  age  of  seventy,  to  the  monastery  of  Monte  Casino,  situated 
in  a  most  delightful  spot,  near  the  place  of  his  birth,  in  Calabria. 
There  he  became  as  serviceable  to  literature  as  he  had  formerly 
been  to  the  state  ;  and  the  convent  to  which  he  betook  himself 
deserves  to  be  first  mentioned  in  any  future  history  of  the  preser- 
vation of  the  Classics.  Before  his  entrance  into  it,  he  possessed 
an  extensive  library,  with  which  he  enriched  the  cloister  ;l  and 
subsequently  enlarged  it  by  a  collection  of  MSS.,  which  he  caused 
to  be  brought  to  him  from  various  quarters  of  Italy.  There  is 
still  extant  his  order  to  a  monk  to  procure  for  him  Albinus'  trea- 
tise on  Music ;  which  shows,  that  his  collection  was  not  entirely 
confined  to  theological  treatises  :  while  his  work  De  Artibus  ac 
Disciplitiis  liberalium  Literarum,  is  an  ample  testimony  of  his 
classical  learning,  and  of  the  value  which  he  attached  to  it.  His 
library  contained,  at  least,  Ennius,  Terence,  Lucretius,  Varro, 
Cicero,  and  Sallust.2  The  monks  of  his  convent  were  excited  by  him 
to  the  transcription  of  MSS. ;  and,  in  his  work  De  Orthographia , 
he  did  not  disdain  to  give  minute  directions  for  copying  with  fa- 

1  Cassiodor.  Opera. 

2  Petit-Radcl,  Rcchcnhei  sur  let  Bibliotli.  Ancknneu 


APPENDIX.  491 

cility  and  correctness.  Thus,  in  collecting  an  ample  library — in 
diffusing  copies  of  ancient  MSS. — in  verbal  instructions,  written 
lectures,  and  the  composition  of  voluminous  works — he  closed,  in 
the  service  of  religion  and  learning,  a  long  and  meritorious  life. 

The  example  of  Cassiodorus  was  followed  in  other  convents. 
About  half  a  century  after  his  death,  Columbanus  founded  a  mo- 
nastery of  Benedictines  at  Bobbio,  a  town  situated  among  the 
northern  Apennines.  This  religious  society,  as  Tiraboschi  in- 
forms us,  was  remarkable,  not  only  for  the  sanctity  of  its  man- 
ners, but  the  cultivation  of  literature.  It  was  fortunate  that  re- 
ceptacles for  books  had  now  been  thus  provided,  as  otherwise  the 
treasures  of  classical  literature  in  Italy  would,  in  all  likelihood, 
have  totally  perished  during  the  wars  of  Belisarius,  and  Narses, 
and  the  invasion  of  Totila.  It  is  in  the  age  of  Cassiodorus, — that 
is,  the  beginning  and  middle  of  the  sixth  century, — that  Tira- 
boschi places  the  serious  and  systematic  commencement  of  the 
transcription  of  the  classics.1  He  mentions  the  names  of  some 
of  the  most  eminent  copyists ;  but  a  fuller  list  had  been  previous- 
ly furnished  by  Fabricius.3 

In  Gregory  the  Great,  who  was  Pope  at  the  end  of  the  sixth 
and  beginning  of  the  seventh  century,  literature,  according  to  po- 
pular belief,  found  an  enemy  in  the  west,  as  fatal  to  its  interests 
as  the  Caliph  Omar  had  been  in  the  east.  This  pontiff  was 
accused  of  burning  a  classical  library,  and  also  some  valuable 
works,  which  had  replaced  those  formerly  consumed  in  the  Pala- 
tine library.  John  of  Salisbury  is  the  sole  authority  for  this 
charge ;  and  even  he,  who  lived  six  centuries  after  the  age  of 
Gregory,  only  mentions  it  as  a  tradition  and  report :  "  Fertur 
Beatus  Gregorius  bibliothecam  combussisse  gentilem,  quo  divinae 
paginse  gratior  esset  locus,  et  major  auctoritas,  et  diligentia  stu- 
diosior  ;"3  and  again,  "  Ut  traditur  a  majoribus,  incendio  dedit 
probatse  lectionis  scripta,  Palatums  qua;cunque  tenebat  Apollo."4 
Cardan  informs  us,  that  Gregory  also  caused  the  plays  of  Naevius, 
Ennius,  and  Afranius,  to  be  burned.  That  he  suppressed  the 
works  of  Cicero,  rests  on  the  authority  of  a  passage  in  an  edict 
published  by  Louis  XL,  dated  1473,  and  quoted  by  Lyron  in  his 
Singularitez  Historiqucs.5    St  Antonius,  who  was  Archbishop  of 

1  Stor.  dell  Letter.  Hal.  Part  I.  Lib.  I.         *  Bibliotheca  Latin. 
3  De  Nug.  Cur.  Lib.  VIII.  c.  19.  *  Ibid.  Lib.  II.  c  26. 

5  Tom.  I. 


492  APPENDIX- 

Florence  in  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century,  is  cited  by  Vos- 
sius  as  the  most  ancient  author  who  has  asserted  that  he  burned 
the  decades  of  Livy.1  These  charges  have  been  strenuously  sup- 
ported by  Brucker  ;2  while  Tiraboschi,  on  the  other  hand,  has  en- 
deavoured to  vindicate  the  memory  of  the  pontiff  from  all  such 
aspersions.3  Bayle  has  adopted  a  prudent  neutrality.*  Denina6 
and  Ginguene,6  the  most  recent  authors  who  have  touched  on  the 
subject,  seem  to  consider  the  question,  after  all  that  has  been 
written  on  it,  as  still  doubtful,  and  not  likely  to  receive  any  far- 
ther elucidation.  It  appears  certain,  that  Gregory  disliked  clas- 
sical, or  profane  literature,  on  account  of  the  oracles,  idolatry,  and 
rites,  with  which  it  is  associated,  and  that  he  prohibited  its  study 
by  the  clergy  ;7 — whence  may,  perhaps,  have  originated  the  re- 
ports of  his  wilfully  destroying  the  then  surviving  libraries  and 
books  of  Rome. 

During  the  course  of  the  two  centuries  which  followed  the 
death  of  Gregory,  Italy  was  divided  between  the  Greeks  and 
Lombards,  and  was  torn  by  spiritual  dissensions.  The  most  nu- 
merous and  barbarous  swarm  which  had  yet  crossed  the  Alps  was 
the  Lombards,  who  descended  on  Italy,  under  their  king,  Alboi- 
nus,  in  568,  immediately  after  the  death  of  Narses.  It  was  no 
longer  a  tribe  or  army  by  which  Italy  was  invaded  ;  but  a  whole 
nation  of  old  men,  women,  and  children,  covered  its  plains.  This 
ignorant  and  ferocious  race  spread  themselves  from  the  Alps  to 
Rome  during  the  seventh  and  eighth  centuries.  And  although 
Rome  itself  escaped  the  Lombard  dominion,  the  horrors  of  a  ]>er- 
petual  siege  can  alone  convey  an  adequate  idea  of  its  distressed 
situation.  The  feuds  of  the  Lombard  chiefs,  their  wars  with  the 
Greeks,  who  still  remained  masters  of  Rome,  and  at  length  with 
the  Franks,  (all  which  contests  were  marked  with  fire  and  mas- 
sacre,) made  a  desert  of  the  Peninsular  garden.8  Hitherto  the  su- 

1  De  Historicis  Latinis,  Lib.  I.  c.  19. 

8  Hist.  Critic.  Philosoph.  Tom.  III. 

3  Sior.  dell  Lctterat.  Jtal.  Tom.  III.  Lib.  II.  c  2. 
*  Diet.  Histor.  Art.  Gregoibe. 

5  Vicende  delta  Lctteratura,  Lib.  I.  c.  3. 

6  Hist.  Litter.  d'lUlie^  Tom.  I.  c  2. 

7  Bayle,  Diction.  Histor.  Art.  Gregoike.  Rem.  M.  Gibbon's  Decline 
and  Fall  of  the  Rom.  Emj>.  c.  45. 

9  Muiatori,  Antiquitatcs  Italia:  Med.  JEvi.  Tom.  III.  p.  853.  cd.  Milan, 
1741. 


APPENDIX.  493 

perstitlous  feelings  of  the  northern  hordes  had  inspired  them  with 
some  degree  of  respect  for  the  sacerdotal  order  which  they  found 
established  in  Italy.  Reverence  for  the  person  of  the  priest  had 
extended  itself  to  the  security  of  his  property,  and  while  the  pa- 
lace and  castle  were  wrapt  in  flames,  the  convent  escaped  sacri- 
lege. But  the  Lombards  extended  their  fury  to  objects  which 
their  rude  predecessors  had  generally  respected ;  and  learning 
was  now  attacked  in  her  most  vulnerable  part.  Amid  the  general 
destruction,  the  monasteries  and  their  libraries  were  no  longer 
spared ;  and  with  others,  that  of  Monte  Casino,  one  of  the  most 
valuable  and  extensive  in  Italy,  was  plundered  by  the  Lombards.1 
Some  books  preserved  in  the  sack  of  the  libraries  were  carried 
back  by  these  invaders  to  their  native  country,  and  a  few  were 
saved  by  monks,  who  sought  refuge  in  other  kingdoms,  which  ac- 
counts for  the  number  of  classical  MSS.  subsequently  discovered 
in  France  and  Germany.2 

Amid  the  ruin  of  taste  and  letters  in  these  ages,  it  is  probable 
that  but  few  new  copies  were  made  from  the  MSS.  then  extant. 
Some  of  the  classics,  however,  were  still  spared,  and  remained  in 
the  monastic  libraries.  Anspert,  who  was  Abbot  of  Beneventum, 
in  the  eighth  century,  declares,  that  he  had  never  studied  Homer, 
Cicero,  or  Virgil,  which  implies,  that  they  were  still  preserved, 
and  accessible  to  his  perusal.3 

The  division  of  Italy  between  the  Lombards  and  Greeks  conti- 
nued till  the  end  of  the  eighth  century,  when  Charlemagne  put 
an  end  to  the  kingdom  of  the  former,  and  founded  his  empire. 
Whether  this  monarch  himself  had  any  pretensions  to  the  charac- 
ter of  a  scholar,  is  more  than  doubtful ;  but  whether  he  possessed 
learning  or  not,  he  was  a  generous  patron  of  those  who  did.  He 
assembled  round  his  court  such  persons  as  were  most  distinguish- 
ed for  talents  and  erudition ;  he  established  schools  and  pensioned 
scholars ;  and  he  founded  also  a  species  of  Academy,  of  which  Al- 
cuin  was  the  head,  and  in  which  every  one  adopted  a  scriptural  or 
classic  appellation.  This  tended  to  multiply  the  MSS.  of  the 
classics,  and  many  of  them  found  a  place  in  the  imperial  library 
mentioned  by  Eginhard.     Charlemagne  also  established  the  mo- 


1  Tiraboschi,  Stor.  dell  Letterat.  Ttal.  Tom.  III.  Lib.  II. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Petit-Radel,  Recherches  svr  les  Biblioth.  Anciennes,  p.  53. 


494  APPENDIX. 

nastery  of  Fulda,  and,  in  consequence,  copies  of  these  MSS.  found 
their  way  to  Germany  in  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century, i 
The  more  recent  Latin  writers,  as  Boethius,  Macrobius,  and  Ca- 
pella,  were  chiefly  popular  in  his  age ;  but  Virgil,  Cicero,  and 
Livy,  were  not  unknown.  Alcuin's  poetical  account  of  the  library 
at  York,  founded  by  Archbishop  Egbert,  and  of  which  he  himself 
had  been  the  first  librarian,  affords  us  some  notion  of  the  usual 
contents  of  the  libraries  of  that  time.— 

"•  Illic  invenies  veterum  vestigia  patrum  ; 
Quicquid  habet  pro  se  Latio  Romanus  in  orbe, 
Graecia  vel  quicquid  transmisit  clara  Latinis." 

Then,  after  enumerating  the  works  of  all  the  Fathers  which  had 
a  place  in  the  library,  he  proceeds  with  his  catalogue.— 

"  Historici  veteres,  Pompeius,  Plinius,  ipse 
Acer  Aristoteles  rhetor,  atque  Tullius  ingens ; 
Quid  quoque  Sedulius,  vel  quid  canit  ipse  Juvencus, 
Alcuinus,  et  Clemens  Prosper,  Paulinus  orator  ; 
Quid  Fortunatus  vel  quid  Lactantius  edunt. 
Quae  Maro  Virgilius,  Statius,  Lucanus  et  auctor, 
Artis  grammaticas  vel  quidjscripsere  magistri." 

But  though  there  were  libraries  in  other  countries,  Italy  always 
contained  the  greatest  number  of  classical  MSS.  In  the  ninth 
century,  Lupus,  who  was  educated  at  Fulda,  and  afterwards  be- 
came Abbot  of  Ferrieres,  a  monastery  in  the  Orleanois,  requested 
Pope  Benedict  III.  to  send  him  Cicero  de  Oratore  and  Quintilian, 
of  both  of  which  he  possessed  parts,  but  had  neither  of  them  com- 
plete ;8  and  in  another  letter  he  begs  from  Italy  a  copy  of  Sueto- 
nius.3 The  series  of  his  letters  gives  us  a  favourable  impression 
of  the  state  of  profane  literature  in  his  time.  In  his  very  first 
letter  to  Einhart,  who  had  been  his  preceptor,  he  quotes  Horace 
and  the  Tusculan  Questions.  Virgil  is  repeatedly  cited  in  the 
course  of  his  epistles,  and  the  lines  of  Catullus  are  familiarly  re- 
ferred to  as  authorities  for  the  proper  quantities  of  syllables.  Lu- 
pus did  not  confine  his  care  to  the  mere  transcription  of  MSS.  He 
bestowed  much  pains  on  the  rectification  of  the  texts,  as  is  evin- 
ced by  his  letter  to  Ansbald,  Abbot  of  Prum,  where  he  acknow- 
ledges having  received  from  him  a  copy  of  the  epistles  of  Cicero, 

1  Eichhorn,  Litterargeschichte,  ed.  Gotting.  1812. 

*  Lupi,  Epist.  103.  dated  855.  »  Ibid.  Ep.  91. 


APPENDIX.  4-95 

which  would  enable  him  to  correct  the  MSS.  of  them  which  he 
himself  possessed.1 

It  was  a  rule  in  convents,  that  those  who  embraced  the  monas- 
tic life  should  employ  some  hours  each  day  in  manual  labour ;  but 
as  all  were  not  fit  for  those  occupations  which  require  much  cor- 
poreal exertion,  many  of  the  monks  fulfilled  their  tasks  by  copy- 
ing MSS.  Transcription  thus  became  a  favourite  exercise  in  the 
ninth  century,  and  was  much  encouraged  by  the  abbots.2  In  every 
great  convent  there  was  an  apartment  called  the  Scriptorium,  in 
which  writers  were  employed  in  transcribing  such  books  as  were 
deemed  proper  for  the  library.  The  heads  of  monasteries  borrow- 
ed their  classics  from  each  other,  and,  having  copied,  returned 
them.3  By  this  means,  books  were  wonderfully  multiplied.  Li- 
braries became  the  constant  appendages  of  cloisters,  and  in  Italy 
existed  nowhere  else.  We  do  not  hear,  during  this  period,  of 
either  royal  or  private  libraries.  There  was  little  information 
among  the  priests  or  parochial  clergy,  and  almost  every  man  of 
learning  was  a  member  of  a  convent. 

But  while  MSS.  thus  increased  in  the  monasteries,  there  were, 
at  the  same  time,  during  this  century,  many  counteracting  causes, 
which  rendered  them  more  scarce  than  they  would  otherwise 
have  been.  During  the  Norman  invasion,  the  convents  were  the 
chief  objects  of  plunder.  From  the  time,  too,  of  the  conquest  of 
Alexandria  by  the  Saracens,  in  the  seventh  century,  when  the 
Egyptian  papyrus  almost  ceased  to  be  imported  into  Europe,  till 
the  close  of  the  tenth,  when  the  art  of  making  paper  from  cotton 
rags  seems  to  have  been  introduced,  there  were  no  materials  for 
writing  except  parchment,  a  substance  too  expensive  to  be  readily 
spared  for  mere  purposes  of  literature.*  The  scarcity  of  paper, 
too,  not  only  prevented  the  increase  of  classical  MSS.,  but  occa- 
sioned the  loss  of  some  which  were  then  in  existence,  from  the 
characters  having  been  deleted,  in  order  to  make  way  for  a  more 
favourite  production.  The  monkish  scribes  were  accustomed  to 
peel  off  the  surface  of  parchment  MSS.,  or  to  obliterate  the  ink 
by  a  chemical  process,  for  the  purpose  of  fitting  them  to  receive 
the  works  of  some  Christian  author  ;  so  that,  by  a  singular  and 

1  Epist.  69. 

*  Ginguene,  Hist.  Litt.  cCItalie,  Tom.  I.  p.  63. 

3  Ziegel,  Hist.  Rei  Liter.  Tom.  I.  Hist.  Liter,  de  la  France,  Tom.  IV. 

*  Hallam's  State  of  Europe  during  the.  Middle  Ages,  Vol.  III.  p.  332,  2d  ed. 


496  APPENDIX. 

fatal  metamorphosis,  a  classic  was  frequently  translated  into  a 
vapid  homily  or  monastic  legend.  That  many  valuable  works  of 
antiquity  perished  in  this  way,  is  evinced  by  the  number  of  MSS. 
which  have  been  discovered,  evidently  written  on  erased  parch- 
ments. Thus  the  fragments  of  Cicero's  Orations,  lately  found  in 
the  Ambrosian  library,  had  been  partly  obliterated,  to  make  room 
for  the  works  of  Sedulius,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Chalce- 
don ;  and  Cicero's  treatise  de  Republicd  had  been  effaced,  in  order 
to  receive  a  commentary  of  St  Augustine  on  the  Psalms. 

The  tenth  century  has  generally  been  accounted  the  age  of 
deepest  darkness  in  the  west  of  Europe.  During  its  course,  Italy 
was  united  by  Otho  L  with  the  German  empire,  and  was  torn  by 
civil  dissensions.  Muratori  gives  a  detailed  account  of  the  plun- 
dering of  Italian  convents,  which  was  the  consequence  of  these 
commotions,  and  of  the  irruption  of  the  Huns  in  899.1  Still, 
however,  Italy  continued  to  be  the  great  depository  of  classical 
MSS. ;  and  in  that  country  they  were  occasionally  sought  with 
the  utmost  avidity.  Gerbert,  who  became  Pope  in  the  last  year 
of  the  tenth  century,  by  name  of  Silvester  II.,  spared  neither 
pains  nor  expense  in  procuring  transcriptions  of  MSS.  This  ex- 
traordinary man,  impelled  by  a  thirst  of  science,  had  left  his  home 
and  country  at  an  early  period  of  life :  He  had  visited  various 
nations  of  Europe,  but  it  was  in  Spain,  then  partly  subject  to 
the  Arabs,  that  he  had  chiefly  obtained  an  opportunity  of  grati- 
fying his  mathematical  talent,  and  desire  of  general  information. 
Being  no  less  ready  to  communicate  than  eager  to  acquire  learn- 
ing, he  founded  a  school  on  his  return  to  Italy,  and  greatly  in- 
creased the  library  at  Bobbio,  in  Lombardy,  to  the  abbacy  of 
which  he  had  been  promoted.  While  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  in 
France,  that  kingdom  experienced  the  effects  of  his  enlightened 
zeal.  During  his  papacy,  obtained  for  him  by  his  pupil  Otho 
III.,  he  persevered  in  his  love  of  learning.  In  his  generosity  to 
scholars,  and  his  expenditure  of  wealth  for  the  employment  of 
copyists,  as  well  as  for  exploring  the  repositories  in  which  the 
mouldering  relics  of  ancient  learning  were  yet  to  be  found,  we 
trace  a  liberality,  bordering  on  profusion.—-"  Ndsti,"  says  he,  in 
one  of  his  epistles  to  the  Monk  Rainaldo,  "  quanto  studio  libro- 
rum  exemplaria  undique  conquiram  ;  nosti  quot  scriptores  in  ur- 

1  Annali  (V Italia,  Ad.  Ann.  89!),  &c. 
5 


APPENDIX.  497 

bibus,  aut  in  agris  Italiae  passim  habeantur.  Age  ergo,  et  te  solo 
conscio,  ex  tuis  sumptibus  fac  ut  milii  scribantur  Manilius  de 
Astronomia,  et  Victorinus.  Spondeo  tibi,  et  certum  teneo  quod, 
quicquid  erogaveris,  cumulatim  remittam."1  Having  by  this 
means  exhausted  Italy,  Silvester  directed  his  researches  to  coun- 
tries beyond  the  Alps,  as  we  perceive  from  his  letter  to  Egbert, 
Abbot  of  Tours. — "  Cui  rei  preparandee  bibliothecam  assidue 
comparo ;  et  sicutRomae  dudum,  et  in  aliis  partibus  Italiae,  in  Ger- 
mania  quoque,  etBelgica,  scriptores  auctorumque  exemplaria  mul- 
titudine  nummorum  redemi ;  adjutus  benevolentia  et  studio  amico- 
rum  comprovincialium  :  sic  identidem  apud  vos  per  vos  fieri  sinite 
ut  exorem,  Quos  scribi  velimus,  in  fine  epistolae  designabimus."2 
This  list,  however,  is  not  printed  in  any  of  the  editions  of  Ger- 
bert's  Letters,  which  I  have  had  an  opportunity  of  consulting. 

It  thus  appears  that  there  were  zealous  researches  for  the  clas- 
sics, and  successful  discoveries  of  them,  long  before  the  age  of 
Poggio,  or  even  of  Petrarch  ;  but  so  little  intercourse  existed 
among  different  countries,  and  the  monks  had  so  little  acquaint- 
ance with  the  treasures  of  their  own  libraries,  that  a  classical 
author  might  be  considered  as  lost  in  Italy,  though  familiar  to  a 
few  learned  men,  and  still  lurking  in  many  of  the  convents. 

Gerbert,  previous  to  his  elevation  to  the  Pontificate,  had,  as 
already  mentioned,  been  Abbot  of  Bobbio ;  and  the  catalogue  which 
Muratori  has  given  of  the  library  in  that  convent,  may  be  taken 
as  an  example  of  the  description  and  extent  of  the  classical  trea- 
sures contained  in  the  best  monastic  libraries  of  the  tenth  cen- 
tury. While  the  collection,  no  douht,  chiefly  consists  of  the 
works  of  the  saints  and  fathers,  we  find  Persius,  Valerius  Flaccus, 
and  Juvenal,  contained  in  one  volume.  There  are  also  enume- 
rated in  the  list  Cicero's  Topica,  and  his  Catilinarian  orations, 
Martial,  parts  of  Ausonius  and  Pliny,  the  first  book  of  Lucretius, 
four  books  of  Claudian,  the  same  number  of  Lucan,  and  two  of 
Ovid.s  The  monastery  of  Monte  Casino,  which  was  the  retreat, 
as  we  have  seen,  of  Cassiodorus,  was  distinguished  about  the  same 

1  Epist.  130.  2  Epist.  44. 

3  Antiquitates  Italics  Med.  AZvi,  Tom.  III.  p.  818.  The  most  valuable 
books  of  the  Bobbian  collection  were  transferred,  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
by  the  Cardinal  Borromeo,  to  the  Ambrosian  library  at  Milan  ;  and  it  is  from 
the  Bobbian  Palimpsesti  there  discovered,  that  Mai  has  recently  edited  his 
fragments  of  orations  of  Cicero,  and  plays  of  Plautus. 

VOL.  II.  2  I 


498  APPENDIX. 

period  for  its  classical  library. — "  The  monks  of  Casino,  in  Italy," 
observes  Warton,  "  were  distinguished  before  the  year  1000,  not 
only  for  their  knowledge  of  the  sciences,  but  their  attention  to  po- 
lite learning,  and  an  acquaintance  with  the  classics.  Their  learn- 
ed Abbot,  Desiderius,  collected  the  best  of  the  Roman  writers. 
This  fraternity  not  only  composed  learned  treatises  on  music, 
logic,  astronomy,  and  the  Vitruvian  architecture,  but  likewise  em- 
ployed a  portion  of  their  time  in  transcribing  Tacitus,  Jornandes, 
Ovid's  Fasti,  Cicero,  Seneca,  Donatus  the  grammarian,  Virgil, 
Theocritus,  and  Homer." 

During  the  eleventh  century,  the  Benedictines  having  excited 
scandal  by  their  opulence  and  luxury,  the  Carthusian  and  Cister- 
tian  orders  attracted  notice  and  admiration,  by  a  self-denying 
austerity  ;  but  they  valued  themselves  not  less  than  the  Benedic- 
tines, on  the  elegance  of  their  classical  transcriptions  ;  and  about 
the  same  period,  translations  from  the  Classics  into  the  Lingua 
volgare,  first  commenced  in  Italy. 

At  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century,  the  Crusades  began  ;  and 
during  the  whole  course  of  the  twelfth  century,  they  occupied  the 
public  mind,  to  the  exclusion  of  almost  every  other  object  or  pur- 
suit. Schools  and  convents  were  affected  with  this  religious  and 
military  mania  :  All  sedentary  occupations  were  suspended,  and 
a  mark  of  reproach  was  affixed  to  every  undertaking  which  did 
not  promote  the  contagion  of  the  times. 

About  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century,  and  after  the  death 
of  the  Emperor  Frederic  II.,  Italy  was  for  the  first  time  divided 
into  a  number  of  petty  sovereignties,  unconnected  by  any  system 
of  general  union,  except  the  nominal  allegiance  still  due  to  the 
Emperor.  This  separation,  while  it  excited  rivalry  in  arms,  also 
created  some  degree  of  emulation  in  learning.  Many  Universi- 
ties were  established  for  the  study  of  theology  and  the  exercise  of 
scholastic  disputation  ;  and  though  the  classics  were  not  publicly 
diffused,  they  existed  within  the  walls  of  the  convent,  and  were 
well  known  to  the  learned  men  of  the  period.  Brunetto  Latini, 
the  teacher  of  Dante,  and  author  of  the  Tcsoro,  translated  into 
Italian  several  of  Cicero's  orations,  some  parts  of  his  rhetorical 
works,  and  considerable  portions  of  Sallust.1  Dante,  in  his  Amo~ 
roso  Convito,  familiarly  quotes  Livy,  Virgil,  and  Cicero  de  Offi- 
cii.? ;  and  Menus  mentions  various  translations  of  Seneca,  Ovid, 

1  Mehus,  Vita  Ambrotii  Camaldulensis,  p.  157.  «!•  Florent.  1759. 


APPKNDIX.  499 

and  Virgil,  which  had  been  executed  in  the  age  of  Dante,  and 
which  he  had  seen  in  MS.  in  the  different  libraries  of  Italy.1 

It  was  Petrarch,  however,  who,  in  the  fourteenth  century,  led 
the  way  in  drawing  forth  the  classics  from  the  dungeons  where 
they  had  been  hitherto  immured,  and  holding  up  their  light 
and  glory  to  the  eyes  of  men.  While  enjoying  the  reputation  of 
having  perfected  the  most  melodious  and  poetical  language  of 
Europe,  Petrarch  has  acquired  a  still  higher  title  to  fame,  by 
his  successful  exertions  in  rousing  his  country  from  a  slumber 
of  ignorance  which  threatened  to  be  eternal.  In  his  earliest 
youth,  instead  of  the  dry  and  dismal  works  which  at  that  time 
formed  the  general  reading,  he  applied  himself  to  the  study  of 
Virgil  and  Cicero ;  and  when  he  first  commenced  his  epistolary 
correspondence,  he  strongly  expressed  his  wish  that  their  fame 
should  prevail  over  the  authority  of  Aristotle  and  his  commenta- 
tors ;  and  declared  his  belief  of  the  high  advantages  the  world 
would  enjoy  if  the  monkish  philosophy  should  give  place  to  clas- 
sical literature.  Petrarch,  as  is  evinced  by  his  letters,  was  the  most 
assiduous  recoverer  and  restorer  of  ancient  MSS.  that  had  yet 
existed.  He  was  an  enthusiast  in  this  as  he  was  in  everything 
else  that  merited  enthusiasm — love,  friendship,  glory,  patriotism, 
and  religion.  He  never  passed  an  old  convent  without  searching 
its  library,  or  knew  of  a  friend  travelling  into  those  quarters 
where  he  supposed  books  to  be  concealed,  without  entreaties  to 
procure  for  him  some  classical  M.S.  It  is  evident  that  he  came 
just  in  time  to  preserve  from  total  ruin  many  of  the  mouldering 
remains  of  classical  antiquity,  and  to  excite  among  his  country- 
men a  desire  for  the  preservation  of  those  treasures  when  its  gra- 
tification was  on  the  very  eve  of  being  rendered  for  ever  impracti- 
cable. He  had  seen,  in  his  youth,  several  of  Cicero's  now  lost 
treatises,  and  Varro's  great  work  Rerum  Divinarmn  et  Humana- 
rum,2  which  has  for  ever  disappeared  from  the  world ;  and  it  is 
probable  that  had  not  some  one,  endued  with  his  ardent  love  of 
letters,  and  indefatigable  research,  arisen,  many  similar  works 
which  we  now  enjoy,  would  soon  have  sunk  into  a  like  oblivion. 

About  the  same  period,  Boccaccio  also  collected  several  Latin 
MSS.,  and  copied  such  as  he  could  not  purchase.  He  transcribed 
so  many  of  the  Latin  poets,  orators,  and  historians,  that  it  would 

1  Mehus,  Vita  Ambrosii  Camaldulensis,  p.  183. 
*  Petrarc.  Epist.  ad  M.  Varronem, 


500  APPENDIX. 

appear  surprising  had  a  copyist  by  profession  performed  so  much. 
In  a  journey  to  Monte  Casino,  a  place  generally  considered  as  re- 
markably rich  in  MSS.,  he  was  both  astonished  and  afflicted  to 
find  the  library  exiled  from  the  monastery  into  a  barn,  which  was 
accessible  only  by  a  ladder.  He  opened  many  of  the  books,  and 
found  much  of  the  writing  effaced  by  damp.  His  grief  was  redou- 
bled when  the  monks  told  him,  that  when  they  wanted  money, 
they  erased  an  ancient  writing,  wrote  psalters  and  legends  on  the 
parchment,  and  sold  the  new  MSS.  to  women  and  children. i 

But  though,  in  the  fourteenth  century,  copies  of  the  classics 
were  multiplied  and  rendered-  more  accessible  to  the  world,  and 
though  a  few  were  made  by  such  hands  as  those  of  Petrarch  and 
Boccaccio,  the  transcriptions  in  general  were  much  less  accurate 
than  those  of  a  former  period.  The  Latin  tongue,  which  had  re- 
ceived more  stability  than  could  otherwise  have  been  expected, 
from  having  been  consecrated  in  the  service  of  the  church,  had  now 
at  length  become  a  dead  language,  and  many  of  the  transcribers 
did  not  understand  what  they  wrote.  Still  more  mistakes  than 
those  produced  by  ignorance,  were  occasioned  by  the  presumption 
of  pretenders  to  learning,  who  were  often  tempted  to  alter  the 
text,  in  order  to  accommodate  the  sense  to  their  own  slender  capa- 
city and  defective  taste.  Whilst  a  remedy  has  been  readily  found 
for  the  gross  oversight  or  neglect  of  the  ignorant  aud  idle,  in  sub- 
stituting one  letter  for  another,  or  inserting  a  word  without  mean- 
ing, errors  affecting  the  sense  of  the  author,  which  were  thus  in- 
troduced, have  been  of  the  worst  species,  and  have  chiefly  contri- 
buted to  compose  that  mass  of  various  readings,  on  which  the 
sagacity  of  modern  scholars  has  been  so  copiously  exercised.  In  a 
passage  of  Coluccio  Salutati's  treatise  Dc  Fato,  published  by  the 
Abbe  Melius,  the  various  modes  in  which  MSS.  were  depraved 
by  copyists  are  fully  pointed  out.2  To  such  extent  had  these  cor- 
ruptions proceeded,  that  Petrarch,  talking  of  the  MSS.  of  his  own 
time,  and  those  immediately  preceding  it,  asks,  "  Quis  scripto- 
rum  inscitiae  medebitur,  inertiaeque  corrumpenti  omnia  ac  mis- 
centi  ?  Non  quaero  jam  aut  queror  Orthographiam,  quae  jam  du- 
dum  interiit ;  qualitercunque  utiuam  scriberent  quod  jubentur. 
An  si  redeat  Cicero  aut  Livius,  ante  omnes  Plinius  Secundus,  sua 
scripta  religentes  intelligent  ?"  So  sensible  was  Coluccio  Salutati 

1  Mill's  Travels  of  Theodore  Ducax,  Vol.  I.  p.  2R. 

2  Vita  Amhroxii  Camaldnletitity  p.  2fl0. 


APPENDIX.  501 

of  the  injury  which  had  been  done  to  letters  by  the  ignorance 
or  negligence  of  transcribers,  that  he  proposed,  as  a  check  to  the 
evil,  that  public  libraries  should  be  everywhere  formed,  the  su- 
perintendence of  which  should  be  given  to  men  of  learning,  who 
might  carefully  collate  the  MSS.  intrusted  to  them,  and  ascer- 
tain the  most  correct  readings.1  To  this  labour,  and  to  the  detec- 
tion of  counterfeit  works,  of  which  many,  from  various  motives, 
now  began  to  be  circulated,  Coluccio  devoted  a  considerable  por- 
tion of  his  own  time  and  studies.  His  plan  for  the  institution  of 
public  libraries  did  not  succeed  ;  but  he  amassed  a  private  one, 
which,  in  that  age,  was  second  only  to  the  library  of  Petrarch.  A 
considerable  classical  library,  though  consisting  chiefly  of  the 
later  classics,  particularly  Seneca,  Macrobius,  Apuleius,  and  Sue- 
tonius, was  amassed  by  Tedaldo  de  Casa,  whose  books,  with  many 
remarks  and  emendations  in  his  own  hand,  were  inspected  by  the 
Abbe  Melius  in  the  library  of  Santa-Croce  at  Florence.2 

The  path  which  had  been  opened  up  by  Petrarch,  Boccaccio, 
and  Coluccio  Salutati,  in  the  fourteenth  century,  was  followed  out 
in  the  ensuing  century  with  wonderful  assiduity  and  success  by 
Poggio  Bracciolini,  Filelfo,  and  Ambrosio  Traversari,  Abbot  of 
Camaldoli,  under  the  guidance  and  protection  of  the  Medicean 
Family  and  Niccolo  Niccoli. 

Of  all  the  learned  men  of  his  time,  Poggio  seems  to  have  devo- 
ted himself  with  the  greatest  industry  to  the  search  for  classical 
MSS.  No  difficulties  in  travelling,  or  indifference  in  the  heads 
of  convents  to  his  literary  inquiries,  could  damp  his  zeal.  His  ar- 
dour and  exertions  were  fortunately  crowned  with  most  complete 
success.  The  number  of  MSS.  discovered  by  him  in  different  parts 
of  Europe,  during  the  space  of  nearly  fifty  years,  will  remain  a 
lasting  proof  of  his  unceasing  perseverance,  and  of  his  sagacity  in 
these  pursuits.  Having  spent  his  youth  in  travelling  through 
different  countries,  he  at  length  settled  at  Rome,  where  he  conti- 
nued as  secretary,  in  the  service  of  eight  successive  Pontiffs.  In 
this  capacity  he,  in  the  year  1414,  accompanied  Pope  John  XXIII. 
to  the  Council  of  Constance,  which  was  opened  in  that  year. 
While  residing  at  Constance,  he  made  several  expeditions,  most 
interesting  to  letters,  in  intervals  of  relaxation  during  the  prose- 
cutions of  Jean  Hus  and  Jerome  of  Prague,  of  which  he  had  the 

1    Vita  Ambrosii  Camaldtdcnsis,  p.  291. 
8  Ibid,  p.  335. 


502  APPENDIX. 

official  charge.  His  chief  excursion  was  to  the  monastery  of  St 
Gal,  about  twenty  miles  distant  from  Constance,  where  his  infor- 
mation led  him  to  expect  that  he  might  find  some  MSS.  of  the  an- 
cient Roman  writers.1  The  earliest  Abbots,  and  many  of  the  first 
monks  of  St  Gal,  had  been  originally  transferred  to  that  monas- 
tery from  the  literary  establishment  founded  by  Charlemagne  at 
Fulda.  Werembert  and  Helperic,  who  were  sent  to  St  Gal  from 
Fulda  in  the  ninth  century,  introduced  in  their  new  residence  a 
strong  taste  for  letters,  and  the  practice  of  transcribing  the  classics. 
In  examining  the  Histoire  Litteraire  de  la  France,  by  the  Bene- 
dictines, we  find  that  no  monastery  in  the  middle  ages  produced 
so  many  distinguished  scholars  as  St  Gal.  In  this  celebrated  con- 
vent, which  (as  Tenhove  expresses  it)  had  been  so  long  the  Dor- 
mitory of  the  Muses,  Poggio  discovered  some  of  the  most  valuable 
classics — not,  however,  in  the  library  of  the  cloister,  but  covered 
with  dust  and  filth,  and  rotting  at  the  bottom  of  a  dungeon, 
where,  according  to  his  own  account,  no  criminal  condemned  to 
death  would  have  been  thrown.2  This  evinces  that  whatever  care 
may  at  one  time  have  been  taken  of  classical  MSS.  by  the  monks, 
they  had  subsequently  been  shamefully  neglected. 

The  services  rendered  to  literature  by  Ambrosio  of  Camaldoli 
were  inferior  only  to  those  of  Poggio.  Ambrosio  was  born  at  Forli 
in  1386,  and  was  a  disciple  of  Emanuel  Chrysoloras.  At  the  age 
of  fourteen,  he  entered  into  the  convent  of  Camaldoli  at  Florence, 
and  thirty  years  afterwards  became  the  Superior  of  his  order.  In 
the  kind  conciliatory  disposition  of  Ambrosio,  manifested  by  his 
maintaining  an  uninterrupted  friendship  with  Niccolo  Niccoli, 
Poggio,  and  Filelfo,  and  by  moderating  the  quarrels  of  these  ir- 
ascible Literati — in  his  zeal  for  the  sacred  interests,  discipline, 
and  purity  of  his  convent,  to  which  his  own  moral  conduct  afford- 
ed a  spotless  example— and,  finally,  in  his  enthusiastic  love  of 
letters,  in  which  he  was  second  only  to  Petrarch,  we  behold  the 
brightest  specimen  of  the  monastic  character,  of  which  the  me- 
mory has  descended  to  us  from  the  middle  ages.  Though  chiefly 
confined  within  the  limits  of  a  cloister,  Ambrosio  had  perhaps  the 
best  pretensions  of  any  man  of  his  age,  to  the  character  of  a  polite 
scholar.  The  whole  of  the  early  part  of  his  life,  and  the  leisure 
of  its  close,  were  employed  in  collecting  ancient  MSS.  from  every 

1  Roscoe's  Life  ofLorem.o  de  Medici,  c.  1. 

2  Epist.  Lib.  V. 


APPENDIX.  503 

quarter  where  they  could  be  procured,  and  in  maintaining  a  con- 
stant correspondence  with  the  most  distinguished  men  of  his  age. 
His  letters  which  have  been  published  in  1759>  at  Florence,  with  a 
long  preface  and  life  by  the  Abbe  Mehus,  contain  the  fullest  in- 
formation that  can  be  anywhere  found  with  regard  to  the  recovery 
of  ancient  classical  MSS.  and  the  state  of  literature  at  Florence 
in  the  fifteenth  century. 

It  would  appear  from  these  Epistles,  that  though  the  monks  had 
been  certainly  instrumental  in  preserving  the  precious  relics  of 
classical  antiquity,  their  avarice  and  bigotry  now  rather  obstruct- 
ed the  prosecution  of  the  researches  undertaken  for  the  purpose 
of  bringing  them  to  light.  It  was  their  interest  to  keep  these 
treasures  to  themselves,  because  it  was  a  maxim  of  their  policy  to 
impede  the  diffusion  of  knowledge,  and  because  the  transcrip- 
tion of  MSS.  was  to  them  a  source  of  considerable  emolument. 
Hence  they  often  threw  obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  inquiries  of 
the  learned,  who  were  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  various  arti- 
fices, in  order  to  draw  classical  MSS.  from  the  recesses  of  the 
cloister.1 

The  exertions  of  Poggio  and  Ambrosio,  however,  were  stimu- 
lated and  aided  by  the  munificent  patronage  of  many  opulent  in- 
dividuals of  that  period,  who  spared  no  expense  in  reimbursing 
and  rewarding  those  who  had  made  successful  researches  after 
these  favourite  objects  of  pursuit.  "  To  such  an  enthusiasm," 
says  Tiraboschi,  "  was  this  desire  carried,  that  long  journeys 
were  undertaken,  treasures  were  levied,  and  enmities  were  ex- 
cited, for  the  sake  of  an  ancient  MS. ;  and  the  discovery  of  a 
book  was  regarded  as  almost  equivalent  to  the  conquest  of  a  king- 
dom." 

The  most  zealous  promoters  of  these  researches,  and  most 
eager  collectors  of  MSS.  during  the  fifteenth  century,  were  the 
Cardinal  Ursini,  Niccolo  Niccoli,  and  the  Family  of  Medici. 

Niccolo  Niccoli,  who  was  an  humble  citizen  of  Florence,  de- 
voted his  whole  time  and  fortune  to  the  acquisition  of  ancient 
MSS.  In  this  pursuit  he  had  been  eminently  successful,  having 
collected  together  800  volumes,  of  which  a  great  proportion  con- 
tained Roman  authors.  Poggio,  in  his  funeral  oration  of  Niccolo, 
bears  ample  testimony  to  his  liberality  and  zeal,  and  attributes 

1  Morhoff,  Polyhistor,  Lib.  I.  c.  7.     Lomeierus,  De  Bibliothecis,  c  9.  §  2. 


504  ?5£*       AVPEND1X. 

the  successful  discovery  of  so  many  classical  MSS.  to  the  encou- 
ragement which  he  had  afforded.  "  Quod  autem,"  says  he, 
"  egregiam  laudem  meretur,  summam  operain,  curamque  adhi- 
buit  ad  pervestigaudos  auetores,  qui  culpa  temporum  perierant. 
Qua  in  re  vere  possum  dicere,  omnes  libros  fere,  qui  noviter  turn 
ab  aliis  reperti  sunt,  turn  a  me  ipso,  qui  integrum  Quintilianum, 
Ciceronis  nostri  orationes,  Silium  Italicum,  Mareellinum,  Lucre- 
tii  partem,  multosque  praeterea  e  Germanorum  Gallorumque  er- 
gastulis,  mea  diligentia  eripui,  atque  in  lucem  extuli,  Nicliolai 
suasu,  impulsu,  cohortatione,  et  paene  verborum  molestia  esse  La- 
tinis  litteris  restitutos."1  Several  of  these  classical  works  Nie- 
colo  copied  with  his  own  hand,  and  M'ith  great  accuracy,  after  he 
had  received  them.2  The  MSS.  in  his  hand-writing  were  long 
inown  and  distinguished  by  the  beauty  and  distinctness  of  the 
characters.  Nor  did  he  content  himself  with  mere  transcription  : 
He  diligently  employed  himself  in  correcting  the  errors  of  the 
JV1SS. which  Mere  transmitted  to  him,  and  arranging  the  text  in  its 
proper  order.  "  Quum  eos  auctores,"  says  Melius,  "  ex  vetustis- 
simis  codicibus  exscriberet,  qui  suo  potissimum  consilio,  aliorum 
vero  opera  inventi  sunt,  non  solum  mendis,  quibus  obsiti  erant, 
expurgavit,  sed  etiam  distinxit,  capitibusque  locupletavit."3 
Such  was  the  judgment  of  Niccolo,  in  this  species  of  emenda- 
tion, that  Politian  always  placed  the  utmost4  reliance  on  his  MS. 
copies  ;4  and,  indeed,  from  a  complimentary  poem  addressed  to 
him  in  his  own  time,  it  would  seem  that  he  had  carefully  col- 
lated different  MSS.  of  the  same  work,  before  he  transcribed  his 
own  copy — 

"  Ille  bos  errores,  una  exeinplaribus  actis 
Pluribus  ante  oculos,  ne  postera  oberrct  et  astas, 
Corrigit." 

Previous  to  the  time  of  Niccolo,  the  only  libraries  of  any  extent 
or  value  in  Italy,  were  those  of  Petrarch,  Coluccio  Salutati,  and 
Boccaccio.  The  books  which  had  belonged  to  Petrarch  and  Coluc- 
cio, were  sold  or  dispersed  after  the  decease  of  their  illustrious 
possessors.  Boccaccio's  library  had  been  bequeathed  by  him  to 
a  religious  order,  the  Hermits  of  St  Augustine ;  and  this  library 

1  Ap.  Mehus,  Pre/,  ad  Epist.  Ambros.  Camaldulensis,  p.  33.  ed.  Florent. 
1  Ibid.  p.  31.  *  Ibid.  p.  :,0.  *  Ibid.  p.  44. 


APPENDIX.  505 

was  repaired  and  arranged  by  Niccolo,  for  the  use  of  the  convent, 
and  a  proper  hall  built  for  its  reception.1  Niccolo  was  likewise  the 
first  person  in  modern  times  who  conceived  the  idea  of  forming  a 
public  library.  Previous  to  his  death,  which  happened  in  1437, 
he  directed  that  his  books  should  be  devoted  to  the  use  of  the 
public  ;  and  for  this  purpose  he  appointed  sixteen  curators,  among 
whom  was  Cosmo  de  Medici.  After  his  demise,  it  appeared  that 
he  was  greatly  in  debt,  and  that  his  liberal  intentions  were  likely 
to  be  frustrated  by  the  insolvency  of  his  circumstances.  Cosmo 
therefore  offered  to  his  associates,  that  if  they  would  resign  to  him 
the  exclusive  right  of  the  disposal  of  the  books,  he  would  himself 
discharge  all  the  debts  of  Niccolo,  to  which  proposal  they  readily 
acceded.  Having  thus  obtained  the  sole  direction  of  the  MSS., 
he  deposited  them  for  public  use  in  the  Dominican  Monastery  of 
St  Marco,  at  Florence,  which  he  had  himself  erected  at  an  enor- 
mous expense.2  This  library,  for  some  time  celebrated  under  the 
name  of  the  Bibliotheca  Marciana,  or  library  of  St  Marc,  was  ar- 
ranged and  catalogued  by  Tommaso  da  Sarzana  Calandrino,  at 
that  time  a  poor  but  zealous  scholar  in  the  lower  orders  of  the 
clergy,  and  afterwards  Pope,  by  the  name  of  Nicholas  V.  The 
building  which  contained  the  books  of  Niccolo  having  been  de- 
stroyed by  an  earthquake  in  1454,  Cosmo  rebuilt  it  on  such  a 
plan,  as  to  admit  a  more  extensive  collection.  After  this  it  was 
enriched  by  private  donations  from  citizens  of  Florence,  who, 
catching  the  spirit  of  the  reigning  family,  vied  with  each  other 
in  the  extent  and  value  of  their  gifts.3 

When  Cosmo,  having  finally  triumphed  over  his  enemies,  was 
recalled  from  banishment,  and  became  the  first  citizen  of  Florence, 
"  which  he  governed  without  arms  or  a  title,"  he  employed  his 
immense  wealth  in  the  encouragement  of  learned  men,  and  in  col- 
lecting, under  his  own  roof,  the  remains  of  the  ancient  Greek  and 
Roman  writers.  His  riches,  and  extensive  mercantile  intercourse 
with  different  parts  of  Europe  and  Asia,  enabled  him  to  gratify  a 
passion  of  this  kind  beyond  any  other  individual.  He  gave  injunc- 
tions to  all  his  friends  and  correspondents,  to  search  for  and  pro- 
cure ancient  MSS.,  in  every  language,  and  on  every  subject.  From 

1  Mehus,  Pre/,  p.  31. 

2  Roscoe's  Life. of  Lorenzo  de  Medici,  c.  1. 

3  Mehus,  Pref.  p.  67. 


506  APPENDIX. 

these  beginnings  arose  the  celebrated  library  of  the  Medici,  which, 
in  the  time  of  Cosmo,  was  particularly  distinguished  for  MSS.  of 
Latin  classics — possessing,  in  particular,  full  and  accurate  copies 
of  Virgil,  Cicero,  Seneca,  Ovid,  and  Tibullus.1  This  collection, 
after  the  death  of  its  founder,  was  farther  enriched  by  the  atten- 
tion of  his  descendants,  particularly  his  grandson,  Lorenzo,  under 
whom  it  acquired  the  name  of  the  Medicean- Lauren tian  Library. 
"  If  there  was  any  pursuit,"  says  the  biographer  of  Lorenzo,  "  in 
which  he  engaged  more  ardently,  and  persevered  more  diligently, 
than  the  rest,  it  was  in  that  of  enlarging  his  collections  of  books 
and  antiquities.  His  emissaries  were  dispersed  through  every  part 
of  the  globe,  for  the  purpose  of  collecting  books,  and  lie  spared  no 
expense  in  procuring,  for  the  learned,  the  materials  necessary  for 
the  prosecution  of  their  studies."2  In  the  execution  of  his  noble 
design,  he  was  assisted  by  Ermolao  Barbaro,  and  Paido  Cortesi ; 
but  his  principal  coadjutor  was  Politian,  to  whom  he  committed 
the  care  and  arrangement  of  his  collection,  and  who  made  excur- 
sions, at  intervals,  through  Italy,  to  discover  and  purchase  such 
remains  of  antiquity  as  suited  the  purposes  of  his  patron.  An 
ample  treasure  of  books  was  expected,  during  his  last  illness,  un- 
der the  care  of  Lascaris.  When  the  vital  spark  was  nearly  extin- 
guished, he  called  Politian  to  his  side,  and  grasping  his  hand,  told 
him  he  could  have  wished  to  have  lived  to  see  the  library  com- 
pleted.3 

After  the  death  of  Lorenzo,  some  of  the  volumes  were  dispersed, 
when  Charles  VIII.  of  France  invaded  Italy;  and,  on  the  expul- 
sion of  the  Medici  family  from  Florence,  in  1496,  the  remaining 
volumes  of  the  Laurentian  collection  were  united  with  the  books 
in  the  library  of  St  Mark. 

It  being  the  great  object  of  Lorenzo  to  diffuse  the  spirit  of  lite- 
rature as  extensively  as  possible,  he  permitted  the  Duke  of  Urbi- 
no,  who  particularly  distinguished  himself  as  a  patron  of  learning, 
to  copy  such  of  his  MSS.  as  he  wished  to  possess.  The  families, 
too,  of  Visconti  at  Milan,  of  Este  at  Ferrara,  and  Gonzaga  at 

1  Avogradi,  Dc  Magnificentid  Cos?ni  Medices,  Lib.  II. 

"  O  mira  in  tectis  bibliotheca  tuis  ! 

Nunc  legis  altisoni  sparsim  pia  scripta  Maronis, 

Nunc  ea  quae  Cicero "  &c. 

1  Roscoe,  Life  of  Lorenzo,  c.  7- 
3  Polit.  Epitt.  Lib.  IV.  Ep.  2. 


APPENDIX.  507 

Mantua,  excited  by  the  glorious  example  set  before  them,  emula- 
ted the  Medici  in  their  patronage  of  classical  literature,  and  for- 
mation of  learned  establishments.  "  The  division  of  Italy,"  says 
Mr  Mills,  "  into  many  independent  principalities,  was  a  circum- 
stance highly  favourable  to  the  nourishing  and  expanding  learn- 
ing. Every  city  had  a  Maecenas  sovereign.  The  princes  of  Italy 
rivalled  each  other  in  literary  patronage  as  much  as  in  political 
power,  and  changes  of  dominion  did  not  affect  letters."1  Eight 
Popes,  in  succession,  employed  Poggio  as  their  secretary,  which 
greatly  aided  the  promotion  of  literature,  and  the  collecting  of 
MSS.  at  Rome.  The  last  Pontiff  he  served  was  Nicholas  V.,  who, 
before  his  elevation,  as  we  have  seen,  had  arranged  the  library  of 
St  Mark  at  Florence.  From  his  youth,  he  had  shown  the  most 
wonderful  avidity  for  copies  of  ancient  MSS.,  and  an  extraordinary 
turn  for  elegant  and  accurate  transcription,  with  his  own  hand. 
By  the  diligence  and  learning  which  he  exhibited  in  the  schools 
of  Bologna,  he  secured  the  patronage  of  many  literary  characters. 
Attached  to  the  family  of  Cardinal  Albergati,  he  accompanied  him 
in  several  embassies,  and  seldom  returned  without  bringing  back 
with  him  copies  of  such  ancient  works  as  had  been  previously  un- 
known in  Italy.  The  titles  of  some  of  these  are  mentioned  by  his 
biographer,  who  adds,  that  there  was  no  Latin  author,  with  whose 
writings  he  was  unacquainted.  This  enabled  him  to  be  useful  in 
the  arrangement  of  many  libraries  formed  at  this  period.2  His 
promotion  to  the  Pontifical  chair,  in  1447,  was,  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  times,  peculiarly  auspicious  to  the  cause  of  letters. 
With  the  assistance  of  Poggio,  he  founded  the  library  of  the  Vati- 
can. The  scanty  collection  of  his  predecessors  had  been  nearly 
dissipated  or  destroyed,  by  frequent  removals  from  Rome  to  Avig- 
non :  But  Nicholas  more  than  repaired  these  losses ;  and  before 
his  death,  had  collected  upwards  of  5000  volumes  of  Greek  and 
Roman  authors — and  the  Vatican  being  afterwards  increased  by 
Sixtus  IV.  and  Leo  X.  became,  both  in  extent  and  value,  the  first 
library  in  the  world. 

It  is  with  Poggio,  that  the  studies  peculiar  to  the  commentator 
may  be  considered  as  having  commenced,  at  least  so  far  as  regards 
the  Latin  classics.  Poggio  lived  from  1380  to  1459-  Hewassuc- 

1  Travels  of  Theod.  Ducas,  c.  1. 

2  Berrington,  Literary  Hist,  of  the  Middle  Ages,  Book  VI. 


508  APPENDIX. 

ceeded  towards  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  during  the 
whole  course  of  the  sixteenth,  by  a  long  series  of  Italian  commen- 
tators, among  whom  the  highest  rank  may  be  justly  assigned  to 
Politian. — (Born,  1454 — died,  1494.)  To  him,  the  world  has 
been  chiefly  indebted  for  corrections  and  elucidations  of  the  texts 
of  Roman  authors,  which,  from  a  variety  of  causes,  were,  when 
first  discovered,  either  corrupt,  or  nearly  illegible.  In  the  exer- 
cise of  his  critical  talents,  Politian  did  not  confine  himself  to  any 
one  precise  method,  but  adopted  such  as  he  conceived  best  suited 
his  purpose — on  some  occasions  only  comparing  different  copies, 
diligently  marking  the  variations,  rejecting  spurious  readings, 
and  substituting  the  true.  In  other  cases  he  proceeded  farther, 
adding  scholia  and  notes,  illustrative  of  the  text,  either  from  his 
own  conjecture,  or  the  authority  of  preceding  writers.  To  the 
name  of  Politian,  I  may  add  those  of  his  bitter  rival  and  contem- 
porary, Georgius  Merula,  (born,  1420 — died,  1494);  Aldus  Ma- 
nutius,  (1447 — 1516);  his  son  Paullus;  Landini,  author  of  the 
Disputationes  Camaldulenses,  (l 424 — 1 504) ;  Philippus  Beroaldus, 
(1453—1505);  Petrus  Victorius,  (1498—1585);  Robortellus, 
(1516 — 1567.)  Most  of  these  commentators  were  entirely  verbal 
critics ;  but  this  was  by  far  the  most  useful  species  of  criticism 
which  could  be  employed  at  the  period  in  which  they  lived.  We 
have  already  seen,  that  in  the  time  of  Petrarch,  classical  manu- 
scripts had  been  very  inaccurately  transcribed  ;  and,  therefore,  the 
first  great  duty  of  a  commentator,  was  to  amend  and  purify  the 
text.  Criticism  on  the  general  merits  of  the  author,  or  the  beau- 
ties of  particular  passages,  and  even  expositions  of  the  full  import 
of  his  meaning,  deduced  from  antiquities,  mythology,  history,  or 
geography,  were  very  secondary  considerations.  Nor,  indeed, 
was  knowledge  far  enough  advanced  at  the  time,  to  supply  such 
illustrations.  Grammar,  and  verbal  criticism,  formed  the  porch 
by  which  it  was  necessary  to  enter  that  temple  of  sublimity  and 
beauty,  which  had  been  reared  by  the  ancients ;  and  without  this 
access,  philosophy  would  never  have  enlightened  letters,  or  letters 
ornamented  philosophy.  "  I  cannot,  indeed,  but  think,"  says  Mr 
Payne  Knight,  in  his  Analytical  Essay  on  the  Greek  Alphabet, 
"  that  the  judgment  of  the  public,  on  the  respective  merits  of  the 
different  classes  of  critics,  is  peculiarly  partial  and  unjust.  Those 
among  them  who  assume  the  office  of  pointing  out  the  beauties, 
and  detecting  the  faults,  of  literary  composition,  are  placed  with 


APPENDIX.  509 

the  orator  and  historian,  in  the  highest  ranks,  whilst  those  who 
undertake  the  more  laborious  task  of  washing  away  the  rust  and 
canker  of  time,  and  bringing  back  those  forms  and  colours,  which 
are  the  object  of  criticism,  to  their  original  purity  and  brightness, 
are  degraded  with  the  index-maker  and  antiquary  among  the  pio- 
neers of  literature,  whose  business  it  is  to  clear  the  way  for  those 
who  are  capable  of  more  splendid  and  honourable  enterprizes. 
Nevertheless,  if  we  examine  the  effects  produced  by  those  two 
classes  of  critics,  we  shall  find  that  the  first  have  been  of  no  use 
whatever,  and  that  the  last  have  rendered  the  most  important  ser- 
vices to  mankind.  All  persons  of  taste  and  understanding  know, 
from  their  own  feelings,  when  to  approve  and  disapprove,  and 
therefore  stand  in  no  need  of  instructions  from  the  critic.  But 
whatever  may  be  the  taste  and  discernment  of  a  reader,  or  the  ge- 
nius and  ability  of  a  writer,  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  can  ap- 
pear while  the  text  remains  deformed  by  the  corruptions  of  blun- 
dering transcribers,  and  obscured  by  the  glosses  of  ignorant  gram- 
marians. It  is  then  that  the  aid  of  the  verbal  critic  is  required ; 
and  though  his  minute  labour  in  dissecting  syllables  and  analy- 
sing letters  may  appear  contemptible  in  its  operation,  it  will  be 
found  important  in  its  effect."  It  is  to  those  early  critics,  then, 
Avho  washed  away  the  rust  and  canker  of  time,  and  brought  back 
those  forms  and  colours  which  are  the  subject  of  criticism,  that 
classical  literature  has  been  chiefly  indebted.  The  newly  discover- 
ed art  of  printing,  which  was  itself  the  offspring  of  the  general 
ardour  for  literary  improvement,  and  of  the  daily  experience  of 
difficulties  encountered  in  prosecuting  classical  studies,  contribu- 
ted, in  an  eminent  degree,  to  encourage  this  species  of  useful  cri- 
ticism. At  the  instigation  of  Lorenzo,  and  other  patrons  of  learn- 
ing in  Italy,  many  scholars  in  that  country  were  induced  to  be- 
stow their  attention  on  the  collation  and  correction  of  the  MSS. 
of  ancient  authors,  in  order  that  they  might  be  submitted  to  the 
press  with  the  greatest  possible  accuracy,  and  in  their  original  pu- 
rity. Nor  was  it  a  slight  inducement  to  the  industrious  scholar, 
that  his  commentaries  were  no  longer  to  be  hid  in  the  recesses  of 
a  few  vast  libraries,  but  were  to  be  now  placed  in  the  view  of  man- 
kind, and  enshrined,  as  it  were,  for  ever  in  the  immortal  page  of 
the  poet  or  historian  whose  works  he  had  preserved  or  elucidated. 
With  Fulvius  Ursinus,  who  died  in  the  year  1600,  the  first 
school  of  Italian  commentators  may  be  considered  as  terminating. 


510  APPENDIX. 

In  the  following  century,  classical  industry  was  chiefly  directed  to 
translation  ;  and  in  the  eighteenth  century,  the  list  of  eminent 
commentators  was  increased  only  by  the  name  of  Vulpius,  who  in- 
troduced a  new  style  in  classical  criticism,  by  an  amusing  collec- 
tion of  verses,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  poets,  which  were  pa- 
rallel to  passages  in  his  author,  not  merely  in  some  words,  but  in 
the  poetical  idea. 

The  career  whicli  had  so  gloriously  commenced  in  Italy  in  the 
end  of  the  fifteenth  century,  was  soon  followed  in  France  and 
Germany.     Julius  Scaliger,  a  native  of  Verona,  had  been  natu- 
ralized in  France,  and  he  settled  there  in  the  commencement  of 
the  sixteenth  century.    In  that  country  classical  studies  were  in- 
troduced, under  the  patronage  of  Francis  I.,  and  were  prosecuted 
in  his  own  and  the  six  following  reigns,  by  a  long  succession  of 
illustrious  scholars,  among  whom  Turnebus  (1512 — 1565),  Lam- 
binus  (1526 — 1572),  the  family  of  the  Stephenses,  who  rivalled 
the  Manutii  of  Italy,  Muretus  (1526 — 1585),  Causaubon  (1559 
— 1614),  Joseph  Scaliger  (1540— l60p),  and  Salmasius  (1588— 
1 653),  distinguished  themselves  by  the  illustration  of  the  Latin 
classics,  and  the  more  difficult  elucidation  of  those  studies  which 
assist  and  promote  a  full  intelligence  of  their  meaning  and  beau- 
ties.    Our  geographical  and  historical  knowledge  of  the  ancient 
world,  was  advanced  by  Charles  Stephens — its  chronology  was 
ascertained  by  Scaliger,  and  the  whole  circle  of  antiquities  was 
extended  by  Salmasius.  After  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, a  new  taste  in  the  illustration  of  classical  literature  sprung 
up  in  France — a  lighter  manner  and  more  philosophic  spirit  being 
then  introduced.     The  celebrated  controversy  on  the  compara- 
tive merit  of  the  ancients  and  moderns,  aided  a  more  popular  elu- 
cidation of  the  classics ;  and  as  the  preceptors  of  the  royal  family 
were  on  the  side  of  the  ancients,  they  promoted  the  famed  Del- 
phin  edition,  which  commenced  under  the  auspices  of  the  Duke 
de  Montausier,  and  was  carried  on  by  a  body  of  learned  Jesuits, 
under  the  superintendence  of  Bossuet  and  Huetius.     Elegance 
and  taste  were  required  for  the  instruction  of  a  young  French 
prince  ;  and,  accordingly,  instead  of  profound  philological  learn- 
ing,  or  the  assiduous  collation  of  MSS.,  light  notes  were  ap- 
pended, explanatory  of  the  mythological  and  historical  allusions 
contained  in  the  works  of  the  author,  as  also  remarks  on  his  most 
prominent  defects  and  excellencies. 


APPENDIX.  511 

Joseph  Scaliger  and  Salmasius,  who  were  French  Protestants, 
found  shelter  for  their  heretical  principles,  and  liberal  reward  for 
their  learning,  in  the  University  of  Leyden ;  and  with  Douza 
(1545 — 1604),  and  Justus  Lipsius(l547 — 1606),  became  the  fa- 
thers and  founders  of  classical  knowledge  in  the  Netherlands.  As 
the  inhabitants  of  that  territory  spoke  and  wrote  a  language  which 
was  but  ill  adapted  for  the  expression  of  original  thought,  their 
whole  force  of  mind  was  directed  to  throwing  their  humorous  and 
grand  conceptions  on  canvass,  or  to  the  elucidation  of  the  writings 
of  those  who  had  been  gifted  with  a  more  propitious  tongue. 
These  studies  and  researches  were  continued  by  Heinsius  (1582 
— 1655),  Gerard  and  Isaac  Vossius  (1577 — I689),  and  Grono- 
vius  (1611 — 1671).  At  this  period  Schrevelius  (1615— 1664) 
commenced  the  publication  of  the  Classics,  cum  Notts  Variorum; 
and  in  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  his  example  was  followed 
by  some  of  the  most  distinguished  editors.  The  merit  of  these  edi- 
tions was  very  different,  and  has  been  variously  estimated.  Mor- 
hoff,  while  he  does  justice  to  the  editorial  works  of  Gronovius  and 
other  learned  men,  in  which  parts  of  the  commentaries  of  prede- 
cessors, judiciously  extracted,  were  given  at  full  length,  has  in- 
dulged himself  in  an  invective  against  other  variorum  editions,  in 
which  everything  was  mutilated  and  incorrect.  "  Sane  ne  com- 
parandae  quidem  illi"  (the  editions  of  Aldus)  "  sunt  ineptae  Vario- 
rum editiones;  quam  nuper  pestem  bonis  auctoribus  Bibliopolas 
Batavi  inducere  coeperunt,  reclamantibus  frustra  viris  doctis."1 
In  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  Burmans  (1668 — 
1778),  Oudendorp  (1696— 1761 ),  and  Havercamp  (1684—1742), 
continued  to  support  the  honour  of  a  school,  which  as  yet  had  no 
parallel  in  certainty,  copiousness,  and  depth  of  illustration. 

In  Germany,  the  school  which  had  been  established  by  Charle- 
magne at  Fulda,  and  that  at  Paderborn,  long  flourished  under  the 
superintendence  of  Meinwerk.  The  author  of  the  Life  of  that 
scholar,  speaking  of  these  establishments,  says,  "  Ibi  viguit  Hora- 
tius,  magnus  atque  Virgilius,  Crispus  et  Sallustius,  et  Urbanus 
Statius."  During  the  ninth  century,  Rabin  Maur,  a  scholar  of 
Alcuin,  and  head  of  the  cathedral  school  at  Fulda,  became  a  ce- 
lebrated teacher ;  and  profane  literature  was  not  neglected  by  him 
amid  the  importance  of  his  sacred  lessons.  Classical  learning,  how- 

•  Polyhistor.  Lib.  IV.  c.  10. 


512  APPENDIX. 

ever,  was  first  thoroughly  awakened  in  Germany,  by  the  scholars 
of  Thomas  A'Kempis,  in  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century.  A  num- 
ber of  German  youths,  who  were  associated  in  a  species  of  literary 
fraternity,  travelled  into  Italy,  at  the  time  when  the  search  for 
classical  MSS.  in  that  country  was  most  eagerly  prosecuted.  Ru- 
dolph Agricola,  afterwards  Professor  of  Philosophy  at  Worms,  was 
one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  these  scholars.  Living  imme- 
diately after  the  invention  of  printing,  and  at  a  time  when  that  art 
had  not  yet  entirely  superseded  the  transcription  of  MSS.,  he  pos- 
sessed an  extensive  collection  of  these,  as  well  as  of  the  works 
which  had  just  issued  resplendent  from  the  press.  Both  were 
illustrated  by  him  with  various  readings  on  the  margin;  and  we 
perceive  from  the  letters  of  Erasmus  the  value  which  even  he  at- 
tached to  these  notes,  and  the  use  which  he  made  of  the  variations. 
Rudolph  was  succeeded  by  Herman  von  Busche,  who  lectured  on 
the  classics  at  Leipsic.  He  had  in  his  possession  a  number  of  the 
Latin  classics  ;  but  it  is  evident  from  his  letters  that  some,  as  for 
instance  Silius  Italicus,  were  still  inaccessible  to  him,  or  could 
only  be  procured  with  great  difficulty.  The  German  scholars  did 
not  bring  so  many  MSS.  to  light,  or  multiply  copies  of  them,  so 
much  as  the  Italians,  because,  in  fact,  their  country  was  less  richly 
stored  than  Italy  with  the  treasures  bequeathed  to  us  by  antiqui- 
ty ;  but  they  exercised  equal  critical  acuteness  in  amending  the 
errors  of  the  MSS.  which  they  possessed.  The  sixteenth  century 
was  the  age  which  produced  in  Germany  the  most  valuable  and 
numerous  commentaries  on  the  Latin  classics.  That  country,  in 
common  with  the  Netherlands,  was  enlightened,  during  this  pe- 
riod, by  the  erudition  of  Erasmus  (1467 — 1536).  In  the  same 
and  succeeding  age,  Camerarius  (1500 — 1574),  Taubmann  (1565 
— 1613),  Acidalius  (1567— -15.95),  and  Gruterus  (1560— 1 627), 
enriched  the  world  with  some  of  the  best  editions  of  the  classics 
which  had  hitherto  appeared.  Towards  the  close  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  classical  literature  had  for  some  time  rather  de- 
clined in  Germany — polemical  theology  and  religious  wars  having 
at  this  period  exhausted  and  engrossed  the  attention  of  her  uni- 
versities. But  it  was  revived  again  about  the  middle  of  the  eigh- 
teenth, by  J.  Math.  Gesner  (169I— l?6l),  and  Ernesti  (1707 — 
1781  ),  who  created  an  epoch  in  Germany  for  the  study  of  the 
ancient  authors.  These  two  scholars  surpassed  all  their  prede- 
cessors in  taste,  in  a  philosophical  spirit,  and  in  a  wide  acquaint- 


APPENDIX.  513 

ance  with  the  subsidiary  branches  of  erudition  :  They  made  an 
advantageous  use  of  their  critical  knowledge  of  the  languages  ; 
they  looked  at  once  to  the  words  and  to  the  subject  of  the  an- 
cient writers,  established  and  applied  the  rules  of  a  legitimate 
interpretation,  and  carefully  analysed  the  meaning  as  well  as  the 
form  of  the  expression.  Their  task  was  extended  from  words  to 
things ;  and  what  has  been  called  ^Esthetic  annotations,  were 
combined  with  philological  discussion.  "  Non  volui,"  says  Ges- 
ner,  in  the  Preface  to  his  edition  of  Claudian,  "  commentarios  scri- 
bere,  collectos  undique,  aut  locos  communes  ;  Non  volui  dictio- 
nem  poetae,  congestis  aliorum  poetarum  formulis  illustrare  ;  sed 
cum  illud  volui  efficere  poeta  ut  intelligatur,  turn  judicio  meo  ju- 
vare  volui  juniorum  judicium,  quid  pulchrum,  atque  decens,  et 
summorum  poetarum  simile  putarem  ostendendo,  et  contra,  ea, 
ubi  errasse  ilium  a  natura,  a  magnis  exemplis,  a  decoro  arbitrarer, 
cum  fide  indicando."  J.  Ernesti  considers  Gesner  as  unquestion- 
ably the  first  who  introduced  what  he  terms  the  ^Esthetic  mode 
of  criticism.!  But  the  honour  of  being  the  founder  of  this  new 
school,  has  perhaps,  with  more  justice,  been  assigned  by  others 
to  Heyne2  (1729 — 1811).  "  From  the  middle  of  last  century," 
it  is  remarked,  in  a  late  biographical  sketch  of  Heyne,  "  several 
intelligent  philologers  of  Germany  displayed  a  more  refined  and 
philosophic  method  in  their  treatment  of  the  different  branches  of 
classical  learning,  who,  without  neglecting  either  the  gramma- 
tical investigation  of  the  language,  or  the  critical  constitution 
of  the  text,  no  longer  regarded  a  Greek  or  Roman  writer  as  a 
subject  for  the  mere  grammarian  and  critic  ;  but,  considering  the 
study  of  the  ancients  as  a  school  for  thought,  for  feeling,  and  for 
taste,  initiated  us  into  the  great  mystery  of  reading  everything 
in  the  same  spirit  in  which  it  had  originally  been  written.  They 
demonstrated,  both  by  doctrine  and  example,  in  what  manner  it 
was  necessary  for  us  to  enter  into  the  thoughts  of  the  writer,  to 
pitch  ourselves  in  unison  with  his  peculiar  tone  of  conception  and 
expression,  and  to  investigate  the  circumstances  by  which  his 
mind  was  affected — the  motives  by  which  he  was  animated — and 
the  influences  which  co-operated  in  giving  the  intensity  and  cha- 
racter of  his  feelings.    At  the  head  of  this  school  stands  Heyne  ; 

1  De  Luxurie  Veterum  Poet.  Lat. 

2  Eichhorn,  Litterargeschichte,  Tom.  III.  p.  569. 

VOL.  II.  2  K 


514  APPENDIX. 

and  it  must  be  admitted,  that  nothing  has  contributed  so  deci- 
sively to  maintain  or  promote  the  study  of  classical  literature,  as 
the  combination  which  he  has  effected  of  philosophy  with  erudi- 
tion, both  in  his  commentaries  on  ancient  authors,  and  those 
works  in  which  he  has  illustrated  various  points  of  antiquity,  or 
discussed  the  habit  of  thinking  and  spirit  of  the  ancient  world." 
From  the  time  of  Heyne,  almost  the  whole  grand  inheritance  of 
Roman  literature  has  been  cultivated  by  commentators,  who  have 
raised  the  Germans  to  undisputed  pre-eminence  among  the  na- 
tions of  Europe,  for  profound  classical  learning,  and  all  the  de- 
lightful researches  connected  with  literary  history.  I  have  only 
space  to  mention  the  names  of  Zeunius  (1736 — 1788),  Jani  (1743 
— 1790),  WernsdorfF  (1723 — 1793)  ;  and  among  those  who  still 
survive,  Harles  (born  1738),  Schiitz  (1747),  Schneider  (1751), 
Wolf  (1757),  Beck  (1757),  Doering  (1759),  Mitscherlich  (1760), 
Wetzel  (1762),  Goerenz  (1765),  Eichstadt  (1771),  Hermann 
(1772). 

While  classical  literature  and  topography  were  so  highly  cul- 
tivated abroad,  England,  at  the  revival  of  literature,  remained 
greatly  behind  her  continental  neighbours  in  the  elucidation  and 
publication  of  the  precious  remains  of  ancient  learning.  It  ap- 
pears from  Ames'  Typographical  Antiquities,  that  the  press  of 
our  celebrated  ancient  printers,  as  Caxton,  Wynkin  de  Worde,  and 
Pynson,  was  rarely  employed  in  giving  accuracy  or  embellish- 
ment to  the  works  of  the  classics ;  and,  indeed,  so  late  as  the 
middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  only  Terence  and  Cicero's  Offices 
had  been  published  in  this  country,  in  their  original  tongue. 
Matters  had  by  no  means  improved  in  the  seventeenth  century. 
Evelyn,  who  had  paid  great  attention  to  the  subject,  gives  the 
following  account  of  the  state  of  classical  typography  and  editor- 
ship in  England,  in  a  letter  to  the  Lord  Chancellor  Clarendon, 
dated  November  1666 :  "  Our  booksellers,"  says  he,  "follow  their 
own  judgment  in  printing  the  ancient  authors,  according  to 
such  text  as  they  found  extant  when  first  they  entered  their 
copy  ;  whereas,  out  of  the  MSS.  collated  by  the  industry  of  later 
critics,  those  authors  are  exceedingly  improved.  For  instance, 
about  thirty  years  since,  Justin  was  corrected  by  Isaac  Vossius, 
in  many  hundreds  of  places,  most  material  to  sense  and  elegancy, 
and  has  since  been  frequently  reprinted  in  Holland,  after  the 
purer  copy  ;  but  with  us  still  according  to  the  old  reading.    The 


APPENDIX.  515 

like  has  Florus,  Seneca's  Tragedies,  and  near  all  the  rest,  which 
have,  in  the  meantime,  been  castigated  abroad  by  several  learned 
hands,  which,  besides  that  it  makes  ours  to  be  rejected,  and  dis- 
honours our  nation,  so  does  it  no  little  detriment  to  learning, 
and  to  the  treasure  of  the  nation  in  proportion.  The  cause  of 
this  is  principally  the  stationer  driving  as  hard  and  cruel  a  bar- 
gain with  the  printer  as  he  can,  and  the  printer  taking  up  any 
smatterer  in  the  tongues,  to  be  the  less  loser ;  an  exactness  in 
this  no  ways  importing  the  stipulation,  by  which  means  errors 
repeat  and  multiply  in  every  edition."1  Since  the  period  in  which 
this  letter  is  dated,  Bentley,  who  bears  the  greatest  name  in 
England  as  a  critic,  however  acute  and  ingenious,  did  more  by 
his  slashing  alterations  to  injure  than  amend  the  text,  at  least 
of  the  Latin  authors  on  whom  he  commented.  He  substituted 
what  he  thought  best  for  what  he  actually  found  ;  and  such  was 
his  deficiency  in  taste,  that  what  he  thought  best  (as  is  evinced 
by  his  changes  on  the  text  of  Lucretius),  was  frequently  destruc- 
tive of  the  poetical  idea,  and  almost  of  the  sense  of  his  author. 

I  have  thought  it  right,  before  entering  into  detail  concerning 
the  Codices  and  editions  of  the  works  of  the  early  classics  men- 
tioned in  the  text,  briefly  to  remind  the  reader  of  the  general  cir- 
cumstances connected  with  the  loss  and  recovery  of  the  classical 
MSS.  of  Rome,  and  to  recall  to  his  recollection  the  names  of  a  few 
of  the  most  celebrated  commentators  in  Italy,  France,  Holland, 
and  Germany.  This  will  render  the  following  Appendix,  in 
which  there  must  be  constant  reference  to  the  discovery  of  MSS. 
and  the  labours  of  commentators,  somewhat  more  distinct  and 
perspicuous  than  I  could  otherwise  make  it. 


LIVIUS  ANDRONICUS,  NtEVIUS. 

The  fragments  of  these  old  writers  are  so  inconsiderable,  that 
no  one  has  thought  of  editing  them  separately.  They  are  there- 
fore to  be  found  only  in  the  general  collections  of  the  whole  La- 
tin poets ;  as  Maittaires  Opera  el  Fragmenta  Veterum  Poetarum 

1  Evelyn's  Memoirs  and  Corresp.  Vol.  II.  p.  173.  Second  ed. 


516  APPENDIX. 

Latinorum,  London,  1713.  2  Tom.  fo.,  (to  some  copies  of  which 
a  new  title-page  has  been  printed,  bearing  the  date,  Hag.  Comit. 
1721;  )  or  in  the  collections  of  the  Latin  tragic  poets,  as  Delrio's 
Syntagma  Tragcedice  Latince,  Paris,  1620,  and  Scriverius  Col- 
lectanea Veterum  Tragicorum,  Lugd.  Bat,  1620.  It  is  otherwise 
with 

ENNIUS, 

of  whose  writings,  as  we  have  seen,  more  copious  fragments  re- 
main than  from  those  of  his  predecessors.  The  whole  works  of 
this  poet  were  extant  in  the  time  of  Cassiodorus ;  but  no  copy  of 
them  has  since  appeared.  The  fragments,  however,  found  in  Ci- 
cero, Macrobius,  and  the  old  grammarians,  are  so  considerable, 
that  they  have  been  frequently  collected  together,  and  largely 
commented  on.  They  were  first  printed  in  Stephen's  Fragmenta 
Veterum  Poetarum  Latinorum,  but  without  any  proper  connec- 
tion or  criticism.  Ludovicus  Vives  had  intended  to  collect  and 
arrange  them,  as  we  are  informed  in  one  of  his  notes  to  St  Au- 
gustine, De  Civilate  Dei :  But  this  task  he  did  not  live  to  ac- 
complish.1 The  first  person  who  arranged  these  scattered  frag- 
ments, united  them  together,  and  classed  them  under  the  books 
to  which  they  belonged,  was  Hier.  Columna.  He  adopted  the 
orthography  which,  from  a  study  of  the  ancient  Roman  monu- 
ments and  inscriptions,  he  found  to  be  that  of  the  Latin  language 
in  the  age  of  Ennius.  He  likewise  added  a  commentary,  and 
prefixed  a  life  of  the  poet.  The  edition  which  he  had  thus  fully 
prepared,  was  first  published  at  Naples  in  1 590,  four  years  after 
his  death,  by  his  son  Joannes  Columna.2  This  Editio  Princeps 
of  Ennius  is  very  rare,  but  it  was  reprinted  under  the  care  of 
Fr.  Hesselius  at  Amsterdam  in  1707«  To  the  original  commen- 
tary of  Columna  there  are  added  the  annotations  on  Ennius 
which  had  been  inserted  in  Delrio  and  Scriverius'  collection  of 
the  Latin  tragic  poets ;  and  Hesselius  himself  supplied  a  very 
complete  Index  Verborum.  The  ancient  authors,  who  quote  lines 
from  Ennius,  sometimes  mention  the  book  of  the  Annals,  or  the 

1  Morhoff,  Polyhistor.  Lib.  IV.  e.  11. 

2  Thuanus,  Hist.  Lib.  LXXXIV. 


APPENDIX.  517 

name  of  the  tragedy  to  which  they  belonged,  but  sometimes  this 
information  is  omitted.  The  arrangement,  therefore,  of  the  verses 
of  the  latter  description  (which  are  marked  with  an  asterisk  in 
Columna's  edition),  and  indeed  the  precise  collocation  of  the 
whole,  is  in  a  great  measure  conjectural.  Accordingly,  we  find 
that  the  order  of  the  lines  in  the  edition  of  Paulus  Merula  is  very 
different  from  that  adopted  by  Columna.  The  materials  for  Mo- 
rula's edition,  which  comprehends  only  the  Annals  of  Ennius, 
had  been  already  collected  and  prepared  at  the  time  when  Colum- 
na's was  first  given  to  the  world.  Merula,  however,  conceived  that 
while  the  great  object  of  Columna  had  been  to  compare  and  con- 
trast the  lines  of  Ennius  with  those  of  other  heroic  poets,  he  him- 
self had  been  more  happy  in  the  arrangement  of  the  verses,  and 
the  restoration  of  the  ancient  orthography,  which  is  much  more 
antiquated  in  the  edition  of  Merula  than  in  that  of  Columna.  He 
had  also  discovered  some  fragments  of  the  Annals,  unknown  to 
Columna,  in  the  MS.  of  a  work  of  L.  Calp.  Piso,  a  writer  of  the 
age  of  Trajan,  entitled  De  Continenlid  Veterum  Poetarum,  and 
preserved  in  the  library  of  St  Victor  at  Paris.  In  these  circum- 
stances, Merula  was  not  deterred  by  the  appearance  of  the  edition 
of  Columna,  from  proceeding  with  his  own,  which  at  length  came 
forth  at  Leyden  in  the  year  1595.  The  same  sort  of  discrepance 
which  exists  between  Columna  and  Merula's  arrangement  of  the 
Annals,  appears  in  the  collocation  of  the  Tragic  Fragments  adopt- 
ed by  Columna,  and  that  which  has  been  preferred  by  Delrio,  in 
his  Syntagma  Tragcedice  Latino;. 

H.  Planck  published  at  Gottingen,  in  1807,  the  fragments  of 
Ennius's  tragedy  of  Medea.  These  comprehend  all  the  verses 
belonging  to  this  drama,  collected  by  Columna,  and  some  newly 
extracted  by  the  editor  from  old  grammarians.  The  whole  are 
compared  with  the  parallel  passages  in  the  Medea  of  Euripides. 
Two  dissertations  are  prefixed  ;  one  on  the  Origin  and  Nature  of 
Tragedy  among  the  Romans;  and  the  other,  on  the  question, 
whether  Ennius  wrote  two  tragedies,  or  only  a  single  tragedy, 
entitled  Medea.  A  commentary  is  also  supplied,  in  which,  as 
Fuhrmann  remarks,  one  finds  many  things,  but  not  much : — 
"  Man  findet  in  demselben  multa,  aber  nicht  multum."1 

Some  fine  passages  of  the  fragments  of  Ennius  have  been  filled 

1  Handbuch  der  Classisdt.  Litteratur.  T.  III.  p.  31. 


518  APPENDIX. 

up,  and  the  old  readings  corrected,  by  the  recent  discovery  of  the 
work  De  Republica  of  Cicero,  who  is  always  quoting  from  the  an- 
cient poets.  Thus  the  passage  in  the  Annals,  where  the  Roman 
people  are  described  as  lamenting  the  death  of  Romulus,  stands 
thus  in  Columna's  edition  : — 

— — "  O  Romole,  Romole,  die  6 


Qualem  te  patriae  custodem  dii  genuerunt, 

Tu  produxisti  nos  intra  luminis  oras, 

O  pater,  6  genitor,  6  sanguen  diis  oriundum." 

This  fragment  may  be  now  supplied,  and  the  verses  arranged  and 
corrected,  from  the  quotation  in  the  first  book  De  Republica — 

"  Pectora  pia  tenet  desiderium  ;  simul  inter 
Sese  sic  memorant — O  Romule,  Romule  die, 
Qualem  te  patriae  custodem  di  genuerunt, 
O  pater,  6  genitor,  6  sanguen  dis  oriundum  ! 
Tu  produxisti  nos  intra  luminis  oras." 

The  fragments  of  the  Annals  of  Ennius,  as  the  text  is  arranged 
by  Merula,  have  been  translated  into  Italian  by  Bernardo  Philip- 
pine and  published  at  Rome  in  1659,  along  with  his  Poesie.  I  know 
of  no  other  translations  of  these  fragments. 


PLAUTUS.       . 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  even  the  oldest  MSS.  of  Plautus 
were  early  corrupted  by  transcribers,  and  varied  essentially  from 
each  other.  Varro,  in  his  book  De  Analogid,  ascribes  some  phrase 
of  which  he  did  not  approve,  in  the  Truculentus,  to  the  negligence 
of  copyists.  The  Latin  comedies,  written  in  the  age  of  Plautus, 
were  designed  to  be  represented  on  the  stage,  and  not  to  be  read 
at  home.  It  is,  therefore,  probable,  that,  during  the  time  of  the 
Republic  at  least,  there  were  few  copies  of  Plautus's  plays,  except 
those  delivered  to  the  actors.  The  dramas  were  generally  pur- 
chased by  the  iEdiles,  for  the  purpose  of  amusing  the  people  du- 
ring the  celebration  of  certain  festivals.  As  soon  as  the  poet's 
agreement  was  concluded  with  the  iEdile,  he  lost  his  right  of  pro- 
perty in  the  play,  and  frequently  all  concern  in  its  success.  It 
seems  probable,  therefore,  that  even  during  the  life  of  the  author, 
these  magistrates,  or  censors  employed  by  them,  altered  the  verses 
at  their  own  discretion,  or  sent  the  comedy  for  alteration  to  the 


APPENDIX.  519 

author  :  But  there  is  no  doubt  that,  after  his  death,  the  actors 
changed  and  modelled  the  piece  according  to  their  own  fancy,  or 
the  prevailing  taste  of  the  public,  just  as  Cibber  and  Garrick 
wrought  on  the  plays  of  Shakspeare.  Hence  new  prologues, 
adapted  to  circumstances,  were  prefixed — whole  verses  were  sup- 
pressed, and  lines  properly  belonging  to  one  play,  were  often 
transferred  to  another.  This  corruption  of  MSS.  is  sufficiently 
evinced  by  the  circumstance,  that  the  most  ancient  grammarians 
frequently  cite  verses  as  from  a  play  of  Plautus,  which  can  now  no 
longer  be  found  in  the  drama  quoted.  Thus,  a  line  cited  by  Fes- 
tus  and  Servius,  from  the  Miles,  does  not  appear  in  any  MSS.  or 
ancient  edition  of  that  comedy,  though,  in  the  more  recent  impres- 
sions, it  has  been  inserted  in  what  was  judged  to  be  its  proper 
place.1  Farther — Plautus,  and  indeed  the  old  Latin  writers  in 
general,  were  much  corrupted  by  transcribers  in  the  middle  ages, 
who  were  not  fully  acquainted  with  the  variations  which  had  taken 
place  in  the  language,  and  to  whom  the  Latin  of  the  age  of  Con- 
stantine  was  more  familiar  than  that  of  the  Scipios.  They  were 
often  puzzled  and  confused  by  finding  a  letter,  as  c,  for  example, 
introduced  into  a  word  which  they  had  been  accustomed  to  spell 
with  a  g,  and  they  not  unfrequently  were  totally  ignorant  of  the 
import  or  signification  of  ancient  words.  In  a  fragment  of  Tur- 
pilius,  a  character  in  one  of  the  comedies  says,  "  Qui  mea  verba 
venatur  pestis  arcedat ;"  now,  the  transcriber  being  ignorant  of 
the  verb  arcedat,  wrote  ars  cedat,  which  converts  the  passage  into 
nonsense.2 

The  comedies  of  Plautus  are  frequently  cited  by  writers  of  the 
fourteenth  century,  particularly  by  Petrarch,  who  mentions  the 
amusement  which  he  had  derived  from  the  Casina.3  Previous, 
however,  to  the  time  of  Poggio,  only  eight  of  them  were  known, 
and  we  consequently  find  that  the  old  MSS.  of  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury just  contain  eight  comedies.4  By  means,  however,  of  Nicolas 
of  Treves,  whom  Poggio  had  employed  to  search  the  monasteries 
of  Germany,  twelve  more  were  discovered.  The  plays  thus  brought 
to  light  were  the  Bacckides,  Mencechmi,  Mostellaria,  Miles  Glo- 

1  Osannus,  Analecta  Critica,  c.  8. 

2  Prcef.  ad  Plautum,  ed.  Lambini. 

3  Epist.  Famil.  Lib.  V. 

4  Bandini,  Catalog.  Cad.  Lat.  Bibliothecce  Medicece — Laurentiance,  Tom. 
II.  p.  243,  &c. 


520  APPENDIX. 

riosus,  Mercator,  Pseudolus,  Pcenulus,  Persa,  Rudens,  Stic  hits, 
Trinummus,  Truculentus.  As  soon  as  Poggio  heard  of  this  valuable 
and  important  discovery,  he  urged  the  Cardinal  Ursini  to  despatch 
a  special  messenger,  in  order  to  convey  the  treasure  in  safety  to 
Rome.  His  instances,  however,  were  not  attended  to,  and  the 
MSS.  of  the  comedies  did  not  arrive  till  two  years  afterwards,  in 
the  year  1428,  under  the  charge  of  Nicolas  of  Treves  himself.1 
They  were  seized  by  the  Cardinal  immediately  after  they  had  been 
brought  to  Italy.  This  proceeding  Poggio  highly  resented  ;  and 
having  in  vain  solicited  their  restoration,  he  accused  Ursini  of 
attempting  to  make  it  be  believed  that  Plautus  had  been  recover- 
ed by  his  exertions,  and  at  his  own  expense.2  At  length,  by  the 
intervention  of  Lorenzo,  the  brotherof  Cosmo  de  Medici,  the  Car- 
dinal was  persuaded  to  intrust  the  precious  volume  to  Niccolo 
Niccoli,  who  got  it  carefully  transcribed.  Niccolo,  however,  de- 
tained it  at  Florence  long  after  the  copy  from  it  had  been  made ; 
and  we  find  his  friend' Ambrosio  of  Camaldoli  using  the  most  ear- 
nest entreaties  on  the  part  of  the  Cardinal  for  its  restitution. — . 
"  Cardinalis  Ursinus  Plautum  suum  recipere  cupit.  Non  video 
quam  ob  causam,  Plautum  illi  restituere  non  debeas,  quern  olim 
transcripsisti.  Oro,  ut  amicissimo  homini  geratur  mos."3  The 
original  MS.  was  at  length  restored  to  the  Cardinal,  after  whose 
death  it  fell  into  the  possession  of  Lorenzo  de  Medici,  and  thus 
came  to  form  a  part  of  the  Medicean  library.  The  copy  taken  by 
Niccolo  Niccoli  was  transferred,  on  his  decease,  along  with  his 
other  books,  to  the  convent  of  St  Mark. 

From  a  transcript  of  this  copy,  which  contained  the  twelve 
newly-recovered  plays,  and  from  MSS.  of  the  other  eight  come- 
dies, which  were  more  common  and  current,  Georgius  Merula, 
the  disciple  of  Filelfo,  and  one  of  the  greatest  Latin  scholars  of  the 
age,  formed  the  first  edition  of  the  plays  of  Plautus,  which  was 
printed  by  J.  de  Colonia  and  Vindelin  de  Spira,  at  Venice,  1472, 
folio,  and  reprinted  in  1 482  at  Trevisa.  It  would  appear  that 
Merula  had  not  enjoyed  direct  access  to  the  original  MS.  brought 
from  Germany,  or  to  the  copy  deposited  in  the  Marcian  library ; 
for  he  says,  in  his  dedication  to  the  Bishop  of  Pavia,  "  that  there 
was  but  one  MS.  of  Plautus,  from  which,  as  an  archetype,  all  the 

1  Menus,  Pre/,  ad  EpisU  Ambros.  Camaldul.  p.  41.  »  Ibid. 

3  Ambros.  Camaldul.  Epist.  Lib.  VIII.   E     31. 


APPENDIX.  521 

copies  which  could  be  procured  were  derived;  and  if,  by  any 
means,"  he  continues,  "  I  could  have  laid  my  hands  on  it,  the 
Bacchides,  Mostellaria,  Mencechmi,  Miles,  and  Mercator,  might 
have  been  rendered  more  correct ;  for  the  copies  of  these  come- 
dies, taken  from  the  original  MS.,  had  been  much  corrupted  in 
successive  transcriptions ;  but  the  copies  I  have  procured  of  the 
last  seven  comedies  have  not  been  so  much  tampered  with  by  the 
critics,  and  therefore  will  be  found  more  accurate."  Merula  then 
compares  his  toil,  in  amending  the  corrupt  text,  to  the  labours 
of  Hercules.  His  edition  has  usually  been  accounted  the  editio 
princeps  of  Plautus  ;  but  I  think  it  is  clear,  that  at  least  eight  of 
the  eomedies  had  been  printed  previously :  Harles  informs  us, 
that  Morelli,  in  one  of  his  letters,  had  thus  written  to  him  :— . 
"  There  is  an  edition  of  Plautus  which  I  think  equally  ancient 
with  the  Venetian  one  of  1 472  ;  it  is  sine  alia  notd,  and  has  nei- 
ther numerals,  signatures,  nor  catch-words.  It  contains  the  fol- 
lowing plays  :  Amphitryo,  Asinaria,  Aulularia,  Captivi,  Curculio, 
Casina,  Cistellaria,  Epidicus."1  Now,  it  will  be  remarked,  that 
these  were  the  eight  comedies  current  in  Italy  before  the  impor- 
tant discovery  of  the  remaining  twelve,  made  by  Nicholas  of 
Treves,  in  Germany ;  and  the  presumption  is,  that  they  were 
printed  previous  to  the  date  of  the  edition  of  Merula,  because  by 
that  time  the  newly-recovered  comedies  having  got  into  circula- 
tion, it  is  not  likely  that  any  editor  would  have  given  to  the  world 
an  imperfect  edition  of  only  eight  comedies,  when  the  whole  dra- 
mas were  accessible,  and  had  excited  so  much  interest  in  the  mind 
of  the  public. 

Eusebius  Scutarius,  a  scholar  of  Merula,  took  charge  of  an  edi- 
tion, which  was  amended  from  that  of  his  master,  and  was  printed 
in  1490,  Milan,  folio,  and  reprinted  at  Venice  1495. 

In  1499,  an  edition  was  brought  out  at  Venice,  by  the  united 
labour  of  Petrus  Valla,  and  Bernard  Saracenus.  To  these,  suc- 
ceeded the  edition  of  Jo.  Bapt.  Pius,  at  Milan,  1500,  with  a  pre- 
face by  Philip  Beroald.  Taubman  says,  that  "  omnes  editiones 
mangonum  manus  esse  passas  ex  quo  Saracenus  et  Pius  regnum 
et  tyrannidem  in  literis  habuere."  In  the  Strasburg  impression, 
1508,  the  text  of  Scutari  has  been  followed,  and  about  the  same 
time  there  were  several  reprints  of  the  editions  of  Valla  and  Pius. 

1  Harles,  Supplement,  ad  Not.  Literal.  Rom.  Tom.  II.  p.  483. 


522  APPENDIX. 

The  edition  of  Charpentier,  in  1513,  was  prepared  from  a  colla- 
tion of  different  editions,  as  the  editor  had  no  MSS. ;  but  the 
editions  of  Pius  and  Saracenus  were  chiefly  employed.  Charpen- 
tier has  prefixed  arguments,  and  has  divided  the  lines  better  than 
any  of  his  predecessors  ;  and  he  has  also  arranged  the  scenes,  par- 
ticularly those  of  the  Mostellaria,  to  greater  advantage. 

Few  Latin  classics  have  been  more  corrupted  than  Plautus,  by 
those  who  wished  to  amend  his  text.  In  all  the  editions  which 
had  hitherto  appeared,  the  perversions  were  chiefly  occasioned  by 
the  anxiety  of  the  editors  to  bend  his  lines  to  the  supposed  laws 
of  metre.  Nic.  Angelius,  who  superintended  an  edition  printed 
by  the  Giunta  at  Florence,  1514,  was  the  first  who  observed  that 
the  corruptions  had  arisen  from  a  desire  "  ad  implendos  pedum 
numeros."  He  accordingly  threw  out,  in  his  edition,  all  the  words 
which  had  been  unauthorizedly  inserted  to  fill  up  the  verses.  From 
some  MSS.  which  had  not  hitherto  been  consulted,  he  added  se- 
veral prologues  to  the  plays ;  and  also  the  commencement  of  the 
first  act  of  the  Bacchides,  which  Lascaris,  in  one  of  his  letters  to 
Cardinal  Bembo,  says  he  had  himself  found  at  Messina,  in  Sicily. 
These,  however,  though  they  have  been  inserted  into  all  subse- 
quent editions  of  Plautus,  are  evidently  written  by  a  more  modern 
hand  than  that  of  Plautus.  Two  editions  were  superintended  and 
printed  by  the  Manutii,  1516  and  1522;  that  in  1522,  though 
prepared  by  F.  Asulanus,  from  a  MS.  corrected  in  the  hand  of 
the  elder  Aldus  and  Erasmus,  is  not  highly  valued.1  Two  edi- 
tions, by  R.  Stephens,  1529  and  1530,  were  formed  on  the  edition 
of  the  Giunta,  with  the  correction  of  a  few  errors.  These  were 
followed  by  many  editions  in  Italy,  France,  and  Germany,  some  of 
which  were  merely  reimpressions,  but  others  were  accompanied 
with  new  and  learned  commentaries. 

To  no  one,  however,  has  Plautus  been  so  much  indebted  as  to 
Camerarius,  whose  zeal  and  diligence  were  such,  that  there  was 
scarcely  a  verse  of  Plautus  which  did  not  receive  from  him  some 
emendation.  In  1535,  there  had  appeared  at  Magdeburg  six  co- 
medies (Aulularia,  Captivi,  Miles  Gloriosus,  Mencechmi,  Mostel- 
laria, Trinummus,)  which  he  had  revised  and  commented  on,  but 
which  were  published  from  his  MS.  without  his  knowledge  or  au- 

1  Renouard,  Hist,  de  Plmprim.  des  Aides.  Tom.  I.  p.  162. 


APPENDIX.  523 

thority.     The  Privilege  of  the  first  complete  edition  printed  un- 
der his  own  direction,  is  dated  in  1538. 

The  text  and  annotations  of  Camerarius  now  served  as  the  ba- 
sis for  most  of  the  subsequent  editions.  The  Plantin  editions,  of 
which  Sambucus  was  the  editor,  and  which  were  printed  at  Ant- 
werp 1566,  and  Basil  1568,  contain  the  notes  and  corrections  of 
Camerarius,  with  about  300  verses  more  than  any  preceding  im- 
pression. 

Lambinus,  in  preparing  the  Paris  edition,  1 577 ',  collated  a  num- 
ber of  MSS.  and  amassed  many  passages  from  the  ancient  gram- 
marians. He  only  lived,  however,  to  complete  thirteen  of  the 
comedies  ;  but  his  colleague,  Helias,  put  the  finishing  hand  to  the 
work,  and  added  an  index,  after  which  it  came  forth  with  a  prefa- 
tory dedication  by  Lambinus's  son.  On  this  edition,  (in  which 
great  critical  learning  and  sagacity,  especially  in  the  discovery  of 
double  entendres,  were  exhibited,)  the  subsequent  impressions, 
Leyden,  1581,1  Geneva,  1581,  and  Paris,  1587,  were  chiefly  form- 
ed. 

Lambinus,  in  preparing  his  edition,  had  chiefly  trusted  to  his 
own  ingenuity  and  learning.  Taubman,  the  next  editor  of  Plau- 
tus  of  any  note,  compiled  the  commentaries  of  others.  The  text 
of  Camerarius  was  principally  employed  by  him,  but  he  collated 
it  with  two  MSS.  in  the  Palatine  library,  which  had  once  belong- 
ed to  Camerarius ;  and  he  received  the  valuable  assistance  of  Gru- 
terus,  who  was  at  that  time  keeper  of  the  library  at  Heidelberg. 
Newly-discovered  fragments — the  various  opinions  of  ancient  and 
modern  writers  concerning  Plautus — a  copious  index  verborum — a 
preface — a  dedication  to  the  triumvirs  of  literature  of  the  day, 
Joseph  Scaliger,  Justus  Lipsius,  and  Casaubon — in  short,  every 
species  of  literary  apparatus  accompanied  the  edition  of  Taub- 
man, which  first  appeared  at  Frankfort  in  1605.  It  was  very 
inaccurately  printed,  however;  so  incorrectly,  indeed,  that  the 
editor,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  Jungerman,  in  September  1606, 
acknowledges  that  he  was  ashamed  of  it.  Philip  Pareus,  who  had 

1  Muretus,  in  a  letter  dated  about  this  time,  (1581,)  and  addressed  to  his 
friend  Paullus  Sacratus,  mentions,  in  the  strongest  terms  of  regret  and  resent- 
ment, that  a  Plautus,  on  the  correction  and  emendation  of  which  he  had  be- 
stowed the  labour  and  study  of  twenty-five  years  of  his  life,  had  been  stolen  from 
him  by  some  person  whom  he  admitted  to  his  library.  (Epist.  Lib.  III.  Ep. 
28.) 


524  APPENDIX. 

long  been  pursuing  similar  studies  with  those  of  Taubman,  em- 
braced the  opportunity,  afforded  by  the  inaccuracy  of  this  edition, 
of  publishing  at  Frankfort,  in  1610,  a  Plautus,  which  was  pro- 
fessedly the  rival  of  that  which  had  been  produced  by  the  united 
efforts  of  Taubman  and  Gruterus,  and  which  had  not  only  dis- 
appointed the  expectations  of  the  public,  but  of  the  learned  edi- 
tors themselves.  Their  feelings  on  this  subject,  and  the  opposi- 
tion Plautus  edited  by  Pareus,  stimulated  Taubman  to  give  an 
amended  edition  of  his  former  one.  This  second  impression,  which 
is  much  more  accurate  than  the  first,  was  printed  at  Wittenberg 
in  1612,  and  was  accompanied  with  the  dissertation  of  Camerarius 
De  Fabulis  Plautonicis,  and  that  of  Jul.  Scaliger,  De  Versibus 
Comicis.  Taubman  died  the  year  after  the  appearance  of  this  edi- 
tion :  Its  fame,  however,  survived  him,  and  not  only  retrieved  his 
character,  which  had  been  somewhat  sullied  by  the  bad  ink  and 
dirty  paper  of  the  former  edition,  but  completely  eclipsed  the  clas- 
sical reputation  of  Pareus.  Envious  of  the  renown  of  his  rivals, 
that  scholar  obtained  an  opportunity  of  inspecting  the  MSS.  which 
had  been  collated  by  Taubman  and  Gruterus.  These  he  now  com- 
pared more  minutely  than  his  predecessors  had  done,  and  publish- 
ed the  fruits  of  his  labour  atNeustadt,  in  l6l7«  This  was  consi- 
dered as  derogating  from  the  accuracy  and  critical  ingenuity  of 
Gruterus,  and  insulting  to  the  manes  of  Taubman. — "  Hinc  jur- 
gium,  tumultus  Grutero  et  Pareo."  Gruterus  attacked  Pareus  in 
a  little  tract,  entitled  Asini  Cumani  fratcrculus  e  Plauto  electis 
electus  per  Etistathium  Schwarzium  puerum,  1619>  and  was  an- 
swered by  Pareus  not  less  bitterly,  in  his  Provocatio  ad  Senalum 
Criticum  adversus  personatos  Pareomastigos.  From  this  time  Pa- 
reus and  Gruterus  continued  to  print  successive  editions  of  Plau- 
tus, in  emulation  and  odium  of  each  other.  Gruterus  printed  one 
at  Wittenberg  in  1621,  with  a  prefatory  invective  against  Pareus, 
and  with  the  Euphemiae  amicorum  in  Plautum  Gruteri.  Pareus 
then  attempted  to  surpass  his  rival,  by  comprehending  in  his  edi- 
tion a  collection  of  literary  miscellanies — as  Bullengerus'  descrip- 
tion of  Greek  and  Roman  theatres.  At  length  Pareus  got  the 
better  of  his  obstinate  opponent,  in  the  only  way  in  which  that 
was  possible — by  surviving  him  ;  and  he  then  enjoyed  an  oppor- 
tunity of  publishing,  unmolested,  his  last  edition  of  Plautus,  print- 
ed at  Frankfort,  1641,  containing  a  Dissertation  on  the  Life 
and  Writings  of  Plautus ;  the  Eulogies  pronounced  on  him  ;  Re- 


APPENDIX.  525 

marks  on  his  Versification ;  a  diatribe  de  jocis  et  salibus  Plauti- 
nis  ;  an  exhibition  of  his  Imitations  from  the  Greek  Poets ;  and, 
finally,  the  Euphemice  of  Learned  Friends.  Being  now  relieved 
of  all  apprehensions  from  the  animadversions  of  Gruterus,  he 
boldly  termed  his  edition  "  Absolutissimam,  perfectissimam,  om- 
nibusque  virtutibus  suis  ornatissimam." 

I  have  now  brought  the  history  of  this  notable  controversy  to 
a  conclusion.  During  its  subsistence,  various  other  editions  of 
Plautus  had  been  published — that  of  Isaac  Pontanus,  Amsterdam, 
1620,  from  a  MS.  in  his  own  possession — that  of  Nic.  Heinsius, 
Leyden,  1635,  and  that  of  Buxhornius,  1645,  who  had  the  advan- 
tage of  consulting  a  copy  of  Plautus,  enriched  with  MS.  notes,  in 
the  handwriting  of  Joseph  Scaliger. 

Gronovius  at  length  published  the  edition  usually  called  the 
Variorum.  Bentley,  in  his  critical  emendations  on  Menander, 
speaks  with  great  contempt  of  the  notes  which  Gronovius  had 
compiled.  The  first  Variorum  edition  was  printed  at  Leyden  in 
l6<54,  the  second  in  1669,  and  the  third,  which  is  accounted  the 
best,  at  Amsterdam,  1684. 

The  Delphin  edition  was  nearly  coeval  with  these  Variorum 
editions,  having  been  printed  at  Paris,  l679»  It  was  edited  un- 
der care  of  Jacques  1'CEuvre  or  Operarius,  but  is  not  accounted 
one  of  the  best  of  the  class  to  which  it  belongs.  The  text  was  prin- 
cipally formed  on  the  last  edition  of  Gruterus,  and  the  notes  of 
Taubman  were  chiefly  employed.  The  Prolegomena  on  the  Life 
and  Writings  of  Plautus,  is  derived  from  various  sources,  and 
is  very  copious.  None  of  the  old  commentators  could  publish  an 
edition  of  Plautus,  without  indulging  in  a  dissertation  De  Obscce- 
nis.  In  every  Delphin  edition  of  the  classics  we  are  informed, 
that  consultum  est  pudori  Serenissimi  Delphini;  but  this  has  been 
managed  in  various  ways.  Sometimes  the  offensive  lines  are  allow- 
ed to  remain,  but  the  interpretatio  is  omitted,  and  in  its  place  star 
lights  are  hung  out  alongside  of  the  passage  :  but  in  the  Delphin 
Plautus  they  are  concentrated  in  one  focus,  "in  gratiam,"  as  it  is 
expressed,  "  provectioris  wtatis"  at  the  end  of  the  volume,  under 
the  imposing  title  "  Plauti  Obscosna  :" 

"  And  there  we  have  them  all  at  one  full  swoop  ; 

Instead  of  being  scattered  through  the  pages, 
They  stand  forth  marshalled  in  a  handsome  troop, 

To  meet  the  ingenuous  youth  of  future  ages. 


526  APPENDIX. 

Till  some  less  rigid  editor  shall  stoop 

To  call  them  back  into  their  separate  cages  ; 
Instead  of  standing  staring  all  together, 
Like  garden  gods,  and  not  so  decent  either."1 

What  is  termed  the  Ernesti  edition  of  Plautus,  and  which  is 
commonly  accounted  the  best  of  that  poet,  was  printed  at  Leipsic, 
1760.  It  was  chiefly  prepared  by  Aug.  Otho,  but  Ernesti  wrote 
the  preface,  containing  a  full  account  of  the  previous  editions  of 
Plautus. 

The  two  editions  by  the  Vulpii  were  printed  at  Padua,  1725 
and  1764. 

The  text  of  the  second  Bipontine  edition,  1788,  was  corrected 
by  Brunck.  The  plan  of  the  Bipontine  editions  of  the  Latin 
classics  is  well  known.  There  are  scarcely  any  annotations  or 
commentary  subjoined ;  but  the  text  is  carefully  corrected,  and 
an  account  of  previous  editions  is  prefixed. 

In  the  late  edition  by  Schmieder  (Gottingen,  1804),  the  text 
of  Gronovius  has  been  principally  followed  ;  but  the  editor  has 
also  added  some  conjectural  emendations  of  his  own.  The  com- 
mentary appears  to  have  been  got  up  in  considerable  haste.  The 
preliminary  notices  concerning  the  Life  and  Writings  of  Plautus, 
and  the  previous  editions  of  his  works,  are  very  brief  and  unsatis- 
factory. There  is  yet  a  more  recent  German  edition  by  Bothe, 
which  has  been  published  in  volumes  from  time  to  time  at  Berlin. 
Two  MSS.  never  before  consulted,  and  which  the  editor  believes 
to  be  of  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century,  were  collated  by  him.  His 
principal  aim  in  this  new  edition  is  to  restore  the  lines  of  Plautus 
to  their  proper  metrical  arrangement. 

With  a  similar  view  of  restoring  the  proper  measure  to  the 
verses,  various  editions  of  single  plays  of  Plautus  have,  within 
these  few  years,  been  printed  in  Germany.  Of  this  sort  is  the 
edition  of  the  Trinummus,  by  Hermann  (Leipsic,  1800),  and  of  the 
Miles  (Weimar,  1804),  by  Danz,  who  has  made  some  very  bold 
alterations  on  the  text  of  his  author. 

Italy  having  been  the  country  in  which  learning  first  revived, 
—in  which  the  MSS.  of  the  Classics  were  first  discovered,  and  the 

1  Don  Juan. 


APPENDIX.  527 

first  editions  of  them  printed, — it  was  naturally  to  be  expected, 
that,  of  all  the  modern  tongues  of  Europe,  the  classics  should 
have  been  earliest  translated  into  the  Italian  language.  Accord- 
ingly we  find,  that  the  most  celebrated  and  popular  of  them  ap- 
peared in  the  Lingua  Volgare,  previous  to  the  year  1500.1 

With  regard  to  Plautus,  MaflFei  mentions,  as  the  first  translation 
of  the  Amphitryon,  a  work  in  ottava  rima,  printed  without  a  date. 
This  work  was  long  believed  to  be  a  production  of  Boccaccio,*  but 
it  was  in  fact  written  by  Ghigo  Brunelleschi,  an  author  of  equal 
or  superior  antiquity,  and  whose  initials  were  mistaken  for  those 
of  Giovanni  Boccaccio.  Though  spoken  of  by  MafFei  as  a  dramatic 
version,  it  is  in  fact  a  tale  or  novel  founded  on  the  comedy  of 
Plautus,  and  was  called  Geta  e  Birria.3  Pandolfo  Collenuccio  was 
the  first  who  translated  the  Amphitryon  in  its  proper  dramatic 
form,  and  terza  rima.  He  was  in  the  service  of  Hercules,  first 
Duke  of  Ferrara,  who  made  this  version  be  represented,  in  Ja- 
nuary, 1487,  in  the  splendid  theatre  which  he  had  recently  built, 
and  on  occasion  of  the  nuptials  of  his  daughter  Lucretia.  The 
Menechmi,  partly  translated  in  ottava  and  partly  in  terza  rima, 
was  the  first  piece  ever  acted  on  that  theatre.  The  Este  family 
were  great  promoters  of  these  versions ;  which,  though  not 
printed  till  the  sixteenth  century,  were  for  the  most  part  made 
and  represented  before  the  close  of  the  fifteenth.  The  dramatic 
taste  of  Duke  Hercules  descended  to  his  son  Alphonso,  by  whose 
command  Celio  Calcagnino  translated  the  Miles  Gloriosus.  Paitoni 
enumerates  four  different  translations  of  the  Asinaria,  in  the 
course  of  the  sixteenth  century,  one  of  which  was  acted  in  the  mo- 
nastery of  St  Stephen's,  at  Venice. 

There  were  also  a  few  versions  of  particular  plays  in  the  course 
of  the  eighteenth  century ;  but  Paitoni,  whose  work  was  printed 
in  1767,  mentions  no  complete  Italian  translation  of  Plautus,  nor 
any  version  whatever  of  the  Truculentus,  or  Trinummus.  The 
first  version  of  all  the  comedies  was  that  of  Nic.  Eug.  Argelio, 
which  was  accompanied  by  the  Latin  text,  and  was  printed  at 
Naples,  1783,  in  10  volumes  8vo. 


1  MafFei,  Traduttori  Italiani,  p.  8.  Ed.  Venez.  1720. 

2  Ibid.  p.  70. 

'  Paitoni,  Biblioteca  degli  autor.  Lat.  Volgarizzati,  Tom.  III.  p.  118. 


528  APPENDIX. 

The  subject  of  translation  was  early  attended  to  in  France.  In 
the  year  1540,  a  work  containing  rules  for  it  was  published  by 
Steph.  Dolet,  which  was  soon  followed  by  similar  productions ; 
and,  in  the  ensuing  century,  its  principles  became  a  great  topic 
of  controversy  among  critics  and  scholars.  Plautus,  however,  was 
not  one  of  the  classics  earliest  rendered.  Though  Terence  had  been 
repeatedly  translated  while  the  language  was  almost  in  a  state  of 
barbarism,  Plautus  did  not  appear  in  a  French  garb,  till  clothed 
in  it  by  the  Abbe  Marolles,  at  the  solicitation  of  Furetiere,  in 
1658.  The  Abbe,  being  more  anxious  to  write  many  than  good 
books,  completed  his  task  in  a  few  months,  and  wrote  as  the  sheets 
were  throwing  off.  His  translation  is  dedicated  to  the  King,  Louis 
XIV.,  and  is  accompanied  by  the  Latin  text.  We  shall  find,  as 
we  proceed,  that  almost  all  the  Latin  authors  of  this  period  were 
translated  into  French  by  the  indefatigable  Abbe  de  Marolles.  He 
was  unfortunately  possessed  of  the  opulence  and  leisure  which 
Providence  had  denied  to  Plautus,  Terence,  and  Catullus ;  and 
the  leisure  he  enjoyed  was  chiefly  devoted  to  translation.  "  Trans- 
lation," says  Disraeli,  "  was  the  mania  of  the  Abbe  de  Marolles  ; 
sometimes  two  or  three  classical  victims  in  a  season  were  dragged 
into  his  slaughter-house.  The  notion  he  entertained  of  his  trans- 
lations was  their  closeness  ;  he  was  not  aware  of  his  own  spiritless 
style,  and  he  imagined  that  poetry  only  consisted  in  the  thoughts, 
not  in  the  grace  and  harmony  of  verse."1 

De  Coste's  translation  of  the  Captivi,  in  prose,  171 6,  has  been 
already  mentioned.  This  author  was  not  in  the  same  hurry  as 
Marolles,  for  he  kept  his  version  ten  years  before  he  printed  it.  He 
has  prefixed  a  Dissertation,  in  which  he  maintains,  that  Plautus, 
in  this  comedy,  has  rigidly  observed  the  dramatic  unities  of  time 
and  place. 

Mad.  Dacier  has  translated  the  Amphitryon,  Rudens,  and  Epi- 
tltcus.  Her  version,  which  is  accompanied  by  the  Latin  text,  and 
is  dedicated  to  Colbert,  was  first  printed  1683.  An  examination 
of  the  defects  and  beauties  of  these  comedies,  particularly  in  re- 
spect of  the  dramatic  unities,  is  prefixed,  and  remarks  by  no  means 
deficient  in  learning  are  subjoined.  Some  changes  from  the  print- 
ed Latin  editions  are  made  in  the  arrangement  of  the  scenes.  In 
her  dissertation  on  the  Epidicus,  which  was  a  favourite  play  of 

1  Curiosities  of  Literature,  Vol.  I.    New  series. 
5 


APPENDIX.  529 

Plautus  himself,  Mad.  Dacier  attempts  to  justify  this  preference 
of  the  poet,  and  wishes  indeed  to  persuade  us,  that  it  is  a  fault- 
less production.  Goujet  remarks,  that  one  is  not  very  forcibly 
struck  with  all  the  various  beauties  which  she  enumerates  in  per- 
using the  original,  and  still  less  sensible  of  them  in  reading  her 
translation. 

M.  de  Limiers,  who  published  a  version  of  the  whole  plays  of 
Plautus  in  1719^  has  not  rendered  anew  those  which  had  been 
translated  by  Mad.  Dacier  and  by  De  Coste,  but  has  inserted  their 
versions  in  his  work.  These  are  greatly  better  than  the  others, 
which  are  translated  by  Limiers  himself.  All  of  them  are  in  prose, 
except  the  Stichus  and  Trinummus,  which  the  author  has  turned 
into  verse,  in  order  to  give  a  specimen  of  his  poetic  talents.  In 
the  versifications,  he  has  placed  himself  under  the  needless  re- 
straint of  rendering  each  Latin  line  by  only  one  in  French,  so  that 
there  should  not  be  a  verse  more  in  the  translation  than  the  ori- 
ginal ;  the  consequence  of  which  is,  that  the  whole  is  constrained 
and  obscure.  Examinations  and  analyses  of  each  piece,  expositions 
of  the  plots,  with  notices  of  Plautus'  imitations  of  the  ancient 
writers,  and  those  of  the  moderns  after  him,  are  inserted  in  this 
work. 

In  the  same  year  in  which  Limiers  published  his  version,  Gueu- 
deville  brought  out  a  translation  of  Plautus.  It  is  a  very  free  one ; 
and  Goujet  says,  it  is  "  Plaute  travesti,  plutot  que  traduit."  He 
attempts  to  make  his  original  more  burlesque  by  exaggerations  ; 
and  by  singular  hyperbolical  expressions  ;  the  obsccena  are  a  good 
deal  enhanced ;  and  he  has  at  the  end  formed  a  sort  of  table,  or 
index,  of  the  obscene  passages,  referring  to  their  proper  page, 
which  may  thus  be  found  without  perusing  any  other  part  of  the 
drama.  The  pVofessed  object  of  the  table  is,  that  the  reader  may 
pass  them  over  if  he  choose. 

A  contemporary  journal,  comparing  the  two  translations,  ob- 
serves,— "  II  semble  que  M.  Limiers  s'attache  davantage  a  son 
original,  et  qu'il  en  fait  mieux  sentir  le  veritable  caractere ;  et  que 
le  Sieur  Gueudeville  est  plus  badin,  plus  vif,  plus  bouffon."1  Fa- 
bricius  passes  on  them  nearly  the  same  judgment.2 

1  Journal  Historique.    Amsterdam,  1719. 
s  Bib.  Lat.  Lib.  I.  c.  1.  §  8. 
VOL.  II.  2  L 


530  APPENDIX. 

The  English  were  early  acquainted  with  the  plays  of  Plautus. 
It  appears  from  Holinshed,  that  in  the  eleventh  year  of  King 
Henry  VIII. — that  is,  in  1520 — a  comedy  of  Plautus  was  played 
before  the  King.1  We  are  informed  by  Miss  Aikin,  in  her  Me- 
moirs of  the  Court  of  Elizabeth,  that  when  that  Queen  visited 
Cambridge  in  1564,  she  went  on  a  Sunday  morning  to  King's 
Chapel,  to  hear  a  Latin  sermon,  ad  clerum;  "  and  in  the  evening, 
the  body  of  this  solemn  edifice  being  converted  into  a  temporary 
theatre,  she  was  there  gratified  with  a  representation  of  the  Au- 
lularia  of  Plautus."2  It  has  been  mentioned  in  the  text,  that,  in 
1 595,  there  appeared  a  translation  of  the  Mencecfwii  of  Plautus, 
by  W.  W. — initials  which  have  generally  been  supposed  to  stand 
for  William  Warner,  author  of  Albion's  England.  In  1694,  Echard 
published  a  prose  translation  of  the  three  comedies  which  had 
been  selected  by  Mad.  Dacier — the  Amphitryon,  Epidicus,  and  Ru- 
dens.  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  he  has  more  frequently  trans- 
lated from  the  French,  than  from  his  original  author.  His  style, 
besides,  is  coarse  and  inelegant ;  and,  while  he  aims  at  being  fa- 
miliar, he  is  commonly  low  and  vulgar.  Some  passages  of  the  Am- 
phitryon he  has  translated  in  the  coarsest  dialogue  of  the  streets : — 
"  By  the  mackins,  I  believe  Phoebus  has  been  playing  the  good 
fellow,  and's  asleep  too !  I'll  be  hanged  if  he  ben't  in  for't,  and 
has  took  a  little  too  much  of  the  creature."  In  every  page,  also, 
we  find  the  most  incongruous  jumble  of  ancient  and  of  modern 
manners.  He  talks  of  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  Athens,  of  bride- 
well, and  aldermen  ;  and  makes  his  heathen  characters  swear  Bri- 
tish and  Christian  oaths,  such  as,  "  By  the  Lord  Harry ! — 'Fore 
George  ! — 'Tis  as  true  as  the  Gospel !" 

In  the  year  1746,  Thomas  Cooke,  the  well-known  translator  of 
Hesiod,  published  proposals  for  a  complete  translation  of  Plautus, 
but  he  printed  only  the  Amphitryon.  Dr  Johnson  has  told,  that 
Cooke  lived  twenty  years  on  this  translation  of  Plautus,  for  which 
he  was  always  taking  in  subscriptions.3 

In  imitation  of  Colman,  who,  in  his  Terence,  had  introduced 
a  new  and  elegant  mode  of  translation  in  familiar  blank  verse,  Mr 
Thornton,  in  1767,  published  a  version  of  seven  of  the  plays  after 

1  Pre/,  to^ Johnson  and  Steevens'  Sltakspeare,  p.  96.  3d  Ed. 

*  Vol.  I.  p.  370. 

3  Boswell's  Tour  to  the  Hebride*. 


APPENDIX.  531 

the  same  manner, — Amphitryon,  Miles  Gloriosus,  Captivi,  Tri- 
nummus,  Mercator,  Aulularia,  Rudens.  Of  these,  the  translation 
of  the  Mercator  was  furnished  by  Colman,  and  that  of  the  Cap- 
tivi by  Mr  Warner.  Thornton  intended  to  have  translated  the 
remaining  thirteen,  but  was  prevented  by  death.  The  work,  how- 
ever, was  continued  by  Mr  Warner,  who  had  translated  the  Cap- 
tivi. To  both  versions  there  were  subjoined  remarks,  chiefly  col- 
lected from  the  best  commentators,  and  from  the  notes  of  the 
French  translators  of  Plautus. 


TERENCE. 

The  MSS.  of  Terence  which  were  coeval  with  the  age  of  the 
author,  or  shortly  posterior  to  it,  were  corrupted  from  the  same 
cause  as  the  MSS.  of  Plautus.    Varro  says,  that,  in  his  time,  the 
copies  of  Terence  then  existing  were  extremely  corrupt.     He  is, 
however,  one  of  the  classics  whose  works  cannot  properly  be  said 
to  have  been  discovered  at  the  revival  of  literature,  as,  in  fact,  his 
comedies  never  were  lost.    They  were  commented  on,  during  the 
later  ages  of  the  empire,  by  ^Emilius  Asper,  Valerius  Probus, 
Martius  Salutaris,  Flavius  Caper,  and  Helenius  Aero ;  and  to- 
wards the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  Rufinus  wrote  a  diatribe  on 
the  metres  of  Terence.     Sulpicius  Apollinaris,  a  grammarian  of 
the  second  century,  composed  arguments  to  the  plays,  and  iElius 
Donatus  commented  on  them  in  the  fourth  century.   The  person 
styling  himself  Calliopius,  revised  and  amended,  in  the  eighth  cen- 
tury, a  MS.  which  was  long  preserved  in  the  Vatican.    Eugra- 
phius  commented  on  Terence,  again,  in  the  tenth,  and  Calpurnius 
in  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century.    Guiniforte  delivered  lec- 
tures on  Terence  at  Novarra  in  1430,  and  Filelfo  at  Florence 
about  the  same  period.1     Petrarch,  too,  when  Leontius  Pilatus, 
disgusted  with  Italy,  returned  to  his  native  country,  gave  him  a 
copy  of  Terence  as  his  travelling  companion, — a  foolish  present, 
as  Petrarch  adds,  for  there  is  no  resemblance  between  the  most 
gloomy  of  all  the  Greeks,  and  the  most  lively  of  the  Africans.  As 
Petrarch  at  this  time  seems  to  have  cordially  disliked  Leontius, 
it  is  not  probable  that  the  copy  of  Terence  he  gave  him  was  very 

1  Ginguen£,  Hist.  Lit.  d'Jtalie,  Tom.  II.  p.  290, 


532  •  APPENDIX. 

scarce.  All  this  shows,  that  the  six  plays  of  Terence  were  not 
merely  extant,  but  very  common  in  Italy,  during  the  dark  ages. 
One  of  the  oldest  MSS.  of  Terence,  and  that  which  was  probably 
used  in  the  earliest  printed  editions,  was  preserved  in  the  Vatican 
library  :  Fabricius  has  described  it  as  written  by  Hrodogarius  in 
the  time  of  Charlemagne,  and  as  revised  by  Calliopius.1  Another 
MS.  of  Terence  in  the  Vatican  library,  is  one  which,  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  had  fallen  into  the  possession  of  Cardinal  Bembo. 
It  had  been  revised  by  Politian,2  who  wrote  on  it,  in  his  own  hand, 
that  he  had  never  seen  one  more  ancient : — "  Ego,  Angelus  Poli- 
tianus,  homo  vetustatis  minime  incuriosus,  nullum  me  vidisse,  ad 
hanc  diem,  codicem  vetustiorem  fateor."  Its  age,  when  Fabricius 
wrote,  in  1698,  was,  as  that  author  testifies,  more  than  a  thousand 
years,  which  places  its  transcription  at  the  latest  in  698.  In  this 
MS.  there  is  a  division  of  verses  which  is  not  employed  in  that 
above  mentioned,  written  by  Hrodogarius.  Politian  corrected 
from  it,  with  his  own  hand,  a  copy  which  was  in  the  Laurentian 
library,  and  collated  with  it  another,  which  subsequently  belong- 
ed to  Petrus  Victorius.  After  the  death  of  Cardinal  Bembo,  this 
ancient  MS.  came  into  the  possession  of  Fulvius  Ursinus,  and  was 
by  him  bequeathed  to  the  Vatican  library.3 

There  is  much  uncertainty  with  regard  to  the  Edilio  Princeps 
of  Terence,  and,  indeed,  with  regard  to  most  of  the  editions  of  his 
works  which  appeared  during  the  fifteenth  century.  That  print- 
ed by  Mentelin  at  Strasburg,  without  date,  but  supposed  to  be 
1468,  seems  now  to  be  considered  as  having  the  best  claims  to 
priority.4  The  Terence  printed  by  Pynson  in  1497*  was,  I  believe, 
the  first  Latin  classic  published  in  this  country.  The  earliest  edi- 
tions of  Terence  are  without  any  separation  of  verses,  the  division 
of  them  having  been  first  introduced  in  the  edition  of  1487,  ac- 
cording to  the  arrangement  made  by  Politian  from  Cardinal  Bem- 
bo's  copy.  Westerhovius,  in  the  prolegomena  to  his  edition,  1726, 
enumerates  not  fewer  than  248  editions  of  Terence  previous  to 
his  time.  Though  the  presses  of  the  Aldi  (1517 — 21),  the  Ste- 
phenses  (1529 — 52,  &c),  and  the  Elzevirs  (1635),  were  succes- 
sively employed  in  these  editions,  the  text  of  Terence  does  not 

1  Bib.  Lat.  Lib.  I.  c.  3.  §  4.  *  Polit.  Epist. 

3  Bandini,  Catalog.  Bib.  Med.  Laurent,  p.  264.     Hawkin's  Inquiry  into 
Lat.  Poet.  p.  200. 

4  Dibdin,  Biblxotheca  Spenceriana,  Tom.  II. 


APPENDIX.  533 

seem  to  have  engaged  the  attention  of  any  of  the  most  eminent 
scholars  or  critics  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  with 
the  exception  of  Muretus.  The  edition  of  Faernus,  (Florence, 
1565,)  for  which  various  valuable  MSS.  were  collated,  became  the 
foundation  of  almost  all  subsequent  impressions,  particularly  that 
of  Westerhovius,  which  is  usually  accounted  the  best  edition  of 
Terence.  It  is  nevertheless  declared,  by  Mr  Dibdin,  "  to  be  more 
admirable  for  elaborate  care  and  research,  than  the  exhibition  of 
any  critical  niceties  in  the  construction  of  the  text,  or  the  illustra- 
tion of  difficult  passages."  It  contains  the  Commentaries  of  Do- 
natus,  Calpurnius,  and  Eugraphius,  and  there  are  prefixed  the 
Life  of  Terence,  attributed  to  Suetonius, — a  dissertation  of  D. 
Heinsius,  Ad  Horatii  de  Plauto  et  Terentio  judicium, — Evanthius, 
De  Tragcedia  et  Comcedia,— and  a  treatise,  compiled  by  the  editor 
from  the  best  authorities,  concerning  the  scenic  representations 
of  the  Romans. 

Bentley's  first  edition  of  Terence  was  printed  at  Cambridge  in 
the  same  year  with  that  of  Westerhovius.  One  of  Bentley's  great 
objects  was  the  reformation  of  the  metres  of  Terence,  concerning 
which  he  prefixed  a  learned  dissertation.  The  boldness  of  his  al- 
terations on  the  text,  which  were  in  a  great  measure  calculated 
to  serve  this  purpose,  drew  down  on  him,  in  his  own  age,  the  ap- 
pellation of  "  slashing  Bentley,"  and  repeated  castigation  from 
subsequent  editors. 

Of  the  more  recent  editions,  that  of  Zeunius  (Leipsic,  1 774) 
is  deservedly  accounted  the  best  in  point  of  critical  excellence. 
There  are,  however,  three  German  editions  still  more  recent ;  that 
by  Schmeider,  (Halle,  1794,)  by  Bothe,  (Magdeburg,  1806,)  and 
by  Perlet,  (Leipsic,  1821;)  which  last  is  chiefly  remarkable  for  its 
great  number  of  typographical  errors — about  as  numerous  as  those 
in  one  of  the  old  English  Pearl  Bibles. 

The  plays  of  Terence  being  much  less  numerous  than  those  of 
Plautus,  translations  of  the  whole  of  them  appeared  at  an  earlier 
period,  both  in  Italian  and  French.  The  first  complete  Italian 
translation  of  Terence  was  in  prose.  It  is  dedicated  to  Benedetto 
Curtio,  by  a  person  calling  himself  Borgofranco ;  but  from  the 
ambiguity  of  some  expressions  in  this  dedication,  there  has  been 
a  dispute,  whether  he  be  the  author,  or  only  the  editor  of  the  ver- 
sion— Fontanini  supporting  the  former,  and  Apostolo  Zeno  the 


534  APPENDIX. 

latter  proposition.1  It  was  first  printed  at  Venice,  1533 ;  ami 
Paitoni  enumerates  six  subsequent  editions  of  it  in  the  course  of 
the  sixteenth  century.  The  next  version  was  that  of  Giovanni 
Fabrini,  which,  as  we  learn  by  the  title,  is  rendered  word  for 
word  from  the  original ;  it  was  printed  at  Venice,  1548.  A  third 
prose  translation,  published  at  Rome,  1612,  is  dedicated  to  the 
Cardinal  Borghese  by  the  printer  Zanetti,  who  mentions,  that  it 
was  the  work  of  an  unknown  author,  which  had  fallen  accidental- 
ly into  his  hands :  Fontanini,  however,  and  Apost.  Zeno,  have 
long  since  discovered,  that  the  author  was  called  Cristoforo  Ro- 
sario.  Crescimbeni  speaks  favourably  of  a  version  by  the  Mar- 
chioness of  Malespini.  Another  lady,  Luisa  Bergalli,  had  trans- 
lated in  verso  sciollo,  and  printed  separately,  some  of  the  plays  of 
Terence :  These  she  collected,  and,  having  completed  the  remain- 
der, published  them  together  at  Venice,  in  1733.  In  1736,  a 
splendid  edition  of  a  poetical  translation  of  Terence,  and  accom- 
panied by  the  Latin,  was  printed  at  Urbino,  with  figures  of  the 
actors,  taken  from  a  MS.  preserved  in  the  Vatican.  It  is  written 
in  verso  sciolto,  except  the  prologues,  which  are  in  versi  sdruccioli. 
The  author,  Who  was  Nicholas  Fortiguerra,  and  who  died  before 
his  version  was  printed,  says,  that  the  comedies  are  nunc  primuin 
Italicis  versibus  redditce  ,*2  but  in  this  he  had  not  been  sufficiently 
informed,  as  his  version  was  preceded  by  that  of  Luisa  Bergalli, 
and  by  many  separate  translations  of  each  individual  play.  A 
translation  of  two  of  Terence's  plays,  the  Andria  and  Eunuchus, 
into  versi  sdruccioli,  by  Giustiano  de  Candia,  was  printed  by  Paul- 
lus  Manutius  in  1544.3  Three  of  Terence's  plays,  the  Andria, 
Eunuchus,  and  Heautontimorumenos,  were  subsequently  trans- 
lated in  versi  sdruccioli,  by  the  Abbe  Bellaviti,  and  published  at 
Bassan  in  1758. 

It  is  not  certain  who  was  the  author  of  the  first  French  transla- 
tion of  Terence,  or  even  at  what  period  he  existed.  Du  Verdier 
and  Fabricius  say,  he  was  Octavien  de  Saint  Gelais,  Bishop  of 
Angouleme,  who  lived  in  the  reign  of  Charles  VIII.  This,  how- 
ever, is  doubtful,  since  Pierre  Grosnet,  a  French  poet,  contempo- 
rary with  the  Bishop,  while  mentioning  the  other  classics  which 

1  Minerva,  o  Giornal.  de  Letter,  d'ltal. 

2  Argelati,  Biblioteca  de  Volgarizzatori,  Tom.  IV.  p.  44. 

3  Renouard,  Hist,  de  V Imprint,  des  Aides,  Tom.  I. 


APPENDIX.  535 

he  had  translated,  Bays  nothing  of  any  version  of  Terence  by  him, 
but  expressly  mentions  one  by  Gilles  Cybile — 

"  Maistre  Gilles  nomme  Cybile, 
II  s'est  montre"  tres-fort  habile : 
Car  il  a  tout  traduit  Therence 
Ou  il  y  a  mainte  sentence."1 

The  author,  whoever  he  may  be,  mentions,  that  the  translation 
was  made  by  order  of  the  King ;  but  he  does  not  specify  by  which 
of  the  French  monarchs  the  command  was  given.  His  work  was 
first  printed,  but  without  date,  by  Antony  Verard,  so  well  known 
as  the  printer  of  some  of  the  earliest  romances  of  chivalry ;  and 
as  Verard  died  in  1520,  it  must  have  been  printed  before  that 
date.2  It  is  in  one  volume  folio,  ornamented  with  figures  in  wood- 
cuts, and  is  entitled,  Le  Grant  Therence  en  Frangois,  tant  en  rime 
qu'en  prose,  avecques  le  Latin.  As  this  title  imports,  there  is 
both  a  prose  and  verse  translation  ;  and  the  Latin  text  is  likewise 
given.  It  is  difficult  to  say  which  of  the  translations  is  worst ; 
that  in  verse,  which  is  in  lines  of  eight  syllables,  is  sometimes  al- 
most unintelligible,  and  the  variation  of  masculine  and  feminine 
rhymes,  is  scarcely  ever  attended  to. 

The  translation,  printed  1583,  with  the  Latin  text,  and  of 
which  the  author  is  likewise  unknown,  is  little  superior  to  that 
by  which  it  was  preceded.  Beauchamp,  in  his  Recherches  sur  les 
Theatres  de  France,  mentions  two  other  translations  of  the  six- 
teenth century— one  in  1566,  the  other  in  1584.  The  first  by  Jean 
Bourlier,  is  in  prose — the  second  is  in  rhyme,  and  is  translated 
verse  for  verse.  Mad.  Dacier  includes  all  the  verses  of  the  six- 
teenth century  in  one  general  censure,  only  excepting  that  of  the 
Eunuch  by  Baif,  printed  1573,  in  his  jeux  poetiques.  It  is  in 
lines  of  eight  and  ten  syllables,  and  was  undertaken  by  order  of 
Queen  Catharine,  mother  of  Charles  IX.  Mad.  Dacier  pronounces 
it  to  be  a  good  translation,  except  that,  in  about  twenty  passages, 
the  sense  of  the  original  author  has  been  mistaken.  It  is  remarked 
by  Goujet,  in  his  Bibliotheque  Francoise,  that  if  Mad.  Dacier  had 
been  acquainted  with  the  Andrian,  by  Bonaventure  des  Per- 
riers,  printed  in  1537,  she  would  have  made  an  exception  in  fa- 

5  De  la  louange  des  bons  facteurs  en  Rime. 

2  Sulzer,  Theorie  der  Schonen  Wiuemch.  Tercnz. 


536  APPENDIX. 

vour  of  it  also.  Bonaventure  was  the  valet  of  Margaret,  Queen 
of  Navarre,  and  after  her  death  the  editor  of  her  tales,  and  him- 
self the  author  of  a  collection  in  a  similar  taste.  He  wrote  at  a 
time  when  the  French  language  was  at  its  highest  perfection, 
being  purified  from  the  coarseness  which  appeared  in  the  romances 
of  chivalry,  and  yet  retaining  that  energy  and  simplicity,  which 
it  in  a  great  measure  lost,  soon  after  the  accession  of  the  Bour- 
bons. This  version  was  one  of  Bonaventure's  first  productions, 
as,  in  the  Avis  aux  Lecteurs,  he  says,  "  Que'  c'etait  son  apprentis- 
sage  :"  he  intended  to  have  translated  the  whole  plays  of  Terence, 
but  was  prevented  by  his  tragical  death.  The  same  comedy  cho- 
sen by  Bonaventure  des  Perriers,  was  translated  into  prose  by 
Charles  Stephens,  brother  of  the  celebrated  printers. 

The  Abbe  Marolles  has  succeeded  no  better  in  his  translation 
of  Terence,  than  in  that  of  Plautus.  We  recognize  in  it  the  same 
heaviness — the  same  want  of  elegance  and  of  fidelity  to  the  ori- 
ginal. Chapelain  remarks,  "  Que  ce  traducteur  etoit  l'Antipode 
du  bon  sens,  et  qu'il  s'eloignoit  partout  de  l'intelligence  des  au- 
teurs  qui  avoient  le  malheur  de  passer  par  ses  mains."  His  trans- 
lation appeared  in  1659,  in  two  volumes  8vo,  accompanied  by  re- 
marks, in  the  same  taste  as  those  with  which  he  had  loaded  his 
Plautus. 

About  this  period,  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Port- Royal,  in  France, 
paid  considerable  attention  to  the  education  of  youth,  and  to  the 
cultivation  of  classical  learning.  M.  de  Sacy,  a  distinguished 
member  of  that  religious  association,  and  well  known  in  his  day 
as  the  author  of  the  Heures  de  Port-Royal,  translated  into  prose 
the  Andria,  Adelphi,  and  Phormio.1  This  version,  which  he 
printed  in  1647,  under  the  assumed  name  of  M.  de  Saint- Aubin, 
is  much  praised  in  the  Pamasse  Reforme,  and  the  Jugcmens  des 
Scavans.  There  were  many  subsequent  editions  of  it,  and  some 
even  after  the  appearance  of  the  translation  by  Mad.  Dacier.  The 
version  of  the  other  three  comedies,  by  the  Sieur  de  Martignac, 
was  intended,  and  announced  as  a  supplement,  or  continuation  of 
the  work  of  M.  de  Sacy. 

It  still  remains  for  me  to  mention  the  translation  of  Terence 
by  Mad.  Dacier.  This  lady  was  advised  against  the  undertaking 
by  her  friends,  but  she  was  determined  to  persevere.2  She  rose  at 

1  Baillet,  Jugemens  des  S^avant. 
1  Mem.  de  Trevoux,  1721. 


,      APPENDIX.  537 

five  o'clock  every  morning,  during  a  whole  winter,  in  the  course 
of  which  she  completed  four  comedies ;  but  having  perused  them 
at  the  end  of  some  months,  she  thought  them  too  much  laboured 
and  deficient  in  ease.  She  therefore  threw  them  into  the  fire, 
and,  with  more  moderation,  recommenced  her  labour,  which  she 
at  length  completed,  with  satisfaction  to  herself  and  the  public. 
Her  translation  was  printed  in  1688,  3  vols.  12mo,  accompanied 
with  the  Latin  text,  a  preface,  a  life  of  the  poet,  and  remarks  on  each 
of  his  pieces.  She  has  not  entered,  as  in  her  translations  of  Plau- 
tus,  into  a  particular  examination  of  every  scene,  but  has  content- 
ed herself  with  some  general  observations.  This  lady  has  also  made 
considerable  changes  as  to  the  commencement  and  termination  of 
the  scenes  and  acts  ;  and  her  conjectures  on  these  points  are  said 
to  have  been  afterwards  confirmed  by  an  authoritative  and  excel- 
lent MS.,  discovered  in  the  Bibliotheque  de  Rot.1  The  first  edition 
was  improved  on,  in  one  subsequently  printed  at  Rotterdam  in 
1717,  which  was  also  ornamented  with  figures  from  two  MSS. 
There  is  a  yet  more  recent  translation  by  Le  Monnier,  1771> 
which  is  now  accounted  the  best. 

The  first  translation  which  appeared  in  this  country,  and 
which  is  entitled  "  Terence  in  Englysh,"  is  without  date,  but  is 
supposed  to  have  been  printed  in  1520.  It  was  followed  by  Ber- 
nard's translation,  1598 — Hoole's,  1670 — Echard's,  1694— and 
Dr  Patrick's,  1745.  All  these  prose  versions  are  flat  and  obso- 
lete, and  in  many  places  unfaithful  to  their  original.  At  length 
Colman  published  a  translation  in  familiar  blank  verse,  in  which 
he  has  succeeded  extremely  well.  He  has  seldom  mistaken  the 
sense  of  his  author,  and  has  frequently  attained  to  his  polished 
ease  of  style  and  manner.  The  notes,  which  have  been  judi- 
ciously selected  from  former  commentators,  with  some  observa- 
tions of  his  own,  form  a  valuable  part  of  the  work. 


LUCILIUS. 

F.  Douza  was  the  first  who  collected  the  fragments  of  this 
satiric  poet,  and  formed  them  into  a  cento.  Having  shewn  his 
MS.  and  notes  to  Joseph  Scaliger,  he  was  encouraged  to  print 

1  Goujet,  Bib.  Fran.  Tom.  IV.  p.  436. 


538  APPENDIX. 

them,  and  an  edition  accordingly  came  forth  at  Leyden,  in  1597. 
It  soon,  however,  became  very  scarce.  A  single  copy  of  it  was 
accidentally  discovered  by  Vulpius,  in  one  of  the  principal  public 
libraries  of  Italy  ;  but,  owing  to  the  place  which  it  had  occupied, 
it  had  been  so  destroyed  by  constant  eaves-dropping  from  the 
roof  of  the  house,  that  when  he  laid  his  hands  on  it,  it  was  scarce- 
ly legible.  Having  restored,  however,  and  amended  the  text  as 
far  as  possible,  he.  reprinted  it  at  Padua  in  1735. 


LUCRETIUS. 

The  work  of  Lucretius,  like  the  jEneid  of  Virgil,  had  not  re- 
ceived the  finishing  hand  of  its  author,  at  the  period  of  his  death. 
The  tradition  that  Cicero  revised  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  public, 
does  not  rest  on  any  authority  more  ancient  than  that  of  Euse- 
bius ;  and,  had  the  story  been  true,  it  would  probably  have  been 
mentioned  in  some  part  of  Cicero's  voluminous  writings,  or  those 
of  the  early  critics.  Eichstadt,1  while  he  denies  the  revisal  by 
Cicero,  is  of  opinion  that  it  had  been  corrected  by  some  critic  or 
grammarian ;  and  that  thus  two  MSS.,  differing  in  many  respects 
from  each  other,  had  descended  to  posterity — the  one  as  it  came 
from  the  hand  of  the  poet,  and  the  other  as  amended  by  the  re- 
viser. This  he  attempts  to  prove  from  the  great  inequality  of 
the  language— now  obsolete  and  rugged — now  polished  and  re- 
fined— which  difference  can  only,  he  thinks,  be  accounted  for, 
from  the  original  and  corrected  copies  having  been  mixed  together 
in  some  of  those  middle-age  transcriptions,  on  which  the  first 
printed  editions  were  formed.  The  old  grammarians,  too,  he  al- 
leges, frequently  quote  verses  of  Lucretius,  which  no  longer  com- 
pose parts  of  his  poem,  and  which  therefore  must  have  been  alto- 
gether omitted  by  the  corrector ;  and,  finally,  the  readings  in  the 
different  MSS.  are  so  widely  different,  that  it  is  incredible  that 
the  variations  could  have  proceeded  from  the  transcribers  or  in- 
terpolators, and  could  have  been  occasioned  only  by  the  author 
or  reviser  of  the  poem. 

But  though  not  completely  polished  by  the  author,  there  is  no 

1  De  Vil.  ct  Carm.  Lucret.  Praf> 


APPENDIX.  539 

ground  for  the  conjecture,  that  the  poem  ever  consisted  of  more 
than  the  present  six  books — an  opinion  which  seems  to  have  ori- 
ginated in  an  orthographical  error,  and  which  is  contradictory  to 
the  very  words  of  the  poet  himself.1 

The  work  of  Lucretius  does  not  appear  to  have  been  popular 
at  Rome,  and  the  MSS.  of  it  were  probably  not  very  numerous  in 
the  latter  ages  of  the  empire.  It  is  quoted  by  Raban  Maur,  Ab- 
bot of  Fulda,  in  his  book  De  Universo,2  which  was  written  in 
the  ninth  century.  The  copies  of  it,  however,  seem  to  have  to- 
tally disappeared,  previous  to  the  revival  of  literature ;  but  at 
length  Poggio  Bracciolini,  while  attending  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance, whither  he  repaired  in  1414,  discovered  a  MS.  in  the 
monastery  of  St  Gal,  about  twenty  miles  from  that  city.3  It  is 
from  the  following  lines,  in  a  Latin  elegy,  by  Cristoforo  Landini, 
on  the  death  of  this  celebrated  ornament  of  his  age,  that  we  learn 
to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the  first  of  philosophic  poems.  Lan- 
dini, recording  the  discoveries  of  his  friend,  exclaims — 

"  Illius,  raanu  nobis,  doctissime  rhetor, 

Integer  in  Latium,  Quintiliane,  redis  ; 
Et  te,  Lucreti,  longo  post  tempore,  tandem 

Civibus  et  patriae  reddit  habere  tuae." 

Poggio  sent  the  newly-discovered  treasure  to  Niccolo  Niccoli, 
who  kept  the  original  MS.  fourteen  years.  Poggio  earnestly  de- 
manded it  back,  and  at  length  obtained  it ;  but  before  it  was  re- 
stored, Niccoli  made  from  it,  with  his  own  hand,  a  transcript, 
which  is  still  extant  in  the  Laurentian  library.4 

The  edition  published  at  Verona,  I486,  which  is  not  a  very 
correct  one,  was  long  accounted  the  Editio  Princeps  of  Lucretius. 
A  more  ancient  impression,  however,  printed  at  Brescia,  1473, 
has  recently  become  known  to  bibliographers.  It  Mas  edited  by 
Ferrandus  from  a  single  MS.  copy,  which  was  the  only  one  he 
could  procure.  But  though  he  had  not  the  advantage  of  collating 
different  MSS.,  the  edition  is  still  considered  valuable,  for  its  ac- 
curacy and  excellent  readings.  There  are,  I  believe,  only  three 
copies  of  it  now  extant,  two  of  which  are  at  present  in  England. 


1  See  Good's  Lucretius,  Pre/,  p.  99.    Eichstadt,  De  Vit.  #c.  Lucret.  p.  65. 

2  Lib.  XV.  c.  2.  a  Barbari,  Epist.  I.  ad  Poggium. 

4  Menus,  Pnef.  ad  Epist.  Ambrot.  Camaldul.  p.  38. 


540  APPENDIX. 

The  text  of  Lucretius  was  much  corrupted  in  the  subsequent  edi- 
tions of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  even  in  that  of  Aldus,  publish- 
ed at  Venice  in  1500,  of  which  Avancius  was  the  editor,  and 
which  was  the  first  Latin  classic  printed  by  Aldus.1  This  was 
partly  occasioned  by  the  second  edition  of  I486  being  unfortu- 
nately chosen  as  the  basis  of  all  of  them,  instead  of  the  prior  and 
preferable  edition,  printed  at  Brescia.  In  a  few,  but  very  few 
readings,  the  second  edition  has  improved  on  the  first,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, in  the  beautiful  description  of  the  helplessness  of  a  new- 
born infant— 

"  Navita,  nudus  humi  jacet  infans,  indigus  omni 
Vitali  auxilio," 

where  the  Brescian  edition  reads  indignus,  instead  of  indigus.  And 
again,  in  the  fifth  book — 

"  Nee  poterat  quenquam  placidi  pellacia  ponti, 
Subdola  pellicere  in  fraudem,  ridentibus  undis," 

where  the  Brescian  edition  reads  pollicere,  instead  of  pellicere, 
which  seems  to  be  wrong.  At  length  Baptista  Pius,  by  aid  of 
some  emendations  of  his  preceptor,  Philippus  Beroaldus,  to  which 
he  had  access,  and  by  a  laborious  collation  of  MSS.,  succeeded  in 
a  great  measure  in  restoring  the  depraved  text  of  his  author  to 
its  original  purity.  His  edition,  printed  at  Bologna  in  1511,  and 
the  two  Aldine  editions,  published  in  1515,  under  the  superin- 
tendence of  Navagero,  who  was  a  much  better  editor  than  Avan- 
cius, continued  to  be  regarded  as  those  of  highest  authority  till 
1563,  when  Lambinus  printed  at  Paris  an  edition,  prepared  from 
the  collation  of  five  original  MSS.,  and  all  the  previous  editions 
of  any  note,  except  the  first  and  second,  which  seem  to  have  been 
unknown  to  him.  The  text,  as  he  boasts  in  the  preface,  was  correct- 
ed in  800  different  places,  and  was  accompanied  by  a  very  ample 
commentary.  Lambinus  was  succeeded  by  Gifanius,  who  was 
more  a  grammarian  than  an  acute  or  tasteful  critic.  He  amassed 
together,  without  discrimination,  the  notes  and  conjectures  on 
Lucretius,  of  all  the  scholars  of  his  own  and  the  preceding  age. 
Douza,  in  a  set  of  satirical  verses,  accused  him  of  having  appro- 
priated and  published  in  his  edition,  without  acknowledgment, 
some  writings  of  L.  Fruterius,  which  had  been  committed  to  him 

1  Renouard,  Annates  de  V  Imprimerie  des  Aides,  Tom.  I. 


APPENDIX.  541 

I 

on  death-bed,  in  order  to  be  printed.  His  chief  merit  lies  in  what 
relates  to  grammatical  interpretation,  and  the  explanation  of  an- 
cient customs,  and  in  a  more  ample  collection  of  parallel  passages 
than  had  hitherto  been  made.  The  editions  of  D.  Pareus,  (Frank- 
fort, 1631,)  and  of  Nardius,  (Florence,  1647,)  were  not  better  than 
that  of  Gifanius  ;  and  the  Delphin  edition  of  Lucretius,  by  M.  Le 
Fay,  has  long  been  known  as  the  very  worst  of  the  class  to  which 
it  belongs.  "  Notae  ejus,"  says  Fabricius,  "  plenae  sunt  pudendis 
hallucinationibus."  Indeed,  so  much  ashamed  of  it  were  his  col- 
leagues, and  those  who  directed  this  great  undertaking  of  the 
Delphin  classics,  that  they  attempted,  though  unsuccessfully,  to 
suppress  it. 

Nearly  a  century  and  a  half  had  elapsed,  from  the  first  publica- 
tion of  the  edition  of  Lambinus,  without  a  tolerable  new  impres- 
sion of  Lucretius  being  offered  to  the  public,  when  Creech,  better 
known  as  the  translator  of  Lucretius,  printed,  in  1695,  a  Latin 
edition  of  the  poet,  to  whose  elucidation  he  had  devoted  his  life. 
His  study  of  the  Epicurean  system,  and  intimate  acquaintance 
with  the  works  of  Gassendi,  fully  qualified  him  for  the  philosophic 
illustration  of  his  favourite  author.  On  the  whole,  however,  Ha- 
vercamp's  edition,  Leyden,  1725,  is  the  best  which  has  yet  appear- 
ed of  Lucretius.  It  was  prepared  from  the  collation  of  twenty- 
five  MSS.,  as  well  as  of  the  most  ancient  editions,  and  contained 
not  only  the  whole  annotations  of  Creech  and  Lambinus,  but  also 
some  notes  of  Isaac  Vossius,  which  had  not  previously  been  print- 
ed. The  prefaces  of  the  most  important  editions  are  prefixed ; 
and  the  only  fault  which  has  been  found  with  it  is,  that  in  his 
new  readings  the  editor  has  sometimes  injured  the  harmony  of  the 
versification.  Lucretius  certainly  cannot  be  considered  as  one  of 
the  classics  who  have  been  most  fortunate  in  their  editors  and  com- 
mentators. In  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  he  failed 
to  obtain  the  care  of  the  most  pre-eminent  critics  of  the  age,  and 
was  thus  left  to  the  conjectures  of  second-rate  scholars.  It  was 
his  lot  to  be  assigned  to  the  most  ignorant  and  barbarous  of  the 
Delphin  editors ;  and  his  catastrophe  has  been  completed  by  fall- 
ing into  the  hands  of  Wakefield,  whose  edition  is  one  of  the  most 
injudicious  and  tasteless  that  ever  issued  from  the  press.  In  pre- 
paring this  work,  which  is  dedicated  to  Mr  Fox,  the  editor  had 
the  use  of  several  MSS.  in  the  University  of  Cambridge  and  the 
British  Museum  ;  and  also  some  MS.  notes  of  Bentley,  found  in  a 


542  APPENDIX. 

copy  of  a  printed  edition,  which  originally  belonged  to  Dr  Mead. 
In  his  preface,  he  expresses  himself  with  much  asperity  against 
Mr  Cumberland,  for  withholding  from  him  some  other  MS.  notes 
of  Bentley,  which  were  in  his  possession.    It  would  have  been  for- 
tunate for  him  if  he  had  never  seen  any  of  Bentley's  annotations, 
since  many  of  his  worst  readings  are  derived  from  that  source. 
By  an  assiduous  perusal  of  MSS.  and  old  editions,  he  has  restored 
as  much  of  the  ancient  Latin  orthography,  as  renders  the  perusal 
of  the  poet  irksome,  though,  by  his  own  confesssion,  he  has  not  in 
this  been  uniform  and  consistent ;  and  he  has  most  laboriously 
amassed,  particularly  from  Virgil,  a  multitude  of  supposed  paral- 
lel passages,  many  of  which  have  little  resemblance  to  the  lines 
with  which  they  are  compared.    The  long  Latin  poem,  addressed 
to  Fox,  lamenting  the  horrors  of  war,  does  not  compensate  for  the 
very  brief  and  unsatisfactory  notices,  as  to  everything  that  regards 
the  life  and  writings  of  the  poet,  and  the  previous  editions  of  his 
works.     The  commentary  is  dull,  beyond  the  proverbial  dulness 
of  commentaries  ;  and  wherever  there  was  a  disputed  or  doubtful 
reading,  that  one  is  generally  selected,  which  is  most  tame  and  un- 
meaning— most  grating  to  the  ear,  and  most  foreign,  both  to  the 
spirit  of  the  poet,  and  of  poetry  in  general.  I  shall  just  select  one 
instance  from  each  book,  as  an  example  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  finest  lines  have  been  utterly  destroyed  by  the  alteration  of  a 
single  word,  or  even  letter,  and  I  shall  choose  such  passages  as  are 
familiar  to  every  one.    In  his  magnificent  eulogy  of  Epicurus,  in 
the  first  book,  Lucretius,  in  admiration  of  the  enlightened  bold- 
ness of  that  philosopher,  described  him  as  one — 

"  Quem  neque  fama  Deum,  nee  fulmina,  nee  minitanti 
Murmure  compressit  coelum." 

The  expression  Fama  Deum  implies,  that  Epicurus  could  not  be 
restrained  by  that  imposing  character,  with  which  deep-rooted 
prejudice,  and  the  authority  of  fable,  had  invested  the  gods  of 
Olympus — a  thought  highly  poetical,  and  at  the  same  time  pane- 
gyrical of  the  mighty  mind  which  had  disregarded  all  this  super- 
stitious renown.  But  Wakefield,  by  the  alteration  of  a  single  let- 
ter, strips  the  passage  both  of  its  sense  and  poetry — he  reads, 

"  Quem  neque  fana  Deum,  nee  fulmina,  nee  minitanti," 

which  imports  that  the  determined  mind  of  Epicnrus  could  not  be 


APPENDIX.  543 

controlled  by  the  temples  of  the  gods,  which,  if  it  has  any  mean- 
ing at  all,  is  one  most  frigid  and  puerile.  This  innovation,  which 
the  editor  calls,  in  the  note,  egregiam  emendationem,  is  not  sup- 
ported, as  far  as  he  informs  us,  by  the  authority  of  any  ancient 
MS.  or  edition  whatever,  but  it  was  so  written  on  the  margin  of 
the  copy  of  Lucretius,  which  had  belonged  to  Bentley,  where  it 
was  placed,  as  Wakefield  admits,  nude  ascripta  et  indefensa.  In 
the  second  book,  Lucretius  maintaining  that  absence  of  splendour 
is  no  diminution  of  happiness,  says, 

"  Si  non  aurea  sunt  juvenum  simulacra  per  anies,  &c. 
*  *  *  *  # 

Nee  citharae  reboant  laqueata  aurataque  tccta." 

But  Wakefield,  instead  of  tccta,  reads  templa,  and  justifies  his 
reading,  not  on  the  authority  of  any  ancient  MSS.,  but  by  show- 
ing that  templa  is  used  for  tecta  by  some  authors,  and  applied  to 
private  dwellings  !  The  third  book  commences  very  spiritedly 
with  an  eulogy  of  Epicurus : 

"  E  tenebris  tantis  tarn  clarum  extollere  lumen 
Qui  primus  potuisti,  illustrans  commoda  vita, 
Te  sequor,  O  Graiae  gentis  decus  !" 

This  sudden  and  beautiful  apostrophe  is  weakened  and  destroyed 
by  a  change  to 

"  O  tenebris  tantis  tarn  clarum  extollere  lumen." 

The  lines  are  rendered  worse  by  the  interjection  being  thus  twice 
repeated  in  the  course  of  three  verses.  In  the  fourth  book,  Lu- 
cretius-, alluding  to  the  merits  of  his  own  work,  says, 

"  Deinde,  quod  obscura  de  re  tam  lucida  pango 
Carolina,  Musaeo  contingens  cuncta  lepore." 

Here  the  word  pango  presents  us  with  the  image  of  the  poet  at 
his  lyre,  pouring  forth  his  mellifluous  verses,  and  it  has  besides, 
in  its  sound,  something  of  the  twang  of  a  musical  instrument. 
Wakefield,  however,  has  changed  the  word  into  pando,  which  re- 
minds us  only  of  transcription  and  publication.  Lucretius,  in 
book  fifth,  assigns  as  the  reason  why  mankind  supposed  that  the 
abode  of  the  gods  was  in  heaven, 


544  .  APPENDIX. 

•'  Per  coelum  volvi  quia  nox  et  luna  videtur, 
Luna,  dies,  et  nox,  et  noctis  signa  serena  /" 

This  last  word  Wakefield  has  changed  into  severa,  which  greatly 
impairs  the  beauty  of  the  line.  Noctis  signa  serena,  are  the  stars 
and  planets ;  but  if  instead  of  these  be  substituted  the  signa  severa, 
the  passage  becomes  tautological,  for  the  signa  severa  are  intro- 
duced immediately  afterwards  in  the  line 

"  Noctivagaeque  faces  coeli  flammaeque  volantes." 

I  have  only  selected  passages  where  Wakefield  has  departed 
from  the  usual  readings,  without  support  from  any  ancient  edition 
or  authoritative  MS.  whatever.  The  instances  where,  in  a  varia- 
tion of  the  MSS.  and  editions,  he  has  chosen  the  worse  reading, 
are  innumerable. 

The  first  edition  of  Wakefield's  Lucretius  was  printed  at  Lon- 
don in  1796;  the  second  at  Glasgow,  1813,  which  is  rendered 
more  valuable  than  the  first,  by  a  running  collation  in  the  last  vo- 
lume of  the  readings  of  the  Editio  Princeps,  printed  at  Brescia  ; 
that  of  Verona,  I486 — Venice,  1495 — the  Aldine  edition,  1500—. 
and  the  Bipontine,  1782,  which  places  in  a  very  striking  point  of 
view  the  superiority  of  the  Editio  Princeps  over  those  by  which  it 
was  immediately  succeeded.  At  the  end  of  this  edition,  there  are 
published  some  MS.  notes  and  emendations,  taken  from  Bentley's 
own  copy  of  Faber's  edition  of  Lucretius,  in  the  library  of  the 
British  Museum.  They  are  not  of  much  consequence,  and  though 
a  few  of  them  are  doubtless  improvements  on  Faber's  text,  yet, 
taken  as  a  whole,  they  would  injure  the  lines  of  the  poet,  should 
they  be  unfortunately  adopted  in  subsequent  editions. 

Eichstadt,  in  his  recent  impression,  published  at  Leipsic,  has 
chiefly  followed  the  text  of  Wakefield,  but  has  occasionally  devia- 
ted from  it  when  he  thought  the  innovations  too  bold.  He  had  the 
advantage  of  consulting  the  Editio  Princeps,  which  no  modern 
editor  enjoyed.  He  has  prefixed  Wakefield's  prefaces,  and  a  long 
dissertation  of  his  own,  on  the  Life  and  Poetical  Writings  of  Lu- 
cretius, in  which  he  scarcely  does  justice  to  the  poetical  genius  of 
his  author.  The  first  volume,  containing  the  text  and  a  very  co- 
pious verbal  index,  was  printed  at  Leipsic  in  1801.    It  is  intend- 

5 


APPENDIX.  545 

ed  that  the  second  volume  should  comprise  the  commentary,  but 
it  has  not  yet  been  published. 

There  is  hardly  any  poet  more  difficult  to  translate  happily  than 
Lucretius.  In  the  abstruse  and  jejune  philosophical  discussions 
which  occupy  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  poem,  it  is  hardly  pos- 
sible, without  a  sacrifice  of  perspicuity,  to  retain  the  harmony  of 
versification ;  and,  in  the  ornamental  passages,  the  diction  is  so 
simple,  pure,  and  melodious,  that  it  is  an  enterprize  of  no  small 
difficulty  to  translate  with  fidelity  and  elegance. 

In  consequence,  perhaps,  of  the  freedom  of  his  philosophical, 
and  a  misrepresentation  of  his  moral  tenets,  Lucretius  was  longer 
of  being  rendered  into  the  Italian  language  than  almost  any  other 
classic.  It  was  near  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  before 
any  version  was  executed,  when  a  translation,  in  verso  sciolto,  was 
undertaken  by  Marchetti,  Professor  of  Mathematics  and  Philoso- 
phy in  the  University  of  Pisa.  Marchetti  has  evidently  translated 
from  the  edition  of  Lambinus — the  best  which  had  at  that  time 
appeared.  His  version,  however,  though  completed  in  the  seven- 
teenth century,  was  not  published  till  171 7,  three  years  after  his 
death,  when  it  was  printed,  with  the  date  of  London,  under  the 
care  of  a  person  styling  himself  Antinoo  Rullo,  with  a  prefatory 
dedication  to  the  great  Prince  Eugene,  in  which  the  editor  terms 
it,  "  la  piu.  grande,  e  la  piu  bella  poetic'  opera  che  nel  passato  se- 
colo  nascesse  ad  accrescere  un  nuovo  lume  di  gloria  ad  Italia." 
Public  opinion,  both  in  Italy  and  other  countries,  has  confirmed 
that  of  the  editor,  and  it  is  universally  admitted,  that  the  transla- 
tor has  succeeded  in  faithfully  preserving  the  spirit  and  meaning 
of  the  Latin  original,  without  forfeiting  any  of  the  beauties  of  the 
Italian  language.  It  has  been  said,  that  such  was  the  freedom 
and  freshness  of  this  performance,  that  unless  previously  informed 
as  to  the  fact,  no  one  could  distinguish  whether  the  Latin  or  Ita- 
lian Lucretius  was  the  original.  Graziana,  himself  a  celebrated 
poet,  who  had  perused  it  in  MS.,  thus  justly  characterizes  its  me- 
rits, in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  author : — "  You  have  translated 
this  poem  with  great  felicity  and  ease ;  unfolding  its  sublime  and 
scientific  materials  in  a  delicate  style  and  elegant  manner ;  and, 
what  is  still  more  to  be  admired,  your  diction  seldom  runs  into  a 
lengthened  paraphrase,  and  never  without  the  greatest  judgment." 

VOL.  II.  2  M 


546  APPENDIX. 

The  perusal  of  this  admirable  translation  was  forbidden  by  the  In- 
quisition, but  the  prohibition  did  not  prevent  a  subsequent  impres- 
sion of  it  from  being  printed  at  Lausanne,  in  I76I.  This  edition, 
which  is  in  two  volumes,  contains  an  Italian  translation  of  Polignac's 
Anti-Lucretius,  by  F.  Maria  Ricci.  The  editor,  Deregni,  indeed 
declares  that  he  would  not  have  ventured  to  publish  any  translation 
of  Lucretius,  however  excellent,  unless  accompanied  by  this  power- 
ful antidote.  There  are  prefixed  to  this  edition  historical  and  cri- 
tical notices ;  as  also  the  preface,  and  the  Protesta  del  Traduttore, 
which  had  been  inserted  in  the  first  edition. 

Most  of  the  French  translations  of  Lucretius  are  in  prose.  Of 
all  sorts  of  poetry,  that  called  didactic,  which  consists  in  the  de- 
tail of  a  regular  system,  or  in  rational  precepts,  which  flow  from 
each  other  in  a  connected  train  of  thought,  suffers  least  by  being 
transfused  into  prose.  Almost  every  didactic  poet,  however,  en- 
riches his  work  with  such  ornaments  as  spring  out  of  his  subject, 
though  not  strictly  attached  to  it ;  but  in  no  didactic  poem  are 
these  passages  so  numerous  and  so  charming  as  in  that  of  Lucre- 
tius; and,  accordingly,  in  a  prose  translation,  while  all  that  is 
systematic  or  preceptive  may  be  rendered  with  propriety,  all  that 
belongs  to  embellishment,  and  which  forms  the  principal  grace  of 
the  original,  appears  impertinent  and  misplaced.  The  earliest 
translation  of  Lucretius  into  the  French  language,  was  by  Guil- 
laume  des  Autels,  about  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The 
Abbe  Marolles,  already  mentioned  as  the  translator  of  Plautus 
and  Terence,  turned  Lucretius  into  French  prose  :  Of  this  ver- 
sion there  were  two  editions,  the  first  of  which  was  printed  in 
1650.  It  was  addressed  to  Christina,  Queen  of  Sweden  ;  and,  as 
the  author  had  been  very  liberal  to  this  princess  in  compliment, 
he  hoped  she  would  be  equally  liberal  in  reward;  but  he  was 
much  deceived,  and  of  this  disappointment  he  bitterly  complains 
in  his  Memoirs.  Of  this  translation,  Goujet  remarks,  that  one 
is  constantly  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  the  Latin  text,  in  order 
to  comprehend  its  meaning.1  It  was  a  good  deal  amended,  how- 
ever, in  the  second  edition,  1659,  under  circumstances  of  which 
the  author  introduces  an  account  in  the  Ii6t  of  his  works  sub- 
joined to  his  translation  of  Virgil.  Gassendi,  who  had  profoundly 
studied  the  system  of  Epicurus  and  Lucretius,  having  procured 

»  Biblioth.  Franc.  Tom.  V. 


APPENDIX.  547 

a  copy  of  Marolles'  first  edition,  he  sent  a  few  days  before  his  death 
for  the  author,  and  pointed  out  to  him,  with  his  own  hand,  those 
passages  in  which  he  thought  his  translation  defective,  and  also 
supplied  him  with  a  number  of  notes  in  illustration  of  the  poet. 
The  Abbe  was  thus  provided  with  ample  materials  for  the  improve- 
ment of  his  work,  and  so  pleased  was  he  with  his  second  edition, 
that  he  got  a  prohibition  against  reprinting  the  first  introduced 
into  the  Privilege  of  the  second.  He  inserted  in  it  a  Discours 
Apologetique,  defending  the  translating  and  reading  of  Lucre- 
tius, and  prefixed  a  dedication  to  M.  Lamoignon,  President  of 
the  Parliament,  whom  he  now  substituted  for  Queen  Christina. 
Moliere  having  seen  the  first  edition  of  Marolles'  prose  trans- 
lation, was  thereby  induced  to  render  Lucretius  into  French 
verse.  His  original  intention  was  to  have  versified  the  whole 
poem,  but  he  afterwards  confined  his  rhymes  to  the  more  decora- 
tive parts,  and  delivered  the  rest  in  plain  prose.  As  he  pro- 
ceeded with  his  version,  he  uniformly  rehearsed  it  both  to  Cha- 
pelle  and  Rohaut,  who  jointly  testified  their  approbation  of  the 
performance.  But  it  was  destined  to  perish  when  brought 
very  near  its  completion.  A  valet  of  the  translator,  who  had 
charge  of  his  dress-wig,  being  in  want  of  paper  to  put  it  into 
curl,  laid  hold  of  a  loose  sheet  of  the  version,  which  was  imme- 
diately rent  to  pieces,  and  thrown  into  the  fire  as  soon  as  it  had 
performed  its  office.  Moliere  was  one  of  the  most  irritable  of  the 
genus  irritabile  vatum,  and  the  accident  was  too  provoking  to  be 
endured.  He  resolved  never  to  translate  another  line,  and  threw 
the  whole  remainder  of  his  version  into  the  flames,  which  had 
thus  consumed  a  part  of  it.1  This  abortive  attempt  of  Moliere 
incited  the  Abbe  Marolles  to  render  the  whole  of  Lucretius  into 
verse.  He  completed  this  task  in  less  than  four  months,  and  pub- 
lished the  fruits  of  his  labour  in  1677-  Rapidity  of  execution, 
however,  is  the  only  merit  of  which  he  has  to  boast.  His  trans- 
lation is  harsh,  flat,  and  inverted ;  and  it  is  also  very  diffuse : 
The  poem  of  Lucretius  consists  of  7389  lines,  and  the  version  of 
not  less  than  12338.2 

1  Good's  Lucretius,  Preface. 

2  See  Goujet,  Bibliotheque  Franqoise,  Tom.  V.  p.  1 8.  Fabricius,  however, 
says,  that  he  does  not  know  who  was  the  author  of  this  verse  translation,  and 
Mr  Good,  in  the  preface  to  his  Lucretius,  attributes  it  to  one  James  Langlois, 
who,  he  says,  translated  not  from  the  original  Latin,  but  from  Marolles'  prose 
version. 


548  APPENDIX. 

Lucretius  was  subsequently  translated  into  prose  by  the  Baron 
des  Coutures.  His  version,  printed  at  Paris  1685,  is  somewhat 
better  in  point  of  style  than  those  of  Marolles,  but  is  not  more 
faithful  to  the  original,  being  extremely  paraphrastic.  A  Life  of 
Lucretius,  drawn  up  from  the  materials  furnished  by  Hubert, 
Gifanius,  Lambinus,  and  other  commentators,  is  prefixed,  and 
to  every  book  is  appended  a  small  body  of  notes,  which  show 
that  the  author  was  better  acquainted  with  his  subject  than  Ma- 
rolles. Still,  however,  the  poem  of  Lucretius  was  not  much 
known  in  France  during  the  seventeenth  century,  either  in  the 
original  or  translated  form.  Chaulieu,  one  of  the  most  elegant 
and  polished  poets  of  that  age,  was  so  little  acquainted  with  the 
moral  lessons  which  it  inculcated,  as  to  write  the  following 
lines : — 

','  Epicure  et  Lucrece 


M'ont  appris  que  la  Sagesse 
Veut  qu'au  sortir  d'un  repas, 
Ou  des  bras  de  sa  maltresse, 
Content  l'on  aille  la  bas." 

At  length  La  Grange  translated  Lucretius  in  17^8,  and  Le 
Blanc  de  Guillet  in  1788.  Brunet  speaks  highly  of  the  version 
of  La  Grange,  which  he  seems  to  think  is  the  best  in  the  French 
language,  and  he  says  that  of  Le  Blanc  de  Guillet  is  pen  recherche. 
Mr  Good,  in  mentioning  the  various  translations  of  Lucretius, 
does  not  allude  to  the  production  of  La  Grange,  but  speaks  highly 
of  the  version  of  Le  Blanc  de  Guillet.  He  is  sometimes,  he  admits, 
incorrect,  and  still  more  frequently  obscure :  "  On  the  whole, 
however,"  he  continues,  "  it  is  a  work  of  great  merit,  and  ranks 
second  amid  the  translations  of  Lucretius,  which  have  yet  ap- 
peared ki  any  nation  :"  Of  course,  it  ranges  immediately  next  to 
that  of  Marchetti.  This  version  is  accompanied  with  the  Latin 
text  in  alternate  pages.  It  is  decorated  with  plates,  illustrated 
by  notes,  and  introduced  by  a  comprehensive  preliminary  dis- 
course, which  contains  a  biography  of  the  original  author,  drawn 
up  from  Gifanius  and  Creech,  and  also  some  general  observations 
on  the  Epicurean  philosophy. 

The  first  attempt  to  transfer  the  poem  of  Lucretius  into  the 
English  language,  was  made  by  Evelyn,  the  celebrated  author  of 
the  Sylva.     It  was  one  of  his  earliest  productions,  having  been 


APPENDIX.  .519 

printed  in  1656.  It  was  accompanied  by  an  appendix  of  notes, 
which  show  considerable  acquaintance  with  his  subject,  and  there 
are  prefixed  to  it  complimentary  letters  or  verses  by  Waller, 
Fanshaw,  Sir  Richard  Brown,  and  Christopher  Wasse.  Evelyn 
commenced  his  arduous  task  with  great  enthusiasm,  a  due  admi- 
ration of  his  original,  and  anxious  desire  to  do  it  full  justice.  On 
actual  trial,  however,  he  became  conscious  of  his  own  inability  to 
produce,  as  he  expresses  it,  "  any  traduction  to  equal  the  elegancy 
of  the  original ;"  and  he  accordingly  closed  his  labours  with  the 
first  book.  To  this  resolution,  the  negligent  manner  in  which 
his  specimen  of  the  translation  was  printed,  contributed,  as  he  al- 
leges, in  no  small  degree.  Prefixed  to  the  copy  in  the  library 
at  Wotton,  is  this  note  in  his  own  handwriting :  "  Never  was 
book  so  abominably  misused  by  the  printer ;  never  copy  so  ne- 
gligently surveyed,  by  one  who  undertook  to  look  over  the 
proof-sheets  with  all  exactness  and  care,  namely,  Dr  Triplet, 
well  known  for  his  ability,  and  who  pretended  to  oblige  me  in 
my  absence,  and  so  readily  offered  himself.  This  good  I  re- 
ceived by  it,  that  publishing  it  vainly,  its  ill  success  at  the 
printer's  discouraged  me  with  troubling  the  world  with  the 
rest."1  This  pretended  disgust,  however,  at  the  typography  of 
his  Lucretius,  was  probably  a  pretext.  It  is  more  likely  that  he 
was  deterred  from  the  farther  execution  of  his  version,  either  by 
its  want  of  success,  or  by  the  hints  which  he  received  from  some 
of  his  friends  concerning  the  moral  and  religious  danger  of  his 
undertaking.  "  For  your  Lucretius,"  says  Jeremy  Taylor,  in  a 
letter  to  him,  dated  l6th  April,  1656,  "  I  perceive  you  have  suf- 
fered the  importunity  of  your  too  kind  friends  to  prevail  with 
you.  I  will  not  say  to  you  that  your  Lucretius  is  as  far  distant 
from  the  severity  of  a  Christian  as  the  fair  Ethiopian  was  from  the 
duty  of  Bishop  Heliodorus  j  for  indeed  it  is  nothing  but  what  may 
become  the  labours  of  a  Christian  gentleman,  those  things  only 
abated  which  our  evil  age  needs  not :  for  which  also  I  hope  you 
either  have  by  notes,  or  will  by  preface,  prepare  a  sufficient  anti- 
dote ;  but  since  you  are  engaged  in  it,  do  not  neglect  to  adorn  it, 
and  take  what  care  of  it  it  can  require  or  need  ;  for  that  neglect 
will  be  a  reproof  of  your  own  act,  and  look  as  if  you  did  it  with 
an  unsatisfied  mind ;  and  then  you  may  make  that  to  be  wholly 

1  Evelyn's  Memoirs,  Tom.  I. 


550  APPENDIX. 

a  sin,  from  which,  only  by  prudence  and  charity,  you  could  be- 
fore be  advised  to  abstain.  But,  sir,  if  you  will  give  me  leave,  I 
will  impose  such  a  penance  upon  you,  for  your  publication  of  Lu- 
cretius, as  shall  neither  displease  God  nor  you ;  and  since  you 
are  busy  in  these  things  which  may  minister  directly  to  learning, 
and  indirectly  to  error,  or  the  confidences  of  men,  who,  of  them- 
selves, are  apt  enough  to  hide  their  vices  in  irreligion,  I  know  you 
will  be  willing,  and  will  suffer  to  be  entreated,  to  employ  the 
same  pen  in  the  glorification  of  God,  and  the  ministries  of  eucha- 
rist  and  prayer."1 

,  In  16'82,  Creech,  who  was  deterred  by  no  such  religious 
scruples,  published  his  translation  of  the  whole  poem  of  Lucretius. 
As  a  scholar,  he  was  eminently  qualified  for  the  arduous  under- 
taking in  which  he  had  engaged ;  but  he  wrote  with  such  haste, 
that  his  production  everywhere  betrays  the  inaccuracies  of  an 
author  who  acquiesces  in  the  first  suggestions  of  his  mind,  and 
who  is  more  desirous  of  finishing,  than  ambitious  of  finishing 
well.  Besides,  he  is  at  all  times  rather  anxious  to  communicate 
the  simple  meaning  of  his  original,  than  to  exhibit  any  portion  of 
the  ornamental  garb  in  which  it  is  arrayed.  Hence,  though  gene- 
rally faithful  to  his  author,  he  is  almost  everywhere  deficient  in 
one  of  the  most  striking  characteristics  of  the  Roman  poet — gran- 
deur and  felicity  of  expression.  He  is  often  tame,  prosaic,  and 
even  doggerel ;  and  he  sometimes  discovers  the  conceits  of  a  vi- 
tiated taste,  in  the  most  direct  opposition  to  the  simple  character 
and  majestic  genius  of  his  Roman  original.  Pope  said,  "  that 
Creech  had  greatly  hurt  his  translation  of  Lucretius,  by  imitating 
Cowley,  and  bringing  in  turns  even  into  some  of  the  most  grand 
parts."2  It  is  also  remarked  by  Dr  Drake,  "  that  in  this  version 
the  couplet  has  led  in  almost  every  page  to  the  most  ridiculous 
redundancies.  A  want  of  taste,  however,  in  the  selection  of  lan- 
guage, is  as  conspicuous  in  Creech  as  a  deficiency  of  skill  and  ad- 
dress in  the  management  of  his  versification."3  The  ample  notes 
with  which  the  translation  is  accompanied,  are  chiefly  extracted 
from  the  works  of  Gassendi.  A  number  of  commendatory  poems 
are  prefixed,  and  among  others  one  from  Evelyn,  in  which  he  ac- 
knowledges, that  Creech  had  succeeded  in  the  glorious  enterprize 

1  Evelyn's  Memoirs  and  Correspondence,  Vol.  II.  p.  102.  2d  edit. 

2  Spence's  Anecdotes,  p.  106,  3  Literary  Houn,  No.  II. 


APPENDIX.  551 

in  which  he  himself  had  failed.  Dryden  was  also  much  pleased 
with  Creech's  translation,  but  this  did  not  hinder  him  from  versi- 
fying some  of  the  higher  and  more  ornamental  passages,  to  'which 
Creech  had  hardly  done  justice,  as  those  at  the  beginning  of  the 
first  and  second  books,  the  concluding  part  of  the  third  book, 
against  the  fear  of  death,  and  of  the  fourth  concerning  the  nature  of 
love.  On  these  fine  passages  Dryden  bestowed  the  ease,  the  vigour, 
and  harmony  of  his  muse ;  but  though  executed  with  his  accus- 
tomed spirit,  his  translations  want  the  majestic  solemn  colouring 
of  Lucretius,  and  are  somewhat  licentious  and  paraphrastic.  For 
this,  however,  he  accounts  in  his  Poetical  Miscellanies,  in  mention- 
ing his  translations  in  comparison  with  the  version  of  Creech. 
"  The  ways  of  our  translation,"  he  observes,  "  are  very  different 
—he  follows  Lucretius  more  closely  than  I  have  done,  which  be- 
came an  interpreter  to  the  whole  poem.  I  take  more  liberty,  be- 
cause it  best  suited  with  my  design,  which  was  to  make  him  as 
pleasing  as  I  could.  He  had  been  too  voluminous  had  he  used 
my  method  in  so  long  a  work,  and  I  had  certainly  taken  his,  had 
I  made  it  my  business  to  translate  the  whole." 

The  translations  by  Creech  and  Dryden  are  both  in  rhyme. 
That  of  Mr  Good,  printed  in  1805,  is  in  blank  verse,  and  it  may 
well  be  doubted  if  this  preference  was  conducive  to  the  successful 
execution  of  his  purpose.  The  translation  is  accompanied  with 
the  original  text  of  Lucretius,  printed  from  Wakefield's  edition, 
and  very  full  notes  are  subjoined,  containing  passages  exhibiting 
imitations  of  Lucretius  by  succeeding  poets.  The  preface  includes 
notices  of  preceding  editions  of  his  author,  and  the  explanation  of 
his  own  plan.  Then  follow  a  Life  of  Lucretius,  and  an  Appendix 
to  the  Life,  comprehending  an  analysis  and  defence  of  the  system 
of  Epicurus,  with  a  comparative  sketch  of  most  other  philosophi- 
cal theories,  both  ancient  and  modern. 

The  translation  of  Mr  Good  was  succeeded,  in  1813,  by  that 
of  Dr  Busby,  which  is  in  rhyme,  and  is  introduced  by  enormous 
prolegomena  on  the  Life  and  Genius  of  Lucretius,  and  the  Philo- 
sophy and  Morals  of  his  Poem. 


552  APPENDIX. 


CATULLUS. 

The  MSS.  of  Catullus  were  defaced  and  imperfect,  as  far  back 
as  the  time  of  Aulus  Gellius,1  who  lived  in  the  reigns  of  Adrian 
and  the  Antonines ;  and  there  were  varies  lectiones  in  his  age,  as 
well  as  in  the  fifteenth  century.  There  was  a  MS.  of  Catullus 
extant  at  Verona  in  the  tenth  century,  which  was  perused  by  the 
Bishop  Raterius,  who  came  from  beyond  the  Alps,  and  who  refers 
to  it  in  his  Discourses  as  a  work  he  had  never  seen  till  his  arrival 
at  Verona.  Another  was  possessed  in  the  fourteenth  century  by 
Pastrengo,  a  Veronese  gentleman,  and  a  friend  of  Petrarch,2  who 
quotes  it  twice  in  his  work  De  Originibus ;  but  these  and  all 
other  MSS.  had  entirely  disappeared  amid  the  confusions  with 
which  Italy  was  at  that  time  agitated,  and  Catullus  may,  there- 
fore, be  considered  as  one  of  the  classics  brought  to  light  at  the 
revival  of  literature.  The  MS.  containing  the  poems  of  Catullus 
was  not  found  in  Italy,  but  in  one  of  the  monasteries  of  France  or 
Germany,  (Scaliger  says  of  France,)  in  the  course  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  and  according  to  MafFei,  in  1425.3  All  that  we  know 
concerning  its  discovery  is  contained  in  a  barbarous  Latin  epi- 
gram, written  by  Guarinus  of  Verona,  who  chose  to  give  his  in- 
formation on  the  subject  in  an  almost  unintelligible  riddle.  It 
was  prefixed  to  an  edition  of  Catullus,  printed  in  Italy  1472,  where 
it  is  entitled  Hextichum  Guarini  Veronensis  Oratoris  Clariss.  in 
libellum  V.  Catulli  ejus  concivis : 

"  Ad  Patriam  venio  longis  clc  finibus  exul : 

Causa  mei  reditus  compatriota  fuit. 
Scilicet  a  calamis  tiibuit  cui  Francia  nomen, 

Quique  notat  turbae  prsetereuntis  iter. 
Quo  licet  ingenio  vestrum  celebrate  Catullum 

Quovis  sub  raodio  clausa  papyrus  erat." 

The  first  line  explains  that  the  MS.  was  brought  to  Italy  from 
beyond  the  Alps,  and  the  second,  that  it  was  discovered  by  a 
countryman  of  Catullus,  that  is,  by  a  citizen  of  Verona.  The  third 
line  contains  the  grand  conundrum.     Some  critics  have  supposed 

1  Noct.  Attic.  Lib.  VII.  c  20. 

*  MafFei,  Verona  Illustrata,  Part  II.  p.  4. 

3  Verm.  Illmt.  Part  II.  p.  6. 


APPENDIX.  55$ 

that  it  points  out  the  name  of  a  monastery  where  the  MS.  was 
discovered ;  others,  that  it  designates  the  name  of  the  person  who 
found  it.  Lessing  is  of  this  last  opinion  ;  and,  according  to  his 
interpretation,  the  line  implies,  that  it  was  discovered  by  some 
one  whose  name  is  the  French  word  for  quills  or  pens,  that  is, 
plumes.  The  name  nearest  this  is  Plumatius,  on  which  foundation 
Lessing  attributes  the  discovery  of  Catullus  to  Bernardinus  Plu- 
matius, a  great  scholar  and  physician  of  Verona,  who  flourished 
during  the  last  half  of  the  fifteenth  century.1  This  conjecture  of 
Lessing  was  better  founded  than  he  himself  seems  to  have  been 
aware,  as  the  second  syllable  in  the  name  Plumatius  is  not  re- 
mote from  the  French  verb  hater,  which,  in  one  sense,  as  the  epi- 
gram expresses  it — 

"  Notat  turbae  praetereuntis  iter." 

Lucius  Pignorius,  who  thinks  that  these  lines  were  not  written 
by  Guarinusof  Verona,  but  that  the  MS.  was  discovered  by  him, 
also  conjectures  that  it  was  found  in  a  barn,  since  it  is  said  in  the 
last  line,  that  it  was  concealed  sub  modio,  and  bushels  are  nowhere 
but  in  barns.2  This  is  taking  the  line  in  its  most  literal  signifi- 
cation, but  the  expression  probably  was  meant  only  as  prover- 
bial. 

The  wretched  situation  in  which  this  MS.  was  found,  and  the 
circumstance  of  its  being  the  only  one  of  any  antiquity  extant, 
sufficiently  accounts  for  the  numerous  and  evident  corruptions  of 
the  text  of  Catullus,  and  for  the  editions  of  that  poet  presenting 
a  greater  number  of  various  and  contradictory  readings  than  those 
of  almost  any  other  classic. 

After  this  MS.  was  brought  to  Italy,  it  fell  into  the  hands  of 
Guarinus  of  Verona,  who  took  much  pains  in  correcting  it,  and 
it  was  farther  amended  by  his  son  Baptista  Guarinus,  as  a  third 
person  of  the  family,  Alexander  Guarinus,  informs  us,  in  the 
procemium  to  his  edition  of  Catullus,  1521,  addressed  to  Alphon- 
so,  third  Duke  of  Ferrara.  Baptista  Guarinus,  as  Alexander  far- 
ther mentions  in  his  procemmm,  published  an  edition  of  Catullus 
from  the  MS.  which  he  had  taken  so  much  pains  to  correct,  but 
without  any  commentary.  This  edition,  however,  has  now  entire- 
ly disappeared;  and  that  of  1472,  printed  by  Spira,  at  Venice, 

1  Sammtliche  Schriftctt,  Tom.  I.  2  Symbol.  Eput.  XVI. 


554  APPENDIX. 

in  which  Catullus  is  united  with  Tihullus  and  Propertiusr,  is 
accounted  the  Editio  Princeps.  The  different  editions  in  which 
these  poets  have  appeared  conjoined,  will  be  more  conveniently 
enumerated  hereafter :  both  in  them,  and  in  the  impressions  of 
Catullus  printed  separately,  the  editors  had  departed  widely  from 
the  corrected  text  of  Baptista  Guarinus.  Accordingly,  Alexan- 
der Guarinus,  in  1521,  printed  an  edition  of  Catullus,  with  the 
view  of  restoring  the  genuine  readings  of  his  father  and  grand- 
father, who  had  wrought  on  the  ancient  MS.  which  was  the  pro- 
totype of  all  the  others.  It  would  appear,  however,  that  the  er- 
roneous readings  had  become  inveterate.  Maffei,  in  his  Verona 
Illustrata,1  points  out  the  absurd  and  unauthorized  alterations  of 
Vossius  and  Scaliger  on  the  pure  readings  of  the  Guarini. 

Muretus  took  charge  of  an  edition  of  Catullus,  which  was  print- 
ed by  the  younger  Aldus  Manutius  in  1558.  This  production  is 
not  accounted  such  as  might  be  expected  from  the  consummate 
critic  and  scholar  by  whom  it  was  prepared.  Isaac  Vossius  had 
commented  on  Catullus ;  but  his  annotations  lay  concealed  for 
many  years  after  his  death,  till  they  were  at  length  brought  to 
light  by  his  amanuensis  Beverland,  who,  by  means  of  this  valuable 
acquisition,  was  enabled  to  prepare  the  best  edition  which  had  yet 
appeared  of  Catullus,  and  which  was  first  printed  in  London  in 
1684.  His  commentary  was  on  every  point  profoundly  learned. — 
"  PoetanV  says  Harles,  "  commentario  eruditissimo,  ita  tamen 
ut  inverecundia.  illi  interdum  baud  cederet,  illustravit."  Vulpius 
published  a  yet  better  edition  at  Padua,  in  1737>  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  which  he  made  great  use  of  the  Editio  Princeps.  In  the 
notes,  he  has  introduced  a  new  and  most  agreeable  species  of  com- 
mentary,— illustrating  his  author  by  parallel  passages  from  the 
ancient  and  modern  poets,  particularly  the  Italian ;  not  such  pa- 
rallel passages  as  Wakefield  has  amassed,  where  the  words  qui  or 
atque  occur  in  both,  but  where  there  is  an  obvious  imitation  or 
resemblance  in  the  thought  or  image.  He  has  also  prefixed  a  dia- 
tribe De  Metris  Catullianis.  In  the  year  1 738,  a  curious  fraud 
was  practised  with  regard  to  Catullus.  Carradini  de  Allio,  a 
scholar  of  some  note,  published  at  Venice  an  edition,  which  he 
pretended  to  have  printed  from  an  ancient  MS.  accidentally  dis- 
covered by  him  in  a  pottery,  without  a  cover  or  title-page,  and  all 

1  Part  II.  p.  5. 


APPENDIX.  555 

besmeared  with  filth.  It  was  dedicated  to  the  Elector  of  Bavaria ; 
and  though  one  of  the  most  impudent  cheats  of  the  sort  that  had 
been  practised  since  the  time  of  Sigonius  and  Annius  Viterbien- 
sis,  it  imposed  on  many  learned  men.  The  credit  it  obtained,  in- 
troduced new  disorders  into  the  text  of  Catullus ;  and  when  the 
fraud  was  at  length  detected,  the  contriver  of  it  only  laughed  at 
the  temporary  success  of  his  imposture. 

Doering,  in  early  life,  had  printed  an  edition  of  the  principal 
poem  of  Catullus,  the  Epithalamium  of  Peleus  and  Thetis.  En- 
couraged by  the  success  of  this  publication,  he  subsequently  pre- 
pared a  complete  edition  of  Catullus,  which  came  forth  at  Leipsic 
in  1788. 

The  Epithalamium  of  Peleus  and  Thetis,  the  chief  production 
of  Catullus,  was  translated  into  Italian  by  Lodovico  Dolce,  and 
printed  in  1538,  at  the  end  of  a  small  volume  of  miscellaneous 
works  dedicated  to  Titian.  In  the  colophon  it  is  said,  "  II  fine 
dell'  epitalamio  tradotto  per  M.  Lod.  Dolce,  in  verso  sciolto." 
This  Epithalamium  was  also  translated  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
into  Ottava  Rima,  by  Parisotti,  with  a  long  preface,  in  which  he 
maintains  that  the  ottava,  or  terza  rima,  is  better  adapted  for  the 
translation  of  the  Latin  classics  than  versi  sciolti.  Ginguene,  in 
the  preface  to  his  French  translation  of  this  Epithalamium,  men- 
tions three  other  Italian  versions  of  the  last  century,  those  of  Ne- 
ruci,  Torelli,  and  the  Count  d'Ayano,  all  of  which,  he  says,  pos- 
sess considerable  merit.  He  also  informs  us,  that  Antonio  Conti 
had  commenced  a  translation  of  this  poem,  which  was  found  in- 
complete at  his  death  ;  but  it  was  accompanied  by  many  valuable 
criticisms  and  annotations,  which  have  been  much  employed  in  a 
Memoir  inserted  in  the  transactions  of  the  French  Academy,  by 
M.  D'Arnaud,  whose  plagiarisms  from  the  Italian  author  have 
been  pointed  out  at  full  length  by  M.  Ginguene,  in  his  preface. 
Conti  completed  a  translation  of  the  Coma  Berenices  in  versi  sci- 
olti, accom  panied  by  an  explan  ation  of  the  subj  ect,  and  1  earned  notes, 
which  was  printed  along  with  his  works  at  Venice,  in  1 739-  The 
Coma  Berenices  was  also  translated  in  terza  rima  by  the  Neapolitan 
Saverio  Mattei,  and  by  Pagnini  in  versi  sdruccioli.  At  length,  in 
1803,  M.  Ugo  Foscolo,  now  well  known  in  this  country  as  the  au- 
thor of  the  Letters  of  Jacopo  Ortis,  printed  at  Milan  a  translation 
of  this  elegy,  in  blank  verse,  under  the  title  of  La  Chioma  di  Be- 


556  APPENDIX. 

renice,  poema  di  Callimaco,  tradotto  da  Valerio  Catullo,  volgariz- 
zato  ed  illustrato  da  Ugo  Foscolo.  The  version  is  preceded  by  four 
dissertations ;  the  text  is  accompanied  with  notes,  and  followed 
by  fourteen  considerazioni,  as  they  are  called,  in  which  the  author 
severely  censures  and  satirizes  the  pedantic  commentators  and 
philologers  of  his  country.  Mr  Hobhouse,  in  his  Illustrations  of 
Childe  Harold,1  says,  that  the  whole  lucubration,  extending  to 
nearly  300  pages  of  large  octavo,  is  a  grave  and  continued  irony 
on  the  verbal  criticisms  of  commentators.  "  Some  of  the  learned," 
he  continues,  "  fell  into  the  snare,  and  Foscolo,  who  had  issued 
only  a  few  copies,  now  added  a  Farewell  to  his  readers,  in  which 
he  repays  their  praises,  by  exposing  the  mysteries  and  abuses  of 
the  philological  art.  Those  whom  he  had  deceived  must  have  been 
not  a  little  irritated  to  find  that  his  frequent  citations  were  in- 
vented for  the  occasion,  and  that  his  commentary  had  been  pur- 
posely sprinkled  with  many  of  the  grossest  faults." 

The  whole  works  of  Catullus  were  first  translated  into  Italian 
by  the  Abbot  Francis  Maria  Biacca  of  Parma,  who  concealed  his 
real  designation,  according  to  the  affected  fashion  of  the  times, 
under  the  appellation  of  Parmindo  Ibichense,  Pastor  Arcade.  The 
Abbot  died  in  1735,  and  his  version  was  printed  at  Milan  after  his 
death,  in  1740,  in  the  twenty-first  volume  of  the  General  Collec- 
tion of  Italian  Translations  from  the  Ancient  Latin  Poets.  The 
most  recent  Italian  version  is  that  of  Puccini,  printed  at  Pisa  in 
1805.  It  is  very  deficient  in  point  of  spirit  ;  and  the  last  English 
translator  of  Catullus  observes,  "  that  it  is  chiefly  remarkable  for 
the  squeamishness  with  which  it  omits  all  warmth  in  the  love 
verses,  while  it  unblushingly  retains  some  of  the  most  disgusting 
passages." 

The  French  have  at  all  times  dealt  nmch  in  prose  translations 
of  the  Classics.  These  did  not  suit  very  well  for  the  epic  poems, 
or  even  comedies  of  the  Romans ;  and  were  totally  abhorrent  from 
the  lyrical  or  epigrammatic  productions  of  Catullus.  A  great  deal 
of  the  beauty  of  every  poem  consists  in  the  melody  of  its  numbers. 
But  there  are  certain  species  of  poetry,  of  which  the  chief  merit 
lies  in  the  sweetness  and  harmony  of  versification.  A  boldness  of 
figures,  too — a  luxuriance  of  imagery — a  frequent  use  of  meta- 
phors— a  quickness  of  transition — a  freedom  of  digression,  which 

1  P.  477- 


APPENDIX.  557 

are  allowable  in  every  sort  of  poetry,  are  to  many  species  of  it  es- 
sential. But  these  are  quite  unsuitable  to  the  character  of  prose, 
and  when  seen  in  a  prose  translation,  they  appear  preposterous  and 
out  of  place,  because  they  are  never  found  in  any  original  prose 
composition.  Now,  the  beauties  of  Catullus  are  precisely  of  that 
nature,  of  which  it  is  impossible  to  convey  the  smallest  idea 
in  a  prose  translation.  Many  of  his  poems  are  of  a  lyric  descrip- 
tion, in  which  a  greater  degree  of  irregularity  of  thought,  and  a 
more  unrestrained  exuberance  of  fancy,  are  permitted  than  in  any 
other  kind  of  composition.  To  attempt,  therefore,  a  translation  of 
a  lyric  poem  into  prose,  is  the  most  absurd  of  all  undertakings  ; 
for  those  very  characters  of  the  original,  which  are  essential  to  it, 
and  which  constitute  its  highest  beauty,  if  transferred  to  a  prose 
translation,  become  unpardonable  blemishes.  What  could  be  more 
ridiculous  than  a  French  prose  translation  of  the  wild  dithyram- 
bics  of  Atis,  or  the  fervent  and  almost  phrenzied  love  verses  to  Les- 
bia  ?  It  is  from  poetry  that  the  elegies  of  Catullus  derive  almost 
all  their  tenderness — his  amorous  verses  all  their  delicacy,  play- 
fulness, or  voluptuousness — and  his  epigrams  all  their  sting. 

That  indefatigable  translator  of  the  Latin  poets,  the  Abbe  Ma- 
rolles,  was  the  first  person  who  traduced  Catullus  in  French.  He 
was  an  author,  of  all  others,  the  worst  qualified  to  succeed  in  the 
task  which  he  had  undertaken,  as  his  heavy  and  leaden  pen  was 
ill  adapted  to  express  the  elegant  light  graces  of  his  original.  His 
prose  translation  was  printed  in  1653.  It  was  succeeded,  in  1676", 
by  one  in  verse,  also  by  Marolles,  but  of  which  only  thirty  copies 
were  thrown  off  and  distributed  among  the  translator's  friends. 
La  Chapelle  (not  the  author  of  the  Voyage)  translated  most  of 
the  poems  of  Catullus,  and  inserted  them  in  his  Histoire  Galante, 
entitled  the  Amours  de  Catidle,  printed  in  1680,  which  relates,  in 
the  style  of  an  amatory  prose  romance,  the  adventures  and  in- 
trigues of  Catullus,  his  friends,  and  mistresses.  The  next  transla- 
tion, though  not  of  the  whole  of  his  pieces,  is  by  M.  Pezay,  print- 
ed 1771,  who  misses  no  opportunity  of  ridiculing  Marolles  and  his 
work.  It  is  in  prose,  as  is  also  a  more  recent  French  translation 
by  M.  Noel,  Paris,  1806.  The  first  volume  of  Noel's  work  con- 
tains the  Discours  Preliminaire  on  the  Life,  Poetry,  Editions,  and 
Translations  of  Catullus ;  and  the  version  itself,  which  is  accom- 
panied with  the  Latin  text.  The  second  volume  comprises  a  very 


558  APPENDIX. 

large  body  of  notes,  chiefly  exhibiting  the  imitations  of  Catullus 
by  French  poets.  Brunet  mentions  a  translation  still  more  recent, 
by  M.  Mollevaut,  which  is  in  verse,  and  proves  that  more  justice 
may  be  done  to  Catullus  in  rhyme  than  prose. 

An  English  translation  of  Catullus,  usually  ascribed  to  Dr  Nott, 
was  published  anonymously  in  1795,  accompanied  with  some  va- 
luable annotations.  He  was  the  first  to  give,  as  he  himself  says, 
the  whole  of  Catullus,  without  reserve,  and  in  some  way  or  other, 
to  translate  all  his  indecencies.  This  version  adheres  very  closely 
to  the  original,  and  has  the  merit  of  being  simple  and  literal,  but 
it  is  meagre  and  inelegant :  it  is  defective  in  ease  and  freedom, 
and  but  seldom  presents  us  with  any  of  those  graces  of  poetry, 
and  indeed  almost  unattainable  felicities  of  diction,  which  charac- 
terize the  original.  While  writing  this,  the  poetical  translation 
by  Mr  Lamb  has  come  to  my  hands.  It  is  also  furnished  with  a 
long  preface  and  notes,  which  appear  to  be  tasteful  and  amusing. 
The  chief  objections  to  the  translation  are  quite  the  reverse  of 
those  which  have  been  stated  to  the  version  by  which  it  was  pre- 
ceded— it  seems  defective  in  point  of  fidelity,  and  is  too  diffuse  and 
redundant.  No  author  suffers  so  much  by  being  diluted  as  Catul- 
lus, and  he  can  only  be  given  with  effect  by  a  brevity  as  condensed 
and  piquant  as  his  own.  Indeed,  the  thoughts  and  language  of 
Catullus  throw  more  difficulties  in  the  way  of  a  translator,  than 
those  of  almost  any  other  classic  author.  His  peculiarities  of  feel- 
ing— his  idiomatic  delicacies  of  style — that  light  ineffable  grace — 
that  elegant  ease  and  spirit,  with  which  he  was  more  richly  en- 
dued than  almost  any  other  poet,  can  hardly  pass  through  the 
hands  of  a  translator  without  being  in  some  degree  sullied  or  al- 
loyed. 


LABERIUS— PUBLIUS  SYRUS. 

The  only  fragment  of  any  length  or  importance  which  we  pos- 
sess of  Laberius,  has  been  saved  by  Macrobius,  in  his  Saturnalia. 
The  fragments  of  Publius  Syrus  were  chiefly  preserved  by  Seneca 
and  Au.  Gellius,  and  the  scattered  maxims  which  they  had  re- 
corded, were  collected  in  various  MSS.  of  the  fourteenth  and  fif- 
teenth centuries.  They  were  first  printed  together,  under  the  su- 


APPENDIX.  559 

perintendence  of  Erasmus,  in  1502,  as  revised  and  corrected  from 
a  MS.  in  the  University  of  Cambridge.  Fabricius  published  some 
additional  maxims,  which  had  not  previously  been  printed,  in 
1 550.  Stephens  edited  them  at  the  end  of  his  Fragments  from  the 
Greek  and  Latin  Comic  Poets,  1564 ;  and  Bentley  published  them 
along  with  Terence  and  the  Fables  of  Phaedrus,  at  Cambridge,  in 
1726.  An  improved  edition,  which  had  been  prepared  by  Gruter, 
was  printed  under  the  superintendence  of  Havercamp,  from  a  MS. 
after  his  death.  The  most  complete  edition,  however,  which  has 
yet  appeared,  is  that  published  by  Orellius,  at  Leipsic,  1822.  It 
contains  879  maxims,  arranged  in  alphabetical  order,  from  which, 
at  least  as  the  editor  asserts,  all  those  which  are  spurious  have 
been  rejected,  and  several  that  are  genuine  added.  A  Greek  ver- 
sion of  the  maxims,  by  Jos.  Scaliger,  is  given  by  him  on  the  op- 
posite side  of  the  page,  and  he  has  appended  a  long  commentarv, 
in  which  he  has  quoted  all  the  maxims  of  preceding  or  subsequent 
authors,  who  have  expressed  sentiments  similar  to  those  of  Publius 
Syrus. 

The  sentences  were  translated  into  English  from  the  edition  of 
Erasmus,  under  the  following  title  :  "  Proverbs  or  Adagies,  with 
newe  Additions,  gathered  out  of  the  Chiliades  of  Erasmus,  by 
Richard  Taverner.  Hereunto  be  also  added,  Mimi  Publiani.  Im- 
printed at  Lo'don,  in  Fletstrete,  at  the  signe  of  the  Whyte  Harte. 
Cum  privilegio  ad  imprimendum  solum."  On  the  back  of  the  title 
is  "  the  Prologe  of  the  author,  apologizing  for  his  slender  capa- 
citie ;"  and  concluding,  "  yet  my  harte  is  not  to  be  blamed."  It 
contains  sixty-four  leaves,  the  last  blank.  On  the  last  printed  page 
are  the  "  Faultes  escaped  in  printynge,"  which  are  seven  in  num- 
ber. Beneath  is  the  colophon,  "  Imprinted  at  London  by  Richarde 
Bankes,  at  the  Whyte  Harte,  1539."  This  book  was  frequently 
reprinted.  James  Elphinston,  long  known  to  the  public  by  his 
unsuccessful  attempt  to  introduce  a  new  and  uniform  mode  of 
spelling  into  the  English  language,  translated,  in  1794,  "  The 
Sentencious  Poets — Publius  dhe  Syrrian — Laberius  dhe  Roman 
Knight,  &c.  arrainged  and  translated  into  correspondent  Inglish 
Mezzure."1 

1  Br'uggemann,  View  of  the  English  Editions,  Translations,  S[C.  of  the  Ancient 
Latin  Authors. 


560  APPENDIX. 


CATO— VARRO. 

It  appears  from  Aulus  Gellius,  that,  even  in  his  time,  the  works 
of  Cato  had  begun  to  be  corrupted  by  the  ignorance  of  transcri- 
bers. As  mentioned  in  the  text,  his  book  on  Agriculture,  the  only 
one  of  his  numerous  writings  which  survives,  has  come  down  to 
us  in  a  very  imperfect  and  mutilated  state.  A  MS.  of  Cato,  but 
very  faulty  and  incomplete,  was  in  possession  of  Niccolo  Niccoli  ; 
and  a  letter  from  him  is  extant,  requesting  one  of  his  correspon- 
dents, called  Michelotius,  to  borrow  for  him  a  very  ancient  copy 
from  the  Bishop  Aretino,  in  order  that  his  own  might  be  rendered 
more  perfect.1  Most  of  the  editions  we  now  have,  follow  a  MS. 
which  is  said  to  have  been  discovered  at  Paris  by  the  architect  Fra 
Giocondo  of  Verona,  and  was  brought  by  him  to  Italy.  Varro's 
treatise  on  Agriculture  was  first  discovered  by  Candidi,  as  he  him- 
self announces  in  a  letter  to  Niccolo  Niccoli.2 

The  agricultural  works  of  Cato  and  Varro  have  generally  been 
printed  together,  and  also  along  with  those  of  Columella  and  Pal- 
ladius,  under  the  title  of  Rei  Rusiicce  Scriptores.  There  is  no  an- 
cient MS.  known,  in  which  all  the  Rei  Rust  lets  Scriptores  are 
collected  together.  They  were  first  combined  in  the  Editio  Prin- 
ceps, edited  by  Georgius  Merula,  and  printed  at  Venice,  in  1470. 
The  next  edition,  superintended  by  Bruschius,  and  printed  in 
1482,  has  almost  entirely  disappeared.  In  many  passages,  its 
readings  were  different  from  those  of  all  other  editions,  as  appears 
from  the  annotations  communicated  from  Rome,  by  Pontedera  to 
Gesner,  while  he  was  preparing  his  celebrated  edition.3  Philip- 
pus  Beroaldus  corrected  a  good  many  faults  and  errors,  which  had 
crept  into  the  Editio  Princeps.  His  emendations  were  made  use 
of  in  the  edition  of  Bologna,  1494,  by  Benedict  Hector.  Gesner 
has  assiduously  collated  that  edition  with  the  Editio  Princeps,  and 
he  informs  us,  that  it  contained  many  important  corrections. 
Though  differing  in  some  respects,  he  considers  all  the  editions 
previous  to  that  of  Aldus,  as  belonging  to  the  same  class  or  family. 
The  Aldine  edition,  printed  1514,  was  superintended  by  Fra  Gio- 

1  Mehus,  Prcpf.  p.  50. 

s  Epist.  Ad  Ambrosium  Camald.  Ep.  39. 

3  Gesner,  Prof. 

5 


APPENDIX.  561 

condo  of  Verona,  who,  having  procured  at  Paris  some  MSS.  not 
previously  consulted,  introduced  from  them  many  new  readings, 
and  filled  up  several  chasms  in  the  text,  particularly  the  fifty- 
seventh  chapter.1  This  edition,  however,  is  not  highly  esteemed  ; 
"  Sequitur,"  says  Fabricius,  "  novi  nee  optimi  generis  editio  Al- 
dina  :"  And  Schneider,  the  most  recent  editor  of  the  Rei  Ruslicce 
Scriptores,  alfirms  that  Giocondo  corrupted  and  perverted  almost 
every  passage  which  he  changed.  Nicholas  Angelius  took  charge 
of  the  edition  published  by  the  Giunta  at  Florence,  in  1515.  His 
new  readings  are  ingenious ;  but  many  of  them  are  quite  unautho- 
rized and  conjectural.  The  Aldine  continued  to  form  the  basis  of 
all  subsequent  editions,  till  the  time  of  Petrus  Victorius,  who  was 
so  great  a  restorer  and  amender  of  the  Rei  Rusticce  Scriptores,  that 
he  is  called  their  JEsculapius  by  Gesner,  and  Sospitatorby  Fabricius. 
Victorius  had  got  access  to  a  set  of  MSS.  which  Politian  had  col- 
lated with  the  Editio  Princeps.  The  most  ancient  and  important 
of  these  MSS.,  containing  Cato,  and  almost  the  whole  of  Varro, 
was  found  by  Victorius  in  the  library  of  St  Mark ;  another  in 
French  characters  was  in  the  Medicean  library ;  and  a  third  had 
belonged  to  Franciscus  Barbarus,  and  was  transcribed  by  him  from 
an  excellent  exemplar  at  Padua.2  But  though  Victorius  had  the 
advantage  of  consulting  these  MSS.,  it  does  not  appear  that  he 
possessed  the  collation  by  the  able  hand  of  Politian ;  because 
that  was  inserted,  not  in  the  MSS.,  but  in  his  own  printed  copy  of 
the  Editio  Princeps  ;  and  Gesner  shows  at  great  length  that  Pe- 
trus Victorius  had  never  consulted  any  copy  whatever  of  the 
Editio  Princeps?  Victorius  first  employed  his  learning  and  critical 
talents  on  Varro.  Some  time  afterwards,  Giovanni  della  Casa 
being  sent  by  the  Pope  on  some  public  affairs  to  Florence,  where 
Victorius  at  that  time  resided,  brought  him  a  message  from  the 
Cardinal  Marcellus  Cervinus,  requesting  that  he  should  exert  on 
Cato  some  part  of  that  diligence  which  he  had  formerly  employed 
on  Varro.  Victorius  soon  completed  the  task  assigned  him.  He 
also  resumed  Varro,  and  attentively  revised  his  former  labours  on 
that  author.4     At  last  he  determined  to  collate  whatever  MSS. 

1  See  Maffei,  Verona  Illustrata,  Part.  II.  Lib.  III. 

2  Prcef.  Pet.  Victor,  in  explications,  mar.  Castig.  in  Cat.  &c. 

3  Prof.  p.  20. 

*  Epist.  Ad  Marcel.  Cervinum. 

vol.  ii.  a  n 


562  APPENDIX. 

of  the  Rustic  writers  he  could  procure.  Those  above-mentioned, 
as  having  been  inspected  by  Politian,  were  the  great  sources 
whence  he  derived  new  and  various  readings. 

It  is  not  known  that  Victorius  printed  any  edition  containing 
the  text  of  the  Ret  Rusticoe  Scrip/ores  in  Italy.  His  letter  to 
Cervinus  speaks  as  if  he  was  just  about  to  edite  them  ;  but  whe- 
ther he  did  so  is  uncertain.  "  Quartam  classem,"  says  Harles, 
"  constituit  Victorius,  sospitator  horum  scriptorum  :  qui  quidem 
num  primum  in  Italia  recensitos  dederit  eos  cum  Gesnero  et  Er- 
nesti  ignoro."1  As  far  as  now  appears,  his  corrections  and  emen- 
dations wei*e  first  printed  in  the  edition  of  Leyden,  1541,  where 
the  authors  it  contains,  are  said  in  the  title  to  be  Restituti  per 
Petrum  Victor'ium,  ad  veterum  exemplarium Jidem,  suoe  integritali. 
His  castigations  were  printed  in  the  year  following,  but  without 
the  text  of  the  authors,  at  Florence.  The  Leyden  edition  was  re- 
printed at  Paris,  in  1543,  by  Robert  Stephens,  and  was  followed 
by  the  edition  of  Hier.  Commellinus,  1595. 

At  length  Gesner  undertook  a  complete  edition  of  the  Rei  Rus- 
ticce  Scriptores,  under  circumstances  of  which  he  has  given  us 
some  account  in  his  preface.  The  eminent  bookseller,  Fritschius, 
had  formed  a  plan  of  printing  these  authors ;  and  to  aid  in  this 
object,  he  had  employed  Schoettgenius,  a  young,  but  even  then  a 
distinguished  scholar.  A  digest  of  the  best  commentators,  and  a 
collection  of  various  readings,  were  accordingly  prepared  by  him. 
The  undertaking,  however,  was  then  deferred,  in  expectation  of 
the  arrival  of  MSS.  from  Italy  ;  and  Schoettgenius  was  meanwhile 
called  to  a  distance  to  some  other  employment,  leaving  the  fruits 
of  his  labour  in  the  hands  of  Fritschius.  In  1726,  that  book- 
seller came  to  Gesner,  and  informed  him,  that  Politian's  col- 
lations, written  on  his  copy  of  the  Editio  Princeps,  had  at  length 
reached  him,  as  also  some  valuable  observations  on  the  rustic 
writers,  communicated  from  Italy  by  Pontedera  and  Facciolati. 
Fritschius  requested  that  Gesner  should  now  arrange  the  whole 
materials  which  had  been  compiled.  Selections  from  the  com- 
mentaries, and  the  various  readings  previous  to  the  time  of  Vic- 
torius, were  prepared  to  his  hand ;  but  he  commenced  an  assidu- 
ous study  of  everything  that  was  valuable  in  more  recent  editions- 
At  length  his  ponderous  edition  came  out  with  a  preface,  giving 

1  Jutroduct.  in  Noiit.  Lift.  Horn. 


APPENDIX.  563 

a  full  detail  of  the  labours  of  others  and  his  own,  and  with  the 
prefaces  to  the  most  celebrated  preceding  editions.  Some  of  the 
notes  had  been  previously  printed,  as  those  of  Meursius,  Scaliger, 
and  Fulvius  Ursinus — others,  as  those  of  Schoettgenius,  Ponte- 
dera,  and  Gesner  himself,  had  never  yet  seen  the  light.  Though 
Gesner  never  names  Pontedera  without  d\ily  styling  him  Clarissi- 
mus  Pontedera,  that  scholar  was  by  no  means  pleased  with  the  re- 
sult of  Gesner 's  edition,  and  attacked  it  with  much  asperity,  in  his 
great  work,  Antiquitatum  Rusticarum.  Gesner's  first  edition  was 
printed  at  Leipsic,  1735.  Ernesti  took  charge  of  the  publication  of 
the  second  edition  ;  and,  in  addition  to  the  dissertation  of  Auso- 
nius  Popma,  De  Instrumento  Fundi,  which  formed  an  appendix 
to  the  first,  he  has  inserted  Segner's  description  and  explanation 
of  the  aviary  of  Varro. 

The  most  recent  edition  of  the  Scriptores  Rei  Rusticce,  is  that 
of  Schneider,  who  conceives  that  he  has  perfected  the  edition  of 
Gesner,  by  having  collated  the  ancient  edition  of  Bruschius,  and 
the  first  Aldine  edition,  neither  of  which  had  been  consulted  by 
his  predecessor. 

Besides  forming  parts  of  every  collection  of  the  Rei  Rusticce 
Scriptores,  the  agricultural  treatises  of  Cato  and  Varro  have  been 
repeatedly  printed  by  themselves,  and  apart  from  those  of  Colu- 
mella and  Palladius.  Ausonius  Popma,  in  his  separate  edition  of 
Cato,  1590,  has  chiefly,  and  without  much  acknowledgment,  em- 
ployed some  valuable  annotations  and  remarks  contained  in  the 
Adversaria  of  Turnebus.  This  edition  was  accompanied  by  some 
other  fragments  of  Cato.  These,  however,  were  of  small  import- 
ance ;  and  the  principal  part  of  the  publication  being  the  work  on 
Agriculture,  its  sale  was  much  impeded  by  Commellinus'  full 
edition  of  the  agricultural  writers,  published  five  years  afterwards. 
Raphellengius,  however,  reprinted  it  in  1598,  with  a  new  title ; 
and  with  the  addition  of  the  notes  of  Meursius.  Popma  again 
revised  his  labours,  and  published  an  improved  edition  in  1620. 
Varro's  treatise,  De  Re  Rustica,  was  published  alone  in  1545, 
and  with  his  other  writings,  by  Stephens,  in  1569.  Ausonius 
Popma  also  edited  it  in  1601,  appropriating,  according  to  his 
custom,  the  notes  and  observations  of  others. 

Cato's  work,  De  Re  Rustica,  has  been  translated  into  Italian  by 
Pagani,  whose  version  was  printed  at  Venice,  1792;  and  into 


564  APPENDIX. 

French  by  Saboureux,  Paris,  1775.  I  am  not  aware  of  any  full 
English  translation  of  Cato,  but  numerous  extracts  are  made  from 
it  in  Dickson's  Husbandry  of  the  Ancients. 

Italy  has  produced  more  translations  of  the  Latin  writers  than 
any  other  country ;  and  one  would  naturally  suppose,  that  the 
agricultural  writings  of  those  who  had  cultivated  the  same  soil  as 
themselves,  would  be  peculiarly  interesting  to  the  Italians.  I 
do  not  know,  however,  of  any  version  of  Varro  in  their  language. 
There  is  an  English  translation,  by  the  Rev.  Mr  Owen,  printed 
at  Oxford  in  1800.  In  his  preface,  the  author  says, — "  Having 
collated  many  copies  of  this  work  of  the  Roman  writer  in  my  pos- 
session, and  the  variations  being  very  numerous,  I  found  it  no 
easy  task  to  make  a  translation  of  his  treatise  on  agriculture.  To 
render  any  common  Arabic  author  into  English,  would  have  been 
a  labour  less  difficult  to  me  some  years  ago,  than  it  has  been  to 
translate  this  part  of  the  works  of  this  celebrated  writer." 


SAXLUST. 

This  historian  was  criticized  in  a  work  of  Asinius  Pollio,  par- 
ticularly on  account  of  his  affected  use  of  obsolete  words  and  ex- 
pressions. Sulpicius  Apollinaris,  the  grammarian,  who  lived  in 
the  reigns  of  the  Antonines,  boasted  that  he  was  the  only  person 
of  his  time  who  could  understand  Sallust.  His  writings  were  il- 
lustrated by  many  of  the  ancient  grammarians,  as  Asper  and  Sta- 
tilius  Maximus.  In  the  course  of  the  ninth  century,  we  find 
Lupus,  Abbot  of  Ferriers,  in  one  of  his  letters,  praying  his  friend 
Regimbertus  to  procure  for  him  a  copy  of  Sallust  ;l  and  there  was 
a  copy  of  his  works  in  the  Library  of  Glastonbury  Abbey,  in  the 
year  1240.2  The  style  of  Sallust  is  very  peculiar :  He  often 
omits  words  which  other  writers  would  insert,  and  inserts  those 
which  they  would  omit.  Hence  his  text  became  early,  and  very 
generally,  corrupted,  from  transcribers  and  copyists  leaving  out 
what  they  naturally  enough  supposed  to  be  redundancies,  and 
supplying  what  they  considered  as  deficiencies. 

There  appeared  not  less  than  three  editions  of  Sallust  in  the 
course  of  the  year  1470.     It  has  been  much  disputed,  and  does 

1  Epist.  104. 

1  Warton,  Hist,  of  English  Poetry,  Vol.  I.  Dissert.  II. 


APPENDIX.  565 

not  seem  to  be  yet  ascertained,  which  of  them  is  the  Editio  Prin- 
ceps.  One  was  printed  under  the  care  of  Merula,  by  Spira,  at 
Venice ;  but  the  other  two  are  without  name  of  place  or  printer  : 
It  has  been  conjectured,  that  of  these  two,  the  one  which  is  in  folio 
was  printed  at  Rome  ;x  and  the  other,  in  quarto,  at  Paris,  by  Ge- 
ring,  Crantz,  and  Friburg.2  The  Venice  edition  is  usually  ac- 
counted the  Editio  Princeps,3  but  Fuhrmann  considers  both  the 
Paris  and  Roman  editions  as  prior  to  it.  The  Roman,  he  thinks, 
in  concurrence  with  the  opinion  of  Harles,  is  the  earliest  of  all. 
The  Bipontine  editors  style  the  Parisian  impression  the  Primaria 
Princeps.  Besides  these  three,  upwards  of  thirty  other  editions 
were  published  in  the  course  of  the  fifteenth  century.  One  of 
them  was  printed  at  Venice,  1493,  from  the  Recension  of  Pompo- 
nius  Laetus,  who  has  been  accused  by  subsequent  editors  of  intro- 
ducing many  of  the  corruptions  which  have  crept  into  the  text  of 
Sallust.4  There  were  also  a  number  of  commentaries  in  this  cen- 
tury, by  scholars,  who  did  not  themselves  publish  editions  of  the 
historian,  but  greatly  contributed  to  the  assistance  of  those  who 
prepared  them  in  the  next.  The  commentary  of  Laurentius  Valla, 
in  particular,  which  was  first  printed  at  Rome  in  1490,  and  in 
which  scarcely  a  single  word  is  passed  over  without  remark  or  ex- 
planation, enriched  most  of  the  editions  which  appeared  in  the 
end  of  the  fifteenth,  and  the  beginning  of  the  subsequent  century.5 
The  first  of  any  note  in  the  sixteenth  century,  were  those  of  Al- 
dus, Venice,  1509,  and  1521.  Carrio,  who  published  an  edition 
at  Antwerp  in  1579,  collected  many  of  the  fragments  of  Sallust's 
great  History  of  Rome  ;  and  he  amended  the  text  of  the  Catili- 
narian  and  Jugurthine  Wars,  as  he  himself  boasts,  in  several  thou- 
sand places.  The  edition  of  Gruter,  in  1607,  in  which  the  text 
received  considerable  alterations,  on  the  authority  of  the  Palatine 
MS.,  obtained  in  its  time  considerable  reputation.  The  earliest 
Variorum  edition  is  in  1649  ;  but  the  best  is  that  printed  at  Ley- 
den,  with  the  notes  of  Gronovius,  in  1690.  An  immense  number 
of  MSS.,  and  copies  of  the  most  ancient  editions,  were  collated  by 
Wasse  for  the  Cambridge  edition,  1710.     He  chiefly  followed 


1  Fuhrmann,  Handbuch  der  Classisch.  Lit. 

8  Dibdin,  Introduction  to  the  Classics,  Vol.  IT.  p.  197- 

*  Fabricius,  Bib.  Lat.  Lib.  I.  c.  9. 

*  Ibid.  5  Ibid. 


568  APPENDIX. 

and  Du  Teil.     The  version  of  the  Abbe  Le  Masson,  which  ap- 
peared in  the  commencement  of  the  ensuing  century,  was  accom- 
panied with  a  defence  of  the  moral  character  of  the  historian.    It 
was  followed,  in  a  few  years  afterwards,  by  that  of  the  Abbe  Thy- 
von,  which,  though  it  does  not  convey  an  adequate  idea  of  the 
strength  and  sententious  brevity  of  the  original,  is  for  the  most 
part  extremely  faithful  to  the  meaning  of  the  author.     Its  defi- 
ciency in  the  former  qualities,  seems  to  have  induced  M.  Dotteville 
to  attempt  a  new  translation,  as  he  appears  to  be  always  striving 
at  terseness  and  conciseness  of  style.  "  His  Sallust,"  says  the  most 
recent  English  translator,  "  like  his  Tacitus,  is  harsh  and  dry  ; 
and  his  fruitless  endeavours  to  vie  in  brevity  with  either  historian, 
are  sufficient  to  prove,  if  such  proof  were  needful,  how  absurd  an 
attempt  it  is  in  any  translator,  for  the  sake  of  seizing  some  pecu- 
liar feature  of  resemblance,  or  some  fancied  grace  of  diction,  to 
violate  the  genius  of  his  native  language."     A  similar  criticism 
is  extended,  in  the  following  paragraph,  to  the  version  of  M. 
Beauzie,  though  it  is  admitted,  to  be  the  most  faithful  and  accu- 
rate that  ever  appeared  in  the  French  language.    The  translation 
of  Dotteville  was  first  printed  in  1760,  and  that  of  Beauzie  fifteen 
years  afterwards.    About  the  same  time  M.  de  Brosses,  President 
of  the  Parliament  of  Dijon,  published  a  History  of  Rome  during 
the  Seventh  Century,  which  professes  to  be  chiefly  made  up  from 
the  fragments  of  Sallust.     The  War  of  Jugurtha  comes  first  in 
the  historical  arrangement — then  follow  the  events  which  inter- 
vened between  that  contest  and  the  Conspiracy  of  Catiline,  taken 
from  the  fragments  of  Sallust,  which  are  interwoven  with  the 
body  of  the  narrative — and,  lastly,  the  Conspiracy.     The  work, 
which  extends  to  three  volumes  4to,  comprehends  very  full  notes, 
and  includes  a  life  of  Sallust,  which,  though  written  in  an  in- 
different style,  displays  considerable  learning  and  research.     Al- 
though the  version  of  De  Brosses  was  generally  accounted  one  of 
the  best  translations  of  the  Classics,  which  had  appeared  in  the 
French,  or  any  other  language,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
considered  as  precluding  subsequent  attempts.    A  translation  by 
Dureau  Delamalle  appeared  in  1808,  and  one  by  Mollevaut,  yet 
more  recent,  which  has  gone  through  at  least  three  editions.  Still, 
however,  many  persons  in  France  prefer  the  version  of  Dotteville 
to  the  more  modern  translations. 


APPENDIX.  569 

It  would  appear,  that  the  writings  of  Sallust  became  known 
and  popular  in  England  soon  after  the  revival  of  literature.  A 
translation  of  the  Jugurthine  War,  executed  by  f*  Sir  Alexander 
Barclay,  Priest,  at  the  command  of  the  Duke  of  Norfolke,  and 
printed  by  Richard  Pynson,"  in  folio,  was  published  as  early  as 
the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  It  bears  on  the  title-page — "  Here 
begynneth  the  famous  Cronycle  of  the  Warre  which  the  Romaynes 
had  against  Jugurth,  usurper  of  the  Kyngdome  of  Numidy: 
Which  Cronycle  was  compyled  in  Latin  by  the  renowned  Sallust. 
And  translated  into  English  by  Sir  Alexander  Barclay,  Preest,  at 
commandment  of  the  right  hye  and  mighty  Prince,  Thomas  Duke 
of  Northfolke."  The  volume  is  without  date,  but  is  supposed  to 
have  been  printed  about  1540.  It  was  twice  reprinted  in  1557, 
and  in  one  of  these  editions  was  accompanied  with  Catiline's  Con- 
spiracy, translated  by  Thomas  Paynel.  The  version  of  Barclay, 
though  a  good  one  for  the  time,  having  become  obsolete,  not  less 
than  three  translations  appeared  in  the  middle  and  end  of  the 
seventeenth  century— one  by  William  Crosse,  and  the  other  two  by 
anonymous  authors.  These  early  translations  are  all  "  Faithfully 
done  in  Englysh,"  according  to  the  taste  of  the  time,  which,  if  the 
sense  were  tolerably  rendered,  was  little  solicitous  for  accuracy, 
and  still  less  for  elegance  of  diction.1  In  Rowe's  translation,  1709, 
the  sense  of  the  author  is  given  with  correctness,  but  the  style  is 
feeble  and  colloquial.  Gordon,  better  known  as  the  translator  of 
Tacitus,  also  translated  Sallust  in  1744.  His  version  is  accom- 
panied with  a  series  of  discourses  on  topics  connected  with  Ro- 
man history,  as  on  faction  and  parties,  public  corruption,  and  civil 
wars.  The  Epistles  of  Sallust  to  Caesar  on  Government,  are  also 
translated  by  him,  and  their  authenticity  vindicated.  In  1751,  Dr 
Rose  published  a  new  translation  of  the  Catilinarian  and  Jugur- 
thine Wars.  '*  This  translation,"  says  Steuart,  "  is  justly  entitled 
to  the  esteem  in  which  it  has  been  held,  and  the  author  himself  to 
considerable  praise,  for  his  endeavours  to  combine  the  advantages 
of  a  free  and  literal  version.  His  chief  defect  proceeds  from  what 
constitutes  the  great  difficulty  in  all  classical  translation— the 
uniting  a  clear  transfusion  of  the  sense  with  the  ease  and  freedom 
of  original  composition.  To  the  critical  reader,  this  will  be  abun- 
dantly obvious,  if  he  compare  the  version  of  Sallust  with  the  ori- 

1  Steuart's  Salhist,  Essay  II. 


570  APPENDIX. 

ginal  pieces  of  Dr  Rose  himself.  In  the  speeches,  too,  where  the 
ancient  writers  laid  out  all  their  energy,  and  in  which  they  should 
be  followed  by  a  like  effort  of  the  translator,  the  author  is  cold 
and  languid,  and  he  rises  on  no  occasion  above  the  level  of  ordi- 
nary narrative."  The  most  recent  English  translation  is  that  by 
the  author  above  quoted — 1806,  two  volumes  quarto.  Two  long 
Essays,  with  notes,  are  prefixed  to  it — the  one  on  the  Life,  and 
the  other  on  the  Literary  Character  and  Writings  of  Sallust. 
The  Spanish  translation  of  Sallust,  executed  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Infant  Don  Gabriel,  has  been  much  celebrated  on  account 
of  its  plates  and  incomparable  typography.  It  was  printed  in 
1772. 

CiESAR. 

Lupus,  Abbot  of  Ferriers,  says,  in  one  of  his  letters,  that  no 
historic  work  of  Caesar  was  extant,  except  his  Commentaries  on 
the  Gallic  War,  of  which  he  promises  to  send  his  correspondent, 
the  Bishop  Heribold,  a  copy,  as  soon  as  he  can  procure  one.1  The 
other  Commentaries,  De  Bello  Civili,  and  De  Bello  Alexandrino, 
of  which  he  speaks  as  being  also  extant,  were  written,  he  affirms, 
by  Hirtius.  It  thus  appears,  that  though  Lupus  was  mistaken 
as  to  the  author  of  the  work  De  Bello  Civili,  the  whole  series  of 
memoirs  now  known  by  the  name  of  Caesar's  Commentaries,  was 
extant  in  the  ninth  century.  About  a  century  afterwards,  Pope 
Gerbert,  or  Sylvester  II.,  writes  to  the  Archbishop  of  Rheims  to 
procure  the  loan  of  a  copy  of  Caesar  from  the  Abbot  of  Terdon, 
who  was  possessed  of  one,  and  to  have  it  transcribed  for  him.2 
Caesar's  Commentaries  are  repeatedly  quoted  in  the  Speculum 
Hisloriale  of  Vincent  de  Beauvais,  a  work  of  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury, and  in  various  other  productions  of  the  same  period.  It  is 
probable,  therefore,  that  copies  of  them  Avere  not  very  scarce  in 
that  age ;  but  they  had  become  so  rare  by  the  middle  of  the  fif- 
teenth century,  that  Candidi,  in  a  letter  to  Niccolo  Niccoli,  an- 
nounces the  discovery  of  a  MS.  of  Caesar  as  a  great  event. 

Andrea,  Bishop  of  Aleria,  took  charge  of  the  first  edition  of 
Caesar,  and  an  erudite  epistle  by  him  is  prefixed  to  it.  It  came 
forth  at  Rome,  from  the  printing-press  of  Sweyn  and  Pannartz, 

1  Epist.  37.  *  Epist.  8. 


APPENDIX.  571 

as  early  as  the  year  1469.  Of  this  Editio  Princeps  of  Caesar, 
only  275  copies  were  thrown  off;  but  it  was  reprinted  at  the  same 
place  in  1472.  There  were  a  good  many  editions  published  to- 
wards the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century,  most  of  which  have  now 
become  rare.  The  first  of  the  ensuing  century  was  that  of  Phi- 
lippus  Beroaldus,  (Bologna,  1504).  It  was  followed  by  the  Al- 
dine  editions,  (Venice  1513-19),  which  are  not  so  remarkable 
either  for  accuracy  or  beauty  as  the  other  early  editions  of  the 
Classics  which  issued  from  the  celebrated  press  of  the  Manu- 
tii.  The  first  had  seven  pages  of  errata — "  Mendis  scatet,"  say 
the  Bipontine  editors.  In  the  edition,  1566,  there  were  inserted 
plates  of  warlike  instruments,  encampments,  and  the  most  cele- 
brated places  mentioned  in  Caesar's  campaigns,  which  became  a 
common  ornament  and  appendage  in  subsequent  impressions. 

Fulvius  Ursinus  published  an  edition  of  considerable  note  in 
1570.  Ursinus  had  discovered  a  MS.  written  in  the  middle  of  the 
tenth  century,  which  he  chiefly  employed  in  the  correction  of  the 
text.  He  is  accused  of  having  committed  a  literary  theft  in  the 
publication  of  this  work,  it  being  alleged  that  he  had  received 
many  annotations  from  PetrusCiacconius,which  he  mixed  up  with 
his  own,  and  inserted  as  such,  suppressing  altogether  the  name 
of  the  real  author. 

The  next  edition  of  any  eminence,  was  that  of  Strada,  (Frank- 
fort, 1574).  This  impression  is  remarkable  for  containing  forty 
plates  of  battles,  and  other  things  relating  to  the  campaigns  of 
Caesar ;  as  also  inscriptions,  found  in  various  cities  of  Spain.  It 
is  also  distinguished  as  having  been  the  prototype  of  Clarke's 
splendid  edition  of  Caesar,  which  Mr  Dibdin  pronounces  to  be 
"  the  most  sumptuous  classical  volume  which  this  country  ever 
produced.  It  contains,"  says  he,  "  eighty-seven  copperplates, 
which  were  engraved  at  the  expense  of  the  different  noblemen  to 
whom  they  are  dedicated.  Of  these  plates,  I  am  not  disposed  to 
think  so  highly  as  some  fond  admirers :  The  head  of  Marlborough, 
to  whom  this  courtly  work  is  dedicated,  by  Kneller  and  Vertue, 
does  not  convey  any  exalted  idea  of  that  renowned  hero ;  and  the 
bust  of  Julius  Caesar,  which  follows  it,  will  appear  meagre  and 
inelegant  to  those  who  have  contemplated  a  similar  print  in  the 
quarto  publication  of  Lavater's  Physiognomy.  The  plates  are  in 
general  rather  curious  than  ably  executed ;  and  compared  with 
what  Flaxman  has  done  for  Homer  and  iEschylus,  are  tasteless 


572  APPENDIX. 

and  unspirited.  The  type  of  this  magnificent  volume  is  truly 
beautiful  and  splendid,  and  for  its  fine  lustre  and  perfect  execu- 
tion, reflects  immortality  on  the  publisher.  The  text  is  accom- 
panied with  various  readings  in  the  margin ;  and  at  the  end  of 
the  volume,  after  the  fragments  of  Caesar,  are  the  critical  notes  of 
the  editor,  compiled  with  great  labour  from  the  collation  of  ancient 
MSS.  and  former  editions.  A  MS.  in  the  Queen's  library,  and 
one  belonging  to  the  Bishop  of  Ely,  were  particularly  consulted 
by  Dr  Clarke.  The  work  closes  with  a  large  and  correct  index 
of  names  and  places.  It  is  upon  the  whole  a  most  splendid  edi- 
tion, and  will  be  a  lasting  monument  of  the  taste,  as  well  as  eru- 
dition of  the  editor." 

The  best  edition  since  the  time  of  Dr  Clarke's,  is  that  by 
Oudendorp,  printed  at  Leyden  in  1737-  This  editor  had  the  use 
of  many  ancient  MSS.,  particularly  two  of  the  beginning  of  the 
ninth  century,  one  of  which  had  belonged  to  Julius  Bongarsius, 
and  the  other  to  Petrus  Bellovacensis.  "  The  preceding  com- 
mentators on  Caesar,"  says  Harles,  "  have  all  been  eclipsed  by 
the  skill  and  researches  of  Oudendorp,  who,  by  a  careful  exami- 
nation of  numerous  MSS.  and  editions,  has  often  successfully  re- 
stored the  true  ancient  reading  of  his  author."  He  has  in- 
serted in  his  publication  Dodwell's  disquisition  concerning  the 
author  of  the  books  De  Bello  Alexandrino,  and  Scaliger's  Topo- 
graphical Description  of  Gaul.  Morus  reprinted  this  edition, 
but  with  many  critical  improvements,  at  Leipsic,  1780.  He  has 
illustrated  the  military  tactics  of  Caesar,  from  Ritter's  History  of 
the  Gauls,  and  from  the  books  of  Guischardus,  De  Re  Militari 
Veterum.  The  best  modern  German  edition  is  that  of  Oberlin 
(Leipsic,  1805).  It  is  founded  on  the  basis  of  those  of  Ouden- 
dorp and  Morus,  with  additional  observations,  and  a  careful  revi- 
sion of  the  text.  In  the  preface,  those  writings  in  which  the  faith 
due  to  Caesar's  Commentaries  is  attempted  to  be  shaken,  are  re- 
viewed and  refuted ;  and  there  are  added  several  fragments  of  Cae- 
sar, as  also  those  notices  of  ancient  authors  concerning  him,  which 
had  been  neglected  or  omitted  by  Morus. 

Caesar  was  first  rendered  into  Italian  by  Agost.  Ortica,  the  trans- 
lator of  Sallust.  He  says,  in  the  preface,  that  his  version  was  exe- 
cuted in  a  very  hurried  manner,  as  it  was  transcribed  and  printed 
all  in  the  course  of  six  months.     Argelati  could  not  ascertain 


APPENDIX.  573 

the  date  of  the  most  ancient  edition,  which  was  printed  at  Milan, 
but  he  thinks  that  it  was  as  old  as  the  fifteenth  century.1  This 
impression  was  followed  by  not  fewer  than  twelve  others,  before 
the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century.  A  subsequent  translation, 
by  F.  Baldelli,  appeared  at  Venice,  1554.  This  edition  was  suc- 
ceeded by  many  others,  particularly" one  at  Venice  in  1595,  quarto, 
of  which  Palladio,  the  great  architect,  took  charge.  He  inserted 
in  it  various  engravings  of  battles,  encampments,  sieges,  and 
other  military  operations,  from  plates  which  had  been  executed 
by  his  two  sons,  Leonida  and  Orazio,  and  had  come  into  his 
hands  soon  after  their  premature  decease.  He  prepared  the  edi- 
tion chiefly  for  the  sake  of  introducing  these  designs,  and  there- 
by honouring  the  memory  of  his  children.  To  this  edition  there 
is  a  preface  by  Palladio  on  the  military  affairs  of  the  Romans, 
their  legions,  arms,  and  encampments.  A  splendid  impression  of 
Baldelli's  version,  accompanied.with  Palladio's  designs,  was  thrown 
off  at  Venice  in  1619-  In  1737>  a  translation  appeared  at  Ve- 
nice, bearing  to  be  printed  from  an  ancient  MS.  of  Caesar,  in  Ita- 
lian, which  the  editor  says  he  had  discovered,  {where  he  does  not 
specify,)  and  had  in  some  few  places  corrected  and  modernized. 
Paitoni  has  exposed  this  literary  fraud,  and  has  shown,  that  it  is 
just  the  translation  of  Baldelli,  with  a  few  words  altered  at  the 
beginning  of  paragraphs.  In  some  respects,  however,  it  is  a  good 
edition,  containing  various  tables  and  notices  conducive  to  the 
proper  understanding  of  the  author. 

We  have  seen  that  several  translations  of  the  Latin  classics 
were  executed  by  order  of  the  French  king,  John.  Charles  V., 
who  succeeded  him  in  1364,  was  a  still  warmer  patron  of  learn- 
ing, and  was  himself  tolerably  versed  in  Latin  literature.  "  Tant 
que  compettement,"  says  Christine  de  Pise,  in  her  Memoirs  of 
him,  "  entendoit  son  Latin."  By  his  order  and  directions  the  first 
French  translation  of  Caesar  was  undertaken.2  But  the  ear- 
liest French  translation  of  Caesar's  Commentaries  which  was 
printed,  was  that  of  Robert  Gaguin,  dedicated  to  Charles  VIII. 
and  published  in  1488.  Of  the  recent  French  versiousthe  most 
esteemed  is  that  by  Turpin  de  Crissi,  accompanied  by  historical 
and  critical  notes,  and  printed  at  Montargis,  1785. 

1  Biblioteca  dcgli  Volgarizzatori,  Tom.  I.  p.  206. 

2  Villaret,  Hist,  de  France,  T.  XI.  p.  121 


574  APPENDIX. 

That  part  of  Caesar's  Commentaries  which  relates  to  the  Gallic 
wars,  was  translated  into  English  as  early  as  1565,  by  Arthur 
Golding,  who  dedicated  his  work  to  Sir  William  Cecil,  afterwards 
Lord  Burleigh.  In  1695,  a  translation  of  the  whole  Commen- 
taries was  printed  with  the  following  title  :  "  The  Commentaries 
of  Caesar,  of  his  Wars  in  Gallia,  and  of  the  Civil  Wars  betwixt 
him  and  Pompey,  with  many  excellent  and  judicious  Observations 
thereupon ;  as  also,  the  Art  of  our  Modern  Training ;  by  Cle- 
ment Edmonds,  Esq."  The  best  translation  is  that  by  "  William 
Duncan,  Professor  of  Philosophy  in  the  University  of  Aberdeen, 
printed  at  London,  1755,"  with  a  long  preliminary  Discourse  con- 
cerning the  Roman  Art  of  War. 


CICERO. 

Some  of  Cicero's  orations  were  studied  harangues,  which  he 
had  prepared  and  written  over  previous  to  their  delivery.  This, 
however,  was  not  the  case  with  the  greater  proportion  of  his 
speeches,  most  of  which  were  pronounced  without  much  preme- 
ditation, but  were  afterwards  copied  out,  with  such  corrections 
and  embellishments  as  bestowed  on  them  a  greater  polish  and 
lustre  than  when  they  had  originally  fallen  from  his  lips.  Before 
the  invention  of  printing  had  increased  the  means  of  satisfying 
public  curiosity,  as  no  oration  was  given  to  the  world  but  by 
the  author  himself,  he  had  always  the  power  of  altering  and  im- 
proving by  his  experience  of  the  effect  it  produced  at  delivery. 
Pliny  informs  us,  that  many  things  on  which  Cicero  had  enlarged 
at  the  time  when  he  actually  spoke  in  the  Senate  and  the  Forum, 
were  retrenched  when  he  ultimately  gave  his  orations  to  the  pub- 
lic in  writing.^  Cicero  himself  had  somewhere  declared,  that  the 
defence  of  Cornelius  had  occupied  four  days,  whence  Pliny  con- 
cludes, that  those  orations  which,  when  delivered  at  full  length, 
took  up  so  much  time  at  the  bar,  were  greatly  altered  and  abridged 
when  he  afterwards  comprised  them  in  a  single  volume.  The  ora- 
tions, in  particular,  for  Muraena  and  Varenus,  he  says,  seem  now 
to  contain  merely  the  general  heads  of  a  discourse.     Sometimes, 

1  Plin.  Eplst.  Lib.  I.  Ep.  20. 


APPENDIX.  575 

however,  they  were  extended,  and  not  curtailed,  by  the  orator  in  the 
closet,  as  was  confessedly  the  case  with  the  defence  of  Milo.  A  few 
of  the  orations  which  Cicero  had  delivered,  he  did  not  consider  as  at 
all  worthy  of  preservation.  Thus,  of  the  oration  for  Dejotarus,  he 
says,  in  one  of  his  letters  to  Dolabella,  "  I  did  not  imagine  that 
I  had  preserved  among  my  papers  the  trifling  speech  which  I 
made  in  behalf  of  Dejotarus  ;  however,  I  have  found  it,  and  sent 
it  to  you,  agreeably  to  your  request."1  This  accounts  for  many 
speeches  of  Cicero,  the  delivery  of  which  is  recorded  in  history, 
being  now  lost.  It  appears,  however,  that  those  which  he  con- 
sidered deserving  of  his  care,  though  they  may  be  widely  different 
from  the  state  in  which  they  were  originally  pronounced,  came 
pure  from  the  hand  of  the  author,  either  in  the  shape  in  which 
he  would  have  wished  to  have  delivered  them,  or  in  that  which 
he  considered  best  adapted  for  publication  and  perusal.  They 
were  probably  transcribed  by  himself,  and  copies  of  them  multi- 
plied by  his  freedmen,  such  as  Tyro  and  Tyrannio,  whom  he  had 
accustomed  to  accurate  transcription.  His  orations  had  also  the 
good  fortune  to  meet,  at  a  very  early  period,  with  a  judicious  and 
learned  commentator  in  the  person  of  Asconius  Pedianus,  a  gram- 
marian in  the  reign  of  Nero,  part  of  whose  Commentary  was  dis- 
covered by  Poggio,  along  with  other  classical  works,  in  the  mo- 
nastery of  St  Gall,  near  Constance. 

All  the  orations  of  Cicero  were  not  lost  during  the  middle  ages. 
Pope  Gerbert,  in  one  of  his  letters,  asks  from  the  Abbot  Gesil- 
bert  a  copy  of  the  concluding  part  of  the  speech  for  Dejotarus ; 
and  he  writes  to  another  of  his  correspondents,  to  bring  him  Ci- 
cero's treatise  De  Republicd,  and  the  Orations  against  Verres, 
"  Comitentur  iter  tuum  Tulliana  opuscula  et  de  Republica,  et  in 
Verrem  :"2  Brunetto  Latini,  who  died  in  1294,  translated  into 
Italian  the  orations  for  Dejotarus,  Marcellus,  and  Ligarius,  which 
were  afterwards  printed  at  Lyons  in  1568.3  These  three  ha- 
rangues, being  in  a  great  measure  complimentary  addresses  to 
Caesar,  and  containing  no  sentiment  but  what  might  be  safely  ex- 
pressed in  presence  of  an  unlimited  sovereign,  more  transcripts 
had  been  made  of  them  in  Rome's  tyrannical  ages,  than  of  those 
orations  which  breathed  forth  the  expiring  spirit  of  liberty. 

1  Epist.  Fatnil.  Lib.  IX.    Ep.  12.  2  Epist.  87. 

3  Tiraboschi,  Stor.  dell  Lett.  Ital.  Tom.  IV.  Lib.  III.  c.  5.  §  21.  Maf- 
fei,   Traduttori  Ital.  p.  41. 


576  APPENDIX. 

Cicero  was  the  idol  of  Petrarch,  the  great  restorer  of  classical 
literature.  He  never  could  speak  of  him  but  in  terms  of  deep 
and  enthusiastic  admiration.  The  sweetness  and  sonorousness  of 
Tully's  periods  charmed  his  ear  ;  and  though  unable  to  penetrate 
the  depths  of  his  philosophy,  yet  his  vigorous  fancy  often  soared 
with  the  Roman  orator  into  the  highest  regions  of  imagination. 
Hence,  while  eager  for  the  discovery  of  all  the  classics,  his  chief 
diligence  was  exercised  in  endeavouring  to  preserve  such  works 
of  Cicero  as  were  then  known,  and  to  recover  such  as  were  lost.1 
Petrarch  received  in  loan  from  Lapo  of  Castiglionchio  a  copy  of 
several  of  Cicero's  orations,  among  which  were  the  Philippics, 
and  the  oration  for  Milo.  These  he  kept  by  him  for  four  years, 
that  he  might  transcribe  them  with  his  own  hand,  on  account  of 
the  blunders  of  the  copyists  in  that  age.  This  we  learn  from  the 
letters  of  Lapo,  published  by  the  Abbe  Mehus.  Coming  to  Liege 
when  about  twenty-five  years  of  age,  that  is,  in  1329,  Petrarch 
remained  there  till  two  orations  of  Cicero,  which  he  had  dis- 
covered in  that  city,  were  transcribed,  one  by  his  own  hand,  and 
another  by  a  friend,  both  of  which  were  immediately  transmitted 
by  him  to  Italy.  He  was  detained  at  Liege  for  some  time  by  the 
difficulty  of  procuring  even  the  worst  sort  of  ink.  Several  other 
orations  of  Cicero  were  discovered  by  Petrarch  in  different  parts 
of  Italy. 

Dominico  Arretino,  who  was  nearly  contemporary  with  Pe- 
trarch, declares,  in  one  of  his  works,  entitled  Fons,  that  he  had 
seen  eleven  of  Cicero's  orations,  and  that  a  person  had  told  him 
that  he  actually  possessed  and  had  read  twenty  of  them.2  It  ap- 
pears, however,  that  in  the  time  of  Cosmo  de  Medici  those  works 
of  Cicero  which  were  extant  were  very  much  corrupted.  "  Illo- 
rum  librorum,"  says  Niccolo  Niccoli,  speaking  of  some  of  the 
works  of  Cicero,  "  magna  pars  interierit,  hi  vero  qui  supersunt 
adeo  mendosi  sunt,  ut  paulo  ab  interitu  distent ;"  hence,  in  the 
middle  of  the  fifteenth  century,  the  discovery  of  a  new  MS.  of 
Cicero  was  hailed  as  a  new  acquisition.  At  Langres,  in  a  library 
of  the  monks  of  Clugni,  in  Burgundy,  Poggio  found  the  oration 
for  Caecina,  which  he  immediately  transcribed,  and  sent  various 
copies  of  it  to  his  friends  in  Italy.  In  the  monasteries  around  Con- 
stance he  discovered  the  two  orations  against  Rullus,  De  Lege 

1  Epist.  Ad  Vir.  Must.  Ep.  2. 

2  Mehus,    Vit.  Ambros.  Catnald.  p.  213. 

5 


APPENDIX.  577 

Agrarid,  and  that  to  the  people  on  the  same  subject ;  also  the 
orations  Pro  Rabirio,  and  Pro  Roscio.  A  note  on  the  MS.  copy 
of  the  oration  hi  Pisonem,  preserved  in  the  abbey  of  Santa  Maria, 
in  Florence,  records  the  fact  of  this  harangue  having  been  like- 
wise discovered  by  Poggio.1 

A  compendium  of  Cicero's  treatise  De  Inventione  was  well  known 
in  the  dark  ages,  having  been  translated  into  Italian,  in  an  abrid- 
ged form,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  by  a  professor  of  Bologna. 
This  was  almost  the  first  prose  work  which  had  appeared  in  the 
language,  and  was  printed  at  Lyons  with  the  Ethica  d'  Aristotile, 
by  Brunetto  Latini,  who  also  translated  the  first  book  De  Itiven- 
tiofie.2  Lupus  of  Ferrieres  possessed  a  copy  of  Cicero's  Rhetorica, 
as  he  himself  informs  us,3  but  it  was  incomplete ;  and  he  accord- 
ingly asks  Einhart,  who  had  been  his  preceptor,  for  the  loan  of 
his  MS.  of  this  work,  in  order  that  his  own  might  be  perfected. 
Ingulphus,  who  flourished  in  England  towards  the  close  of  the 
eleventh  century,  declares,  that  he  was  sent  from  Westminster 
to  the  school  at  Oxford,  where  he  learned  Aristotle,  and  the  first 
two  books  of  Tully's  Rhetorical  Now,  if  the  first  two  books  of 
the  Rhetorica,  which  are  all  that  have  hitherto  been  discovered, 
were  used  as  an  elementary  work  in  the  public  school  at  Ox- 
ford, they  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  have  been  very  scarce  in 
Italy.  From  the  jurisconsult,  Raymond  Superantius,  or  Sorran- 
za,  to  whom  he  had  been  indebted  for  the  books  De  Gloria,  Pe- 
trarch received  an  imperfect  copy  of  the  tract  De  Oratore,  of  which 
the  MSS.,  though  generally  incomplete,  were  by  no  means  un- 
common in  that  period.  "  Ab  hoc  habui,"  says  he,  "  et  Varro- 
nis  et  Ciceronis  aliqua :  Cujus  unum  volumen  de  communibus 
fuit;  sed  inter  ipsa  communia  libri  de  Oratore  ac  de  Legibus 
imperfecti,  ut  fere  semper  inveniuntur."  Nearly  half  a  century 
from  the  death  of  Petrarch  had  elapsed,  before  the  discovery  of  a 
complete  copy  of  Cicero's  rhetorical  works.  It  was  about  the  year 
1418,  during  the  Popedom  of  Martin  V.,  and  while  Poggio  was 
in  England,  that  Gerard  Landriani,  Bishop  of  Lodi,  found  in  that 
city,  among  the  ruins  of  an  ancient  monastery,  a  MS.,  contain- 

1  Ginguene,  Hist.  Lit.  d'ltalie,  Tom.  II.     Shepherd's  Life  of  Poggio. 
Bandini,  Catal.  Codic.  Biblioih.  Medic.  Laurent.  Tom.  II.  p.  432. 

2  Paitoni,  Bibliotec.  degli  Autor.  Volgarizzati. 

*  Epist.  1. 

*  Hallam's  Europe  during  the  Middle  Ages,  Vol.  III.  p.  524.  3d  ed. 

VOL.  II.  2  o 


578  APPENDIX. 

ing  Cicero's  treatise  De  Oratore,  his  Brutus  and  Orator.  He  car- 
ried the  MS.  with  him  to  Milan,  and  there  gave  it  to  Gaspar 
Bazizza.  The  character,  however,  in  which  it  was  written,  was 
such,  that  few  scholars  or  antiquaries  in  that  city  could  read  it. 
At  length  Cosmus,  a  young  Veronese  scholar,  deciphered  and 
transcribed  the  dialogue  De  Oratore.  Blondus  Flavius,  the  au- 
thor of  the  Italia  IUustrata,  who  had  come  in  early  youth  from 
his  native  place,  Forli,  to  Milan,  transcribed  the  Brutus,  and  sent 
copies  of  it  to  Guarinus  of  Verona,  and  Leonard  Justiniani,  at 
Venice.  By  these  means  the  rhetorical  works  of  Cicero  "were  soon 
diffused  all  over  Italy.  The  discovery  was  hailed  as  a  triumph, 
and  subject  of  public  congratulation.  Poggio  was  informed  of  it 
while  in  England,  and  there  awaited  the  arrival  of  a  copy  with 
the  most  lively  impatience.1 

The  philosophic  writings  of  Cicero  have  descended  to  us  in  a 
more  imperfect  state  than  his  oratorical  dialogues  or  orations.  In 
consequence  of  the  noble  spirit  of  freedom  and  patriotism  which 
they  breathe,  their  proscription  would  no  doubt  speedily  follow 
that  of  their  author.  There  is  a  common  story  of  a  grandson  of 
Augustus  concealing  one  of  Cicero's  philosophic  works,  on  being 
detected  while  perusing  it  by  his  grandfather,  and  though  he  re- 
ceived his  gracious  permission  to  finish  it,  the  anecdote  shews  that 
it  was  among  the  libri  prohibiti.  The  chief  reading,  indeed,  of 
Alexander  Severus,  was  the  Republic  and  Offices  ;2  But  Alexander 
was  an  imperial  phoenix,  which  never  revived  in  the  Roman  em- 
pire ;  and  we  hear  little  of  Cicero  during  the  reigns  of  the  barba- 
rian sovereigns  of  Italy  in  the  middle  ages. 

Petrarch  procured  an  imperfect  copy  of  Cicero's  treatise  De 
Legibus,  from  the  Lawyer  Raymond  Sorranza,3  who  had  a  most 
extensive  library,  and  to  whom,  as  we  have  just  seen,  he  had  been 
indebted  for  a  MS.  of  the  dialogue  De  Oratore.  No  farther  dis- 
covery was  subsequently  made  of  the  remaining  parts  of  the  work 
De  Legibus.  The  other  philosophical  writings  of  Cicero  were 
found  by  Petrarch  among  the  books  in  his  father's  library,  or  were 

1  B.  Flavii,  Ital.  Must.  p.  346.  ap.  Mciners,  Lehenschreibung  Beruhm- 
te.r  manner,  Tom.  I.  p.  39.  Ginguen£,  Hist.  Lit.  Tom.  II.  Pet.  Victor,  in 
Castigat.  ad  Ciccr.  post  castig.  in  Paradox. 

2  Lamprid.  in  Alex.  Sev.  c.  29.  u  Latina  cum  legeret,  non  alia  magis  le- 
gebat  quam  de  Officiis  Ciceronis  et  De  Republica." 

3  Efist.  Senil.  Lib.  XV.  Ep.  1. 


APPENDIX.  579 

recovered  for  him  by  the  persons  whom  he  employed  for  this  pur- 
pose in  almost  every  quarter  of  Italy:  u  Abeuntibus  amicis,"  says 
he,  "  et,  ut  fit,  petentibus  numquid  e  patria  sua  vellem,  respon- 
debam, — nihil  praeter  libros  Ciceronis."  Petrarch  frequently  quotes 
the  treatise  De  Finibus,  as  a  work  with  which  he  was  familiar. 
Leonard  Aretine,  however,  has  been  generally  considered  as  the 
discoverer  of  that  dialogue,  as  also  of  the  treatise  De  Natvrd  Deo- 
rum.1 

"  There  is  no  collection  of  my  letters,"  says  Cicero,  in  one  of 
his  epistles  to  Atticus ;  "  but  Tiro  has  about  seventy  of  them,  and 
you  can  furnish  some  more.  I  must  look  over  and  correct  them, 
and  then  they  may  be  published."  This,  however,  never  was  ac- 
complished by  himself.  After  the  revolution  of  the  Roman  state, 
the  publication  of  his  letters  must  have  been  dangerous,  on  ac- 
count of  the  freedom  with  which  he  expresses  himself  concerning 
Octavius,  and  the  ministers  of  his  power.  Cornelius  Nepos  men- 
tions, that  some  of  Cicero's  letters  were  published,  but  that  six- 
teen books  of  Epistles  to  Atticus,  from  his  consulship  to  his  death, 
though  extant,  were  by  no  means  in  common  circulation.2  The 
reigns  of  the  princes  who  succeeded  Augustus,  were  not  more  fa- 
vourable to  freedom  than  his  own  ;  and  hence  the  Familiar  Let- 
ters, as  well  as  those  to  Atticus,  probably  remained  long  in  the 
cabinets  of  the  curious,  before  they  received  any  critical  inspec- 
tion. The  -Letters  of  Cicero,  however,  were  well  known  in  the 
middle  ages,  and  even  in  those  times  pains  were  taken  to  have 
accurate  copies  of  them.  Lupus  Ferrariensis  procured  duplicates 
of  Cicero's  Epistles,  in  order  to  collate  them  with  his  own  MSS., 
and  thus  to  make  up  a  correct  and  complete  collection.3  John  of 
Salisbury  cites  two  of  Cicero's  letters  to  Caius  Cassius ;  one  of 
which  is  now  contained  in  the  twelfth,  and  the  other  in  the  fif- 
teenth book  of  the  Familiar  Epistles.  In  the  Life  of  Julius  Cae- 
sar, which  passes  under  the  name  of  Julius  Celsus,  and  which  was 
written  during  the  middle  ages,  extracts  are  occasionally  made 
from  the  Familiar  Epistles.  They  had  become  scarce,  however, 
at  the  time  when  Petrarch  found  a  copy  of  them  at  Verona,  a 
place  where  he  little  expected  to  make  such  a  discovery.4  This* 
old  MS.,  which  Victorius  thinks  of  the  age  of  the  Florentine 

1  Clayton's  History  of  the  House  of  Medici,  c.  3. 
«   Vit.  Attic,  c  16.  3  Epist.  69. 

*  Petrarc.  Epist.  ad  Viros  Illust.  Ep.  1. 


580  APPENDIX. 

Pandects,  ultimately  came  into  the  Medicean  library ;  and  a  copy 
which  Petrarch  had  transcribed  from  it,  was  brought  from  Padua 
to  Florence  by  Niccolo  Niccoli,  at  whose  death  it  was  placed  in 
the  library  of  St  Marc  in  that  city.1  Several  scholars  who  in- 
spected both  have  observed,  that  the  transcript  by  Petrarch  differed 
in  some  respects  from  the  original.2  It  was  also  marked  with  va- 
rious corrections  and  glosses,  in  the  hand-writing  of  Niccolo  Nic- 
coli himself.3  All  the  other  MSS.  of  the  Familiar  Epistles  flowed 
from  this  discovered  by  Petrarch,  as  we  learn  from  a  passage  of 
Lagomarsinus,  who  speaks  thus  of  the  different  codices  of  the  Epis- 
tolce  Familiares :  "  Quibus  tamen  ego  codicibus  non  tantum  tri- 
buo,  quantum  uni  illi  omnium  quotquot  ubique  terrarum,  idem 
epistolarum  corpus  continentes,  extant,  vetustissimo,  (et  ex  quo 
caeteros  omnes  qui  usquam  sunt  tanquam  e  fonte  ac  capite  manAsse, 
et  Angelus  Politianus,  et  Petrus  Victorius  memorise  prodiderunt,) 
qui  Florentise  in  Mediceo-Laurentianse  Bibliothecse  XLIX.  ad- 
servatur  numero  IX.  extra  notatus."4  There  has  been  a  good  deal 
of  doubt  and  discussion  how  these  Letters  first  came  to  obtain  the 
title  of  Familiares.  They  are  not  so  called  in  any  original  MS. 
of  Cicero,  nor  are  they  cited  by  this  name  in  any  ancient  author, 
as  Aulus  Gellius,  or  Priscian.  These  writers  generally  quote  each 
book  of  the  Epistles  by  the  name  of  the  person  to  whom  the  first 
letter  in  that  book  is  addressed.  Thus  Gellius  cites  the  first  book 
by  the  name  of  the  Letters  to  Lentulus,  because  it  commences 
with  a  letter  to  him.  Nor  are  the  MSS.  in  which  the  appellation 
of  the  Epistolae  Familiares  is  employed  uniform  in  the  title.  In 
some  MSS.  they  are  called  Epistoloe  Familiares,  in  others,  Epis- 
tolce ad  Familiares,  and  in  a  Palatin  MS.  Libri  Epistolarum  Fa- 
miliarium. 

Previous  to  the  year  1340,  Petrarch  also  discovered  the  Epis- 
tles to  Alliens,5  which  had  been  missing  for  many  centuries ;  and 
on  perusing  them,  declared  that  he  now  recognized  Cicero  as  an 
inconsiderate  and  unfortunate  old  man.  He  copied  them  over  with 
his  own  hand,  and  arranged  them  in  their  proper  order.  The  MS. 
in  his  hand-writing  passed,  after  his  death,  into  the  possession  of 

1  Mehus,  Vit.  Ambros.  Camald.  p.  214. 

2  Fabricius,  Bib.  Lat.  Lib.  I.  c.  8. 
■  Pet.  Vict.  Epist. 

*  Lagomartini,  ad  Poggii  Epist.  I.  189. 

*  Epist.  Ad  Vir.  lllust.  Ep.  I. 


\    M\.  ->Sl 

9  ilutati,  and  sul**>(ue»t I v  became  t be  property  of  CoIihn 
eie's  disciple  Leonard  Aretine.  Dwatns,  tbe  mm  of  Leonard*  seas 
maVd  to  it,  and  by  him  it  ww  transferred  to  Donatus  Aedeadus. 
After  bis  decease*  it  fell  iate  the  bands  e#  an  ohacure  greauaaria** 
who  gave  it  to  Bartelkwaee  Cavakaati,  in  whose  library  it  was 
consulted  by  P.  Vktnrins,  and  was  afterwards  bestowed  on  him  by 
the  owner.  Victorias,  highly  raining  this  MSs  which  bo  first  re- 
cognised to  be  in  the  handwriting  of  iVtrareh*  conceived  t 

WOttM  he  prvserved  with  greatest  MOnH|   u>  some  mihlu-  oelUv- 

\m\  be  accordingly  presented  it  t©  Cosmo*  the  first  Data 
of  Tuscany,  to  be  deposit  t  Vfedfeeaa  library.*    Witb  re» 

gard  to  flu  nmH  ancient  MS*  from  which  IV tran  b  made  tbe  copy* 
it  unfiwtuuateJy  wee  lest*  as  rVtrus  Victorius  laments  in  one  of 
bis  Epistles.*  w  Utiaam  in  venire*  ur  exemphuu*  undo  bee  ad  At* 

tieuiu  »le>.T»OMt   lYlr.uv.i.  uf  «*\s(at  illml.  |«fl  MM  Wl  ><»  iflmfc 

bendia  alteris  illis*  qua*  Fanul»aro»  appetlantur,  de  eujna  Kbrt  en* 

-.ite*  omni  veneratioae  digna*  ma*; 
loco  prexlicavi."     it  thus  appears*  that  tbe  Kpistlea  to  Atticns 
were  well  known  te  IVi larch.  Still,  however*  ee they  were scarce 
in  the  fifteenth  century*  Peggie*  wbo  found  a 
lag  the  Co— cfl  uf  Gsastaaot,  «  m  comideted  in  his  o« »  ag« 

I  )*rt&y  fo  Mtkits,  ami  baa 
been  regarded  Iu  tbe  same  ti^lx  by  nu^lero  writers* 

The  threa  lattft  »1  ore  to  bis  brotber  Quia* 

\<uml  by  M  Italian  -  of  Berga- 

mo, wbo  dies'  ta  thi  to  his 

bad  tokea  peal  pwfai  M  amend  tfc  '  That 

tho>  i in  nuuh  wrnptad, nat]  ba  coajeetared fraai n» bat  >» i Icaeal 

of  thomaniioriiiwhu-hthi  itappears, 

tin-  l  .-(tertafCi^  fttu* bed eotap! 

that  he  amhl  >> 

Qaiatuaeaaldai  aAbliaratl  (»h^,  what  t»msf 

hrtvo  Km  ttu-aitacMhiei  tod  mktakei  rf^t  LitXriai  in  wbaU 
i  find  uaUnIti  aad  capiedt 

u  ttf  Aratm  appeal  u  extaat  in 

*  fU»*«ai»  C«edta>  «Mk  t««fMia  s%  4H 

t -uhnvene,  #/«w)Im«*  *r  €1aNi9«e.  ^^  T.  IV,  p.  dOS, 
»  J^#.  UK  U.  Rp,  )&. 


582  APPENDIX. 

the  ninth  century.  Lupus  of  Ferrieres  had  an  imperfect  copy  of  it, 
and  begs  a  complete  copy  from  his  correspondent  Ansbald.  "  Tu 
autem,"  says  he,  "  huic  nostro  cursori  Tullium  in  Arato  trade ; 
ut  ex  eo,  quem  me  impetraturum  credo,  quae  decsse  illi  Egil  nos- 
ter  aperuit,  suppleantur."1 

Various  editions  of  separate  portions  of  the  writings  of  Cicero 
were  printed  before  the  publication  of  a  complete  collection  of  his 
works.  The  Orations — the  treatise  De  Oratore — the  Opera  Phi- 
losophica — the  Epistolce  Familiares — and  Ad  Atticum,  were  all 
edited  in  Italy  between  the  years  1466  and  1471 — most  of  them 
being  printed  at  Rome  by  Sweynheim  and  Pannartz.  The  most 
ancient  printing-press  in  Italy  was  that  established  at  the  Monas- 
tery of  Subiaco,  in  the  Campagna  di  Roma,  by  these  printers. 
Sweynheim  and  Pannartz  were  two  German  scholars,  who  had 
been  induced  to  settle  at  that  convent  by  the  circumstance  that 
it  was  chiefly  inhabited  by  German  monks.  In  1467,  they  went 
from  Subiaco  to  Rome  ;2  after  this  removal,  they  received,  in  cor- 
recting their  editions,  the  assistance  of  a  poor  but  eminent  scho- 
lar, Gianandrea  de  Bussi ;  and  were  aided  by  the  patronage  of 
Andrea,  Bishop  of  Aleria,  who  furnished  prefaces  to  many  of  their 
classical  editions.  Notwithstanding  the  rage  for  classical  MSS. 
which  had  so  recently  existed,  and  the  novelty,  usefulness,  and 
importance  of  the  art  which  they  first  introduced  into  Italy,  as 
also  the  support  which  they  received  from  men  of  rank  and  learn- 
ing, they  laboured  under  the  greatest  difficulties,  and  prosecuted 
their  undertaking  with  very  inadequate  compensation,  as  we  learn 
from  a  petition  presented,  1472,  in  their  names  to  Pope  Sixtus, 
by  their  chief  patron,  the  Bishop  of  Aleria.  Their  necessities  were 
probably  produced  by  the  number  of  copies  of  each  impression 
\\  hich  they  threw  off,  and  which  exceeding  the  demand,  they  were 
so  encumbered  by  those  left  on  their  hands,  as  to  be  reduced  to 
the  greatest  poverty  and  distress.3  The  first  book  which  they 
printed  at  Rome,  was  the  Epistolce  Familiares  of  Cicero. 

Alexander  Minutianus,  who  published  an  edition  of  the  whole 
works  at  Milan,  1 498,  in  four  volumes  folio,  was  the  first  person 

1  Epist.  69. 

«  Tiraboschi,  Stor.  deW  Letterat.  Hal.  T.  VI.  Part  I.  Lib.  I. 

3  Beloe,  Anecdote*  of  Literature  and  Scarce  Bookt,  Vol.  VI.  p.  440. 


APPENDIX.  583 

who  comprised  the  scattered  publications  of  Cicero  in  one  uniform 
book.  Harles  informs  us,  in  one  passage,  that  Minutianus  did  not 
consult  any  MSS.  in  the  preparation  of  this  edition,  but  merely 
collated  the  editions  of  the  separate  parts  of  Cicero's  writings  pre- 
viously published,  so  that  his  work  is  only  a  continued  reimpres- 
sion  of  preceding  editions  j1  but  he  elsewhere  mentions,  that  he 
had  inspected  the  MSS.  of  the  Orations  which  Poggio  had  brought 
from  Germany  to  Italy.2     In  the  Orations,  Minutianus  chiefly 
followed  the  Brescian  edition,  1483,  which  was  itself  founded  on 
that  of  Rome.     The  work  was  printed  off,  not  according  to  the 
best  arrangement,  but  as  the  copies  of  the  preceding  editions  suc- 
cessively reached  him,  which  he  himself  acknowledges  in  the  pre- 
face   "  Sed  quam  necessitas  praescripsit  dum  vetustiora  exempla- 
ria  ex  diversis  et  longinquis  locis  exspectamus."     "  If  we  peruse 
Saxius,"  says  Mr  Dibdin,  "  we  shall  see  with  what  toil,  and  at 
what  a  heavy  expense,  this  celebrated  work  of  Minutianus  was 
compiled."     De  Bure  and  Ernesti  are  lavish  in  their  praises  of 
its  typographical  beauty.     The  latter  says  it  is  printed  "  grandi 
modulo,  chartis  et  litteris  pulchris  et  splendidis  "     The  Aldine 
edition,  which  was  published  in  parts  from  1512  to  1523,  is  not 
accounted  a  very  critical  or  correct  one,  though  the  latter  por- 
tion of  it  was  printed  under  the  care  of  Naugerius.     It  would 
be  endless  to  enumerate  the  subsequent  editions  of  Cicero.    That 
of  Petrus  Victorius,  however,  whom  Harles  calls  Ciceronis  JEscu- 
lapius,  printed  at  Venice  in   1534 — 37,  in  four  volumes  folio, 
should  not  be  forgotten,  as  there  is  no  commentator  to  whom  Ci- 
cero has  been  more  indebted  than  to  Victorius,  particularly  in 
the  correction  and  emendation  of  the  Epistles.     The  edition  of 
Lambinus,  Paris,  1566,  also  deserves  notice.     Lambinus  was  an 
acute  and  daring  commentator,  who  made  many  corrections  on  the 
text,  but  adopted  some  alterations  too  rashly.     Erom   his  time 
downwards,  Harles  thinks  that  the  editors  of  Cicero  may  be  di- 
vided into  two  classes ;  some  following  the  bold  changes  introdu- 
ced by  Lambinus,  and  others  preferring  the  more  scrupulous  text 
of  Victorius.  Of  the  latter  class  was  Gruterus,  who,  in  his  edition 
published  at  Hamburgh,  1618,  appears  to  have  obstinately  reject- 
ed even  the  most  obvious  emendations  which  had  been  recently 

1  Iulroduct.  in  Notit.  Litcrat,  Roman,  p.  47.  a  Ibid.  p.  84. 


584  APPENDIX. 

made  on  the  text  of  his  author.  The  three  editions  of  Ernesti's 
Cicero,  (Lips.  1737,  Hal.  Sax.  1758—74,)  and  the  three  of  Oli- 
vet's, (Paris,  1740,  Genera,  1758,  Oxon.  1783,)  are  too  well 
known  to  be  particularized  or  described.  Olivet  did  not  collate 
MSS.  ;  but  he  compared  with  each  other  what  he  considered  as 
the  four  most  important  editions  of  Cicero ;  those  of  P.  Victorius, 
Paullus  Manutius,  Lambinus,  and  Gruterus.  In  1795,  the  first 
volume  of  a  new  edition  of  Cicero,  by  Beck,  was  printed  at  Leip- 
sic,  and  since  that  period,  three  more  volumes,  at  long  intervals, 
have  fallen  from  the  press.  The  last  volume  which  appeared,  was 
in  1807 ;  and  along  with  the  three  by  which  it  was  preceded,  com- 
prehends the  Orations  of  Cicero.  The  preface  contains  a  very  full 
account  of  preceding  editions,  and  the  most  authoritative  MSS. 
of  Cicero.  Ernesti's  editions  were  adopted  as  the  basis  of  the  text ; 
but  the  editor  departs  from  them  where  he  sees  occasion.  He  does 
not  propose  many  new  emendations  of  his  own  ;  but  he  seems  a 
very  acute  judge  of  the  merit  of  various  readings,  and  a  judicious 
selector  from  the  corrections  of  others.  While  this  edition  of  Beck 
was  proceeding  in  Germany,  Schiitz  brought  forth  another,  which 
is  now  completed,  except  part  of  the  Index  Latinitatis.  There  are 
few  notes  subjoined  to  the  text ;  but  long  summaries  are  prefixed 
to  each  oration  and  work  of  Cicero  ;  and  the  Rhetorica  ad  Heren- 
nium  is  introduced  by  an  ample  dissertation  concerning  the  real 
author  of  that  treatise.  A  new  arrangement  of  the  Epistolce  Fa- 
miliarcs  has  also  been  adopted.  They  are  no  longer  printed,  as  in 
most  other  editions,  in  a  chronological  series,  but  are  classed  ac- 
cording to  the  individuals  to  whom  they  are  addressed.  The  whole 
publication  is  dedicated  to  Great  Britain  and  the  Allied  Sove- 
reigns, in  a  long  columnar  panegyric. 

There  have  also  been  lately  published  in  Germany,  several  learn- 
ed and  critical  editions  of  separate  portions  of  the  works  of  Cicero, 
particularly  his  Philosophical  Writings.  The  edition  of  all  his 
Philosophic  Treatises,  by  Goerenz,  which  is  now  proceeding,  and 
already  comprehends  the  Academica,  the  dialogues  De  Legibus 
and  De  Finibus,  is  distinguished  by  intelligent  Prefaces  and  Ex- 
cursuses on  the  periods  of  the  composition  of  the  respective  Dia- 
logues ;  as  also  on  the  design  of  the  author  in  their  composition. 

The  translations  of  Cicero  are  so  numerous,  that  for  the  Italian 


APPENDIX.  585 

translations  I  must  refer  the  reader  to  Paitoni,  Biblioteca  degli 
aulori  antichi  Greet  e  Latini  Volgarizzati,  Tom.  I.  p.  219;  and 
Argelati,  Biblioteca  degli  Volgarizzatori,  Tom.  I.  p.  214.  For 
French  versions,  to  Coujet,  Bibliolheque  Frangoise,  Tom.  II.  p. 
221 ;  and,  for  English,  to  Briiggemann,  View  of  the  Editions  and 
Translations  of  the  Ancient  Greek  and  Latin  authors,  p.  481. 


[     586     ] 


.r  or  the  benefit  of  those  who  wish  to  prosecute  their  inqui- 
ries into  the  subject  of  Roman  Literature,  I  have  subjoined  a 
note  of  some  of  the  most  important  Books  which  treat  of  the 
subject.  An  asterisk  is  prefixed  to  the  titles  of  those  works 
which  have  been  consulted  by  me  in  the  compilation  of  the 
preceding  pages. 

Aimkrichius. — Specimen  veteris  Romance  Literatures  deperditce 
vel  adhuc  latentis,  seu  Syllabus  Hisloricus  et  Criticus  veterum  olim 
notes  erudilionis  Romanorum,  ab  nrbe  condita  ad  Honorii  Augusti 
excessum,  eorum  imprimis  quorum  Latina  opera  vel  omnino  vel  ex 
parte  desiderantur.    Ferrara,  1784.  8vo. 

"  This  work  is  intended  to  give  an  idea  of  Roman  literature,  from 
the  foundation  of  the  city  to  the  death  of  the  Emperor  Honorius.  The 
preface,  written  hy  a  friend  of  the  author,  gives  an  account  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  Romans  lived,  hoth  in  the  capital  and  in  the  provin- 
ces, during  this  long  period.  The  historical  and  literary  Syllabus  con- 
tains, under  nine  articles,  a  variety  of  literary  matters.  In  the  first,  the 
Abbe  Aimerichius  gives  us  brief  notices,  and  a  critical  review  of  the 
ancient  Roman  writers,  both  Pagan  and  Christian,  whose  works  were 
extant  in  public  or  private  libraries,  before  the  death  of  the  Emperor 
Honorius.  In  the  second,  we  have  the  titles  and  subjects  of  several 
works  which  have  been  lost,  but  which  have  been  cited  or  indicated  by 
contemporary  writers,  or  writers  nearly  such,  whose  testimonies  are  re- 
lated by  our  author.  The  third  contains  an  account  of  the  most  cele- 
brated public  or  private  libraries,  that  were  known  at  Rome  before  the 
death  of  Honorius  :  and,  in  the  fourth,  we  have  the  author's  inquiries 
concerning  the  pronunciation  of  the  Romans,  their  manner  of  writing, 
and  the  changes  which  took  place  in  their  orthography.    In  the  fifth, 


[     587     ] 

the  Abbe  treats  of  the  magistracies  that  could  not  be  obtained,  either  at 
Rome  or  in  the  provinces,  but  by  men  of  letters  ,  as  also  of  rites  and 
sacrifices,  of  luxury,  riches,  public  shows,  &c.  In  the  sixth,  he  gives 
his  particular  opinion  concerning  the  ancient  literature  of  the  Romans, 
and  the  mixture  of  the  Latin  and  Greek  languages  which  they  em- 
ployed, both  in  their  conversation  and  in  their  writings.  The  seventh 
contains  an  indication  of  the  principal  heresies  that  disturbed  the  church, 
from  the  time  of  the  Apostles  to  that  of  Honorius  ;  and  the  eighth  se- 
veral memorable  facts  and  maxims,  not  generally  known,  which  belong 
to  the  literary,  civil,  military,  and  ecclesiastical  history  of  this  period. 
In  the  concluding  article,  the  Abbe  takes  notice  of  the  Latin  works 
which  had  been  lost  for  a  considerable  time,  and  shows  how,  and  by 
whom,  they  were  first  discovered." — From  this  account,  which  I  have 
extracted  from  Home's  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Bibliography,  I 
regret  extremely  that  I  have  had  no  opportunity  of  consulting  the  work 
of  Aimerichius. 

Blessig. — De  Origine  Philosophice  apud  Romanos.  Strasburgh, 
1770.  4to. 

Becmannus. — Manductio  ad  lingnam  Latinam  cum  Tractatu 
de  Originibus  Linguce  Latince.  1608.  8vo. 

*Casaubon. — De  Salyrica   Greecorum  Po'esi  et  Romanorum 

Satira  libri  duo,  in  quibus  etiam  Po'etce  recensentur,  qui  in  utrdque 

po'esi  Jloruerunt.    Halae,  1774.  8vo. 

This  treatise,  which  is  one  of  the  most  learned  and  agreeable  produc- 
tions of  Casaubon,  is  the  source  of  almost  everything  that  has  been 
written  by  modern  authors,  on  the  subject  of  the  satiric  poetry  of  the 
Romans.  Casaubon  traces  its  early  history  in  the  Fescennine  verses,  the 
Atellane  fables,  and  the  satires  of  Ennius  and  Lucilius,  and  vindicates 
to  the  Romans  the  invention  of  this  species  of  composition,  for  which, 
he  contends,  they  had  no  model  in  the  poetry  of  the  Greeks. 

Cellakius. — Dissertatio  de  Studiis  Romanorum  Literariis. 
Halle,  1698.  4to. 

Corbadus. — Qucestura — Partes  duce,  quartan  altera  de  Cicero- 
nis  Vita  et  Libris — Altera  Ciceronis  Libros  permidtis  locis  emen- 
dat.    Lips.  1754.  8vo. 

*Crvsivs.— Lives  of  the  Roman  Poets.  London,  1733.  2  Vols. 


[     588     ] 

*Eberhardt. — Uber  den  Zustand  der  Schb'nen  Wissenschaften 

bei  den  R'dmern.    Altona,  1801.  8vo. 

This  work  was  written  by  a  Swede,  and  in  the  Swedish  language.  It 
contains,  in  its  original  form,  a  very  superficial  and  inaccurate  sketch 
of  the  subject ;  but  some  valuable  notes  and  corrections  accompany  the 
German  translation. 

*Fabkicius.— Bibliotheca  Latina,  digesta  et  aucta  diligentia 
Jo.  Aug.  Ernesti.  Lips.  1773.  3  Tom.  8vo. 

The  well-known  and  justly-esteemed  Bibliotheca  of  Fabricius  gives 
an  account  of  all  the  Latin  writers  from  Plautus  to  Marcian  Capella. 
In  most  of  the  articles  we  have  a  biographical  sketch  of  the  author — a 
list  of  his  writings — an  account  of  the  most  authoritative  MSS.  of  his 
works — of  the  best  editions,  and  of  the  most  celebrated  translations  in 
the  modern  languages  of  Europe. 

FvHRMXH'N.—'Handbuch  der  Classischen  Literatur,  oder  Anlei- 
tung  zur  Kentniss  der  Grieckischen  und  Romischen  Classischen 
Schriftsteller,  ihren  Schriften,  und  der  besten  Ausgaben,  und  Ueber- 
setzungen  derselben.     Rudolstadt,  1809—10. 

Two  of  the  volumes  of  this  work  relate  to  Roman  literature.  It  is 
chiefly  bibliographical,  containing  very  full  accounts  of  the  editions  and 
translations  of  the  Classics  which  have  appeared,  particularly  in  Ger- 
many ;  but  there  are  also  some  critical  accounts  of  the  works  of  the 
Roman  authors :  these  are  chiefly  extracted  from  Journals  and  Re- 
views, and,  in  consequence,  the  author  frequently  repeats  the  same 
thing  in  different  words,  and  still  more  frequently  contradicts  him- 
self. 

*Fuhrmann. — Anleitung  zur  Geschichte  der  Classischen  Lite- 
ratur  der  Griechen  und  Romer.     Rudolstadt,  1816. 
An  abridgment  of  the  preceding  work. 

*Funccius. — De  Origine  et  Pueritid,  De  Adolescenlid,  Virili 
Mtate,  et  Senectute  Linguce  Latince.     Frankfort,  1720. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  learned  and  valuable  works  extant  on  the 
subject  of  Latin  literature.  In  the  first  tract,  De  Pueritid,  the  author 
chiefly  treats  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  Roman  language. 


[     589     ] 

*Gaudentius  Paganinus. — De  Phihsophice  ap.  Ratnanos  Or- 
tu  et  Progressti.     Pisa,  164-3,  4. 

A  very  dull  and  imperfect  account  of  the  state  of  philosophy  among 
the  Romans,  from  the  earliest  periods  to  the  time  of  Boethius. 

*Hankius.  (Mart.) — De  Romanarum  Rerum  Scripioribus. 
Lips.  1687-  4to. 

The  first  part  of  this  work  contains  a  succinct  account  of  the  an- 
cient Roman  Annalists  and  Historians.  The  latter  part  relates  to  mo- 
dern writers  who  treated  of  Roman  affairs. 

*Haki.es.  (Th.  Christ.) — Introductio  in  Notiliam  Literatures 
Romance,  imprimis  Scriptorum  Latinorum.  Noriberg.  1 78 1 . 2  Tom. 
8vo. 

This  work  of  Harles,  as  far  as  it  extends,  is  written  on  the  same 
plan,  and  is  much  of  the  same  description,  as  the  Bibliotheca  of  Fa- 
bricius.  It  is  not  continued  farther,  however,  than  the  Augustan  age 
inclusive. 

♦Harles.  (Th.  Christ.) — Brevior  Notitia  Literaturce  Roma- 
no?, imprimis  Scriptorum  Latinorum.     Lips.  1788.  1  Tom.  8vo. 

*Harles.  (Th.  Christ.) — Supplementa  ad  Breviorem  Noti- 
tiam  Literature  Romano?.     Lips.  1788.  2  Tom.  8vo. 

This  work,  and  the  preceding,  are  on  the  same  plan  as  the  Intro- 
ductio ;  but  bring  down  the  history  of  Roman  writers,  and  the  edi- 
tions of  their  works,  to  the  latest  periods.  It  is  much  to  be  regretted, 
that  these  works  of  Harles  had  not  been  incorporated  into  one ;  since, 
taken  separately,  each  is  incomplete,  and,  collectively,  they  abound  in 
repetitions. 

♦Klugling.  (C.  F.) — Supplementa  ad  Breviorem  Notitiam  Li- 
terature Romano?.  Lips.  1817- 

This  Supplement  to  Harles,  contains  an  account  of  the  editions  of 
the  Classics  which  had  appeared  chiefly  in  Germany,  subsequent  to  the 
publication  of  the  Brevior  Notitia. 

Konig. — De  Satird  Romanorum.     Oldenburgh,  1796. 


[     590     ] 

Kriegk. — Diatribe  de  Veterum  Romanorum  Peregrinationibus 
Academicis.     Jenae,  1704.    4to. 

Leo  (Annibal  di). — Memorie  di  Pacuvio.  Neapol.  1763. 

Meierotto. — De  Prtecipttis  rerum  Romanarum  Scriptoribus. 
Berlin,  1792.  folio. 

*Muller. — Einleitung  zu  noihiger  Kentniss  und  Gebrauche  der 
alien  Lateinischen  Schriftsteller.     Dresden,  1747.  5  Tom.  8vo. 

*Moine  d'Orgeval. — Considerations  sur  le  Progres  des 
Belles  Lettres  chez  les  Romains.     Paris,  1749- 

*Osannus.— Analecta  Critica,  Poesis  Romanorum  sccenicce  re- 
liquias  illustrantia.     Berlin,  1717- 

This  is  a  work  of  considerable  ingenuity  and  research.  It  contains 
some  discussion  concerning  the  date  at  which  regular  comedies  and 
tragedies  were  first  exhibited  at  Rome ;  but  it  is  chiefly  occupied  with 
comparisons  between  the  Fragments  of  the  ancient  Latin  Dramatists, 
and  the  corresponding  passages  in  the  Greek  originals. 

♦Sagittarius  (Casp.) — Commentatio  de  Vita  et  Scriptis  Liv- 
Andronici,  N&vii,  Ennii,  Ccecilii,  Pacuvii,  Attii,  Attilii,  Lucilii, 
Afranii,  Catonis.     Altenburg,  l6'72. 

This  is  a  small  volume  of  110  pages,  which  has  now  become  ex- 
tremely scarce. 

Sagittarius  (Casp.) — De  Vit&,  scriptis,  editionibus,  interpre- 
tibus,  lectione,  atque  imitatione  Plauti,  Terentii,  Ciccronis.  Al- 
tenburg, 1671- 

*Schoell. — Histoire  Abregee  de  la  Litlerature  Romaine.  Pa- 
ris, 1815.  4  Tom.  8vo. 

See  above.    Preface,  p.  xxi. 

*Tiraboschi.— Storia  delta   Litteratura    Italiana.      Modena, 
1787-  Tom.  I.  and  II. 
See  above.    Preface,  p.  xx. 


[     591     ] 

*Vossius (Gerard). — De Historicis Latinis Libit tres.  Lugd. 
Bat.  1651. 

*WAr,CHius. — Historia  Critica  Latince  Lingua.  Lips.  176l. 

*Ziegler. — De  Mimis  Romanorum.     Gotting.  1789- 


[     592     ] 


CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE. 


Born. 

Dies. 

A.U.C. 

A.U.C. 

L.  Andronicus 

534 

Naevius    .     . 

550 

Ennius     .     . 

515 

585 

Plautus    .     . 

525 

570 

Caecilius  .     . 

586 

Terence    .     . 

560 

594 

Pacuvius .     . 

534 

624 

Attius      .     . 

584 

664 

Lucilius  .     . 

605 

659} 

Lucretius 

658 

702 

Catullus  .     . 

667 

708? 

Laberius  .     . 

710 

Cato    .     .     . 

519 

605 

Varro  •     .     . 

637 

727 

Sallust     .     . 

668 

718 

Ca;sar       .     . 

656 

709 

Hortensius   . 

640 

703 

Cicero       .     . 

647 

710 

INDEX. 


Af  rani  us,  his  Comedies,  vol.  i.  p.  249. 

Agriculture,  Advantages  of  Italy  for,  ii.  6 — 13. 

Antias,  Q.  Valerius,  Latin  Annalist,  ii.  120. 

Antipater,  Caelius,  Latin  Annalist,  ii.  116. 

Antonius,  Marcus,  character  of  his  eloquence,  ii.  192.  His  death,  194. 

Arcesilaus  founds  the  New  Academy,  ii.  344. 

Aselho,  Sempronius,  Latin  Annalist,  ii.  117. 

Atellane  Fables,  i.  346. 

Attius,  his  Tragedies,  i.  321. 

Brutus,  his  Historical  Epitomes,  ii.  176. 

Csecilius,  his  Comedies,  i.  247. 

Caecina,  his  history,  ii.  176. 

Caesar  compared  with  Xenophon,  ii.  153.  His  Commentaries,  155 — 165. 
His  Ephemeris,  whether  the  same  work  with  his  Commentaries,  165. 
His  Anticatones,  167.     His  Analogia,  168. 

Calvus,  Licinius,  his  Epigrams,  i.  491.     His  orations,  ii.  215. 

Carmen  Saliare,  i.  45. 

Carneades  teaches  the  Greek  philosophy  at  Rome,  ii.  351. 

Cato,  the  Censor,  his  work  on  Agriculture,  ii.  15 — 21.  His  Orations, 
22.    His  work  De  Originibus,  25.    On  Medicine,  28 — 31. 

Catullus,  i.  412—488. 

Cethegus,  Marcus,  an  orator,  ii.  180. 

Cicero,  his  Orations,  ii.  250.  Compared  with  Demosthenes,  316.  His 
works  on  Rhetoric,  ib.  De  Oratore,  322.  Brutus,  327.  The  Ora- 
tor, 330.  Topica,  331.  Rhetorica  ad  Herennium,  inquiry  concern- 
ing the  author  of,  336.  His  philosophical  works — De  Legibus,  369. 
De  Finibus,  380.  Academica,  385.  Tusculanae  Disputationes,  392. 
De  Natura  Deorum,  404.  De  Officiis,  429.  De  Senectute,  432.  De 
Republica,  439.    His  Epistles,  488. 


594  INDEX. 

Columna  Rostrata,  inscription  on  the,  i.  48. 
Cotta,  his  style  of  oratory,  ii.  200. 

Crassus,  Lucius,  character  of  his  eloquence,  ii.  197.     His  death,  196. 
Compared  with  Antony,  198. 

Decemviral  Laws,  ii.  220. 

Dialogue,  remarks  on  this  species  of  composition,  ii.  321 . 

Eloquence,  Roman,  commencement  of,  ii.  179. 

Ennius,  his  tragedies,  i.  83.   Annals,  101.  Translation  of  Euhemerus, 

126. 
Etruscans,  their  origin,  i.  5.   Their  conquests,  16.   Religion,  20.   Arts, 

30. 
Euguhian  Tables,  i.  50. 

Fabius  Pictor,  Latin  Annalist,  ii.  108 — 114. 
Fratres  Arvales,  hymn  of  the,  i.  44. 

Galba,  Sergius,  an  orator,  ii.  180. 
Gracchi,  oratory  of  the,  ii.  184. 

Hirtius,  his  continuation  of  Caesar's  Commentaries,  ii.  172. 

History,  Roman,  uncertainty  of,  ii.  90 — 108. 

Hortensius,  his  luxury  and  magnificence,  ii.  203.     His  villas  at  Tus- 

culum,  Rauli,  and  Laurentium,  205.  Character  of  his  eloquence,  208. 

His  descendants,  214,  Note. 

Jurisconsults,  Roman,  account  of,  ii.  226. 

Laberius,  i.  502. 

Lselius,  his  oratory  compared  with  that  of  Scipio,  ii.  182. 

Latin  Language,  its  origin,  i.  26.     Its  changes,  52. 

Laws,  Roman,  218 — 226. 

Leges  Regiae,  ii.  218. 

Livius  Andronicus,  i.  62 — 69. 

Lucceius,  his  History  of  the  Social  War,  175. 

Lucilius,  i.  359—375. 

Lucretius,  i.  379 — 412. 

Lucullus,  his  patronage  of  learning,  ii.  81. 

Luscius  Lavinius,  i.  251. 

Magna  Graecia,  its  settlements,  i.  56. 
'  Mimes,  their  origin  and  subjects,  i.  494. 


INDEX.  595 

Nsevius,  i.  69 — 76. 

Pacuvius,  i.  314. 

Plautus,  i.  128—247. 

Philosophy,  Greek,  introduction  of,  at  Rome,  ii.  347. 

Plebiscita,  account  of  the,  ii.  224. 

Praetor,  account  of  the  office  of,  ii.  232. 

Publius  Syrus,  i.  507. 

Quadrigarius,  Claudius,  Latin  Annalist,  ii.  118. 

Sallust,  his  character,  ii.  132.  His  Gardens,  133.  His  Conspiracy  of 
Catiline,  and  Jugurthine  war,  137 — 142.   His  Roman  History,  150. 

Satire,  Roman,  origin  of,  i.  350. 

Senatusconsultum,  what,  ii.  225. 

Sisenna,  Roman  Annalist,  ii.  121. 

Sulpicius,  his  worthless  character,  ii.  199.     His  style  of  oratory,  200. 

Sylla,  his  library,  ii.  80.  His  Memoirs  of  his  Life,  125.  His  charac- 
ter, 127. 

Terence,  i.  257 — 342.     Compared  with  Plautus,  309. 
Theatre,  Roman,  its  construction,  i.  516 — 545. 
Tirannio,  his  library,  ii.  82. 
Trabea,  i.  255. 

Varro,  his  farms  and  villas,  ii.  37.  His  work  on  Agriculture,  42—52. 
De  Lingua  Latina,  56.    Other  works  of  Varro,  62. 


Edinburgh  : 
Printed  by  James  Ballantyne  and  Co. 


ERRATA. 


VOL.  I. 


Page 


32, 

line  29, 

for 

haut 

read  haute. 

64, 



23, 

would 

_ 

should. 

no, 



6, 

_ 

vulta 

_ 

multa. 

181, 



21, 

, 

on 



in. 

220, 

— 

26, 

— 

something 

__ 

somewhat. 

392, 



22, 



were 

_ 

was. 

395, 



1, 

_ 

qa?dam 
Cailgula, 

__ 

quasdam. 
Caligula. 

497, 

— 

31, 

— 

— 

524, 

&c. 

note 

Monf'aucon 

— 

Montfaucon. 

VOL.  II. 


Page  288,  line  2,  for  Asocnius  read  Asconius. 
396,  —  20,  dele  to. 

450,  —    4,  for  enim  read  etiam. 

535,  —  27,  —  verses versions. 


. 


University  of  Toronto 
Library 


DO  NOT 

REMOVE 

THE 

CARD 

FROM 

THIS 

POCKET 


Acme  Library  Card  Pocket 
LOWE-MARTIN  CO.  LIMITED 


c  (  C  c< 
;  ■  c  co 


•vC  c 

A      C 
<     c 

AC    C< 
scCC  c 


'  t       «      C       C  C«         i 

CM     Cj  "" 
C(     C  ^ 

or  cc 


c  cc 

K  Co 

C     Cc 
c    <r  < 
C  CC 
C   C  c 

<  c  c 


JVC 


IfeS* 


Iter 


CCC  < 
cc  ^ 

C  k 

■i  exec  r 


I.  ircV  c 


:c  c    ( 


C  CC("((.(    ccc 

CCCW(     CjC<   «    C   Cv.«;*>t  £ 

3E  CC^cc  CC1C  CC  c  Wkf'^Sf^hh 

£  %<<(C  CCC  (C  CQfc&c  C  COeQK  ;<••■- 
g  .^^  (ecu  CCT%<  cc  -Tu 
-V^^CC^'dCC --^c  coco 

(    C       C    c  C    <  fcCjQ      r    r )     V  V 


£  c  ^     cc    c 

"9C  CC       CC      C 

c  c    cc  c 

CC     C 

c     cc  c 

\    i  <3C  C 

"T    c 


r  c    c    <r<"  c  <     c 

CC  c  tree  '■<• 


S(  cc 
■S  Skc  * 'c 

<  cLc      r 

ccc    r 

CC#V 


cc: 

NCC  ■''•Ct 


<  ^<     C<*T 

rrcc 


V  *&   fee  cor  v  cc 

'  C <£  (      fee     CCC       i    c 


<  CC  <CV 

'  c<  <c< 

(   <  C(   ((f 

i  C(     c 

c.c  <C 


CC-.    *^: 


v  C(    CCC     cc 

a  cc    re 


C'«.' 

.C      C     ■■■  C<€Ta 
c  <«:  < 

CCC     €         (  (  <V 

CC      C  C<C',;' 


c  c     c 
Cc<    f 

C  ((  -CCCc   ''C   <'C;<