A History of Roman Literature | Page 5

affords the best possible study of the laws and conditions under which
literary excellence is attainable. Rules for composition would be hard
to draw from Greek examples, and would need a Greek critic to
formulate them. But the conscious workmanship of the Romans shows
us technical method as separable from the complex aesthetic result, and
therefore is an excellent guide in the art.
The traditional account of the origin of literature at Rome, accepted by
the Romans themselves, is that it was entirely due to contact with
Greece. Many scholars, however, have advanced the opinion that, at an
earlier epoch, Etruria exercised an important influence, and that much
of that artistic, philosophical, and literary impulse, which we
commonly ascribe to Greece, was in its elements, at least, really due to
her. Mommsen's researches have re-established on a firmer basis the
superior claims of Greece. He shows that Etruscan civilisation was
itself modelled in its best features on the Hellenic, that it was
essentially weak and unprogressive and, except in religion (where it

held great sway) and in the sphere of public amusements, unable
permanently to impress itself upon Rome. [4] Thus the literary epoch
dates from the conquest of Magna Graecia. After the fall of Tarentum
the Romans were suddenly familiarised with the chief products of the
Hellenic mind; and the first Punic war which followed, unlike all
previous wars, was favourable to the effects of this introduction. For it
was waged far from Roman soil, and so relieved the people from those
daily alarms which are fatal to the calm demanded by study. Moreover
it opened Sicily to their arms, where, more than in any part of Europe
except Greece itself, the treasures of Greek genius were enshrined. A
systematic treatment of Latin literature cannot therefore begin before
Livius Andronicus. The preceding ages, barren as they were of literary
effort, afford little to notice except the progress of the language. To this
subject a short essay has been devoted, as well as to the elements of
literary development which existed in Rome before the regular
literature. There are many signs in tradition and early history of
relations between Greece and Rome; as the decemviral legislation, the
various consultations of the Delphic Oracle, the legends of Pythagoras
and Numa, of Lake Regillus, and, indeed, the whole story of the
Tarquins; the importation of a Greek alphabet, and of several names
familiar to Greek legend--_Ulysses, Poenus, Catamitus_, &c.--all
antecedent to the Pyrrhic war. But these are neither numerous enough
nor certain enough to afford a sound basis for generalisation. They have
therefore been merely touched on in the introductory essays, which
simply aim at a compendious registration of the main points; all fuller
information belonging rather to the antiquarian department of history
and to philology than to a sketch of the written literature. The divisions
of the subject will be those naturally suggested by the history of the
language, and recently adopted by Teuffel, _i.e._--
1. The sixth and seventh centuries of the city (240-80 B.C.), from
Livius to Sulla.
2. The Golden Age, from Cicero to Ovid (80 B.C.-A.D. 14).
3. The period of the Decline, from the accession of Tiberius to the
death of Marcus Aurelius (14-180 A.D.).
These Periods are distinguished by certain strongly marked
characteristics. The First, which comprises the history of the legitimate
drama, of the early epos and satire, and the beginning of prose

composition, is marked by immaturity of art and language, by a
vigorous but ill-disciplined imitation of Greek poetical models, and in
prose by a dry sententiousness of style, gradually giving way to a clear
and fluent strength, which was characteristic of the speeches of
Gracchus and Antonius. This was the epoch when literature was
popular; or at least more nearly so than at any subsequent period. It saw
the rise and fall of dramatic art: in other respects it merely introduced
the forms which were carried to perfection in the Ciceronian and
Augustan ages. The language did not greatly improve in smoothness, or
adaptation to express finished thought. The ancients, indeed, saw a
difference between Ennius, Pacuvius, and Accius, but it may be
questioned whether the advance would be perceptible by us. Still the
labor limae unsparingly employed by Terence, the rules of good
writing laid down by Lucilius, and the labours of the great grammarians
and orators at the close of the period, prepared the language for that
rapid development which it at once assumed in the masterly hands of
Cicero.
The Second Period represents the highest excellence in prose and
poetry. The prose era came first, and is signalised by the names of
Cicero, Sallust, and Caesar. The celebrated writers were now mostly
men of action and high position in the state. The principles of the
language had become fixed; its