Post-Augustan Poetry | Page 3

XII
JUVENAL
Life, p. 287.
Date of satires, p. 289.
Motives (Sat, i), p. 291.

Themes of the various satires; third satire, p. 293;
fourth, fifth, and
sixth satires, p. 294;
seventh and eighth satires; signs of waning
power, p. 295; tenth satire, p. 296;
eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and
fourteenth satires, p. 297; fifteenth and sixteenth satires, showing
further decline of power, p. 298.
Juvenal's narrow Roman ideals;
hatred of the foreigner, p. 299. Exaggeration, p. 301.

Coarseness, p.

303.
Vividness of description, p. 304.
Mordant epigram and
rhetoric, p. 308.
Moral and religious ideals, p. 311.
Sententiae, p.
315.
Poetry, p. 316.
Metre, p. 317.
The one great poet of the
Silver Age, p. 317.
INDEX OF NAMES, p. 321
FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER I
THE DECLINE OF POST-AUGUSTAN POETRY
During the latter years of the principate of Augustus a remarkable
change in literary methods and style begins to make itself felt. The
gradual extinction of the great luminaries is followed by a gradual
disappearance of originality and of the natural and easy-flowing style
whose phrases and felicities adorn, without overloading or obscuring
the sense. In their place comes a straining after effect, a love of startling
colour, produced now by over-gorgeous or over-minute imagery, now
by a surfeit of brilliant epigram, while controlling good sense and
observance of due proportion are often absent and imitative preciosity
too frequently masquerades as originality. Further, in too many cases
there is a complete absence of moral enthusiasm, close observation, and
genuine insight.
What were the causes of this change? Was it due mainly to the evil
influence of the principate or to more subtle and deep-rooted causes?
The principate had been denounced as the fons et origo mali.[1] That
its influence was for evil can hardly be denied. But it was rather a
symptom, an outward and visible sign of a deep-engrained decay,
which it accentuated and brought to the surface, but in no way
originated. We are told that the principate 'created around itself the
quiet of the graveyard, since all independence was compelled under
threat of death to hypocritical silence or subterfuge; servility alone was
allowed to speak; the rest submitted to what was inevitable, nay, even
endeavoured to accommodate their minds to it as much as possible.'

Even if this highly coloured statement were true, the influence of such
tyrannical suppression of free thinking and free speaking could only
have directly affected certain forms of literature, such as satire, recent
history,[2] and political oratory, while even in these branches of
literature a wide field was left over which an intending author might
safely range. The direct influence on poetry must have been
exceedingly small. If we review the great poets of the Augustan and
republican periods, we shall find little save certain epigrams of Catullus
that could not safely have been produced in post-Augustan times.
Moreover, when we turn to what is actually known of the attitude of the
early emperors towards literature, the balance does not seriously incline
against them. It may be said without hesitation of the four emperors
succeeding Augustus that they had a genuine taste and some capacity
for literature.
Of two only is it true that their influence was in any way repressive.
The principate of Tiberius is notorious for the silence of literature;
whether the fact is due as much to the character of Tiberius as to the
temporary exhaustion of genius following naturally on the brilliance of
the Augustan period, is more than doubtful. But Tiberius cannot be
acquitted of all blame. The cynical humour with which it pleased him
to mark the steady advance of autocracy, the lentae maxillae which
Augustus attributed to his adopted son,[3] the icy and ironic cruelty
which was--on the most favourable estimate--a not inconsiderable
element in his character, no doubt all exercised a chilling influence, not
only on politics but on all spontaneous expression of human character.
Further, we find a few instances of active and cruel repression.
Lampoons against the emperor were punished with death.[4] Cremutius
Cordus was driven to suicide for styling 'Brutus and Cassius the last of
all the Romans'.[5] Mamercus Scaurus had the misfortune to write a
tragedy on the subject of Atreus in which he advised submission to
Atreus in a version of the Euripidean
[Greek: tas ton turann_on amathias pherein chreon][6]
He too fell a victim to the Emperor's displeasure, though the chief
charges actually brought against him were of adultery with the Princess

Livilla and practice of the black art. We hear also of another case in
which _obiectum est poetae quod in tragoedia Agamemnonem probris
lacessisset_ (Suet. Tib. 61). It is worthy of notice that actors also came
under Tiberius's displeasure.[7] The mime and the Atellan farce
afforded too free an opportunity for improvisation against the emperor.
Even the harmless Phaedrus seems to have incurred the anger of
Sejanus, and to have suffered thereby.[8] Nor do the