Post-Augustan Poetry | Page 5

patron of
literature. His tastes were more purely literary. He had received an
elaborate and diversified education. He had even enjoyed the privilege
of having Seneca--the head of the literary profession--for his tutor.
These influences were not wholly for the good: Agrippina dissuaded
him from the study of philosophy as being unsuited for a future
emperor, Seneca from the study of earlier and saner orators that he
might himself have a longer lease of Nero's admiration.[33] The result
was that a temperament, perhaps falsely styled artistic,[34] was
deprived of the solid nutriment required to give it stability. Nero's great
ambition was to be supreme in poetry and art as he was supreme in
empire. He composed rapidly and with some technical skill,[35] but his
work lacked distinction, connexion of thought, and unity of style.[36]
Satirical[37] and erotic[38] epigrams, learned mythological poems on
Attis and the Bacchae,[39] all flowed from his pen. But his most
famous works were his Troica,[40] an epic on the Trojan legend, which
he recited before the people in the theatre,[41] and his [Greek: Iion
al_osis], which may perhaps have been included in the Troica, and is
famous as having--so scandal ran--been declaimed over burning
Rome.[42] But his ambition soared higher. He contemplated an epic on
the whole of Roman history. It was estimated that 400 books would be
required. The Stoic Annaeus Cornutus justly remarked that no one
would read so many. It was pointed out that the Stoic's master,
Chrysippus, had written even more. 'Yes,' said Cornutus, 'but they were
of some use to humanity.' Cornutus was banished, but he saved Rome
from the epic. Nero was also prolific in speeches and, proud of his
voice, often appeared on the stage. He impersonated Orestes matricida,
Canace parturiens, Oedipus blind, and Hercules mad.[43] It is not
improbable that the words declaimed or sung in these scenes were

composed by Nero himself.[44] For the encouragement of music and
poetry he had established quinquennial games known as the Neronia.
How far his motives for so doing were interested it is hard to say. But
there is no doubt that he had a passionate ambition to win the prize at
the contest instituted by himself. In A.D. 60, on the first occasion of the
celebration of these games, the prize was won by Lucan with a poem in
praise of Nero.[45] Vacca, in his life of Lucan, states that this lost him
Nero's favour, the emperor being jealous of his success. The story is
demonstrably false,[46] but that Nero subsequently became jealous of
Lucan is undoubted. Till Lucan's fame was assured, Nero extended his
favour to him: then partly through Lucan's extreme vanity and want of
tact, partly through Nero's jealousy of Lucan's pre-eminence that favour
was wholly withdrawn.[47] Nevertheless, though Nero may have
shown jealousy of successful rivals, he seems to have had sufficient
respect for literature to refrain from persecution. He did not go out of
his way to punish personal attacks on himself. If names were delated to
the senate on such a charge, he inclined to mercy. Even the introduction
into an Atellan farce of jests on the deaths of Claudius and Agrippina
was only punished with exile.[48] Only after the detection of Piso's
conspiracy in 65 did his anger vent itself on writers: towards the end of
his reign the distinguished authors, Virginius Flavus and the Stoic
Musonius Rufus, were both driven into exile. As for the deaths of
Seneca and Lucan, the two most distinguished writers of the day,
though both perished at Nero's hands, it was their conduct, not their
writings, that brought them to destruction. Both were implicated in the
Pisonian conspiracy. If, then, Nero's direct influence on literature was
for the bad, it was not because he was adverse: it suffered rather from
his favour: the extravagant tastes of the princeps and the many
eccentricities of his life and character may perhaps find a reflection in
some of the more grotesque extravagances of Lucan, such for instance
as the absurdly servile dedication of the Pharsalia. But even in this
direction his influence was probably comparatively small.
In view, then, of what is known of the attitude of the four emperors of
the period most critical for Silver Latin literature, the period of its birth,
it may be said that, on the worst estimate, their direct influence is not
an important factor in the decline.[49] On the other hand, the indirect

influence of the principate was beyond doubt evil. Society was corrupt
enough and public life sufficiently uninspiring under Augustus. After
the first glow of enthusiasm over the restoration of peace and order, and
over the vindication of the Roman power on the frontiers of empire had
passed away, men felt how thinly veiled was their slavery. Liberty was
gradually restricted, autocracy cast