Part 8 (2/2)
L. CORNELIUS SISENNA, (119-67 B.C.), better known as a statesman and grammarian, treated history with success. His daily converse with political life, and his thoughtful and studious habits, combined to qualify him for this department. He was a conscientious man, and tells how he pursued his work continuously, lest if he wrote by starts and s.n.a.t.c.hes, he might pervert the reader's mind. His style, however, suffered by this, he became prolix; this apparently is what Fronto means when he says ”_scripsit longinque_.” To later writers he was interesting from his fondness for archaisms. Even in the senate he could not drop this affected habit. Alone of all the fathers he said _adsentio_ for _adsentior_, and such phrases as ”_vellicatim aut sultuatim scribendo_” show an absurd straining after quaintness.
C. LICINIUS MACER (died 73 B.C.) the father of the poet Calvus, was the latest annalist of Rome. Cicero, who was his enemy, and his judge in the trial which cost him his life, criticises his defects both as orator and historian, with severity. Livy, too, implies that he was not always trustworthy (”Quaesita ea propriae familiae laus leviorem auctorem facit,”
[47]) when the fame of his _gens_ was in question, but on many points he quotes him with approval, and shows that he sought for the best materials, _e.g._ he drew from the _lintei libri_, [48] the books of the magistrates, [49] the treaty with Ardea, [50] and where he differed from the general view, he gave his reasons for it.
The extent of his researches is not known, but it seems likely that, alone of Roman historians, he did not touch on the events of his day, the latest speech to which reference is made being the year 196 B.C. As he was an orator, and by no means a great one, being stigmatised as ”loquacious” by Cicero, it is probable that his history suffered from a rhetorical colouring.
In reviewing the list of historians of the ante-cla.s.sical period, we cannot form any high opinion of their merits. Fabius, Cincius, and Cato, who are the first, are also the greatest. The others seem to have gone aside to follow out their own special views, without possessing either accuracy of knowledge or grasp of mind sufficient to unite them with a general comprehensive treatment. The simultaneous appearance of so many writers of moderate ability and not widely divergent views, is a witness to the literary activity of the age, but does not say much for the force of its intellectual creations.
NOTE.--The fragments of the historians have been carefully collected and edited with explanations and lists of authorities by Peter. (_Veterum Historicorum Romanorum Relliquiae_. Lipsiae, 1870.)
APPENDIX.
_On the Annales Pontific.u.m._ (Chiefly from _Les Annales des Pontifes_, Le Clerc.)
The _Annales_, though not literature in the proper sense, were so important, as forming materials for it, that it may be well to give a short account of them. They were called _Pontific.u.m_, _Maximi_, and sometimes _Publici_, to distinguish them from the _Annales_ of other towns, of families, or of historical writers. The term _Annales_, we may note _en pa.s.sant_, was ordinarily applied to a narrative of facts preceding one's own time, _Historiae_ being reserved for a contemporary account (Gell. v. 8). But this of course was after its first sense was lost. In the oldest times, the Pontifices, as they were the lawyers, were in like manner the historians of Rome (Cic. de Or. ii. 12). Cicero and Varro repeatedly consulted their records, which Cicero dates from the origin of the city, but Livy only from Aneus Martius (i. 32). Servius, apparently confounding them with the _Fasti_, declares that they put down the events of every day (ad Ac. i. 373); and that they were divided into eighty books. Semp.r.o.nius Asellio (Gell. v. 18) says they mention _bellum quo initum consule, et quo modo confectum, et quis triumphans introierit_, and Cato ridicules the meagreness of their information. Nevertheless it was considered authentic. Cicero found the eclipse of the year 350 duly registered; Virgil and Ovid drew much of their archaeological lore (_annalibus eruta priscis_, Ov. Fast i. 7.) and Livy his lists of prodigies from them. Besides these marvellous facts, others were doubtless noticed, as new laws, dedication of temples or monuments, establishment of colonies, deaths of great men, erection of statues, &c.; but all with the utmost brevity. _Unam dicendi laudem putant esse brevitatem_ (De Or. ii.
12). Sentences occur in Livy which seem excerpts from them, _e.g._ (ii.
1).--_His consulibus Fidenae obssesae, Crustumina capta, Praeneste ab Latinis ad Romanos descivit_. Varro, in enumerating the G.o.ds whose altars were consecrated by Tatius, says (L. L. v. 101), _ut Annales veteres nostri dic.u.n.t_, and then names them. Pliny also quotes them expressly, but the word _vetustissimi_ though they make it probable that the Pontifical Annals are meant, do not establish it beyond dispute (Plin. x.x.xiii. 6, x.x.xiv. 11).
It is probable, as has been said in this work, that the _Annales Pontific.u.m_ were to a great extent, though not altogether, destroyed in the Gallic invasion. But Rome was not the only city that had Annales.
Probably all the chief towns of the Oscan, Sabine, and Umbrian territory had them. Cato speaks of Antemna as older than Rome, no doubt from its records. Varro drew from the archives of Tusculum (L. L. vi. 16), Praeneste had its Pontifical Annals (Cic de Div. ii. 41), and Anagnia its _libri lintei_ (Fronto, Ep. ad Ant. iv. 4). Etruria beyond question possessed an extensive religious literature, with which much history must have been mingled. And it is reasonable to suppose, as Livy implies, that the educated Romans were familiar with it. From this many valuable facts would be preserved. When the Romans captured a city, they brought over its G.o.ds with them, and it is possible, its sacred records also, since their respect for what was religious or ancient, was not limited to their own nationality, but extended to most of those peoples with whom they were brought in contact. From all these considerations it is probable that a considerable portion of historic record was preserved after the burning of the city, whether from the Annals themselves, or from portions of them inscribed on bronze erstone, or from those of other states, which was accessible to, and used by Cato, Polybius, Varro, Cicero, and Verrius Flaccus. It is also probable that these records were collected into a work, and that this work, while modernized by its frequent revisions, nevertheless preserved a great deal of original and genuine annalistic chronicle.
The _Annales_ must be distinguished from the _Libri Pontific.u.m_, which seem to have been a manual of the _Jus Pontificale_. Cicero places them between the _Jus Civile_ and the Twelve Tables (De Or. i. 43.) The _Libri Pontificii_ may have been the same, but probably the term, when correctly used, meant the ceremonial ritual for the _Sacerdotes_, _flamines_, &c.
This general term included the more special ones of _Libri sacrorum_, _sacerdotum_, _haruspicini_, &c. Some have confounded with the _Annales_ a different sort of record altogether, the _Indigitamenta_, or ancient formulae of prayer or incantation, and the _Axamenta_, to which cla.s.s the song of the Arval Brothers is referred.
As to the amount of historical matter contained in the Annals, it is impossible to p.r.o.nounce with confidence. Their falsification through family and patrician pride is well known. But the earliest historians must have possessed sufficient insight to distinguish the obviously fabulous.
We cannot suspect Cato of placing implicit faith in mythical accounts. He was no friend to the aristocratic families or their records, and took care to check them by the rival records of other Italian tribes. Semp.r.o.nius Asellio, in a pa.s.sage already alluded to (ap. Gell. v. 18), distinguishes the annalistic style as puerile (_fabulas pueris narrare_); the historian, he insists, should go beneath the surface, and understand what he relates.
On comparing the early chronicles of Rome with those of St Bertin and St Denys of France, there appears no advantage in a historical point of view to be claimed by the latter; both contain many real events, though both seek to glorify the origin of the nation and its rulers by constant instances of divine or saintly intervention.
CHAPTER X.
THE HISTORY OF ORATORY BEFORE CICERO.
As the spiritual life of a people is reflected in their poetry, so their living voice is heard in their oratory. Oratory is the child of freedom.
Under the despotisms of the East it could have no existence; under every despotism it withers. The more truly free a nation is, the greater will its oratory be. In no country was there a grander field for the growth of oratorical genius than in Rome. The two countries that approach nearest to it in this respect are beyond doubt Athens and England. In both eloquence has attained its loftiest height, in the one of popular, in the other of patrician excellence. The eloquence of Demosthenes is popular in the n.o.blest sense. It is addressed to a sovereign people who knew that they were sovereign. Neither to deliberative nor to executive did they for a moment delegate that supreme power which it delighted them to exercise. He that had a measure or a bill to propose had only to persuade them that it was good, and the measure pa.s.sed, the bill became law. But the audience he addressed, though a popular, was by no means an ordinary one. It was fickle and capricious to a degree exceeding that of all other popular a.s.semblies; it was critical, exacting, intellectual, in a still higher degree. No audience has been more swayed by pa.s.sion; none has been less swayed by the pretence of it. Always accessible to flattery, Athens counts as her two greatest orators the two men who never stooped to flatter her.
The regal tones of Pericles, the prophetic earnestness of Demosthenes, in the response which each met, bear witness to the greatness of those who heard them. Even Cleon owed his greatest triumphs to the plainness with which he inveighed against the people's faults. Intolerant of inelegance and bombast, the Athenians required not only graceful speech, but speech to the point. Hence Demosthenes is of all ancient orators the most business-like. Of all ancient orators, it has been truly said he would have met with the best hearing from the House of Commons. Nevertheless there is a great difference between Athenian and English eloquence. The former was exclusively popular; the latter, in the strictest sense, is hardly popular at all. The dignified representatives of our lower house need no such appeals to popular pa.s.sion as the Athenian a.s.sembly required; only on questions of patriotism or principle would they be tolerated.
Still less does emotion govern the sedate and masculine eloquence of our upper house, or the strict and closely-reasoned pleadings of our courts of law. Its proper field is in the addresses of a popular member to one of the great city const.i.tuencies. The best speeches addressed to hereditary legislators or to elected representatives necessarily involve different features from those which characterised orations addressed directly to the entire nation a.s.sembled in one place. If oratory has lost in fire, it has gained in argument. In its political sphere, it shows a clearer grasp of the public interest, a more tenacious restriction to practical issues; in its judicial sphere, a more complete abandonment of prejudice and pa.s.sion, and a subordination, immeasurably greater than at Athens, to the authority of written law.
Let us now compare the general features of Greek and English eloquence with those of Rome. Roman eloquence had this in common with Greek, that it was genuinely popular. In their comitia the people were supreme. The orator who addressed them must be one who by pa.s.sion could enkindle pa.s.sion, and guide for his own ends the impulses of a vast mult.i.tude. But how different was the mult.i.tude! Fickle, impressionable, vain; patriotic too in its way, and not without a rough idea of justice. So far like that of Greece; but here the resemblance ends. The mob of Rome, for in the times of real popular eloquence it had come to that, was rude, fierce, bloodthirsty: where Athens called for grace of speech, Rome demanded vehemence; where Athens looked for glory or freedom, Rome looked for increase of dominion, and the wealth of conquered kingdoms for her spoil.
That in spite of their fierce and turbulent audience the great Roman orators attained to such impressive grandeur, is a testimony to the greatness of the senatorial system which reared them. In some respects the eloquence of Rome bears greater resemblance to that of England. For several centuries it was chiefly senatorial. The people intrusted their powers to the Senate, satisfied that it acted for the best; and during this period eloquence was matured. That special quality, so well named by the Romans _gravitas_, which at Athens was never reached, but which has again appeared in England, owed its development to the august discipline of the Senate. Well might Cineas call this body an a.s.sembly of kings.
Never have patriotism, tradition, order, expediency, been so powerfully represented as there; never have change, pa.s.sion, or fear had so little place. We can well believe that every effective speech began with the words, so familiar to us, _maiores nostri voluerunt_, and that it ended as it had begun. The aristocratic stamp necessarily impressed on the debates of such an a.s.sembly naturally recalls our own House of Lords. But the freedom of personal invective was far wider than modern courtesy would tolerate. And, moreover, the competency of the Senate to decide questions of peace or war threw into its discussions that strong party spirit which is characteristic of our Lower House. Thus the senatorial oratory of Rome united the characteristics of that of both our chambers. It was at once majestic and vehement, patriotic and personal, proud of traditionary prestige, but animated with the consciousness of real power.
In judicial oratory the Romans, like the Greeks, compare unfavourably with us. With more eloquence they had less justice. Nothing sets antiquity in a less prepossessing light than a study of its criminal trials; nothing seems to have been less attainable in these than an impartial sifting of evidence. The point of law is obscured among overwhelming considerations from outside. If a man is clearly innocent, as in the case of Roscius, the enmity of the great makes it a severe labour to obtain an acquittal; if he is as clearly guilty (as Cluentius would seem to have been), a skilful use of party weapons can prevent a conviction. [1] The judices in the public trials (which must be distinguished from civil causes tried in the praetor's court) were at first taken exclusively from the senators.
Gracchus (122 B.C.) transferred this privilege to the Equites; and until the time of Sulla, who once more reinstated the senatorial cla.s.s (81 B.C.), fierce contests raged between the two orders. Pompey (55 B.C.), following an enactment of Cotta (70 B.C.), threw the office open to the three orders of Senators, Knights, and Tribuni Aerarii, but fixed a high property qualification. Augustus added a fourth _decuria_ from the lower cla.s.ses, and Caligula a fifth, so that Quintilian could speak of a juryman as ordinarily a man of little intelligence and no legal or general knowledge. [2]
This would be of comparatively small importance if a presiding judge of lofty qualifications guided, as with us, the minds of the jury through the mazes of argument and sophistry, and set the real issue plainly before them. But in Rome no such prerogative rested with the presiding judge, [3]
who merely saw that the provisions of the law under which the trial took place were complied with. The judges, or rather jurors, were, in Rome as in Athens, [4] both from their number and their divergent interests, open to influences of prejudice or corruption, only too often unscrupulously employed, from which our system is altogether exempt. In the later republican period it was not, of course, ignorance (the jurors being senators or equites) but bribery or partisans.h.i.+p that disgraced the decisions of the bench. Senator and eques unceasingly accused each other of venality, and each was beyond doubt right in the charge he made. [5] In circ.u.mstances like these it is evident that dexterous manipulation or pa.s.sionate pleading must take the place of legitimate forensic oratory.
<script>