Текст книги "The Oxford Book of Latin Verse: From the Earliest Fragments to the End of the Vth Century A.D. "

Latin poetry begins where almost all poetry begins—in the rude ceremonial of a primitive people placating an unknown and dreaded spiritual world. The earliest fragments are priestly incantations. In one of these fragments the Salii placate Leucesius, the god of lightning. In another the Arval Brethren placate Mars or Marmar, the god of pestilence and blight ( lues rues). The gods are most dreaded at the seasons most important to a primitive people, seed-time, for example, and harvest. The Salii celebrated Mars at seed-time—in the month which bears his name, mensis Martius. The name of the Arval Brethren betrays their relation to the gods who watch the sown fields. The aim of this primitive priestly poetry is to get a particular deity into the power of the worshipper. To do this it is necessary to know his name and to use it. In the Arval hymn the name of the god is reiterated—it is a spell. Even so Jacob wished to know—and to use—the name of the god with whom he wrestled. These priestly litanies are accompanied by wild dances—the Salii are, etymologically, 'the Dancing men'—and by the clashing of shields. They are cast in a metre not unsuited to the dance by which they are accompanied. This is the famous Saturnian metre, which remained the metre of all Latin poetry until the coming of the Greeks. Each verse falls into two halves corresponding to the forward swing and the recoil of the dance. Each half-verse exhibits three rhythmical beats answering to the beat of a three-step dance. The verse is in the main accentual. But the accent is hieratic. The hieratic accent is discovered chiefly in the first half of the verse: where the natural accent of a disyllabic word is neglected and the stress falls constantly on the final syllable.[2] This hieratic accent in primitive Latin poetry is important, since it was their familiar use of it which made it easy for the Romans to adapt the metres of Greece.

The first poets, then, are the priests. But behind the priests are the people—moved by the same religious beliefs and fears, but inclined, as happens everywhere, to make of their 'holy day' a 'holiday'. And hence a different species of poetry, known to us chiefly in connexion with the harvest-home and with marriage ceremonial—the so-called Fescennine poetry. This poetry is dictated by much the same needs as that of the priests. It is a charm against fascinum, 'the evil eye': and hence the name Fescennine. The principal constituent element in this Fescennine poetry was obscene mockery. This obscenity was magical. But just as it takes two to make a quarrel, so the obscene mockery of the Fescennine verses required two principals. And here, in the improvisations of the harvest-home, we must seek the origins of two important species of Latin poetry—drama and satire.

There was magic in the house as well as in the fields. Disease and Death demanded, in every household, incantations. We still possess fragments of Saturnian verse which were employed as charms against disease. Magic dirges ( neniae) were chanted before the house where a dead man lay. They were chanted by a praefica, a professional 'wise woman', who placated the dead man by reiterated praise of him. These chants probably mingled traditional formulae with improvisation appropriate to particular circumstances. The office of the praeficasurvived into a late period. But with the growth of Rationalism it very early came into disrepute and contempt. Shorter lived but more in honour was an institution known to us only from casually preserved references to it in Cato and Varro. This was the Song in Praise of Famous Menwhich was sung at banquets. Originally it was sung by a choir of carefully selected boys ( pueri modesti), and no doubt its purpose was to propitiate the shades of the dead. At a later period the boy choristers disappear, and the Songis sung by individual banqueters. The ceremony becomes less religious in character, and exists to minister to the vanity of great families and to foster patriotism. In Cato's time the tradition of it survived only as a memory from a very distant past. Its early extinction must be explained by the wider use among the Romans of written memorials. Of these literary records nothing has survived to us: even of epitaphs preserved to us in inscriptions none is earlier than the age of Cato. So far as our knowledge of Latin literature extends we pass at a leap from what may be called the poetry of primitive magic[3] to Livius Andronicus' translation of the Odyssey. Yet between the work of Livius and this magical poetry there must lie a considerable literary development of which we know nothing. Two circumstances may serve to bring this home to us. The first is that stage plays are known to have been performed in Rome as early as the middle of the fourth century. The second is that there existed in Rome in the time of Livius a school of poets and actors who were sufficiently numerous and important to be permitted to form a Guild or College.

The position of Livius is not always clearly understood. We can be sure that he was not the first Roman poet. Nor is it credible that he was the first Greek teacher to find his way to Rome from Southern Italy. To what does he owe his pre-eminence? He owes it, in the first place, to what may be called a mere accident. He was a schoolmaster: and in his Odysseyhe had the good fortune to produce for the schools precisely the kind of text-book which they needed: a text-book which was still used in the time of Horace. Secondly, Livius Andronicus saved Roman literature from being destroyed by Greek literature. We commonly regard him as the pioneer of Hellenism. This view needs correcting. We shall probably be nearer the truth if we suppose that Livius represents the reaction against an already dominant Hellenism. The real peril was that the Romans might become not too little but too much Hellenized, that they might lose their nationality as completely as the Macedonians had done, that they might employ the Greek language rather than their own for both poetry and history. From this peril Livius—and the patriotic nobles whose ideals he represented—saved Rome. It is significant that in his translation of the Odysseyhe employs the old Saturnian measure. Naevius, a little later, retained the same metre for his epic upon the Punic Wars. In the epitaph which he composed for himself Naevius says that 'the Camenae', the native Italian muses, might well mourn his death, 'for at Rome men have forgotten to speak in Latin phrase'. He is thinking of Ennius, or the school which Ennius represents. Ennius' answer has been preserved to us in the lines in which he alludes scornfully to the Punicaof Naevius as written 'in verses such as the Fauns and Bards chanted of old', the verses, that is, of the old poetry of magic. Ennius abandons the Saturnian for the hexameter. Livius and Naevius had used in drama some of the simpler Greek metres. It is possible that some of these had been long since naturalized in Rome—perhaps under Etrurian influence. But the abandonment of the Saturnian was the abandonment of a tradition five centuries old. The aims of Ennius were not essentially different from those of Livius and Naevius. But the peril of a Roman literature in the Greek language was past; and Ennius could afford to go further in his concessions to Hellenism. It had been made clear that both the Latin language and the Latin temper could hold their own. And when this was made clear the anti-Hellenic reaction collapsed. Cato was almost exactly contemporary with Ennius: and he had been the foremost representative of the reaction. But in his old age he cried 'Peccavi', and set himself to learn Greek.

Ennius said that he had three hearts, for he spoke three tongues—the Greek, the Oscan, and the Latin. And Roman poetry has, as it were, three hearts. All through the Republican era we may distinguish in it three elements. There is the Greek, or aesthetic, element: all that gives to it form or technique. There is the primitive Italian element to which it owes what it has of fire, sensibility, romance. And finally there is Rome itself, sombre, puissant, and both in language and ideals conquering by mass. The effort of Roman poetry is to adjust these three elements. And this effort yields, under the Republic, three periods of development. The first covers the second century and the latter half of the third. In this the Hellenism is that of the classical era of Greece. The Italian force is that of Southern and Central Italy. The Roman force is the inspiration of the Punic Wars. The typical name in it is that of Ennius. The Roman and Italian elements are not yet sufficiently subdued to the Hellenic. And the result is a poetry of some moral power, not wanting in fire and life, but in the main clumsy and disordered. The second period covers the first half of the first century. The Hellenism is Alexandrian. The Italian influence is from the North of Italy—the period might, indeed, be called the Transpadane period of Roman poetry. The Roman influence is that of the Rome of the Civil Wars. The typical name in it is that of Catullus—for Lucretius is, as it were, a last outpost of the period before: he stands with Ennius, and the Alexandrine movement has touched him hardly at all. In this period the Italian (perhaps largely Celtic) genius is allied with Alexandrianism in revolt against Rome: and in it Latin poetry may be said to attain formal perfection. The third period is the Augustan. In it we have the final conciliation of the Greek, the Italian, and the Roman influences. The typical name in it is that of Vergil, who was born outside the Roman ciuitas, who looks back to Ennius through Catullus, to Homer through Apollonius.

It is significant here that it is with the final unification of Italy (which was accomplished by the enfranchisement of Transpadane Gaul) that Roman poetry reaches its culmination—and at the same time begins to decline. Of the makers of Roman poetry very few indeed are Roman. Livius and Ennius were 'semi-Graeci' from Calabria, Naevius and Lucilius were natives of Campania. Accius and Plautus—and, later, Propertius—were Umbrian. Caecilius was an Insubrian Gaul. Catullus, Bibaculus, Ticidas, Cinna, Vergil were Transpadanes. Asinius Gallus came from Gallia Narbonensis, Horace from Apulia. So long as there was in the Italian municipianew blood upon which it could draw, Roman poetry grew in strength. But as soon as the fresh Italian blood failed Roman poetry failed—or at any rate it fell away from its own greatness, it ceased to be a living and quickening force. It became for the first time what it was not before—imitative; that is to say it now for the first time reproduced without transmuting. Vergil, of course, 'imitates' Homer. But observe the nature of this 'imitation'. If I may parody a famous saying, there is nothing in Vergil which was not previously in Homer– save Vergil himself. But the post-Vergilian poetry is, taken in the mass, without individuality. There is, of course, after Vergil much in Roman poetry that is interesting or striking, much that is brilliant, graceful, or noble. But even so it is notable that much of the best work seems due to the infusion of a foreign strain. Of the considerable poets of the Empire, Lucan, Seneca, Martial are of Spanish birth: and a Spanish origin has been—perhaps hastily—conjectured for Silius. Claudian is an Alexandrian, Ausonius a Gaul.[4] Rome's rфle in the world is the absorption of outlying genius. In poetry as in everything else urbem fecit quod prius orbis erat.

If we are to understand the character, then, of Roman poetry in its best period, in the period, that is, which ends with the death of Augustus, we must figure to ourselves a great and prosaic people, with a great and prosaic language, directing and controlling to their own ends spiritual forces deeper and more subtle than themselves. Of these forces one is the Greek, the other may for convenience be called the Italian. In the Italian we must allow for a considerable intermixture of races: and we must remember that large tracts at least of Northern Italy, notably Transpadane Gaul and Umbria, have been penetrated by Celtic influence. No one can study Roman poetry at all deeply or sympathetically without feeling how un-Roman much of it really is: and again—despite its Hellenic forms and its constant study of Hellenism—how un-Greek. It is not Greek and not Roman, and we may call it Italian for want of a better name. The effects of this Italian quality in Roman poetry are both profound and elusive; and it is not easy to specify them in words. But it is important to seize them: for unless we do so we shall miss that aspect of Roman poetry which gives it its most real title to be called poetry at all. Apart from it it is in danger of passing at its best for rhetoric, at its worst for prose.

Ennius is a poet in whom the Roman, as distinct from the Italian, temperament has asserted itself strongly. It has asserted itself most powerfully, of course, in the Annals. Even in the Annals, however, there is a great deal that is neither Greek nor Roman. There is an Italian vividness. The coloured phraseology is Italian. And a good deal more. But it is in the tragedies—closely as they follow Greek models—that the Italian element is most pronounced. Take this from the Alexander:

adest, adest fax obuoluta sanguine atque incendio:

multos annos latuit, ciues, ferte opem et restinguite.

iamque mari magno classis cita

texitur, exitium examen rapit:

adueniet, fera ueliuolantibus

navibus complebit manus litora.

Mr. Sellar has called attention to the 'prophetic fury' of these lines, their 'wild agitated tones'. They seem, indeed, wrought in fire. Nor do they stand alone in Ennius. Nor is their fire and swiftness Roman. They are preserved to us in a passage of Cicero's treatise De Diuinatione: and in the same passage Cicero applies to another fragment of Ennius notable epithets. He speaks of it as poema tenerum et moratum et molle. The element of moratum, the deep moral earnestness, is Roman. The other two epithets carry us outside the typically Roman temperament. Everybody remembers Horace's characterization of Vergil:

molle atque facetum

Vergilio annuerunt gaudentes rure Camenae.

Horace is speaking there of the Vergil of the Transpadane period: the reference is to the Eclogues. The Romans had hardminds. And in the Ecloguesthey marvelled primarily at the revelation of temperament which Horace denotes by the word molle. Propertius, in whose Umbrian blood there was, it has been conjectured, probably some admixture of the Celtic, speaks of himself as mollis in omnes. The ingenium molle, whether in passion, as with Propertius, or, as with Vergil, in reflection, is that deep and tender sensibility which is the least Roman thing in the world, and which, in its subtlest manifestations, is perhaps the peculiar possession of the Celt. The subtle and moving effects, in the Eclogues, of this molle ingenium, are well characterized by Mr. Mackail, when he speaks of the 'note of brooding pity' which pierces the 'immature and tremulous cadences' of Vergil's earliest period. This molle ingenium, that here quivers beneath the half-divined 'pain-of-the-world', is the same temperament as that which in Catullus gives to the pain of the individual immortally poignant expression. It is the same temperament, again, which created Dido. Macrobius tells us that Vergil's Dido is just the Medea of Apollonius over again. And some debt Vergil no doubt has to Apollonius. To the Attic drama his debt is far deeper; and he no doubt intended to invest the story of Dido with the same kind of interest as that which attaches to, say, the Phaedra of Euripides. Yet observe. Vergil has not hardnessenough. He has not the unbending righteousness of the tragic manner. The rather hard moral grandeur of the great Attic dramatists, their fine spiritual steel, has submitted to a strange softening process. Something melting and subduing, something neither Greek nor Roman, has come in. We are passed out of classicism: we are moving into what we call romanticism. Aeneas was a brute. There is nobody who does not feel that. Yet nobody was meant to feel that. We were meant to feel that Aeneas was what Vergil so often calls him, pius. But the Celtic spirit—for that is what it is—is over-mastering. It is its characteristic that it constantly girds a man—or a poet—and carries him whither he would not. The fourth Aeneidis the triumph of an unconscionable Celticism over the whole moral plan of Vergil's epic.

I will not mention Lesbia by the side of Dido. The Celtic spirit too often descends into hell. But I will take from Catullus in a different mood two other examples of the Italic romanticism. Consider these three lines:

usque dum tremulum mouens

cana tempus anilitas

omnia omnibus annuit,

—'till that day when gray old age shaking its palsied head nods in all things to all assent.' That is not Greek nor Roman. It is the unelaborate magic of the Celtic temperament. Keats, I have often thought, would have 'owed his eyes' to be able to write those three lines. He hits sometimes a like matchless felicity:

She dwells with Beauty, Beauty that must die,

And Joy, whose hand is ever at his lips

Bidding adieu.

But into the effects which Catullus just happens upon by a luck of temperament Keats puts more of his life-blood than a man can well spare.

Take, again, this from the Letter to Hortalus. Think not, says Catullus, that your words have passed from my heart,

ut missum sponsi furtiuo munere malum

procurrit casto uirginis e gremio,

quod miserae oblitae molli sub ueste locatum,

dum aduentu matris prosilit, excutitur;

atque illud prono praeceps agitur decursu,

huic manat tristi conscius ore rubor,

—'as an apple, sent by some lover, a secret gift, falls from a maid's chaste bosom. She placed it, poor lass, in the soft folds of her robe and forgot it. And when her mother came towards her out it fell; fell and rolled in headlong course. And vexed and red and wet with tears are her guilty cheeks!'

That owes something, no doubt, to Alexandria. But in its exquisite sensibility, its supreme delicacy and tenderness, it belongs rather to the romantic than to the classical literatures.

Molle atque facetum: the deep and keen fire of mind, the quick glow of sensibility—that is what redeems literature and life alike from dullness. The Roman, the typical Roman, was what we call a 'dull man'. But the Italian has this fire. And it is this that so often redeems Roman literature from itself. We are accustomed to associate the word facetuswith the idea of 'wit'. It is to be connected, it would seem, etymologically with fax, 'a torch'. Its primitive meaning is 'brightness', 'brilliance': and if we wish to understand what Horace means when he speaks of the element of ' facetum' in Vergil, perhaps 'glow' or 'fire' will serve us better than 'wit'. Facetus, facetiae, infacetus, infacetiaeare favourite words with Catullus. With lepidus, illepidus, uenustus, inuenustusthey are his usual terms of literary praise and dispraise. These words hit, of course, often very superficial effects. Yet with Catullus and his friends they stand for a literary ideal deeper than the contexts in which they occur: and an ideal which, while it no doubt derives from the enthusiasm of Alexandrian study, yet assumes a distinctively Italian character. Poetry must be facetus: it must glow and dance. It must have lepor: it must be clean and bright. There must be nothing slipshod, no tarnish. 'Bright is the ring of words when the right man rings them.' It must have uenustas, 'charm', a certain melting quality. This ideal Roman poetry never realizes perhaps in its fullness save in Catullus himself. In the lighter poets it passes too easily into an ideal of mere cleverness: until with Ovid (and in a less degree Martial) leporis the whole man. In the deeper poets it is oppressed by more Roman ideals.

The facetum ingenium, as it manifests itself in satire and invective, does not properly here concern us: it belongs to another order of poetry. Yet I may be allowed to illustrate from this species of composition the manner in which the Italian spirit in Roman poetry asserts for itself a dominating and individual place. Satura quidem tota nostra est, says Quintilian. We know now that this is not so: that Quintilian was wrong, or perhaps rather that he has expressed himself in a misleading fashion. Roman Satire, like the rest of Roman literature, looks back to the Greek world. It stands in close relation to Alexandrian Satire—a literature of which we have hitherto been hardly aware. Horace, when he asserted the dependence of Lucilius on the old Attic Comedy, was nearer the truth than Quintilian. But the influence of Attic Comedy comes to Lucilius (and to Horace and to Juvenal and to Persius) by way of the Alexandrian satirists. From the Alexandrians come many of the stock themes of Roman Satire, many of its stock characters, much of its moral sentiment. The captator, the мемшίмпйспт, the auarusare not the creation of Horace and Juvenal. The seventh satire of Juvenal is not the first 'Plaint of the Impoverished Schoolmaster' in literature. Nor is Horace Sat.II. viii the earliest 'Dinner with a Nouveau-Riche'. In all this, and in much else in Roman Satire, we must recognize Alexandrian influence. Yet even so we can distinguish clearly—much more clearly, indeed, than in other departments of Latin poetry—the Roman and the primitive Italian elements. 'Ecquid is homo habet aceti in pectore?' asks Pseudolus in Plautus. And Horace, in a well-known phrase, speaks of Italum acetum, which the scholiast renders by 'Romana mordacitas'. This 'vinegar' is the coarse and biting wit of the Italian countryside. It has its origin in the casual ribaldry of the uindemiatores: in the rudely improvized dramatic contests of the harvest-home. Transported to the city it becomes a permanent part of Roman Satire. Roman Satire has always one hero—the average paterfamilias. Often he is wise and mild and friendly. But as often as not he is merely the uindemiator, thinly disguised, pert and ready and unscrupulous, 'slinging vinegar' not only at what is morally wrong but at anything which he happens either to dislike or not to understand. The vices of his—often imaginary—antagonist are recounted with evident relish and with parade of detail.

It is not only in Satire that we meet this Italum acetum. We meet it also in the poetry of personal invective. This department of Roman poetry would hardly perhaps reward study—and it might very well revolt the student—if it were not that Catullus has here achieved some of his most memorable effects. In no writer is the Italum acetumfound in so undiluted a sort. And he stands in this perhaps not so much for himself as for a Transpadane school. The lampoons of his compatriot Furius Bibaculus were as famous as his own. Vergil himself—if, as seems likely, the Cataleptonbe a genuine work of Vergil—did not escape the Transpadane fashion. In fact the Italian aptitude for invective seems in North Italy, allied with the study of Archilochus, to have created a new type in Latin literature—a type which Horace essays not very successfully in the Epodesand some of the Odes. The invective of Catullus has no humbug of moral purpose. It has its motive in mere hate. Yet Catullus knew better than any one how subtle and complex an emotion is hate. Two poems will illustrate better than anything I could say his power here: and will at the same time make clear what I mean when I distinguish the Italian from the Roman temperament in Latin poetry.

Let any one take up the eleventh poem of Catullus:

cum suis uiuat ualeatque moechis,

quos simul complexa tenet trecentos,

nullam amans uere sed identidem omnium

ilia rumpens.

There is invective. There is the lash with a vengeance. Yet the very stanza that follows ends in a sob:

nec meum respectet, ut ante, amorem,

qui illius culpa cecidit uelut prati

ultimi flos, praetereunte postquam

tactus aratrost.

Turn now for an inverse effect to the fifty-eighth poem:

Caeli, Lesbia nostra, Lesbia illa,

illa Lesbia, quam Catullus unam

plus quam se atque suos amauit omnes ...

Note the dragging cadences, the pathetic iteration, the scarce-concealed agony of longing. Yet this five-line poem ends in a couplet of intolerable obscenity.