XM1 



RISE AND PROGRESS 



ants, and perhaps in tlio intrinsic greatness of 

 the events of which it was the theatre, unques- 

 tionably inferior in the fruits of intellectual ac- 

 tivity, ITALY holds the second place in the classic 

 literature of antiquity. The early state of that 

 country, viewed in its whole extent from north 

 to south, presents nothing to court the eye of the 

 literary observer. In some respects, indeed, 

 the Etrurian name is important and attractive. 

 Etruria could boast of arts, legislation, scientific 

 knowledge, a fanciful mythology, and a fonu of 

 dramatic spectacle, before the foundations of 

 Rome were laid. Hut, like the ancient Egypti- 

 ans, the Etrurians made no progress in compo- 

 sition. Verses of an irregular structure, and as 

 rude in sense as in harmony, appear to have 

 formed the highest limit of their literary achieve- 

 ments. Nor did even the opulent and luxurious 

 Greeks of southern Italy, while they still retained 

 their independence, contribute as much as their 

 Sicilian kinsmen, to the glory of letters in the 

 west. It was only in their fall that they did 

 good service to the cause. All the disgrace of 

 their political humiliation was amply redeemed 

 by the honour of communicating the first impulse 

 towards intellectual refinement to the bosoms of 

 their conquerors. When, in the process of time, 

 Sicily, Macedonia, and Achaia had become 

 Roman provinces, some acquaintance with the 

 language of their new subjects, grew to be a 

 matter almost of necessity to the victorious 

 people : but the first impression made at Rome 

 by the productions of the Grecian muse, and the 

 first effort to create a similar literature must be 

 traced to the earlier conquest of TARENTUM.* It 

 was in consequence of that event, that, after five 

 centuries of war, the harp was at last heard above 

 the din of arms, in the destined capital of the 

 v orld. 



From that memorable period, the adroit and 

 versatile talents, which have not failed to dis- 

 tinguish the Greek race in every stage of 

 national decline, began to exercise a powerful 

 influence on the Roman mind. That influence 

 was felt in different departments of education 

 and amusement. The instruction of the Roman 

 youth was committed to the skill and learning of 

 Greek slaves; the substance or spirit of the 

 Greek drama was transferred into the Latin 

 tongue ; and somewhat later, but with an effect 

 more deep and permanent, Roman genius 

 and ambition devoted their united energies to 

 the study of Greek rhetoric, which long con- 

 tinued to be the guide and model of those schools, 

 in whose exercises the abilities of Cicero himself 



B. c. 272. 



were trained. True it is that prejudice or 

 patriotism made some sturdy endeavours to resist 

 this flood of foreign innovation ; but taste and 

 curiosity, once excited, were too impetuous to be 

 withstood. The elegant ardour of the Scipios 

 and their followers overcame an opposition com- 

 menced by the watchful jealousy of the elder 

 Cato. For more than a century and a half after 

 the Tarentine war we discover symptoms of a 

 legislative effort to counteract the predominance 

 of Greek philosophy and eloquence. J ut the 

 decrees of senates and the edicts of censors were 

 equally vain. It was written in the fates that 

 the best part of Roman literature should be only 

 successful plagiarism. 



One thing tempered the servility of this imita- 

 tive tendency. In every genuine Latin writer 

 even though not belonging by birth to the 

 capital, we recognize the pride of Roman citizen- 

 ship. That sentiment breaks out not merely in 

 the works of great statesmen and warriors, who, 

 aspiring to shine in literature as well as in 

 politics, naturally allowed their attempts in the 

 one field to take something of their tone from 

 the high station and authority that pertained to 

 them in the other; but quite as strikingly in the 

 productions of those to whom the literary charac- 

 ter was all in all. It is as prominent in Virgil 

 and Horace as in Cicero or Ceesar. If even the 

 language of Rome, in other respects so inferior 

 to that of Greece, has any real advantage over 

 the sister tongue, it lies in that accent of dignity 

 and command which seems inherent in its tones. 

 The austerity of power is not shaded down by 

 those graceful softenings and qualifying adjuncts, 

 so agreeable to the disposition of the most 

 polished Grecian communities. In the Latin 

 forms and syntax we are everywhere conscious of 

 a certain energetic majesty and forcible com- 

 pression. We hear, as it were, the voice of one 

 who claims to be respected and resolves to be 

 obeyed. 



When we regard solely the bright vein of 

 genius that shines through all the plagiarism of 

 the Latin authors, it seems impossible not to wish 

 that they had added to this the charm of origi- 

 nality : but a little consideration of what Italy 

 was, and what she had produced, in remoter 

 times, will convince us that, without some lively 

 external impulse, it was not likely that a literary 

 era should ever have commenced in that country. 

 Ingenious men have indeed discovered, or dream- 

 ed that they could discover, a primitive Latin 

 literature of heroic ballads ; evolving, by their 

 own fancy, rather than under the guidance of 

 authentic evidence, a series of epic romances 

 out of the ancient history of Rome. But it is 



