1807,] 
great and recent events, it possessed 
every thing that could mterest and gras 
tity his readers. The war of Troy wasa 
feeble incident, compared with the civil 
wars of Rome, where the greatest Ge- 
nerals, and the two most conspicuous 
men of their time, disputed between 
themselves the empire of the world. 
The fields of Pharsalia decided the con- 
test between Pompey and Cesar; and 
the same exploit which bestowed on the 
latter the laurel of victory, gave the last 
fatal blow to the expiring freedom of 
Rome. | 
Lucan, guided eiiher by an abhor- 
rence of tyranny, or by some other 
motive not so laudable, has uniformly as- 
cribed the subversion ‘of that repubiic to 
the sole agency of Cesar. But it might 
have been attributed, not so much to the 
jealousy of Pompey or the ambition of 
Cesar, as to the pride of the Patricians 
and the overbearing tyranny of the Se- 
nate., It did not occur to Lucan, that 
the gradual dissolution of the Republie, 
the internal divisions of Rome from the 
time of the Gracchi to the sanguinary 
days of Marius and Sylla, were occasioned 
by the dangerous policy and the usurped 
dominion of that arbitrary body. The 
senators were every thing, the people 
nothing. The successful resistance of 
the citizens, indeed, compelled the adop- 
tion of tribunes, till at length the perpe- 
tual struggle for popular ascendancy or 
aristocratic sway involved both the se- 
nate and the people in one common 
ruin. Exhausted by the bloody proscrip- 
tions of Sylla, the Romans, to use the 
words of Plutarch (in Vit. Pomp.) as- 
pred only to shelter themseives under a 
jaild and peacectul servitude! Tt does 
not appear to have been at first the in- 
tention cither of Pompey or of Cesar, to 
avail themselves of this disposition, 
Pompey might have assumed the soves 
reignty on his return from Asia, after the 
defeat and death of Mithridates; but 
when he landed ia Htaly, he: disinissed 
his army, and retired to Rome as a pri- 
vate citizen. His jealousy of Czsar, the 
stigations of his tollowers, and the po- 
pularity of his name, subsequently ine 
¥olved him im a contest to which his ge- 
nius was unequal, and he soow yielded to 
the ascendancy of his rival. ‘The ambi- 
tions designs of Cwsar unfolded tiem- 
Selves in a siill, more gradual and cau- 
tious manner. He acquired in as great 
@ degree the aifection af the people and 
Lyceum of Ancient Ltterature.—Lucan. 
“a citizen of Rome. 
139 
of the armies. [Lis valour, his activity, 
and his many virtues, in proportion as 
they excited admiration and esteem, ren< 
dered him the more fortnideble and hate- 
ful to the senate. His victories drew 
from them only a sullen approbation, or. 
an equivocal applause. Had lus just 
and temperate demands been complied 
with, he might contentedly have remained 
Bat he was pro 
voked by their unjust preference of Pom- 
pey; willing to be placed on an equal 
footing with hun, he refused to sabmit to 
his superiority; exasperated by the pride 
of his rival and the impotent iatignity of 
the senate, he hesitated in the midst of 
his victories, he presented the olive- 
branch while the sword was suspended 
over his own head; till, satished that his 
death alone would appease the malignity 
of his enemies, he passed the Rubicon, 
and Rome was enslaved. 
Irom these observations, which are 
not inappropriate to our subject, it may 
be inferred, that the subversion of the 
Roman Republic had its cause, more in 
he capricious and arbitrary conduct of 
the Senate than in the personal ambition 
ot Cesar; and it might be added, that, itt 
assuming the reins of government in 
times of such efférvescency, he wcted the 
part of a man disposed to heal the 
wounds inflicted by the civil wars, rather 
than as a warrior actuated by 4 desire 
of rule. The senate destroyed the fair 
fabric of the Roman freedora and great- 
ness: and if it be asked why the barba- 
rous Sylla: lived secure, abdicated in 
peace and died-with impunity, while the 
inild and clement Cesar was basely mur- 
dered.by friends and toes; it was, because 
Syila gratified the pride of the patricians 
in'the humiliation of the people, while 
Cesar, by becoming the father of the 
people, destroyed the authority of the 
senate. Had Lucan considered his sub- 
ject in this light, he would have rendered 
greater justice to the character of Cesar. 
But he was either animated by thé pure 
spit of republicanism, or he regarded 
Cesar as the guilty fountler of monarchy, 
as tne man who had prepared the way 
to. the abhorred tyranny of Nero. He 
was too near the events which he de- 
scribes, t6 delineate them with impar-= 
tiality. Confounding the cifect witlt the 
cause, he has drawn Cesar as violent} a 
unjust, and as ernel as any of his suce 
cessors. Indeed when we cousider hisown | 
critical: situation, and the universal sla+ 
ve ry 
- 
