The period from Nero to Hadrian is not merely the central and most important period of Latin criticism, but it contains a proportion altogether disproportionate of the bulk as of the value of Latin contributions to the subject. We must, however, complete our view of that subject, before summing up its general characteristics, with another chapter surveying the yield of the second, third, and fourth—perhaps, in view of the uncertainty of date of Martianus, we should add the fifth—centuries. The crop, if not very abundant, or of the very greatest value, is neither very scanty nor very uninteresting. It shall consist, in the specimens of it which we can afford to examine, first of the two famous and by no means unamusing miscellanists, the authors of the Noctes Atticæ and the Saturnalia; then, by an easy transition, of the commentators and scholiasts represented by their prior Servius, himself an interlocutor in the Macrobian symposium; in the third place, of a poetical contingent, much less important indeed than that furnished by the satirists from Horace to Martial, but not quite insignificant; and lastly, of the technical rhetoricians, ending with one of their latest representatives, but perhaps the most interesting of all, Martianus Capella. The chapter will thus, at least, not lack variety.
It would be difficult to have a better example of the indisposition of the Latin mind towards literary criticism proper, |Aulus Gellius: the Noctes Atticæ.| than that which is afforded by the famous Noctes Atticæ of Aulus Gellius.[[421]] We know nothing of this good person except that he was probably of more or less pure Roman descent, that he probably lived for the most part of his life at Rome and at Athens in the early second century, that he was a friend of Herodes Atticus, probably knew Plutarch, and was extremely intimate with, and a great admirer of, the rhetorician Favorinus. The well-known miscellany which he has left us, and which, in purporting to give the results of study or conversation in an Attic country-house, has been for seventeen hundred years so fruitful in imitations—mother, indeed, of a family sometimes a great deal fairer than herself—is an amusing book and a valuable, because it preserves for us a great number of quotations from lost authors or books, because its farrago of matter is good pastime, and not least because of a certain Pepysian or Boswellian quality in its author. But though, amid its jumble of things ethical, physical, logical, legal, and, above all, philological, perhaps the larger part is occupied with literature or at least with books, it is quite astonishing how small is the proportion that can be called literary criticism, and how rudimentary and infantine even that small proportion is. Gellius had nearly all the qualities and acquirements of the dictionary-maker; he was interested in etymology, was a most exact and careful purist in the definition and usage of words, and evidently prided himself on his collections of illustrative phrases and passages.[[422]] But almost invariably it must be said of him that hæret in litera, or, if he escapes that adhesion, that he gives himself over to the substance and meaning, not to the literary form and art, of what he quotes and studies. In all the nineteen or twenty books of his work there are probably not nineteen or twenty pages of real literary criticism; and where he does give us any it is of the “strawiest” character. Take, for instance, his comparison (ii. 23) of the Greek and Latin comic writers, and especially of some passages of Cæcilius with their originals in Menander. In preferring the Greek he is, of course, quite right; but it is noteworthy that he can hardly render any specific reason for his preference. He says, vaguely if truly, that the Latins seem low and sordid beside the wit and brilliancy of the Greeks, that Cæcilius appears stupid and frigid by Menander. But as to detail he prudently adds, nihil dicam ego quantum differat; and, less prudently transgressing this rule later, confines himself wholly to the matter, accusing the Roman of leaving out a simplex et verum et delectabile remark of the Greek. And if he comes a little nearer in praising (or making his favourite Favorinus praise) the flavum marmor of Ennius, it is still pretty clear that he does this merely or mainly from the side of the dictionary-maker, pleased at getting a light on the exact meaning of flavus. Although to our ears his preference (vi. 20) of “Ora” to “Nola” (in the passage which Virgil is said to have altered from a rather petty spite to the Nolans), “because it makes a sweet hiatus” with Vesevo at the end of the preceding line, may seem all wrong, the principle is æsthetic if the application is not. But, as a rule, we shall find that his critical opinions, where they are not concerned with purely verbal matters, are always decided by moral, philosophical, or in some other way extra-literary considerations. Even in an extremely interesting passage towards the end (xix. 9) where he makes Græci plusculi attack the Spanish-Latin rhetor Antonius Julianus[[423]] on the score of the inferiority of Roman to Greek erotic poets, and gives the passages with which Julianus retorted, the chief interest for us is that even the Greeks except Catullus to some extent, and Calvus, from their censure. For there is little or nothing but logomachy to be got out of the condemnation of Hortensius as invenustus and Cinna as illepidus.
This same imputation of logomachy is hard to clear from the dispute in x. 3, whether, though Caius Gracchus is undoubtedly fortis et vehemens, it is or is not intolerable that he should be deemed severior, amplior, acrior, than Cicero. If Gellius had kept to the same words, and had said fortior and vehementior, the observation just made might seem unkind; but as it is, one seems to be dropping into the well-known jargon of our own times, and of all times, to be hearing one reviewer asserting that Johnson is “alert” and another replying that Thompson is “nimble,” or opposing the “poignancy” of Smith to the “swiftness” of Brown. But the attention to words certainly comes in better when the critic objects to the use, in an otherwise non sane incommode adapted version from Euripides by Ennius, of ignobiles and opulenti for ἀδοξοῦντες and δοκοῦντες. XII. 2, however, is a good locus for us in more ways than one. It opens with a sketch of the difference of opinion about Seneca in the age succeeding his own, a difference of which Quintilian had, a little earlier, given us an inkling. “Some,” says Gellius, “think of him as of a most unprofitable writer, one not worth reading, because they hold his style vulgar and hackneyed, his matter and opinions distinguished either by inept and empty haste (impetu) or by frivolous and Old-Bailey (causidicali) wire-drawing, his erudition vernacular and plebeian, and possessing nothing either of the dignity or the grace of the classics. Others, while not denying that he has little grace of phrase, maintain that his matter lacks neither information nor teaching power, and that he has no unhappy gravity and severity in castigating vice.” He himself will give no general censure, but consider Seneca’s opinion of Cicero and Ennius and Virgil. This “consideration,” according to his wont, is rather a string of quotations with objurgatory epithets than a regular criticism. One may not agree with Seneca or one may (there are certainly some who would indorse his confession and avoidance of Cicero’s faults in the words non ejus sed temporis vitium). But the words which Gellius himself uses—insulsissime, homo nugator, inepti et insubidi[[424]] hominis joca—surely require some little argument to justify them, and this argument is what Gellius never gives. We may thank him, however, for the criticism as well as for the anecdote preserved (xiii. 2) in the story of the meeting of the tragic poets Pacuvius and Accius at Tarentum, in the extreme old age of the former. Pacuvius had asked his young guest and craftsfellow to read his tragedy of Atreus, and, after the reading, praised it as sonorous and grand, but perhaps a little harsh and austere. “It is so,” said the junior, “but I am not very sorry, for I hope to improve. It is the same in wits as in fruits: the hard and harsh mellow and sweeten, but those that are at first flabby, and soft, and moist, do not ripen but rot. I thought it best to have something in my genius for time and age to mitigate.” A sound principle, though not quite a universal one, as one may see in studying a certain life-work which ranges from “Claribel” to “Crossing the Bar.”
He is in his more meticulous moods when (xiii. 18) he accuses Plato of misquotation and Euripides of plagiarism; but a couple of chapters later a set discourse on euphony, starting from a saying of Valerius Probus, seems to promise well. Some one had asked Probus whether it was better to use the terminations em or im, es or is, for the accusative, where both occur. Aurem tuam interroga, said Probus, which is no doubt the conclusion of the whole matter. But his questioner, either foolish or dogged, asked how he was to do this, and Probus replied, “As Virgil did when he wrote Urbisne invisere Cæsar but Urbes habitant magnas.” Nor are we sorry to hear that when the questioner still bored on, saying that he could not understand why one should be better in one place and another in another, Probus retorted, “You need not trouble yourself; it will do you no harm whatever you use.” Prope inclementer, says Gellius (“Served him right,” most of us will say). But he goes on to accumulate some other instances of this application of the rule of euphony, and perhaps here draws as near to true criticism as he ever does. Nor is he wrong, though he may be fanciful, in deciding in regard to certain almost literal Virgilian imitations of Homer, that the Greek is simplicior et sincerior, Virgil νεωτερικώτερος et quodam quasi ferrumine immisso fucatior.[[425]]
He may strain the word again too much, when he bestows a page on the difference of multis hominibus and multis mortalibus (xii. 28), but he recovers esteem when in xiv. 6 we find him rejecting, not without contumely, contributions to his Noctes on the questions “Who was the first grammarian?” and “Why Telemachus did not nudge his bedfellow Pisistratus but kicked him?” &c., &c. Properans reddidi, says he, with the shudder one can fancy, though, to tell the truth, he does himself “something grow to” this kind of disease.
We may close this anthology of the Gellian criticisms with some account of one of the most elaborate—a discourse of Favorinus on Pindar and Virgil.[[426]] After quoting the Roman poet’s traditional saying about himself—that he brought forth his verses as a bear does her cubs, licking them slowly and busily into shape—he points out that the facts exactly bear out the description, and that certain verses, not having undergone the process of licking, are very inferior to the others. Among these unlicked cubs, it seems, Favorinus would place the Etna passage. Even Pindar himself, whom Virgil followed, is, the critic thinks, ipso insolentior tumidiorque in the place; but Virgil’s verse is such that Favorinus calls it “begun, not made.” And, the two passages having been cited in full, he indulges in the following drastic verbal censure: “At the very beginning, Pindar, paying more attention to the truth, said what was the fact, and a matter of ocular demonstration, that Etna smoked by day and flamed by night. But Virgil, laboriously seeking noisy-sounding words, confuses the two. The Greek says plainly that fountains of fire are belched forth, and rivers of smoke flow, and yellow, curling volumes of flame are borne down to the shores of the sea like fiery snakes; but this fellow of ours, choosing to interpret ῥόον καπνοῦ αἴθωνα by atram nubem turbine piceo et favilla fumantem, makes a crass and clumsy mixture, and translates the κρουνοὺς of flames, both harshly and inexactly, into ‘globes.’ Again, when he talks of ‘licking the stars,’ he makes an idle and empty exaggeration. Nay, the phrase, ‘emitting a black cloud of smoke full of pitchy whirlwinds and glowing ashes,’ is bad style and almost nonsense.[[427]] For glowing things, quoth he, neither smoke nor are black; unless by an improper vulgarism he applies candente, not to glowing but to merely ‘hot’ ash. But when he talks of ‘rocks and cliffs being belched and flung up,’ adding immediately that they are ‘melted, and groan, and are flung in handfuls into the air,’ neither did Pindar write this, nor would anybody else think of saying it, and the thing is the most monstrous of all monstrosities.”
The classical hatred of bombast and the classical propensity to “stick at the word” in criticism are both very well illustrated here; but we should hardly guess, from the sample, that there existed in classical times much power of grasping the literary and poetical merit of a passage as a whole. Virgil, if he had cared to defend himself, would, no doubt, have called attention to the Pindaric words, τέρας and θαῦμα, as justifying even “monstrosity” in his own expanded description, and have urged that this description was at least partly intended to indicate the terror and confusion of mind caused by so portentous a phenomenon.
But this absence of the synoptic grasp of æsthetic means, as applied to produce literary effect, is precisely what we notice most in the ancient criticism which has come down to us. And it may be added that it is also precisely what we should expect to follow from the limitations of the ancient Rhetoric. Grammar provided rules for the arrangement of words, and lexicography provided lists of them, with their authority and their use carefully ticketed; so here criticism was at home. Rhetoric provided lists of Figures with which a man could compare the passage before him. But there was no training in the process of simply “submitting to” this passage, interrogating oneself whether it exercised a charm or not, and then interrogating oneself further whether that charm was genuine, and what was its cause. After all, Gellius has, as we have seen, sometimes come near to the discovery of the true method, and that he loved literature there can be no doubt.[[428]]
Nor, much later, shall we find things different with that favourite of the Middle Ages and of Dr Johnson’s youth, |Macrobius: The Saturnalia.| Macrobius,[[429]] who, about the beginning of the fifth century, undertook a pendant to the work of Gellius. It is not surprising that the author, qui ot nom Macrobes,[[430]] should have been a favourite (for his commentary on the Somnium Scipionis principally, no doubt) with the period between Darkness and Renaissance. He has precisely the “fine confused feeding” in the way of matter and manner that these ages loved; and they would not be likely to quarrel with him for his lack of the criticism which, as we shall see, they themselves hardly, in more than a single instance, relished or understood. But he certainly illustrates, even in a greater degree than Gellius, the small propulsion of the Romans and their vassals towards the proper subjects of this book. Once more we find that etymology, mythology, grammar, the farrago of the antiquary as distinguished from that of the literary enthusiast, of the philologist as opposed to the critic, receive ample attention. And, once more, what we are specially in quest of remains practically, if not entirely, unhandled.
There are few more striking loci in connection with this subject than the end of the first book of the Saturnalia. The guests have been talking mythology and etymology for some stricken hours, till at last a break occurs. Vettius Prætextatus, the host, has just ended a long mythological dissertation, to the admiration of everybody, when Euangelus (the irreverent humourist of the party) breaks in, with some amusement at the practice of citing Virgil as an authority. He supposes that the notion of making Latin poets into philosophers is an imitation of the Greeks, and hints that the process is dangerous, since even Tully himself, who was as formal a professor of philosophising as of oratory, so often as he talks of the nature of the gods, or of fate, or of divination, injures the glory which he has got together through his eloquence, by his desultory handling of things. Symmachus, the scholar-statesman, rebukes this blasphemer gravely, observing that, as for Cicero, he is conviciis impenetrabilis, and may be left aside for the moment, but that he fears Euangelus has learnt his Virgil only as boys do, and thinks him only good for boys, with nothing higher in him. Euangelus is by no means abashed, and takes the offensive. It was all very well, he says, for us as boys to take Virgil at our master’s valuation, but did not he himself pronounce himself far from faultless, inasmuch as he wished them to burn the Æneid? No doubt he was afraid, not merely of ethical blame for such scenes as the request of Venus to her lawful husband in favour of her illegitimate son, but of critical blame for his now Greek, now barbarous, diction, and for the awkward ordonnance of his work. To this, cum omnes exhorruissent, Symmachus, still calm and sententious, makes answer by putting Virgil beside Cicero, and saying of his glory, that as it can grow by no one’s praise, so it is diminished by no one’s abuse. Any grammarian, he continues, can refute these calumnies; and it would be a shame to ask Servius (the famous Virgilian scholiast, who is present) to take the trouble. But he should like to know whether, as Euangelus is dissatisfied with Virgil’s Poetic, he likes his Rhetoric better. “Oh!” says Euangelus, “you have made him a philosopher, and now you are going to make him an orator, are you?”