Obrazy na stronie

plied by Horace to Lucilius (Serm., 2, 1,34), namely, sener or “old,” seems to imply, as Clinton has remarked (Fast. Hell., vol., 2, p. 135), that he lived to a later date.—The period at which Lucilius wrote was favourable to satiric composition. There was a struggle existing between the old and new manners, and the freedom of speaking and writing, though restrained, had not yet been totally checked by law. Lucilius lived with a people among whom luxury and corruption were advancing with fearful rapidity, but among whom some virtuous citizens were anxious to stem the tide which threatened to overwhelm their countrymen. His satires, therefore, were adapted to please those stanch “laudatores temporis acti" who stood up for ancient manners and discipline. The freedom with which he attacked the vices of his contemporaries, without sparing individuals, the strength of colouring with which his pictures were charged, the weight and asperity of the reproaches with which he j those who had exposed themselves to his ridicule or indignation, had nothing revolting in an age when no consideration compelled to those forbearances necessary under different forms of society or government. By the time, too, in which he began to write, the Romans, though yet far from the polish of the Augustan age, had become familiar with the delicate and cutting irony of the Greek comedies, of which the more ancient Roman satirists had no conception. Lucilius chiefly applied himself to the imitation of these dramatic productions, and caught, it is said, much of their fire and spirit. The Roman language likewise had grown more refined in his age, and was thus more capable of receiving the Grecian beauties of style. Nor did Lucilius, like his predecessors, mix iambic with trochaic verses. Twenty books of his satires, from the commencement, were in hexameter verse, and the rest, with the exception of the thirtieth, in iambics or trochaics. His object, too, seems to have been bolder and more extensive than that of his predecessors, and was not so much to excite laughter or ridicule as to correct and chastise vice. Lucilius thus bestowed on satiric composition such additional grace and regularity that he is declared by Horace to have been the first among the Romans who wrote satire in verse. But, although he may have greatly improved this sort of writing, it does not follow that his satires are to be considered as a different species from those of Ennius, a light in which they have been regarded by Casaubon and Ruperti; “for,” as Dryden has remarked, “it would thence follow that the satires of Horace are wholly different from those of Lucilius, because Horace has not less surpassed Lucilius in the elegance of his writing, than Lucilius surpassed Ennius in the turn and ornament of his.” The satires of Lucilius extended to not fewer than thirty books, but whether they were so divided by the poet himself, or by some grammarian who lived shortly after him, is uncertain. He was reputed, however, to be a voluminous author, and has been satirized by Horace for his hurried copiousness and facility. Of the thirty books there are only fragments extant; but these are so numerous, that, though they do not capacitate us for catching the full spirit of the poet, we j something of his manner. His merits, too, ave been so much canvassed by ancient writers, who judged of them while his works were yet entire, that their discussion enables us in some measure to appreciate his poetical claims. It would appear that he had great vivacity and humour, uncommon command of language, intimate knowledge of life and manners, and considerable acquaintance with the Grecian masters. Virtue appeared in his draughts in native dignity, and he exhibited his distinguished friends, Scipio and Lalius, in the most amiable light. At the same time, it was impossible to portray anything more powerful than the sketches of his vicious characters. His rogue, glutton, and courtesan are drawn in strong, not to say

coarse, colours. He had, however, much of the old Roman humour, that celebrated but undefined urbanitas, which indeed he possessed in so eminent a degree, that Pliny says it began with Lucilius in composition (Praef. Hist. Nat.), while Cicero declares that he carried it to the highest perfection, and that it almost expired with him. But the chief characteristic of Lucilius was his vehement and cutting satire. Macrobius (Sat., 3, 16) calls him “Acer et violentus poeta,” and the well-known lines of Juvenal, who relates how he made the guilty tremble with his pen, as much as if he had pursued them sword in hand, have fixed his character as a determined and inexorable persecutor of vice. His Latin is admitted on all hands to have been sufficiently pure (Aul. Gell., 18, 5.-Horat., Sat., 1, 10), but his versification was rugged and prosaic. Horace, while he allows that he was more polished than his contemporaries, calls his muse “pedestris,” talks repeatedly of the looseness of his measures, “incomposito pede currere versus,” and compares his whole poetry to a muddy and troubled stream. Quintilian does not entirely coincide with this opinion of Horace ; for, while blaming those who considered him as the greatest of poets, which some persons still did in the age of Domitian, he says, “Ego quantum ab illis, tantum ab Horatio dissentio, qui Lucilium fluere lutulentum, et esse aliquid quod tollere possis, putat.” (Inst. Or., 10, 1.) The author of the books Rhetoricorum, addressed to Herennius, and which were at one time ascribed to Cicero, mentions, as a singular awkwardness in the construction of his lines, the disjunction of words, which, according to proper and natural arrangement, ought to have been placed together, as,

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

As to the learning of Lucilius, the o: of antiquity are different; and even those of the same author of. ten appear somewhat contradictory on this point. Quintilian says that there is “Eruditio in eo mira.” Cicero, in his treatise De Finibus, calls his learning “Mediocris;” though afterward, in the person of Crassus, in his treatise De Oratore, he twice terms him “doctus” (1, 16; 2, 6). Dacier suspects that Quintilian was led to consider Lucilius as learned, from the pedantic intermixture of Greek words in his compositions, a practice which seems to have excited the applause of his contemporaries, and also of his numerous admirers in the Augustan age, for which they have been severely ridiculed by Horace, who always warmly opposed himself to the excessive popularity of Lucilius during that golden period of literature. It is not unlikely that there may have been something of political spleen in the admiration expressed for Lucilius during the age of Augustus, and something of courtly complaisance in the attempts of Horace to counteract it. Augustus had extended the law of the twelve tables respecting libels, and the people who found themselves thus abridged of the liberty of satirizing the great by name, might not improbably seek to avenge themselves by an overstrained attachment to the works of a poet, who, living, as they would insinuate, in better times, practised without fear what he enjoyed without restraint. (Gifford's Juvenal, Praef, p. 43.) Some motive of this sort doubtless weighed with the Romans of the age of Augustus, since much of the satire of Lucilius must have been unintelligible, or, at least, uninteresting to them. Great part of his compositions appear to have been rather a series of libels than legitimate satire, being occupied with virulent attacks on contemporary citizens of Rome. Douza, who has collected and edited all that remains of the satires of Lucilius, mentions the names of not less than sixteen individuals who are attacked by name in the course even of these fragments, among whom are Quintus Opimius, the conqueror of Liguria, Caecilius Metellus, whose victories acquired for him the surname of Macedonicus, and Cornelius Lupus, at that time Princeps Senatus. Lucilius was equally severe on contemporary and preceding authors: Ennius, Pacuvius, and Accius having been alternately satirized by him. (Aul. Gell., 17, 21.) In all this he indulged with impunity (Horat., Sat., 2, 1); but he did not escape so well from a player whom he had ventured to censure, and who took his revenge by exposing Lucilius on the stage. The poet prosecuted the actor, and the cause was carried on with much warmth on both sides before the praetor, who finally acquitted the player (Rhet, ad Herren., 2, 13).-Lucilius, however, did not confine himself to attacking vicious mortals. In the first book of his satires he appears to have declared war on the false gods of Olympus, whose plurality he denied, and ridiculed the simplicity of the people, who bestowed on an infinity of gods the venerable name of father, which should be reserved for one.— Of many books of the Satires such small fragments remain, that it is impossible to conjecture their subjects. Even in those books of which there are a greater number of fragments extant, they are so disjointed that it is as difficult to put them legibly together as the scattered leaves of the Sibyl; and the labour of Douza, who has been the most successful in arranging the broken lines, is by many considered as but a conjectural and philological sport. Those few passages, however, which are in any degree entire, show great force of satire.—Besides satirizing the wicked, under which category he probably classed all his enemies, Lucilius also employed his pen in praise of the brave and virtuous. He wrote, as we learn from Horace, a panegyric on Scipio Africanus; but whether the elder or younger, is not certain. Lucilius was also author of a comedy entitled Nummularia, of which only one line remains; but we are informed by Porphyrion, the scholiast on Horace, that the plot turned on Pythias, a female slave, tricking her master Simo out of a sum of money, with which to portion his daughter. (Dunlop's Roman Literature, vol. 1, p. 393, seqq.) Douza's edition of the fragments of Lucilius was published in 1593, Lugd. Bat., 4to: a later but inferior edition, cura fratrum Vulpiorum, appeared in 1713, Patav. Lemaire has subjoined a reprint of Douza's Lucilius to the third volume of his edition of Juvenal and Persius, Paris, 1830—II. An epigrammatic poet in the age of Nero. We have more than one hundred of his epigrams remaining. Wernsdorff assigns to him the poem entitled AEtna, commonly supposed to have been written by Cornelius Severus. (Poet. Lat. Min., vol. 4, pt. 2, p. 3, seqq.) Lucilla, daughter of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and of Faustina, was born A.D. 146. At the age of seventeen she was given in marriage to Lucius Verus, at that time commanding the Roman armies in Syria. Werus came as far as Ephesus to meet her, and the union was celebrated in this city; but, habituated to debauchery, Verus soon relapsed into his former mode of life; and Lucilla, finding herself neglected, took a woman's revenge, and entered on a career of similar rofligacy. Returning subsequently with her husi. to Rome, she caused him to be poisoned there; and afterward, in accordance with her father's directions, contracted a second union with Claudius Pomianus, an aged senator, of great merit and probity. }. licentious conduct, however, underwent no change, and she was banished to the island of Caprea, by her brother Commodus, against whom she had formed a conspiracy. Not long after, Commodus sent a centurion to her place of exile, who put her to death, in the 38th year of her age, A.D. 184. She had by her marriage with o second husband a son named Laetus 5

Pompeianus, put to death by order of Caracalla, and a daughter. (Dio Cass., 71, 1–Id., 72, 4.—Jul. Capitol, Vit. Aurel.., 7.-Id., Wit. Ver.) LuciNA, a surname of Juno, as the goddess who presided over the delivery of females. She was probably so called from bringing children into the light. (Lucina, from luz, lucis, “light.”—Vid. Juno.) Lucretia, a celebrated Roman female, daughter of Lucretius, and wife of Collatinus. Her name is connected in the old legend with the overthrow of kingly power at Rome, and the story is related as follows: Tarquinius Superbus waged war against Ardea, the capital of the Rutuli, a people on the coast of Latium. The city was very strong by both nature and art, and made a protracted resistance. The Roman army lay encamped around the walls, in order to reduce it by hunger, since they could not by direct force. While lying half idle here, the princes of the Tarquin family, and their kinsmen Brutus and Collatinus, happening to feast together, began, in their gayety, to boast each of the beauty and virtue of his wife. Collatinus extolled his spouse Lucretia as beyond all rivalry. On a sudden they resolved to ride to Rome, and decide the dispute by ascertaining which of the respective ladies was spending her time in the most becoming and laudable manner. They found the wives of the king's sons entertaining other ladies with a costly banquet. They then rode on to Collatia; and, though it was near midnight, they sound Lucretia, with her handmaids around her, working at the loom. It was admitted that Lucretia was the most worthy lady; and they returned to the camp at Ardea. But the beauty and virtue of Lucretia had excited in the base heart of Sextus Tarquinius the fire of lawless passion. After a few days he returned to Collatia, where he was hospitably entertained by Lucretia as a kinsman of her husband. At midnight, however, he secretly entered her chamber; and, when persuasion was ineffectual, he threatened to kill her and one of her male slaves, and, laying the body by her side, to declare to Collatinus that he had slain her in the act of adultery. The dread of a disgrace to her memory, from which there could be no possible mode of effacing the stain, produced a result which the fear of death could not have done; a result not unnatural in a heathen, who might dread the disgrace of a crime more than its commission, but which shows the conventional morality and virtue of the times, how ill-founded and almost weakly sentimental in even that boasted instance of female virtue.—Having accomplished his wicked purpose, Sextus returned to the camp. Immediately after his departure, Lucretia sent for her husband and father. Collatinus came from the camp accompanied by Brutus, and her father Lucretius from the city, along with Publius Valerius. They found Lucretia sitting on her bed, weeping and inconsolable. In brief terms she told what had befallen her, required of them the pledge of their right hands, that they would avenge her injuries, and then, drawing a knife from under her robe, stabbed herself to the heart and died. Her husband and father burst into a loud cry of agony; but Brutus, snatching the weapon from the wound, held it up, and swore, by the chaste and noble blood which stained it, that he would pursue to the uttermost Tarquinius and all his accursed race, and thenceforward suffer no man to be king at Rome. He then gave the bloody knife to her husband, her father, and Valerius, and called on them to take the same oath. Brutus thus became at once the leader of the enterprise. They bore the body of Lucretia to the market-place. There Brutus addressed the people and aroused them to vengeance. Part remained to . the town, and part proceeded, with Brutus to ome. Their coming raised a tumult, and drew together great numbers of the citizens. Brutus, availing himself of his rank and authority as tribune of the Celeres or captain of the knights, ummon; * people 7

to the Forum, and proceeded to relate the bloody deed which the villany of Sextus Tarquinius had caused. Nor did he content himself with that, but set before them, in the most animated manner, the cruelty, tyranny, and oppression of Tarquinius himself; the guilty manner in which he obtained the kingdom, the violent means he had used to retain it, and the unjust repeal of all the laws of Servius Tullius, by which he had robbed them of their liberties. By this means he wrought so effectually upon the feelings of the people, that they passed a decree abolishing the kingly power itself, and banishing for ever Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, and his wife and children. (Liv., 1, 57, seqq.— Dion. Hal., 4, 15.) The story of Lucretia is very ingeniously discussed by Verri, and the conclusion at which he apparently arrives is rather unfavourable than otherwise to her character. (Notti Romane, vol. 1, p. 171, seqq.—Compare Augustin., Civ. D., 1, 19, p. 68, as cited by Bayle, Dict. Hist, s. v.) In all likelihood, however, the whole story is false, and was merely invented in a later age, to account for the overthrow of kingly power at Rome. Lucretilis, a mountain range in the country of the Sabines, amid the windings of which lay the farm of Horace. It is now Monte Libretti. (Horat., Od., 1, 17, 1.—Compare the description given by Eustace, Classical Tour, vol. 2, p. 247, seq.) Lucretius, I. Titus Lucretius Carus, a celebrated Roman writer. Of his life very little is known, and even the year of his birth is uncertain. According to the chronicle of Eusebius, he was born A.U.C. 658, B.C. 96, being thus nine years younger than Cicero, and two or three years younger than Casar. To judge from his style, he would be supposed older than either; but this, as appears from the example of Sallust, is no certain test, as his archaisms may have arisen from the imitation of ancient writers, and we know that he was a fond admirer of Ennius. A taste for Greek philosophy had been excited at Rome to a considerable extent some time previous to this era, and Lucretius was sent, with other young Romans of rank, to study at Athens. The different schools of philosophy in that city seem, about this period, to have been frequented according as they received a temporary fashion from the comparative abilities of the professors who presided over them. Cicero, for example, who had attended the Epicurean school at Athens, and who became himself an academic, intrusted his son to the care of Cratippus, a peripatetic philosopher. After the death of its great founder, the school of Fpicurus had for some time declined in Greece; but, at the period when Lucretius was sent to Athens, it had again revived under the patronage of L. Memmius, whose son was a fellow-student of Lucretius, as were also Cicero, his brother Quintus, Cassius, and Pomponius Atticus. At the time when frequented by these illustrious youths, the gardens of Epicurus were superintended by Zeno and Phaedrus, both of whom, but particularly the latter, have been honoured with the panegyric of Cicero. One of the dearest, perhaps the dearest friend of Lucretius, was this Memmius, who had been his schoolsellow, and whom, it is supposed, he accompanied to Bithynia, when appointed to the government of that province. (Good's Lucretius, Praef., p. xxxvi.) The poem De Rerum Natura, if not undertaken at the request of Memmius, was doubtless much encouraged by him ; and Lucretius, in a dedication expressed in terms of manly and eloquent courtesy, very different from the servile adulation of some of his great successors, tells him that the hopedfor pleasure of his sweet friendship was what enabled him to endure any toils or vigils. The life of the poet was short, but happily was sufficiently prolonged to enable him to complete his poem, though perhaps not to give some portions of it their last polish. . According to Eusebius, he died in the 44th year of his age,

by his own hands, in a paroxysm of insanity produced by a philtre, which Lucretia, his wife or mistress, had given him, with no design of depriving him of life or reason, but to renew or increase his passion. Others suppose that his mental alienation proceeded from melancholy, on account of the calamities of his country and the exile of Memmius, circumstances which were calculated deeply to affect his mind. There seems no reason to doubt the melancholy fact that he perished by his own hand. The poem of Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, which he composed during the lucid intervals of his malady, is, as the name imports, philosophic and didactic, in the strictest acceptation of these terms, and contains a full exposition of the theological, physical, and moral system of Epicurus. It has been remarked by an able writer, “that all the religious systems of the ancient pagan world were naturally perishable, from the quantity of false opinions, and wicious habits and ceremonies that were attached to them.” (Turner, Hist. of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. 3, p. 311.) He observes even of the barbarous AngloSaxons, that, “as the nation advanced in its active intellect, it began to be dissatisfied with its mythology. Many indications exist of this spreading alienation, which prepared the northern mind for the reception of the nobler truths of Christianity (ibid., p. 356). A secret incredulity of this sort seems to have been long nourished in Greece, and appears to have been imported into Rome with its philosophy and literature. The more pure and simple religion of early Rome was quickly corrupted, and the multitude of ideal and heterogeneous beings which superstition introduced into the Roman worship led to its rejection. (Pliny, 2, 7.) This infidelity is very obvious in the writings of Ennius, who translated Euhemerus' work on the Deification of human spirits, while Plautus dramatized the vices of the father of the gods and tutelary deity of Rome. The doctrine of inaterialism was introduced at Rome during the age of Scipio and Laelius (Cic., de Am., 4), and perhaps no stronger proof of its rapid progress and prevalence can be given, than that Caesar, though a priest, and ultimately Pontifex Maximus, boldly declared in the senate that death is the end of all things, and that beyond it there is neither hope nor joy. (Sallust, Cat., 51.) This state of the public mind was calculated to give a fashion to the system of Epicurus. According to this distinguished philosopher, the chief good of man is pleasure, of which the elements consist in having a body free from pain, and a mind tranquil and exempt from perturbation. Of this tranquillity there are, according to Epicurus, as expounded by Lucretius, two chief enemies, superstition or slavish fear of the gods, and the dread of death (2, 43, seqq.). In order to oppose these two foes to happiness, he endeavours, in the first place, to show that the world was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, and that the gods, who, according to the popular mythology, were constantly interposing, take no concern whatever in human affairs. We do injustice to Epicurus when we estimate his tenets by the refined and exalted ideas of a philosophy purified by faith, without considering the superstitious and polluted notions prevalent in his time. With respect to the other great leading tenet of Lucretius and his master, the mortality of the soul, still greater injustice is done to the philosopher and the poet. It is affirmed, and justly, by a great apostle, that “life and immortality have been brought to light by the gospel;" and yet an author, who lived before this dawn, is reviled because he asserts that the natural arguments for the immortality of the soul, afforded by the analogies of nature or principle of moral retribution, are weak and inconclusive. In fact, however, it is not by the truth of the system or general philosophical views in a poem (for which no one consults it) that its value is to be estimated; since a poetical work may be highly moral on account of its details, even when its systematic scope is erroneous or apparently dangerous. Notwithstanding passages which seem to echo Spinozism, and almost justify crime, the Essay on Man is rightly considered as the most moral production of the most moral among the English poets. In like manner, where shall we find exhortations more eloquent than those of Lucretius against ambition and cruelty, and luxury and lust; against all the dishonest pleasures of the body, and all the turbulent pleasures of the mind?—In versifying the philosophical system of Epicurus, Lucretius appears to have taken Empedocles as a model. All the old Grecian bards of whom we have any account prior to Homer, as Orpheus, Linus, and Musæus, are said to have written poems on the dryest and most difficult philosophical questions, as cosmogony or the generation of the world. The ancients evidently considered philosophic poetry as of the highest kind, and its themes are invariably laced in the mouths of their divinest songsters. hether Lucretius may have been indebted to any such ancient poems, still extant in his age, or to the subsequent productions of Palaephatus the Athenian, Antiochus, or Eratosthenes, who, as Suidas informs us, wrote poems on the structure of the world, it is impossible now to determine; but he seems to have availed himself considerably of the work of Empedocles. The poem of that philosopher, entitled repi otoeot, and inscribed to his pupil Pausanias, was chiefly illustrative of the Pythagorean philosophy, in which he had been initiated. Aristotle speaks on the subject of the merits of Empedocles in a manner which does not seem to be perfectly consistent (ap. Eichstädt, Lucret., p. lxxxvii., ci., cii., ed. Lips, 1801), but we know that his poem was sufficiently celebrated to be publicly recited at the Olympic games along with the works of Homer. His philosophical system was different from that of Lucretius; but he had discussed almost all the subjects on which the Roman bard afterward expatiated. In particular, Lucretius appears to have derived from his predecessor his notion of the original generation of man from the teeming earth; the production, at the beginning of the world, of a variety of defective monsters, which were not allowed to multiply their kinds; the distribution of animals according to the prevalence of one or other of the four elements over the rest in their composition; the vicissitudes of matter between life and inanimate substance; and the leading doctrine, “mortem nihil ad nos pertinere,” because absolute insensibility is the consequence of dissolution. If Lucretius has in any way benefited by the works of Empedocles, he has, in return, been most lavish and eloquent in his commendations. One of the most delightful features in the character of the Latin poet, is the glow of admiration with which he writes of his illustrious predecessors. His eulogium of the Sicilian philosopher, which he has so happily combined with that of the country which gave him birth, affords a beautiful example of his manner of infusing into everything poetic sweetness. Ennius had translated into Latin verse the Greek poem of Epicharmus, which, from the fragments preserved, appears to have contained many speculations with regard to the productive elements of which the world is composed, as also concerning the preservative powers of nature. To the works of Ennius our poet seems to have been indebted, partly as a model for enriching the still scanty Latin language with new terms, and partly as a treasury or storehouse of words already provided. Him too he celebrates with the most ardent and unfeigned enthusiasm. These writers, Empedocles and Ennius, were probably Lucretius' chief guides; and, though the most original of the Latin poets, many of his finest assages may be traced to the Greeks. The beautiful ntation,

“Nam jam non domus accipiette lata, neque uzor, Optuma, nec dulceis occurrent oscula nati Praeripere, et tacita pectus dulcedine tangunt,”

is said to be translated from a dirge chanted at Athenian funerals; and the passage where he represents the feigned tortures of hell as but the workings of a guilty and unquiet spirit, is versified from an oration of AEschines against Timarchus. Notwithstanding, indeed, the nature of the subject, which gave the poet little opportunity for those descriptions of the passions and feelings which generally form the chief charm in poetry, Lucretius has succeeded in imparting to his didactic and philosophical work much of the real spirit of poetry; and if he had chosen a subject which would have afforded him greater scope for the exercise of his powers, he might have been ranked among the first of poets. Even in the work which has come down to us, we find many passages which are not equalled by the best lines of any Latin poet, and which, for vigour of conception and splendour of diction, will bear a comparison with the best efforts of the poets of any age or country. In no writer does the Latin language display its majesty and stately grandeur so effectively as in Lucretius. There is a power and an energy in his descriptions that we rarely meet with in the Latin poets; and no one who has read his invocation to Venus, at the beginning of the poem, or his delineation of the Demon of Superstition and of the sacrifice of Iphigenia, that come after; or his beautiful picture of the busy pursuits of men, at the commencement of the second book, or the progress of the arts and sciences in the fifth, or his description of the plague which desolated Athens during the Peloponnesian war, at the close of the sixth, can refuse to allow Lucretius a high rank among the poets of antiquity. In the first and second books he chiefly expounds the cosmogony, or physical part of his system; a system which had originally been founded by Leucippus, and from his time had been successively improved by Democritus and Epicurus. He establishes in these books his two great principles, that nothing can be made from nothing, and that nothing can ever be annihilated or return to nothing; and that there is in the universe a void or space in which atoms interact. These atoms he believes to be the original component parts of all matter, as well as of animal life; and the modification or arrangement of such corpuscles occasions, according to him, the whole difference in substances. It cannot be denied, that in these two books particularly (but the observation is in some degree applicable to the whole poem), there are many barren tracts, many physiological, meteorological, and geological details, which are at once too incorrect for the philosophical, and too dry and abstract for the general reader. It is wondersul, however, how he contrives, by the beauty of his images, to give a picturesque colouring and illustration to the most unpromising topics. In spite, however, of the power of Lucretius, it was impossible, from the very nature of his subject, but that some portions would prove altogether unsusceptible of poetic embellishment. Yet it may be doubted whether these intractable passages, by the charms of contrast, do not add, like deserts to oases in their bosom, an additional deliciousness in proportion to their own sterility. The philosophical analysis, too, employed by Lucretius, impresses the mind with the conviction that the poet is a profound thinker, and adds great force to his moral reflections. It is his bold and fearless manner, however, that most of all produces a powerful effect. While in other writers the eulogy of virtue seems in some sort to partake ot the nature of a sermon, to be a conventional language, and words of course, we listen to Lucretius as to one who will fearlessly speak out; who has shut his ears to the murmurs of Acheron; and who, "... eulogizes virtue, extols her because her charms are real.—One thing very remarkable in this great poet is the admirable clearness and closeness of his reasoning. He repeatedly values himself not a little on the circumstance that, with an intractable subject, and a language not yet accommodated to philosophical subjects, and scanty in terms of physical as well as metaphysical science, he was able to give so much clearness to his arguments; and this object it is generally admitted that he has accomplished, with little or no sacrifice of pure Latinity.—The two leading tenets of Epicurus, concerning the formation of the world and the mortality of the soul, are established by Lucretius in the first three books. A great portion of the fourth book may be considered as episodical. Having explained the nature of primordial atoms, and of the soul, which is formed from the finest of them, he announces that there are certain images (rerum simulacra) or effluvia which are constantly thrown off from the surface of whatever exists. On this hypothesis he accounts for all our external senses; and he applies it also to the theory of dreams, in which whatever images have occupied the senses during day most readily recur. The principal subject of the fifth book, a composition unrivalled in energy and richness of language, in full and genuine sublimity, is the origin and laws of the visible world, with those of its inhabitants. The poet presents us with a grand representation of Chaos, and the most magnificent account of the creation that ever flowed from mortal pen. In consequence of their ignorance and superstitions, the Roman people were rendered perpetual slaves of the most idle and unfounded terrors. In order to counteract these popular prejudices, and to heal the constant disquietudes that accompanied them, Lucretius proceeds, in the sixth book, to account for a variety of extraordinary phenomena, both in the heavens and on the earth, which at first view seemed to deviate from the usual laws of nature. Having discussed the various theories formed to account for electricity, water-spouts, hurricanes, the rainbow, and volcanoes, he lastly considers the origin of pestilential and endemic disorders. This introduces the celebrated account of the plague, which ravaged Athens during the Peloponnesian war, with which Lucretius concludes this book and his magnificent poem. “In this narrative,” says a late translator of Lucretius, “the true genius of poetry is perhaps more powerfully and triumphantly exhibited than in any other poem that was ever written. Lucretius has ventured on one of the most uncouth and repressing subjects to the muses that can possibly be brought forward, the history and symptoms of a disease, and this disease accompanied with circumstances naturally the most nauseous and indelicate. It was a subject altogether new to numerical composition; and he had to strive with all the pedantry of technical terms, and all the abstruseness of a science in which he does not appear to have been professionally initiated. He strove, however, and he conquered. In language the most captivating and nervous, and with ideas the most precise and appropriate, he has given us the entire history of this tremendous pestilence. The description of the symptoms, and also the various circumstances of horror and distress attending this dreadful scourge, have been derived from Thucydides, who furnished the facts with great accuracy, having been himself a spectator and a sufferer under this calamity. His narrative is esteemed an elaborate and complete performance; and to the faithful yet elegant detail of the Greek historian, the Roman bard has added all that was necessary to convert the description into poetry.” —In the whole history of Roman taste and criticism, nothing appears so extraordinary as the slight mention that is made of Lucretius by succeeding Latin authors; and, when mentioned, the coldness with which

he is spoken of by all Roman critics and poets, with the exception of Ovid. Perhaps the spirit of free thinking which pervaded his writings rendered it unsafe to extol even his poetical talents; or perhaps, and this is the more probable supposition, the nature of his subject, and the little taste which the Romans in general manifested for speculations like those of Lucretius, may account for his poetry being estimated below its real merits. – The doctrines of Lucretius, particularly that which impugns the superintending care of Providence, were first formally oposed by the Stoic Manilius, in his Astronomic poem. }. modern times, his whole philosophical system has been refuted in the long and elaborate poem of the Cardinal Polignac, entitled “Anti-Lucretius, stre de Deo et Natura.” This enormous work, though incomplete, consists of nine books, of about 1300 lines each, and the whole is addressed to Quintius, an atheist, who corresponds to the Lorenzo of the Night Thoughts. Descartes is the Epicurus of the poem, and the subject of many heavy panegyrics. i.". philosophical part of his subject, the cardinal has sometimes refuted at too great length propositions which were manifestly absurd ; at others, he has impugned demonstrated truths, and the moral system of Lucretius he throughout has grossly misunderstood. But he has rendered ample justice to his poetical merit; and, in giving a compendium of the subject of his great antagonist's poem, he has caught some share of the poetical spirit with which his predecessor was inspired. (Dunlop's Roman Literature, vol. 1, p. 416, seqq.)—The work of Lucretius, like that of Virgil, had not received the finishing hand of its author at the period of his death. The tradition that Cicero revised it and gave it to the public, does not rest on any authority more ancient than that of Eusebius; and, had the story been true, it would probably have been mentioned in some part of Cicero's voluminous writings, or those of the early critics. , Eichstädt, while he denies the revisal by Cicero, is of opinion that it had been corrected by some critic or grammarian; and that thus two manuscripts, differing in many respects from each other, had descended to posterity, the one as it came from the hand of the poet, and the other as amended by the reviser. The opinion, however, though advocated with much learning and ingenuity, is an untenable one.—The best editions of Lucretius are, that of Lambinus, Paris, 1564, 1570, 4to, with a very useful commentary; Creech, Oron, 1695, 8vo, often reprinted; Havercamp, Lugd. Bat, 1725, 2 vols. 4to ; Wakefield, Lond., 1796, 4to, 3 vols., and Glasg., 1813, 8vo, 4 vols.; and that of Forbiger Lips., 1828 12mo. A good edition, however, is still much wanted, as Wakefield's is at best an unsatisfactory performance, and Eichstädt's has never been completed.—II. Spurius Lucretius Tricipitinus, the father of Lucretia, was chosen as colleague in the consulship to Poplicola, to supply the place of Brutus, who had fallen in battle. He died, however, soon after his election, and M. Horatius was appointed to finish the year. (Liv., 1, 58.-Id., 2,8.) Lucrinus, a lake in Italy, near Cumae, on the coast of Campania. According to Dio Cassius (48, 50), there were three lakes in this quarter lying one behind the other. The outermost was called Tyrrhenus, the middle one Lucrinus, and the innermost Avernus. The Lucrine was shut in from the outermost lake or bay by a dike raised across the narrow inlet. This work, according to Strabo, was eight stadia in length, and of a chariot's breadth: tradition ascribed it to Hercules. (Strab., 245.) Agrippa cut a communication between these lakes and the sea, and built at the opening, but between and uniting the Lucrine and Avernian lakes, the famous Julian Harbour. The object in doing this chiefly was to procure a place along the coast fit for exercising and training a body

« PoprzedniaDalej »