The History of Rome: Rise and Fall of the Empire. John Bagnell Bury
Читать онлайн книгу.
we cannot endure our vices nor submit to remedies". We cannot doubt his honesty as a historian; but his views of writing history were such that his statements must often be received with caution. For though he wished to tell the truth, he cared much more for style than for facts. He had little idea of historical method, or of historical research. He gave himself no trouble to ascertain the truth in doubtful cases. For the early history he simply worked up into an artistic form the narratives of Polybius and of late Roman annalists, especially Valerius of Antium; and did not exert himself to consult all the available sources, or even the best. His knowledge of constitutional matters was unsound; nor was he at home in military history. He approached his subject rather as a rhetorician than as a historian; and as a literary work his history takes rank among the great histories of the world. His style was prolix. Ancient critics observed that he used more words than were necessary, and his "abundance" (lactea ubertas) was contrasted with the conciseness of Sallust.
POMPEIUS TROGUS wrote a universal history in forty-four books, beginning with the Assyrian Ninus, and ending with his own time. It was entitledHistoriae Philippiae. The original work has not come down to us, but in a later age it was abbreviated by a certain Justinus, and this abridgment is extant. Other historians of the Augustan period were L. ARRUNTIUS, who wrote an account of the Punic war in the style of Sallust, and FENESTELLA, an antiquarian, who, in his Annales, paid special attention to social and constitutional history.
C. JULIUS HYGINUS, a freedman of Augustus and librarian of the Palatine Library, was an interesting figure in the literary history of his time. He may be regarded as the successor of Varro, as an antiquarian and polymath. He wrote on the cities of Italy (de situ urbium Italicarum), on illustrious Romans (de viris Claris), on agriculture; also a commentary on Virgil. All these books are lost, but a mythological (Fabulae) and an astronomical work have come down under his name, and perhaps are really his.
Of other antiquarians, many of whose names we know, must be mentioned M. VERRIUS FLACCUS, who wrote a book on the Calendar (Fasti), and an important lexicographical work entitled de verborum significatu. Most valuable, as the only work of the kind that has been preserved, is the treatise of VITRUVIUS POLLIO, De Architectura, in ten books. It was dedicated to Augustus and finished before 13 B.C.
Of the many philosophers, rhetors and orators, who talked and wrote at this period, there is none of any interest to posterity. Among philosophical writers may be mentioned Q. Sextius Niger, and his son of the same name; among the rhetors M. Porcius Latro, of whose declamations some extracts are preserved; and among orators, the fluent Haterius, the rabid Labienus,f the biting Cassius Severus. The two great jurists of the Augustan age were M. Antistius Labeo (59 B.C.-12 A.D..), and his younger rival C. Ateius Capito (34 B.C.-22 A.D..), who founded schools afterwards known as the Proculian and Sabinian respectively.
SECT. III. — GREEK LITERATURE
From the year 146 B.C. forward, Greek literature begins to hold a place in Roman history along with the advance of Roman sway over the Greek world. By the time of Augustus nearly all the Greeks of Europe, Asia, and Egypt have become either immediate or federate subjects of Rome. Their literature, therefore, on this ground claims the attention of the student of Roman history; but still more because many Greek writers busied themselves with the history and antiquities of their new mistress. Polybius is the first and most famous example of a Greek writing Roman history; but under the Empire Greek books on Roman subjects are numerous.
DIONYSIUS of Halicarnassus came to Rome soon after the battle of Actium and lived there for more than twenty years, studying Latin literature and writing in his own language on Latin subjects. While he was at Rome he associated with men of the senatorial class, and his writings are animated with republican sentiments. He continued the work of Polybius in endeavoring to reconcile his countrymen to Roman sway. Polybius had expounded the role which Rome was destined to play in history; Dionysius is concerned to show that she was worthy to play it. In his work on “Roman Archeology”, which he finished in 8 B.C., he seeks to prove, by tracing out mythical connection between Rome and Greece, that the Romans were not really “barbarians”. It was a mark of gratitude for the kind treatment which he experienced at Rome. This work consisted of twenty Books, but only the first eleven are preserved entire. The style is wordy and rhetorical, very unlike that of Polybius. He used good sources; but he has no appreciation of the meaning or methods of history; he even puts long rhetorical speeches into the months of legendary persons. He defines history as “philosophy by examples”. In questions of literary criticism, however, he is quite at home; and his various literary treatises, in which he shows thorough appreciation of the old masters, are of considerable value.
More interesting in some ways than the literary treatise of Dionysus is that of a certain LONGINUS—of whom personally nothing is known—“on the sublime” (or more correctly “on loftiness of style”), which seems to have been written in the early years of the first century A.D. It contains much enlightened and suggestive criticism. The author had some acquaintance with the Hebrew scriptures.
NICOLAUS of Damascus (born about 64 B.C.) was a great friend of King Herod, whom he assisted in his work of Hellenism. He had been the teacher of the children of Antony and Cleopatra. He was a very prolific author, and wrote on philosophical, rhetorical and historical subjects. His greatest work was a universal history, planned on a very large scale, which Herod stimulated him to compose. Of it we have only fragments. But his panegyrical life of Caesar (Augustus), a declamatory rather than historical work, has come down to us complete.
The long Geographica of STRABO (63 B.C.-23 A.D.), in seventeen Books, is of great historical importance as giving a picture of some of the subject lands of Rome in the Augustan age. Strabo was of a good Cappadocian family, a native of Amasea, and lived at Alexandria. He came to Rome about the same time as Dionysius, but soon left it. He describes the whole known world, but in many cases his information was mainly derived from older books, and cannot be taken as representing the condition of things which prevailed in his own time. Books I and II deal with physical geography, Books III to X describe Europe, Books XI to XVI Asia, Book XVII Africa. His accounts of Asia Minor and Egypt are especially valuable, as he knew these lands himself and mentions many of his own experiences. His description of Spain is also valuable; for though he had not been there, he had evidently received recent information about it, probably at Rome. Fran Strabo’s work we get a very distinct impression of the blessings of the Pax Augusta and the safety which travelers now enjoyed both by sea and land. He also wrote a work entitled “Historical Memoirs”, in over forty Books, but it has not been preserved.
Chapter XII.
The Principate of Tiberius (14-37 A.D.)
SECT. I. — ACCESSION OF TIBERIUS
It was generally regarded as a matter of course that Tiberius should step into the place of Augustus. The Roman world did not dream of a revolution; and it was felt that the monarchy naturally fell to him, who stood in the same relation to the now divine Augustus as Augustus himself to the divine Julius. Men universally acquiesced in the succession of Tiberius as the heir, the adopted son, the chosen consort of the deceased Emperor. But though such feelings moved men’s minds, constitutionally the Empire was elective, not hereditary; and the senate and the people could, without infringing the constitution, have conferred the Principate on someone wholly unconnected with the Julian family. Augustus had himself named three nobles who might possibly compete with Tiberius : Lepidus, who was “equal to the position, but despised it”; Asinius Gallus, who “might desire it, but was unequal to it”; and Arruntius, who “was not unworthy of it and would dare to seek it, if a chance were offered”. But even from Arruntius, Tiberius had nothing to fear; the only possible rivals seemed to be his own kinsmen, his nephew Germanicus, who was absent in Gaul, and Agrippa Postumus, who still pined in the island to which his grandfather had banished him. The unlucky Agrippa was slain by his gaoler immediately after the death of Augustus; and there can be no doubt that the order for his execution was given either by Tiberius or by Livia.