The name is absent

SENECA.

Seneca, the father, belongs to another period. He very well
remembered a better taste ; and from what he wrote to his sons,
we see how deeply taste had sunk in his time. He upbraided
them with their fondness for the new style, although he him-
self was anything but free from it. He wrote his “ Controver-
siae” when he was upwards of 80 years old. Seneca, the
philosopher, is the most remarkable man of that time, and one
of the few whose personal character possesses any interest. In
order not to be unjust towards him, it is necessary to under-
stand the whole literature of his age; then we shall see that
he knew how to make something even out of that which
was most perverse. The elder Pliny, though he had quite a
different mind, belonged nevertheless to the same school, which
constitutes what is commonly called the argentea aetas of
Boman literature. This division of Boman literature is very
foolish ; it should be made in quite a different way. It is non-
sense to put together such men as Tacitus, Sencca, and Pliny,
who have no resemblance whatever to one another. This
period of Boman literature begins as early as the reign of
Augustus, and extends to that of Domitian, when the nonsense
reached the highest pitch, but the works of the coryphaei of
this latter period, such as Aufidius and others, are lost. Tacitus
does not belong to this class, for the school of the earlier
writers continues alongside of the new one.

Seneca was a highly ingenious man, which after all is the
main thing, and his influence upon the literature of his country
was very beneficial. I must say this the more, the less I like
him. Dion Cassius’ judgment of Seneca contains much that
is true and correct; but he exaggerates in his censure¹, and is
altogether unable to perceive that Seneca rises like a giant
above all his contemporaries. In his affected and sentimental
style he bears a remarkable resemblance to a French school,
which may be traced to Eousseau and Buffon, and the faults of
which would be quite unbearable, if it did not proceed from
extremely ingenious men. There is an interesting work by
Diderot², which shews us the great contrast between the man-
ner in which the philosopher is viewed by the learned Diderot,
and by Dion Cassius, the practical man of the world; Diderot’s
style is similar to that of Seneca, he too being under the in-
fluence of his age.

¹ hti. 10.         ² Essai sur le règne de Claude et de Néron.—N.

Lucan belongs to the time of Nero, and his poetry proceed-
ed from the school of Seneca. His example shews us how-
much more intolerable its tendency is in poetry than in prose.
Bernardin de St. Pierre and Chateaubriand, are the offspring of
a similar school ; it would be more bearable if it did not venture
upon anything but sentimental moralising, as in the case of
the. former; but Chateaubriand is a perfect pendant to the bad
poet Lucan. This is not yet generally recognised indeed, but
the opinion which now prevails in regard to his merits cannot
continue. Nero, who was unquestionably a man of talent,
belonged to the same intolerable school as Lucan, who main-
tained his place in public favour till a late period of the middle
ages, and was read almost as much as Virgil. Scholars were
divided into two schools, that of Virgil and that of Lucan. In
prose the same tone was adopted in history ; and Fabius Rusticus,
who was so much read, wrote no doubt in the manner of
Sencca. Quinctilian was the real restorer of good taste in
literature, and he cannot in any way be classed among the
writers of the argentea aetas.

The condition of Rome and the empire after the death of
Claudius appeared to be tolerably good; it is certain that dur-
ing the 80 years from the battle of Actium, the provinces with
their great vitality, when they were not visited with destruc-
tion and ravages enjoyed material prosperity, and the towns
became filled with large populations. The extortions of Caligula
were indeed very hard; but still they did not impede the quiet
development of the resources of the empire. After the wars,
the population was certainly more than doubled; towns and
deserted places again became peopled. Unhappy Greece how-
ever was a desert till the time of Trajan. Countries which had
fallen into the hands of the farmers-general (who used them as
pastures, prevented all cultivation, and did not restore the
towns), became deserts, though they were gardens compared
with what they were at the time of the battle of Actium. Italy
too had not yet recovered from its former desolation. Agricul-
ture was there carried on by slaves, by the introduction
of whom the population was indeed restored, but in a very
different way from what it was in the provinces, where it
increased by ingenui. There is no exaggeration when Lucan
says of Italy : Rarus et antiquis Iiabitator in urbibus erat. Mar-
riage still continued to be disliked by most persons, although

VOL. XII.                    O

<<   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   >>

More intriguing information