234 TACITUS AND LITERATURE IN GENERAL.
public mentioned himself and Tacitus always together, but
that he himself did not deserve that honour. His vanity also
displays itself in the detailed descriptions of his own beneficent
institutions contained in such letters as were destined for the
public. His letters however are, notwithstanding these things,
very instructive in regard to the history of the age in which
Pliny lived ; and we cannot help recognising in their author a
benevolent and extremely useful man, who devoted his large
property to the public good, a very excellent governor of the
provinces over which he was set, and a man of great talent
and intellect. But the vanity with which he speaks of his
own good qualities and generosity is truly childish. Pliny
bears a striking resemblance to the Parisian writers of the
eighteenth century, which may be traced even in particular
phrases, as my late friend Spalding has correctly observed.
Hence it is very easy to translate Pliny’s letters into French,
whereas in a German version they are quite unreadable.
These letters shew that there were many persons of talent at
that time, but none of them rose above a certain mediocrity;
for which reason there appeared much less want of harmony
in literature then than in times of great genius. When a
nation has once passed through a period of great intellectual
eminence, the literature of which has become the common
property of subsequent ages, it feels easy and satisfied with
what it possesses; but if in such circumstances a man like
Tacitus springs up, and gives to his age a new life, his con-
temporaries feel reanimated, and men come forward and
acquire a certain reputation, who would have been thought
nothing of at any other time. In addition to this, the age
was one of comfort and happiness after great oppression. But
what such men were in the time of Tacitus may be inferred
from one example, L. Annaeus Florus, who lived in the time
of Trajan. The early history of Rome then lay at such a
distance, that people wanted nothing more than some general
notion of it. The work of Florus, which is quite in the spirit
of the time and was written to supply this want, is extremely
tasteless, and shews a carelessness and an ignorance of facts
which are quite astonishing.
When the great light of Tacitus became extinct, complete
darkness followed. Greek literature had died away a long
time before the reign of Trajan; and we hear only now and
GEEEK LITEEATTJBE.
235
then of some few isolated authors. In the reign of Augustus,
we meet with Dionysius of Halicarnassus, an excellent critic,
rhetorician, and historian; and he was succeeded, under
Tiberius, by Strabo, who was a highly practical man and of
great historical talent; but, from his time down to the reign
of Domitian, Greek literature Wasquite barren. UnderDomi-
tian it revived through the influence of the rhetoricians, who
now assumed a different character. Dion Chrysostom of Prusa
in Bithynia began his career, or was already flourishing, in the
reign of Domitian: he was an author of uncommon talent,
and it is much to be regretted that he belonged to the rheto-
ricans of that unfortunate age. It makes one sad to see him
waste his brilliant oratorical powers on insignificant subjects.
All his works are written in excellent and beautiful language,
which is pure Attic Greek, and without affectation : it is clear,
that he had made the classical language of Athens his own ;
and he handled it as a master. In all he wrote, he appears as
man of a most amiable character, and free from the vanity of
the ordinary rhetoricians, though one perceives the silent
consciousness of his powers. He was an unaffected Platonic
philosopher, and lived with his whole soul in Athens, which
was to him a world, and which made him forget Rome, its
emperor, and everything else. All this forms a very charming
feature in his character. Whenever he touches upon the
actual state of things in which he lived, he shews his master-
mind. He was the first writer after Tiberius that greatly
contributed towards the revival of Greek literature.
After him there followed Plutarch of Chaeronea, whose
excellent and amiable character must be felt by every one. It
does not require, indeed, much discernment to see his faults as
an historian, and the weakness of his eclectic philosophy : but
we are indebted to him for our knowledge of an infinite
variety of things ; and, however much we may see and know
his faults, yet we can read his works with the highest pleasure.
His language is not nearly so perfect as that of Dion Chry-
sostom.
The revival of Greek literature was the work of these two
men ; and, although they had no followers equal to themselves,
still they form the beginning of a new era. The Alexandrian
literature, properly so called, must be looked upon as termin-
ated with the death of Eratosthenes, under Ptolemy Euergetes;