THE SILVER AGE OF ROMAN LITERATURE.

AFTER the close of the Augustan age a long, dark period succeeded, scarcely illuminated by a ray of genius. The atmosphere of Rome was not favorable to the free growth of thought. Morally and politically the souls of men were under a cloud, through which it was difficult to rise to the heights on which genius loves to dwell.

During the reign of the dark Tiberius and his weak and wicked successors it was dangerous to speak; it was almost dangerous to think. The few historians and poets who wrote during this period managed by flattery, or by mediocrity, to keep their heads on their shoulders; though Cordus, the historian, lost his life through letting a spice of the truth, which every one knew, creep into his pages.

We have seen how poor Ovid, even in the reign of Augustus, suffered, apparently for knowing too much. To say too much was a still deeper crime. Authors needed to weigh their words with great care, or to escape danger by unblushing adulation of their tyrants. Phædrus, in his mask of fable, apparently intended to cover some unpleasant truths; which he failed, however, to mask deeply enough to escape unpleasant consequences, as he himself vaguely gives us to believe. No writer dared more than dimly hint that he had suffered for his boldness; the truth in this particular, too, needing to be veiled. Nero affected a love for literature, but he was hardly the sun for thought to sprout freely under. In fact, it was not until the days of Trajan that men's souls became in any sense free, or that the embargo

was raised which tyranny had laid upon the free speech of mankind.

During this dark age the taste for literature rapidly changed. The language was losing its classic purity, and a rhetorical, declamatory style of writing replaced the simple, pure directness of the Augustan age. Amplification and ornament took the place of vigor and earnestness, and men thought far less of what they said than of how they said it. Such a feeling was fatal to any high literary merit, and we find, in fact, but a few names that retained any of the old classic tone.

After Ovid, nearly half a century passed unmarked by any writers of distinguished merit. Then the darkness thinned and some rays of talent shone through. It was not the clear lustre of the preceding age, however, for the taste for rhetoric had blinded men to the recognition of true literary merit, and the pure soul of thought was replaced by meretricious ornament, wordy declamation taking the place of vivid strength.

Only three names during this period preserved any clear traces of the old classic tone, namely, Phædrus, Lucan and Persius. At a later date, under the liberal emperors, Juvenal and Tacitus brought back vigor of thought and independence of spirit. There was a revival of taste, but it failed to reach its former lofty range. In even the best of these authors evidence of the vitiated public taste is to be Seneca's tragedies are made up of theatrical declamation, the satires of Persius are philosophical declamation, and Lucan's poems contain more of rhetoric than of poetry.

seen.

Only to Juvenal and Tacitus can we give credit for a brevity, clearness and directness equaling that of the older writers, and to Pliny the younger for an epistolary style modeled after that of Cicero, and but little inferior to that of his great exemplar.

PHEDRUS.

FLOURISHED ABOUT 30 A.D.

This writer, who, like the great preceding fabulist Æsop, seems to have been born in slavery, was probably brought from Thrace or Macedonia to Rome during the reign of Augustus, by whom he was emancipated. His principal period of authorship was during the reign of Tiberius, in which he appears to have gained the enmity of Seja'nus, by covert satires on that base favorite. He escaped his wrath, however, and probably lived till an advanced age, dying in the reign of Claudius.

The fable was known to the Romans long before his time, being copied or imitated from the Greek, and was a popular form of literature. He, however, struck into a new field, changing the fable from its former office as a moral instructor into that of a political satirist, and striking severe though well masked blows at the corruption and venality of his times.

He is the only extant author of Roman fable, and occupies that dark age after the Augustan period which is so barren of literature. His style shows the transitional spirit through which the taste of the Roman people was passing, though there are no contemporary authors with which to compare it, the poet, the historian and the philosopher being alike silent.

Phædrus is his own biographer. We only know of his life that he wrote during the reign of Tiberius, with an obscure hint that he suffered from persecution under this tyrant. He styles himself a translator of Esop, but in addition to his translations many fables original with himself appear in his works. In these he fails to display the native genius of the great Greek fabulist. He manifests. good observation and ingenuity in the grouping of his animals, whom he makes to speak noble and wise sentiments;

but he never becomes lost in his characters, like Esop. They look and act like animals, but talk like men. He lacks, indeed, the imaginative power of Esop, who makes his brutes talk in sentiments natural to their presumed characters, while Phædrus translates human sentiments into the brute language.

His style has much merit, combining the elegance of the Augustan age with the terseness of succeeding writers. He is at once as facile as Ovid and as brief as Tacitus. In his extant works there seem to have been many alterations and fables of much later composition introduced, which has thrown a doubt upon the authenticity of the work, and particularly of the sixth book, recently discovered. There is little question, however, that the first five books are mainly his. We give the following examples:

THE PERILS OF WEALTH.

Two mules, laden with heavy burdens, were journeying together. One carried bags of money; the other, sacks filled with barley. The former, proud of his rich load, carried his head high, and made the bell on his neck sound merrily. His companion followed with quiet and gentle paces. On a sudden some thieves rush from an ambuscade, wound the treasure mule, strip him of his money bags, but leave untouched the worthless barley. When, therefore, the sufferer bewailed his sad case, "For my part," replied his companion, "I rejoice that I was treated with contempt, for I have no wounds, and have lost nothing." The subject of this fable proves that poverty is safe, whilst wealth is exposed to perils.

A CHANGE OF MASTERS NOT A CHANGE OF LABOR.

In a change of princes the poor change nothing but the name of their master. The truth of this is shown by the following little fable: A timid old man was feeding his ass in a meadow. Alarmed by the shouts of an advancing enemy he urged the ass to fly, for fear they should be taken prisoners. But the ass loitered, and said, "Pray, do you think that the conqueror will put two pack saddles on my back?" "No," replied the old man. "What, then, does it matter to me in whose service I am so long as I have to carry my load?"

SEN'ECA.

BORN ABOUT 4 B.C.

There are two Roman writers of this name, father and son, though only the latter deserves to be classed among classical authors. The father, M. An'næus Sen'eca, was born at Cordova, Spain, about 54 B.C., and is principally noted for his wonderful memory, he having been able to repeat two thousand disconnected words after once hearing them. There are two works of his extant, entitled Controversiæ and Suasoriæ, elaborately rhetorical in style, and of very little value; the first being exercises in judicial oratory on fictitious occasions; the second, exercises in deliberative oratory. These were the results of his long success in teaching rhetoric, but are destitute of true eloquence or vital warmth.

L. Annæus Seneca, his son, was born about the commencement of the Christian era. He studied oratory at Rome while quite young. He cared more for philosophy, however, studying the Pythagorean and Stoical systems, and traveling in Greece and Egypt. At his father's request he pleaded in courts of law; but his success seems to have aroused the jealousy of Caligula, and he left the bar in dread.

He afterward filled the office of quæstor, but was exiled to Corsica by Claudius, for some offense, and remained eight years in exile, studying philosophy, and querulously complaining of his lot. He was finally recalled, and made tutor to young Nero. When Nero, as emperor, gave way to his depraved passions, Seneca lost all control for good over his pupil. He even consented to Nero's murder of his mother, and wrote a letter to the Senate accusing Agrippina of treason, and asserting that she had committed suicide.

He profited by the extravagant bounty of the emperor, and became enormously rich, his wealth being equivalent to