Chapter XV: Part 15

Curio, being unable to rival such profuse and costly decoration, distinguished himself by a new invention, which he introduced at the funeral entertainments given by him in honour of his father’s memory. He constructed two large edifices of wood adjacent to each other, and suspended on hinges so contrived that the buildings could be united at their centre or separated, in such a manner as to form a theatre or amphitheatre, according to the nature of the exhibition. In both these fabrics he made stage plays be acted in the early part of the day—the semicircles being placed back to back, so that the declamation, music, and applauses, in the one, did not reach the other; and then, having wheeled them round in the afternoon, so that, by completing the circle, they formed an amphitheatre, he exhibited combats of gladiators(580). All these changes were performed without displacing the spectators, who seem to have fearlessly trusted themselves to the strength of the machinery, and skill of the artist.

The theatres of Scaurus and Curio, though they far surpassed in extent and sumptuous decoration all the permanent theatres of modern times: yet, being built of wood, and being only destined for a certain number of representations during certain games or festivals, were demolished when these were concluded. The whole furnishings and costly materials of the theatre of Scaurus were immediately removed to his private villa, where they were burned, it is said, by his servants, in a transport of indignation at the extravagant profusion of their master(581).

Pompey was the first person who erected a permanent theatre of stone. After the termination of the Mithridatic war, he made a coasting voyage along the shores and islands of Greece. In the whole of his progress he showed the attention of a liberal and cultivated mind to monuments of art. The theatre of Mitylene particularly pleased him, both in its outward form, and interior construction. He carried away with him a model of this building, that he might erect at Rome a theatre similar to it(582), but on a larger scale. The edifice which he built on the plan of this theatre, after his return to Rome, was situated in the field of Flora, near the temple of Venus Victrix, and held just one half of the number of spectators which the playhouse of Scaurus contained(583). It was completed during Pompey’s second consulship, in the year 698. On the day on which it was opened, Æsopus, the great tragic actor, appeared for the last time in one of his favourite characters, but his strength and voice failed him, and he was unable to finish the part.

The construction of this theatre was speedily followed by the erection of others. But all the Roman theatres which were built towards the close of the republic, and commencement of the empire, were formed, in most respects, on the model of the Greek theatre, both in their external plan and interior arrangement. They were oblong semicircular buildings, forming the half of an amphitheatre; and were thus rounded at one end, and terminated on the other by a long straight line. The interior was divided into three parts—1. The place for the spectators; 2. The orchestra; and, 3. The stage(584).

1. The universal passion of the Roman people for all sorts of exhibitions, rendered the places from which they were to view them a matter of competition and importance. Originally there were no seats in the theatres, and the senators stood promiscuously with the people; yet, such in those days was the reverence felt by the plebeians for their dignified superiors, that, notwithstanding their rage for spectacles, they never pushed before a senator(585). It was in the year 559, during the consulship of the elder Scipio Africanus with Sempronius Longus, that the former carried a law, by which separate places were assigned to the senators(586). This regulation was renewed from time to time, as circumstances of political confusion removed the line of distinction which had been drawn. Scipio lost much of his popularity by this aristocratic innovation, and is said to have severely repented of the share he had taken in it(587). By the law of Scipio, part of the orchestra, (which, in the Greek theatre, was occupied by the chorus,) was appropriated to the senators. The knights and plebeians, however, continued to sit promiscuously for more than 100 years longer; but at length, in 685, a regulation of the tribune, Roscius Otho, allotted to the knights, tribunes, and persons of a certain _census_, fourteen rows of circular benches immediately behind the orchestra. This was a still more unpopular measure than that introduced by the edict of Africanus. Otho, during the consulship of Cicero, having entered the theatre, was hissed by the multitude, while Roscius was acting one of his principal parts; but Cicero presently called them out to the temple of Bellona, where he delivered a harangue, which appeased their fury and reconciled them to the tribune(588). Henceforth the senators held undisputed possession of the orchestra; and the knights, with the better classes, retained the fourteen rows of seats immediately surrounding it.

The seats for the senators, arranged in the orchestra, were straight benches, placed at equal distances from each other, and were not fixed(589). The other benches, which were assigned to the knights and people, were semicircularly disposed around the circumference of the theatre, and spread from the orchestra to the rounded end of the building The extremities of the seats joined the orchestra, and they were carried one above another, sloping, till they reached the remotest part, and ascended almost to the ceiling. Thus the benches which were lowest and most contiguous to the orchestra, described a smaller circumference than those which spread more towards the outer walls of the theatre(590). Over the higher tier of seats a portico was constructed, the roof of which ranged with the loftiest part of the scene, in order that the voice expanding equally, might be carried to the uppermost seats, and thence to the top of the building(591). The benches, which were gently raised above each other, were separated into three sets or tiers: each tier, at least in most theatres, consisting of seven benches. According to some writers, the separation of these tiers was a passage, or gallery, which went quite round them for facility of communication; according to others, it was a belt, or precinction, which was twice the height, and twice the breadth of the seats(592). It would appear, however, from a passage in Vitruvius, that both a raised belt, and a gallery or corridore, surrounded each tier of seats(593). One of the precinctions formed the division between the places of the knights and those of the people(594). In a different and angular direction, the tiers and ranges of seats were separated by stairs, making so many lines in the circumference of the seats, and leading from the orchestra to the doors of the theatre. The benches were cut by the stairs into the form of wedges. The steps of the stairs were always a little lower than the seats; but the number of stairs varied in different theatres. Pompey’s theatre had fifteen, that of Marcellus only seven(595). As luxury increased at Rome, these stairs were bedewed with streams of fragrant water, for the purposes of coolness and refreshment. At the top of each flight of steps were doors called _vomitoria_, which gave egress from the theatre, and communicated directly with the external stair-cases(596).

In the ancient temporary Roman theatres, the body of the building, or place where the spectators sat, was open at top to receive the light. But Quintus Catulus, during the entertainments exhibited at his dedication of the Capitol, introduced the luxury of canvass, which was drawn partially or completely over the theatre at pleasure(597). This curtain was at first of simple unornamented wool, and was merely used as a screen from the sun, or a protection from rain; but, in process of time, silken hangings of glossy texture and splendid hues waved from the roof, flinging their gorgeous tints on the _proscenium_ and spectators:—

“Et vulgo faciunt id lutea russaque vela,
Et ferrugina, quum, magnis intenta theatris,
Per malos vulgata trabesque, trementia fluctant.
Namque ibi consessum caveai subter, et omnem
Scenalem speciem, patrum, matrumque, deorumque,
Inficiunt, coguntque suo fluitare colore(598).”

2. _The Orchestra_ was a considerable space in the centre of the theatre, part of which was allotted for the seats of the senators. The remainder was occupied by those who played upon musical instruments, whose office it was, in the performance both of tragedies and comedies, to give to the actors and audience the tone of feeling which the dramatic parts demanded. In tragedies, the music invariably accompanied the Chorus. It was not, however, confined to the Chorus; but appears to have been also in the monologues, and perhaps in some of the most impassioned parts of the dialogue; for Cicero tells of Roscius, that he said, when he grew older, he would make the music play slower, that he might the more easily keep up with it(599). I do not, however, believe, that comedy was a musical performance throughout: Mr Hawkins, after quoting a number of authorities to this purpose, concludes, “that comedy had no music but between the acts, except, perhaps, occasionally in the case of marriages and sacrifices, if any such were represented on the stage(600).”

Every play had its own musical prelude, which distinguished it from others, and from which many of the audience at once knew what piece was about to be performed(601). The chief musical instruments employed in the theatre were the _tibiæ_, or flutes, with which the comedies of Terence are believed to have been represented. The _Andria_ is said to have been acted, “Tibiis paribus, dextris et sinistris;”—the _Eunuch_, “Tibiis duabus dextris;”—the _Heautontimorumenos_, on its first appearance, “Tibiis imparibus;” on its second, “Duabus dextris;”—the _Adelphi_, “Tibiis sarranis;”—the _Hecyra_, “Tibiis paribus,”—and the _Phormio_, “Tibiis imparibus.” It thus appears, that the theatrical flutes were classed as “dextræ et sinistræ,” and also as “pares et impares,” and that there were likewise “Tibiæ Serranæ,” or “Sarranæ,” to which, it is believed, the Phrygiæ were opposed. There has been much dispute, however, as to what constituted the distinction between these different sets of pipes. Scaliger thinks, that the “Tibiæ dextræ et sinistræ” were formed by cutting the reed into two parts: that portion which was next to the root making the left, and that next to the top the right flute.—whence the notes of the former were more grave, and those of the latter more acute(602). Mad. Dacier, however, is of opinion, that flutes were denominated right and left from the valves, in playing, being stopped with the right or left hand. There is still more difficulty with regard to the “Tibiæ pares et impares.” Some persons conjecture, that the Tibiæ pares were a set of two or more pipes of the same pitch in the musical scale, and Impares such as did not agree in pitch(603). The opinion, that flutes were called Pares when they had an even, and Impares when an odd number of valves, is not inconsistent with this notion; nor with that adopted by Dempster(604), that the difference depended on their being equal or unequal distances between the valves. It may be also reconciled with the idea of Salmasius, that when the same set of flutes were employed, as two right or two left, a play was said to be acted Tibiis paribus; and, when one or more right with one or more left were used, it was announced as performed Tibiis imparibus. This idea, however, of Salmasius, is inconsistent with what is said as to the _Andria_ being acted with equal flutes right and left; unless, indeed, we suppose, with Mad. Dacier, that this is to be understood of different representations, and that the flutes were of the same description at each performance, but were sometimes a set of right, and at other times a set of left flutes.

As to the Tibiæ Serranæ, some have supposed that they were so called from Serra, since they produced the sharp grating sound occasioned by a saw(605); some, that they were denominated Sarranæ from Sarra, a city in Phœnicia, where such flutes are believed to have been invented(606); and others, that they derived their name from Sero to lock; because in these flutes, there were valves or stops which opened and shut alternately(607). It is only farther known, that the Tibiæ Serranæ belonged to the class called Pares, and the Phrygiæ, to which they were opposed, to that styled Impares.

All flutes, of whatever denomination, were extremely simple in the commencement of the dramatic art at Rome. Their form was plain, and they had but few notes. In progress of time, however, they became more complex, and louder in their tones(608).

Several chorded instruments were also used in the orchestra, as the lyre and harp, and in later times an hydraulic organ was introduced. This instrument, which is described in the _Organon_ of Pub. Optatianus, emitted a sound which was produced from air created by the concussion of water. Cornelius Severus, in his poem of _Ætna_, alludes to it, under the name of _Cortina_—

“Carmineque irriguo magni Cortina Theatri
Imparibus numerosa modis canit arte regentis,
Quæ tenuem impellens animam subremigat undam(609).”

3. _The Stage_. The front area of the stage was a little elevated above that part of the orchestra where the musicians were placed, and was called the _Proscenium_. On the proscenium a wooden platform, termed the _pulpitum_, was raised to the height of five feet(610). This the actors ascended to perform their characters; and here all the dramatic representations of the Romans were exhibited(611), except the Mimes, which were acted on the lower floor of the proscenium. Certain architectural proportions were assigned to all these different parts of the theatre.

The whole space or area behind the pulpitum was called the _Scena_, because the scenery appropriate to the piece was there exhibited. “The three varieties of scenes,” says Vitruvius, “are termed tragic, comic, and satyric, each of which has a style of decoration peculiar to itself. In the tragic scene columns are represented, with statues, and other embellishments suitable to palaces and public buildings. The comic scene represents the houses of individuals, with their balconies and windows arranged in imitation of private dwellings. The satyric is adorned with groves, dens, and mountains, and other rural objects.” The rigid adherence of the ancients to the unity of place, rendered unnecessary that frequent shifting of scenes which is required in our dramas. When the side scenes were changed, the frames, or painted planks, were turned by machinery, and the scene was then called _versatilis_, or revolving: When it was withdrawn altogether, and another brought forward, it was called _ductilis_, or, sliding. There were also trapdoors in the floor of this part of the theatre, by which ghosts and the Furies ascended when their presence was required; and machines were disposed above the scene, as also at its sides, by which gods and other superior beings were suddenly brought upon the stage.

At the bottom of the scene, or end most remote from the spectators, there was a curtain of painted canvass, which was first used after the tapestry of Attalus had been brought to Rome(612). It was dropped when the play began, remained down during the performance, and was drawn up when the representation concluded. This was certainly the case during the existence of the republic; but I imagine that an alteration took place in the time of the emperors, and that the curtain, being brought more forward on the scene, was then, as with us, raised at the commencement, and dropped at the end of the piece:—

“Mox ubi ridendas inclusit pagina partes,
Vera redit facies, dissimulata perit(613).”

At each side of the _scena_ there were doors called _Hospitalia_, by which the actors entered and made their exits.

That part of the theatre which comprehended the stage and scene was originally covered with branches of trees, which served both for shelter and ornament. It was afterwards shut in with planks, which were painted for the first time in the year 654. About the same period the scene was enriched with gold and silver hangings, and the proscenium was decorated with columns, statues, and altars to the god in whose honour, or at whose festival, the stage plays were represented.

II. In turning our attention to the _actors_ who appeared on the _pulpitum_ of the Roman stage, the point which first attracts our notice is that supposed separation of the dramatic labour, by which one performer gesticulated while the other declaimed. This division, however, did not take place at all in comedy, or in the ordinary dialogue (_Diverbia_) of tragedy; as is evinced by various passages in the Latin authors, which show that Æsopus, the chief tragic actor, and Roscius, the celebrated comedian, both gesticulated and declaimed. Cicero informs us, that Æsopus was hissed if he was in the least degree hoarse(614); and he also mentions one remarkable occasion, on which, having returned to the stage after he had long retired from it, his voice suddenly failed him just as he commenced an adjuration in the part he represented(615). This evinces that Æsopus declaimed; and the same author affords us proof that he gesticulated: For, in the treatise _De Divinatione_, he introduces his brother Quintus, declaring, that he had himself witnessed in Æsopus such animation of countenance, and vehemence of gesture, that he seemed carried beside himself by some irresistible power(616). Roscius, indeed, is chiefly talked of for the gracefulness of his gestures(617), but there are also passages which refer to the modulation of his voice(618). It may perhaps, however, be said, that the above citations only prove that the same actor gesticulated in some characters, and declaimed in others; it seems, however, much more probable that Æsopus went through the whole dramatic part, than that he appeared in some plays merely as a gesticulating, and in others as a declaiming, performer.

There was thus no division in the ordinary dialogue, or _diverbium_, as it was called, and it was employed only in the monologues, and those parts of high excitement and pathos, which were declaimed somewhat in the tone of _recitativo_ in an Italian opera, and were called _Cantica_, from being accompanied either by the flutes or by instrumental music. That one actor should have recited, and another performed the corresponding gestures in the scenes of a tragedy, and that, too, in parts of the highest excitement, and in which theatric illusion should have been rendered most complete, certainly appears the most incongruous and inexplicable circumstance in the history of the Roman Drama. This division did not exist on the Greek stage, but it commenced at Rome as early as the time of Livius Andronicus, who, being _encored_, as we call it, in his monologues, introduced a slave, who declaimed to the sound of the flute, while he himself executed the corresponding gesticulations(619). To us nothing can seem at first view more ridiculous, and more injurious to theatric illusion, than one person going through a dumb show or pantomime, while another, who must have appeared a supernumerary on the pulpitum, recited, with his arms across, the corresponding verses, in tones of the utmost vehemence and pathos(620). It must, however, be recollected, that the Roman theatres were larger and worse lighted than ours; that the mask prevented even the nearest spectators from perceiving the least motion of the lips, and they thus heard only the words without knowing whether they proceeded from him who recited or gestured; and, finally, that these actors were so well trained, that they agreed precisely in their respective parts. We are informed by Cicero, that a comedian who made a movement out of time was as much hissed as one who mistook the pronunciation of a word or quantity of a syllable in a verse(621). Seneca says, that it is surprising to see the attitudes of eminent comedians on the stage overtake and keep pace with speech, notwithstanding the velocity of the tongue(622).

So much importance was attached to the art of dramatic gesticulation, that it was taught in the schools; and there were instituted motions as well as natural. These artificial gestures, however, of arbitrary signification, were chiefly employed in pantomime, where speech not being admitted, more action was required to make the piece intelligible: And it appears from Quintilian, that comedians who acted with due decorum, never, or but very rarely, made use of instituted signs in their gesticulation(623). The movements suited to theatrical declamation were subdivided into three different sorts. The first, called _Emmelia_, was adapted to tragic declamation; the second, _Cordax_, was fitted to comedies; and the third, _Sicinnis_, was proper to satiric pieces, as the Mimes and _Exodia_(624).

The recitation was also accounted of high importance, so that the player who articulated took prodigious pains to improve his voice, and an almost whimsical care to preserve it(625). Nearly a third part of Dubos’ once celebrated work on Poetry and Painting, is occupied with the theatric declamation of the Roman actors. The art of framing the declamation of dramatic pieces was, he informs us, the object of a particular study, and indeed profession, at Rome. It was composed and signified in notes, placed over each verse of the play, to direct the tones and inflection of voice which were to be observed in recitation. There were a certain number of accents in the Latin language, and the composer of a declamation marked each syllable requiring to be accented, the grave or the acute accent which properly belonged to it, while on the remaining syllables, he noted, by means of conventional marks, a tone conformable to the tenor of the discourse. The declamation was thus not a musical song, but a recitation subject to the direction of a noted melody. Tragic declamation was graver and more harmonious than comic, but even the comic was more musical and varied than the pronunciation used in ordinary conversation(626). This system, it might be supposed, would have deprived the actors of much natural fire and enthusiasm, from the constraint to which they were thus subjected; but the whole dramatic system of the ancients was more artificial than ours, and something determinate and previously arranged, as to quantities and pauses, was perhaps essential to enable the gesticulating actor to move in proper concert with the reciter. The whole system, however, of noted declamation, is denied by Duclos and Racine, who think it impossible that accentuated tones of passion could be devised or employed(627).

Both the actor who declaimed, and he who gesticulated, wore _masks_; and, before concluding the subject of the Roman theatre, it may not be improper to say a few words concerning this singular dramatic contrivance, as also concerning the attire of the performers.

From the opportunity which they so readily afforded, of personally satirizing individuals, by representing a caricatured resemblance of their features, masks were first used in the old Greek comedy, which assumed the liberty of characterizing living citizens of Athens. It is most probable, however, that the hint of dramatic masks was given to the Romans by the Etruscans(628). That they were employed by the histrions of that latter nation, can admit of no doubt. The actors represented on the Etruscan vases are all masked, and have caps on their heads(629). We also know, that in some of the satirical exhibitions of the ancient Italians, they wore masks made of wood:

“Nec non Ausonii, Trojâ gens missa, coloni
Versibus incomptis ludunt, risuque soluto
Oraque corticibus sumunt horrenda cavatis(630).”

Originally, and in the time of L. Andronicus, the actors on the Roman stage used only caps or beavers(631), and their faces were daubed and disguised with the lees of wine, as at the commencement of the dramatic art in Greece. The increased size, however, of the theatres, and consequent distance of the spectators from the stage, at length compelled the Roman players to borrow from art the expression of those passions which could no longer be distinguished on the living countenance of the actor.

Most of the Roman masks covered not merely the face, but the greater part of the head(632), so that the beard and hair were delineated, as well as the features. This indeed is implied in one of the fables of Phædrus, where a fox, after having examined a tragic mask, which he found lying in his way, exclaims, “What a vast shape without brains(633)!”—An observation obviously absurd, if applied to a mere vizard for the face, which was not made, and could not have been expected, to contain any brains. Addison, in his _Travels in Italy_, mentions, that, in that country, he had seen statues of actors, with the _larva_ or mask. One of these was not merely a vizard for the face; it had false hair, and came over the whole head like an helmet. He also mentions, however, that he has seen figures of Thalia, sometimes with an entire head-piece in her hand, and a friz running round the edges of the face; but at others, with a mask merely for the countenance, like the modern vizards of a masquerade.

The masks of the regular theatre were made of chalk, or pipe-clay, or terra cotta. A few were of metal, but these were chiefly the masks of the Mimes. The chalk or clay masks were so transparent and artfully prepared, that the play of the muscles could be seen through them; and it appears that an opening was frequently left for the eyes, since Cicero informs us expressly, that in parts of high pathos or indignation, the actor’s eyes were often observed to sparkle under the vizard(634). From a vast collection of Roman masks engraved in the work of Ficoroni, _De Larvis Scenicis_, it appears that most of them represented features considerably distorted, and enlarged beyond the natural proportions. A wide and gaping mouth is one of their chief characteristics. The mask being in a great measure contrived to prevent the dispersion of the voice, the mouth was so formed, and was so incrusted with metal, as to have somewhat the effect of a speaking-trumpet—hence the Romans gave the name of _persona_ to masks, because they rendered the articulation of those who wore them more distinct and sonorous(635). There are, however, a few figures in the work of Ficoroni, carrying in their hands masks which are not unnaturally distorted, and which have, in several instances, a resemblance to the actor who holds them. M. Boindin, on the authority of a passage in Lucian’s _Dialogue on Dancing_, thinks that these less hideous masks were employed by dancers, or pantomimic actors, who, as they did not speak, had no occasion for the distended mouth(636).

Roscius, who had some defect in his eyes, is said to have been the first actor who used the Greek mask(637): but it was not invariably worn even by him, as appears from a passage of Cicero.—“All,” says that author, “depends upon the face, and all the power of the face is centred in the eyes. Of this our old men are the best judges, for they were not lavish of their applause even to Roscius in a mask(638).”

The different characters who chiefly appeared on the Roman stage—the father, the lover, the parasite, the pander, and the courtezan, were distinguished by their appropriate masks. A particular physiognomy was considered as so essential to each character, that it was thought, that without a proper mask, a complete knowledge of the personage could not be communicated. “In tragedies,” says Quintilian, “Niobe appears with a sorrowful countenance—and Medea announces her character by the fierce expression of her physiognomy—stern courage is painted on the mask of Hercules, while that of Ajax proclaims his transport and phrensy. In comedies, the masks of slaves, pimps, and parasites—peasants, soldiers, old women, courtezans, and female slaves, have each their particular character(639).” Julius Pollux, in his _Onomasticon_, has given a minute description of the mask appropriate to every dramatic character(640). His work, however, was written in the reign of the Emperor Commodus, and his observations are chiefly formed on the practice of the Greek theatre, so that there may have been some difference between the various masks he describes, and those of the Roman stage, towards the end of the republic. The matron, virgin, and courtezan, he informs us, were particularly distinguished from each other by the manner in which their hair was arranged and braided. The mask of the parasite had brown and curled hair: That of the braggart captain had black hair, and a swarthy complexion(641); and it farther appears from the engravings of masks in Ficoroni, that he had a distended or inflated countenance. The masks, likewise, distinguished the severe from the indulgent father—the Micio from the Demea—and the sober youth from the debauched rake(642). If, in the course of the comedy, the father was to be sometimes pleased, but sometimes incensed, one of the brows of his vizard was knit, and the other smooth; and the actor was always careful, during the course of the representation, to turn to the spectators, along with the change of passion, the profile which expressed the feeling predominant at the time(643). Julius Pollux has also described the dresses suited to each character: The youth was clad in purple, the parasite in black, slaves in white, the pander in party-coloured garments, and the courtezan in flowing yellow robes(644).

It would introduce too long discussion, were I to enter on the much-agitated question concerning the advantages and disadvantages of masks in theatric representations. The latter are almost too apparent to be enlarged on or recapitulated. It is obvious to remark, that though masks might do very well for a Satyr and Cyclops, who have no resemblance to human features, they are totally unsuitable for a flatterer, a miser, or the like characters, which abound in our own species, in whom the expression of countenance is more agreeable even than the action, and forms a considerable part of the histrionic art. Could we suppose that a vizard represented ever so naturally the general humour of a character, it can never be assimilated with the variety of passions incident to each person, in the whole course of a play. The grimace may be proper on some occasions, but it is too fixed and steady to agree with all. In consequence, however, of the great size of the ancient theatres, there was not so much lost by the concealment of the living countenance, as we are apt at first to suppose. It was impossible that those alterations of visage, which are hidden by a mask, could have been distinctly perceived by one-tenth of the 40,000 spectators of a Roman play. The feelings portrayed in the ancient drama were neither so tender nor versatile as those in modern plays, and the actors did not require the same flexibility of features—there were fewer flashes of joy in sorrow, fewer gleams of benignity in hatred. Hercules, the Satyrs, the Cyclops, and other characters of superhuman strength or deformity, were more frequently introduced on the ancient than the modern stage, and, by aid of the mask, were more easily invested with their appropriate force or ugliness. By means, too, of these masks, the dramatists introduced foreign nations on the stage with their own peculiar physiognomy, and among others, the _Rufi persona Batavi_. Their use, besides, prevented the frequenters of the theatre from seeing an actor, far advanced in years, play the part of a young lover, since the vizard, under which the performer appeared, was always, to that extent at least, agreeable to the character he assumed. In addition to all this, by concealing the mouth it prevented the spectators from observing whence the sound issued, and thus palliated the absurdity of one actor declaiming, and the other beating time, as it were by gestures. Finally, as the tragic actor was elevated by his _cothurnus_, or buskin, above the ordinary stature of man, it became necessary, in order to preserve the due proportions of the human form, that his countenance also should be enlarged to corresponding dimensions.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

I shall here close the first Volume of the HISTORY OF ROMAN LITERATURE, in which I have treated of the Origin of the Romans—the Progress of their Language, and the different Poets by whom their Literature was illustrated, till the era of Augustus. At that period Virgil beautifully acknowledges the superiority of the Greeks in statuary, oratory, and science; but he might, with equal justice, (and the avowal would have come from him with peculiar propriety,) have confessed that the Muses loved better to haunt Pindus and Parnassus, than Soracte or the Alban Hill. From the days of Ennius downwards, the literature and poetry of the Romans was, with exception, perhaps, of satire, and some dramatic entertainments of a satiric description, wholly Greek—consisting merely of imitations, and, in some instances, almost of translations from that language. We may compare it to a tree transplanted in full growth to an inferior soil or climate, and which, though still venerable or beautiful, loses much of its verdure and freshness, sends forth no new shoots, is preserved alive with difficulty, and, if for a short time neglected, shrivels and decays.

END OF VOLUME I.

_James Kay, Jun. Printer,_ _S. E. Corner of Race & Sixth Streets_ _Philadelphia._

INDEX

Afranius, his Comedies, vol. i. p. 170.
Agriculture, advantages of Italy for, ii. 6–11.
Antias, Q. Valerius, Latin Annalist, ii. 74.
Antipater, Cælius, Latin Annalist, ii. 72.
Antonius, Marcus, character of his eloquence, ii. 117.
His death, 119.
Arcesilaus founds the New Academy, ii. 208.
Asellio, Sempronius, Latin Annalist, ii. 73.
Atellane Fables, i. 229.
Attius, his Tragedies, i. 214.

Brutus, his Historical Epitomes, ii. 107.

Cæcilius, his Comedies, i. 168.
Cæcina, his history, ii. 108.
Cæsar compared with Xenophon, ii. 94.
His Commentaries, 95–101.
His Ephemeris, whether the same work with his Commentaries,
101.
His Anticatones, 102.
His Analogia, 103.
Calvus, Licinius, his Epigrams, i. 322.
His orations, ii. 131.
Carmen Saliare, i. 43.
Carneades teaches the Greek philosophy at Rome, ii. 211.
Cato, the Censor, his work on Agriculture, ii. 12–16.
His Orations, 16.
His work De Originibus, 18.
On Medicine, 20–21.
Catullus, i. 271–320.
Cethegus, Marcus, an orator, ii. 110.
Cicero, his Orations, ii. 152.
Compared with Demosthenes, 192.
His works on Rhetoric, 193.
De Oratore, 195.
Brutus, 198.
The Orator, 199.
Topica, 200.
Rhetorica ad Herennium, inquiry concerning the author of, 202.
His philosophical works—De Legibus, 223.
De Finibus, 229.
Academica, 232.
Tusculanæ Disputationes, 236.
De Naturâ Deorum, 243.
De Officiis, 257.
De Senectute, 259.
De Republica, 263.
His Epistles, 278.
Columna Rostrata, inscription on the, i. 46.
Cotta, his style of oratory, ii. 122.
Crassus, Lucius, character of his eloquence, ii. 120.
His death, ibid.
Compared with Antony, 121.

Decemviral Laws, ii. 134.
Dialogue, remarks on this species of composition, ii. 194.

Eloquence, Roman, commencement of, ii. 109.
Ennius, his tragedies, i. 67.
Annals, 78.
Translation of Euhemerus, 94.
Etruscans, their origin, i. 20.
Their conquests, 26.
Religion, 29.
Arts, 35.
Eugubian Tables, i. 47.

Fabius Pictor, Latin Annalist, ii. 67–71.
Fratres Arvales, hymn of the, i. 43.

Galba, Sergius, an orator, ii. 110.
Gracchi, oratory of the, ii. 113.

Hirtius, his continuation of Cæsar’s Commentaries, ii. 105.
History, Roman, uncertainty of, ii. 57–67.
Hortensius, his luxury and magnificence, ii. 124.
His villas at Tusculum, Bauli, and Laurentum, 124, 125.
Character of his eloquence, 127.
His descendants, 130, Note.

Jurisconsults, Roman, account of, ii. 138.

Laberius, i. 328.
Lælius, his oratory compared with that of Scipio, ii. 111.
Latin Language, its origin, i. 32.
Its changes, 48.
Laws, Roman, ii. 133–138.
Leges Regiæ, ii. 133.
Livius Andronicus, i. 54–58.
Lucceius, his History of the Social War, ii. 107.
Lucilius, i. 238–248.
Lucretius, i. 250–271.
Lucullus, his patronage of learning, ii. 51.
Luscius Lavinius, i. 171.

Magna Græcia, its settlements, i. 50.
Mimes, their origin and subjects, i. 324.

Nævius, i. 58–62.

Pacuvius, i. 209.
Plautus, i. 96–168.
Philosophy, Greek, introduction of, at Rome, ii. 209.
Plebiscita, account of the, ii. 136.
Prætor, account of the office of, ii. 141.
Publius Syrus, i. 332.

Quadrigarius, Claudius, Latin Annalist, ii. 73.

Sallust, his character, ii. 82.
His Gardens, ibid.
His conspiracy of Catiline, and Jugurthine war, 84–88.
His Roman History, 92.
Satire, Roman, origin of, i. 232.
Senatusconsultum, what, ii. 137.
Sisenna, Roman Annalist, ii. 75.
Sulpicius, his worthless character, ii. 121.
His style of oratory, 122.
Sylla, his library, ii. 50.
His Memoirs of his Life, 77.
His character, 78.

Terence, i. 175–206.
Compared with Plautus, 206.
Theatre, Roman, its construction, i. 337–353.
Tyrannio, his library, ii. 52.
Trabea, i. 173.

Varro, his farms and villas, ii. 25.
His work on Agriculture, 28–34.
De Lingua Latina, 34.
Other works of Varro, 40.

FOOTNOTES

1 Mad. de Staël, _De la Litterature_, Tom. I.

_ 2 Rasselas_.

_ 3 Childe Harolde_, c. IV.

_ 4 Vindiciæ Gallicæ_.

_ 5 Vindiciæ Gallicæ_.

_ 6 Rasselas_.

7 Boswell’s _Life of Johnson_, Vol. IV.

_ 8 Civil and Constitutional History of Rome, from its Foundation to
the Age of Augustus_, by Henry Bankes, Esq. M. P. ed. London, 1818,
2 vol. 8vo.

_ 9 Voyage de Polyclete_, Lettre 2. 3 Tom. Paris, 1820.

_ 10 Herod. Clio._ c. 94.

_ 11 Herculanensia_, Dissert. V. Lond. 1810.

_ 12 Geograph._ Lib. V. c. 2.

_ 13 Histor. Roman._ Lib. I. c. 1.

_ 14 Quæstiones Romanæ_.

_ 15 Annal._ Lib. IV. c. 55.

_ 16 Antiquitates Romanæ_. Lib. I. p. 22. Ed. Sylburg, 1586.

_ 17 Antiquitates Romanæ_. Lib. I. p. 22, &c.

_ 18 De Etruria Regali_. Lib. I. Ed. Florent. 1723. 2 tom. fol.

_ 19 Geographia Sacra_, De Coloniis Phœnicum. Lib. I. tom. I. p. 582,
&c. _Oper._ Lugd. Bat. 1712.

_ 20 Miscellaneous Works_, Vol. IV. p. 184. Ed. 8vo. 1814.

21 Micali, _L’Italia avanti il Dominio dei Romani_. Ed. Firenz. 1810.
Bossi, _Istoria d’Italia_. Ed. 1819.

_ 22 Museum Etruscum_.

_ 23 Origin and Progress of Language_, vol. V. book i. c. 3. See also
Swinton, _De Lingua Etruriæ Vernacula_.

24 At the end of his Dissertation he alludes to a future work, in which
he is to settle the particular district and time of the Etruscan
emigration; but I do not know whether or not he ever accomplished
this undertaking.

25 “Confesso ingenuamente,” says the author, “che questa Etimologia
della voce Eridano mi è sempre piaciuta assai.”—_Dissertaz. sopra
l’Origine de Terreni, nell Saggi di Dissert. dell Acad. Etrusca_.
Tom. III. p. 1.

_ 26 Supplem. ad Monument. Etrusc. Dempst._ c. 47. See also Riccobaldi
del Bava, _Dissertaz. sopra L’Origine dell’ Etrusca Nazione_.

27 Deutoronomy, c. 18, v. 14. _Ragionament. degl’ Itali primitivi. in
Istoria Diplomatica_. Ed. Mantua, 1727.

_ 28 Origini Italiche_. 3 Tom. folio. Lucca, 1767–72.

_ 29 De Primi Abitatori dell Italia_. Ed. Modena, 1769. 3 Tom. 4to.

_ 30 Histoire des Celtes_. Paris, 1770.

_ 31 Recherches sur l’Origine des Differens Peuples d’Italie_, in
_l’Hist. de l’Acad. des Inscriptions_. Tom. XVIII.

_ 32 De Origine Latinæ Linguæ_. Ed. 1720.

33 Heyne, _Opuscula Academica_, Tom. V. See also Court de Gebelin,
_Monde Primitif_.

34 Non enim Etruscorum stirpem ab una gente nec ab una turba deductam;
sed temporum successu plurium populorum propagines in eum populum,
qui tandem Etruscum nomen terris his allevit confluxisse arbitror.
_Nov. Comment. Soc. Reg. Gotting._ Tom. III.

_ 35 Nat. Hist._ Lib. III. c. 14. Ed. Hardouin.

36 Visconti, who has since become so celebrated by his _Iconographie
Grecque et Romaine_, says in the _Approvazione_ of the work of
Lanzi, which he had perused in his official capacity,—“Il saggio di
lingua Etrusca, che ho letto per commissione del Rmo. P. M. del S.
P. A., mi è sembrato assolutamente il miglior libro che sia stato
sinora scritto su questo difficile e vasto argomento.” This opinion,
so early formed, has been confirmed by that of all writers who have
subsequently touched on the subject.

_ 37 Saggio di Lingua Etrusca_. Rom. 1789. 3 Tom. 8vo.

38 Diodorus Siculus—Athenæus.

39 Guarnacci, _Origini Italiche_.

40 Sir William Jones, _On the Gods of Italy and India_.

_ 41 Herculanensia_, Dissert. V.

_ 42 Hermes Scythicus_, p. 90.

43 Ovid. _Fast._ I. 90.

44 Servius, ad Æneid. VII. 84.

45 L’Olympe de Numa fut plus majestueux,
Mercure moins fripon, Mars moins voluptueux;
Jupiter brula moins d’une flamme adultere,
Venus meme reçut une culte plus severe.
_De Lille._ _Imagination_. Ch. vi.

_ 46 Antiquitat. Roman._ Lib. II. c. 19.

47 Beaufort is of opinion that the gradual introduction of the Greek
mythology at Rome commenced as early as the reign of Tarquinius
Priscus. _La Republique Romaine. Discours Preliminaire_. Ed. 1766. 2
Tom. 4to.

48 Heyne, Excurs. V. lib. vii. ad Æneid.

49 Bentley, however, is of opinion that the College of Augurs, whose
divination was made from observations of birds, was of Roman
institution, being founded by Numa, and that the skill and province
of the Haruspices of Etruria reached to three things, _exta,
fulgura, et ostenta_, entrails of cattle, thunders, and monstrous
births, but did not include auguries from the flight of birds. “It
often happened,” he adds, “that this pack of Etruscan soothsayers
gave their answers quite cross to what the Roman augurs had given,
so that the two disciplines clashed.”—(_Remarks on a late Discourse
of Freethinking_, p. 241, Lond. 1737.)

50 Valerius Maximus, Lib. I. c. i. Ed. 1533. Cicero, _De Divinatione_,
Lib. I. c. 41. Ed. Schütz.

_ 51 Origin, &c. of Language_. Part I. book iii. c. 11.

_ 52 Diversions of Purley_. Part II. c. iv. Wakefield and Horne Tooke
had undertaken in conjunction a division and separation of the Latin
language into two parts, placing together, in one division, all that
could be clearly shewn to be Greek, and in the other, all that could
be clearly shewn to be of northern extraction, including, I presume,
both Teutonic and Celtic originals. This design, we are informed,
was frustrated “by the persecution of that virtuous and harmless
good man, Mr Gilbert Wakefield.”—_Divers. Purley_, II. 4. See also
on the origin of the Latin Language, Ginguené, _Hist. Littéraire
d’Italie_, Tom. I.

_ 53 De Novi Instrumenti Stylo_, c. 1. London, 1648.

_ 54 De Lingua Latina_, lib. IV. c. 10.

55 Remondini, _Dissertaz. sopra una iscrizione Osca_, p. 49. ed. 1760,
Genoa. Some writers have even asserted, that the Twelve tables were
originally written in the Oscan dialect. Terrasson, _Hist. de la
Jurisprudence Romaine_. Baron de Theis, _Voyage de Polyclete_, let.
15.

56 It would be foreign to the object of this work to enter into the
inquiry, whether the Etruscan arts were the result of indigenous
taste and cultivation, or were derived from the Greeks. The latter
proposition has been maintained by Winckelman and Lanzi—the former
by Tiraboschi and Pignotti. (_Storia di Toscana_, T. 1. Ed. Pisa,
1815.)

57 Forsyth’s _Remarks on Italy_, p. 141.

58 “La grandeur de Rome,” says Montesquieu, “parût bientòt dans ses
edifices publics. Les ouvrages qui ont donné, et qui donnent encore
aujourd’hui la plus haute idée de sa puissance ont été faits sous
les Rois. On commençoit déjà a batir la Ville eternelle.” _Grandeur
et Decadence des Romains_, c. 1.

59 Dempster, _Etruria Regalis_, Lib. III. c. 80.

60 Horat. _Epist._ Lib. II. Ep. 1.

61 Ennius, _Annal._

_ 62 De Die Natali_, c. 5.

_ 63 Saggio di Ling. Etrusc._ Tom. II. p. 567.

_ 64 De Ling. Lat._ Lib. IV. c. 9.

65 Orgival, _Considerat. sur l’Origine et Progrés des Belles Lettres
chez les Romains_.

_ 66 Comment. de Erudit. Societat._

67 Romulus ut saxo locum circumdedit alto,
Cuilibet huc, inquit, confuge tutus erit.

68 Plautus, _Captivi Prol._

_ 69 Antiquitat. Roman._ Lib. II.

70 Livy. Lib. VII. c. 2. Sine carmine ullo, sine imitandorum carminum
actu, ludiones ex Etruria acciti, ad tibicinis modos saltantes, haud
indecoros motus more Tusco dabant.

71 Flogel, _Geschichte der Komisch. Litteratur_. Tom. IV. p. 82.

72 Dionys. Halic. Lib. II. c. 34.

73 Livy, Lib. III. c. 29. Epulantesque, cum carmine triumphali et
solennibus jocis, commissantium modo, currum secuti sunt.

74 Ibid. Lib. IV. c. 20. In eum milites carmina incondita, æquantes eum
Romulo, canere.

75 Ibid. Lib. XXVIII. c. 9.

_ 76 Tusc. Disput._ Lib. I. c. 2. and lib. IV. c. 2. _Brutus_, c. 19.

77 Lib. II. c. 1.

_ 78 De Vita Populi Romani_, ap. Nonium, c. ii. sub voce, Assa.

79 Majores natu in conviviis ad tibias egregia superiorum opera,
carmine comprehensa, pangebant.

80 Cicero, _Brutus_, c. 19. The passage rather seems to imply that they
had been in writing, “Utinam _extarent illa carmina_, quæ multis
sæculis ante suam ætatem in epulis esse cantata a singulis convivis
de clarorum virorum laudibus, in Originibus scriptum reliquit Cato”!

_ 81 Lectures on Literature_, Lect. III.

_ 82 Romische Geschichte_. Berlin, 1811. 2 Tom. 8vo.

83 Lib. IV. c. 2.

84 Lib. III. c. 22.

85 Bossi, _Storia de Italia_, Tom. VI. p. 375.

_ 86 Elementa Doctrinæ Metricæ_, Lib. III. c. 9. Lanzi, (_Saggio di
Ling. Etrusc._) Schoell, (_Hist. Abregée de la Litterature Romaine_,
Tom. I. p. 42. introduct.) and Eustace (_Classical Tour in Italy_,
Vol. III. p. 416.) give a somewhat different interpretation.
Pleores, they render flores, and not plures, in which they seem
right—Satur, fufere Mars, (you shall be full, O Mars!) they make
Ator, or ador fieri, Mars, (Let there be food, O Mars!) which is
evidently erroneous. The following will give some general notion of
the import of the verses:—

Ye Lares, aid us! Mars, thou God of Might!
From murrain shield the flocks—the flowers from blight.
For thee, O Mars! a feast shall be prepared;
Salt, and a wether chosen from the herd:
Invite, by turn, each Demigod of Spring—
Great Mars, assist us! Triumph! Triumph sing!

87 Varro, _De Ling. Lat._ Lib. VI. c. 1 and 3.

88 Servius _ad Æneid._ Lib. VIII.

89 Cannegieter, _Dissert. Philol. Jurid. ad legem Numæ_.

90 Funccius, _De Pueritia Latin. Ling._ c. III. § 6 and 8.

91 Lib. XLII. c. 20

92 The letters which have been supplied are here printed in Italics.

93 Ciacconius, however, is of opinion that this is not precisely what
was inscribed on the base of the column in the time of Duillius, for
that the inscription, having been greatly effaced, was repaired, or
rather engraved anew, after the time of Julius Cæsar. _In Colum.
Rost. Explic._

_ 94 Illustrations of Childe Harold_, p. 169.

95 This sort of rustic Latin has by some writers been supposed to be
the origin of the modern Italian.

96 Omnino ad jura pontificalia pertinere videntur. _In Dempsteri libros
Paralipomena_. Ed. Luca, 1767. It was on these Eugubian tables that,
in modern times, the alphabet of the Etruscan language was first
found. At the earliest attempt it was very imperfect and
contradictory; Maffei maintaining that these tables were in Hebrew,
and Gori that they were in Greek characters; but at length in 1732,
M. Bourguet, a Frenchman, by comparing the tables in the Roman with
those in the Etruscan character, found that the former was a
compendium of the latter, and that many words in the one
corresponded with words in the other. Having got this key, he was
enabled, by comparing word with word, and letter with letter, to
form an alphabet, which, though not perfect, was much more complete
than any previously produced, and was found to be the same with that
of the Pelasgi, and not very different from the alphabet
communicated to the Greeks by Cadmus. _Dissertaz. dell Academia
Etrusca_. T. I. p. 1. 1742.

97 Quintilian, _Institut._ Lib. I. c. 7.

_ 98 Quæstiones Romanæ_.

99 Festus, voce _Solitaurilia_.

100 For a fuller detail of these variations see Funccius _de Pueritia
Ling. Lat._ c. 5. Id. _de Adolescentia Ling. Lat._ c. 7. and
Terrasson, _Hist. de la Jurisprudence Romaine_. Part I. par. 8.

101 For a fuller detail of these variations see Funccius _de Pueritia
Ling. Lat._ c. 5. Id. _de Adolescentia Ling. Lat._ c. 7. and
Terrasson, _Hist. de la Jurisprudence Romaine_. Part I. par. 8.

102 This numeration, which rests on the authority of Diodorus Siculus,
(Lib. XII.) and Strabo, (Lib. VI.) has been a subject of
considerable discussion and controversy in modern times. (See
Wallace on the numbers of Mankind, Hume’s Essay on Populousness of
Ancient Nations, and Gibbon’s Miscellaneous Works, vol. III. p.
178.) In all MSS. of ancient authors, the numbers are corrupt and
uncertain.

103 Plutarch, _De Exilio_. Id. _Vit. decem. Orator._ Strabo, _Geog._
Lib. XIV.

104 Cicero, _Cato Major, seu de Senectute_, c. 12.

_ 105 Rhetoricorum_, Lib. II. c. 1.

106 Horat. _Epist._ Lib. II. ep. 1. v. 58.

107 See Micali, _Italia avant. il Domin. dei Romani_. Raoul-Rochette,
_Hist. de l’Etablissement des Colonies Grecques_. Heyne, _Opusc.
Academ._ Nogarolæ, _Epist. de Italis qui Græce scripserunt_. ap.
Fabricius, _Supplem. ad Vossium De Histor. Lat._

108 Ausus est primus argumento fabulam serere. Livy, Lib. VII. c. 2.

109 Tiraboschi, _Stor. __dell.__ Letteratura Italiana_. Parte III. Lib.
II. c. 1.

110 Hieronym. in _Euseb. Chron._ p. 37. In Scaliger, _Thesaurus
Temporum_, ed. Amstel. 1658.

111 Vidi etiam senem Livium, qui usque ad adolescentiam meam processit
ætate. _De Senectute_, c. 14.

112 Signorelli, _Storia de Teatri_, Tom. II.

113 Lib. XXVII. c. 37.

_ 114 Analecta Critica poesis Romanorum Scænicæ Reliquias lllustrantia_,
c. 3. ed. Berlin, 1816.

115 Est enim inter scriptores de numero annorum controversia. Cicero,
_Brutus_, c. 18. Cicero, however, fixes on the year 514, following,
as he says, the account of his friend Atticus.

116 Livy, Lib. VII. c. 2. Quum sæpius revocatus vocem obtudisset, veniâ
petitâ, puerum ad canendum ante tibicinem quum statuisset, canticum
egisse, aliquanto magis vigente motu, quia nihil vocis usus
impediebat.

117 Inde ad manum cantari histrionibus cœptum, diverbiaque tantum
ipsorum voci relicta.—_Ibid._

118 Festus, voce _Scribas_.

119 Osannus, _Analecta Critica_, c. 3.

_ 120 Bibliotheca Latina_, Tom. III. Lib. IV. c. 1.

121 “Let the red buskin now your limbs invest,
And the loose robe be belted to your breast;
The rattling quiver let your shoulders bear—
Throw off the hounds which scent the secret lair.”

122 Jos. Scaliger, _Lectionibus Ausonianis_, where the lines are
attributed to Lævius. ap. Sagitarius, _de Vita L. Andronici_, c. 8.
Osannus, _Analecta Critica_, c. 2. p. 36. Some verses in the _Carmen
de Arte Metrica_ of Terentianus Maurus, are the chief authority for
these hexameters being by Livius:—

“Livius ille vetus Grajo cognomine, suæ
Inserit Inonis versu, puto, tale docimen,
Præmisso heroo subjungit namque μειουρον,
Hymno quando Chorus festo canit ore Triviæ—
‘Et jam purpureo,’ ” &c.

123 Livianæ fabulæ non satis dignæ quæ iterum legantur. _Brutus_, c. 18.

_ 124 Epist._ Lib. II. Ep. 1. v. 69.

_ 125 Brutus_, c. 18.

126 —— “Nought worse can be
For wearing out a man than the rough sea;
Even though his force be great, and heart be brave,
All will be broken by the vexing wave.”

127 Au. Gellius, Lib. XVII. c. 21. Ed. Lugd. Bat. 1666.

_ 128 Tuscul. Disput._ Lib. IV. c. 31.

129 “—— My spirits, sire, are raised,
Thus to be praised by one the world has praised.”

130 Au. Gellius. Lib. III. c. 3. Vossius. _De Historicis Latinis_, Lib.
I. c. 2.

131 Hieronym. _Chronicum Eusebianum_, p. 37, ut supra.

132 Cicero, _Brutus_, c. 15.

133 Au. Gellius, Lib. I. c. 24.

134 “If blest immortals mortals might bemoan,
Each heavenly Muse would Nævius’ loss deplore:
Soon as his spirit to the shades had flown,
In Rome the Roman tongue was heard no more.”

135 Heyne, _Excurs._ 1. ad Lib. II. _Æneid._

136 Id. ad Æneid. The Cyprian Iliad had long been almost universally
ascribed to Nævius, and lines were quoted from it as his by all the
old grammarians. Several modern German critics, however, think that
it was the work of Lævius, a poet who lived some time after Nævius,
since the lines preserved from the Cyprian Iliad are hexameters,—a
measure not elsewhere used by Nævius, nor introduced into Italy,
according to their supposition, before the time of Ennius. Osannus,
_Analecta Critica_, p. 36. Herman, _Elementa Doctrinæ Metricæ_, p.
210. Ed. Glasg. 1817.

_ 137 De Senectute_. c. 14.

138 Suetonius, _De Illust. Grammat._

139 Servius, _Ad Æneid._ Lib. 1.

_ 140 Saturnalia_, Lib. VI. c. 2. Ed. Lugduni, 1560. I am anxious to take
this opportunity of remarking, that the books and chapters of the
_Saturnalia_ of Macrobius are differently divided in different
editions. The same observation applies to many of the books most
frequently referred to in the course of this work, as Pliny’s
Natural History, Aulus Gellius, and Cicero. This difference in the
division of chapters, I fear, has led to a suspicion with regard to
the accuracy of a few of my references, which, however, have been
uniformly verified on some edition or other, though I cannot pretend
that I have always had access to the best.

_ 141 Brutus_, c. 19.

142 Fortunatianus. Edit. Putsch. p. 2679. Bentley, _Dissert. on
Phalaris_, p. 162. Hawkins, _Inquiry into the Nature of Latin
Poetry_, p. 452. Ed. Lond. 1817.

143 Merula, Ed. Ennii Fragm. p. 88. Herman, _Elementa Doct. Met._ p.
395.

144 Cicero, _Brutus_, c. 18. Id. _De Senect._ c. 5.

145 Sil. Ital. Lib. XII.

146 Aurelius Victor says he taught Cato Greek in Sardinia, (In præturâ
Sardiniam subegit, ubi ab Ennio Græcis literis institutus;) but this
is inconsistent with what is related by Cicero, that Cato did not
acquire Greek till old age. (_De Senectute_, c. 8.)

147 Cornelius Nepos, _In Vita Catonis_.

148 Hieron. _Chron. Euseb._ p. 37.

149 Cicero, _Pro Archia_, c. 10. _Tusc. Disput._ Lib. I. c. 2.

150 Cicero, _Brutus_, c. 20.

151 Claudian, _de Laud. Stilichonis_, Lib. III. Præf.