href="@public@vhost@g@gutenberg@html@files@28413@[email protected]#p378" class="pginternal" tag="{http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml}a">378

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

The authors ask me to write a word of introduction to their book; but an introduction is not needed when the book supplies a want and is trustworthy in what it says. As to the second point, the text will speak for itself. On the first, a word may be permitted about my own experience in lecturing. The young student of Latin Literature requires help in two ways. In the first place, he needs guidance in learning to recognize and appreciate the literary merit of the authors. Mr. Cruttwell’s, and, still better, Mr. Mackail’s book, will serve his purpose well. They are interesting to read, and they tempt him on to study for himself. Mr. Mackail’s book, especially, shows delicate literary feeling, and a remarkably catholic and true sense of literary merit. But, secondly, the student wants a clear statement of the facts, certain or probable, about the life of each author, the chronology of his works, and their relation to the circumstances and personages of the time. Neither of the books which I have named is satisfactory in this respect. Both of them omit a large number of facts and theories which the student ought to have before him: Mr. Cruttwell occasionally even sinks to inaccuracy.

About three years ago I suggested to Mr. Middleton that he should try to fill up this gap with a book, in which he should bring together all the information that a student should have ready to his hand in reading the more familiar classical authors, that he should keep down the size of his book by omitting all that the student does not want, and that he should set before his readers the evidence on which each fact rests, so that they might be led to form opinions and judgments of their own. Teuffel-Schwabe’s great work contains a vast deal that the ordinary student does not want; and it does not contain a certain amount which will, I believe, be found in the present book, the materials for which have been gathered from a wide range of reading.

I am convinced that much can be done to stimulate and invigorate the young student’s feeling for Latin literature by helping him to feel for himself how each author’s words spring from his life, and conversely how facts and circumstances of his life can be elicited from his words. There will always remain doubts as to the facts and dates, e.g., in Horace’s or in Catullus’ life; but any reasoned theory has its interest, and is better for the pupil than no theory. The present book will, as I hope, be found useful as an aid to that method of teaching and of study, provided that both teacher and pupil bear in mind that it is a companion to other books—not a book complete in itself.

W. M. RAMSAY.

COMPANION TO LATIN AUTHORS

CHAPTER I.

EARLY POETS AND PROSE WRITERS.

LIVIUS ANDRONICUS.

(1) LIFE.

L. Livius Andronicus, according to the poet Accius, was taken prisoner at the capture of Tarentum by Q. Fabius Maximus in B.C. 209, and exhibited his first play in B.C. 197.

Cic. Brut. 72-3, ‘Accius a Q. Maximo quintum consule captum Tarenti scripsit Livium annis xxx. postquam eum fabulam docuisse et Atticus scribit et nos in antiquis commentariis invenimus: docuisse autem fabulam annis post xi., C. Cornelio Q. Minucio coss. ludis Iuventatis, quos Salinator Senensi proelio voverat.’

But ancient evidence is unanimous that he was the first literary writer of Rome, and this is confirmed by his archaic language. Hence the statement of Cicero ibid., that Livius produced his first play in B.C. 240, must be accepted.

‘Atque hic Livius, qui primus fabulam, C. Claudio Caeci filio et M. Tuditano coss., docuit anno ipso antequam natus est Ennius; post Romam conditam autem quarto decimo et quingentesimo ... In quo tantus error Acci fuit, ut his consulibus xl. annos natus Ennius fuerit: cui si aequalis fuerit Livius, minor fuit aliquanto is, qui primus fabulam dedit, quam ei, qui multas docuerant ante hos consules, et Plautus et Naevius.’

Cf. Cic. Tusc. i. 3, and Gell. xvii. 21, 42.

Probably Accius, finding in his authorities that Livius was taken prisoner at the capture of Tarentum (i.e. in B.C. 272), wrongly thought of the second capture by Fabius. In spite of Cicero’s correction, the error of Accius was, we may infer, reproduced by Suetonius, and thus penetrated into Jerome, who says, yr. Abr. 1830 = B.C. 187, ‘T. [an error] Livius tragoediarum scriptor clarus habetur, qui ob ingenii meritum a Livio Salinatore, cuius liberos erudiebat, libertate donatus est.’

It is probable that Livius was the slave of C. Livius Salinator, the father of the victor of Sena (M. Livius Salinator), and taught the latter; for he must have been set free before B.C. 240, and the victor of Sena could hardly have been born earlier than B.C. 258. This connexion made M. Livius Salinator when consul, B.C. 207, select Livius Andronicus to prepare a hymn of expiation to the Aventine Juno, and, probably in the same year, to compose a hymn of thanksgiving for the success of Rome in the Hannibalic War. For his services the privileges of a guild were assigned to writers and actors.

Livy xxvii. 37, ‘Decrevere pontifices ut virgines ter novenae per urbem euntes carmen canerent ... conditum ab Livio poeta ... Carmen in Iunonem reginam canentes ibant illa tempestate forsitan laudabile rudibus ingeniis, nunc abhorrens et inconditum, si referatur.’

Fest. p. 333, ‘Cum Livius Andronicus bello Punico secundo scripsisset carmen quod a virginibus est cantatum, quia prosperius res publica populi Romani geri coepta est, publice attributa est ei in Aventino aedis Minervae, in qua liceret scribis histrionibusque consistere ac dona ponere, in honorem Livi, quia is et scribebat fabulas et agebat.’

Livius had a twofold reason for writing, (a) To assist him in his profession as a schoolmaster he published a translation of the Odyssey; (b) as an actor, he wrote the plays he acted, and afterwards published them.

Sueton. Gramm. 1, ‘Livium et Ennium ... quos utraque lingua domi forisque docuisse adnotatum est.’

Livy vii. 2, 8, ‘Livius ... qui ab saturis ausus est primus argumento fabulam serere, idem scilicet, id quod omnes tum erant, suorum carminum actor.’

(2) WORKS.

1. Tragedies.—From the scanty fragments extant and from the titles (Achilles, Aegisthus, and six others are known) we see that these were close imitations of Greek plays. Thus l. 38 (Ribbeck),

‘Quem ego nefrendem alui lacteam immulgens opem,’

is, according to Conington, a rendering of Aesch. Choeph. 883-4,

μαστὸν πρὸς ᾧ σὺ πολλὰ δὴ βρίζων ἅμα
οὔλοισιν ἐξήμελξας εὐτραφὲς γάλα.

2. Comedies.—Slight fragments of three of these are extant.

3. A translation of the Odyssey in Saturnians.[1] This, though rough and incorrect, long remained a school-book. So Hor. Ep. ii. I, 69 sqq.,

‘Non equidem insector delendave carmina Livi
esse reor, memini quae plagosum mihi parvo
Orbilium dictare: sed emendata videri
pulchraque et