powers on causae, or fictitious cases of a definite character, corresponding generally to what was afterwards called controversia. It is however important to observe that the declamatio, with its two branches the controversia and suasoria, tended more and more to drive out the béois and communis locus in the schools. This we must infer from the words of the elder Seneca quoted in the note, studium ipsum nuper celebrari coepit. I understand Seneca to mean, not that declamatio was in his youth an absolutely new thing, but that it was new as an almost exclusive instrument of education.

In treating a béois or communis locus the student had to find and arrange his own facts: in a declamatio, whether it were a controversia or fictitious controversy on a point of law or politics, or a suasoria, in which advice was given to a fictitious person, the facts were found for him. In driving the eéσis from the schools, therefore, the masters were depriving rhetorical education of its most valuable element, of the element most likely to develop originality and encourage thoroughness.

The declamatio, as was natural, soon degenerated into a barren exercise which produced little save artificial antithesis and false points. Cornificius (4 § 25) says of a manly style, sententias interponi raro convenit, ut rei actores, non vivendi praeceptores videamur esse. But a declamatio could not exist without a number of pointed sententiae. As the elder Seneca, who witnessed the birth and growth of declamatio, well says (Contr. 9 praef. p. 241 Bursian) qui declamationem parat, scribit non ut vincat sed ut placeat. Omnia itaque lenocinia conquirit: argumentationes quia molestae sunt et minimum habent floris, relinquit: sententiis, explicationibus audientis deliniri contentus est. Cupit enim se approbare, non causam. Sequitur autem hoc usque in forum declamatores vitium, ut necessaria deserant dum speciosa sectantur.

Looking at the results of the system in his own time Quintilian says (7. 1. 41) famam adfectantes contenti sunt locis speciosis and a little further on (44) he speaks of the sententiae

praecipites vel obscurae (nam ea nunc virtus est) which had come to be the fashion.

Who, when he hears of obscurity, does not think of the memorable story quoted from Livy by Quintilian (8. 2. 18) fuisse praeceptorem aliquem qui discipulos obscurare quae dicerent iuberet, Graeco verbo utens σKÓTIσov: unde illa scilicet egregia laudatio, tanto melior; ne ego quidem intellexi.' Who has not struggled with the obscurity of Persius, the direct result of this training? Et quod recte dici potest (says Quintilian 8 prooem. 24 foll.) circumimus amore verborum, et quod satis dictum est repetimus, et quod uno verbo patet, pluribus oneramus, et pleraque significare melius putamus quam dicere. Quid, quod nihil iam proprium placet, dum parum creditur disertum, quod et alius dixisset? A corruptissimo quoque poetarum figuras seu translationes mutuamur, tum demum ingeniosi scilicet, si ad intellegendos nos opus sit ingenio. Atqui satis aperte Cicero praeceperat in dicendo vitium vel maximum esse a vulgari genere orationis atque a consuetudine communis sensus abhorrere. Sed ille est durus atque ineruditus: nos melius, quibus sordet omne quod natura dictavit, &c.

These causes combined from several sides to popularize the abrupt and sententious style of Latin. The passion for sententiae or pithy sayings well expressed became dominant: Seneca the younger is full of them, and even Quintilian lays it down as a rule for a master's guidance that he should every day say something for his hearers to carry away (2. 2. 8 ipse aliquid, immo multa, cottidie dicat, quae secum oratores referant). An attempt was indeed made by Tacitus in his Dialogus, and by Quintilian in his Institutio, to galvanize the republican style into life1; but the spirit of the age was too strong for them,

1 The letters of the younger Pliny are also written in a style intended to recall that of Cicero. Pliny, it must be remembered, was a pupil of Quintilian, and it is surely very probable that Tacitus was also. This hypothesis would account for the style of the Dialogus, as well as for the striking similarity of its spirit and criticisms to those of Quintilian. I am glad to find that this view is also adopted by Dr. Eugen Gruenwald, in his tract

and Tacitus, with a true sense of the fact, abandoned the attempt. Few now understood the virtues of the ancient manner. To make an impression it was necessary to strike a series of sudden blows, to arrest the ear by a succession of smart points. The idea of forming harmonious clauses, of exhibiting thought and passion in perfect clearness, was thrown to the winds. The language was strained beyond its power. Becoming an end itself, it ceased to be the natural instrument for expression of thought and feeling. The reign of the artist is over and that of the virtuoso has begun, who writes, not to move the heart, but to display the capacity of his instrument. Men were now called upon to admire, not the adaptation of language to thought, but the language itself. It must be recherché, it must recall Vergil, it must say more than it ought to say. The process ended not merely in destroying the framework of Latin style, but in corrupting the clearness of the Latin language. Not only does the stately structure of the Ciceronian period crumble into dust in the Latin of the silver age, but the meaning of words is perverted. In Sallust, though the style has a false ring, the language, as a vehicle of thought, preserves its integrity. The younger Seneca, though always striving to make points, writes with perfect clearness; but in Tacitus the language itself is touched with decay.

Let me not be misunderstood, or be supposed to wish for a moment to depreciate the genius of Tacitus. It would be unpardonable to represent him as other than what he is, a man of profound feeling, of splendid imagination and dramatic power. I am only concerned to show that the course of events had destroyed the literary structure of the language in which he had to write; that he was a great artist working with bad tools. The very force of his genius makes him employ to excess the only means he has of making himself heard. His style is the natural result of the situation. Astonishing entitled Quae ratio intercedere videatur inter Quintiliani Institutionem Gratoriam et Taciti Dialogum. (Berlin, 1883.)

in its condensation and in its pathos it is in composition structureless, in language strained and obscure1.

There is no great Latin prose after Tacitus. Suetonius is an able writer, but no stylist; aiming much lower than Tacitus, he has none of his excellences, and succeeds in avoiding his faults. Suetonius is succeeded by writers of the stamp of Gellius and Fronto, and creative genius is extinct.

1 I content myself with quoting the following specimens from the second book of the Histories: 48. Pecunias distribuit parce nec ut periturus. . . Non enim ultima desperatione, sed poscente proelium exercitu remisisse rei publicae novissimum casum.

49. Othoni sepulchrum exstructum est modicum et mansurum.

76. Nec speciem adulantis expaveris.

Ib. Abiit iam et transvectum est tempus, quo posses videri concupisse ; confugiendum est ad imperium. An excidit trucidatus Corbulo ¿

V.

LIFE AND POEMS OF JUVENAL.

(‘JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,' XVI. (1888).)

IT is sometimes necessary to distinguish between the position which an author holds in the world of letters at large, and that which a nearer consideration of the circumstances of his life and times would dispose the student of history to assign him. The literary reputation of Juvenal is a case in point. The scourge of a corrupt age, the master of moral indignation, the great representative of the most original production of the Latin genius; such is the idea of Juvenal which may be said to have prevailed, and still to prevail, in the modern literary world'. I am far from saying that such an estimate is false, but I think it partial and inadequate. Take Juvenal at his own estimate, assume that the pictures which he draws of contemporary life are in the main correct, study him alone and leave the younger Pliny and Quintilian and Suetonius and the inscriptions unread, and the ordinary

1 This view seems in the main to be that of Professor Mayor, if I may judge by the preface to his new edition (1886). I wish it clearly to be understood that, while I venture to differ from Mr Mayor's general estimate of Juvenal's moral position, I cannot adequately express my admiration for his edition and indeed for his many unique contributions to Latin scholarship and the history of Latin literature. I suppose that in wealth of learning and freshness of interest combined, Mr. Mayor holds a position occupied by no scholar since Casaubon.