Books: The Old Roman World

J >> John Lord >> The Old Roman World

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47

[Sidenote: Landscape Painting.]

Among the Romans, portrait, decorative, and scene painting engrossed the
art, much to the regret of such critics as Pliny and Vitruvius. Nothing
could be in more execrable taste than a colossal painting of Nero, one
hundred and twenty feet high. From the time of Augustus, landscape
decorations were common, and were carried out with every species of
license. Among the Greeks we do not read of landscape painting. This has
been reserved for our age, and is much admired, as it was at Rome in its
latter days. Mosaic gradually superseded painting in Rome. It was first
used for floors, but finally walls and ceilings were ornamented with it,
like St. Peter's at Rome. Many ancient mosaics have been preserved which
attest beauty of design of the highest character, like the Battle of
Issus, lately discovered at Pompeii.

In fact, neither statuary nor painting was advanced by the Romans. They
had no sensibility, or conception of ideal beauty. The divine spark of
genius animated the Greeks alone. Still the wonders of Grecian art were
possessed by the Romans, and were made to adorn those grand
architectural monuments for which they had a taste. Greek productions
were not merely matters of property, they were copied and reproduced in
all the cities of the Mediterranean; and though no artist of original
genius arose from Augustus to Constantine, galleries of art existed
everywhere in which the masterpieces of Polygnotus, Pausias, Aristides,
Timanthes, Zeuxis, Parrhasius, Pamphilus, Euphranor, Protogenes,
Apelles, Timomachus, and of other illustrious men, were objects of as
much praise as the galleries of Dresden and Florence.

[Sidenote: Probable perfection of the ancients in painting.]

"The glorious art of these masters, as far as regards tone, light, and
local color," says Muller, "is lost to us, and we know nothing of it
except from obscure notices and later imitations; on the contrary, the
pictures on vases give us the most exalted idea of the progress and
achievements of the arts of design." [Footnote: Muller, Ancient Art,
143.] It is surprising that, with four colors, the Greeks should have
achieved such miracles of beauty and finish as are represented by the
greatest cities of antiquity. The great wonders of the schools of
Ephesus, Athens, and Sicyon have perished, and we cannot judge of their
merits as we can of the statues which have fortunately been preserved.
Whether Polygnotus was equal to Michael Angelo, Zeuxis to Raphael, and
Apelles to Titian, we have no means of settling. But it is scarcely to
be questioned that critics like the Greeks, whose opinions respecting
architecture and sculpture coincide with our own, could have erred in
their verdicts respecting those great paintings which extorted the
admiration of the world, and were held, even in the decline of art, in
such high value, not merely in the cities where they were painted, but
in those to which they were transferred. What _has_ descended to
our times, like the mural decorations of Pompeii and the designs on
vases, go to prove the perfection which was attained in painting, as
well as sculpture and architecture.

[Sidenote: Perfection of art among the ancients.]

And thus, in all those arts of which modern civilization is proudest,
and in which the genius of man has soared to the loftiest heights, the
ancients were not merely our equals: they were our superiors. It is
greater to originate than to copy. In architecture, in sculpture, and in
painting the Greeks attained absolute perfection. Any architect of our
time, who should build an edifice in different proportions than those
which were recognized in the great cities of antiquity, would make a
mistake. Who can improve upon the Doric columns of the Parthenon, or the
Corinthian capitals of the Temple of Jupiter? Indeed, it is in
proportion as we accurately copy the faultless models of the age of
Pericles that excellence with us is attained. When we differ from them
we furnish grounds of just criticism. So, in sculpture, the Greek Slave
is a reproduction of an ancient Venus, and the Moses of Michael Angelo
is a Jupiter in repose. It is only when the artist seeks to bring out
the purest and loftiest sentiments of the soul, and such as only
Christianity can inspire, that he may hope to surpass the sculpture of
antiquity in one department of the art alone--in expression, rather than
beauty of form, on which no improvement can be made. And if we possessed
the Venus of Apelles, as we can boast of having the sculptured Venus of
Cleomenes, we should probably discover greater richness of coloring, as
well as grace of figure, than in that famous Titian which is one of the
proudest ornaments of the galleries of Florence, and one of the greatest
marvels of Italian art.

* * * * *

REFERENCES.--Winckelmann's History of Ancient Art; Muller's Remains of
Ancient Art; A. J. Guattani, Antiq. de la Grande Grece; Mazois, Antiq.
de Pomp.; Sir W. Gill, Pompeiana; Donaldson's Antiquities of Athens;
Vitruvius, Stuart, Chandler, Clarke, Dodwell, Cleghorn, De Quincey.
These are some of the innumerable authorities on Architecture among the
ancients.

In Sculpture, Pliny and Cicero are the most noted critics. There is a
fine article in the Encyclopedia Britannica on this subject. In Smith's
Dictionary are the lives and works of the most noted masters. Muller's
Ancient Art alludes to the leading masterpieces. Montfaucon's Antiquite
expliquee en Figures; Specimens of Ancient Sculpture, by the Society of
Diettanti, London, 1809; Ancient Marbles of the British Museum, by
Taylor Combe; Millin, Introduction a l'etude des Monumens Antiques;
Monumens Inedits d'Antiquite figuree, recuellis et publies par Raoul-
Rochette; Gerhard's Archaol. Zeit.; David's Essai sur le Classement
Chronol. des Sculpteurs Grecs les plus celebres.

In Painting, see Caylus, Memoires de l'ac des Inscr. Levesque, sur les
Progres successifs de la Peinture chez les Grecs; I. I. Grund, Mahlerei
der Griechen; Meyer's Kunstgischichte; Muller, Hist, of Ancient Art;
Article on Painting, Ency. Brit., Article "Pictura," Smith's Dict.;
Fuseli's Lectures; Sir Joshua Reynolds' Lectures. Lanzi's History of
Painting refers to the revival of the art. Vitruvius speaks at some
length on ancient wall paintings. The finest specimens of ancient
painting are found in catacombs, the baths, and the ruins of Pompeii. On
this subject, Winckelmann is the great authority.

CHAPTER V.

THE ROMAN CONSTITUTION.

[Sidenote: The Roman creators of civilization.]

[Sidenote: The Romans sought to govern.]

[Sidenote: The Romans sought to govern through laws.]

[Sidenote: Roman sense of justice.]

It is not from a survey of the material grandeur, or the arts, or the
military prowess of Rome that we get the highest idea of her
civilization. These indicate strength and even genius; but the checks
and balances which were gradually introduced into the government of the
city and empire, by which society was kept together, and a great
prosperity secured for centuries, also show great foresight and
practical wisdom. A State which favored individual development while it
promoted law and order; which secured liberty, while it made the
government stable and respectable; which guaranteed rights to the poorer
citizens, while it placed power in the hands of those who were most
capable of wielding it for the general good, is well worth our
contemplation. The idea of aggrandizement was, it must be confessed, the
most powerful which entered into the Roman mind; but the principles of
national unity, the welfare of citizens, the reign of law, the security
of property, the network of trades and professions, also received
attention there. The aspirations for liberty and national prosperity
never left the Roman mind. The Romans were great creators of
civilization, though in a different sense from the Greeks. What the
principles of art were to the Greeks, those of government were to the
Romans. If the Greeks made statues, the Romans made laws. If the former
speculated on the beautiful, or the good, or the true, the latter
realized the boast of Diogenes--the power to govern men. The passion for
government was the most powerful which a Roman citizen felt, next to the
passion for war. For five hundred years after the expulsion of the
kings, there was the most perfect system of checks and balances in the
government of the state known in the ancient world, and which is
scarcely rivaled in the modern. Power was so wisely distributed that not
even a successful general was able to gain a dangerous preeminence.
Every citizen was a politician, and every Senator a statesman. For five
hundred years there was neither anarchy nor military despotism. If every
citizen knew how to fight, every citizen also knew how to govern, to
submit. No consul dared to exceed his trust; no general, till Caesar,
ventured to cross the Rubicon. The Roman Senate never lost its dignity--
a supreme body which controlled all public interests. The Romans were
sufficiently wise to bend to circumstances. Though proud, the patricians
made concessions to plebeians whenever it was necessary. The right of
citizenship was gradually extended throughout the Empire. Paul lived in
a remote city of Asia Minor, but, by virtue of his citizenship, could
appeal to a higher court than that of the governor. The Romans
succeeded, by their wisdom, in extending their institutions over the
countries they had conquered; and every part of the Empire was well
governed even when military despotism had overturned the ancient
constitution. There were, of course, cases of extortion and injustice,
and most governors made large fortunes; yet the provinces were better
administered, and the rule was more in accordance with justice than
under the native princes. Throughout the vast limits of the Empire, life
and property were safe, and the roads were free of robbers; nor were
there riots in the cities, except on very rare occasions, in which they
were put down with merciless severity. Yet a few hundred men were enough
to preserve order in the largest cities, and a few thousand in the most
extensive provinces. Even under the most tyrannical emperors, justice
and order were enforced. The government was never better administered
than by Tiberius, and further, was never better administered than when
he was abandoned to pleasure in his guarded villa at Capri. There was
the passion to govern the world, but in accordance with laws. The rule
of the Romans was not that of brute force, even when the army was at the
control of the Emperors. The citizens, to the last, enjoyed great social
and political rights. They had great immunities, in reference to
marriage, and the making of wills, and the possession of property. Their
persons were secured from the disgrace of corporal punishment; they
could appeal from the decision of magistrates; they were eligible to
public offices; they were exempted from many oppressive taxes which
still grind down the people in the most civilized states of Europe. The
government of Octavius was the mildest despotism ever known to the
ancient world. That Ulysses of state craft exercised the most extensive
powers under the ancient forms, and all the early emperors disguised
rather than paraded their powers. Contented with real power, the Roman
was careless of its display. He had the tact to rule without seeming to
rule; but rule he must, though not until he had first learned to obey--
obedience to laws and domination were inseparably connected. This made
the Roman yoke endurable, because it was not offensive or unjust. The
Romans were masters of the world by conquest, yet ruled the world they
had subdued by arms in accordance with laws based on the principles of
equity. This sense of justice, in the enjoyment of unbounded domination,
undoubtedly gave permanence to their government. The centurion was ever
present to enforce a decree, but the decree was in accordance with
justice. This was the idea, the recognized principle of government,
although often abused. Paul appealed to Caesar. He might have been
released by the governor, had he not appealed. Here was justice to Paul
in allowing the appeal; and still greater justice in keeping him in
bonds until acquitted by Caesar himself. [Sidenote: Degeneracy under
emperors.]

[Sidenote: Skill of the Romans for government.]

[Sidenote: On what the prosperity was based.]

[Sidenote: Government the great art and science of the Romans.]

[Sidenote: Prosperity of the government.]

It must, however, be confessed that, after the Caesars were fairly
established on their throne, a great indifference to public affairs
ensued. Every office was then, directly or indirectly, in the hands of
the emperor. Cicero expressed the popular sentiment of his day when he
said, "that was the most perfect government which was a combination of
popular and aristocratic authority;"--but in the eighth century of the
city, the system of checks and balances would have fallen to pieces in
the hands of a degenerate people. A constitutional monarchy even was no
longer possible. The vices of the oligarchy, and the fierce reactions of
the democracy, had destroyed all the dreams of the earlier patriots. The
mass of the people had long been passive under the sway of factions and
political intriguers, and they resigned themselves to the despotism of
the emperor without a struggle. But even in this degradation the power
of government remained among the leading classes. The governors of
provinces, taken generally from the Senate and the nobles, were skillful
in their administration of public affairs. They were enlightened in all
political duties. The traditional ideas of government survived for
several generations, even as the mechanism of the army made it powerful
after all real spirit had fled. The Roman still regarded himself as the
favorite of the gods, destined to achieve a vast mission, even the
reduction of the world to political unity. Augustus made every effort,
while he reigned, in the ruin of political institutions, to revive the
forms and traditions of other days. The patricians were favored and
honored, and the Senate still was made to appear august, with a
prostrate world at its feet, to which it was bound to dictate laws and
institutions. Political unity was the grand idea of the Romans, and this
idea has survived to our own times. It was one of the great elements of
Roman civilization. Universal empire was based, in the better days of
the Republic, on public morality, in the iron discipline of families, in
a marvelously well-trained soldiery, in a military system which made the
civil society an army almost ready for the field, in a recognition of
public rights and duties, in a wise system of colonization, in
conciliatory conduct to the conquered races, and in a central power as
the dispenser of all honor and emoluments. The civil wars broke up, in a
measure, this wise and considerate policy; still citizenship extended to
all parts of the empire, even when it was manifest it must soon fall
into the hands of barbarians. And as for the administration of justice,
it was probably better conducted under the emperors than under the
supreme rule of the Senate. Even bad emperors knew how to govern. To the
Roman mind every thing was subordinate to the art of government. And
every characteristic fitted the Romans to govern--energy of will,
practical good sense, the conception of justice, an unyielding pride,
fortitude, courage, and lust of power. And the spirit of domination was
carried out into every thing. It was made a science, an art. Whatever
would contribute to the ascendency of the state was remorselessly
adopted; whatever would interfere with it was abandoned or swept away.
Fierce and tolerant by turns, and as circumstances prompted--such was
the Roman. With submission life was easy, and the government was mild.
And the supreme government rarely entrusted power except to faithful,
capable, and patriotic rulers. The wisest and best were selected for
important offices. The governors of provinces were men of great
experience; they were generals and senators who had passed their term of
active service. They easily made great mistakes. They carried out the
policy of the State. They were acquainted with laws, and the customs of
the people whom they ruled. They were versed in the literature of their
day. They were men of dignity and fortune. They were moderate,
conciliatory, and firm. They were models for rulers for all subsequent
ages. There were, of course, exceptions, but the small number of riots
and rebellions shows the contentment of the people, for they were not
ground down by oppressive laws and exactions, until their spirit was
broken. How munificent were the emperors to such cities as Athens and
Alexandria! Athens was the seat of learning and culture, to the very end
of the empire. Arts and literature and science were fostered in all the
cities. They were adopted as parts of the empire, not treated like
conquered territories. After the destruction of Carthage, the Romans had
no jealousy of cities that once were equals. Their arts were made to
subserve Roman greatness, indeed, but they were left free to develop
their resources. The development of resources was a vital principle of
the Roman government. Spain, Syria, and Egypt, were never more
prosperous than under the imperial rule. All the provinces were more
thriving under the emperors than they had been under their ancient
kings, until the era of barbaric invasions. If war had been the mission
of the republic, peace was the pride of the empire. There were no wars
of importance for three hundred years, except those of necessity. The
end of the emperors was to govern, to preserve peace, and secure
obedience to the laws.

[Sidenote: The aristocracy the real rulers of the state.]

[Sidenote: Defects of Democratic ascendency.]

[Sidenote: The people unfit to govern when unenlightened.]

[Sidenote: Popular element in the Roman state.]

[Sidenote: Rich Plebeians had a great influence in the government.]

But we must bear in mind that, whatever were the popular rights enjoyed
in the republican era, and however vast were the powers wielded by the
emperors after liberty had fled, yet the constitution of Roman society
was essentially aristocratic. All the great conquests were made under
the rule of patricians, and all the leading men under the emperors were
nobles. The government was virtually, from first to last, in the hands
of the aristocracy. Still there was an important popular element,
especially in the latter days of the republic, to which revolutionary
leaders appealed, like the Gracchi, Marius, Catiline, and Caesar. One of
the most humiliating lessons which we learn of antiquity, we are forced
to own, was the signal incapacity of the people to govern themselves,
when they had obtained a greater share of power than the old
constitution had allowed. The republic did not long survive when
successful generals and eloquent demagogues were sustained by the
people. Had Rome been a democracy, as some suppose, the empire never
could have been established. We comfort ourselves, however, by the
reflection, that when the people surrendered themselves to factions and
demagogues and tyrants, they were both ignorant and depraved. Self-
government has never yet succeeded, because there have never been virtue
and intelligence among the masses. So long as we can boast of virtue and
intelligence among the people, we need not despair with the government
in their hands. An enlightened self-interest will suggest the wisest
policy. We only despair of the government of the people when they are
ignorant, brutal, and wicked. As there was no period in the ancient
world when they were not unenlightened, we are reconciled to the fact
that a wise and vigorous administration of public affairs was always
conducted by kings or nobles who had intelligence and patriotism, if
they were proud and imperious. Whatever faith we may justly cherish in
reference to popular sovereignty, grounded on the principles of natural
justice, and the hopes which are held out as the fruit of Christian
ideas, still, as a fact, there is but little in the history of the Roman
commonwealth which reflects much glory on the people, except when
controlled and marshalled by the aristocracy. Just so far as the popular
element prevailed, the state was hurried on to ruin. The aristocratical
element had the ascendency when Rome was most prosperous and most
respected. Yet, while the Roman constitution was essentially
aristocratic for five hundred years, it had a strong popular element
mingled with it. The patricians had the chief power, but they were not
lords and masters in so absolute a sense as to trample on the people
with impunity, nor were they able to deprive them of their rights, or of
all share in the government. They were not feudal nobles, nor a Venetian
oligarchy. And yet it were a mistake to suppose that the distinction
between the classes implied that the aristocratic power was lodged with
the patricians alone. The patricians were not necessarily aristocrats,
nor the plebeians a rabble. The political distinctions passed away
without destroying social inequalities. There were great families among
the plebeians which really belonged to the aristocratic class, at least
in the time of Cicero. Aristocracy may have been based on birth, as in
England, but it was sustained by wealth, as in that country. A very rich
man gained, ultimately, admission to the noble class, as Rothschild has
in London. Without wealth to uphold distinctions, any aristocracy soon
becomes contemptible. That organization of society is most aristocratic
which confers great political and social privileges on a few men, and
retains these privileges from generation to generation, as in France
during the reign of Louis XV. The state of society at Rome under the
republic, favored the monopoly of offices among powerful families. It
was considered very remarkable for even Cicero to rise to the highest
honors of the state with his magnificent genius, character, attainments,
and services; but he shared the consulship with a man of very ordinary
capacity. The great offices were all in the hands of the aristocracy,
from the expulsion of the kings to the times of Julius Caesar. Even the
tribunes of the people ultimately were selected from powerful families.

[Sidenote: The Patricians.]

[Sidenote: The Roman _Gens_.]

The Roman people--_Romanus populus_--under the kings, the original
citizens, were the warriors who built Rome, and conquered the
surrounding cities and districts. They were called _patres_, which
is synonymous with Patricians. [Footnote: Cicero, _De Repub._, ii.
12 Liv., i. 8.] They were united among themselves by kindred and by
political and religious ties. They supported themselves by agriculture
although engaged continually in war. They consisted originally of three
tribes, which gradually were united into the sovereign people. The first
tribe was a Latin colony, and settled on the Palatine Hill; the second
were Sabine settlers on the Quirinal; the third were Etruscans, who
occupied the Caelian. They were distinct, at first, and were not united
fully till the time of Tarquinius Priscus, himself an Etruscan.
[Footnote: Dionys., ii. 62.] As there were no other Roman citizens but
these patricians, they had no exclusive rights under the kings, and
hence there was then no aristocracy of birth. Each of these three tribes
of citizens consisted of ten curiae, and each curia of ten decuries, or
gentes. The three tribes, therefore, contained three hundred gentes. A
gens was a family, and the gentes were aggregates of kindred families.
[Footnote: Nieb., Lect. V.] The name of a gens was generally
characterized by the termination _eia_ or _ia_, as Julia, Cornelia,
and it is to be presumed that each gens had a common ancestor.
But with the growth of the city it came to pass that a gens often
included a great number of families; we read of three hundred Fabii
forming the gens Fabia in the year 275. These families composed,
ultimately, the aristocracy. They were the people who filled all
offices, and alone had the right of voting in the assemblies. As the
gentes were subdivisions of the three ancient tribes, the _populus_
alone had _gentes_, so that to be a patrician and to have a gens
were synonymous. With the growth of Rome new gentes or families were
added which did not claim descent from the ancient tribes. The powerful
gens of the Claudia came to Rome with Atta Claudius, their head, after
the expulsion of the kings. Tullus Hostilius incorporated the Julii,
Servilii and other gentes with the patricians. This ruling class, the
descendants of the conquerors, became a powerful aristocracy, and
ultimately learned to value pride of blood. There are very few names in
Roman history, until the time of Marius, which did not belong to this
noble class. What proud families were the Servilii, the Claudii, the
Julii, the Cornelii, the Fabii, the Valerii, the Sempronii, the Octavii,
the Sergii, and others. [Footnote: Liv., i. 33. Dionys., iii. 31.]