From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (30 page)

The blending of Greek and Roman culture was the result of a long process. Some five hundred years earlier Rome had first encountered Greek influences in her contacts with the Etruscans and with the Greek cities in Italy. Then in the third century her contacts became more personal: Roman soldiers, administrators and traders began to visit Greek lands, and under the stimulus of Greece Latin literature was born. The full impact came in the second century, when Greece itself and part of the Hellenistic East were included in Rome’s empire, and we have already seen how Rome assimilated much without being overwhelmed and gave to what she received a Latin appearance (p. 9 ff.). In the next century Greek culture at Rome was no longer merely a foreign importation but had become ‘naturalized’ and civilization in the late Republic represented essentially the harmonious blending of the two backgrounds, a synthesis to which both traditions contributed, each enriching without destroying the other.

The share of each culture has been differently assessed at different times. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, with the romantic revival and the ‘discovery’ of Greek culture and art, many were dazzled by the glories of Greece, and tended to regard the Romans as mere borrowers and to attribute most of what was good in Graeco–Roman culture to the Greek side. But a more balanced appreciation suggests that whereas the technical forms which art and literature assumed in the late Republic were Greek, the spirit within was new. It is true that there were certain main differences between the natural endowments of Greek and Roman, which are summed up in Virgil’s famous lines,

Romans had a more practical bent and showed their talent in law, administration and engineering: Greeks excelled in art and philosophy, and in this sphere the Roman was a learner and ‘Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit’. But their gifts were complementary: Rome’s slower artistic and philosophical development was stimulated by Greece, and Roman political wisdom finally united a world which all the genius of the Greeks had failed to bring together. Thus Greece provided much of the cultural impetus and example and Rome built up a framework in which it could flourish, but it would be wrong to regard Graeco–Roman culture merely as Greek civilization dressed up in Roman guise; Rome did more than preserve Greek culture for later generations: borrowing much she injected her own spirit into it. Latin writers might use Greek forms of verse, but they infused a fresh and individual feeling into them, and Cicero’s thought, though largely derived from Greek thinkers, bore a distinctive Roman stamp and was clothed in a language which he had made sufficiently flexible to convey new ideas to his fellow-countrymen. It was this amalgam, hammered out in the hectic days of the late Republic, that was handed on to the more tranquil days of the Empire for men of genius, as Virgil or the sculptor of the Ara Pacis, to work further upon.

In creating this mixture the inspiration from Greece naturally came from varied elements in Greek culture, and its impact was not the same in all spheres and in all directions. Though educated Romans read and knew their Greek classics, in the late Republic they were even more conscious of the later Hellenistic world of the post-classical period. Thus Cicero owed more to Posidonius than to Plato; sculptors and architects looked to the Hellenistic cities of Pergamum and Alexandria rather than to the Athens of Pheidias and Ictinus; and whereas earlier Latin poets had turned to classical Greek poetry, Catullus and his friends found guidance in the learned poetry of Alexandria. The measure of Rome’s debt varied also in different fields: in art her dependence was greatest, in science (as mathematics, medicine and the natural sciences) she showed most indifference, while in literature she responded best by producing fine work in which both Greek and native elements were harmoniously fused. So too the impact of Greece varied in intensity in the different strata of society. In early days it was the Roman aristocracy that had welcomed Greek ideas and ways, but at the same time Greek and Oriental
slaves and freedmen had spread Greek manners at a lower level of society, while Roman soldiers had campaigned, and middle-class business men, had traded, in Greek lands. Thus while one class assimilated Greek philosophy and literature, others welcomed some of the more sensational cults and beliefs of the East. On the whole therefore Hellenistic ideas must have permeated widely through society in a Rome that by the end of the Republic had become a great cosmopolitan city and was overshadowing, not only in political power but also in economic and cultural life, the cities of the Hellenistic world. On the other hand many of the more remote country towns of central Italy must have retained a more untouched Italian way of life, and it was from this healtheir source, rather than from the older Hellenized aristocracy or urban mob in Rome that Augustus was to seek regenerative powers for Roman society. How this fusion of cultures was effected in art, literature and other cultural activities must now be briefly examined.

In no sphere perhaps more than that of art was Rome’s contribution for so long ignored in modern times, to the greater glory of Greece. This was due in part to the great influence of Winckelmann (eighteenth century) who believed that Rome made no individual contribution to an art which she inherited from Greece. And even when distinctively Roman elements were recognized, it was at first in the art of the Empire alone; only comparatively recently has the older Italic and Roman contribution to the art of the Republic been established. The nature and extent of Rome’s particular contribution is still debatable in detail, but that she made such a contribution is more widely recognized. In sculpture Rome did not so much invent what was characteristic of herself as recognize in Greek and Hellenistic art those aspects which could best express her spirit, and these she developed or encouraged Greek artists to develop for her. Her chief contributions here were a realistic portraiture, the creation of spatial depths in relief-sculpture and painting by means of illusionistic methods, and the development of Greek narrative art in historical reliefs with a ‘continuous’ manner of narration in which her feeling for history and imperial ideas could find expression. This last development is well illustrated in the ‘altar of Ahenobarbus’ (see
chapter II
, n. 40) and later in imperial reliefs from the Ara Pacis onwards.

One of the most striking developments in the first century B.C. is the extraordinary desire by Romans for works of art; since great artists cannot be produced to order, the Romans demanded copies of great originals. This demand was not confined to sculpture, but extended to most branches of art. In sculpture a response was made easier by the invention of a mechanical copying process, the so-called pointing method. Most of the sculptors were
Greeks, who either executed the commissions of wealthy Romans in their own cities or else settled in Rome. Thus a booming new industry grew up, in which Greek statues of all periods were reproduced or adapted (e.g. the statue of a Greek god might be copied and then given the features of a living Roman). A similar use of Greek prototypes was made for the copying of bronze statuettes, pottery with relief decoration, terracotta plaques, stucco reliefs, glassware, engraved gems and also probably painting. Since in the process the products came to reflect Roman taste, all this work may justly be called ‘Graeco–Roman’.

Private and public Roman patronage also began to make requests that could not be answered by mere adaptation but evinced new conceptions. The desire for decoration on sepulchral monuments was met by adorning sarcophagi with sculpted scenes taken from mythology or later with battlescenes. This new form is linked with the desire to commemorate public events, such as victories, and it gave rise to the historical reliefs which were to blossom out in their full glory during the Empire. Another striking development is found in portraiture: there was a widespread demand for portraitbusts, which displayed a dry realism (or verism) which contrasts strongly with the idealizing realism of Greek portraiture. This Roman realism may derive in spirit from Etruscan and early Italic art, but since most of the late Roman portraits were made by Greeks and since many Greeks of the Hellenistic period had turned to a veristic style (as the magnificent coinportraits of the Greek kings of Bactria show), this fascinating development of first century portraiture may have arisen primarily from Greek artists responding to a demand from practical realistic Romans for ‘photographic’ portraits of themselves, warts and all.
²

Art and portraiture are both well illustrated in the Roman silver coinage (chiefly
denarii
). Rome’s earliest coin-dies had been cut by Greeks (the so-called Romano–Campanian coins) and no doubt the Roman mint, which was administered by young Roman nobles, continued to employ a preponderance of Greek workmen. Artistically many of the coins are excellent, particularly from the time of Sulla and especially from 68 to 55 B.C. Realistic portraiture on Roman coins started when the mint-official Coelius Caldus (
c
. 62) issued a coin portraying his grandfather, a tribune in 106. The portraits of living men commenced with the dictator Caesar and were followed by those of the triumvirs. In this, as in other forms of art, the way was paved for imperial developments.

In architecture again the debt of Rome to Greece was immense, but Rome’s individual development of Greek ideas is at once apparent if one visualizes for a moment the Acropolis of Athens and the Fora of Imperial Rome. Rome displayed here her great gift of borrowing what she needed from others and adapting the loan in accord with her own national genius: in the process
something new was created. The qualities perhaps most associated with Roman architecture are magnificence of conception and solidity of construction. Something has already been said (p. 154) about developments in the late Republic in Rome and Italy, due in part to the use of new building materials. Here it is necessary only to recall the fact that throughout Italy and the Roman world characteristically Roman buildings, many of which made skilful use of the arch, were constantly being constructed: temples, basilicas, bridges, aqueducts, drains, triumphal arches, city-walls, tombs, baths, theatres, amphitheatres, town and country houses. Nor should the work of the engineer who co-operated with the architect be forgotten; not least his genius in the construction of those thousands of miles of roads which bound the Roman world together and made the economic and administrative life of the empire possible.

Early Latin literature had been born under the inspiration of Greek, starting with translation from the Greek classics, then imitating them, and finally, still under their spell, developing into a national literature. The pioneers in epic, tragedy and comedy had been Livius Andronicus (who died in 204), Naevius (d. 199), Q. Ennius (d. 169), M. Pacuvius (d. 130), Plautus (d. 184) and Terence (d. 159), all of whom owed an immense debt to Greece. But in one branch the Romans ‘had it all their own way’, which is what Quintillian in a famous comparison of Greek and Roman literature seems to mean when he said ‘satura tota nostra est’. Early satire, which means a ‘medley’, was probably a form of Variety produced on the stage, but it developed into a literary genre, in poetry, and also in prose and verse intermixed. Ennius was the first to write a poetic miscellany of this kind, but its full potentialities were first realized by C. Lucilius (
c.
180–102), a Latin from Suessa Aurunca who settled in Rome and became a friend of Scipio Aemilianus; starting to write about 131 B.C., in all he composed thirty books of satires in hexameter verse, of which less than 1300 lines survive. Turning for his subject-matter to the society in which he moved, he exposed its vices and follies in satiric verses. His connexion with the Scipionic circle brought him into close touch with Roman politics, personalities and life. If he could be harsh (and he did not spare the political opponents of Aemilanus), he could also show wit and grace as he ranged over many events of everday life; his language was colloquial. His writings formed the model for Horace’s satires later and, if they had survived, would have thrown a flood of light on the social and political life of his generation.
⁴

Epic poetry at Rome reached its peaks with Ennius and Virgil: the century or more which lay between these two giants produced no great epics, and
those who attempted the task are now little more than names. By the Gracchan age drama was passing its zenith, both in tragedy and comedy, but a few notable figures emerged.
⁵
L. Accius (
c.
170–
c.
85) became a very popular tragedian. We have the titles of over forty of his tragedies which were based on Greek drama (
fabulae palliatae
) and of two historical dramas (
praetextae
): his treatment was melodramatic and he preferred violent plots, but his work was highly esteemed not only by his contemporaries but also by Cicero, Horace and Quintillian. The practice of adapting Greek comedies for the Roman stage, which Plautus and Terence had followed with such skill, came to an end with the death in 103 of a writer named Turpilius. A more popular form of comedy emerged in the
fabulae togatae
, ‘comedies in native dress’, which portrayed domestic life in Italian towns and villages. The pioneer here was Titinius, who was perhaps slightly junior to Terence. T. Quinctius Atta (who died in 77) excelled in his women characters; the titles of eleven of his plays survive. More important was L. Afranius (born about 150), of whose works we have forty-four titles; though he retained an Italian background, he admired Menander and other New Comedy Greek poets. This turning again to Greece suggests that the native inspiration was weakening; at any rate Afranius found no successor to rival his achievements in this field. But if Rome gradually ceased to produce new dramatists of talent (and men tended to write plays as mere literary exercises rather than for production), the earlier plays remained popular in the days of Cicero. Old tragedies and comedies were revived, and stage stars, such as Aesopus and Roscius, enhanced their reputations by their performances in plays by Accius and Plautus. At the same time the theatres were made more attractive and the performance more spectacular and lavish.

Many theatre-goers, however, demanded less intellectual fare: the farce and mime were the answer. A primitive form of rustic farce had grown up in Campania, whence it had spread to Rome (‘Oscan’ or ‘Atellan’ farce). It had a few traditional clownish characters (like Punch and Judy) and much of the dialogue was probably impromptu, crude in jest and language. It was given a more literary form during the Sullan period by two writers, L. Pomponius and Novius, who retained the rustic crudeness and stock characters, but extended the range and even introduced some of the conventional characters of Greek New Comedy. Thereafter the Atellane drama probably reverted to its less literary semi-improvised form and in this guise it continued to enjoy great popularity during the Roman Empire.

The mime, well known in Greek South Italy in early days, was performed by groups of strolling players, who with simple stage and curtain put on a plain show, the chief actor or actress using one or two others as foils to their wit and banter, unrestrained by any sense of decency. This shapeless and varied performance was given literary status by a Roman knight, Decimus
Laberius (
c.
115–43), but although the names of 43 of his mimes survive, little is known about their form or nature, apart from their frequent indecency in subject and language. No less popular was a slave from Syria, Publilius Syrus, whose ability soon won for him patronage and freedom. In a general challenge to all rivals at the
ludi Caesaris
in 46 or 45, he defeated even Laberius. Later a collection was made of the moral sayings of his characters, which shows that mimes could provide ethical maxims as well as much indecency. Like the farce, the mime continued in undiminished popularity during the Empire.

At the other extreme from these sub-literary, or non-literary, forms of entertainment stand the literary circles and above all the two splendid poets that emerged in the late Republic, Lucretius and Catullus. Many cultured men tried their hands at poetry for their own or their friends’ amusement, and there seems to have been a guild or college for professional poets which met in the temple of Minerva on the Aventine; at one time Accius was its head. Private literary circles did not necessarily cease with the death of Scipio Aemilianus’ various friends. Lutatius Catulus (
cos.
102) had contacts with other literary men even if he did not form a ‘circle’ in the way that Aemilianus had done; he thus helped to form a link with Cicero and his contemporaries. In the late Republic a coterie of younger poets, the Neoterici, turned away from earlier Greek poetry for their inspiration to the school of Alexandria, which was marked by great and often pedantic learning; it sought fresh material, not before handled in verse, and often the poet’s own emotions were given more rein. Members of this group in Rome included C. Licinius Calvus (son of the annalist Licinius Macer), of whose poems only a few fragments survive, Cinna (possibly C. Helvius Cinna the unfortunate tribune of 44 B.C.), and their friend C. Valerius Catullus.
⁶

Catullus
⁷
(
c.
84–
c.
54) was born in Cisalpine Gaul at Verona, the son of a wealthy family, and went to Rome about 62. He became infatuated with the Lesbia of his poems, whose real name was Clodia; she was one of the sisters of the tribune of 58, P. Clodius, probably the wife of Metellus Celer (
cos.
60). Later he was supplanted in her affections by other lovers, including Caelius, presumably Cicero’s young friend M. Caelius Rufus. If these traditional identifications are correct, as they most likely are, Catullus will have fallen in love with one of the most profligate women of Roman society and the leader of a fast set. In 57 he served on the staff of the propraetor Memmius in Bithynia, and probably after his return he composed a final bitter farewell to Lesbia (poem 11). He also directed some stinging lampoons against Caesar and the Caesarians. His poems, of which 116 survive, comprise short lyrics on a variety of subjects, a few longer pieces, and a group in elegiac metre. Though he owed much to Alexandrine influence, he also turned to the older Greek poets, especially Sappho. With her, he may be reckoned among the greatest
lyric poets of ancient, and indeed, all times. His success he owed partly to his love of nature and to the sincerity and depths of the personal feelings that he expressed, which contrasted strongly with earlier Roman conceptions of
gravitas
and yet reflected a
simplicitas
alien to the sophisticated society in which he lived.

Titus Lucretius Carus
⁸
(
c.
94–55), the slightly older contemporary of Catullus, is an obscure figure: it is even uncertain whether he was a member or only a dependant of the aristocratic family of the Lucretii. He dedicated his poem to C. Memmius, a son-in-law of Sulla and praetor in 58, who had befriended Catullus and Cinna: whether Memmius was primarily his friend or patron cannot be said. Nor can the famous story that he was poisoned by a love-philtre, suffered bouts of insanity and committed suicide be confirmed. As an Epicurean, he took no part in public life. His poem
De Rerum Natura
, in six books, is didactic in purpose: it expounds the materialism and atomic theory of his master Epicurus, in an attempt to free man from superstitious fears by proving that the human soul does not survive death (which should therefore not be feared) and that the gods do not intervene in mundane affairs; these are governed by mechanical laws which control the movement of the atoms of which the universe is made, though owing to a postulated spontaneous swerve in the motion of the atoms, man is allowed free-will in this otherwise deterministic system. If he had merely succeeded in putting Epicurus’ philosophy before Roman readers (and this is what Lucretius himself regarded as his main achievement), his great technical skill in handling such material in verse would have been noteworthy, but that was not all, because he happened to be a great poet also. He brought to this unpromising theme such intensity of feeling that his poems are shot through with passages of great majesty, eloquence and splendour, and on the strength of these tokens of a powerful and vivid imagination he is reckoned by some critics worthy to be classed with Virgil himself.