Page images

obvious that the evidence afforded by the apparent parallelisms between certain sequences of Lucilian fragments and certain satires of Horace present a phenomenon which is of the utmost importance for the determination of the arrangement of Lucilian sequences by future editors of the earlier satirist.

Hitherto studies of literary relationships in Greek and Latin have fallen into two classes. On the one hand we have studies on the general problems of style, rhetoric, and imitation, such for instance as those of Stemplinger, Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur. On the other hand we have a huge body of studies on the sources of classical authors more or less valuable and more or less detailed in the citation of parallel passages. So far as I have observed few scholars have attempted to bring these two types of studies into any intimate and organized relation. And yet until this is done the larger aspects of the problem escape us. Such studies as Hirzel, Der Dialog, Reich, Der Mimus, Misch, Der Autobiographie, trace with great learning and acumen the development and literary environment of three important genres, but concern themselves only incidentally with the questions of the sources of the great writers working within these genres. And yet only in the light thrown by a somewhat detailed knowledge of the general theories of imitation and originality, widely current from the rise of sophistic rhetoric in Greece after the middle of the 5th century B.C. and its spread by the influence of philosophical, aesthetic, and rhetorical studies of the fourth and succeeding centuries to all parts of the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman world can we hope to view a problem of imitation involving the relation between the founder of a great genre and his still more famous successor, the relation of a Horace to a Lucilius in its true aesthetic and historical perspective. This book, therefore, starts with the assumption that there was such a thing as the Classical Theory of Imitation, and that it is a dangerous anachronism to attempt to appraise the literary modes and ideals of a great classical writer like Horace on the basis of our current romantic theories of composition, with their over-emphasis on originality and spontaneity, and their tendency to tear loose the individual genius from his cultural environment, and their relative dis

regard of the claims of the great tradition of European literary culture.

I use the term "European literary culture" advisedly because I believe that to understand clearly the content, the scope, the strength and the defects of the Classical Theory of Imitation is to gain a point of view of real value not only for the workers in the classical field, but for students of mediaeval and renaissance literature. After all, with important modifications, misinterpretations, degradations, and revivals, this theory of literary composition was the one most widely prevailing in the long period from the 4th century B.C. to the middle of the 18th century. It is my hope then that this book will make an appeal to all who are interested in literary relationships, and to such cultivated readers as believe it is still necessary to keep open that long road which binds our modern civilizations to those of Greece and Rome. Certainly the first three chapters of this book should contain something of interest to those who wish to study at first hand the evolution of the classical theory of imitation. And there are perhaps still some lovers of Horace who will not be repelled by the more technical chapters in which I try to show Horace the satirist in his workshop. For in my belief Horace the poet and Horace the critic are one. At nearly every turn we find concrete illustrations of Horace's literary theories in his non-critical works, while the critic is guarded from any tendencies to dogmatic or pedantic devotion to abstract theory by his experience in the practical problems of literary composition. In this respect the relation between Horace the literary critic and Horace the Augustan poet is strikingly similar to that between Cicero the rhetorical theorist and Cicero the republican orator. That both men were conscious adherents to a long rhetorical tradition dealing with the problems of composition in prose and verse is a point of view which I have constantly presented in this book.

It is to emphasize my belief that such a study rightly interpreted can in no sense be regarded as derogatory to the originality of Horace that I have selected the two epigraphs of this book and have called the book a Study in the Classical Theory of Imitation. To the classicist at any rate originality does not

connote originality of theme, but rather the imaginative power of the creative artist to impress his ideals, from whatsoever source derived, upon his own age and all future ages by means of his complete mastery of those ideals and the technique of the form in which they find most appropriate expression. So Isocrates declares in the Panegyricus in words not without their value for the present day: Now I think that a very great advance would be made in every pursuit, and especially in the practical study of literary expression if admiration and honor were to be bestowed in practical affairs not so much on those who take the first step in anything as on those who bring it in each case to the most successful conclusion, not so much on those who seek a subject on which no one has ever spoken before as on those who know how to treat their subject in a manner which is beyond the power of anyone else. So André Chénier in L'Invention (2, 170) admirably voices the same theory:

Ainsi donc, dans les arts, l'inventeur est celui

Qui peint ce que chacun put sentir comme lui.

Judged in the light of the influences which I have just outlined, the six chapters of this book will be found, I hope, to possess a progressive unity. In Chapter I, which I have called The Classical Theory of Imitation, I shall trace the salient elements in the development of the aesthetic and rhetorical theory of imitation. We shall find that the principles underlying this theory are deduced in the first instance from the sympathetic study of the actual works of the greatest Greek writers in the various genres of poetry and prose. The principles thus discovered were formulated by some of the most discriminating Hellenic minds from the days of Gorgias to those of Plato and Aristotle and the later philosophical rhetoricians of the Academy and the Porch. We shall find that the study of rhetoric was placed on a scientific basis in the Hellenistic period and was nationalized in Rome in the age of the Scipios. Here it underwent still further formulations and developments at the hands of Cicero, Brutus, the Roman Atticists, Horace, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Quintilian, and many others. We shall find that the rhetorical theory of imitation,

which from its wide acceptance in the Hellenistic and GrecoRoman period we may fairly call the classical theory of imitation, regarded the subject matter falling within the pale of the genre as the common property of the workers in the genre, and looked askance both at independent invention and slavish plagiarism. Yet originality was assured because the different genres were both developed and gradually transformed by the study of the great masters made by their successors, who work not in the spirit of verbal imitation, but in that of generous rivalry. But since imitation is quite as much a matter of style as of content we shall further discuss the development of the theory of the three styles, the plain, the middle, and the grand, and other more technical aspects of stylistic imitation, and the relation of these theories to the development of such well-known literary genres as epic, tragedy, comedy, and the free satiric forms, and finally we shall find explicit evidence from Horace's critical works of his complete familiarity and sympathy with the essential elements in the classical theory of imitation.

Our next consideration will be the effect of Horace's acceptance of this theory of imitation upon his relations with his predecessor Lucilius, the inventor or evpers of the sermo or satiric discourse in the plain style, the genre in which Horace is the greatest representative. But to answer this question rightly it is necessary to consider in detail the relation of Lucilius and the Scipionic circle to the new Greek learning, and especially to the Stoic rhetoric as expounded by Diogenes of Babylon and Panaetius of Rhodes.

In my second chapter, therefore, The Relations of Lucilius and the Scipionic Circle to the New Greek Learning and Literature, I shall first try to trace the development of the theory of the diction and humor-appropriate to the sermo or conversational discourse in the plain style, the type of oral and written expression favored by the truth-loving Stoics, formulated for the Romans in the systems of Diogenes of Babylon and Panaetius, and employed as the result of their influence in nearly all the literature emanating from the Scipionic circle. In particular I shall consider the probable relation of Lucilius to such rhetorical theories, and the relation of these earlier theories to

the subsequent rhetorical and stylistic theories of Cicero and the Roman Atticists as set forth in Cicero's rhetorical works, notably in his de oratore, orator, and Brutus. Cicero indeed appears as a great mediating agency between Lucilius and Horace, because on the one hand he is a deep admirer of the earlier Roman poetry and thus supplements in countless ways our knowledge of the literary ideals and the literary environment of the earlier period; and on the other hand because he restates, enlarges, transforms, and refines the stylistic theories which first found expression in the theoretical treatises of the earlier period. Above all we learn from Cicero's use of Panaetius in the de officiis, especially from his summary of Panaetius de sermone in book 1, the Stoic rules for the content, and tone, and style of the conversational discourse both oral and written. By comparative analysis of the sermones or discourses in the plain style of Lucilius we find that he is in essential harmony with the tenets, both grammatical and stylistic, of this Stoic rhetoric, save in two important respects. In the first place Lucilius apparently because of the influence of the impromptu satiric forms of the Cynics, τὸ σπουδαιογέλοιον is in sympathy whether consciously or unconsciously with those tendencies, which were subsequently formulated as a definite nuance under the concept of the plain style. He therefore prefers impromptu composition and a freer and racier diction than is approved by the more exacting standards of the later Roman Atticists and Horace. In the second place by temperamental bias and probably also under the influence of the popular Cynic-Stoic satirical forms, Lucilius was shown to use invective more freely than was permissible to a strict adherent of the theory of the plain style. And finally the relation of the Socratic theory of irony, the type of liberal humor pervading the conversations of Socrates, the Platonic dialogues, and widely prevalent in the Scipionic circle will be shown to be according to rhetorical theory especially appropriate to the sermo. Here also Lucilius will be found to be entirely familiar with this rhetorical theory of ironic humor, and yet to have transgressed the limits of that theory too freely to meet with the approval of the more urbane standards of the Augustan age. Yet it will be shown that

« PreviousContinue »