rious to collate the lists, which Mr. Dunlop furnishes, of the lost tragedies of Ennius, Attius, Pacuvius, &c. They are all-to judge from their names and the fragments-upon subjects that had been treated by the Greek tragedians, and were no doubt very coarse and imperfect imitations of those beautiful works. The Paulus of Pacuvius is the first, and one of exceedingly few instances of the Tragedia Prætextata, or tragedy turning upon a domestic story. All the comedies of Plautus and Terence are professed translations of Menander, Philemon, and other Greek writers how free or literal need not be mentioned here.* In a word, if those heroic ballads or metrical chronicles, in which Niebuhr supposes the principal events of Roman story for the first four centuries to have been versified, ever existed at all, they had not the effect of giving rise to any thing like a national poetry at a more advanced period of letters.

The phenomenon, which the early Literary History of Rome thus presents, is easily explained. The nation was essentially practical. Sallust, speaking of the Athenian wits who had extolled the glory of their country to the skies in their writings, expresses himself as follows:-"The Roman people never possessed the same advantage, because, with us, the ambition of men of talents was to excel in the conduct of affairs. No one addicted himself to speculative pursuits. The best men chose rather to act than to speak well-to have their own deeds recorded by others, than to relate what others had done. So that, both at home and abroad, in peace and in war, good morals were the great object of their attention and discipline." These good morals could not exist, according to the true Roman standard, without mortifying and subduing those feelings which are the very soul of poetry and eloquence. Their langauge, as might have been expected, bore the impress of their opinions upon these subjects. The highest and favorite epithets of praise are vir fortis vir gravis: courage and constancy, with a sort of toical gravity and austerity, were, it seems, essential to their idea of virtue. They were predestined to the conquest of the world and the government of mankind, and they seem to have pursued these great objects from the very first, with a single eye and a systematic and inflexible ambition. Almost all politcal power, notwithstanding the veto of the Tribune, and the occasional disorders of the Comitia Tributa, was practically vested in the Patrician order. These haughty and martial descendants of Censors and Consuls of the Furii, the Junii, the Cornelii,-would

* [See them mentioned, Brutus, c. 19.]

[Quæ omnes artes in veri investigatione versantur, cujus studio a rebus gerendis abduci contra officium est; virtutis enim laus omnis in actione consistit. Cic. de Offic. 1. i. c. 6. Et iis forsitan concedendum sit rempublicam non capessentibus qui excellenti engenio, &c. Ib. c. 21.]

have thought themselves degraded by literary pursuits. It would have been considered as a proof of degenerate sloth-a despicable effeminacy and poorness of spirit in a young man to exchange the hopes of a triumph, and the glory of adding to the images and honors of his family, even for the highest possible distinction in the studies of Greeks and slaves. Their military training and service were alone sufficient to preclude these studies in the earlier and severer ages of the Commonwealth-Ingenium nemo sine corpore exercebat. This aversion from literary pursuits was not the effect of mere ignorance or rudeness, but of system and policy. These ancient Romans were an eminently enlightened people. Their scheme of conquest had been organized with profound wisdom, all the departments of their government were filled with consummate skill and ability, and in every sense of the word, "there was nothing barbarous in the discipline of these barbarians." It ought not to surprise us, therefore, to find the prejudices we are speaking of so deeply rooted and inveterate at Rome. It is plain, from the pains which Cicero* takes, in so many parts of his philosophical writings, to apologise for the composing of them, that he felt the studies of Plato to be somewhat unworthy of himself; Virgil characterises his own pursuits as "studia ignobilis otii," and there is a remarkable passage in the life of Agricola, which shews that, even in his time, the dignity or the duties of "a Roman and a Senator" did not permit him to be very profoundly versed in philosophy and learning. At Athens, on the contrary, and, indeed, throughout all Greece, the enthusiasm of the people for works of genius and taste, showed itself on all occasions, in the liveliest demonstrations of admiration and homage for those who excelled in them. Sophocles held the rank of General along with Thucydides and Pericles—a matchless combination! We are assured by Aristophanes, the grammarian, in his "Argument" to the Antigone, that the success of that tragedy got its author the command in the Samian expedition, while the verses of Euripides softened even the bitterness of hatred and hostility, and saved from butchery, in a war of extermination, all who were fortunate enough to be able to repeat them.

Certainly nothing could be more unfavourable to literature, especially to its more refined productions, than the state of public opinion at Rome, and the whole spirit and character of her institutions as they are pourtrayed in the preceding observations. Not to speak of the more direct and obvious discourage

[*De Off. II. c. 1 and 2.-N. D. 1. 4-Lucull (2 Acad.) c. 2—de Fin.— l. 1. c. 1 Orat. c. 41.

+Memoriâ teneo solitum ipsum (Agricolam) narrare se, in prima juventa, studium philosophiæ acrius ultrà quam concessum Romano et senatori, hausisse, &c. c. 4. [Cf. Sallust. De B. J., proem.]

ments that have been alluded to, there was something essentially tame and prosaical in such a condition of society. "Ce n'est pas aux lois les plus sages, says M. de Sismondi, aux temps d'ordre et de prosperité, qu' est réservé le plus grand développement del' imagination chez un peuple." This position is strikingly exemplified by the history of France, from the 11th to the 15th century. In the first half of this period, the nation was exclusively under the influence, and received all its impulses from the character and pursuits of the seigneurs de chateaux. In the second, the commercial spirit of the towns predominated. The lawless Baron, who held only his sword, and, submitting to no sovereign, scarcely deigned to acknowledge a superior

Che libito fe' licito in sua legge

and whose castle was an emblem and epitome of the existence which it protected, with its moat and drawbridge for retreat and seclusion, its turretted battlements for defence, its donjon keep where the captive pined in darkness and chains, its hall resounding with revelry and merriment, with the minstrel's song and the dance of the gay and the fair-if not himself a Troubadour, like Cœur de Lion, or Alfonso I., was at least the natural friend of the Troubadour. This simple, but pleasing and peculiar poetry, accordingly flourished under their favour and cultivation. Under the influence of the commercial spirit, on the contrary, it died away--men at arms yielded to men of business-the useful supplanted the agreeable, and the arugo et cura peculi, of which Horace speaks, produced the same effect in France as at Rome.

The following remarks of Mr. Dunlop deserve to be cited in this connection :

"Literary history is, secondly, of importance, as being the index of the character and condition of a people-as holding up a mirror, which reflects the manners and customs of remote or ancient nations. The less influence, however, which literature exercises, the less valuable will be its picture of life and manners. It must also be admitted that, from a separate cause, the early periods, at least, of Roman literature possess not in this point of view any peculiar attractions. When literature is indigenous, as it was in Greece, where authors were guided by no antecedent system, and their compositions were shaped on no other model than the objects themselves which they were occupied in delineating, or the living passions they pourtrayed, an accurate estimate of the general state of manners and feeling may be drawn from works written at various epochs of the national history. But, at Rome, the pursuit of literature was neither a native nor predominant taste among the people. The Roman territory was always a foreign soil for letters, which was not the produce of national genius, but were naturalized by the assiduous culture of a few individuals reared in the schools of Greece. Indeed, the early Roman authors, particularly the dramatic, who, of all others, best illustrate the prevalent ideas and sentiments of a nation, were mere translators from the Greek. Hence those delineations, which at first view might appear to

be characteristic national sketches, are in fact the draught of foreign manners, and the mirror of customs which no Roman adopted, or of sentiments in which, perhaps, no Roman participated.

"Since, then, the literature of Rome exercised but a limited influence on the conduct of its citizens, and as it reciprocally reflects but a partial light on their manners and institutions, its history must, in a great measure, consist of biographical sketches of authors-of critical accounts of their works-and an examination of the influence which these works have exercised on modern literature. The authors of Rome were, in their characters, and the events of their lives, more interesting than the writers of any ancient or modern land. The authors who flourished during the existence of the Roman Republic, were Cato, the Censor, Cicero and Cæsar: men who (independently of their literary claims to celebrity) were unrivalled in their own age and country, and have scarcely been surpassed in any other. I need not here anticipate those observations which the works of the Roman authors will suggest in the following pages. Though formed on a model which has been shaped by the Greeks, we shall perceive, through that spirit of imitation which marks all their literary productions, a tone of practical utility, derived from the familiar acquaintance which their writers exercised with the business and affairs of life; and also that air of nationality, which was acquired from the greatness and unity of the Roman Republic, and could not be expected in literary works, produced where there was a subdivision of states in the same country, as in Greece, modern Italy, Germany and Britain. We shall remark a characteristic authority of expression, a gravity, circumspection, solidity of understanding, and dignity of sentiment, produced partly by the moral firmness that distinguished the character of the Romans, their austerity of manners, and tranquillity of temper, but chiefly by their national pride, and the exalted name of Roman citizen, which their authors bore. And finally, we shall recognize that love of rural retirement, which originated in the mode of life of the ancient Italians, and was augmented by the pleasing contrast, which the undisturbed repose and simple enjoyments of rural existence presented to the bustle of an immense and agitated capital. In the last point of view that has been alluded to-the influence which these works have exercised on modern letters-it cannot be denied that the literary history of Rome is peculiarly interesting. If the Greeks gave the first impulse to literature, the Romans engraved the traces of its progress deeper on the world."-Pref. ix-xi.

Mr. Dunlop remarks that "there are three great ages in the literary history of Rome-that which precedes the era of Augustus the epoch which is stamped with the name of that emperor, and the interval which commenced immediately after his death, and may be considered as extending to the destruction of Rome." In the present volumes, he has brought down his work only to Cicero, inclusive. Whether he shall extend his researches to the other two periods, will depend, he assures us, on the reception which his first effort may obtain from the public. We are happy to learn that a third volume has recently issued from the press, the contents of which, together with the multifarious remains of the great Roman orator, and the remarks of our author concerning Sallust, and the older historians, may furnish the materials of a future article. For the present, we shall confine ourselves to the following heads: 1. Etruria and

the Latin Language. 2. The Drama, including the Attellane Fables and the Mimes. 3. Miscellaneous Literature.

1. The origin of the first inhabitants of those Italian States, which were finally merged in the Roman Republic, is hidden in the mist of ages-nor are the antiquities of India or of Egypt more impenetrable than those of Etruria. Discouraging, however, as a subject wrapped up in so much obscurity, might be expected to prove, it has attracted the most persevering researches, and excited endless controversy both among the ancients and the moderns. The situation of Italy-accessible on all sides but one by sea-afforded facilities, while the fertility of its soil and the softness of its delicious climate, were a strong temptation to those wandering tribes whose adventurous emigrations so frequently occur in the early history of all nations. It is very probable, therefore, that this rich and beautiful peninsula received colonies, in a remote age, from many different points in the extensive coast of the Mediterranean, the Ægean and the Adriatic; nor ought it to surprise us that Egyptian, Phoenician and Greek customs, and even names, may be recognised in various parts of it. Nothing, it is evident therefore, can be more unsafe than to build up a theory on such facts and appearances as these, with a view to explain the first peopling of the country. What greatly confirms this view of the subject is, that "there is scarcely an ancient history or document entitled to credit, and recording the arrival of a colony in Italy, which does not mention that the new comers found prior tribes, with whom they waged war or intermixed."

Judging from our own distaste for antiquarian researches, we suppose our readers to be as little inclined to receive, as we are to furnish, a detailed account of the various hypotheses, or rather wild guessing, to which this puzzling question has given rise. We will content ourselves, therefore, with stating, in a very summary manner, some of the more prominent opinions that have been entertained in relation to it, as they are set forth by our author. The earliest is that of Herodotus," who represents the Etruscans as a colony of Lydians, who were themselves a tribe of wandering Pelasgi. In the reign of Atys, son of Menes, a sore famine made it necessary that half of the Lydian nation should go abroad in quest of food, under Tyrrhenus, a son of that monarch. It was not, however, before they had tried, for eighteen years together, the singular expedient of fasting every other day, and inventing all the common games and pastimes, to forget, if possible, their hunger in their amusement, that they repaired to Smyrna, where they built vessels and committed themselves to the mercy of the winds and the fates. After touching upon various shores, they at length settled in Umbria, * Clio, c. 94.