Niebuhr's lectures on Roman history, Vol. 3 (of 3)Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
History
Niebuhr's lectures on Roman history, Vol. 3 (of 3)
Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
Rome -- History
The political weakness of Greece in those days, before the might of
Rome, is not greater than the absolute nullity of Greek literature as
compared with the richness of the Roman one. The Greeks were then
nothing but rhetoricians and grammarians, though these certainly deserve
an honourable mention: of poems, there are none worth speaking of; even
of epigrammatic talent there never yet was such a dearth: only a few
wretched epigrams date from that age. Dionysius of Halicarnassus stands
alone as a man distinguished for sense and judgment: it is therefore not
to be wondered at, that the Romans in this respect also felt superior to
the Greeks; and they did not perhaps feel it as much as they should have
done. In the latter days of Augustus, literature again went down hill
most rapidly; and under Tiberius it had completely run itself out. Those
who were the leaders of taste, and brought on the silver era, were Greek
rhetoricians, mostly from the Levant. From old Greece, as far as I know,
Plutarch is for many centuries after Polybius the only writer of
eminence.
PRIVATE LIFE OF AUGUSTUS. AGRIPPA. MÆCENAS. FAMILY CONNEXIONS.
BUILDINGS.
The very many statues and busts which yet remain of Augustus, bear out
the statement of Suetonius, that he was an uncommonly fine man. His
_decora facies_ he still had even in his old age; we may trace the
likeness in his busts throughout the different periods of his life. He
is so beautiful that I very nearly got his bust; but his personal
character deterred me. He was however a remarkable man in every respect.
What he was reproached with by the ancients, was want of courage; but
this is an imputation which is easily made, especially if there is some
foundation for it after all; yet there were, on the other hand,
instances also in which he undeniably showed courage. In the war of
Philippi, there is indeed some ground for such a charge: at Mutina, he
perhaps was guilty of treachery; but in the Pompeian war, no reproach of
the kind attaches to him. He was a bad general, and had no more luck in
the field than he had in his domestic relations. His falseness and
cruelty, I have before described; yet he had also his good qualities: he
was a friend to his friends, and put up with many things from them;
which considering his pride, is very surprising: towards Agrippa and
Mæcenas, he was neither faithless nor unthankful. In his domestic
relations, he was regardless of character. He had at first been
betrothed to Antony’s stepdaughter Clodia, but the match was broken off;
then he married Scribonia, who bore him Julia of unhappy notoriety; and
then he put her away, and compelled Tib. Claudius Nero, who had once
been proscribed as a partisan of Brutus, and who was also one of the
best of the family of the Claudii, to give up to him Livia. Livia, whose
ambition and thirst of power for her own family knew no bounds, and who
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account