The Press. — London, England, 1856-01-05 00:00:00

dothkitv 5, 1856. are foregone—weverything is referred to the Immediate ope ration of a god. " Cloud-compelling " 'Lens Is the anthot of the phenomena of the air ; " earth-shaking " Poseidon o f all that happens in the water under the earth; nymphs are attached to every spring and tree ; Demeter, or Mother Earth, for six months rep ces in the presence of Proser pine, the green herb, her daughter, and for sik months regrets her absence in dark abodes beneath the earth. This tendency to deify the powers of Nature is doe partly to a cleat atmosphere and sonny climate, which in clines a people to live much in the open air in close com minion with all that nature offers to charm the senses and excite the imagination, partly to the character of the people, and partly to the poets who in early times have wrought these legendary tales into works, which are teed with in creased delight in ages when science and method have banished the simple faith which procared acceptance fcr the legends. Too much is here attributed to " the personi• " fication of the powers of Nature " by the Greeks. Even in the majority of the legends of that most imaginative people there is a positive foundation (more or less) of some actual historical truth. The myths of the deeds of Hercules, the Argonautin expedition, the wanderings and adventures of Ulysses, cannot by any means be considered as mere re presentations of generalised thoughts, founded on a poetical personification of the powers of Nature. We agree with Julius Miiller in thinking that the whole Grecian mythology rests upon an historical basis (or, as that learned Gerinan.put it "upon a copious recollection " of an earlier and nobler period, and upon " the deeds and destiny of a more powerful " race." The complex na ture of the philosophy of the myth is visible in the variety of meanings in which the word has been em ployed by poets, philosophers, and critics. Suidas explains "myth" as "a speech of " falsehood imaging the truth "—a meaning foreign to the use of the word by the EDielt retina, though it is used by Plato frequently, as in the " Republic," in order to denote by it the fictions by which the nurse and mother ought, to form the mind of children, though the dialogue afterwards distinguishes between the various kinds of myths. Unfortunately, "the nurses" have a vast work in false educa tion. Dryden writes : By education must have been misled, So we believe because we so were bred. The priest continues what the nurse began, And thus the child imposes on the man. Nations, like individuals, have their childhood and old age. A special examination of the myths that have been produce" in ages of decline would be most interesting. There is too much looseness of assertion in the following passage This tendency to hero-worship, which is indicated by the prevalence of the heroic legend, generally exerts its influence to a very late period in a nation's life, or rather it may be said never to die away entirely. A correeter natural philosophy has banished from most minds this belief in particular divine beings exercising particular in fluence on streams, and skies, and trees. But no sooner does a man occupy any space in the public mind than all kinds of tales concerning his sayings and doings pass cur cut from mouth to mouth, and things are believed of him either for good or evil which have very slender Foundation in truth. To children their parents, to young people their masters, to grown men their poets and philosophers, their statesmen and generals, or any one who raises himself above the crowd by extraordinary 'talons, good or bad, have an existence more or less mythical; that is, they are the heroes of many tales, which are unconsciously in vented, transmitted, altered, magnified, and believed. Edu cation and the press have done much to diminish this propensity to inytliology—the more persons are brought into immediate contact with the great the more are they disabused of imaginative fancies with regard to them. But the spirit can never wholly be eradicated, nor Indeed Is its eradication productive of unmixed good. It is Impossible to conceive a society of men so penetrated by philosophical culture as to have become incapable of inventing and re ceiving legendary tales in some shape or other. " A correcter natural philosophy " could have had little influence on nationt in the peculiar social state of the Romans; and what was the influence of physics amongst them, when the later emperors took to deifying themselves ? We think also that mixingup " hero-worship" (as it is understood in our time) with the consideration of historical myths, tends to confusion. Sarcastic critics might see in the foregoing passage a vein of remark not in• apin•opriate to Mr. Macaulay's semi-deification of King William. The New Zealander will doubtless have opportunities of subtilising his intellect in the history of (to quote Dean Liddell's words) " heroes of many tales, which " arc unconsciously invented, transmitted, N Tll E pnEss, "altered, magnified, itnd . —." no, not" believed'," except amongst 'orthodox MaCaulayites. The story of the Catiline conspiracy is told tamely by Dean Liddell. There is feebleness in the account of his death—described by Sallust so tersely and vividly : Before the execution of his accoMplices, Catiline tvas at the, head of two complete legions, consisting chiefly of Syfla's veterans. But servile insurrections in Apulia and other places, on which Catiline counted, were promptly repressed : his own small army was very imperfectly armed ; and their leader avoided a conflict with Antonius, who was continued in command as Proconsul. When the failure of the plot at home reached the insurgents, many deserted ; and Catiline endeavoured to make good his retreat by Pis toja into Cisalpine Gaul. But the passes were alre.ely beset by the Proprietor Metellus Celer ; the Consul Antonius was close behind ; and it became necessary either to fight or surrender. Catiline and his desperadoes chose the braver course. His small army was drawn up with skill. Antonitts, mindful of former intimacy with Catiline, alleged illness as a plea for giving up the command of his troops to M. Petreius, a skilful soldier. A short but desperate conflict followed. Mallius and his best officers fell fighting bravely. Catiline, after doing the duties of a good general and a brave soldier, saw that the day was lost, and rushing into the thick of battle fell with many wounds. He was taken up, still breathing, with a menacing frown stamped upon his brow. None were taken prisoners ; all who died had their wounds in front. The question how far Salhist was a mere pamphleteer, and Cicero an oratorical alarmist, has given rise to some ingenious conjectures amongst scholars of our own time. Catiline has not wanted adroit apologists, and a living historian has applauded Caesar for his at tempts to crush the aristocracy of Rome. As to Caesars alleged complicity with the first Catiline conspiracy, Dean Liddell judiciously observes : In truth, - f evidence to prove Cicsar's complicity with Catiline, there was really none; and the further the case is examined the less appears to be the probability of such complicity. The course he had pursued for the purpose of undermining the power Of the senatorial aristocracy was perfectly consistent, and had been so successful hitherto, that he was little likely to abandon it at this precise moment for a scheme of reckless ruin and violence, from which others would reap the chief advantage. Even if Catiline had succeeded, he must have been crushed almost immediately by Pompey, who was preparing to return to Italy at the head of his victorious legions. The desire of Cesar to save the lives of Lentulus. Cethegus, and the rest, is at once explained, when we remember that he had just before promoted the prosecution of Rabirius for obey ing an order of the very kind against which he now argued. As the leader of the party of the Gracchi, of Saturninus, and of Marius, it was his cue always and everywhere to protest against the absolute power assumed by the Senate in such emergencies, as unconstitutional and illegal. It is possi ble that he may have suspected the designs of Catiline; and at an earlier period he may have been sounded by that reckless person as a well-known opponent of the Senate. lint without claiming for Caesar any credit for principle or scrupulosity, we may safely conclude that it was utterly inexpedient for him to have any dealings with Catiline ; and we may be sure that he WAS the last man to be mis led into a rash enterprise which was not expedient for himself. - - ----------- In his comments upon several similar dis puted passages of Roman story, Dean Liddell ought to have quoted the conflicting authorities, and referred in the notes to the works, wherein students would pursue the subjects further. Character-writing is not the forte of Dean Liddell. He wants the subtle talent which distinctively marks individualities. What he has written of Hannibal might be applied to many other generals. His view of Coesar's character is better executed. We shall cite some of it:— Thus died " the foremost man in all the world," a man who failed ih nothing that he attempted. He might, Cicero thought, have been a great orator ; his Cornmeal. t:u•ies remain to prove that he was a great writer. As a general he had few superiors; as a statesman and poli• tician no equal. That which stamps him as a man of true greatness is the entire absence of all vanity and self-con ceit from his character. If it were not known that Cesar was the narrator of Ids own campaigns, no one could guess that cold and dispassionate narrative to be Horn his pen. His genial temper and easy unaffected manners hear testi. mony to the same point. It is well known, indeed, that he paid great attention to his personal appearance—a foible Which he shared in common with many great men equally free from other vanity. In youth he was strikingly handsome, and was the welcome lover of many dissolute Roman names. His hard life and unremitting activity had furrowed his face with lines, and left him with that meagre visage which is made familiar to us from his coins. To the same cause is to be attributed his liability, in after life, to fits of an epileptic nature. But even in these days he was sedulous in arranging his robes, and was pleased to have the privilege of wearing a laurel crown to hide the scantiness of his hair. His morality in domestic life was not better or worse than commonly prevailed in those licentious days. He indulged in profligate amours freely and without scruple. But public opinion reproached him not for this. When it was sought blacken his character, c:imes of a deeper (lie w•er ; but they 17 were never provtd, 'era he alvil46 inclignintly denied them. That is not a j'ortrait of Ctesar so much as a judgment upon him. He winds it up with the following reflection His political career was troubled by no scruples to gain his end he was utterly careless of the means. But before we judge him severely, we must remem ber the manner in which the Marian party had been trampled under foot by Sylla and the Senate. If, however, the mode in which he rose to power was questionable, the mode in which he exercised it was admirable. By the action of constant civil broils the constitutional system of Rome had given way to anarchy, and there seemed no escape except by submission to the strong domination of one capable man. The only effect of Cresar's fall was to cause a renewal of bloodshed for another half generation; and then his work was finished by a far less noble and generous ruler. Those who slew Caesar were guilty of a great crime, and a still greater blunder. It is in that easy, colloquial manner that the author gives his opinions on knotty ques tions. When describing the famous battle of Zama Dean LiddellzAtes Thus was Hannibal defeated, but not subdued. The battle of Zama has often been compared to that of Waterloo. In both the two greatest generals of the respec tive nations met for the first time; and in both the more famous chief, fighting with an array hastily drawn top ther in defence of his country, was defeated. But in other points they were unlike. Waterloo left France help less ; and her ruler had no hope but iu withdrawing from her shores. Here it would have been well to have men tioned iu detail the points of resemblance between Zama and Waterloo. Livy might have been cited with great advantage. For example, in the commencement of his account of the battle Livy writes :—" Erexerant om " nium animos Scipio et Hannibal, velut ad " supremum certamen comparati duces. . . . , "Ad hoc discrimen procedunt poster() din " duo•urn opulentissorum populorum longs " clarissimi daces, duo fortissimi exercitus, " multa ante parts decora, ant eumulaturi etl " die aut eversuri"—language singularly ap plicable to the tremendous eventuality immi nent at Waterloo. But " Crurwood's Despatches " enables uS to point out a still closer analogy between Zama. and Waterloo. Thus Livy records that Hannibal, even in the opinion of Scipio, showed rare military art :—" Hannibal cum " paucis equitibus inter tumultum elapsus " Adrumetum perfugit, omnia et in prtelio et " ante aciem priusquam excederet pugna ex• " pertus, et confessione etiam Scipionis, " omnium gtte peritorum militite, illam laudem " adeptus sing►ulari arte aciem co die in •' struxisse." It is very curious that the Duke of Wellington, a couple of days after Waterloo, wrote to Lady Mornington as follows:—" Bona " parte did his duty. Ile fought the battle with " infinite skill, perseverance, and bravery; and " this I do not say from any personal motive " of claiming merit to myself, for the victory " is to be ascribed to the superior physical " force and invincible constancy of British " soldiers." These are singularpoints of resem blance worthy of special notice. The opinion of the best military critics, " omnium peritorutn " Milithe," has been that Napoleon showed wonderful talent in his plan for separating Wellington and Blucher, so as to engage them in detail. The recorded tributes of Scipio and Wellington to the amazing genius of their mighty adversaries is a most remarkable coincidence. We have rarely seen a work which could be more improved in a second edition; and even in its present state its utility deserves to be so rewarded. We think that Dean Liddell should expand, and not contract, his history. He should assign a special portion to a suc cinct classification of the authorities for Roman story, and discriminate more closely between the legendary and the half-historical periods. A dissertation on the modern classical critics, with an enumeration of their best portions, would be a most valuable addi tion to the work. There are too many separate sections in every chapter, and wo should prefer a smoother narrative. As a writer for schools we do not think the Dean of Christ Church well adapted. His mariner is too dry, but his sense is always weighty and manly ; and we do not object to the strongly Euglieh character impressed on his pages. Tables of chronology, and a map of the empire, are also wanted fur completeness. In short, to be