The record-union., 1898-02-06

1t contains no essential errors of recital
of historical fact. But it does treat of
some historical events concerning which
there is divergence of authority. among
not only the contemporaneous
writers Of that day, but among
modern scholars. It does contain
error of detail but this relates
most largely to mere nomenclature, and
to misconception OF Latin meanings.
For instance, the warrior hero is de-.
scribed as domiciled in a building that
| was really tenement house, not such
dwelling as a man of his rank and
wealth, though a bachelor, would be
likely TO occupy.
| There are errors also that amount to
literary blunders. For instance. in re-
/ lation to the writings of Petronius:
| In the second chapter he is described
as purchasing at book shop a copy of
his own work, the "Satyricon." DIETER
! "Satira'o while in the eleventh chapter he
is said to be still at work upon his Feast
of Trimalchio" But the Feast of Tri-
malchio" is not. as the author appears
to think, a work separate from the
'Satyricon," but is merely one of the
episodes contained in that curious book,
the best remaining specimen of the an
Gent novel. A famous saying which has
been often misquoted in modern times is
ascrbed to Petronius in the misquoted
form. This is me sutor ultra crepi-
improperly me sutor supra crepi-
DAM
! Proper names are several times incor-
rectly given, as Vitelius for Vitellius.
and Caius for Gaius. So. too, there are
some historical errors, as for instance,
where the slave of a Roman is de-
scribed as pitted by the smallpox, when
there is no record whatever to show that
such disease was known at that period.
Archaeologically Professor Peck APP
proves the volume, though it is clear
that Sienl1iewicz is not an archaeolo-
gist, but his work is in the main accur-
ate on that side of it.
| AS to delineation of historical charac-
ters Peck believes the work to be faith
full a verdict that Will be gratefully re-
ceived by such of it's readers as must
trust to authorities like Professor Peck.
For there is nothing that more disturbs
the mind than the feeling of doubt or
suspicion concerning the accuracy of
recital in a book with which one be-
comes enamored. Any lingering dis
trust on that point, whether it arises
from lack of knowledge of the facts or
| from doubt as to the reliability of as
serted proofs greatly lessons the value
and pleasure one has the right to eX-
pect from an authors work.
Professor Peck thinks that he is fully
justified in saying that Sienkiewicz has
exaggerated the repulsive features in
Nero's character and suppressed some
redeeming traits. This moral monster
is set before the reader with a vivid
ness that is intense, but his vanity is
ffattery. In fact, Professor Peck thinks
that the Nero of the book is largely
caricature.
/ 1t is possible that this was the pur-
4 pOSG VI tiic oQtihJl. Atell TIC iiolio4CS
his colors thus extravagantly and
piled them on With set purpose. For
while it is extravagantly drawn, as
Professor Peck says, it is clear that
Sienkiewicz intended to make Nero ut
terly repulsive, that the contrasts Of
his picture might be the stronger. In
fact it is revealed to the close reader
that the Nero Of the volume is an ex-
aggeration in detail, but with positive
insistence that in all material concerns
it is the Nero Of truth.
Professor Peck takes no exception
whatever to the descriptions of extrava-
! CANT display of wealth in Rome, the
gorgeous feasts, the great pageants, the
| shameless revels, and that wallow in
license which is SO repulsive while SO
dramatically powerful in description
The critic comedies also, that the pic
ture of Rome of that day is correctly
warning that readers of the book
should keep in mind. namely that while
/ Rome was what tQuo Vadis" tells US,
it was not representative Of the Roman
Empire in the first century The Cap
ital was a seething mass of debauch-
cry and corruption, but there was A
wide moral difference between the City
of Rome and the Empire as a whole.
As a matter of fact. the Roman city
was, as an eminent modern historian
has described her, the lightning-rod
that drew upon itself all the bolts of
horror and destruction, to leave the
rest of the Empire blessed with smil-
ing peace and political contentment, in
it's role of tributary. and purveyor to
the capital. For il is not true that the
| provinces in the first century Were
tainted and terT'orized as was the seat
lof Government, and hence the folly is
egregious of those who talk so glbly
about the corruption Of the Roman
people as the cause Of the Empires
lultimate disfnemberment. These per-
sons are, in fact, the same unsuspect-
ling and guileless souls who think that
the defeat of France in the Franco
PruSsian war was due to moral causes
and was tribute TO the superior virtue
of the Germans-a pleasing tenet i'm
possible to any one familiar with the
darker phases of modern German life.
Rome itself, however, was just the
Rome that Quo Vadis'' reveals to us.
It's ablest men had long before laid by
the old religion in everything except the
picturesque and stately forms that still
were vaguely reminiscent of the days
Of national virility; and they had begun
| q - he nd Oh nh