tion of character, and the like; in order that they might not transfer their pupils to the rhetoricians no better than ill-taught boys. But I perceive that these lessons are now given up in some cases, on account of the want of application, or the tender years, of the scholar, for I do not believe that it arises from any dislike in the master. I recollect that when I was a boy it was the custom of one of these, whose name was Princeps, to take alternate days for declaiming and disputing; and sometimes he would lecture in the morning, and declaim in the afternoon, when he had his pulpit removed. I heard, also, that even within the memories of our own fathers, some of the pupils of the grammarians passed directly from the schools to the courts, and at once took a high place in the ranks of the most distinguished advocates. The professors at that time were, indeed, men of great eminence, of some of whom I may be able to give an account in the following chapters.

Selections from the Lives of Eminent Rhetoricians, by Suetonius

I. Rhetoric, also, as well as Grammar, was not introduced amongst us till a late period, and with still more difficulty, inasmuch as we find that, at times, the practice of it was even prohibited. In order to leave no doubt of this, I will subjoin an ancient decree of the senate, as well as an edict of the censors: "In the consulship1 of Caius Fannius Strabo, and Marcus Valerius Messala: the prætor Marcus Pomponius moved the senate, that an act be passed respecting Philosophers and Rhetoricians. In this matter, they have decreed as follows: 'IT SHALL BE LAWFUL for M. Pomponius, the prætor, to take such measures, and make such provisions, as the good of the Republic, and the duty of his office, require, that no Philosophers or Rhetoricians be suffered at Rome.'

"After some interval, the censor 2 Cnæus Domitius Ænobarbus and Lucius Lucinius Crassus issued the following edict upon the same subject: 'IT IS REPORTED to us that 1 592 A.U.C.; 161 B.C.

2 92 B.C.

certain persons have instituted a new kind of discipline; that our youth resort to their schools; that they have assumed the title of Latin Rhetoricians; and that young men waste their time there for whole days together. Our ancestors have ordained what instruction it is fitting their children should receive, and what schools they should attend. These novelties, contrary to the customs and instructions of our ancestors, we neither approve, nor do they appear to us good. Wherefore it appears to be our duty that we should notify our judgment both to those who keep such schools, and those who are in the practice of frequenting them, that they meet our disapprobation.'

However, by slow degrees, rhetoric manifested itself to be a useful and honourable study, and many persons devoted themselves to it both, as a means of defence and of acquiring reputation. Cicero declaimed in Greek until his prætorship, but afterwards, as he grew older, in Latin also; and even in the consulship of Hirtius and Pansa, whom he calls "his great and noble disciples." Some historians state that Cneius Pompey 2 resumed the practice of declaiming even during the civil war, in order to be better prepared to argue against Caius Curio, a young man of great talents, to whom the defence of Cæsar was entrusted. They say, likewise, that it was not forgotten by Mark Antony, nor by Augustus, even during the war of Modena. Nero also declaimed even after he became emperor, in the first year of his reign, which he had done before in public but twice. Many speeches of orators were also published. In consequence, public favour was so much attracted to the study of rhetoric, that a vast number of professors and learned men devoted themselves to it; and it flourished to such a degree, that some of them raised themselves by it to the rank of senators and the highest offices.

But the same mode of teaching was not adopted by all, nor, indeed, did individuals always confine themselves to the same system, but each varied his plan of teaching according to circumstances. For they were accustomed, in stating their argument with the utmost clearness, to use figures and apologies, to put cases, as circumstances required, and to relate facts, sometimes briefly and succinctly,

1

43 B.C.

2 With Cæsar and Crassus formed the first triumvirate.

and, at other times, more at large and with greater feeling. Nor did they omit, on occasion, to resort to translations from the Greek, and to expatiate in the praise, or to launch their censures on the faults, of illustrious men. They also dealt with matters connected with every-day life, pointing out such as are useful and necessary, and such as are hurtful and needless. They had occasion often to support the authority of fabulous accounts, and to detract from that of historical narratives, which sort the Greeks call "Propositions," "Refutations" and "Corroborations," until by a gradual process they have exhausted these topics, and arrive at the gist of the argument.

Among the ancients, subjects of controversy were drawn either from history, as indeed some are even now, or from actual facts, of recent occurrence. It was, therefore, the custom to state them precisely, with details of the names of places. We certainly so find them collected and published, and it may be well to give one or two of them literally, by way of example:

A company of young men from the city, having made an excursion to Ostia in the summer season, and going down to the beach, fell in with some fishermen who were casting their nets in the sea. Having bargained with them for the haul, whatever it might turn out to be, for a certain sum, they paid down the money. They waited a long time while the nets were being drawn, and when at last they were dragged on shore, there was no fish in them, but some gold sewn up in a basket. The buyers claim the haul as theirs, the fishermen assert that it belongs to them."

Again: "Some dealers having to land from a ship at Brundusium a cargo of slaves, among which there was a handsome boy of great value, they, in order to deceive the collectors of the customs, smuggled him ashore in the dress of a freeborn youth, with the bullum1 hung about his neck. The fraud easily escaped detection. They proceed to Rome; the affair becomes the subject of judicial inquiry; it is alleged that the boy was entitled to his freedom, because his master had voluntarily treated him as free."

1 A circular piece of metal, or leather, worn by Roman children, suspended from the neck. It was laid aside at adolescence as a sign of manhood.

III. CONTRAST BETWEEN EARLIER AND LATER PERIODS OF ROMAN EDUCATION

The Periods. As became a practical, sturdy, severe, and reverential people, with respect for tradition and a genius for originating and preserving institutions, the change in educational ideas and practices came very much more gradually with the Romans than with the Greeks. The contrast here offered is essentially that between the third period (the last century of the Republic and the first two centuries of the Empire) and the first and second periods. While in the second period schools had become common and Grecian educational ideas and practices were being steadily introduced, education for the typical Roman was still essentially a home process, and even so far as it had become institutionalized was not yet literary. The first essentially literary school was that of Spurius Carvilius, opened in 260 B.C. Accordingly to Plutarch, he was the first to take fixed fees for his instruction. Elementary schools, however, undoubtedly existed before this time. Less than a generation later, Livius Andronicus, the founder of Roman epic and dramatic poetry, latinized the Odyssey, which soon shared with the Laws of the Twelve Tables the first place in Roman schools. Not until the middle of the second century B.C. does education cease to be essentially Roman. The conquest of Greece led to the free introduction and imitation of Grecian ideas, and soon thereafter Rome

becomes, on the intellectual side, thoroughly Hellenized. In this latter connection, a decree of the Senate passed in 161 B.C. may be taken as the epochal mark. This decree called for the expulsion of the philosophers and rhetoricians from Rome. The account of the decree as given by Suetonius has already been presented. Its provisions were non-effective; its significance is rather as an indication of a fact accomplished than of a reform instituted. The contrast presented in this section is not, then, between the decadent education of the late imperial times and the early Roman, but rather that between the Græco-Roman education at its best (the third period of Roman education) and the old Roman education at its best.

As

The Sources. Their Interpretation. The evidences of this transition, be it development or decline, are abundant, as are also literary references to the change. Yet conscious comparisons with direct reference to the educational changes are rarer than those concerning the similar transition with the Greeks. This is due partly to the fact that the change was less sharp than with the Greeks; partly, to the fact that the Latins did not give full expression to all their life in permanent literary form. sources, two direct comparisons, of widely different character, are here given. One of these dates from almost two centuries before the Christian era, the other from three-quarters of a century after its beginning. Evidently the same conditions cannot enter into the comparison, though the general characteristics of the old education are substantially the same in each selection. The first is a very brief comparison found in the Bacchides of Plautus (Act III., Scene 3), first presented in 189 B.C. The poet begins by presenting the main features of the old Roman educa