Page images
PDF
EPUB

6

vated to undue pride. Very different is the tone of the later inscriptions. Already in the early part of the third century B.c. that acute observer, Theophrastos, notes it as a characteristic of the overbusy and fussy man, that when his wife dies he inscribes on her tombstone not only her own name, but that of her husband, father, and mother, announcing to the world that all these were worthy persons.' This sort of domestic information, which to the sarcastic mind of Theophrastos seemed ridiculous, is a very common feature of the sepulchral inscriptions of the Roman period, and both in the praises bestowed on the deceased, and in the allusions to the grief of those who have to bemoan their loss, there is a constant tendency to hyperbole. The terse language of the ancient Simonidean epitaph was not compatible with these rhetorical compositions, and in its place we find a verbose and pompous jargon, full of affected archaism and frigid conventionality. This is particularly the case with the metrical epitaphs, the best of which have been published in the Greek Anthology of Jacobs, and by Welcker in his Sylloge.

One of the most elegant is an epitaph from Cyrene published in Böckh, No. 5172, but generally they are inferior in terseness and pathos to the contemporary epitaphs in Latin, which, even under the Empire, seem the utterance of a truer and nobler domestic life; indeed, in those few Greek epitaphs which are characterised by tenderness and depth of feeling, the persons to whom the inscription relates are generally Roman, though the language is Greek. I would here draw attention to the inscriptions (Böckh, No. 5759) on the tomb of Atilia Pomptilla, which comprise several distinct epitaphs written some in Greek and some in Latin. These inscriptions tell us how Cassius Philippus, the husband of Atilia Pomptilla, after being banished to Sardinia by some emperor, was seized with a mortal illness. To save her husband, his wife Pomptilla, like another Alcestis, offered up her life to the gods. Her prayer was heard, and she redeemed Cassius Philippus from death at the cost of her own life. The date of these inscriptions is not ascertained; the spirit of the Augustan age still lingers in them, and they are probably not later than the first century A.D. They remind us, longo intervallo, of the exquisite elegy in which Propertius makes Cornelia address her husband, Æmilius Paulus, from the tomb.

In the earlier Greek epitaphs there is seldom reference to a future life, but during the Roman Empire, when men were more prone to speculate on the future condition and destiny of the soul, we may trace the influence of different schools of thought in the epitaphs. Sometimes the dead, speaking in their own person, declare that theirs is the portion of the blessed, that they dwell in the shady bowers of the pious. Sometimes with a mocking irony the epitaph reminds the living that all things in this world are nought, that dust we are and unto dust shall we return,' and that the best plan is to eat, drink,

and be merry.' Thus, in the epitaph (Böckh, 6298), M. Antonius Eucolpus informs the passer-by that there is no Charon's boat, no Æacus, the holder of the key, no Cerberus. We, the dead, are only bones and ashes; waste no precious unguents or wreaths on our tomb, for it is only marble; kindle no funeral pyre, for it is useless extravagance. If you have anything to give, give it while I am alive, but if you steep ashes in wine you only make mud, for the dead man does not drink.' 'I was not and was born, I am not and grieve not,' is the laconic summary of the life of an Epicurean graven on his tomb (Böckh, 6265). In a Corcyrean inscription (ibid. 1907, 66) we have a curious contrast in the epitaphs of a husband and wife. The husband, one Euodos, died first, and left a parting recommendation to all future generations to let both body and soul enjoy the good things of this life as far as possible, for when after the spirit has left the body it goes down to the water of Lethe, in the nether world, it will behold nothing again of the upper world.' The widow of this Epicurean, on the contrary, declares in the most positive manner that her soul is dwelling in heaven, while her body rests on earth. Reference to a future day of judgment is very rare, and the nether world of Hades is but sparingly alluded to. As every one was free to use his own land as a burial-place, there seems to have been no authority such as controls and regulates the language and doctrine of sepulchral inscriptions in our modern cemeteries. The vast and motley throng of strangers which frequented imperial Rome for several centuries comprised personages and adventurers of every rank and nationality. Teachers of rhetoric, poets and philosophers, musicians, actors, mountebanks were for ever flocking from their native provinces to the imperial city, drawn thither by the craving for fame or gain, and at the court of the Masters of the World were never wanting dethroned princes and their heirs, praying to be reinstated in their dominions, detained as hostages, or kept in tutelage; to these we must add envoys from foreign potentates and emissaries, secret or avowed, from the cities and great corporations of the provinces. When we look over the long list of Greek sepulchral inscriptions found at Rome, we recognise amid the rank and file buried there many who in their day seem to have attained ephemeral celebrity in some science or art, and here and there we come upon a royal name, such as that of Artabazdes, son of Ariobarzanes, king of the Medes, and Abgarus, son of a king of Edessa of the same name, who died A.D. 217. We find, too, from an inscription (Böckh, 6559), that Aurelius Pacorus, king of Armenia, who reigned probably A.D. 150, bought a sarcophagus in which to bury his brother Aurelius Merithates, then resident at Rome. Perhaps this very sarcophagus may some day turn up in the scavi on the Via Latina.

Honouring the dead in antiquity was not confined to human beings; even favourite animals were not thought unworthy of a

spalcioral monument. At Agrigentom the horses who had gained victories in Olympic races were buried with the humour, and among the Boman epitaphs given by Bockh Na 6311 is the winch reeds the many triumphs in the course won by such a steed Theophrastos in the well-known work which I have already qarted notes its me of the characteristics of an ostentatious trifer that he erects moments to his canine pets, and that such a practice was not unknown in later times is proved by the epitaph on a dog who died at Rome / Bickh, No. 6310).

But it is time to bring to a close this talk of graves, of worms, of epitaphs. The sepulchral inscriptions which I have noticed may be regarded as the voice of the dead speaking to the passer-by for all future time. I will conclude with an inscription which we may suppose the deceased to have taken with him to the tomb for his own instruction and recreation there. At Petilia, in Southern Italy, was found a small plate of very thin gold on which are engraved eleven Greek hexameters, containing, as it would seem, directions for the guidance of the departed spirit on its descent to Hades. 'You will find,' says this legend, 'on the left of the dwellings of Hades, a fountain, and growing by it a white cypress tree. Approach not too near this fountain. You will find another source of cold water flowing from the lake of Memory, and guardians stand in front of it. Say to them, "You are the son of earth and of the starry heaven, but I am of the heavenly race, as ye too know; but I am parched with thirst and am perishing. Give quickly the cold water which flows from the lake of Memory," and they will give the water, and then you will reign with the heroes.' This plate, still preserved in the British Museum, was originally a roll kept in a gold cylindrical case which was doubtless suspended round the neck as an amulet. To this day the Turkish peasants cherish as amulets rolls on which are written verses from the Koran, and which are preserved in cylindrical cases made not of gold, but of humbler tin.

C. T. NEWTON.

THE 'FRIENDS OF THE FOREIGNER'

SEVENTY YEARS AGO.

THE peace concluded at Berlin has been, more than anything else, a stroke of good fortune for the Liberal party in this country. A cool observer of the political controversies of the past two years might be, perhaps, excused for pronouncing such good luck to be undeserved as well as unexpected. The dangers upon which the Liberals have perversely and obstinately flung their party organisation are most plainly visible to those who have not been moved by the blind rage of Parliamentary strife. It is seen that the Opposition at the present day has reproduced with painfully curious exactitude the errors which shattered the Whig party two generations ago as an organised political force, and established the supremacy of the Tories in the State for a quarter of a century. Nor can it be said, perhaps, that the danger is altogether past even now. Whatever may be the judgment passed upon the policy of the Anglo-Turkish Convention, the criticism of the Liberal leaders has been tainted by the same suspicious and captious spirit that has already offended and alarmed the nation. A sullen, fault-finding disposition, malignant and credulous as a jealous husband's, is not calculated to reassure those who have doubted whether the Liberal statesmanship of the present day could be safely entrusted with the conduct of foreign affairs. In every controversy to assume that this country is in the wrong, to attribute base motives, to predict disastrous consequences, such have been the persistent 'notes' of Liberal criticism ever since the Conservative Government came into power. By steady perseverance in this way of looking at things a habit of mind is generated, in which the censure originally directed against the Administration is in the end fastened upon the country. Until this carping temper has ceased to prevail in Liberal policy it is idle to hope that the masses of the English people, among whom, whatever may be the casual appearances to the contrary, national pride is still strong, will be drawn into the current of Liberalism.

In surveying briefly the history of the Opposition during what may be called, perhaps, the most momentous crisis of English policy, I have no desire to force a parallelism with the events and conditions.

of the present European situation. Let me not be misconstrued as contending that this country has now precisely the same sort of reasons for resisting the aggrandisement of Russia in Eastern Europe that it had seventy years ago for resisting the aggrandisement of France in Western Europe. To affirm anything of the kind would lead to a collateral controversy which would be sheer waste of time. The inferences I wish to draw, by way of warning, from the melancholy annals of the Whig party during the struggle with Napoleon are much simpler and less disputable. They are mainly these: (1) We cannot rest in the confidence that the policy of an Opposition is patriotic, merely because it is advocated by statesmen of brilliant parts and long experience of affairs; (2) When an Opposition assails the foreign policy of a government, it is liable to be tempted into criticism of an anti-national character, and into measures of resistance that may fairly be described as factious; (3) A rapid and continuous degenerative process is to be looked for in this direction, the recklessness of the attack becoming more palpable as all the surrounding conditions more imperatively call for prudence and reticence; (4) Such conduct on the part of an Opposition inevitably alienates popular support, and breaks up party organisation. It will hardly be denied that these are lessons taught by the blunders and the disasters of the Whigs during the time when England bore the brunt of the battle for European freedom. It seems to me that within the past two years the conduct of the Liberal Opposition has moved on the same lines and towards the same consequences. The attitude of the Liberal leaders with respect to the Eastern Question has been so far different from that of the Whigs with respect to the struggle against the Napoleonic tyranny, that it has never been tried by the test of actual war. But I leave it to the intelligence and the conscience of Parliamentary Liberals to determine whether, if a war had broken out a year ago between England and Russia, the policy of some sections of the Opposition would not have repeated the ruinous errors of 1810 and 1815.

Too much, it is plain, has been written and spoken on the Liberal side that it would be difficult to reconcile with the cordial and patriotic support of a war, which nevertheless would, when once declared, be sustained with ardour by nineteen-twentieths of the people of England. The resolution of Lord Beaconsfield's Government to employ the military forces of her Majesty's Indian Empire in any European conflict to which this country may be committed has been denounced as unconstitutional, and it is certain that its practical application would be hindered by all the expedients which the forms of Parliament permit. So much, indeed, has been avowed beforehand by some leaders of Independent Liberalism. It is probable at the same time that attempts would be made to prevent the Government from obtaining the necessary supplies, and from entering into

« PreviousContinue »