The fiery Hun did not long survive this Italian expedition. Within a year he was dead, dying suddenly, it was said, in a drunken sleep. The great confederacy which he had formed broke up after his death. The German subjects gained their freedom, and the Huns themselves either withdrew to their Asiatic wilds or mingled with the peoples they had conquered. Europe breathed again; the nightmare was over.
Rome escaped a visitation by the Huns only to fall a victim, three years later, to the Vandals. After the capture of Carthage,[16] these barbarians made that city the seat of a pirate empire. Putting out in their long, light vessels, they swept the seas and raided many a populous city on the Mediterranean coast. So terrible were their inroads that the word "vandalism" has come to mean the wanton destruction of property.
In 455 A.D. the ships of the Vandals, led by their king, Gaiseric, appeared at the mouth of the Tiber. The Romans could offer no resistance. Only the noble bishop Leo went out with his clergy to meet the invader and intercede for the city. Gaiseric promised to spare the lives of the inhabitants and not to destroy the public buildings. These were the best terms he would grant. The Vandals spent fourteen days stripping Rome of her wealth. Besides shiploads of booty the Vandals took away thousands of Romans as slaves, including the widow and two daughters of an emperor.
After the Vandal sack of Rome the imperial throne became the mere plaything of the army and its leaders. A German commander, named Ricimer, set up and deposed four puppet emperors within five years. He was, in fact, the real ruler of Italy at this time. After his death Orestes, another German general, went a step beyond Ricimer's policy and placed his own son on the throne of the Caesars. By a curious coincidence, this lad bore the name of Romulus, legendary founder of Rome, and the nickname of Augustulus ("the little Augustus"). The boy emperor reigned less than a year. The German troops clamored for a third of the lands of Italy and, when their demand was refused, proclaimed Odoacer king. The poor little emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was sent to a villa near Naples, where he disappears from history.
[Illustration: Map, EUROPE at the Deposition of Romulus Augustulus 476A.D.]
There was now no emperor in the West. To the men of that time it seemed that East and West had been once more joined under a single ruler, as in the days of Constantine. The emperors who reigned at Constantinople did not relinquish their claims to be regarded as the rightful sovereigns in Italy and Rome. Nevertheless, as an actual fact, Roman rule in the West was now all but extinct. Odoacer, the head of the barbarians in Italy, ruled a kingdom as independent as that of the Vandals in Africa or that of the Visigoths in Spain and Gaul. The date 476 A.D. may therefore be chosen as marking, better than any other, the overthrow of the Roman Empire in the West by the Germans.
Classical civilization suffered a great shock when the Germans descended on the empire and from its provinces carved out their kingdoms. These barbarians were rude in manners, were very ignorant, and had little taste for anything except fighting and bodily enjoyments. They were unlike the Romans in dress and habits of life. They lived under different laws, spoke different languages, obeyed different rulers. Their invasions naturally ushered in a long period of confusion and disorder, during which the new race slowly raised itself to a level of culture somewhat approaching that which the Greeks and the Romans had attained.
The Germans in many ways did injury to classical civilization. They sometimes destroyed Roman cities and killed or enslaved the inhabitants. Even when the invaders settled peaceably in the empire, they took possession of the land and set up their own tribal governments in place of the Roman. They allowed aqueducts, bridges, and roads to go without repairs, and theaters, baths, and other public buildings to sink into ruins. Having no appreciation of education, the Germans failed to keep up the schools, universities, and libraries. Being devoted chiefly to agriculture, they had no need for foreign wares or costly articles of luxury, and hence they permitted industry and commerce to languish. In short, large parts of western Europe, particularly Gaul, Spain, and Britain, fell backward into a condition of ignorance, superstition, and even barbarism.
But in closing our survey of the Germanic invasions we need to dwell on the forces that made for progress, rather than on those that made for decline. Classical civilization, we have already found reason to believe, [17] had begun to decay long before the Germans broke up the empire. The Germans came, as Christianity had come, only to hasten the process of decay. Each of these influences, in turn, worked to build up the fabric of a new society on the ruins of the old. First Christianity infused the pagan world with its quickening spirit and gave a new religion to mankind. Later followed the Germans, who accepted Christianity, who adopted much of Graeco-Roman culture, and then contributed their fresh blood and youthful minds and their own vigorous life.
1. On an outline map indicate the extent of Germany in the time of Tacitus.
2. Make a list of all the Germanic nations mentioned in this chapter, and give a short account of each.
3 Give dates for the following: battle of Châlons; sack of Rome by Alaric; battle of Adrianople; and end of the Roman Empire in the West.
4. What resemblances existed between the culture of the Germans and that of the early Greeks?
5. Why did the Germans progress more slowly in civilization than the Greeks and the Romans?
6. Comment on this statement: "The Germans had stolen their way into the very citadel of the empire long before its distant outworks were stormed."
7. Why is modern civilization, unlike that of antiquity, in little danger from barbarians?
8. Why has the battle of Adrianople been called "the Cannae of the fourth century"?
9. Why has Alaric been styled "the Moses of the Visigoths"?
10. What is the origin of the geographical names Andalusia, Burgundy, England, and France?
11. Why was Attila called the "scourge of God"?
12. Can you suggest a reason why some historians do not regard Châlons as one of the world's decisive battles?
13. In what sense does the date, 476 A.D., mark the "fall" of the Roman Empire?
[1] Webster,Readings in Ancient History, chapter xxiii, "The Germans as Described by Tacitus."
[2] Tacitus,Germania, 19.
[3] See pages 224-226.
[4] See page 219.
[5] See page 223.
[6] See page 98.
[7] See page 178.
[8] See page 153.
[9] See page 303.
[10] See page 378.
[11] See page 303.
[12] See page 330.
[13] The invasion of Britain by the Anglo-Saxons was followed by the migration across the Channel of large numbers of the defeated islanders. The district in France where they settled is called after them, Brittany.
[14] See page 241.
[15] Jordanes,De rebus Geticis, 35.
[16] See page 225.
[17] See page 224.
The history of the Greeks and Romans ought not to be studied only in their political development and the biographies of their great statesmen and warriors. We must also know something of ancient literature, philosophy, and art. Especially do we need to learn about the private life of the classical peoples—their manners, customs, occupations, and amusements. This life centered in the city.
A Greek or a Roman city usually grew up about a hill of refuge (acropolis, capitolium), to which the people of the surrounding district could flee in time of danger. The hill would be crowned with a fortress and the temples of the gods. Not far away was the market place (agora, forum), where the people gathered to conduct their business and to enjoy social intercourse. About the citadel and market place were grouped the narrow streets and low houses of the town.
The largest and most beautiful buildings in an ancient city were always the temples, colonnades, and other public structures. The houses of private individuals, for the most part, had few pretensions to beauty. They were insignificant in appearance and were often built with only one story. From a distance, however, their whitewashed walls and red-tiled roofs, shining brightly under the warm sun, must have made an attractive picture.
To the free-born inhabitant of Athens or of Rome his city was at once his country and his church, his club and his home. He shared in its government; he took part in the stately ceremonies that honored its patron god; in the city he could indulge his taste for talking and for politics; here he found both safety and society. No wonder that an Athenian or a Roman learned, from early childhood, to love his city with passionate devotion.
The coming of a child, to parents in antiquity as to parents now, was usually a very happy event. Especially welcome was the birth of a son. The father felt assured that through the boy his old age would be cared for and that the family name and the worship of the family ancestors would be kept up after his own death. "Male children," said an ancient poet, "are the pillars of the house." [2] The city, as well, had an interest in the matter, for a male child meant another citizen able to take the father's place in the army and the public assembly. To have no children was regarded as one of the greatest calamities that could befall a Greek or a Roman.
The ancient attitude toward children was in one respect very unlike our own. The law allowed a father to do whatever he pleased with a newly born child. If he was very poor, or if his child was deformed, he could expose it in some desert spot, where it soon died. An infant was sometimes placed secretly in a temple, where possibly some kind-hearted person might rescue it. The child, in this case, became the slave of its adopter. This custom of exposure, an inheritance from prehistoric savagery, tended to grow less common with advancing culture. The complete abolition of infanticide was due to the spread of Christian teachings about the sacredness of human life. [3]
A Greek boy generally had but one name. The favorite name for the eldest son was that of his paternal grandfather. A father, however, might give him his own name or that of an intimate friend. The Romans at first seem to have used only the one name, then two were given; and later we have the familiar three-fold name, representing the individual, the clan, and the family. [4]
Greek education consisted of three main branches, known as gymnastics, music, and grammar. By gymnastics the Greeks meant the physical training in the palestra, an open stretch of ground on the outskirts of the city. Here a private teacher gave instruction in the various athletic sports which were so popular at the national games. The training in music was intended to improve the moral nature of young men and to fit them for pleasant social intercourse. They were taught to play a stringed instrument, called the lyre, and at the same time to sing to their own accompaniment. Grammar, the third branch of education, included instruction in writing and the reading of the national literature. After a boy had learned to write and to read, the schoolmaster took up with him the works of the epic poets, especially Homer, besidesAesop's Fablesand other popular compositions. The student learned by heart much of the poetry and at so early an age that he always remembered it. Not a few Athenians, it is said, could recite the entireIliadandOdyssey.
[Illustration: AN ATHENIAN SCHOOL (Royal Museum, Berlin) A painting by Duris on a drinking-cup, or cylix. The picture is divided by the two handles. In the upper half, beginning at the left: a youth playing the double flute as a lesson to the boy before him; a teacher holding a tablet and stylus and correcting a composition; a slave (paedagogus), who accompanied the children to and from school. In the lower half: a master teaching his pupil to play the lyre; a teacher holding a half- opened roll, listening to a recitation by the student before him; a beardedpaedagogus. The inner picture, badly damaged, represents a youth in a bath.]
A Roman boy began his school days at about the age of seven. He learned to read, to write with a stylus on wax tablets, and to cipher by means of the reckoning board, or abacus. He received a little instruction in singing and memorized all sorts of proverbs and maxims, besides the laws of the Twelve Tables. [5] His studying went on under the watchful eyes of a harsh schoolmaster, who did not hesitate to use the rod. After Rome began to come into close contact with Greece, the curriculum was enlarged by the study of literature. The Romans were the first people who made the learning of a foreign tongue an essential part of education. Schools now arose in which the Greek language and literature formed the chief subject of instruction. As Latin literature came into being, its productions, especially the orations of Cicero and the poems of Vergil and Horace, were also used as texts for study.
[Illustration: A ROMAN SCHOOL SCENEWall painting, Herculaneum.]
[Illustration: YOUTH READING A PAPYRUS ROLL Relief on a sarcophagus. The papyrus roll was sometimes very long. The entireIliadorOdysseymight be contained in a single manuscript measuring one hundred and fifty feet in length. In the third century A.D. the unwieldy roll began to give way to the tablet, composed of a number of leaves held together by a ring. About this time, also, the use of vellum, or parchment made of sheepskin, became common.]
Persons of wealth or noble birth might follow their school training by a university course at a Greek city, such as Athens, Alexandria, or Rhodes. Here the Roman youth would listen to lectures on philosophy, delivered by the deep thinkers whom Greece still produced, and would profit by the treasures of art and science preserved in these ancient capitals. Many famous Romans thus passed several years abroad in graduate study. During the imperial age, as we have already seen, [6] schools of grammar and rhetoric arose in the West, particularly in Gaul and Spain, and attracted students from all parts of the empire.
A young man in Athens or in Rome did not, as a rule, marry immediately on coming of age. He might remain a bachelor for several years, sometimes till he was thirty or over. The young man's father had most to do with the selection of a wife. He tried to secure for his son some daughter of a friend who possessed rank and property equal to his own. The parents of the two parties would then enter into a contract which, among other things, usually stated how large a dowry the bride's father was to settle on his daughter. An engagement was usually very little a matter of romance and very much a matter of business.
The wedding customs of the Greeks and Romans presented many likenesses. Marriage, among both peoples, was a religious ceremony. On the appointed day the principals and their guests, dressed in holiday attire, met at the house of the bride. In the case of a Roman wedding the auspices [7] were then taken, and the words of the nuptial contract were pronounced in the presence of witnesses. After a solemn sacrifice to the gods of marriage, the guests partook of the wedding banquet. When night came on, the husband brought his wife to her new abode, escorted by a procession of torchbearers, musicians, and friends, who sang the happy wedding song.
An Athenian wife, during her younger years, always remained more or less a prisoner. She could not go out except by permission. She took no part in the banquets and entertainments which her husband gave. She lived a life of confinement in that quarter of the house assigned to the women for their special abode. Married women at Rome enjoyed a far more honorable position. Although early custom placed the wife, together with her children, in the power of the husband, [8] still she possessed many privileges. She did not remain all the time at home, but mingled freely in society. She was the friend and confidante of her husband, as well as his housekeeper. During the great days of Roman history the women showed themselves virtuous and dignified, loving wives and excellent companions.
There were no great differences between the dress of the two classical peoples. Both wore the long, loosely flowing robes that contrast so sharply with our tight-fitting garments. [9] Athenian male attire consisted of but two articles, the tunic and the mantle. The tunic was an undergarment of wool or linen, without sleeves. Over this was thrown a large woolen mantle, so wrapped about the figure as to leave free only the right shoulder and head. In the house a man wore only his tunic; out of doors and on the street he usually wore the mantle over it. Very similar to the two main articles of Greek clothing were the Romantunicaandtoga. [10]
On a journey or out in the country broad-brimmed hats were used to shield the head from the sun. In rainy weather the mantle, pulled up over the head, furnished protection. Sandals, merely flat soles of wood or leather fastened by thongs, were worn indoors, but even these were laid aside at a dinner party. Outside the house leather shoes of various shapes and colors were used. They cannot have been very comfortable, since stockings were not known in antiquity.
The ancient house lay close to the street line. The exterior was plain and simple to an extreme. The owner was satisfied if his mansion shut out the noise and dust of the highway. He built it, therefore, round one or more open courts, which took the place of windows supplying light and air. Except for the doorway the front of the house presented a bare, blank surface, only relieved by narrow slits or lattices in the wall of the upper story. The street side of the house wall received a coating of whitewash or of fine marble stucco. The roof of the house was covered with clay tiles. This style of domestic architecture is still common in eastern lands.
[Illustration: HOUSE OF THE VETTII AT POMPEII (RESTORED) Notice the large area of blank wall both on the front and on the side. The front windows are very small and evidently of less importance for admitting light than the openings of the twoatria. At the back is seen the large, well-lighted peristyle.]
[Illustration: ATRIUM OF POMPEIAN HOUSE The view shows theatriumwith the basin for rainwater, in the center thetabinumwith its wall paintings, and the peristyle at the rear.]
In contrast with its unpretentious exterior a classical dwelling indoors had a most attractive appearance. We cannot exactly determine just what were the arrangements of a Greek interior. But the better class of Roman houses, such as some of those excavated at Pompeii, [11] followed Greek designs in many respects. The Pompeian remains, therefore, will give some idea of the sort of residence occupied by a well-to-do citizen of Athens or Rome.
[Illustration: POMPEIAN FLOOR MOSAIC]
The visitor at one of these ancient houses first entered a small vestibule, from which a narrow passage led to the heavy oaken door. A dog was sometimes kept chained in this hallway; in Pompeii there is a picture of one worked in mosaic on the floor with the warning beneath it, "Beware of the dog." Having made known his presence by using the knocker, the guest was ushered into the reception room, oratrium. This was a large apartment covered with a roof, except for a hole in the center admitting light and air. A marble basin directly underneath caught the rain water which came through the opening. Theatriumrepresents the single room of the primitive Roman house without windows or chimney. [12]
A corridor from theatriumled into theperistyle, the second of the two main sections of a Roman house. It was a spacious court, open to the sky and inclosed by a colonnade or portico. This delightful spot, rather than the formalatrium, served as the center of family life. About it were grouped the bedchambers, bathrooms, dining rooms, kitchen, and other apartments of a comfortable mansion. Still other rooms occupied the upper stories of the dwelling.
The ancient Athenian was no sluggard. At sunrise, or even before, he rose from his couch, washed his face and hands, put on his scanty garments, and was soon ready for the street. Before leaving the house, he broke his fast with a meal as simple as the European "rolls and coffee"—in this case merely a few mouthfuls of bread dipped in wine. After breakfast he might call on his friends or perhaps ride into the country and visit his estates. About ten o'clock (which the Athenians called "full market"), he would be pretty sure to find his way to the Agora. The shops at this time were crowded with purchasers, and every sociable citizen of Athens was to be found in them or in the neighboring colonnades which lined the market place.
[Illustration: PERISTYLE OF A POMPEIAN HOUSE House of the Vettii Pompeii. The peristyle, excavated in 1894-1895 A.D. has been carefully restored. The garden, fountains, tables, and marble colonnades are all modern]
The public resorts were deserted at noon, when the Athenian returned home to enjoy a light meal and a rest during the heat. As the day grew cooler, men again went out and visited a gymnasium, such as the Lyceum or the Academy, in the city suburbs. [13] Here were grounds for running, wrestling, discus-throwing, and other sports, as well as rooms for bathing and anointing. While the younger men busied themselves in such active exercises, those of maturer years might be content with less vigorous games or with conversation on political or philosophical themes.
The principal meal of the day came about sunset. The master of the house, if he had no guests, shared the repast with his wife and children. For a man of moderate means the ordinary fare was very much what it is now in Greece—bread, olives, figs, cheese, and a little meat as an occasional luxury. At the end of the meal the diners refreshed themselves with wine mixed with water. The Greeks appear to have been usually as temperate in their drink as they were frugal in their food. The remainder of the evening would be devoted to conversation and music and possibly a little reading. As a rule the Athenian went early to bed.
[Illustration: A GREEK BANQUETFrom a vase painting by Duns.]
A Roman of the higher class, who lived in late republican or early imperial times, passed through much the same daily routine as an Athenian citizen in the days of Pericles. He rose at an early hour and after a light breakfast dispatched his private business with the help of his steward and manager. He then took his place in theatriumto meet the crowd of poor dependents who came to pay their respects to their patron and to receive their usual morning alms—either food or sufficient money to buy a modest dinner. Having greeted his visitors and perhaps helped them in legal or business matters, the noble entered his litter and was carried down to the Forum. Here he might attend the law courts to plead a case for himself or for his clients. If he were a member of the Senate, he would take part in the deliberations of that body. At eleven o'clock, when the ordinary duties of the morning were over, he would return home to eat his luncheon and enjoy the midday rest, or siesta. The practice of having a nap in the heat of the day became so general that at noon the streets of a Roman city had the same deserted appearance as at midnight.
[Illustration: A ROMAN LITTER The litter consists of an ordinary couch with four posts and a pair of poles. Curtains fastened to the rod above the canopy shielded the occupant from observation.]
After an hour of refreshing sleep it was time for the regular exercise out of doors in the Campus Martius or indoors at one of the large city baths. Then came one of the chief pleasures of a Roman's existence—the daily bath. It was taken ordinarily in one of the public bathing establishments, orthermae, to be found in every Roman town. [14] A Roman bath was a luxurious affair. After undressing, the bathers entered a warm anteroom and sat for a time on benches, in order to perspire freely. This was a precaution against the danger of passing too suddenly into the hot bath, which was taken in a large tank of water sunk in the middle of the floor. Then came an exhilarating cold plunge and anointing with perfumed oil. Afterwards the bathers rested on the couches with which the resort was supplied and passed the time in reading or conversation until the hour for dinner.
The late dinner, with the Romans as with the Greeks, formed the principal meal of the day. It was usually a social function. The host and his guests reclined on couches arranged about a table. The Romans borrowed from the Greeks the custom of ending a banquet with a symposium, or drinking-bout. The tables were cleared of dishes, and the guests were anointed with perfumes and crowned with garlands. During the banquet and the symposium it was customary for professional performers to entertain the guests with music, dancing, pantomimes, and feats of jugglery.
The Athenians celebrated many religious festivals. One of the most important was the Great Panathenaea, [15] held every fourth year in the month of July. Athletic contests and poetical recitations, sacrifices, feasts, and processions honored the goddess Athena, who presided over the Athenian city. Even more interesting, perhaps, were the dramatic performances held in midwinter and in spring, at the festivals of Dionysus. The tragedies and comedies composed for these entertainments took their place among the masterpieces of Greek literature.
[Illustration: THEATER OF DIONYSUS, ATHENS The theater of Dionysus where dramatic exhibitions were held lay close to the south eastern angle of the Acropolis. The audience at first sat upon wooden benches rising tier after tier on the adjacent hillside. About the middle of the fourth century B.C. these were replaced by the stone seats which are still to be seen. Sixteen thousand people could be accommodated in this open air theater.]
There is very little likeness between the ancient and the modern drama. Greek plays were performed out of doors in the bright sunlight. Until late Roman times it is unlikely that a raised stage existed. The three actors and the members of the chorus appeared together in the dancing ring, or orchestra. The performers were all men. Each actor might play several parts. There was no elaborate scenery; the spectator had to rely chiefly on his own imagination for the setting of the piece. The actors indulged in few lively movements or gestures. They must have looked from a distance like a group of majestic statues. All wore elaborate costumes, and tragic actors, in addition, were made to appear larger than human with masks, padding, and thick-soled boots, or buskins. The performances occupied the three days of the Dionysiac festivals, beginning early in the morning and lasting till night. All this time was necessary because they formed contests for a prize which the people awarded to the poet and chorus whose presentation was judged of highest excellence.
[Illustration: A DANCING GIRL A Greek bronze statuette found in a sunken galley off the coast of Tunis. The galley had been wrecked while on its way to Rome carrying a load of art objects to decorate the villas of wealthy nobles. This statuette was doubtless a life-like copy of some well-known entertainer. The dancer's pose suggests the American "cakewalk" and her costume, the modern "hobble skirt."]
Pantomimes formed the staple amusement of the Roman theater. In these performances a single dancer, by movements and gestures, represented mythological scenes and love stories. The actor took several characters in succession and a chorus accompanied him with songs. There were also "vaudeville" entertainments, with all manner of jugglers, ropedancers, acrobats, and clowns, to amuse a people who found no pleasure in the refined productions of the Greek stage.
Far more popular than even pantomime and vaudeville were the "games of the circus." At Rome these were held chiefly in the Circus Maximus. Chariot races formed the principal attraction of the circus. There were usually four horses to a chariot, though sometimes the drivers showed their skill by handling as many as six or seven horses. The contestants whirled seven times around the low wall, orspina, which divided the race course. The shortness of the stretches and the sharp turns about thespinamust have prevented the attainment of great speed. A race, nevertheless, was a most exciting sport. What we should call "fouling" was permitted and even encouraged. The driver might turn his team against another or might endeavor to upset a rival's car. It was a very tame contest that did not have its accompaniment of broken chariots, fallen horses, and killed or injured drivers.
[Illustration: THE CIRCUS MAXIMUS (RESTORATION)]
The Circus Maximus was often used for a variety of animal shows. Fierce wild beasts, brought from every quarter of the empire, were turned loose to slaughter one another, or to tear to pieces condemned criminals. [16] More popular still were the contests between savage animals and men. Such amusements did something to satisfy the lust for blood in the Roman populace—a lust which was more completely satisfied by the gladiatorial combats.
[Illustration: GLADIATORS From a stucco relief on the tomb of Scaurus, Pompeii. Beginning at the left are two fully armed horsemen fighting with lances. Behind them are two gladiators, one of whom is appealing to the people. Then follows a combat in which the defeated party raises his hand in supplication for mercy. The lower part of the relief represents fights with various wild beasts.]
Exhibitions of gladiators were known in Italy long before they became popular at Rome. The combats probably started from the savage practice of sacrificing prisoners or slaves at the funeral of their master. Then the custom arose of allowing the victims a chance for their lives by having them fight one another, the conquerors being spared for future battles. From this it was but a step to keeping trained slaves as gladiators. During the imperial epoch the number of such exhibitions increased greatly. The emperor Trajan, for example, to celebrate his victories over the Dacians, [17] exhibited no less than ten thousand men within the space of four months. The gladiators belonged to various classes, according to the defensive armor they wore and the style of fighting they employed. When a man was wounded and unable to continue the struggle, he might appeal to the spectators. He lifted his finger to plead for release; if he had fought well, the people indicated their willingness to spare him by waving their handkerchiefs. If the spectators were in a cruel mood, they turned down their thumbs as the signal for his deathblow. These hideous exhibitions continued in different parts of the Roman Empire until the fifth century of our era.
Gladiatorial combats, chariot races, and dramatic shows were free performances. For the lower classes in the Roman city they became the chief pleasure of life. The days of their celebration were public holidays, which in the fourth century numbered no less than one hundred and seventy-five. The once-sovereign people of Rome became a lazy, worthless rabble, fed by the state and amused with the games. It was well said by an ancient satirist that the Romans wanted only two things to make them happy—"bread and the games of the circus." [18]
The private life of the Greeks and Romans, as described in the preceding pages, would have been impossible without the existence of a large servile class. Slaves did much of the heavy and disagreeable work in the ancient world, thus allowing the free citizen to engage in more honorable employment or to pass his days in dignified leisure.
The Greeks seem sometimes to have thought that only barbarians should be degraded to the condition of servitude. Most Greek slaves, as a matter of fact, were purchased from foreign countries. But after the Romans had subdued the Mediterranean world, their captives included not only members of inferior races, but also the cultivated inhabitants of Greece, Egypt, and Asia Minor. We hear of slaves at Rome who served as clerks, secretaries, librarians, actors, and musicians. Their education was often superior to that of the coarse and brutal masters who owned them.
The number of slaves, though great enough in Athens and other Greek cities, reached almost incredible figures during the later period of Roman history. Every victorious battle swelled the troops of captives sent to the slave markets at Rome. Ordinary slaves became as cheap as beasts of burden are now. The Roman poet Horace tells us that at least ten slaves were necessary for a gentleman in even moderate circumstances. Wealthy individuals, given to excessive luxury, might number their city slaves by the hundreds, besides many more on their country estates.
Slaves engaged in a great variety of occupations. They were domestic servants, farm laborers, miners, artisans, factory hands, and even shopkeepers. Household slaves at Rome were employed in every conceivable way. Each part of a rich man's residence had its special staff of servants. The possession of a fine troop of slaves, dressed in handsome liveries, was a favorite method of showing one's wealth and luxury.
It is difficult for us to realize the attitude of ancient peoples toward their slaves. They were regarded as part of the chattels of the house—as on a level with domestic animals rather than human beings. Though Athenian law forbade owners to kill their slaves or to treat them cruelly, it permitted the corporal punishment of slaves for slight offenses. At Rome, until the imperial epoch, [19] no restraints whatever existed upon the master's power. A slave was part of his property with which he could do exactly as he pleased. The terrible punishments, the beating with scourges which followed the slightest misconduct or neglect of duty, the branding with a hot iron which a runaway slave received, the fearful penalty of crucifixion which followed an attempt upon the owner's life—all these tortures show how hard was the lot of the bondman in pagan Rome.
A slave, under some circumstances, could gain his freedom. In Greece, where many little states constantly at war bordered one another, a slave could often run away to liberty. In a great empire like Rome, where no boundary lines existed, this was usually impossible. Freedom, however, was sometimes voluntarily granted. A master in his will might liberate his favorite slave, as a reward for the faithful service of a lifetime. A more common practice permitted the slave to keep a part of his earnings until he had saved enough to purchase his freedom.
[Illustration: A SLAVE'S COLLAR A runaway slave, if recaptured, was sometimes compelled to wear a metal collar riveted about his neck. One of these collars, still preserved at Rome, bears the inscription:Servus sum dom(i)ni mei Scholastici v(iri) sp(ectabüis). Tene me ne fugiam de domo.—"I am the slave of my master Scholasticus, a gentleman of importance. Hold me, lest I flee from home."]
Slavery in Greece and Italy had existed from the earliest times. It never was more flourishing than in the great age of classical history. Nor did it pass away when the Roman world became Christian. The spread of Christianity certainly helped to improve the lot of the slave and to encourage his liberation. The Church, nevertheless, recognized slavery from the beginning. Not until long after ancient civilization had perished did the curse of slavery finally disappear from European lands. [20]
The literature of Greece begins with epic poetry. An epic may be defined as a long narrative in verse, dealing with some large and noble theme. The earliest epic poetry of the Greeks was inseparable from music. Wandering minstrels sang at feasts in the palaces of kings and accompanied their lays with the music of the clear-toned lyre. In time, as his verse reached a more artistic character, the singer was able to give up the lyre and to depend for effect solely on the poetic power of his narrative. Finally, the scattered lays were combined into long poems. The most famous are theIliadand theOdyssey, works which the Greeks attributed to Homer. [21]
Several centuries after Homer the Greeks began to create a new form of poetic expression—lyric poetry. In short poems, accompanied by the flute or the lyre, they found a medium for the expression of personal feelings which was not furnished by the long and cumbrous epic. The greatest lyric poet was Pindar. We still possess forty-four of his odes, which were written in honor of victorious athletes at the Olympian and other national games. [22] Pindar's verses were so popular that he became, as it were, the "poet laureate" of Greece. When Alexander the Great destroyed Thebes, [23] the native town of Pindar, he spared that poet's birthplace from the general ruin.
[Illustration: SOPHOCLES (Lateran Museum, Rome)This marble statue is possibly a copy of the bronze original which theAthenians set up in the theater of Dionysus. The feet and the box ofmanuscript rolls are modern restorations.]
The three great masters of the tragic drama [24] lived and wrote in Athens during the splendid half century between the Persian and the Peloponnesian wars. Such was the fertility of their genius that they are said to have written altogether nearly three hundred plays. Only thirty-two have come down to us. Aeschylus, the first of the tragic poets, had fought at Marathon and Salamis. One of his works, thePersians, is a magnificent song of triumph for the victory of Hellas. Sophocles, while yet a young man, gained the prize in a dramatic contest with Aeschylus. His plays mark the perfection of Greek tragedy. After the death of Sophocles the Athenians revered him as a hero and honored his memory with yearly sacrifices. Euripides was the third of the Athenian dramatists and the most generally popular. His fame reached far beyond his native city. We are told that the Sicilians were so fond of his verses that they granted freedom to every one of the Athenian prisoners captured at Syracuse who could recite the poet's lines.
Athenian comedy during the fifth century B.C. is represented by the plays of Aristophanes. He was both a great poet and a great satirist. In one comedy Aristophanes attacks the demagogue Cleon, who was prominent in Athenian politics after the death of Pericles. In other comedies he ridicules the philosophers, makes fun of the ordinary citizen's delight in sitting on jury courts and trying cases, and criticizes those responsible for the unfortunate expedition to Sicily. The plays of Aristophanes were performed before admiring audiences of thousands of citizens and hence must have had much influence on public opinion.
The "father of history," Herodotus, flourished about the middle of the fifth century B.C. Though a native of Asia Minor, Herodotus spent some of the best years of his life at Athens, mingling in its brilliant society and coming under the influences, literary and artistic, of that city. He traveled widely in the Greek world and in the East, as a preparation for his great task of writing an account of the rise of the Oriental nations and the struggle between Greece and Persia. Herodotus was not a critical historian, diligently sifting truth from fable. Where he can he gives us facts. Where facts are lacking, he tells interesting stories in a most winning style. A much more scientific writer was Thucydides, an Athenian who lived during the epoch of the Peloponnesian War and became the historian of that contest. An Athenian contemporary of Thucydides, Xenophon, is best known from hisAnabasis, which describes the famous expedition of the "Ten Thousand" Greeks against Persia. [25]
Of the later prose writers of Greece it is sufficient to name only one— the immortal Plutarch. He was a native of Chaeronea in Boeotia and lived during the first century of our era. Greece at that time was only a province of the Roman Empire; the days of her greatness had long since passed away. Plutarch thus had rather a melancholy task in writing hisParallel Lives. In this work he relates, first the life of an eminent Greek, then of a famous Roman who in some way resembled him; and ends the account with a short comparison of the two men. Plutarch had a wonderful gift of sympathy for his heroes and a keen eye for what was dramatic in their careers. It is not surprising, therefore, that Plutarch has always been a favorite author. No other ancient writer gives us so vivid and intimate a picture of the classical world.
From the foregoing survey it is clear that the Greeks were pioneers in many forms of literature. They first composed artistic epic poems. They invented lyric and dramatic poetry. They were the first to write histories and biographies. In oratory, as has been seen, they also rose to eminence. [26] We shall now find that the Greek intellect was no less fertile and original in the study of philosophy.
The Greek philosophy took its rise in the seventh century B.C., when a few bold students began to search out the mysteries of the universe. Their theories were so many and so contradictory, however, that after a time philosophers gave up the study of nature and proposed in turn to study man himself. These later thinkers were called sophists. They traveled throughout Greece, gathering the young men about them and lecturing for pay on subjects of practical interest. Among other things they taught the rhetoric and oratory which were needed for success in a public career.
One of the founders of Greek philosophy and the greatest teacher of his age was Socrates the Athenian. He lived and taught during the period of the Peloponnesian War. Socrates resembled the sophists in his possession of an inquiring, skeptical mind which questioned every common belief and superstition. But he went beyond the sophists in his emphasis on problems of every-day morality.
Though Socrates wrote nothing, his teaching and personality made a deep impression on his contemporaries. The Delphic oracle declared that no one in the world was wiser than Socrates. Yet he lived through a long life at Athens, a poor man who would neither work at his trade of sculptor, nor (as did the sophists) accept money for his instruction. He walked the streets, barefoot and half-clad, and engaged in animated conversation with anyone who was willing to discuss intellectual subjects with him. Socrates must have been a familiar figure to the Athenians. His short body, large, bald head, and homely features hardly presented the ideal of a philosopher. Even Aristophanes in a comedy laughs at him.
[Illustration: SOCRATES (Vatican Gallery, Rome)]
Late in life Socrates was accused of impiety and of corrupting the youth of Athens with his doctrines. As a matter of fact he was a deeply religious man. If he objected to the crude mythology of Homer, he often spoke of one God, who ruled the world, and of a divine spirit or conscience within his own breast. A jury court found him guilty, however, and condemned him to death. He refused to escape from prison when opportunity offered and passed his last days in eager conversation on the immortality of the soul. When the hour of departure arrived, he bade his disciples farewell and calmly drained the cup of hemlock, a poison that caused a painless death. Although Socrates gave his life for his philosophy, this did not perish with him.
One of the members of the Socratic circle was Plato, a wealthy noble who abandoned a public career for the attractions of philosophy. After the death of Socrates, Plato traveled widely in the Greek world and even visited Egypt, where he interviewed the learned priests. On his return to Athens Plato began teaching in the garden and gymnasium called the Academy. [27] His writings, known asDialogues, are cast in the form of question and answer that Socrates had used. In most of them Plato makes Socrates the chief speaker. Plato's works are both profound in thought and admirable in style. The Athenians used to say that if Zeus had spoken Greek he would have spoken it as did Plato.
As great a philosopher as Plato, but a far less attractive writer, was Aristotle. He was not an Athenian by birth, but he passed many years in Athens, first as a pupil of Plato, who called him the "mind" of the school, and then as a teacher in the Athenian city. Aristotle seems to have taken all knowledge for his province. He investigated the ideas underlying the arts of rhetoric and poetry; he gathered the constitutions of many Greek states and drew from them some general principles of politics; he studied collections of strange plants and animals to learn their structure and habits; he examined the acts and beliefs of men in order to write books on ethics. In all this investigation Aristotle was not content to accept what previous men had written or to spin a pleasing theory out of his own brain. Everywhere he sought for facts; everything he tried to bring to the test of personal observation. Aristotle, then, was as much a scientist as a philosopher. His books were reverently studied for centuries after his death and are still used in our universities.
The system of philosophy called Epicureanism was founded by a Greek named Epicurus. He taught in Athens during the earlier part of the third century B.C. Epicurus believed that pleasure is the sole good, pain, the sole evil. He meant by pleasure not so much the passing enjoyments of the hour as the permanent happiness of a lifetime. In order to be happy men should not trouble themselves with useless luxuries, but should lead the "simple life." They must be virtuous, for virtue will bring more real satisfaction than vice. Above all, men ought to free themselves from idle hopes and fears about a future existence. The belief in the immortality of the soul, said Epicurus, is only a delusion, for both soul and body are material things which death dissolves into the atoms making up the universe. And if there are any gods, he declared, they do not concern themselves with human affairs. Some of the followers of Epicurus seemed to find in his philosophic system justification for free indulgence in every appetite and passion. Even to-day, when we call a person an "Epicurean," we think of him as a selfish pleasure seeker.
The noblest of all pagan philosophies was Stoicism, founded by Zeno, a contemporary of Epicurus. Virtue, said the Stoic, consists in living "according to nature," that is, according to the Universal Reason or Divine Providence that rules the world. The followers of this philosophy tried, therefore, to ignore the feelings and exalt the reason as a guide to conduct. They practiced self-denial, despised the pomps and vanities of the world, and sought to rise above such emotions as grief, fear, hope, and joy. The doctrines of Stoicism gained many adherents among the Romans [28] and through them became a real moral force in the ancient world. Stoicism is even now no outworn creed. Our very word "stoical" is a synonym for calm indifference to pleasure or to pain.
The beginnings of Roman literature go back to the third century B.C., when some knowledge of the Greek language became increasingly common in Rome. The earlier writers—chiefly poets and dramatists—did little original work, and usually were content to translate and adapt the productions of Greek authors for Roman audiences. During this period the Romans gradually discovered the capabilities of their language for prose composition. The republican institutions of Rome, like those of Athens, were highly favorable to the art of public speaking. It was the development of oratory which did most to mold the Latin language into fitness for the varied forms of prose.
Cicero, the greatest of Roman orators, created a style for Latin prose composition which has been admired and imitated by men of letters even to our own day. Latin, in his hands, became a magnificent instrument for the expression of human thought. Cicero's qualities as an author are shown, not only by hisOrations, but also by the numerousEpistleswhich he wrote to friends and correspondents in all parts of the Roman world. Besides their historical interest Cicero's letters are models of what good letters ought to be—the expression of the writer's real thoughts and feelings in simple, unstilted language. Cicero also composed a number ofDialogues, chiefly on philosophical themes. If not very profound, they are delightfully written, and long served as textbooks in the schools.
Another eminent statesman—Julius Caesar—won success in literature. As an orator he was admitted by his contemporaries to stand second to Cicero. None of his speeches have survived. We possess, however, his invaluableCommentarieson the Gallic and Civil wars. These works, though brief and in most parts rather dull, are highly praised for their simple, concise style and their mastery of the art of rapid narration.
The half century included within the Augustan Age marks a real epoch in the history of Latin literature. The most famous poet of this period was Vergil. TheAeneid, which he undertook at the suggestion of Augustus, is his best-known work. In form the poem is a narrative of the adventures of the Trojan hero, Aeneas, [29] but its real theme is the growth of Rome under the fostering care of the gods. TheAeneid, though unfinished at the author's death, became at once what it has always remained—the only ancient epic worthy of comparison with theIliador with theOdyssey.Another member of the Augustan circle was Vergil's friend and fellow- worker, Horace. An imitative poet, Horace reproduced in Latin verse the forms, and sometimes even the substance, of his Greek models. But, like Vergil, what Horace borrowed he made his own by the added beauty which he gave to it. HisOdesare perhaps the most admirable examples of literary art to be found in any language.
The most famous prose writer of the Augustan Age was Livy. HisHistory of Rome, beginning with Romulus and extending to Augustus, traced the rise and growth of the Roman state during eight centuries of triumphal progress. It did in prose what Vergil'sAeneidhad done in verse.
The period of the "Good Emperors" saw the rise of several important authors, of whom one, the historian Tacitus, was a man of genius. The crowning labor of his life was a history of Rome from Tiberius to Domitian. Of this work, issued under the two titles ofHistoriesandAnnals, only about one-half is extant.
Less than two hundred years separate Cicero and Tacitus. During this period Latin authors, writing under the influence of old Greece, accomplished much valuable work. Some of their productions are scarcely inferior to the Greek masterpieces. In later centuries, when Greek literature was either neglected or forgotten in the West, the literature of Rome was still read and enjoyed. Even to-day a knowledge of it forms an essential part of a "classical" education.
The existing monuments of Greek architecture—chiefly ruined temples— afford some idea of its leading characteristics. The building materials were limestone and white marble. The blocks of stone were not bound together by cement, but by metal clamps which held them in a firm grip. It was usual to color the ornamental parts of a temple and the open spaces that served as a background for sculpture. The Greeks did not employ the principle of the arch, in order to cover large spaces with a vaulted ceiling. Their temples and other public buildings had only flat ceilings, resting on long rows of columns. The column probably developed from the wooden post or tree trunk used in timber construction. The capital at the top of the column originated in the square wooden slab which supported the heavy beam of the roof.
[Illustration: CORNER OF A DORIC FAÇADE]
[Illustration: CORNER OF AN IONIC FAÇADE]
The two Greek orders of architecture, Doric and Ionic, [30] are distinguished mainly by differences in the treatment of the column. The Doric column has no base of its own. The sturdy shaft is grooved lengthwise with some twenty flutings. The capital is a circular band of stone capped by a square block, all without decoration. The mainland of Greece was the especial home of the Doric order. This was also the characteristic style of southern Italy and Sicily.
The Ionic column rests upon a base. Its shaft is tall and slender. The beautifully carved capital swells outward into two spiral rolls, the ends of which are curled under to form the "volutes." The Ionic order flourished particularly in Asia Minor. It was well known, too, at Athens.
[Illustration: CAPITALS The highly decorative Corinthian capital, modeled on acanthus leaves, came into fashion in Alexandrian and Roman times. The Composite capital, as its name indicates, combined details from the Ionic and Corinthian into one ornate whole. This and the plain Tuscan capital were quite generally employed by the Romans.]
The temple formed the chief structure in a Greek city. It was very simple in outline—merely a rectangular building provided with doors, but without windows. Around it was a single or a double row of columns. Above them rose the architrave, a plain band of massive stones which reached from one column to another. Then came the frieze, adorned with sculptured reliefs, then the horizontal cornice, and at the ends of the building the triangular pediments formed by the sloping roof. The pediments were sometimes decorated with statues. Since the temple was not intended to hold a congregation of worshipers, but only to contain the image of the god, the interior usually had little ornamentation.
[Illustration: THE PARTHENON RESTORATION PRESENT CONDITION After serving as a temple for about nine centuries the Parthenon was turned into a Christian church and later into a Mohammedan mosque. In 1687 A.D. the Venetians bombarded Athens and sent a shell into the center of the building which the Turks had used as a powder magazine. The result was an explosion that threw down the side walls and many of the columns.]
[Illustration: FIGURES FROM THE PEDIMENT OF THE PARTHENON]
[Illustration: FROM THE PARTHENON FRIEZE]
[Illustration: CORNER OF THE PARTHENON (RESTORED)]
[Illustration: CARYATID PORCH OF THE ERECHTHEUM]
Greek temples were not very large, for hugeness was no object to the builders. They were not even lavishly decorated. Their beauty lies, most of all, in their harmonious proportions and perfect symmetry. In the best examples of the Greek temple there are, for instance, no straight lines. The columns are not set at equal intervals, but closer together near the corners of the building. The shafts of the columns, instead of tapering upward at a uniform rate, swell slightly toward the center. The artistic eyes of the Greeks delighted in such subtle curves. These characteristics make a classical temple unique of its kind. [31]
The greatest achievement of the Greeks in art was their sculpture. Roman artists surpassed them in the creation of massive architectural works; modern artists have surpassed them in painting. In sculpture the Greeks still remain unexcelled.
The existing remains of Greek sculpture are very scanty. The statues of gold and ivory vanished long ago. The bronze statues, formerly numbered by thousands, have nearly all gone into the melting pot. Sculptures in marble were turned into mortar or used as building materials. Those which escaped such a fate were often ruined by wanton mutilation and centuries of neglect. The statues which we still possess are mainly marble copies, made in Roman times from Greek originals. It is as if the paintings by the old masters of Europe, four centuries ago, were now known only in the reproductions by modern artists of inferior powers.
The Greek sculptor worked with a variety of materials. Wood was in common use during primitive times. Terra cotta was employed at all periods for statuettes a few inches in height. Productions in gold and ivory, from the costliness of these objects, were extremely rare. Bronze was the favorite material of some of the most eminent artists. The Greek sculptor especially relied on the beautiful marbles in which his country abounded.
The methods employed by the ancient sculptor differed in some respects from those followed by his modern successors. A Greek marble statue was usually built up out of several parts. The joining was accomplished with such skill as to escape ordinary observation. The preliminary work of hewing out from the rough was done by means of chisels. The surface of the marble afterwards received a careful polishing with the file, and also with sand. Marble statues were always more or less painted. The coloring seems to have been done sparingly, being applied, as a rule, only to the features and draperies. Still, it is worth while to remember that the pure white statues of modern sculptors would not have satisfied Greek artists of the classical age.
Greek sculpture existed in the two forms of bas-reliefs and statuary in the round. Reliefs were chiefly used for temple pediments and friezes, and also for the many grave monuments. Statues consisted of the images of the gods set up in their shrines, the sculptures dedicated as offerings to divinities, and the figures of statesmen, generals, and victorious athletes raised in public places and sanctuaries.
This list will show how many were the opportunities which the ancient sculptor enjoyed. The service of religion created a constant demand for his genius. The numerous athletic contests and the daily sports of the gymnasium gave him a chance to study living models in the handsome, finely-shaped bodies of the contestants. With such inspiration it is not remarkable that sculpture reached so high a development in ancient Greece. [32]
In architecture the Romans achieved preëminence. The temples and other public works of Greece seem almost insignificant beside the stupendous edifices raised by Roman genius in every province of the empire. The ability of the Romans to build on so large a scale arose from their use of vaulted constructions. Knowledge of the round arch passed over from the Orient to the Etruscans and from them to the Romans. [33] At first the arch was employed mainly for gates, drainage sewers, aqueducts, and bridges. In imperial times this device was adopted to permit the construction of vast buildings with overarching domes. The principle of the dome has inspired some of the finest creations of ancient and modern architecture.
The Romans for many of their buildings made much use of concrete. Its chief ingredient waspozzolana, a sand found in great abundance near Rome and other sites. When mixed with lime, it formed a very strong cement. This material was poured in a fluid state into timber casings, where it quickly set and hardened. Small pieces of stone, called rubble, were also forced down into the cement to give it additional stability. Buildings of this sort were usually faced with brick, which in turn might be covered with thin slabs of marble, thus producing an attractive appearance.
The triumphs of Roman architecture were not confined chiefly to sacred edifices. Roman temples, indeed, are mostly copies from the Greek. In comparison with their originals, they lack grace and refinement. There is less accuracy in the masonry fitting and far less careful attention to details of construction. A frequent departure from Greek models is found in the restriction of the rows of pillars to the front of the building, while the sides and rear are lined with "engaged" columns to give the idea of a colonnade. [34] More characteristically Roman are vaulted temples, such as the Pantheon, [35] where the circular dome is faced with a Greek portico.
Roman basilicas, of which only the ruins are now in existence, were once found in every city. These were large, lofty buildings for the use of judges and merchants. The chief feature of a basilica was the spacious central hall flanked by a single or double row of columns, forming aisles and supporting the flat roof. At one end of the hall was a semicircular recess—the apse—where the judges held court. This arrangement of the interior bears a close resemblance to the plan of the early Christian church with its nave, choir (or chancel) and columned aisles. The Christians, in fact, seem to have taken the familiar basilicas as the models for their places of worship.
[Illustration: PLAN OF THE ULPIAN BASILICAThe hall measured 360 feet in length and 180 feet in width.]
[Illustration: INTERIOR VIEW OF THE ULPIAN BASILICA (RESTORATION)Built by the Emperor Trajan in connection with his Forum at Rome.]
Perhaps the most imposing, and certainly among the most useful, of Roman structures were aqueducts. [36] There were sixty-eight in Italy and the provinces. No less than fourteen supplied the capital city with water. The aqueducts usually ran under the surface of the ground, as do our water pipes. They were carried on arches only across depressions and valleys. The Claudian aqueduct ran for thirty-six miles underground and for nine and a half miles on arches. Though these monuments were intended simply as engineering works, their heavy masses of rough masonry produce an inspiring sense of power.
[Illustration: A ROMAN AQUEDUCT The Pont du Gard near Nîmes (ancient Nemausus) in southern France. Built by the emperor Antoninus Pius. The bridge spans two hilltops nearly a thousand feet apart. It carries an aqueduct with three tiers of massive stone arches at a height of 160 feet above the stream. This is the finest and best preserved aqueduct in existence.]
The abundant water supply furnished by the aqueducts was connected with a system of great public baths, orthermae. [37] Scarcely a town or village throughout the empire lacked one or more such buildings. Those at Rome were constructed on a scale of magnificence of which we can form but a slight conception from the ruins now in existence. In addition to many elaborate arrangements for the bathers, thethermaeincluded lounging and reading rooms, libraries, gymnasia, and even museums and galleries of art. The baths, indeed, were splendid clubhouses, open at little or no expense to every citizen of the metropolis.
[Illustration: THE COLOSSEUM]
A very characteristic example of Roman building is found in the triumphal arches. [38] Their sides were adorned with bas-reliefs, which pictured the principal scenes of a successful campaign. Memorial structures, called columns of victory, [39] were also set up in Rome and other cities. Both arch and column have been frequently imitated by modern architects.
[Illustration: A ROMAN CAMEOPortrait of a youth cut in sardonyx. Probably of the first century A.D.]
The palaces of Roman emperors and nobles, together with their luxurious country houses, or villas, have all disappeared. A like fate has befallen the enormous circuses, such as the Circus Maximus [40] at Rome and the Hippodrome [41] at Constantinople. The Roman theaters that still survive reproduce, in most respects, the familiar outlines of the Greek structures. In the amphitheaters, where animal shows and gladiatorial combats were exhibited, we have a genuinely Roman invention. The gigantic edifice, called the Colosseum, in its way as truly typifies Roman architectural genius as the Parthenon represents at its best that of the Greeks.
Roman sculpture owed much to Greek models. However, the portrait statues and bas-reliefs show originality and illustrate the tendency of the Romans toward realism in art. The sculptor tried to represent an historic person as he really looked or an historic event, for example, a battle or a triumphal procession, as it actually happened. The portrait statues of Roman emperors and the bas-reliefs from the arch of Titus impress us at once with a sense of their reality.