General Literary Tendencies in the Second Century A.D.

Author(s): B. A. van Groningen

Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 18, Fasc. 1 (1965), pp. 41-56
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4429054 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 15:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GENERAL LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE
SECOND CENTURY A.D.1)

BY

B. A. VAN GRONINGEN

'
When one is invited to lecture on 'general literary tendencies in
the second century A.D.", practically every word in this mandate
asks for some explanation.
What does "the second century" mean ? Chronologically speaking,
it is the period extending from ??? to 200 A.D. But such a mechanical
limitation never does justice to the phenomena of human life; no
more than it does to literary life. It is, indeed, impossible to pass over
in silence important authors whose activity does not fall exclusively
within those limits.
Should this period be considered in itself or in comparison with the
following and, especially, the preceding one ? It goes without saying
that comparison is always useful and brings out characteristic
features more clearly. But a serious confrontation is impossible
within the compass of a short lecture.
How do we define "literature" ? The Organizing Committee of
the Congress did not specify whether I should treat classical literature
as a whole or restrict myself to either Greek or Latin literature alone.
I shall speak about Greek literature ; for two reasons. I know it better
than the Latin one and, moreover, the larger the field, the vaguer the
characteristics will be. We may expect that the picture of just one
literature will be clearer and more definite.
The word "literature" used in its broadest sense will be understood
to encompass everything written. In its narrowest sense it means
only writings which meet
high aesthetic demands. For our purpose
neither will do. Writings which are unsatisfactory from an artistic
point of view can nevertheless reflect tendencies. On the other

?) This is the text of a lecture given at the Fourth International Congress

of Classical Studies in Philadelphia, Pa. U.S.A. on August the 27th 1964.

Mnemosyne, XVIII 4

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D.

hand, purely technical ones, such as the mathematical treatises of

Ptolemy and the philological compilations of Apollonius Dyscolus
may be disregarded, since they have no other aim than to be useful,
and, therefore, hardly show any literary tendency.
All this is relatively simple. More difficult, but, at the same time,
more interesting and important is the question what "general
literary tendencies" are. Of course, a tendency is an aspect of human
activity. It implies a direction, an aim, i.e. a choice, a preference and
predilection for the one above the other. Literature as a whole, i.e.
without any limitation in space and time, has a tendency: it wants
to express and to communicate, through the intervention of the
authors, what moves, interests, or captivates mankind. But this
tendency is so general that it has hardly any value : since mankind is
captivated by everything, is no longer any choice or predi-
there
lection. The question only gets real meaning as soon as we apply
restrictions in time and space. As we are supposed to do.
And so we notice, in the first place, that such a restricted literature
is bound to pursue a double aim : it has to satisfy the authors and to
please the readers. Writings which satisfy only the authors and
nobody else, get lost. This is always a fact, but it is especially so in
the case of a literature of long ago, as the Greek literature of the
second century. We can practically be certain that the surviving
works testify to the preferences of the Greeks of that age, both
authors and readers. And this facilitates our research.
The preferences may apply to contents and to form, and, because
the two are, as a rule, strongly interconnected, they appear mostly in
both. There are certain differences, however. Formal tendencies
consist in a preference for certain modes of expression, e.g. for poetry
or for prose. Tendencies bearing on the contents appear in a pref-
erence for motifs, systems of thought, convictions, emotions,
principles, and the like. Strong tendencies of this kind prevail over
the formal ones and fill them with power and energy. Then the
literary tendency coincides with the purpose of the contents. But
anemia of the contents weakens the form, unless it gives it the
opportunity to develop independently, to become an aim in itself, to
rule instead of to obey.
How do we notice all this ? In other words, how do we discover

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D. 43

what the authors like to write and the public to read ? There is a
ready answer: by acquainting ourselves with the preserved writings.
But this answer is much too vague. We want a more precise one.
And this is not difficult to find, especially when we are looking for
general tendencies in Greek literature. For we know that, as a rule,
Greek literary activity was an orderly one. People did not write at
random, according to their individual will and whim. No, they
followed examples or, better still, they practised a literary kind, a
genre, and a genre is subject to common usages and accepted rules.
A genre may be created through the initiative of an individual ; but
it can only exist when the community accepts, acknowledges,
and sanctions it. The genre is essentially and naturally collective,
general; and consequently it will demonstrate general tendencies
with more clarity and precision than individual writings.
If it is true that tendencies appear in the writings, which writings
shall we take into account ? At all events those of mediocre
authors,
for, as a result of their lack of originality, they are apt to follow the
common road and to show the usual and customary characteristics.
But also those of outstanding authors, with the proviso that they are
no exceptions, for they determine the course of events, and the
general features of the period appear more distinctly with them.
I apologize for this long introduction, but it was necessary in order
to make clear what our subject-matter really is. Now that we pass on
to the actual and material aspects of our problem, the first
question is : what kind of literature was alive in the second century ?
Or rather: genres were regularly
Which practised? And the first
remark is the following : there is a general and marked predilection
for prose, whereas poetry is practically neglected. We can still read
the small Fables of Babrius, the oldest Hymns in the so-called Orphic
collection, a few epigrams and the didactic poems which bear the
name of Oppian. Lost are e.g. the 42 books of Iatrica by Marcellus of
Side; the hymnographer Mesomedes of Crete and the epic poet
Pancrates are mere shadows as well. Nothing really comes to the
fore. We have just to do with prose.
Now, of prose writings a fair number
has been preserved. But they
are a small part of all that was composed. Schmid-St?hlin enumerate
more than one hundred authors, excluding the purely technical ones.

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
44 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D.

But very few of those are what we call great authors. At the top we
find: the genial, sympathetic, versatile, learned, but nevertheless
rather superficial Platonic moralist Plutarch; the trustworthy
historian Arrian; the excellent stylist Lucian; two philosophers,
the emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus, whose so intensely personal
Meditations were not primarily meant for publication and cannot
represent a general tendency; and the slave Epictetus whose oral
dialexeis, cast into the form of written diatribes, belong to a much
practised genre; and finally the physician and publicist Galen.
If we compare this short list of names
with those of, say, the fifth,
the fourth, or the third centuries B.C., it is clear that, from a literary
point of view, the second A.D. is not a golden age. Galen himself
acknowledges that his contemporaries were unable to perform what
e.g. his two cultural heroes, Hippocrates and Plato, had achieved.
But,
exactly on account of this scarcity of really important and original
authors, general tendencies and characteristics appear with clarity.
Let us now examine the different literary departments and
genres.For the present I will just state the facts. The interpretation
and, perhaps, the explanation will follow later on.
When we begin with philosophical writings, the first thing which
strikes us is their lack
of originality. Philosophy as a whole has
come to a stand-still. No new theory is proposed, and the tenets of
the existing schools lie firm. The Stoa leads, represented as it is by
the emperor and the slave whom we mentioned. In both we notice
the same deep emotion and strong conviction. As human personali-
ties they are very different, but their doctrine is essentially the same ;
it is the doctrine of the traditional Stoa; we do not read anything
substantially new. Stoicism does not develop anymore; the Stoics
accept the existing convictions, and if the disciples of other schools
contest them, they do as Diogenian did, who opposed Chrysippus'
doctrine of fate ; and Chrysippus died in 207 B.C. I have said already
that the writings of Antoninus and Epictetus were of a special
nature; the emperor's Meditations, because they became literature
just by chance; the slave's Talks, through the intercession of Arrian.
The same is true for Pyrrhonism. In Sextus Empiricus' books we
look in vain for real originality. He is a commentator, not a philos-
opher. And the same must probably be said about lost authors as

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D. 45

Aspasius, who explained Aristotle, and Theon ofSmyrna, who

explained Plato. Albinus' philosophy was almost certainly a mixture
of Platonic, peripatetic, and stoic elements, in which just the
eclecticism was original.
It is perhaps only in the writings of
Numenius of Apamea, in the second half of the century, that we
could have detected some real innovation, since he seems to have
been an immediate precursor of neoplatonism.
This weakness of
philosophy tallies with well-known facts.
E.g. when Antoninus Pius, in the important cities, granted immunity
from taxation to a fixed number of professional teachers, he did not
determine a maximum for philosophers. They were everywhere
too few.
So the general
tendency of philosophical literature is the
acceptance, reproduction and, at its best, interpretation of tradition-
al material. In essence such a tendency is a passive one, and living
literature can only acknowledge active tendencies.
However, the foregoing remarks concerning real philosophy, or
such philosophy as pretended to be real, are not quite sufficient.
For, by virtue of tradition, Greek intellectual life, in the second
century A.D. as in earlier times, was strongly connected with a
certain degree of philosophical knowledge. Higher education could
not possibly neglect the great philosophical writings of the
past.
And although, even in big cities, it happened as a rule in a haphazard
way, it implied some knowledge of philosophy. Consequently there
is no lack of authors who
display an interest in philosophical
problems, mainly in the ethical area. Many of them considered
themselves real philosophers, but, if I may venture to abuse the
possibilities of the English language, I would rather call them
paraphilosophers, and their writings paraphilosophical. In this
connection I do not think in the first place of Lucian's treatises and
dialogues, because in them
negativism and destructive criticism
prevail. I would rather mention a man as Plutarch and his so-called
Mor alia. In these, technical philosophy is rarely the real theme; it is
subservient to his kind, well-intentioned, but perhaps shallow
ethics. He does not sufficiently acknowledge the profound difference
which exists between real knowledge of the world and mankind,
and unscholarly interest in curiosities, details, and anecdotes.

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
46 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D.

Galen's writings are also paraphilosophic. Galen is doubtless one

of the most meritorious authors of his age, even if we neglect his
purely books ; in the other ones he appears to realize what
technical
he intended to achieve, i.e. to be a trustworthy guide towards true
paideia as it was understood then. In order to obtain this, a certain
knowledge of the philosophical systems is necessary and he possessed
that knowledge; in eclectic form. Now it is true that eclecticism
can be the symptom and result of sharp critical thinking, but also a
superficial love of ease. And in Galen's work this predilection for
easy solutions is unquestionably present. If one wishes to call such
a walking on easy roads a literary tendency, one may do so. But it
is certainly not an active and inspiring element in culture and
literature. The devaluation of philosophy is unmistakable. The
second century acknowledges what Isocrates, and not what Plato
meant by it.
I have drawn attention to Plutarch's ethical paraphilosophic
treatises. To these belong also his historical works. The age of
anecdotic or dramatic historiography according to the predilections
of peripatetic scholars is finished. But there is not very much worth
praising. Appian's merits do not lie in the purely historical, but in
the systematic area. Arrian is a true historian, matter-of-fact, sober,
sometimes critical; he is the disciple, perhaps not of Thucydides, but
certainly of Xenophon in the latter's best achievements. But, as
far as we can see, he stands quite alone, and, accordingly, does not
represent a general tendency. This may be said of Plutarch, for his
so strongly moralizing biographies display the same educational
tendency to determine the best way of life which appears also in the
diatribe, a genre which was extremely popular. The diatribe is that
kind of ethical and
philosophical eloquence which
every shuns
appearance of intentional specialism, is meant for the man in the
street, in order to show him a practicable road towards happiness,
in a lively, understandable, captivating, non-technical form.
Even when it is written, it remains a lecture, a lesson, a sermon.
It is a type of oratory, and oratory is the genre which we have to
treat now.
The existence of the diatribe suffices to show that the boundaries
between eloquence and philosophy became confused, to the dis-

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D. 47

advantage of the latter, which is obliged to leave large areas of its

own to an encyclopaedic and superficial rhetoric. The second century
is, as everyone knows, the century of the rhetoricians, the orators,
the sophists. It is strongly characterized by the cultural and literary
phenomenon of the so-called second sophistic. Every form of
eloquence that was still possible?circumstances forbode the free
political speech?was practised. For everybody rhetoric, slightly
coloured by a number of
paraphilosophical loei communes or
platitudes, was the sole source of a higher education. In Lucian's
Dream, Paideia herself gives a glowing picture of the prestige which
a sophist might acquire, through her alone. The superficial general
knowledge and the weak ethical humanism which were taught in the
schools of rhetoric, were too easily identified with profound philo-
sophical scholarship. Aulus Gellius tells us that, when he came to
Athens, the Platonist Taurus assumed that
study he came to
rhetoric. The travelling sophists were acclaimed and worshipped by
the public as film stars and sports matadors today; Radermacher
very aptly called them "Konzertredner". People liked to speak well
and people liked to listen. But the attention and the admiration
were directed more towards the word, the sound, the rhythm than
towards the ideas. The speakers wished above all to amaze and to
dazzle. The ideas and emotions which they expressed had no other
purpose than to make this striking form possible. No effort was
demanded of the audience; neither originality of thought nor
sincerity of feeling were pursued or expected. Time and again the
same old, stale wine was offered in new, beautifully adorned cups;
but it was incapable of quenching any real thirst for knowledge or
understanding, had this thirst existed. The whole phenomenon
strongly resembles a mesmeric trance, a soft delirium ; speakers and
listeners were hypnotized by an extravagant presentation of worth-
less contents. There was no longer a link with life as it is; people let
themselves be roused up into a state of insincere pathos, in which
the roar of strong words had to drown the deficiencies and the
falsehoods of the contents.
The same can be said, be it with less vigour, of two other types of
literature. The writings which we use to call Greek romances do not
demand either the slightest effort of the reader. The heroes of the

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D.

stories are as impersonal and mechanical as those of the strips in

today's newspapers. There is no question of individual characteriza-
tion. Nothing is truly human. The heroes' experiences and adven-
tures are variations on well-known themes. The authors wanted
above all to show off; the reader had to be shown how cleverly they
made use of the tricks of formal stylistics and rhetorical cliche s.
In this respect they succeeded as a rule. But one trembles when
they try to build up something as a logical argument or to describe
a psychological phenomenon. And the positive values of these
romances, e.g. the irresistible power of love and fate, and the
absolute virtue of the principal figures, are apt to diminish?owing
to their constant presence and the repetition of their infallible in-
fluence?rather than to enhance the inner value and fertile tendency
of the work.
Alciphron is the representative of epistolography. His letters are
composed with extreme care, but, once again, they stand quite
apart from real contemporary life. Once again nothing is absolutely
genuine. Is there a tendency in this type of literature ? Apparently
once again no other than the author's wish
show how well to
acquainted he is with the motifs of the new comedy and the bucolic
poetry of centuries ago. As a matter of fact, the bucolic poems of
Theocritus also transport the reader into an unreal world, but with
him everything is nevertheless full of scintillating life, full of sincere
feeling, and subtle psychology, through which they are of eternal
value. Alciphron submits passively to the charm of the past ; there
is no activity directed towards the present or even less towards
the future. He does not go forward, and in his work there is nothing
of essential importance.
There is hardly any purely religious literature. I mentioned already
a few orphie hymns; their magic character is evident. With
Plutarch the religious element is incorporated into the para-
philosophic element. Exactly as his historiography, it shows
something of a reaction against an excess of rational ethics, and it
tends towards mysticism. His theology is for a large part daemon-
ology. Probably such religious mysticism was also characteristic of
Numenius' doctrine. It appears even in incidental remarks, as when
in a dialogue of Lucian we read that Hermotimus chose the stoic

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D. 49

philosophy ?at? ?e?? ; this implies that spontaneous and intuitive

impulses of man's psyche were interpreted as divine inspiration.
Finally, in the biography of Apollonius of Tyana, which pretends
to be a preaching of philosophical and religious truth, a kind of
gospel, we recognize what Nock once called "intellectual bank-
ruptcy".
Here ends our short survey of Greek literature in the second
century A.D. We have now to determine its chief characteristics,
formal and material. The most striking formal one is atticistic
fanaticism, an intentional turning aside from the living language in
order to replace it by an artificial, pedantic, and pretentious
resurrection of a form of speech that could only be learned from
books. The century did not fail to compose the necessary in-
struments : Pollux compiled an Onomasticon in io books, Phrynichus
a S?f?st??? ?a?as?e?? ("Rhetorical Introduction") in no less than
37. The great sophists write in Attic; Arrian proclaims that he
wishes to be a "second Xenophon". From time to time writers try
to resurrect Herodotus' language. I mention just the facts; the
interpretation will follow presently.
And here we can immediately pass over to the material symptoms.
For there is not only atticism of language and style; there is also
atticism of the contents. The motifs, the ways of thinking, the things
for which they expect the reader's attention are not drawn from

contemporary life, from the surrounding world with its pleasures

and sorrows, but from a past which is to be found in books, in
schools, and nowhere else. Even a critical mind such as Lucian's
very often makes a mock of convictions, customs, and feelings taken
from the cultural, literary, philosophical, religious past; and he
finds his weapons in the same arsenal. The fact that he so often
chooses as a mouth-piece the cynic philosopher Menippus of
Gadara, who lived centuries ago, is a clear symptom of his submission
to the past. It is enlightening to compare his dialogues with those of
Plato in which practically all the speakers are contemporaries well
known by everybody.
So this rhetorical literature archaizes. It tends towards a repeti-
tion of former times. It is bookish; it breathes the atmosphere of the
school. The pressure of the rhetorical education with its mechanical

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D.

systematics and its method of instruction which was tied down to

fictitious events and circumstances, diverted the attention from
reality and enclosed a spiritual vacuum within the four walls of a
classroom. Literary life is no more than a prolongation of the school.
Non vitae, sed scholae might have been the motto. Very few pupils
became culturally adult and independent, and what the others
wrote remained just school-exercises. People wrote as the teacher
expected them to do, and so they reasoned without originality and
talked without sincere emotion. They practised the art?if art it
was?of varying themes and, through lack of sincere feeling, they
pretended and, more often than not, they overdid. There is hardly
any true lyrical emotion left. Instead of this there appears a leaning
towards the exciting and thrilling.
Very often literature is brought about by an external event.
So e.g. Pindar's poetry. But with a man as Pindar this factual
origin awakes the very depths of his personality. The work which is
accomplished in this way is the genuine expression of genuine
personal life. But rhetorical and sophistical literature follows a
different road: it obliges psychic faculties to achieve something
mechanical, something that actually surpasses their power; it
counterfeits the existence of the non-existing, and thus it becomes
false and untrue. For instance the panegyrist. The occasion is
decisive; he intends praising; he is obliged to praise. He puts
often
into words what the audience expects to hear ; he does not express
what his heart is feeling, but he compels his mouth to say what the
occasion demands, and to say it according to the rules learnt at
school.
The grip of rhetoric is so strong that it appropriates sundry
motifs and contents that belong to other genres, even poetry.
The second Sophistic consummates the evolution which started
long ago with Gorgias and Isocrates. Alciphron's epistolography
is nothing else than rhetoric in the form of letters. The romance is
nothing else than rhetoric in narrative form. We saw already that
rhetoric netted the usual shallow
ethical philosophy; the 41 dialexeis
of Maximus of Tyre, who claimed to be a Platonist, are superficial
exhortations to virtue. Everywhere second century rhetoric follows
the road of easy thinking and inflated emotion. It is keen on nothing

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D. 51

except the word; but a word that does not serve the true and sincere
has a false ring. The so-called paignia regularly appear on the
market; they are devoid of real feeling and the argument is just a
meaningless play. The inner emptiness is veiled by elegant wording
and mannerismof expression. The inspiration, without which art
can never be art, is unreal, pretended. The authors whip themselves
up; with external means they bring themselves and the audience
into a trance that excites for a short time but soon afterwards
leaves everybody concerned as poor and destitute as before.
So the most important aspects of Greek literature in the second
century may, I think, be summarized as follows. It is an essentially
weak literature. Weak in its intellectual ant its emotional elements.
It is not supported by strong minds or warm hearts. The shallowness
of the philosophy of poetry are clear symptoms.
and the absence
Arguments do not penetrate to the core of the problems involved
and, consequently, can hardly convince. Sincere emotion is not
felt and, consequently, cannot be created. The superficiality of all
knowledge appears also in the ease with which man pretends to
acquire an encyclopaedic experience of things. When in Lucian's
Dream Paideia recommends her own work, she says: "I shall
report to you the wonderful deeds and achievements of men of
ancient times and their words, and I shall give you experience
about so to say everything, and your soul, which is the essential
thing, I shall adorn with many fine ornaments, self-control, justice,
piety, friendliness, fairness, sagacity, endurance, love of beauty,
desire things". Such an ideal is so all-encompassing
of all honourable
that it is bound to remain hopelessly superficial and meaningless.
Qui trop embrasse, mal ?treint.
There is hardly an antagonism left between rhetoric and philos-
ophy, for no other reason than that philosophy?in the noble sense
of the word?is extremely weak, and rhetoric?in the bad sense of
the word?extremely strong. Lucian's critical attitude is negative
and he exaggerates. Nevertheless his criticism is fundamentally
right; he justly stigmatizes the lowness of the cultural level.
In the books the contents are nearly always traditional. Or other-
wise full of curiosa, mirabilia, paradoxa. Even with a serious and
respectable writer as Plutarch doubtlessly is, we notice traces of

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D.

that predilection for futilities. Wonder, t? ?a????e??, was with

Plato and Aristotle considered the basis and starting point of
reliable knowledge and philosophy; in the second century A.D. it
becomes an aim in itself. Authors as Polyaenus, Phlegon, Aelian
show that tendency in the highest degree. It is characteristic of
a generation who think that the essential questions have been solved
and who can show interest only in what is left, i.e. the remarkable
and exceptional. Such a literature has no single valuable purpose;
it does not show a single momentous
tendency. A good example
of this interest in trivialities is Aelian's
Varia historia, a book that
starts with a chapter on the way in which squids capture their prey
and ends with details concerning the harsh discipline that Philip
of Maced?n imposed on his soldiers. Take the proof and try to
read that book. In less than two hours you are bored to death
and you put it away. And then to think that Favorinus wrote a
pa?t?dap? ?st???a in no less than 24 books!
Reading the bulk of second century literature,that is to say such
writings as reflect general tendencies, one is not transported into a
real world, but into a sham one, in a museum of fossiles. And the
elegant obtrusive form makes the inner poverty appear with more
painful clarity. A small number of contemporaries noticed this
poverty, but
they were unable to heal it. They display a sterile
negativism, as Lucian did, a dry scepticism, as Sextus, or a per-
plexity as Oenomaus of Gadara, who estimated his own cynical
creed as a kind of despair concerning all higher values of human life.
To sum up: does the literature of that century show any positive
tendencies ? Yes, it does. As to the contents, we may mention a weak
moralizing one, and a critical and sceptical one. It is not much,
but could we expect more in a literature that, out of its own weak-
ness, liked to archaize and looked for its inspiration into the past ?
A real purpose comes to the fore only in the form, but it takes a
wrong direction; it rejects the present and living material and
submits to the rules
of a language and a style that lived centuries
ago. Is this archaizing really a tendency ? Is it not rather a lifeless
routine, destitute of push and energy ? Writers and readers do not
advance; they do not even wish to go ahead; they just mark time,
and this means that they retrograde. The most striking characteris-

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D. 53

tic, however, is the tendency to cover the absence of inner life by

a noisy clangor of words. And so it was unavoidable that this
literature, in its general aspects, should remain feeble, unsatis-
factory, uninspiring, hardly tending in a good
and as direction,
a rule making a bad choice.
Are we ready after having given this verdict? No, not yet.
A further observation should be added. It is, of course, possible to
consider literature separately, in itself; and its tendencies likewise.
And in a sense this is right. But, as I said at the beginning, literary
tendencies an aspect
are of human activity. The tendencies are
determined by the mentality, the inner habitus of man. Tendencies
of an individual author depend on his own mentality. But we look
for general tendencies, and these are connected with the ?tat d'esprit
of the community.
Why does literature tend towards something? Why does it
take a certain direction ? Why does it show certainpredilections ?
Because the group, which produces and accepts it, tends towards
something, takes a direction, prefers the one to the other. Why does
romantic literature tend towards a predominance of emotion and
passion? Because the romantics themselves, as human beings,
were emotional and passionate or thought that they had to be so.
And therefore we can only understand tendencies if we turn our
attention to the writers and the readers, as human beings. Exactly
because literature cannot possibly develop into a direction that
differs from the course taken by the authors and the readers, a study
of its tendencies spontaneously becomes a study of man in a certain
cultural atmosphere. For us today that means the Greek of the
second century A.D.
And since Greek literature
practically always was written and
read by the
higher classes, who only had the opportunity to be
educated, its tendencies derive from the psychological characteristics
of the representatives of those classes. At the same time, these
characteristics explain, to a certain degree, the existence of the
tendencies.
What must be said of the man of that century? In the first
place that he is contented with what has been achieved, with the
heritage left by former generations. He wishes to keep, not to

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
54 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D.

conquer. Why ? Because, consciously or unconsciously, he realizes

that he is unable to do what they did. He knows that he is inferior
to them. This feeling of personal impotence, added to a sincere,
but blind admiration for the great predecessors, induces him to look
for help where this can be found, i.e. with these predecessors, in
the past. It is possible that there is a certain connection with the
general political situation. The Greek cultural world cannot hope
any longer for further expansion. The Roman Empire defends its
boundaries. Peace in prosperity is the ideal. And in the numerous
panegyrics of the emperors we notice the ease-loving gratitude
which gladly leaves the decisions to them and shuns personal
responsibility.
There is certainly a relation with religion. The feeling of impotence
and despondency is connected with the belief in the
omnipotence
of a whimsical fate which plays with mankind an arbitrary game;
and in the influence of numberless obscure powers, which influence
human life very directly. Every effort seems purposeless and useless
in a world in which Fortune and Daemons reign. Man is no longer
willing to form and direct his own life; he just accepts what comes.
The gods of former ages left more freedom, even the freedom of
rebellion. Now vitality has withered and has lost the power to asseit
itself.
So the will has weakened. But emotionality likewise. The heart
fails more and more. And because poetry seizes human nature more
deeply and strongly in its inner totality than prose, which always
puts a certain distance between the subject and the object, it is
doomed to be neglected. The poetical state of mind is superseded
by other, more superficial psychic faculties. And to these faculties
does not belong sharp, critical, constructive thinking. The intellect
does not notice the challenge that comes from reality and life.
The Greek of the second century eschews efforts ; he prefers to move
in a fictive reality and tries to compensate the inner poverty by
external frippery. He juggles with motifs and words; he becomes
the slave of the mechanism of formulation.
Noble eloquence, that is the art to express well what is well
thought and well felt, degenerates and becomes a skill, a mechanical
t????, a detailed compound of rules and prescriptions, which, instead

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D. 55

of being instruments, become the aim. Spontaneity is killed, and

the intellect which dissipates its strength on worthless objects,
loses its energy.
This aversion to intellectual effort, this insincerity of emotion,
and this passivity of the will lead towards a hazy mysticism which
pervades the whole conception of life. Philosophy is replaced by
empty veneration for form ; a veneration which is a kind of stupor,
an intoxication, a trance which deafens the readers as well as the
authors with the roar of exaggerations. This is the wrong e?stas??,
which depersonalizes; not the right one which inspires to higher
achievements. It has nothing to do with Plato's ????, does not lead
towards the contemplation of the ideal and the divine, but gets
lost in a vacuum.
Real art, real literature as well, cannot thrive unless in freedom.
It is the achievement of independent, responsible minds. It refuses
submission to preconceived opinions, to imposed restrictions or to
prescribed of expression.
rules And certainly so, if this compulsion
is inflicted by a since long bygone past. It ought to command,
not to obey; it ought to use, not to be used. An exception is the
figure of Marcus Aurelius, a personality whose work is highly
personal; it does not show the slightest symptom of servitude.
In the case of Dio
Chrysostomus we have a second exception.
It is interesting just because, through the personal influence of
Musonius Rufus?with whom in his youth he still had a contro-
versy?he was liberated from the servitude to the sophistics of his
age and the impact of the past, and discovered his own personality.
Lucian also is free, but he is satisfied by the repudiation of bondage
and does not develop in a positive direction. He comes to a stand-
still halfway. Galen rejects the materialistic doctrine of Epicurus
and the sceptical Pyrrhonism as well. In other words and in order
to put it positively, he acknowledges the dualism that pervades so
many Greek systems, and the value of reason and reasoning as well.
He hasno tendency towards mysticism or religion, nor towards
emaciation of life. Probably his practice as a physician guarded him
in this respect. In short, we find with him a certain equipoise of
mental faculties: his intellect certainly predominates over his
emotionality, but it is not unhealthy. He is willing to listen to facts

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
56 LITERARY TENDENCIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY A.D.

and phenomena and reluctant to follow paths of pure imagination.

But he also is an exception.
We can divide the authors of the century into three groups.
The first comprises the purely technical writers, who are outside
of the problem here. The second those who are more or less in-
dependent personalities: Plutarch, Galen, Marcus Aurelius, Arrian,
Dio; Lucian also in his particular, restricted way; on account of
their relative originality they do not represent general tendencies.
The third group comprises the numerous puppets who act and think
and write as they were taught, as people expect from them, and in
the same form as everybody does.
Thisis not a gratifying picture. General tendencies are rare and
weak. is no real activity;
There nobody sets out on an exploration;
everybody walks on trodden paths. Why ? Because they themselves
are weak, unable to display psychic energy. They are tired; they
sit down comfortably in well-known surroundings, and they are
waiting, waiting for something they will not find, because it is not
really looked for. Meanwhile they beguile the time in culling
artificial flowers of language and style.
The Greek literature of the second century is the work of a
powerless community, which, on the other hand, overstrains its
faculties in unhealthy
exaggerations. It is a neglected
in a one
neglected century, and, generally speaking, it deserves this neglect.
What remains, and what deserves our continued interest, are the
writings of a few real human personalities who are its glory.

Leiden, van Beuningenlaan 20

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.234 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:56:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions