Epigram and satire were also natural forms of expression for the Italian, and many epi grams are extant in inscriptions or are pre served anonymously in the Anthology. Martial is the only writer whose collected epigrams have come down to us. They are often neat, often amusing, but this form of art is of course not very high. In satire the Romans claimed complete originality and apparently with justice. The satirical spirit may express itself in comedy or epigram or in semi-lyrical iambics like the 'Epodes' of but the grammarians meant that in Latin the satire had been given a distinct conventional form-- a short poem in hexameters in which was expressed a distinct tone of critical comment on persons or on social life. In this sense satire can be clearly traced from Lucilius through Horace to Persil's and Juvenal. Of the four Horace is incomparably the most humorous and in reality the most penetrating; Lucilius is preserved only in fragments, Per sius is obscure, and both the objects of Juve nal's satire and the indignation with which he attacks them are too real' to give pleasure.
In the prose literature of Rome, oratory and history hold the first place. In both the art took substantial form before the national tend ency was overwhelmed by the finished Greek productions. Oratory is represented in the ex tant literature only by some late Panegyrics and the speeches of Cicero, a small amount in comparison with the volumes of the Attic ora tors. It is peculiarly unfortunate that we have none of the political speeches which played so large a part in the history of the republic; they would undoubtedly illustrate the prevail ingly practical character of Roman oratory and would show how steadily it grew to the height of Cicero's 'Second Philippic.' Up to this point, while it was increasingly stimulated by the best Greek models, it was able to resist the influence of Greek rhetoric. After Cicero's time the teaching of rhetoric, which had be come common in Rome, brought about an un due attention to form and a consequent loss of power.
'Phe writing of history also long served a practical end. It began as a mere expansion of the official annual records, including the names Of magistrates, the important public events and the recognized prodigies. This kind of history continued to be written after Naevius and En nius had composed more elaborate histories in verse, and, even when Roman history was writ ten in the Greek language, it was but little in fluenced by the great Greek models. It is with Sallust and Nepos that the writing of history really began and its importance in Latin litera ture is attested by the long line of minor historians.
Roman philosophy can make no claim to originality. It is found, in prose, in Cicero and Seneca. The former gave free renderings of the best Greek works on ethical philosophy with special reference to its value in the training of the orator; the latter wrote without much sys tem brief essays on ethics.
Of epistolary literature, either letters act ually sent to the persons addressed or essays in epistolary form, a considerable amount is known through allusions and the two collections by Cicero and Pliny have been mentioned. They are a unique feature of Roman literature, since it happens, perhaps from the concentration of Greek life in single cities, that no such collec tions are extant in Greek.
Of the technical writings enough has been said. They belong to all periods of the litera ture and cover almost all fields of study, agri culture, grammar, literary criticism, architec ture, medicine, rhetoric, military strategy, engi neering, astronomy, law; the first and the last subjects in this list being by far the most abun dant and important.
In comparison with the Greek literature the Latin is inferior in imagination and in form . two important characteristics; it is superior in the directness of its human appeal and in its practical worth to the modern world. It is sometimes said to be an imitative literature, but it is rather a continuation of creek literature in new surroundings. The influence of Greek lit erature upon Roman is not different in kind from the influence which modern literatures exert upon each other.
A comparison with modern literature is less easy, because the differences are greater. The ancient literatures follow more strictly defined lines of tradition, especially in poetry. The Roman circle of readers was more limited than the modern and literature was therefore less broadly based and less representative of a wide variety of interests. And the comparative ab sence of the romance or novel and the slight use of the motive of romantic love makes a very obvious difference. See articles on the in dividual authors mentioned, for further bio graphical and critical material. See also LATIN WRITERS; CLASSICAL LITERATURE.
Bibliography. Schanz, M.,
der ramischen Literatur' (in Muller, 'Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft,) 3d ed., Munich 1905-14); Teuffel, W. S., and Schwabe, L., Geschichte der ramischen Literatur' (Eng. trans. by C. C. Warr, London 1891-92); Mackail, J. W. 'History of Latin Literature' (New York 1895); Sellar, W. Y., 'Roman Poets of the Republic and Roman Poets of the Augustan Age' (Oxford 1892); Tyrrell, R. Y., 'Lectures on Latin Poetry) (Boston 1893) , Moulton,