Page:The Pharsalia of Lucan; (IA cu31924026485809).pdf/16
fascination under the glamour of which its faults are forgotten.
Very contrary opinions have been expressed as to the merits of the poem as a whole. Niebuhr ('Lectures on the History of Rome,' iii. 193) says, 'Lucan belongs to the time of Nero, and his poetry proceeded from the school of Seneca. His example shows us how much more intolerable its tendency is in poetry than in prose. Bernardin de St. Pierre and Chateaubriand are the offspring of a similar school. . . . It would be more bearable if it did not venture upon anything but sentimental moralising, as in the case of the former; but Chateaubriand is a perfect pendant to the bad poet Lucan. This is not yet generally recognised, indeed, but the opinion which now prevails in regard to his merits cannot continue.'
Here we have an unfair and incomplete criticism, and an unfulfilled prophecy. In spite of what Niebuhr says, the 'Pharsalia' has qualities which must always continue to excite the interest of mankind.
To turn to the opposite extreme, Shelley, in a letter dated September 1815, says 'I have also read the four first books of Lucan's "Pharsalia," a poem, as it appears to me, of wonderful genius and transcending Virgil.'[1]
I should have supposed that no admirer of Lucan would care to rest his reputation on Books II., III., or IV., and it would be interesting to know whether Shelley retained the opinion he expressed in his letter.
Lord Macaulay (Trevelyan's 'Life and Letters,' i. 462) calls Lucan an excellent writer. I have already mentioned his opinion of the speech of Cato in Book IX. He also selected for special praise the dream of Pompey in Book VII., and the enumeration of his exploits in Book VIII. 'When I consider,' he says, 'that Lucan died at twenty-six, I cannot help ranking him among the most extraordinary men that ever