Chapter I: Part 1

LECTURES ON ANCIENT ETHNOGRAPHY AND GEOGRAPHY.

LECTURES
ON
ANCIENT ETHNOGRAPHY
AND GEOGRAPHY,

COMPRISING
GREECE AND HER COLONIES, EPIRUS, MACEDONIA,
ILLYRICUM, ITALY, GAUL, SPAIN, BRITAIN,
THE NORTH OF AFRICA, ETC.

BY
B. G. NIEBUHR.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN EDITION OF DR. ISLER, BY
DR. LEONHARD SCHMITZ, F.R.S.E.
RECTOR OF THE HIGH SCHOOL OF EDINBURGH;
WITH ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS FROM HIS OWN MS. NOTES.

IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. II.

LONDON:
WALTON AND MABERLY,
UPPER GOWER STREET, AND IVY LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW.
M.DCCC.LIII.

LONDON:
PRINTED BY J. WERTHEIMER AND CO.
CIRCUS PLACE, FINSBURY CIRCUS.

CONTENTS OF VOL. II.

PAGE

Italy, its name 1

Population 3

Physical character 10

Divisions of Italy 13

Latium 30

Extent of Latium 31

Latin Colonies 32

Jus Latii, Latinitas 33

Different names of the Latini 33

Physical condition of Latium 37

TOPOGRAPHY OF ROME 41

The most ancient parts 41

The Seven Hills, Septimontium 42

The Agger of Servius Tullius 43

Further extension 43

The Regions of Augustus 44

Nature of the ground 46

The Cloacae 47

Fortification of ancient towns 48

Course of the ancient walls of Rome 48

The Marrana 50

Suburbs 52

Extension of the city 52

Tombs 52

_Horti, Villae_ 53

The Wall of Aurelian 57

The Gates 59

Roads 62

Interior of Rome 65

The Capitoline Hill 65

_Clivus, Semita_ 65

Streets of Rome 66

The Asylum, the Tarpeian Rock 66

The Capitoline Temple 67

Parts of ancient temples 67

The _Carcer_ 69

The Forum Romanum 69

The Comitium 73

The Rostra 73

The Curia Hostilia 75

The Curia Julia 76

Buildings of the Forum Romanum 77

Basilicae 79

Other Fora 80

_Vicus, Pagus_ 86

_Platea_ 87

Aqueducts 87

Circi 88

Theatres 90

Amphitheatres 90

Thermae 93

The Palatine 96

Via Sacra, Velia 98

Triumphal arches 98

Subura 98

Carinae 99

The Quirinal 99

The Esquiline, Caelius, Aventine 99

Suburbs 100

Campi 100

Moles Hadriani 101

Trastevere 103

Bridges 103

Insula Tiberina 104

The rest of Latium 105

The Hernicans 116

The Volscians and Aequians 119

Campania 127

The Sabellians, Sabines, Samnites 141

Sabellian confederations 142

The Lucanians 144

The Bruttians 144

Constitution of the Sabellians 145

Country of the Sabines proper 147

Picenum 150

The Upper Confederation of the Marsians,
Pelignians, Marrucinians, and Vestinians 153

The Marsians 156

The Pelignians 157

The Marrucinians 157

The Vestinians 157

The Samnites 158

The Samnite Tribes 160

The Frentanians 161

The Pentrians 161

The Caudines 161

The Hirpinians 161

Apulia 168

Poediculi, Peucetii 175

Messapia 177

Ancient Oenotria 179

The Lucanians 182

The Bruttians 183

Greek towns on the coast of Italy 185

Magna Graecia 188

The Achaean towns 190

Locri 199

The Chalcidian towns 202

Etruria 206

The Faliscans 229

Umbria 231

Gallia Cisalpina or Togata 234

The Boians 236

Gallic tribes in northern Italy 236

Gallia Cispadana, Transpadana 236

Liguria 249

Population of Italy 252

Sicilia 256

Punic towns in Sicily 267

Egesta 269

Towns of the interior 270

Sardinia 273

Corsica 278

Hispania 279

Iberians, Celts, Celtiberians 280

Baetica 282

The Turdetanians 283

The Edetanians 291

The Lusitanians 297

Celtici, Celtae 298

Oretani, Carpetani, Vaccaei 298

The Celtiberians 299

Callaici, Astures, Cantabri 301

Iberians north of the Pyrenees 302

Gallia 303

Difference between Celts and Germans 305

Difference between the Celts and Belgae 306

The Druids 308

Political division 311

Arverni, Aedui, Sequani 312

Aquitani 313

Armorica 318

Belgae 319

Treviri 319

Germania prima, secunda 320

Britannia 320

Its Population 321

Celtic nations on the east of the Rhine 323

Aravisci, Boii, Norici, Vindelici 323

Taurisci, Scordisci 324

Galatia 325

Bastarnae, Sciri 325

AFRICA.

Cyrenaica 327

Carthaginian Republic 330

Arae Philaenorum 330

The Syrtes 330

Population, language 332

Population of the interior 334

Numidia 339

Aethiopia, Egypt 340

Meroe 341

Some more Greek colonies (in Lydia and Pamphylia) 347

Cyprus 348

Phoenicia 350

LECTURES

ON

ANCIENT ETHNOGRAPHY AND GEOGRAPHY.

ITALY.

The name _Italy_ was applied at different times to a very different extent of country. The Greeks, who scarcely ever transferred themselves from their own point of view to that of other nations, inform us, that the name _Italia_, beginning in the extreme south, and belonging to a small tract of country, became gradually extended. They relate, that in ancient times the Oenotrians, under this name or without any name, produced the sage Italus, who led them from a state of perfect wildness, or from a life depending on the chase, like that ascribed by the Romans to the Aborigines, to agriculture and fixed habitations, and became their lawgiver. That his laws, resembling those of Minos, were observed for many centuries, and that at first the name Italia was restricted to the southern half of Bruttium, that is, the peninsula between Rhegium and the isthmus, extending from the Scylletian to the Napetinian gulf; that the name was then extended so as to comprise, in about its widest sense, the country south of a line drawn from Posidonia to Metapontum. This whole derivation from the Oenotrian period is without any authority whatever, though it is certain, that in the time of the Persian wars, and perhaps even somewhat later, that line actually formed the boundary of Italy. Nay, that boundary, instead of extending in the course of a whole century, even became somewhat narrower, and the line, instead of beginning at Posidonia, ran from the river Laos to Metapontum, along the subsequent frontier between Lucania and Bruttium, so that the north-western part of the country was detached from it. This boundary afterwards remained fixed with the Greeks; and the countries north of it were designated by different names, of which I shall speak hereafter. But after the middle of the fifth century of Rome, or about twenty years after the death of Alexander, the name Italia was extended by the Greeks as far as the Tiber. Previously Cumae had not been in Italy, but now even Rome is spoken of as a city of Italy.

This view entertained by the Greeks, though one-sided, is so attractive and seductive, that one easily allows one’s self to be captivated by it, especially as we have no detailed account of the natives of Italy to oppose to it. But amid a countless number of particular subjects requiring critical treatment in ancient history, people have forgotten to ask, How did the natives come to use this name? And this question changes our point of view. We have, indeed, no ancient Roman monuments on this subject, but we know for certain, that after the beginning of the seventh century, the name Italy was applied by the Romans to the whole peninsula, as far as Cisalpine Gaul; nay, Polybius extends it even to the foot of the Alps. The name Italy is very ancient, and occurs in the earliest fragments known to us; it is manifestly of native origin, and was habitually used by the Romans in their official language. What then were the limits set to it by the Romans? Did they consider themselves to be living beyond the boundaries of Italy about the middle of the fifth century when the Greeks drew their line of demarcation? If the Samnites and Etruscans were beyond that line, what was the name they applied to the whole of the peninsula? Almost all the coins discovered on the frontiers of Lucania and Samnium in southern Italy, bear the inscription _Viteliu_; and a statement in Suetonius, a very well read scholar, in his life of Vitellius, mentions _Vitellia_ as a divinity worshipped in all Italy. Some of the coins, moreover, have a peculiar figure, a bull with a man’s face. The ancients lastly inform us, that _vitulus_, in the ancient Italian language, signified both a calf and a heifer. Accordingly, I recognise in this figure the symbolical representation of a hero and archegetes of the people, who was called by the Greeks Italus, and by the Italian nations Vitellius or Vitalus, and was represented on their coins in a hieroglyphical manner as a bull. This figure of the bull has always been misunderstood; all kinds of symbolical and mythological explanations have been attempted, and a vast deal has been written about Ammon, Bacchus, and the like. All countries derive their names from their inhabitants; Egypt alone, which was thus called by the Ionians from its river (the Odyssey describes it as a διιπετὴς ποταμός), forms an exception. This statement is certain, for _Aegyptus_ was the original name of the river Nile which is singularly remarkable, and when swollen fills the whole country; so that both have the same name. The name _Egypt_ was foreign to the natives as a name of their country; the name with them was _Chemi_, whence the people ought to have been called Χημοί or Χῆμες. With this single exception, the names of countries are derived from their inhabitants; in Greek geography we always have first the name of the people, and then that of the country. So also Ἰταλοί is the original name of the people, and from it is formed _Italia_, the country of the Itali. These Itali comprised a number of tribes of Pelasgian origin, which dwelt there under different names, as Oenotrians, Peucetians, Daunians, Tyrrhenians, Latins, Liburnians, and Siculians, extending on both coasts of the peninsula as far as the Eridanus, though it is uncertain whether in early times they occupied the whole peninsula as far as the frontier of Liguria and the Po, or whether in the south they possessed all the country, while in the north they dwelt only on the coasts.

If we go back to the earliest accounts, we may assert, that the country south of a line from the coast of Etruria and Latium, from the Liris and Vulturnus up to the ridge which extends beyond mount Vulturnus as far as the heights of mount Garganus, was wholly inhabited by the Italian nation. The nation, however, was not confined within those limits, but also inhabited Latium and Etruria, and extended on the north of mount Garganus as far as the river Po, under the names of Liburnians, Pelasgians, and Siculians. This is the light in which we must view the population of Italy in the earliest times to which we can go back, before those nations were pressed on by a double immigration. For as in other parts, so here also nations were pushing onward from the north, some in a body, and of others only particular branches. Some of the Italian nations were expelled, and others remained in their native places, because the conquerors were not so savage as to be unable to live among them, and preferred having quiet settlements to a wandering life. The nation which gave this great impulse, and unseated (ἀνέστησαν) others, was in all probability that of the Etruscans. Farther east, the Illyrians spread themselves from the north, and the Etruscans in Italy proceeded in the same direction. The people, which, in the first instance, penetrated into the country of the Italians, partly expelling and partly subduing them, were the OPICANS. They must be conceived as pressing onward in a broad line, commencing from the banks of the Tiber, so that they took possession of the country of the Aequians, Marsians, Pelignians, northern Samnium, the district of the Frentanians, and western Apulia. At that time they had not yet established themselves either in Campania or in any part of Samnium. Being pressed by the Sabines, they penetrated into the country of the Italians, and overpowered them in all Daunia, so that Daunia became Apulia; and then they advanced into southern Samnium, Campania, and even into Latium. Italy thus became reduced and confined within those very boundaries mentioned in the earliest Greek traditions, namely, a line from Posidonia to Metapontum. But the Oscan invaders did not long retain these conquests; they maintained one part of them, but lost another. The Sabines were not satisfied with driving them back beyond the ancient frontiers, but pursued them farther, and thus there arose the SABELLIAN nations, that is, the _Samnites_ in the widest sense of the term, the _Lucanians_, and, within their boundaries, the _Bruttians_. The same country, therefore, must be regarded at one period as Italian, and at another as Oscan, and again at another as Sabellian. This is the cause of the immense confusion.

The Sabellians were not a numerous nation, and wherever they settled, they appear to have ruled over the subject people rather than to have changed them; the Oscans seem to have acted differently. In the countries which adopted the Opican name, and had formerly belonged to the Italians, the Opican language supplanted the ancient Italian or Siculian tongue; and when the same countries were taken by the Sabellians, the latter were not numerous enough again to change the language, but they themselves adopted that of the Opicans; and hence the language of the Samnites, Lucanians, and others, is called by the Romans Oscan. It is an established fact, that the ground-work of this language was essentially different from the real Sabine. The whole of the Sabine nation stood to the people among whom they had settled, in the same relation in which the Franks stood to the Gauls, or the Lombards to the nations of Italy. The Franks, for a long time, and in fact until the reign of Charlemagne, spoke Frankish, and the name of the country ever after was France, although the language of the people afterwards became Roman; in like manner the Sabellians bore this name, although their language was Oscan. This is the only method of explaining the apparent contradictions in many ancient accounts: the Oscans and Sabellians were different nations, but their language was the same, the Oscan prevailing everywhere among them. I have for many years laboured to discover how it was possible for the language of the Samnites to be Oscan, seeing that the two nations were essentially, if not altogether, different. Explanations, like that here given by means of comparison with other nations and ages, may be applied to the history of nations as well as to the history of constitutions and laws; a friend of mine, a very ingenious man, has called this “the comparative history of nations,” alluding to comparative natural history. Voltaire says, _comparaison n’est pas raison_, but still it often leads to the truth, though it can never supply the place of real proof. But to return to our subject, while the Greeks exclusively apply the name Opicans to the foreign settlers in those parts, and call the country _Opica_ or _Ausonia_, because the people called themselves _Auruncans_, the natives adhered to the name Italia, although the Italians had either been expelled or were united and mingled with the conquerors. Within this extent of Italy, then, the ruling Sabellians adopted both for themselves and for the Oscans the name of ITALICANS. Thus, according to the rules of the grammatical logic, which pervades the Latin language, we see _Italia_ derived from _Itali_, and from this again the name _Italici_, which without any change might be given to the Italians. Such changes of meaning, however, are of frequent occurrence in the Latin language, for common usage avails itself of such differences, where they exist, for the purpose of adding some modification to the original meaning. It is not till later times, towards the end of the seventh century—the real line of demarcation is formed by the poets of the Augustan age, and by the Augustan age in general—that _Itali homines_ and _Itali_ are used simply to designate Italians in general: _Italicum genus_ and _Italici_ were the inhabitants of Italy within the modern kingdom of Naples, exclusive of the Greeks. This is the meaning of the name in Sallust, who wrote in the old Roman fashion.

I have already mentioned to you that the name Italia was indigenous in the peninsula, and that consequently it was applied to a wider extent of country than was supposed by the Greeks. I have also indicated to you the traces of its history, though not so far back as we are inclined to imagine them to extend. In speaking of the history of Greece, I remarked incidentally, that some events are assigned to dates about two centuries too early. The same is the case in regard to the migrations and conquests of the nations in Italy. About the middle of the fifth century of the city, a decisive change took place in Italy, which had been preparing ever since the time of Dionysius of Syracuse. The Greeks were then more strictly confined to their own territories; and the ancient Italians, who kept up an intercourse with them or were under their dominion, lost their assumed character of Greeks, and became subject to the Sabellian nations, which were known to the Greeks under the general name of Opicans. They bore this name, because there can be no doubt, that the first who conquered a great part of those countries, were for the most part Oscans, who were afterwards obliged to retreat before the Sabellians.

Now, as the whole of the south of Italy, as far as the country of the Marsians, again formed an almost compact Sabellian country (except that in the greater part of Apulia the Sabellians had not made any conquests, but the Opicans maintained their dominion over the ancient Italians), and as the inhabitants of this country called themselves Italicans, it became customary with the Greeks also to call them Italicans, and the southern country Ausonia or Italia—the latter in the language of ordinary life, the former only in poetry;—but the people were rarely or never called Ἰταλοί, nor did the earlier Greeks apply to them the name Ἰταλικοί, but called them Ὀπικοί. This leads me to make a philological observation. It is well known that Juvenal uses the expression _opici mures_, which is commonly rendered in the dictionaries by “old-fashioned,” “rude,” “stupid,” or “barbarous;” but no further explanation is given. The fact is this. The Greeks viewed the Opicans in a very unfortunate light, as the destroyers of the prosperity of southern Italy, and as men that served as hired mercenaries in the southern armies (e.g. the Mamertines in Sicily); but those who remained at home were by no means contemptible; they appear in a very different light, as the leading men among the Samnites, Lucanians, and others; traits are found among them which inspire great respect, and there are undoubted traces of their having devoted themselves, at an early period, to the study of Greek literature. But those of them with whom the Greeks came most frequently in contact, were people pretty much of the same character as the Thracians and Scythians in the comedies of Aristophanes. The name Opicans was extended by them in a contemptuous sense to all the Italicans, and even to the Romans, as we see from one of the fragments of Cato. The Greeks in general distinguished themselves from all non-Greeks in a harsh and coarse manner; but the designations which they applied to foreigners differ according to the different nations with which they came in contact. The term βάρβαροι was originally no doubt applied only to nations of the Carian race, Carians, Lydians, and Mysians; Ὀπικοί, in the same sense, to the inhabitants of Italy; and Κάρβανοι in the “Supplices” of Aeschylus apparently a Cyrenaic term, seems to have been applied to the Egyptians and Libyans. I do not understand Coptic, nor do I possess any books or dictionary of that language, from which I might derive any information; but I am almost certain that the word Κάρβανοι is Coptic, for Aeschylus uses it in speaking of the Egyptians. Its original meaning is unknown to me. We thus see, how the general contrast between Greeks and foreigners presents itself in different shades.

About the time of Pyrrhus, the name Italy, in its whole extent, was applied to the peninsula as far as the frontiers of Etruria and the river Tiber. In this sense the name was used by the Greeks throughout the sixth century, and probably by the Romans also, for both strictly separate the rest of Italy from Etruria. There is a remarkable passage in Clemens Alexandrinus, who, in his “Stromata,” says, “Italy which borders on Etruria.” I do not quote Clemens as I would any other ancient Alexandrian author, for he did absolutely nothing but copy from the writers of the sixth century, that is, from those who lived about the time of Aristarchus; and he stops short there, because the authors from whose works he made his compilations, belonged to that period alone. Clemens is generally viewed in too favourable a light; still, however, he contains abundant materials, and no philologer ought to neglect him. When Etruria became more and more Romanised, though there were no Roman colonies in the interior of the country, and when the idea of other states existing in Italy by the side of Rome, vanished, another step was made in advance, and the name Italy was applied to the whole peninsula as far as the foot of the Alps; and in this sense Italy is spoken of by Polybius. Another question cannot, perhaps, be answered; it is this: did he include Liguria under the name of Italy?—did he employ the term Alps in such a manner as to comprise the Ligurian mountains between the coast of Genoa as far as the Po?—or did he extend the boundaries of Italy and Gaul from the Macra as far as the territory of Modena about the Po, then continuing them south of the Po, near Placentia and Parma, beyond the river, so as to make them run west of the Ticinus as far as the mountains? The last is the more probable, as it is the more natural line. In the official language of the Romans, the Rubicon formed the boundary of Italy, so that even Ravenna and the three Legations, which were otherwise not Gallic, were included in Cisalpine Gaul. Augustus was the first to add Cisalpine Gaul to Italy, so as to make the river Varus the frontier towards Gaul, and the town of Pola towards Istria. People may think of Augustus as they please; I do not praise him, nor do I blame him; his arrangements were great, and have exercised an influence upon the history of the world; his divisions of Rome and Italy became permanent. His division of Italy remained in force for a period of a thousand years, that is, down to the time of the Ottos, the Saxon emperors; and this durability shows that the divisions were based upon a necessary and natural foundation, whence, with the exception of slight changes, they remained during subsequent periods. On the side of Istria, the boundary has become somewhat narrower, in consequence of the change of the population, which in Istria became Slavonian. Under the emperors after Maximinian it became customary to call Lombardy, including Istria, Italy; what was then the name of the southern countries, I know not; hence the Lombard kings call themselves _reges Italiae_, and this Italy is termed by Gregorius Turonensis _parva Italia_.

We shall use the name Italy in the sense in which it is now generally done, excluding Savoy, which, like the French parts of Switzerland and Belgium, belongs to France. The country about the Adige, however, from Roveredo as far as Botzen, ought to be regarded as part of Italy. When you arrive there from Germany by way of Meran, you feel that you are quite in the south, the air and everything else reminds you of it; some of the people indeed speak German, but they are not Germans, and their countenances are ugly; the country, on the other hand, is very beautiful, and in the neighbourhood of Botzen it is like a Paradise. You feel that you are in the south and in Italy, whereas in Savoy you are in France, for it has none of the peculiarities of Italy. If you pay attention to everything, the physiognomy and the dialects, you will be astonished to find how clearly the different tribes of antiquity can still be distinguished. My friend Arndt first directed my attention to this. “When you go to Italy,” said he, “notice the difference of the tribes on the borders of Tuscany.” That was the boundary between the Etruscans and Ligurians. I was quite surprised still to find among the Tuscans the same fat, round faces, which are seen in ancient works of art. The Etruscans can still be distinguished from the Umbrians, and the latter again from the Cisalpine Gauls, at least in masses. In Lombardy you may, notwithstanding the strong mixture, still distinguish the dialects, and through them the parts which were inhabited by Gauls from those of the Veneti. It is a mistake to believe that the Italians are very unlike their ancestors; the actual difference arises from the strong admixture of Slavonians, and not from the immigrations, though the Goths were very numerous; but the Lombards were not; the former came with their women and children, and amounted, according to Procopius, to nearly a million of souls.

The three islands which are now considered as parts of Italy, and in which Italian is spoken, do not belong to it, and must be treated of separately.

Italy proper, as defined by Augustus, commenced at the _Alpes Maritimae_; the Alps are then further divided into the Cottian, Graian, Pennine, Raetian, Carnian, and Julian Alps. I shall explain to you each of these names, so as to enable you to find your way among, and to become familiar with, those mountains. From the Alps, then, which form the boundary, the APENNINES branch off in the north of Piedmont in two ranges; on the one side from the two St. Bernards near Aosta and Ivrea, and on the other from the Maritime Alps, and the two uniting in the territory of Montferrat run through Liguria close to the coast, so that in many parts of the territory of Genoa roads for vehicles along the sea have had to be made by blowing up the rocks, and horses often still find it difficult to pass along the sea-coast. They then turn east from the sea into Tuscany, where the mountains, properly speaking, first receive the name of Apennines. Afterwards they spread and extend in a south-eastern direction towards the Adriatic; then proceeding through the middle of the kingdom of Naples they fill, in many, though not parallel ranges, the whole of Lucania and Bruttium; but there the mountains all at once disappear, though in the Abruzzi, where the isthmus separates the southern from the northern country, they in some parts reach a height of 8,000 feet. For a distance of many miles nothing but small hills are visible. If that country were inhabited by an enterprising people, such as the French or English, the isthmus would long since have been broken through, for nothing would be easier than to make a canal there and to connect the two seas.

The Alps, as is well known, are primary mountains; and their ramifications in the territory of Genoa, which proceed from mount St. Bernard and the Maritime Alps, are of the same character; but the Apennines assume a different nature, and appear throughout Italy as rocks of limestone; in the Majella they may be of a different character, for Alpine productions are found there. In the southernmost part of Italy, facing Sicily, another range of mountains rises of quite a different character, being a continuation of the Sicilian mountains, of which Aetna is the central knot. The country near Rhegium is evidently torn off, as is indicated even by its name.

It is only the middle portion of the western coast of Italy, about a hundred miles from Rome, that is volcanic; the volcanic character always appears south of the Apennines, and prevails in a portion of Latium, as is evident from the soil and the lakes, as e.g., the Alban hills and the Alban lake; the lake of Nemi is a crater. The territory of Campania in its ancient sense (Terra di Lavoro) is of the same character, but it does not extend very far into the interior, for it is visible only in the Phlegraean plains as far as the Liris, and in the country about the gulf of Naples as far as the range of mountains, which terminates between Sorrento and Amalfi; this mountain forms the southern boundary of the volcanic ground. All the rest of Italy is essentially non-volcanic; Lombardy contains indeed a few springs to which one might be inclined to ascribe a volcanic origin, but at any rate only in an improper sense; the coast of the kingdom of Naples on the Adriatic, the whole of Apulia and Iapygia is altogether a limestone country. This stone, in its noblest form, as marble, appears especially in Tuscany on the frontier of Liguria, where the Apennines begin to form a distinct range; it is there that it appears most perfectly crystallised. In the south-eastern countries, on the other hand, it gradually changes into chalk, and forms natural saltpetre by an _affinité disposée_.

Although Italy is called a unique country, although we think of it as the fair and charming Hesperia, and as the country of oranges described by the poets, still it presents the very greatest variety of climate; the differences are as great, and perhaps even greater than in Germany. We may divide the whole country into three natural parts; we might perhaps make four, but there are in reality only three great divisions. The first may be termed _Greek Italy_, comprising very little more than the country occupied by Greek settlements, that is, the country of the ancient Itali from the neighbourhood of Terracina exclusive of Latium. Imagine a line running from Terracina across the mountains, the Liris and Vulturnus, down to Beneventum, through the valley of the Calor as far as the Garganus: the country south of this line is what I term Greek Italy, because its vegetation and its climate are Greek; the difference between this part and the countries north of it is greater than that existing between the latter and Germany. All the plants and trees which are seen at Rome only here and there, and are kept up with great labour and difficulty, grow there naturally and almost wild, as, for example, the cactus and aloe, which are really southern plants; the pine-tree is rare, and firs scarcely occur at all, while the dwarf-palm already grows between the rocks. Everything not only ripens earlier, as olives and figs, but the fruit is altogether of a different, a southern character; the vegetation is so mighty and gigantic that we in the north can scarcely form an idea of it. At Rome oranges may be destroyed by frost, but in Greek Italy this is impossible; and things which grow at Rome only in favourable years, are there quite common. This is the case with all plants; in short, a man there finds himself in quite a different country. When at Rome I felt as much at home as a foreigner who has not renounced his own country can possibly feel, and I entered the country free from the prejudices of a native; I visited southern Italy with the physical feeling of a Roman (the Roman climate is still very vividly before my mind), but I had not imagined that every thing could be so different at Terracina. I felt the same when I went from Germany to Italy, though it was then rather the feeling that I was entering a foreign land. The neighbourhood of Terracina is a particularly excellent country. All the wines from the districts of the Liris have a Greek character, whereas those of central Italy stand in the middle between French and Greek wines, and are in reality bad; the sky is of quite a different colour, and the air has something magic and elastic, something elevating and delicious, in comparison with which the atmosphere at Rome is heavy and oppressive. The farther south you go, the more beautiful everything becomes; I never was in the extreme south, but I still hope one day to visit it. However, I have been assured by travellers who had been there, that the charms constantly increase, the farther south you go; you perceive them even at Formiae, still more in the neighbourhood of Naples, and they appear in a still higher degree at Amalfi; in Calabria nature is said to be quite as delightful as on the south coast of Sicily. The physiognomy and the muscles of men also are different.

The second natural division consists of _central Italy_, which, however, has very different boundaries from those marked in our maps. The southern frontier has already been fixed by what I said before; but the northern runs along the Aesis from the borders of Marca Ancona, the ancient Picenum, across the ridge of the Apennines, so that the sources of the Tiber still belong to central Italy; it then passes along the Apennines on the frontiers of the territory of Bologna to the point where the Apennines unite with the Alps, so that even the coast of Genoa belongs to this part of Italy. This division is likewise based upon the vegetation. Its high mountainous parts have of course a lower temperature than the valleys, though they are by no means thoroughly different; they belong as parts to the whole, as every whole consists of several and diverse parts. Their character, on the other hand, is quite different from that of the opposite heights, which, under the same degree of latitude, descend into Lombardy. This division, then, with the exception of its highest mountain regions, is the country of the olive-tree, whence the excellent olive plantations in the territories of Lucca and Genoa, and also in Marca Ancona. In the south-western parts of Italy, as, for example, at Naples, the olives are not of equal value, though they are still excellent. The race of men in central Italy has less of the southern character; they still share with the southern people the development of the muscular fibres, though they have it in a less degree; but their features are less harsh, the forms being more round and fleshy; yet these features differ according to the different districts and races.

_Northern Italy_ does not at all follow the parallels of latitude; it commences on the frontiers between the Marca Ancona and the duchy of Urbino, and runs along the northern slope of the Apennines up to the Alps: accordingly it encloses the large basin of the Po, extending beyond the Ticino and Doria, where the boundary line rises up to the heights. This part presents a great difference in temperature and vegetation from the southern countries: the winters are severe, and at the foot of the Alps hard frosts are not uncommon; the olive-tree no longer thrives, but is more like a shrub resembling a crippled willow, and all the southern plants which still occur in central Italy, such as oranges and lemons, are raised only by artificial means and with difficulty as in Germany; the cactus, aloe, and the like, are quite out of the question. The winters are of a northern character and commence early; the atmosphere is heavy and unpleasant, and the whole country has this character more or less. A person coming from the south, e.g. from Florence or Ancona, feels that he is in a northern country: in the Tyrol and in the Raetian districts, near Trent and Botzen, the climate is far more southerly than there, although in northern Italy the heat in summer is very great; but the cold in winter is equally great, and, in addition to this, the air is generally moist and warm.

These divisions are also traceable in history: northern Italy was the country of the Gauls, and was but gradually incorporated by the Romans with Italy. The Romans not unjustly speak of the _pingue caelum_ of those countries; and the Milanese are to this day taunted by the southern Italians with their _aër crassus_. For this reason the inhabitants are on the whole ugly and awkward figures, with the exception of those of Venice, which has a very peculiar and beautiful race of men. The Ligurians also are handsome, the Piedmontese are strikingly fair and almost too delicate, while otherwise the northern Italians have uncommonly coarse skins. The Genoese approach more closely the peculiar Italian race, and the Milanese have vulgar features, and no appearance of refinement and freshness. The Piedmontese, as I have already remarked, show a high degree of refinement, and when, in addition to this, they are blooming, they are most handsome, especially the women; but such a combination is rarely seen, they are generally too fair. The Tuscans are rather a handsome race, with round faces, and the Florentines have even something German in their countenances. The development of the muscles, which we find in southern and to some extent also in central Italy, is wanting in the northern Italians. It has for long time been a matter of doubt, as to whether the ancients studied anatomy; but if a person carefully examines an ordinary Italian model, he will be convinced, that they did not require to study anatomy: the muscles are so perfectly developed, that they can be easily and completely distinguished on a naked arm; the whole play of the muscles can be seen without anatomical operation. This was probably the case to a still greater extent among the Greeks, but this is not so in the bodies of northern nations; and the muscles of a northern Italian are as much concealed under the skin as they are in our own bodies.

The dialects do not quite coincide with this division; in the north of Italy they vary greatly, although the Genoese and Ligurian predominate.

After this account of the division of Italy into three parts, I shall continue the description of its physical features. I shall first speak of the Alps. To describe them is beyond my powers; if you want to form an idea of them, you must read the excellent description of Strabo; I have seen only those of the Tyrol. The Alps with the ancients are much more extensive than in our maps; not because the nations dwelling near them applied the name to a greater range of mountains; but they are too far distant from us, and we, having a different mode of speaking, are not inclined to apply the name to the same extent of mountains; the whole range, however, forms one mass. The southernmost Alps are those known by the name of _Alpes Maritimae_, which afterwards formed a distinct region in the north of Nice. This city is, properly speaking, situated beyond the natural boundaries of Italy, but strangely enough, belongs to Piedmont, although it is situated beyond the mountains. It is very possible that, if Augustus had not made the Varus the boundary, Nice would now be a town of Provence. The Alps there rise to a mighty height, although they do not belong to the highest; the road from Nice to Coni is a difficult mountain road. It is not quite certain as to whether the ancients had a clear notion of the boundary lines. The Alps, near Briançon, are not distinguished by the ancients by a separate name; the ancient road there ran from the Rhone to Turin; that over Mount Cenis was not made till a later period. These Alps are joined by the _Alpes Cottiae_, where, until the time of Nero, there existed a small Gallic principality under the supremacy of Rome. Next come the _Alpes Graiae_ with the two St. Bernards, the great and the little; the latter is the mountain passed by Hannibal, according to General Melville and De Luc’s incontrovertible arguments. This fact ought to be beyond all doubt, and it is insufferable to see the old questions on this point raised again and again. The French army in 1800 crossed the great St. Bernard. The _Alpes Graiae_ are said to have received their name from Hercules, who was believed to have crossed them on his expedition into Spain: but the name must have had a different origin. After them follow the _Alpes Penninae_, the Simplon as far as the Furca; the _Alpes Nepontiae_, the St. Gothard, Splügen, etc. After this the names are obscure until we reach the _Alpes Raeticae_, which extend in the Tyrol from Graubündten to the Puster valley. The _Alpes Juliae_, next to these, appear under this name without any reason being assigned for it; but it was no doubt derived from Julius Caesar, to whose province they belonged, but why they were named after him, is unknown. They are also called _Alpes Noricae_; they are the Alps of Carniola, and one branch of them extends into Istria, while another runs round the gulf of the Adriatic into Dalmatia.

The Apennines join the Alps in the country of Piedmont south of the Po; at first their character is indefinite, but soon their own peculiarities and a marked difference from the Alps are developed. In ancient times they were, no doubt, a vast woody range from one end of Italy to the other, whereas the greater part is now barren. In the territory of Genoa, where I have seen them, in the neighbourhood of Florence and in the Romagna, with which I am intimately acquainted, and in fact from the frontiers of Modena and Lucca, they present a very sad aspect, for they are utterly barren, and there is something wild, desolate, and terrific about them. During summer, there is no snow on any of those heights; in May it is often seen, though it is but very little: still, however, the mountains are very high, especially on the frontiers of Florence and Bologna. During winter, storms are of very common occurrence, and no man can find his way through them on account of the snow; the description which Livy gives of the storms in those parts is certainly not much exaggerated. I have passed those mountains in fair weather, and when I reached the right height, I perceived at once that I was in the region of storms. The passage of Hannibal with his army across that mountain during a snow-storm must certainly have been terrible, nor can we wonder that the Goths of Radagaisus perished there in winter: I think I have found out the district where this happened. Towards Umbria the mountains become considerably lower; they there form a thoroughly beautiful country, the air on the heights is healthy, and chesnut forests again make their appearance. The mountains then run through Umbria in a south-eastern direction across the country of Camarina into the Abruzzi, and their height again increases immensely, so that perpetual snow is said to be found on mount Majella and some others; but this snow must be limited to the ravines. Winter there commences very early; at Rome the top of mount Leonessa is seen covered with snow even at the beginning of November, and frequently continues there till April. This is the highest ridge in Italy, and about it we have to look for the most ancient seats of the Sabines. Thence the mountains extend into Samnium, and one branch runs towards mount Garganus. Farther south, the mountains lose their excessive height, and are again, up to their top, covered with wood, either chesnuts or other trees that are useful to man. The mountains there are comparatively of a moderate size, and are exposed to the full influence of a southern climate, especially in Lucania, and in their continuation extend into Bruttium down to the peninsula which physically belongs to Sicily. The last extremity, which ought no longer to be called Apennines, for it neither belongs to them in a geological point of view, nor do the mountains run in the same direction—I allude to the mountain between Lucania and the isthmus—is the Sila, the large Bruttian range of mountains covered with fir forests, where the Romans had their large establishments for the manufacture of tar, and whence they derived their timber for ship-building.

These general remarks about the mountains may suffice for the present: I shall enter more into detail, as occasions occur, and now pass on to the rivers.

The PADUS, the _fluviorum rex Eridanus_, has none of the characteristics of a southern river; it has the same natural features as the Waal and the Leck in the Netherlands, for it is muddy, and as it has been so long shut in between embankments, its bed is so high, that the surface of its waters is from fifteen to twenty feet above the level of the surrounding country. The whole basin of the Po, and of the rivers emptying themselves into it, was originally a vast bay of the sea, which was gradually confined to these rivers; it is a “river-marsh,” as the people in Dithmarsh would say. How many thousands of years may this process have lasted! At the time when the mouth of the Po was far above the point where it now is, a succession of downs had been formed from the neighbourhood of Rimini as far as the innermost corner of the Adriatic, or as far as Aquileia and Trieste, just as in the Kurische and Frische Nehrung in Prussia, and as was formerly the case along the coast from Calais to Jutland. Behind these downs there was a vast inland lagune which became gradually filled up; in the neighbourhood of Venice the filling up is prevented only by artificial means. These hillocks of sand are now called _lido_; such a one exists near Venice, and upon it depends the safety of the city during high floods. Ravenna was in antiquity a city like Venice, built upon islands and stakes; but the space gained in the course of 2000 years scarcely amounts to eight miles. All the rivers descending from the Apennines on the south of the Po empty themselves into it, and all those which flow from the north on the east of the lake of Garda discharge their waters into the lagunes: they all have their share in extending the coast. The most important of these rivers will be mentioned, when I come to speak of the countries to which they belong.

In central Italy, the TIBER is the king of rivers. The orthography _Thybris_ must be ancient, as it was also adopted by the Greek writers. The Tiber is indeed the most renowned river in the world, but it is by no means beautiful; its waters are very muddy and rapid and of a disagreeable appearance; navigation is difficult, and consequently not frequent, and the country about the river is much exposed to inundation. There can scarcely be a more unpleasing sight than that of the Tiber at Rome. Its tributaries are the _Anio_ (now _Teverone_, even in antiquity called _Tiburnus_), the _Nera_ or _Nar_ (a Sabine word signifying sulphur, which is contained in its waters), and a number of small streams without particular names; it also receives supplies of water from lake Velinus.

The ARNO is the principal river of Tuscany; it is smaller but incomparably more beautiful than the Tiber, especially in the neighbourhood of Florence. I think I have first discovered its extremely remarkable history, partly by my own observations, and partly from the excellent chronicle of Florence. It originally consisted of three distinct rivers. At its mouth the sea formed an estuary, and as the water of those marshes was carried into the sea by a small river in the neighbourhood of Pisa, the inhabitants considerably widened it by making drains through the marshes, and thus carrying the waters into the river. The middle part was a large lake covering the ground now occupied by Florence: the rock Gonfalina formed a barrier against it, but being cut through, an outlet was formed towards the lower Anio, as has been observed even by Villani. The large ancient basin of this lake may still be recognised, and the walls of Fiesole still show how high it was.[1] The third part, now the upper Arno, was formed in the ante-Roman period in the neighbourhood of La’ncisa, likewise by cutting a canal through a rock for the purpose of making an outlet for the water which formerly flowed partly towards the Tiber, and partly formed another lake. In this manner, the most excellent country, with the most wonderful natural beauties, has been almost entirely recovered by human ingenuity.

The LIRIS, on the frontier between central and southern Italy, is mentioned under the name of the _Garigliano_ as early as the ninth century. It flows down from the Apennines as a beautiful mountain-torrent in the neighbourhood of Arpinum and Sora, but near its mouth it deserves the name of _quietus amnis_, at least under ordinary circumstances; for during the changes of the seasons, its current is often very strong.

The VULTURNUS was no doubt so called from an ancient Oscan or Samnite word _vultur_, signifying a mountain. The east-wind which is known at Rome under the name of _Vulturnus_, probably also derives its name from a Samnite mountain, for it has no reference to the river.

The other rivers in the west, which discharge their waters into the Tyrrhenian sea, are insignificant. I may, however, mention the _Silarus_, which forms the northern, and the _Laus_, which forms the southern boundary of Lucania.

The AUFIDUS, now Ofanto, is the only large river in southern Italy, which empties itself into the Adriatic; it is still, when swollen, very rapid and raging, as it is described by Horace. Its fall is greatest near the Apennines; it is not a fine river, and its waters are muddy with lime.

The seas surrounding Italy are: in the west, the _mare inferum_, Τυρσηνικὴ θάλασσα, extending from the Ligurian gulf to Sicily; it is called _mare Tyrrhenicum_ or _Tuscum_ only by Roman poets and by those who affect to write learnedly. The Romans certainly did not call the Adriatic _mare Hadriaticum_, but _mare superum_; the Greeks sometimes call it Ἰόνιος κόλπος. The sea in the south-east of Italy had no special name among the Romans, but the Greeks call it Ἰόνιος θάλασσα.

The bays of Tarentum and Liguria are sufficiently described by their names.

Let us now proceed to the divisions of Italy. I shall first speak of the most ancient ones, which arose with and through the nations themselves. They are very variable, and I am afraid it will not be possible to make their relations quite clear without being very minute.

In the earliest times, Italy may be conceived somewhat in the following manner: southern Italy, from the line I have already mentioned as running from mount Garganus across the country as far as the coast of Latium, is the country of the Itali, who appear there as different tribes and under different names. To the north of that line we have the country of the Opicans, next that of the Sabellians, and to the north of them we have the Umbrians; it is possible, that at the same early period the Etruscans, who had come from the north, may have dwelt there, while the whole coast on both sides, from Pisa as far as the Adriatic gulf, was occupied by Pelasgian tribes. This form of Italy is the most ancient of which we have any knowledge; we have nothing more definite during the historical ages. In passing on to the time which we call the end of regal power, or the beginning of the consulship, we find in the south the Greek settlements scattered in an almost unbroken line from Tarentum to Posidonia, in Apulia and Calabria, while Neapolis and Cumae occur in Campania. The Oenotrian tribes are partly allied with, and partly dependent on, those Greek colonies. The Oscans at that time probably extended into Calabria, and occupied Apulia, Samnium, and Campania; the Volscians and Aequians belonged to them. Whether these Oscan tribes were in any way akin to the Pelasgians, is a question which it is difficult to answer, though it is clear, that afterwards they became mixed and amalgamated with them; for in Latium, for example, Oscans and Pelasgians lived together. Next to them follow the Sabellian tribes from the frontiers of Apulia, viz., the Picentians, Pelignians, Marrucinians, Vestinians, Marsians, Frentanians, Sabines, etc., and they extend down to Rome. The country north of them was occupied by the Umbrians, inhabiting an extensive territory, though they were already a declining people, having been broken by the Etruscans. These Etruscans were then already in full possession of the country as far as the neighbourhood of Rome, and on the other side they extended to the very summits of the Alps in Raetia, and the Alpine tribes in the district of Graubündten belonged to them: they were a great and mighty nation, occupying the whole of the north of Italy. The north-east was inhabited by the Veneti, and in the north-west the Ligurians extended as far as the Ticinus. But then the Gauls invaded Italy, crushed some of the Ligurian tribes, overpowered and annihilated the Etruscans on the Po, with the exception of a few places, such as Mantua and Verona; they even advanced into Picenum, and ruled over many tribes which were not expelled by them. All those who were able to offer resistance remained, but all the others were extirpated; wherever the Gauls appeared, they changed the country which they did not occupy for themselves into a wilderness, and forests arose where formerly agriculture had been flourishing. Hence, when subsequently the Romans extended their dominion in those parts, they found the country a desert, and as such it is described even by Polybius.