Chapter I: Part 1

NIEBUHR’S LECTURES

ON

ROMAN HISTORY.

VOL. I.

NIEBUHR’S LECTURES
ON
ROMAN HISTORY

TRANSLATED FROM THE EDITION OF DR. M. ISLER,

BY H. M. CHEPMELL, M.A., AND F. DEMMLER, PH.D.

_IN THREE VOLUMES.--VOL. I._

London:
CHATTO & WINDUS, PICCADILLY.
1875.

PREFACE.

It has been the object of the translators of this work, to give a faithful version of the original into English without any additions of their own. In so doing, they follow in the steps of the German editor, Dr. Isler, who likewise confined himself to “the purely philological task of producing a genuine text.”

Niebuhr twice delivered a course of lectures on Roman History at Bonn,--the first in the winter term of 1826-27, and the second in the winter of 1828-29, and in the following summer. In the latter of these, he went down to the fall of the Western Empire, whereas the course of 1826 was broken off at the times of Sylla, owing to his having entered rather fully into critical disquisitions.

The form in which these Lectures are here given, is that of the later course. Everything, however, that was important or interesting in the earlier series, has been inserted. Dr. Isler moreover assures us, that in his compilation, not a thought, and indeed hardly a word is to be found, which Niebuhr had not really spoken. As Niebuhr lectured quite extemporaneously, the only sources for this work are the notes taken by his hearers, several of which have been collated to ensure correctness.

Although, from the nature of things, the result cannot be looked upon as a finished and elaborate history, yet, no one who reads it can fail to be struck with its great value, even for those who are acquainted with Niebuhr’s other writings; for as Dr. Isler remarks, there are many things set forth in these Lectures more clearly, more precisely, and more at length than in the greater work. Of this, we may find examples in the introduction on the sources of Roman History, and in the account of the Saturnian verse. They also give us the last opinions of Niebuhr. The first volume of his Roman History dates most of it from the year 1826, and the additions in the third edition from 1827; but a mind like his was always active, and he went on with his investigations, even when all the leading points were settled. In several instances, fragments of ancient authors which had newly come to light, have led him to modify his views. This is particularly the case with that part of the Roman History treated in his third volume, which had been originally arranged for the press in 1812, and therefore would, if he had been spared to revise it, have undergone many qualifications.

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, SANDHURST.

CONTENTS.

Page

INTRODUCTION, 1
SOURCES OF ROMAN HISTORY, 2
Its authenticity, 2
The use of letters of great antiquity among the Romans, 4
_Annales maximi, Annales pontificum_, 5
_Fasti_, 9
_Commentarii pontificum_, 10
_Libri pontificum, augurales_, 10
_Laudationes funebres_, 11
Poetical traditions, 12
Family chronicles, 15
Cn. Nævius, 16
Q. Fabius Pictor, 18
Numerius Fabius Pictor, 21
Other historians, bearing the name of Fabius, or Pictor, 21
L. Cincius Alimentus, 22
C. Acilius, A. Postumius Albinus, Cn. Aufidius, 23
Q. Ennius, 23
M. Porcius Cato, 26
L. Cassius Hemina, 26
Servius Fabius Pictor, 27
Cn. Gellius. Vennonius, 28
L. Calpurnius Piso, 29
Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, 30
Q. Valerius Antias, 32
C. Licinius Macer, 33
Junius Gracchanus. Fenestella, 34
Forged historians, 34
Q. Ælius Tubero. T. Pomponius Atticus, 35
Cicero, 35
C. Sallustius Crispus, 36
L. Cornelius Sisenna, 37
Diodorus Siculus, 37
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 38
T. Livius, 45
Velleius Paterculus, 57
Fabius Rusticus, 58
Epitome of Livy. L. Annæus Florus. Eutropius, 58
Orosius. Plutarch, 59
Appian, 60
Dio Cassius Cocceianus, 61
Xiphilinus, 64
Joannes Zonaras, 65
The middle ages, 66
The modern times, 68
Glareanus, Panvinius, Sigonius, 68
Stephen Pighius, 69
John Freinsheim, 70
James Perizonius, Montesquieu, Bayle, 71
Beaufort, Rollin, Hooke, Ferguson, 72
Levesque, Micali, 73
Auxiliary sciences. Geography, Mannert, Cluverius, 75
D’Anville, 76
Reichardt, 77

IMPORTANCE OF ROMAN HISTORY, 78

MANNER IN WHICH THE EARLY HISTORY OF
ROME ORIGINATED, 79

Impossibility of the earliest history, 80
Numerical system in the chronological statements, 82
Sæcula of the Etruscans, 83
Ancient lays, 85
Etruscan historical works. Emperor Claudius, 87
The Saturnian verse, 89
Neniæ, 91
Epic poems, family records, family vanity, 92
National vanity, spirit of caste, 93

THE EARLIEST HISTORY, 94

Pelasgians, their spreading, 95
Samothrace, 96
Siculians, Italians, 97
Œnotrians, Peucetians, Liburnians, Tyrrhenians, 98
Opicans, Apulians, Volscians, Æquians, Sabellians, 98
Umbrians, 99
Siculians in Italy, Aborigines, 100
Latins, 101
The same traditions often told in contradictory ways, 101
Cascans, 103
Sacranians, _ver sacrum_, Priscans, _Prisci Latini_, 104
Origin of the Latin language, 105
Traditions concerning the Troian origin of Rome, 106
Alban chronology, 107
_Alba longa._ _Populi Albenses_, 107
Thirty Latin towns, 108
Roma, town on the Palatine mount, 110
ROMULUS. Tradition concerning his descent, 111
Interpretations of the legend, 113
Romulus and Remus. Remuria, 114
Asylum, 116
Rape of the Sabines, 117
Union of the Romans and Sabines, 118
End of Romulus, 118
Organic division of the population, 119
Sabines, 120
Towns on the Palatinus and the Quirinal, 121
Double state, 122
Union of the two states, 123
NUMA POMPILIUS, 125
TULLUS HOSTILIUS, 125
War with Alba, 126
Formular of the declaration of war, 127
Third tribe of the population, 129
ANCUS MARTIUS, 131
War with the Latins, 131
Foundation of Ostia, 132
Origin of the _Plebes_, 133
TARQUINIUS PRISCUS. His Greek descent, 133
His Latin origin, 135
Building of the _Cloaca maxima_, 138
Traces of a powerful Roman state, 139
The number of the centuries doubled, 140
Etruscans, 141
Tyrrhenians, 143
Cæles Vibenna, 154
SERVIUS TULLIUS. Mastarna, 155
Constitution of Servius Tullius, 157
_Gentes_, 159
Curies, 161
Clients, 170
Tribes, 172
Centuries, 174
Census, 179
Further legislation of Servius Tullius, 184
Relation to the Latins, 185
Enlargement of the city, 187
Tunnel, 189
Wall of Servius Tullius, 190
The legend of Mastarna criticised, 190
L. TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS, 193
War with the Latins, 195
Alliance with Carthage, 195
Military system, 197

THE REFUGIUM. ROME A REPUBLIC, 198

L. Junius Brutus, 198
Abolition of the regal dignity, 202
The consulate, 203
Valerius Poplicola. The Valerian laws, 207
Porsena, 208
War of the Etruscans against Rome, 210
Mucius Scævola, 210
Peace of Porsena. Reduction of the tribes, 212
The Latins take the position of equals, 214
Battle at the Regillus, 216
Isopolity, 219
League of Sp. Cassius; union of the Romans, Latins and
Hernicans, 219
Dictatorship, 221
War with the Auruncians, 222

SECESSION OF THE PLEBES. LAW OF DEBT.
INSTITUTION OF THE TRIBUNATE, 224

Counter-revolutionary attempts, 224
Law of debt, 226
_Nexum_, 230
Refractoriness of the Plebes, 232
Secession of the Plebeians, 236
Peace between the two orders. _Tribuni Plebis_, 239

WARS WITH THE VOLSCIANS AND ÆQUIANS.
LEAGUE WITH THE HERNICANS, 244

The legend of Coriolanus shown to be out of place here, 244
Division of the Volscian wars, 245
Alliance with the Hernicans, 246
Sp. Cassius, 248

THE AGRARIAN LAW. SP. CASSIUS. EMIGRATION
OF THE FABII. THE PUBLILIAN ROGATIONS, 249

The agrarian law, 250
Difference between ownership and possession, 254
_Lex Cassia_, 256
Execution of Sp. Cassius, 257
Elections of the consuls exclusively performed by the senate
and the curies, 259
Consular elections divided between the curies and the
centuries, 261
War against the Veientines, 261
The Fabii pronounce themselves for the plebeians, 262
Settlement of the Fabii at the Cremera, 262
Defeat at the Cremera, 263
Consuls arraigned by the tribunes, 265
Murder of Cn. Genucius, 267
Volero Publilius. Rogations of Publilius, 268
Public proceedings in the popular assemblies, 269
Opposition of Appius Claudius, 272

WARS WITH THE VOLSCIANS AND ÆQUIANS.
PLAGUE. CINCINNATUS. CÆSO QUINCTIUS.
CORIOLANUS, 274

Wars with the Volscians and Æquians, 274
Plague in Rome, 276
C. Terentilius Harsa. _Lex Terentilia_, 277
Cæso Quinctius, 280
Cincinnatus, 281
Surprise of Appius Herdonius, 283
Condemnation of Volscius, 284
Coriolanus, 285
Peace with the Volscians, 293
Changed relation of the Latins to Rome, 293
Fermentations in Rome. P. Mucius, 294

LEGISLATION OF THE TWELVE TABLES, 295

Embassy to Athens, 295
Hermodorus, 296
First decemvirate. The rights of the patricians and plebeians
balanced, 298
Second decemvirate. New constitution, 299
Unrestricted right to make a will, 301
Law of debt, 303
Centuries, general national tribunal, 304
Tyranny of the decemvirs, 307
Death of Virginia, 310
_Secessio_ of the Plebes. Overthrow of the Decemvirs, 311
The old constitution restored, 312
_Veto_ of the tribunes. Patrician tribunes, 314
Death of Appius Claudius and Sp. Oppius, 316
Imprisonment, 317
Penal laws of the Romans, 318
Amnesty, 319

LEX HORATIA VALERIA. FURTHER CHANGES IN
THE CONSTITUTION. MILITARY TRIBUNATE.
CENSORSHIP. SP. MÆLIUS. VICTORY OF A.
POSTUMIUS TUBERTUS OVER THE VOLSCIANS
AND ÆQUIANS. CONQUEST OF FIDENÆ AND
VEII, 320

_Lex Horatia Valeria_, 320
Growth of the constitution, the later Publilian law, the
Hortensian law, 321
Victories over the Æquians and Sabines, 324
Quæstors elected by the centuries, 325
_Quæstores parricidii_, _Quæstores classici_, 325
Intermarriage between patricians and plebeians allowed.
Canuleian law, 326
Military tribunes, 327
Censorship, 332
Famine in Rome. Sp. Mælius, 337
Executive power of the consuls, 339
Quæstorship thrown open to the plebeians, 340
The right of deciding on war and peace passes from
the curies to the centuries, 340
Plebeian senators, 340
The people of the Campanians forms itself, 341
Victory of Postumius Tubertus over the Æquians, 344
Agrarian law, 345
_Coloniæ Romanæ._ Mutiny of the soldiers, 346
War with Veii, 347
Destruction of Fidenæ, 348
Manner of warfare, 350
Pay of the army, 351
Siege of Veii, 354
Draining the Alban lake, 357
Conquest of Veii, 360
Quarrels of the patricians and plebeians after the
taking of Veii, 361
War with the Faliscans, with the Vulsinians, 361
Camillus, 362
His banishment, 363

MIGRATION OF THE GAULS. CONQUEST OF
ROME, 363

Migration of the Gauls, 364
Invasion of the Gauls into Italy, 371
Embassy of the Romans to the Gauls, 372
Manners of the Gauls, 374
Battle at the Alia, 376
The Gauls in Rome, 379
Peace with the Gauls; their departure, 383

RESTORATION OF THE CITY. MANLIUS CAPITOLINUS.
THE LICINIAN ROGATIONS. CONFUSION
IN THE CHRONOLOGY. ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE _PRÆTOR URBANUS_ AND OF THE
_ÆDILIS CURULIS_, 385

Consequences of the Gallic conquest, 385
Rebuilding of the town, 387
_Fœnus unciarium_, 388
Etruscan wars with Rome, 389
Four new tribes formed, 391
Usury. Manlius Capitolinus takes the part of those oppressed, 393
His execution, 395
Tribunate of C. Licinius and of L. Sextius Lateranus, 396
The Licinian Rogations, 396
Confusion with regard to the chronology, 399
Dictatorship of Camillus. Temple of Concordia, 402
The consulate divided between the patricians and plebeians.
The prætorship established, 403
_Ædilis curulis._ One day added to the _Ludi Romani_, 405

INVASION OF THE SENONIAN GAULS. LEAGUE
WITH THE LATINS AND HERNICANS. CHANGES
IN THE DOMESTIC AFFAIRS OF ROME, 407

_Triumviri rei publicæ constituendæ_, 407
Invasion of the Senonian Gauls, 409
Alliance with the Latins and Hernicans, 409
Alliance with the Samnites, 411
War in Etruria. Arrangement of the debts, 413
Third invasion of the Gauls into Italy, 414
Enlargement of the rights of the plebeians, 415
C. Marcius Rutillus, first plebeian dictator, 415

THE FIRST WAR WITH THE SAMNITES. PROGRESS
OF LEGISLATION, 416

Position of the colonies, 417
Origin of the Samnites, 418
Rising in Capua, 419
Constitution of the Samnites, 420
Outbreak of the war, 422
M. Valerius Corvus, 425
Battle near the Mount Gaurus, 427
P. Decius Mus saves the Roman army, 429
Military insurrection of the Romans, 430
Progress of the legislation, 432
Military system of the Romans, 434

THE WAR AGAINST THE LATINS. THE LAWS OF
THE DICTATOR Q. PUBLILIUS PHILO. FURTHER
EVENTS, 436

Peace with the Samnites. Relations with the Latins, 436
War with the Latins, 438
T. Manlius, 440
Organisation of the Roman army, 441
Battle on the Veseris. P. Decius, 443
Battle near Trifanum, 444
Conditions of the submission of the Latins, 445
Q. Publilius Philo. His laws, 446
End of the Latin war, 448
_Municipia_, 448
Latin colonies, 451
The prætorship thrown open to the plebeians, 454
War with the Sidicinians, 455
Colonies in Cales and Fregellæ, 455
New relations, 456
Rome’s relation to the Greeks, 457
Tarentum, 459
Alexander of Epirus, 463
Rebellion of Privernum, 465
Peace with the Gauls, 468
Embassy to Alexander of Macedon, 468

THE SECOND SAMNITE WAR, 470

Palæopolis and Neapolis, 470
Outbreak of the second Samnite war, 474
M. Valerius Corvus, L. Papirius Cursor, Q. Fabius Maximus, 481
Victory of Fabius over the Samnites, 483
Fabius flees from Papirius, 484
Death of Papius Brutulus, 486
Defeat near Caudium, 487
The Romans break the peace, 491
Defeat of the Romans near Lautulæ, 494
Progress of the Romans. Colony in Luceria, 496
The Romans build a fleet, 498
Fine arts flourishing among the Romans, 498
Rising of the Etruscans, 499
Conquest of Bovianum, 500
Papirius Cursor appointed dictator, 501
The northern confederation pronounces itself in favour of
the Samnites, 501
War of the Romans with the Hernicans, 502
Subjection of the Hernicans, 503
Battle near Bovianum. End of the war, 504
The Æquians conquered, 505
Alliance of Rome with the Marsians, 505

THE ETRUSCAN WAR. OTHER EVENTS DOWN
TO THE THIRD SAMNITE WAR, 505

The Ciminian forest, 506
Battle near Sutrium, 507
Fabius breaks through the Ciminian forest, 508
End of the war, 509
Colony at Narnia, 510
Cleonymus, 510
Appius Claudius the Blind, 511
_Via Appia_, _Aqua Appia_, 518
Cn. Flavius, 519
_Jus Flavianum_, 521
The _Nexum_ abolished, 522
_Lex Ogulnia_, 523

THE THIRD SAMNITE WAR, 524

The war is transferred into Etruria, 525
Battle near Sentinum, 528
P. Decius devotes himself to death, 531
End of the war, 534

WAR WITH THE SABINES. AGITATIONS AT
HOME. _LEX HORTENSIA._ _LEX MÆNIA_, 535

War with the Sabines. M’. Curius, 535
Embassy to Epidaurus, 536
Draining of the Velinus, waterfall of Terni, 538
The Mænian law, 539
The Hortensian law, 540
_Triumviri capitales_, 543

EXTERMINATION OF THE SENONIAN GAULS. C.
FABRICIUS LUSCINUS. WAR WITH TARENTUM.
PYRRHUS OF EPIRUS. EVENTS IN SICILY
DOWN TO THE FIRST PUNIC WAR, 544

War with the Senonian Gauls, 546
C. Fabricius Luscinus. M’. Curius Dentatus, 547
Ti. Coruncanius, 548
Outbreak of the war with Tarentum, 549
Pyrrhus of Epirus, 552
Cineas, 558
Battle near Heraclea, 558
Pyrrhus tries to march against Rome, 560
Pyrrhus sends Cineas to Rome, 561
Pyrrhus returns to Tarentum, 562
Roman embassy to Pyrrhus, 563
Battle near Asculum, 564
Pyrrhus goes to Sicily, 566
Siege of Lilybæum. Pyrrhus returns to Italy, 567
Battle near Taurasia (Beneventum), 568
Pyrrhus’ death. Peace with Samnium, 569
Tarentum falls into the hands of the Romans, 570
Subjection of Italy, 571
Campanian legion at Rhegium, 573
Earlier history of Sicily, 574
Mamertines in Messana. Hiero, 577
Hiero and the Carthaginians defeated by the Romans, 581
Peace with Hiero, 581

LECTURES ON ROMAN HISTORY.

INTRODUCTION.

Ancient history divides itself into the history anterior to the rule of Rome, which has many centres, and into the history of Roman rule, wherein there is but one centre, Rome, the action of which extends on all sides. Other nations, like the Egyptians, have acted by their intellectual power upon the foreigner, but were deficient in mind; others, as the barbarian nations of the Celts and other races, became important merely by the mightiness of their conquests; Greece, by her mind; but Rome combines every thing, the greatest political perfection, might, and mind. Here is an influence which has become still more lasting and ineffaceable than that of Greece: it continues to the latest centuries, even to this very day. The Roman history has to exhibit the greatest characters, achievements, and events; it is the development of the whole life of a people, the like of which is unknown in all the rest of history. Of the history of the East, as far as regards the stages of its progress, we know nothing whatever. The Egyptians we find already in castes, consequently in fixed forms, in which they abide throughout every century; they exist unalterable, of which their mummies are the emblem, and all the changes which we remark in them are a mere dying away. The Romans we see almost growing under our eyes; indeed, they also are early moulded into fixed forms, but their origin is no riddle to us. The other nations are as buds still folded up in their petals; they grow, but before they expand, they die away or only open imperfectly, as it also ever occurs with individuals, that among many thousands few only are not checked in their development. In modern history the English alone have had a career like that of the Romans. In a cosmopolitical point of view therefore, these two histories must ever remain the most important ones.

Here now the whole history of the twelve ages, which in the legend of Romulus have also been foretold as the duration of Rome, is to be set forth;--in the beginning the history of the nation and the town, then that of the empire and the aggregate of people who bore the name of Romans.

But first of all, let us make ourselves acquainted with the sources.

SOURCES OF ROMAN HISTORY.

Are the sources of the most ancient Roman history, before ever an historical literature had arisen in Rome, worthy of credit? In former times a simple honest belief was prevalent concerning this point; it would have been considered as audacity and as a crime, if any one had doubted of the Roman history, especially that which Livy drew and set forth from the sources at his command. It is now quite incomprehensible to us to what a degree very ingenious men, like Scaliger, who had far more knowledge than we, received without any hesitation the details of ancient history, deeming, for instance, the lists of the kings of Sicyon to be quite as authentic as those of the kings of France. This state of literary innocence lasted as long as all education was purely philological, and derived from books only. In the seventeenth century, when in England, France, and Germany, a new era commenced for the civilization of mankind, many began to be startled at the contradictions which some individuals might have remarked before them, but had imposed on themselves silence upon the subject,--as for instance the Roman Valla, the discovery of whose grave is one of the most pleasing remembrances of my life, and Glareanus, who thereby irritated the ingenious Sigonius, a man, however, who had not the least idea of historical criticism. The Italians were for some time a-head of the rest of Europe, then the French followed, and shortly afterwards, the Germans. As early as towards the end of the sixteenth century lived Pighius, a native of the province of Cleves, who had original ideas with regard to historical criticism, but who has commenced much and finished nothing. Then followed Perizonius’ able criticism, and then the sceptical works of Bayle and Beaufort. It was not possible in the eighteenth century to receive the Roman history with the same credulity as in the sixteenth, since the sphere of the human mind had been so much enlarged during the seventeenth. People wanted to comprehend what had happened, and how it had come to pass, and so they could no more believe in the Roman history as they found it. O that Perizonius had gone on with the work which he had begun, and had formed the conviction that he must arrive at an historical result, without which belief no man can advance and succeed;--or, that others had proceeded in his track! But he was wanting in self-confidence, and others set themselves to the work with less comprehensive powers. Beaufort, a clever man, but whose studies had not been sufficiently comprehensive, forms at this time an epoch; but his literary and personal imperfections caused him to root up the tares with the wheat. Already before had Pouilly, in the ‘Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et des belles lettres,’ set forth the same opinions, but quite crudely. It was the time of that extreme scepticism which Bayle had given birth to, and Freret had confirmed. Beaufort did not feel the necessity of a good groundwork of scientific knowledge; nevertheless he held a prominent place in his time, and exercised a marked influence upon Hooke and Fergusson, who were not capable of any deep inquiry. Yet it is remarkable that those points which Beaufort had left untouched caused scruple to no one. People made difficulties about the seven kings, the chronology, and other matters of the kind; but they would believe without knowing why, and repudiate what had a very good foundation. Such a state of things must be followed by a regular sound criticism, or there is an end of science.

Properly speaking, Livy himself to a great extent is liable to the censure of having made the earlier Roman history fall into disrepute; not merely because he sets forth much contradictory matter, but because he says himself in the beginning of the sixth book, that a new era commenced with the burning of the city by the Gauls, in which the records of the earlier times had been destroyed. This is only half true.

That in the earliest times the use of letters was already known among the Romans, and that authors might therefore have existed dating from the remotest periods, cannot be gainsayed, as we still have coins of Sybaris, the destruction of which is generally set down as having taken place four years before the expulsion of the kings. If the Greeks in Italy had letters, why should not the Romans have had them likewise? A common and easy use of them is not to be thought of previous to the introduction of the Egyptian papyrus;[1] but that writing was used in Rome very early is shown by the census, which required very extensive book-keeping. It is beyond a doubt, that before the burning by the Gauls a written law existed, the composition of which is attributed to L. Papirius under Tarquinius Superbus (according to others, Tarquinius Priscus). When Livy therefore says, _per illa tempora litteræ raræ erant_, this is only partly correct. Authors there were at that time none at all (by which appellation I designate those who write with a view of being read by a public). And when moreover he says of written literature, (_litteræ_), _una custodia fidelis memoriæ rerum gestarum_, he goes too far. We have parallels in the German and other histories. Among the Greeks, Polybius mentions the Chronographies, and Toichographies, Annals especially in the temples. Corresponding to these are our Annales Bertiniani, Fuldenses, and others, which commence from the seventh century, and go on through the period of the Carlovingians. They are composed of unconnected lines under the heads of the years of the different reigns, and at the side of the yearly dates the events are marked in the briefest manner, for instance, _Saxones debellati_. These annals also were mostly kept in churches; besides the names of the emperors, those of the bishops are usually found. After the chronicles of the empire, those of the towns arose. Thus it was among nations who in every respect were most different. Among ourselves also, family events are even now still frequently noted in our Bibles. Such annotations are most ancient, and it may safely be supposed that they existed in Rome likewise in very great numbers. When magistrates were introduced who changed every year, it became necessary to note down their names for the Fasti; for no document had legal validity unless the accurate date was affixed to it. In these Fasti they had without doubt an era _a regibus exactis_, the consuls being at the same time registered, and the principal events put down.

To these annals belong the _Annales Maximi_, more rarely called _Annales Pontificum_, an authentic and more comprehensive arrangement of annals, the object of which was to record every thing that was to be preserved for public memory. Cicero, de Oratore II, 12. and Servius ad Virg. Æn. I, 373, state that the chief pontiff wrote the most important events on an album which was exhibited at his residence, where probably many may have copied it, as we know of Cn. Flavius who exhibited a copy of the Fasti in the Forum. An album is a whitewashed tablet (a proof of the difficulty of the material), on this the transcript of the public documents was painted, as for example, the _Edictum Prætorium_ and others. Now Cicero states, that the noting down of the annals had been made _ab initio rerum Romanarum_ to the pontificate of P. Mucius; from which people wanted to conclude that the Romans in his time had had authentic annals which had gone on without interruption from the first beginning of the state. But this is by no means what Cicero says, he merely states that the noting down of events had been a usage observed from the first; that the annals had been preserved entire in his time, he does not mention any where. Vopiscus mentions, that they had been kept _ad excessu Romuli_, beginning therefore with Numa; but this is only the opinion of an illiterate man. The pontificate was referred to Numa, and so was therefore also the institution of the annals.

We may say with certainty, that the annals of the pontiffs for the earlier times were afterwards restored, although the belief in their genuineness might be generally received. The pontiffs were conservators of the law and of the chronology, and of course therefore also of history. But even if the original annals had only existed as far back as the expulsion of the kings, those most irreconcilable contradictions which we now find would have been impossible. Would not Fabius and others have found them out? Livy himself says, that the old records of history had perished in the Gallic conflagration. This may particularly refer to the _Annales Pontificum_; at that time not even the twelve tables were rescued, now could these _Alba_ have been saved? The fact alone, that they were not found farther back induced Livy to make conclusions which were too sweeping. The chief pontiff lived below in the town, so that although the _Annales Maximi_ were destroyed, yet many other annals (of private persons living perhaps in the Capitol, and others) might have been preserved. Thus in China, the old books were destroyed by the command of the Emperor, and those now preserved were restored from the memory of aged men, and the supplements of the astronomers with regard to the eclipses of the sun and the moon. And in the same manner, the Sibylline books, after the destruction in Sylla’s time, were made up again by collation from all quarters. According to a Jewish tradition, this applies also to some books of Holy Scripture which were restored after the destruction of the temple. In this manner we may also explain what is recorded concerning the fabled infinite antiquity of the Egyptians. The eighteenth dynasty of Manetho is historical. Before it the Hyksos were reigning, under whom old records are stated to have been lost. And yet we are told, that before this, seventeen more dynasties had existed, reference being made to such lost annals. Before Champollion’s invention of the reading of hieroglyphics, one wanted to repudiate as unhistorical every thing down to the time of Psammitichus, whereas we now know, that the age of the Hyksos forms the boundary of real history, and that every thing previous to it has been supplied afterwards. In like manner, the _Annales Maximi_ may have been restored for the time anterior to the burning by the Gauls. A striking proof that the authentic _Annales Pontificum_ were not preserved beyond the destruction of the city by the Gauls is afforded by the passage in Cic. R. P. I, 16, where the eclipse of the sun, which took place fifteen years before the Gallic conflagration, is spoken of. This eclipse, which was seen at Gades, was mentioned in the _Annales Pontificum_ as an extraordinary phenomenon, and put in connexion with the passage of the Gauls over the Alps which took place nearly about the same time. Now Cicero states, that from this eclipse all the preceding ones had been calculated backwards up to the time when Romulus was snatched away from the earth.

Servius states of these annals that they had been divided into eighty books. It is to be remarked, however, that this passage of the Scholion is not found in the Codex Fuldensis, but only in several other manuscripts, the trustworthiness of which is indeed rather doubtful; yet it is not to be understood, how any one could have told stories precisely on this subject. Cicero, in the introduction to the books _De legibus_, says moreover concerning the _Annales Maximi_, _quibus nihil potest esse jucundius_, which is quite enigmatical. The manuscripts of the books _De legibus_ have all of them in the fifteenth century, from the year 1420, been copied from one single manuscript. Ursinus conjectures instead of _jucundius_, _jejunius_, which indeed has much in its favour; others propose _incomtius_. A first-rate author, however, may sometimes easily venture upon an expression which puzzles and distracts us; and thus Cicero may have written in this passage _jucundius_, merely in order to designate the enjoyment which historical records of such high antiquity afford, owing to their credibility. At least we should not be justified in altering the word.

We may form a distinct idea of these annals from the passages which Livy has quoted from them at the end of the tenth book, especially where he mentions the election of the magistrates, and in the third and fourth decades. As it seems, Livy’s copy only began with the year 460 A. U. C., otherwise he would have certainly made an earlier use of it.

One point is still to be mentioned, Diomedes (III, 480) states, that the _res gestæ populi Romani_ are (in the present tense) noted down by the pontiffs and scribes. Now authors like him are to be taken _cum grano salis_, but he is of some weight in so far as he had no desire to deceive, and he might have known it after all. When therefore Cicero states that the Annales had been written only as far down as to P. Mucius, a distinction must perhaps be made. In the times of P. Mucius, it may have been deemed superfluous to continue them any longer, the later _acta diurna_ may about this time have commenced,--a sort of town gazette, which also contained the acts of the senate. The farther development of these _acta diurna_ (afterwards _diurnale_, _journal_) together with the rise of literature is probably the cause of the _Annales Pontificum_ having ceased. Yet similar annals may have been continued privately. The infinitely important fragment of a chronicle of Rome, by a monk of the name of Benedict, who belonged to the monastery of Soracte, discovered by Pertz,[2] contains at the time of Pope John the Eighth, annotations made quite in the old language of the annals concerning the _Ostenta_, which at that time were seen in Rome and the environs; that the lightning had struck the city wall; that there had been a shower of stones; and such like entries. In many monasteries the Annals of St. Jerome were continued. Every year the most remarkable events were inserted, as when an Emperor ascended the throne, &c. In this manner the expression of Diomedes may be justified.

These different annals were the only books of history from the earliest times which have been preserved among the Romans. All others mentioned by Livy, _libri magistratuum_, _libri legum_, &c. are Fasti, of which there were certainly a great number dating from the commencement of the Republic, the like of which we have still in the _Fasti Capitolini_ and _Triumphales_, incomplete, even frequently falsified. These Fasti, which are still to be seen on the Capitol, where Augustus set them up, and which originated with Varro or Atticus,--the so-called Capitoline Fasti which formerly stood in the Curia Julia--contained only at the side of some detached yearly dates some memorable events. The Triumphal Fasti, which stood in the same edifice in a different place, had certainly existed from very early times. Every triumph was marked down in them, and very likely with more detail than was done in those which are preserved. The statements of Livy concerning the booty which had been made, are undoubtedly always taken from these Triumphal Fasti; but it is very remarkable that they are first found the year after that in which his extracts from the _Annales Pontificum_ commence.

Another source of information concerning the earliest Roman history are the _Commentarii Pontificum_. They were a collection of law cases from the old public and ceremonial law, together with the decisions of the pontiffs in cases which came under their jurisdiction, similar to the decisions of the lawyers in the pandects. This mass was the groundwork from which those who studied the laws deduced the general principles. The Sunnah, which is the Mahomedan code of law, and the Talmud are quite corresponding to it in form. An abstract principle is never laid down: there is nothing but an enumeration of decisions in particular cases. We find the same in the Pentateuch in the discussions concerning the inheritance of females. With reference to the case of _judicium perduellionis_, it is stated how Horatius had slain his sister. But the groundwork of those books is nevertheless made at a different time from that which is given out in it. What we know must date from a later time, indeed still a very remote one for us, anterior to the rise of Roman historical writing, yet not so old as they themselves would have us believe.

The same was the case with the _Libri Pontificum_ and _Libri Augurales_. From them the historians quote the declarations of war in that definite formula which Ancus is said first to have introduced. The forms of surrender, the formula _fœderis feriendi_, the appeals to the people, were according to Cicero likewise entered in them. From these books history has been enriched as much as if they had contained authentic historical facts.

Another source of the annalists were the _laudationes funebres_, spoken of by Livy and by Cicero in Brutus, from which latter it comes out, that very old specimens, dating as far back as from the times before the war of Pyrrhus, were in existence. They were kept in the Atrium, near the images of the ancestors (_imagines_). They were speeches in commemoration of a deceased person, delivered in the forum by the nearest kinsman, at first quite simple and unpretending. According to Cicero, they always returned to the family and the ancestors, that is to say, the descent of the deceased was traced from the first fathers of the race. But Cicero and Livy both complain of the falsifications which crept from these panegyrics into Roman history. The Romans, in fact, notwithstanding all the veracity which they otherwise possessed, had an extraordinary vanity with regard to political and family relations, deeming themselves bound in duty to extol their state and their families. For this reason forged victories and triumphs are contained in those _laudationes_.

This was the material when the first historians arose. They had besides, it is true, many laws and other documentary records; but these were a buried treasure noticed by few only. On the whole, the Romans were too careless and negligent to make use of such sources. A remarkable example of it is afforded by Livy, who, among other things, contents himself with stating, that he had heard from Augustus that there existed a certain inscription in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius,[3] without ever thinking of looking himself at it in the Capitol, where he certainly must have been often enough.

The Annals, many of which, as may have been seen, were preserved in later times, form one source of history, of which it cannot be stated at all how early it could have commenced. But this is only the skeleton of history. Besides these there is a living traditionary history. It consists of narrations which pass from the father to the children, and may be very circumstantial;--others are propagated partly by word of mouth, partly in writing, and these are the poetical traditions. Here is a field on which it will never be possible to agree, whilst looking only to one side of the question. I am convinced that great part of the early Roman history has been handed down in songs; that is to say, all that has life in it, all that has pith and meaning, and coherence. This is to me as evident a truth as any in the world. To these belongs the history of Romulus, that of Tarquinius Priscus, down to the battle near the lake Regillus, and others. The passages in Varro, and a fragment of Cato in Cicero, purporting that the Romans sang the achievements of the ancients to the flute, speak distinctly to the fact. Three inscriptions on the tombs of the Scipios are poetical, as I have shown in my Roman history. Such is moreover the story of Coriolanus, of Curtius, and others. Besides this there are without any doubt preserved in Livy detached lines from the lay of Tullius Hostilius and the Horatii. With regard to others we have not indeed any thing to bring forward, but we may here appeal to the general experience of mankind.[4]

It matters not in the least, whether the old legends were still in existence at the time when the historians wrote their works, or whether they were in verse or in prose. We may find a parallel illustration in our own (German) literature, and refer to the manifold changes which our epic poems had to undergo. The song of Hildebrand and Hadubrand, which Eckard has edited, and W. Grimm has commented upon, is of much more ancient date than the times of Charles the Great; in the tenth century there existed a Latin version of it. We are acquainted with the ‘Nibelungen’ only in that form in which they have been composed in the thirteenth century. How many phases may there not have occurred in the interval between? Then we have the much tamer version of the same subject in the ‘Book of Heroes;’ and at last that in prose of ‘Siegfried,’ which for some centuries has been in an ever renewed form in the hands of the people. Now if the ‘Nibelungen’ and all the information concerning them had been lost, and some ingenious critic recognised in ‘Siegfried’ the old poem, it would be exactly the same case as in the Roman history. The quotation of some verses from the ‘Nibelungen’ in Aventinus,[5] would then stand quite on the same footing as the three verses cited by Livy in the story of the Horatii. Such lays go for a long time side by side with history. Saxo Grammaticus has tried to change the Danish Saga into history, and on that account he cannot be brought into agreement with the statements of the Chronicles. Just so is it in Grecian history. Rhianus, in his poem on Messene, which he undoubtedly composed from old popular songs, is utterly at variance with the list of Spartan kings which Pausanias found in the old records, and with the facts which are mentioned in the contemporary strains of Tyrtæus. Then comes the time long before a literature exists, when men who have a true vocation write history; as, for instance, the author of the excellent Chronicle of Cologne. In this chronicle, which partly dates from the fifteenth century, and which might be made beautifully complete from the archives of Cologne, we find the poem of Gotfrid Hagen on the feud of the bishops, paraphrased in prose, yet with some traces of the rhyme remaining. (Here then is another example of the continual alteration of the form of old poems.) Yet if we compare this with what is stated by that very chronicle on the same subject, perhaps from church books, they can by no means be reconciled with each other. The same thing happened in the Russian Chronicles, which were continued from the time of Nestor, a monk of the eleventh century, down to a much later period, as I myself can testify from a copy in my own possession. The authors of these, as well as the writer of the Chronicle of Cologne, did not live in a literary age, and their works therefore vanished, as they did not write for the public at large. Similar chronicles had without doubt arisen in Rome also before the literature of history commenced; that is to say, before authors wrote for the Greek public, as Fabius, M. Cincius, C. Acilius did. History as a branch of literature only began when the Romans wished to make themselves known to the Greeks. Those who were not Greeks were everywhere keenly alive to the contempt which they had to suffer from the Greeks.

Cicero and Livy say that by the orations in praise of the dead history had been made fabulous. There can be no doubt of this; yet, for all that, those discourses were not a mere tissue of fables, but they were mostly documents of a very early period. This ancient time may be dated from the expulsion of the kings, that is to say, twenty-eight years before the passage of Xerxes over the Hellespont. How many literary documents of the Greeks have we not of that date? Thus in the case of the seven consulships of the Fabii, as they are told in Livy and Dionysius, in the case of the battle with the Veientines, of the story of Q. Fabius Maximus (in the last book of the first decade of Livy), the relations seem to be taken from such and similar documents; unless we choose to suppose that these stories had been fabricated with such astonishing accuracy of detail. It even seems that Fabius Maximus himself has written his own history, that at least a number of records were at hand in the accomplished Fabian family, and were carefully preserved. Of this intellectual cultivation among the Fabii, we have many proofs before us. C. Fabius Pictor, a hundred years before the war of Hannibal, created a work of art of the highest beauty; the historian wrote in Greek without being ever reproached with barbarisms in his style.

In composing history, men consulted the annals of the pontiffs, wrote out in good faith what was found in them, and put in what they found in the lays wherever they thought it would best suit, little caring whether it closely tallied or not. These different pieces were probably joined together with a greater accuracy than was done in the Chronicle of Cologne. Few only, Fabius possibly, or what is more likely, Cincius Alimentus and M. Licinius Macer first made use also of the documents in the Capitol and the old law books. The brazen law tables may have indeed been taken away by the Gauls, but there still existed other sources of law. The whole of the earlier constitution seems to have been described in the _Commentarii Pontificum_ in law cases, from which Gracchanus took it. The groundwork of these notices is extremely worthy of credit. The march and progress of the constitution from the establishment of the Republic may be completely traced in it, with an accuracy much greater than has hitherto been possible with regard to considerable portions of medieval history.

One ought to take care not to consider the Romans previous to the time when they learned from the Greeks as barbarians. A people which in the age of the kings built those wonderful sewers; which a hundred years before the Punic wars produced the she-wolf of the Capitol; which possessed a painter like C. Fabius Pictor; which made a sarcophagus like that of Scipio Barbatus, takes certainly a high stand in mental cultivation. And such we must deem their written literature to have been, not composed in Greek forms, but endowed with beauties peculiarly its own. The grammarians knew still the moral maxims of Appius Claudius Cæcus, Cicero still read a speech of the same person against Pyrrhus. Where such writings were kept, many others also must have still existed.

The earliest work which we know of as a contemporary history is the first Punic war of Cn. Nævius, who had himself served in that contest. If concerning this greatest of all ancient wars, we had more positive accounts, such as we possess of the second Punic war, it would be better appreciated. That Nævius wrote this war in the Saturnian rhythm, that he wrote it as a poem, is characteristic of the age, a proof that ancient history was at that time familiar to the Romans in a poetical form. So it was in the oldest historical literature of the Germans with the feud of the bishops by Gotfrid Hagen, and with the poetical history of the conquest of Livonia by the Teutonic knights (which is as yet unprinted); for before the thirteenth century at least no history was written in German prose. The year in which Nævius first brought out a play on the stage is undecided. It was somewhere about the year 520; two passages in Gellius concerning it are contradictory.[6] Whether that piece, however, was the first that he had written, or whether he composed his great work yet earlier, is not mentioned by any one. Nævius was a Campanian, and it may safely be presumed that at Capua there was already a greater movement in literature than there was in Rome at the same time. The poem consisted of seven books. According to Suetonius, it was originally written _continente sermone_, but was divided by C. Octavius Lampadius into books, and probably also into single verses. This poem, to judge from the fragments still extant of it, was by no means deficient in poetical merit. Perhaps Servius had not read Nævius at all; he only seems to have known from older commentators that Virgil had borrowed from him the argument of his first book. Nævius treated in it of the destruction of Troy, of Dido, and Æneas. It is very natural to surmise that he also derived already the rivalry between Rome and Carthage from the faithlessness of Æneas.[7] Yet it was hardly an elaborate Roman history. It is known that Nævius by some libellous verses against the Metelli was brought into great troubles, and that he is said to have been thrown into prison. But it is enigmatical how a Roman citizen could have been thrown into prison for the publication of a _liber famosus_. He is said to have written two plays, whilst there. This is scarcely to be understood, when one has seen those frightful dungeons at Rome, into which no ray of light ever finds its way, and which the ancients themselves declared to be the Gates of Death. The facts may have happened in the following manner. Nævius was a Campanian, and the Campanians lost in the war of Hannibal all the benefits of their rights as citizens. Nævius, who was now friendless and helpless, must as a Campanian have been _noxæ deditus_ to the Metelli, and have been confined, not in the public prison, but in the house of the Metelli, in a dungeon such as the Romans frequently had in their own houses for the confinement of debtors. Just as incorrect is the statement in the Chronicon of St. Jerome, that Nævius had died in the year of Cato’s era, 547 (according to Varro 549), at Utica; for as Utica was attached during the war of Hannibal to the party of Carthage, he would even as a _transfuga_ have been very badly received there. According to Cicero, Varro placed the death of Nævius at a later period than others did. There existed therefore at that time already some uncertainty about it.

After the second Punic war, there arose several authors who wrote in the Greek language. After the Macedonian period, the Greeks began in their histories to direct their attention to the remoter nations also. This encouraged able men among such nations, who understood Greek, to write the history of their people, in order to be read by the Greeks. In Southern Italy, the Greek language had been long introduced. To maintain that the Lucanian Ocellus had really written the works attributed to him might scarcely be advisable; but some reason must nevertheless have existed for placing the authorship of them to his account, and Aristoxenus, to whom all the statements which are extant concerning this point are to be referred, was aware that these people wrote in Greek. In Campania, Apulia, and elsewhere, the native towns had Greek inscriptions and coins. The Alexandrine grammarians read Oscan histories of Italy; but these books were by no means written in the Oscan, but in the Greek language. With regard to the Roman history, there are particularly to be mentioned Q. Fabius Pictor,[8] and Cincius Alimentus, both of them very high-born Romans. The former, being of patrician family, had been sent as ambassador to Delphi. He was great-grandson of that C. Fabius Pictor, who painted the temple of Salus, a work of art which was preserved until the times of the emperor Claudius, and was most probably a battle piece representing the victory of Consul Junius over the Æqui. To him already we must give credit for having been familiar with the Greek language and manners, as the practice of painting, according to genuine Roman views, would not have been seemly for a patrician. His son was ambassador to Alexandria, and consequently likewise acquainted with Greek. The object of the historian Fabius was without doubt to combat the odious and unfair notions of the Greeks respecting the Romans. He therefore wrote the Roman history from the beginning,--whether from the arrival of Æneas we know not, but most likely from the _primordia urbis_. He described, as Dionysius states, the earlier times κεφαλαιωδῶς, those which were nearer to his own more circumstantially, a feature which he has in common with almost all the Roman historians except Cn. Gellius and Valerius Antias, who do just the contrary. Cato alone kept an even balance. The real subject of Fabius was the war of Hannibal; but his account of the first Punic war was also detailed. From Polybius we see, that he endeavoured in every possible way to justify his own people; that writer even taxes him with partiality for the Romans. The first history of the first Punic war had been written by Philinus, a native of Agrigentum, who was more highly exasperated against the Romans, on account of the destruction of the town of his birth. In direct opposition to him, Fabius in his writings now perhaps exaggerated in favour of the other side. Probably he wrote as far down as to the end of the second Punic war, although we have no evidence in proof, as most of the quotations from him refer to the very earliest times of Roman history. The title of his book we know not; nor do we find it mentioned anywhere, in spite of the frequent quotations, into how many books it was divided. The work was held in exceedingly high estimation, he is very often quoted by Livy and likewise by Polybius, and Diodorus Siculus; but surely we have many things from him where we do not read his name mentioned. It is evident and certain that Diodorus took Ol. 8, 1. to be the date of the building of Rome, just as Fabius did. Now Diodorus in the several years contains notices concerning Roman history, which are very much at variance with the statements of Livy, but which, although indeed very scanty, are by no means to be despised. These he can only have taken from Fabius or Timæus; but the former is more likely on account of the accordance just alluded to. Appian, on the occasion of the embassy to Delphi, mentions Fabius, ὃς τόνδε τὸν πόλεμον ξυνέγραψε; and he too certainly has borrowed from him. Appian was very little conversant with Latin, and had not the least research; where Dionysius of Halicarnassus went before him he closely followed his track, just as Zonaras did with regard to Dio Cassius. Fabius Pictor had likewise written in Greek, (Dion. Hal. V proœm.), so that Appian could read him. Now he also agrees in a remarkable manner with Zonaras, who follows in the wake of Dio Cassius, whose keen glance recognised Fabius as the best authority. We owe therefore to Fabius an immense debt of gratitude for the most precious and invaluable information. And certainly the careful language used concerning the earlier constitution by Dio Cassius, who consistently calls populus δῆμος, and _plebs_ ὅμιλος or πλῆθος, is derived from Fabius. Thus Fabius not only is the father of Roman history, but in him also is found the highest and most perfect knowledge of the ancient constitution. Censorious people have railed at the idea that we in the nineteenth century should pretend to understand the Roman constitution better than Livy and Dionysius did; yet we do not presume to understand it differently from the consular Dio Cassius, and Q. Fabius from whom he has borrowed.