path: root/78452-0.txt

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78452 ***




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.

I shall not here enter into a description of the condition of Italy,
which was the result of the Roman conquest, for I should have to repeat
the same afterwards in giving you an account of the separate countries:
even a general outline would render it necessary to enter into great
detail. We shall at once pass on to the seventh century, as the period
of regular organisation, when the Sempronian laws completely fixed the
boundaries of Italy. Italy then extended as far as Ariminum, and on the
other side as far as the river Macra. The country north of those points
was in ordinary life called _Gallia Cispadana_, but it did not form a
province by itself, in the sense of a country regularly governed by
propraetors or proconsuls. Before the time of Augustus, and even during
the first years of his reign, Gallia Transpadana and Venetia were not
included in Italy, but were under a military administration, sometimes
united with Illyricum and sometimes with Gaul in the wider sense of the
name. Augustus first joined that country politically to Italy, as it had
long since become Latinised by the extraordinary influx of Romans from
Latium. This is quite surprising. The use of the Latin language seems to
have become universal with extraordinary rapidity, and sometimes even in
the short space of a single generation. It is remarkable how quickly such
a change takes place, while afterwards there occurred a stand-still, and
no further extension took place. In France the Latin language had spread
so rapidly in consequence of the Roman conquest, that, even at the time
when Pliny wrote, it generally prevailed in Provence as far as Lyons,
and the Gallic language had disappeared. From Sulpicius Severus and the
ecclesiastical fathers, we see that in the fifth century the Romanic was
the vernacular tongue in Gaul and not Celtic. This was the case from
Provence to Armorica, and during the period of the Frankish kings the
boundaries of the Romanic language were undoubtedly the same as they are
at present, and for centuries the language of Lower Britany has not lost
a single village. I do not mean to say, that the Celtic was everywhere
else quite extinct, but it was spoken very little, just as in some
villages of Lusatia, Wendish is spoken, of which the inhabitants of the
towns do not understand a word. Augustus, then, extended Italy in this
manner, because the northern parts had either already become Latinised,
or showed every symptom of soon becoming so.

Augustus divided Italy into eleven regions, and afterwards, in the third
century of our era, probably under Severus, this number was increased to
fifteen. Pliny has made the former the basis of his description, but the
latter is not found quite complete in any ancient author. A knowledge of
these divisions is of great importance in history, in order to understand
the notices of ancient writers, especially of the “Scriptores Historiae
Augustae.”

The regions of Augustus are:—1. _Latium_ and _Campania_, from the Tiber
to the Silarus, on the frontier of Lucania. 2. _Southern Samnium_,
_Beneventum_, the country of the _Hirpini_, _Apulia_ and _Calabria_.
3. _Lucania_ and _Bruttium_. 4. _Northern Samnium_ and the country of
the _Marsians_, _Marrucinians_, _Pelignians_, and _Vestinians_. 5.
_Picenum._ 6. _Umbria._ 7. _Etruria_, a name which remained customary
until the second century; but from that time and especially during the
third century, it was always called _Tuscia_, as _Tusci_ was always the
name of the inhabitants. Tuscia occurs neither in Cicero, nor in Livy,
nor in Ennius, nor in Cato. But in the reign of Constantine no scholar
ought to speak of Etruria. These are things which serve as hints to him
who understands them to indicate the time at which anything is written,
and which are stumbling blocks to those who are ignorant of them. When
at Rome, I had made such progress in these matters, that in looking at
a ruin, I could immediately discern to what century it belonged, and in
like manner a practised eye can, even without any statement of time or
place, discover whether coins are Thracian or Cilician and whether they
belong to the period before or after Alexander. Historical blunders are
quite as bad as grammatical ones; they are not indeed illogical, but they
grate upon well-trained ears and feelings, and create uneasiness. 8.
_Ariminum_, the legations of Urbino, Ferrara, and Romagna. 9. _Liguria_,
the country south of the river Po, from the borders of Etruria as far as
the Alps. 10. _Venetia_, and 11. _Regio transpadana_, from the Lago di
Garda to the Alps.

If we were to understand the later division into provinces according to
this scheme, we should misplace Liguria, for example, entirely, for that
country contained nothing of what had previously been comprised under the
same name. This later division, as I said before, was made in the third
century, probably in the reign of Severus. Paulus Diaconus furnishes
the best ground-work of this division, although he is very confused,
not enumerating the regions in any definite order. The fifteen regions,
according to his statement, are:—1. _Venetia et Histria_, as far as
the Benacus or Lago di Garda. 2. _Liguria_, the same country which was
formerly called Transpadana, from the Lago di Garda to the foot of the
Swiss Alps near mount St. Bernard; it was, therefore, on the north of the
Po, and only a small corner of it belonged to ancient Liguria. In this
sense we find the name used in the Codex Theodosianus and in Procopius.
Two _limites_ above Italy were then regarded as parts of Italy, which in
the time of Augustus did not yet belong to it, viz., 3. _Raetia prima_,
and 4. _Raetia secunda_; but their boundaries are not mentioned anywhere.
5. _Alpis Cottia_, or _Alpes Cottiae_, the ancient Liguria proper
as far as the frontiers of Tuscia; the name is transferred from the
Cottian Alps in the neighbourhood of mount Cenis and Susa to the whole
of ancient Liguria. 6. _Tuscia et Umbria_ (in the official style, for
otherwise people then wrote Thuscia). Thuscia is Tuscany, and the part
of Umbria, which was then called Umbria in a narrower sense, embraced
Assisi, Spello, Foligno, etc. 7. _Campania Aurelia._ Campania comprises
the whole region which Augustus called _Latium et Campania_, extending
from the Tiber to the Silarus. Hence the modern name of _Campagna di
Roma_, of which traces occur even in the writers of the western empire,
as in the expressions, _Campania Romana_, _Campania Romae_; in Servius
we read: _Gabii quondam oppidum Campaniae_, but this passage occurs in
one of those books (from the end of the fourth to the beginning of the
twelfth), of which it can be proved, that their present form belongs to
a much later time; the substance was composed in the fourth century, but
the form probably arose in the eighth century in the grammatical school
of Ravenna.

One hundred miles around Rome, the _provinciae suburbicariae_, must
be distinguished from Thuscia and Campania; they did not belong to
the regions, but were under the praefectus urbi, whence _Thuscia
suburbicaria_, subsequently the _Patrimonium D. Petri_, and _Campania
suburbicaria_ were opposed to _Campania Aurelia_, that is, the Campagna
di Lavoro. The name _Aurelia_ has not been understood by the few scholars
who have treated of this period; and wherever the name was found, the
strangest emendations have been attempted, because it was believed that
it was not the name of a province; but express testimony that it was a
province occurs in Boëthius and others. 8. _Lucania et Brittia._ We must
adhere to this corrupt ancient mode of spelling _Brittia_, for so it
occurs in MSS., in subscriptions, in the “Scriptores rei Agrariae,” in
the “Notitia imperii” and elsewhere.

Our guide now passes on to the Alpes Penninae. Wallis must, probably,
be regarded as a region, and also Aosta and Ivrea under the name of 9.
_Alpes Penninae_; Paulus Diaconus, however, calls them _Apenninae_, and
applies the name to some country of central Italy; but it can be proved
that such a province never existed. 10. _Aemilia_, between a part of the
Alpes Cottiae and Liguria, from Piacenza to Bologna. 11. _Flaminia_,
that is, Romagna, Ferrara, Pesaro, or the maritime district as far as
the Marca Ancona. 12. _Picenus_ (masculine, supply _ager_), the Marca
Ancona with some adjoining Sabellian districts. 13. _Valeria_, extending
from Tibur over the country of the Marsians, Pelignians, and perhaps,
also, the Marrucinians; this province is sometimes politically united
with Picenus, for Alba, the capital of Valeria, is also called, in the
imperial rescripts, _Alba in Piceno_. 14. _Samnium_, and 15. _Apulia et
Calabria_. Then come the islands Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica.

These provinces must be remembered in order to understand the history; if
a person does not know them, he cannot understand the new and differently
used names in Procopius and others. The names Aemilia, Valeria, Flaminia,
and Aurelia, were taken from the roads which bore them; Flaminia is the
district which Augustus had left without a name, perhaps the _regio
Ariminensis_. The Via Flaminia ran from Rome to Ariminum, and was thence
continued under the same name; and Scaurus afterwards continued it as
far as Piacenza under the name Aemilia. The Via Valeria led into the
interior; its originator is unknown, but it was perhaps Messalla, for
in the elegy of Tibullus on him, he is praised for having made roads;
earlier writers do not mention this road. Connected with this subject
is one of the most pleasing recollections of my life: I had just been
reading that elegy, when I was informed that a cross-road had been
discovered, unquestionably the same which is described by Tibullus; the
part of it which is laid open is preserved as beautifully, as if it had
been completed only this year. It is a road running through the midst of
Tivoli, and its pavement is so perfectly preserved that the stones have
scarcely removed the breadth of a knife’s back from one another; the
Romans built for eternity, and succeeded where the destructive hands of
barbarians did not interfere. The Aurelia must likewise have been a road,
though not a very ancient one, but probably made by M. Aurelius, or else
the name of the Via Domitiana was changed, in order to obliterate the
hateful recollection. Domitian raised splendid structures, but the hatred
with which he was looked upon, transferred many of them to others, as his
Forum was transferred to Nerva.

If we arrange the before-mentioned fifteen provinces, we first have, in
the north of the territory of Rome, _Thuscia_, in the south _Aurelia_,
and between them _Valeria_: on the other side, beginning in the south,
we have _Lucania et Brittia_, _Samnium_, _Picenus_, and behind Samnium
_Apulia et Calabria_; in the north, _Flaminia_, _Aemilia_; then from the
sea-coast the _Alpis Cottia_, including Genoa and Piedmont, _Liguria_,
_Alpes Penninae_, _Venetia et Istria_, and beyond Italy the two _Raetiae_.

The Codex Theodosianus contains an expression which is so peculiar, that
even the great Jacobus Gothofredus mistook it; we there read that some
laws were promulgated _per Italiam et Alpes_. _Italia_ here does not
denote the whole peninsula, but only Lombardy, while _Alpes_ signifies
the Cottian and Pennine Alps and the two Raetiae.

We shall now take up Italy according to its various countries, beginning
with


LATIUM,

the heart of Italy. I do not mean to say that Samnium might not equally
well have become the heart of the country, but history has willed
it otherwise. Latium is by its situation destined to exercise the
sovereignty, while that of Samnium is less favourable in this respect.
The name Latium was not always applied to the same extent of country; the
Greek name is ἡ Λατίνη, whereas τό Λάτιον is a later form copied from the
Latin, and properly signifies _jus Latii_, in which sense it is used, for
example, by Appian, who was a jurist. Latium received its name from the
people of the Lati or Latini; but in what sense the name was given to the
people, remains at least a controverted question.

I cannot, in these Lectures, always attempt to prove to you the
correctness of my views, and I have done so only in a few instances;
but where, owing to the multiplicity of the traditions, no definite
conclusion has been come to, or where I have not been able to arrive at
a settled conviction, I state to you what can be said for and against
it. What I am now going to state is my well-weighed conviction, and not
the result of an inquiry made to-day or yesterday. I commenced studying
the subject at a very early age, about thirty-five years ago; afterwards
I put it on one side for many years, because I was engaged in others,
and those the most practical occupations, in financial, commercial, and
exchange matters,—years which I do not regret, for I think that in them
I did some service to my contemporaries. But I never lost sight of my
favourite inquiries, for I cherished them in my walks, in my travels,
nay, in the midst of the confusion of war. One of the most important
inquiries, viz., that about the Slavonians and Sarmatians, I made in
the interior of Russia, when I had no books with me except a Latin
translation of Strabo. With this conviction I will at once lay before you
the results of my investigations; it would take several years, if I were
to attempt to refute the opinions of others: I shall give you that which
I honestly hold to be true and correct.

The extent of Latium was different at different times. In the earliest
ages, it cannot have been confined between the Tiber and the Liris, but
must have extended far beyond the Liris, perhaps as far as Cumae and
the frontiers of Italia in its narrowest sense. Such it appears in the
treaty between Rome and Carthage; this is evident from the words in
Polybius, where it is stipulated, that the Carthaginians should make no
conquests on the coast from Ostia to Terracina, which was subject to the
Romans. Latium therefore must have extended farther south; I will not
absolutely assert, that in the north also it extended beyond the Tiber.
As afterwards the whole of the sea coast was taken possession of by the
Volscians, the coast for a time did not belong to Latium, and even Antium
must have been separated from it. But Latium, in a narrower sense, is the
country of the thirty allied towns forming the Latin state during the
first period of the Roman republic, when the sea coast was separated from
it. This continued to be the extent of Latium until the end of the fourth
century of the city, when the maritime towns again united with Latium
and formed the great Latin league, which I have described in the first
edition of my history, and which, as I have only now discovered, was
formed in the year 397. Latium then extended as far as the Liris, but not
beyond it, for in the south of this river we find Campania, which during
the earliest times is never mentioned. During this period therefore,
the Volscians and Auruncans on the coast are likewise called Latins.
This meaning of the name afterwards changed again, and only a portion
of that country together with all the Latin colonies was termed _nomen
Latinum_, that is _gens Latina_, or _genus Latinum_, just as we have
_nomen Romanum_, _nomen Fabium_ in Livy. The Latin colonies consisted of
Romans, Latins, and Italicans; they became a single nation, which the
Romans planted all over Italy, and they rose to such importance as almost
to throw the ancient Latin towns into oblivion, so that at the time of
the Hannibalian war the name Latini signified the Latin colonies and the
few Latin towns which had belonged to the ancient confederacy and had
not yet obtained the Roman franchise. Their number continued to increase
until the lex Julia, which conferred the Roman franchise upon all of
them; Tibur and Praeneste also, the only remaining towns of the old Latin
confederacy, now received the franchise, and for the moment the Latini
ceased to exist. However, at Rome any gaps which arose, were immediately
filled up; when one generation became effete, another of new and vigorous
citizens was established in its place. C. Pompeius Strabo afterwards
conferred the _jus Latii_ upon the towns of Gallia Transpadana, and with
this wise and progressive measure introduced something quite different
from what had been customary before. These new Latins were levied for
the Roman legions, whereas the earlier ones had formed cohorts of their
own; the latter had been in the relation of isopolity, and by virtue of
the _jus municipii_ they might take the Roman franchise whenever they
pleased; but the new Latins in Gallia Transpadana could do this only
when they had held a municipal office in any of their own towns. They,
moreover, had no _connubium_: when a Roman married such a Latin woman,
his children were not Roman citizens. Sigonius is intolerable on this
subject, and so also most of the moderns. It is sad that our jurists
are not better philologers; I think that in questions of this kind an
intimate acquaintance with the ancient authors is indispensable. But on
the other hand, philologers ought to possess a very accurate knowledge
of Roman law.

This creation of Pompeius Strabo naturally produced two off-shoots. In
the first place, some people _extra Italiam positi_ now likewise obtained
the _jus Latii_, especially certain Spanish tribes and the inhabitants of
Provence, and all of them on the same footing as the Galli Transpadani.
You ought to know these rights of the Transpadani, because they belong
to the age of Cicero and Caesar, and are of interest in the history of
that period. Secondly, in the reign of Tiberius there was passed the
_Lex Junia Norbani_[2], which limited the manumission of slaves, and
provided regulations to effect a state of security for freedmen without
their obtaining the franchise. This is the later _Latinitas_, mentioned
in the law-books. The _lex Aelia Sentia_ had already established
similar limitations, to prevent slaves from becoming Roman citizens by
manumission; but these restrictions consisted in the formalities of the
law, which had grown obsolete, and were, in many instances, troublesome
and even injurious. The law had thus become unsettled. Formerly the
earlier Latins were not distinguished from the later ones; but the
ancient Latins had the _connubium_; all the Italians, in fact, had it,
and most certainly the Latins.

Being a part of larger nations, the Latins bore the names of these
nations; hence they were called Tyrrhenians by Greek authors; but even
their own names had different forms, for they are called _Lavini_ and no
doubt also _Lacini_. The ancient national name Lavini gave rise to the
story that Latinus had a brother Lavinus, and that the latter gave the
name to the town of Lavinium—a statement which was adopted by those who
would not derive the name of the town from Lavinia. This view of the
matter at once explains that which puzzled the grammarians, and which
our wretched epitomes of the commentaries on the Aeneid cannot solve.
Namely, Virgil often speaks of _litora Lavina_ and _arva Lavinia_ before
the arrival of Aeneas in Italy, because he entertained the notion that
the name _Latini_ arose afterwards from the union of the Trojans and
Aborigines; hence he took the poetical form _Lavinus_. In like manner,
Virgil, in his catalogue, at the end of the seventh book, when speaking
of the tribes of Latium, says _picti scuta Lavici_, which has always
been referred to the town of Lavici in Latium, which was called after
its inhabitants; but we cannot take this as the name of a town, as both
before and after tribes only are mentioned, and _Lavici_ there is nothing
else than Latini. There can be no doubt that they were also called
_Lacini_. King Latinus is in some traditions called Lacinus, and under
this name he was transferred to southern Italy. This is one of the points
which are not sufficiently attended to in the grammatical study of the
Latin language. It is indeed very difficult to speak of these matters,
as we have so few authentic remains of the ancient Latin dialects, and
even the very name “Latin dialects” sounds strange to us, for they
are mentioned only by the most ancient among the Latin grammarians.
We find it stated, for example, that the Praenestines had a peculiar
pronunciation. There can be no doubt that the Latins had their different
dialects, though the differences were not so strongly marked as in Greek.
The Oscan and several dialects to which the Oscan approached more or
less, were kindred languages of the Latin. I hope that more light may be
thrown upon this subject, especially by means of inscriptions; several
have already been discovered, which I have succeeded in explaining;
some exist at Pompeii and Herculaneum, and still more will no doubt be
discovered. The Oscan is a language which stands to the Latin in nearly
the same relation as that in which the Cretan (which we know, e.g., from
inscriptions of Hierapytna) stands to the Ionic dialect.

Besides these names of the Latins, I will mention a few others, and
first that of _Aborigines_. It is inconceivable that this name should
ever have been borne by the Latin nation itself, for it is nothing
else but the designation of a primitive people. The ancients generally
explain it to mean a nation from which others are descended; but this
etymology can scarcely be correct, it is probably synonymous with the
Greek αὐτόχθονες, for under this name and in this sense they are actually
mentioned in Roman traditions. We must bear in mind that all traditions
agree in representing the Latins as a mixed race: in the Trojan legends
they consist of Trojans and Aborigines, that is, strangers who arrived
by sea, and natives. But these legends do not belong to the history
of nations; they are mere fictions, which arose out of the Tyrrhenian
origin of the Latins. According to the other legend, which has more of
the character of an historical tradition, the Latin nation arose out of
an immigrating people, which, descending from the mountains, subdued the
_Siculi_ (only a dialectic variety of _Itali_), the ancient inhabitants
who extended into the interior as far as Tibur. This immigrating people
had no name, or we must suppose that its name or names have disappeared
from the traditions. But they were called _Casci_ (which, according
to Saufeius in Servius, was the name of the Aborigines) or _Prisci_.
In a later and more detailed account of the history, this relation
is completely reversed, the immigrating mountaineers being called
Aborigines. This is evidently wrong, for those are not autochthons who
subdue others, but those who are subdued: thus the natives of Attica
are called autochthons by the conquering Ionians. The name _Prisci_ is
an original national name, though it is not mentioned by the ancients:
_Priscus_, like _Cascus_, became a common appellative in the sense of
“old” in the same way as we call a thing Gothic or Old-Frankish; but
this is only a later meaning. The name by which the Latins are mentioned
in the early history of Rome and in the formulae of the pontifical books,
is _Prisci Latini_. This has been translated “the ancient Latins” as
opposed to the _colonarii Latini_; but this is quite impossible, for
they bore that name at a time when no Latin colonies were in existence.
_Prisci Latini_ is a combination of two national names just like _populus
Romanus Quirites_, _Patres Conscripti_, and the legal expressions _empti
venditi_, _locati conducti_, and signifies “the nation of the Prisci and
Latini.” Two words denoting either closely allied, or totally opposed
objects, the two extremes or poles of one idea, are put in juxtaposition
without any connecting link; this was the practice wherever one whole
was to be expressed by two terms. In this respect also much is still to
be done for Latin grammar; some things have been treated of with great
diffuseness, which might be settled in a few words, while others have
been completely neglected. Even in declension entire forms have been
misunderstood, but it is especially in regard to syntax that very much
remains to be done. The ancient mode of speaking occurs now and then,
and is either overlooked altogether or treated as exceptional; but it
ought to be treated with the same accuracy as, for example, the epic
dialect in Greek. In our case, e.g., the grammatical observation throws
light upon history; the Prisci Latini are the people of the thirty towns,
consisting of Priscans and Latins. The Priscans are the Oscan conquerors,
and the Latins the inhabitants of the coast, or the ancient Tyrrhenian
population. As in the genealogies of the Greeks, the Pelasgian race is
not separated, whence the heroes of the Trojan time frequently belong to
the Pelasgian genealogies, so the heroes of the Oscans also occur among
the Latins, and vice versa. Hesiod, in the well-known passage, mentions
Latinus, the son of Circe and Odysseus, as ruler of all the Tyrrhenians
(Πᾶσι Τυρσηνοῖσιν ἀγακλειτοῖσιν ἀνάσσων), understanding by Tyrrhenians
the people dwelling on the coasts, in the wide extent of ἡ Λατίνη.

These are the results of my investigations about the Latins. They are
spoken of in two senses: in the most ancient, they comprise all the
Siculians or Tyrrhenians on the western coast of Italy; in a narrower
and later sense, the Latins are a mixed people of Siculians and the
Oscans who had come down from the mountains. The great mass of the real
Latins became so amalgamated with the conquerors, that the main body
remained essentially Pelasgian; the alleged emigration[3] either does
not refer to the Latins at all, or only to a small portion of them; they
remained after the foreign conquest in such numbers, that their race did
not undergo any change, in the same manner as the Italians, after the
Lombard conquest, remained essentially Italians, although the Lombards,
who had come with their women and children were the rulers. Even a small
people may preserve its peculiar language for a long time; the Franks
perhaps had scarcely twenty thousand soldiers. Sismondi, whose judgment
is otherwise in most matters of little weight, here observes quite
correctly, that in the tenth century, the Dukes of Beneventum still had
Lombard names; thus one is called Store Seitz, “preparing seats;”[4] and
this was four centuries after the immigration of the Lombards. In like
manner, the nobles in Livonia speak Lettish, but among themselves they
speak German with a peculiar pronunciation; several of them live on their
estates, speak German and have German chaplains, being, among thousands
of Livonians, the only Germans. And yet more than five centuries have
already elapsed since they settled there.

In describing the physical condition of Latium, I shall use the name
in the sense in which we find it, for example, in Pliny, where it
signifies the country between the Tiber, the Liris, and the Anio, though
on the side of the Anio the frontier must not be taken too strictly.
In our maps the boundary line is marked along the Anio; but this is
incorrect, for not only Tibur is situated on its right bank, but also
Nomentum, Corniculum, and other places. Latium, in a physical point
of view, consists of three distinct parts. The first is of a volcanic
nature, and its central point is the Mons Albanus (Monte Cavo), with
which are connected the hills of Tusculum. This volcanic part extends
from the Campagna di Roma as far as Velitrae, so that the country, as
it approaches the Tiber and the sea, terminates in low hills and almost
forms a plain. This part is at present called the Latin Hills (Monti
Latini); the ancients have no corresponding name for it, though it is
quite isolated. The second part is on the east of the first, and consists
of a continuation of the Apennines, which runs across the Anio as far
as the Liris; in front of it are the hills of the Hernicans, which
are likewise essentially a part of the Apennines, for they consist of
limestone and have no traces of a volcanic nature; they extend as far as
the borders of the Pontine marshes. Between them and the neighbourhood
of Tivoli, the country is low, and in some parts a perfect plain, as
in the district where Gabii was situated; but although the country is
level, it still shows traces of volcanic agency. This is the country of
the Hernicans, with lofty Praeneste and the Latin colonies on the border
of the Pontine marshes; further on, as far as the hills, the country
contained the Aequian and Volscian towns. Those hills are extremely
beautiful, and the high country of mount Algidus lies between them and
the volcanic plain of Campania; the district of mount Algidus forms the
watershed, the waters on the one side flowing towards the Liris, and on
the other towards the Anio and the sea through the Pontine marshes. On
the north-east of Velitrae there is a table-land with broken ground. The
third part, or the country in the north-west, the west, and south, is
of quite a different character, consisting of loose, volcanic ground,
puzzolano and tufo, which are products of volcanic eruptions. The Tiber
in the neighbourhood of Rome was once an arm of the sea, as is clear
from the undoubted investigations of Brocchi, and pure marine sand is
found there; but in whatever part of the country a mineral occurs, it
always consists of an immense quantity of puzzolano, which in some parts
has become tufo. Such is the nature of all the country round Rome, but
strange to say, one part of the Aventine contains a vein of limestone.
Towards the sea the nature of the country is, I believe, the same. On the
coast, the land sinks down and becomes a plain of sand as in many barren
districts of Germany, whence the coast is covered with firs, and was
called _ager macerrimus_ by Fabius Maximus.[5] South of Ostia the coast
gradually rises and becomes a down connecting Latium with cape Circaeum,
the high promontory of Circe. This hill belongs to the Apennines, and it
is impossible to say how it may have become attached to Latium; it must,
however, originally have been separated from it by an inland sea. Into
this sea behind the downs, the river Ufens and several others poured
their waters from the hills; and the mud carried down by them has formed
the Pontine marshes, the nature of which was distinctly recognised even
by the ancients as a πρόσχωσις, that is, a filling up of a place which
was once a part of the sea, but they were mistaken as to the period when
this happened. Lessing justly observes that many an error consists in
merely mistaking the time; I know from my own experience, that even when
you entertain a sound and correct view of a thing, you may often err
in regard to time: you are anxious at once to fix the time, and commit
a blunder. Such is the case also in ancient history. Pliny is one of
those men who, by immense industry, have made themselves dull; he is
originally not deficient in intelligence and judgment. Many people carry
reading and writing to excess; Heyne, for example, would have become a
good philologer, had he not undertaken too much, and had he not thereby
been obliged to cut many a knotty point instead of solving it. It is
possible, therefore, that his name will not be remembered by posterity.
In some chapters Pliny does not show his usual manner; many things are
treated of with a real love of his subject and with great success, and
his history may even have been beautiful and genial. But he thought he
was able to produce a work, the extent of which, as he fixed it in his
own mind, was beyond the grasp of man, unless he had given up everything
else in order to be able to complete it. He dictated, and had a person to
read to him even when he was taking his bath or his meals, and by this
means all kinds of materials were accumulated without discrimination.
It is possible that he may have passed the Pontine marshes a hundred
times; but Mucianus had recorded the erroneous opinion, that at one time
twenty-three towns had existed there, and Pliny copied it; he states
however, in the same breath, that a lake had covered the same country as
late as the time of Theophrastus. The latter indeed speaks of islands,
but had not seen them himself. The marshes can never have been a high
country in which towns existed. The high-road of Trajan was several feet
below the present level of the marsh, and it is still constantly rising.
The downs continue, but between Terracina and Circeii they leave an
opening for the Ufens and other waters so far as they flow out of the
marshes.


TOPOGRAPHY OF ROME.

I shall now at once proceed to say something about the topography of
Rome; whether I shall be able afterwards to treat of this subject more
in detail, depends upon circumstances; but for the present I will give
you a general outline. It is a pity that without drawings it is almost
impossible to form a clear idea. This is not the place for speaking
about the origin of Rome, but I shall not abstain from noticing the most
ancient divisions, and briefly to state their origin.

In very remote times, there existed, according to the most credible
accounts, a small town on the Palatine hill; this town was probably
called _Roma_, and its name was afterwards extended so as to embrace
other neighbouring places. Another town existed on the Tarpeian hill
opposite, occupying at the same time a portion of the Quirinal (not
the whole of it); and I am convinced that I have discovered its name,
which was undoubtedly _Quirium_. There are ancient statements that many
small towns existed on the summits of the hills in that district—they
may, in fact, have been no more than villages. One of these places was
situated on mount Caelius, and undoubtedly bore the name of _Lucerum_.
These three towns afterwards grew together, and extended south of the
Palatine beyond the great chasm of the Circus as far as the higher and
more important hill called the Aventine. This hill also contained a
town, which at first, unless it was in friendly alliance, might become
dangerous to the city; but when a portion of the Latins was admitted to
the Roman franchise, they received settlements there, and in this manner
that place likewise became united with Rome. The Aventine being, as
it were, an outpost, was connected with the city by means of a rampart
extending to mount Caelius. These five hills, then, the Palatine,
Quirinal, Capitoline, Caelius, and Aventine, formed together one whole,
but each had separate rights, just as in Great Britain at the time when
England and Scotland were united, and Ireland had its own parliament
under British supremacy. A union existed between Roma and Quirium, while
Lucerum, like Ireland, was dependent, though it had its own government;
and the town on the Aventine stood in the relation of the English
colonies. From the Caelian hill to the foot of the Quirinal another great
fortification consisting of a mound and a ditch was formed, whereby the
whole became united as one city; the Esquiline and Viminal were drawn
into the city at a later period.

In ancient ethnography and history there occur numbers, which, in a
surprising manner, recur at the most different periods; they are by no
means fanciful; to regard them as something mystical, is itself a strange
fancy, though there have been men of great intelligence, who have not
been able to resist this notion. The number seven which so often meets
us in Roman history, is something peculiar which has taken deep root
there. There are unmistakeable traces that, previous to the complete
union between the Romans and Quirites, Roma on the Palatine, Lucerum on
the Caelius, and the town on the Aventine, together with their suburbs,
formed one community, which was divided into seven districts, and bore
the name of _Septimontium_. These seven hills were afterwards transferred
to the whole of the city of Rome. Every one knows the passage in Virgil,
_Septemque una sibi muro circumdedit arces_; but these are in part
quite different hills from those originally comprised under the name
Septimontium, which did not even consist of seven distinct hills.[6] They
then were, the Palatine, Capitoline (formerly called Tarpeius), Quirinal,
Viminal, Esquiline, Caelius, and Aventine. In this sense, and when all
were enclosed by one wall, the Aventine also is reckoned as one of the
seven hills, though otherwise it is not always regarded as a part of
the city. In order not to go beyond the number seven, two very distinct
hills, the Cispius and Oppius, were treated as one under the name
Esquiline; the Aventine, at least in the opinion of the Romans, was the
highest and most considerable of all; in order, therefore, not to leave
it out, the two mentioned before were united into one. They can still be
clearly distinguished, however much the forms of the hills have otherwise
become obscured by ruins and rubbish: even the most indifferent observer
will recognise them as two hills.

Within this circumference, Rome was contained after the _agger_ of
Servius Tullius was completed. This agger was an enormous work: it ran,
almost an Italian mile, from the Colline to the Esquiline gate, and was
a moat of one hundred feet in breadth and thirty in depth, the earth
of which was thrown up as a mound lined with a wall and fortified with
towers. In the time of Augustus this work was not only still discernible,
but was used as a promenade, a kind of boulevard, of which Horace says,
_aggere in aprico spatiari_; it continued to be admired even in Pliny’s
time, while the other walls were already destroyed. At present only
few traces of it are visible; but I have no doubt that by excavations
the lining wall might still be discovered. In some parts, the agger is
still discernible as a continuous hill. Through this agger, then, the
whole city became one united place. Although the city became greatly
extended, by incorporating with itself suburbs and other hills, yet the
additional hills were not counted, and Rome remained the city of the
seven hills. One of the additions which the city received, was that of
the _mons Pincius_ or _Hortulorum_, on the other side of a wide valley,
by which it was separated from the Quirinal: it derived its name from the
palace of the Pincii, of which the ruins were to be seen as late as the
sixteenth century; it is also remarkable as the place where Belisarius
in the sixth century had his head-quarters. Near the Aventine, another
hill was added, to which the ancients do not give a distinct name, but
which, during the middle ages, was strangely called _Asbestus_, which is
perhaps a corruption of an ancient name. If it be not a mere invention,
it is probable that a church may have stood there which was called _in
Asbesto_. Nibby was the first to notice this, at least he first published
it.[7] The suburb beyond the bridge (_trans Tiberim_, _Trastevere_)
also was added, and in like manner the _Janiculus_ became a part of the
city, as well as another small hill in the neighbourhood of the second
Aventine, the greater part of which, however, was outside the city. The
number of hills which were regarded as belonging to the circumference
of the city, thus already amounted to ten. In the ninth century, when
the Borgo was built and St. Peter was fortified, the Vatican hill also
was incorporated, so that at present the number of hills belonging
to the city amounts to eleven. A great part of them, however, is now
uninhabited, being covered by vineyards. But the division into seven
parts had taken such firm root, that Augustus, in dividing the city into
regions for the purpose of regulating the administration of the police,
made fourteen regions; and this was wise and not a pedantic going back to
obsolete institutions. This arrangement of Augustus was very necessary,
for Rome was at that time little better than a den of robbers, as is
usually the case in republics when the free constitution is not kept
fresh and adapted to circumstances, when they become too vast, when
morality decays, and when there arises a contradiction between the social
condition of the nation and its constitution. In such circumstances the
condition of a republic is the most fearful that can be imagined. The
collective national wealth is never the main thing: I am convinced that
in England, if the middle classes are destroyed (and such a middle class
scarcely exists, for the people are either very rich or very poor),
morals will decay, and that the nation will come to a point, where it can
no longer enjoy its liberty, and will perish by internal convulsions:
Hume has predicted this long ago. Whoever wishes to promote and preserve
freedom, must first ask himself, Is it possible to preserve morality,
virtue, and honesty? Have the morals of the people retained their purity?
Do they respect themselves, their fellow-men, and God? If this is not
the case, liberty is a curse and not a blessing. Such was the case of
the Romans under Augustus: terrible as was his government, still there
was no other way. In like manner, the revolution of the 18th Brumaire
was the most fortunate event for France, and by it Napoleon did more for
the country than by his victories. In his circumstances Augustus could
not ask himself, “Is it not a handsome thing to preserve the ancient
forms?” but, “What is the task I have to accomplish, especially how can
I restore security?” For a man’s life was not safe even in his bed.
Home and its vicinity were then probably even more unsafe than in our
times; no one then could go from Rome to Albano without risking his life,
whereas now even in the worst seasons no one has any thing to fear there.
Whoever went out in the dark, had reason to be grateful, if he escaped
with his life. Augustus, therefore, with a feeling that it could not be
otherwise, divided the city into fourteen regions. In like manner the
Christians in the earliest times divided themselves into seven deaneries
or ecclesiastical regions, which, however, were by no means as distinctly
marked as has sometimes been supposed; and it is evident from monuments
that the ancient boundaries were not observed in them. This division into
seven continued until a late period of the middle ages, and afterwards we
find seven Cardinals, and seven civil dignitaries. Even at the present
day Rome is divided into fourteen regions; during the middle ages this
number was not kept up, but Sixtus V. again made it up by adding the
Borgo.

How much have these numbers been trifled with! The seven arms of the
chandelier in the temple of Jerusalem, the seven days of the week, and
even the seven planets have been pressed into the service to explain
them. But such explanations may be found for any number. At the time of
the French revolution I knew a good-natured man, who enthusiastically
took up every change and demonstrated that, as man has five fingers and
five senses, the Directoire and the Council of the Five Hundred was
the most perfect form of government. When there were three consuls, he
comprehended this too and found it quite natural; and when at last there
was only one, he declared that it was all right, for that unity must
prevail in nature. Such trifling with numbers is a bad thing.

I have already spoken to you about the physical character of the whole
district. The ground is volcanic, the stones are tufo, and the loose
soil puzzolano. These volcanic substances are very useful as cement and
very durable. Wherever in architectural structures the ancients speak
of _arena_, we have to understand puzzolano; we translate it indeed by
“sand,” but it is a volcanic sand. Thus we read in Cicero’s speech for
Cluentius that a dead body was found in a sand-pit (_arenaria_); such
pits were dug very deep and were very extensive. Of the same kind are the
catacombs at Rome: they are large subterraneous passages, which, if due
care was taken in their construction, did not fall in. In my lectures on
Roman antiquities, I have said that these catacombs were the ordinary
burial places for the poor. This much may suffice about the hills.

In the earliest times, the Tiber extended between the Palatine and the
Aventine, for there the river, as I have already remarked, formed a bay
of the sea, and the district between the Tarpeian and the Palatine hills
was a marsh, which, when the waters rose high, became a lake: afterwards
this place was the _Forum_. The valley between the Palatine and Aventine
was always filled with water, independent of inundations, for the river
there formed a real bay: this district was called the _Velabrum_. Rome
consisted, for the most part, of isolated patches of houses on the
hills, for the marsh extended from the Forum to the valley between the
Viminal and Esquiline. When you examine the history of the restoration
of the city, and inquire as to which district was marshy, you find that
even now the place once occupied by the Forum Augusti is called Pantani
(marsh). For the purpose of draining this marsh, the Romans built the
sewers, which are ascribed to one of the Tarquins—it is uncertain whether
to the father or to the son—and which still exist. The intention was to
drain the whole of the lower districts between the Palatine, Aventine,
Capitoline, Esquiline, and the sea, to facilitate the communication
between the several hills, to render the plain fit for agriculture,
instead of cultivating only the sides of the hills, and at the same
time to make the city inhabitable in regard to fortifications: in like
manner London has, within a period of twenty years, become an entirely
new city; for many thousands of houses have been bought and pulled down
for the purpose of making the streets broader. It was necessary to make
an embankment by the river side in order to obtain firm ground behind
it, and then to build the great sewers (_cloacae_). We must not conceive
these works to be executed according to our dwarfish notions: they were
large vaults receiving the waters of the low districts and carrying them
into the river; I always feel sorry to be obliged to use an ignoble name
for those magnificent works. The marsh then had to be filled up, which is
not indeed mentioned by the ancients, but is self-evident. Afterwards,
these cloacae were extended at different times, under the Forum as far
as the Subura between the Viminal and the Esquiline, so that all those
districts were drained by a vast system of sewers. Thus Rome, throughout
this extent, was reclaimed as building ground. I shall afterwards have to
say something more about these cloacae.

Most Italian towns were in ancient times situated on hills, but were then
not surrounded with walls any more than the Epirot towns, but localities
were chosen where a hill was naturally inaccessible, or it was made
inaccessible by artificial means. The hill Moriah, on which king Solomon
built the temple, was originally such a hill, and it still preserves its
square form amid its ruins. The ancients at most drew a wall around the
base of the hill, which was either a Cyclopean or an Etruscan (i.e., a
regular) wall, so as to render it inaccessible;[8] at the top of the
hill there was no wall, at most a small bulwark, but in most cases even
this did not exist. A sloping road (_clivus_) with two towers at the
foot led up the hill, and along it ran a portico, or two walls, usually
built in a zigzag. At the top there was another gate which could be
closed, and which was generally flanked by two towers, so that the access
might be closed both at the foot and at the top. Such was in general the
character of the Latin towns, more or less perfect, and built regularly
or irregularly according to the nature of the locality; and of this kind
must have been the small Latin and Sabine towns out of which arose the
eternal city. These places stood quite isolated, and each had its own
arx, which perfectly explains Virgil’s expression _Septemque una sibi
muro circumdedit arces_; these were the strong places in Rome itself,
which are so often mentioned by Livy and Dionysius. Rome, therefore, had
not one arx, but seven. These seven arces were then connected by means
of the agger, which extended from the Colline to the Esquiline gate. In
some parts of this circumference the ancient fortification remained;
for example, the Quirinal (which was so high that it was necessary
to make a flight of steps, which was transferred in the fourteenth
century to Araceli[9]) had one very precipitous side, which required no
fortification; but from it to the Capitoline a wall was built. Thence
the fortification proceeded to the corner of the Aventine. This course
of the ancient walls has been mistaken by all antiquarians, except a few
belonging to the sixteenth century; I discovered its real course from the
nature of the circumstances; I lived in the neighbourhood, and found the
remains, for on the one side of the street there runs a ridge of ruins.
This wall alone prevented the Tiber from overflowing the Forum, while
outside the gate the inundations were very great; when, therefore, in
the seventh century the wall was neglected, the Forum and the adjoining
districts, as far as the porta Carmentalis, were completely inundated. In
ancient Rome, this could not have happened. The Aventine is still high
enough to show, that properly it required no wall, and its precipitous
side towards the river may still be seen; but from that point again a
wall runs towards the Caelius, for the most part behind the ditch which
is now called Marrana, but anciently (Pliny) bore the name of _fossa
Quiritium_. Coming from the Campagna this ditch runs along the foot of
the Caelius, traverses the valley of the Murcia towards the river, and in
the Circus it appears as a Euripus. Of the wall from the Aventine to the
Caelius traces likewise still exist in the ridge of ruins in the lanes
of that district. This fortification, then, closed the valley between
the Caelius and Palatine. The Caelius was probably surrounded by a wall,
for its sides cannot have been steep enough to protect it. The wall then
proceeded through the valley towards the Esquiline gate, and was thus
carried to the point where it joined the agger. This circumference of
the city amounted to somewhat more than five English miles, and is known
under the name of the wall of Servius Tullius (_recinto di Servio Tullio,
murus Servii regis_, in Pliny). The wall did not run round the whole
city, for along the Quirinal and the Capitoline there was no real wall.
The _insula Tiberina_ is in the reach of the river, which in the west of
the city forms the _Campus Martius_, a perfect plain outside the ancient
city. At present this plain is covered with scattered hillocks which have
been formed by rubbish deposited there; there were also a few marshes,
but not as many as Brocchi asserts.

The _Marrana_ is a ditch running from Alba to Rome, respecting which
antiquarians are strangely mistaken, and about which the most singular
conjectures have been propounded. It is supposed that it is not mentioned
in the works of the ancients; while some think that it is the _aqua
damnata_, an aqueduct, and others that it is the _aqua crabra_, a
beautiful spring, which, however, has its source near Tusculum, and
is for the most part consumed there. But the Marrana is nothing but a
ditch: in the vale of Grotta ferrata there existed in ancient times
a lake, which had two outlets for its waters, one channel being cut
through to the Anio, and the other a tunnel cut through the rock. I am
sorry to say that I have not seen it myself, but I have read of it in
the work, “De aquis et aquaeductibus,” by Fabretti, a scholar of the
seventeenth century; his work is very excellent, and I only regret that I
did not read it until I had left Rome; it contains a number of original
investigations, for the author did not, like many others, confine himself
to studying antiquities from books. Fabretti discovered the _Fossa
Cluilia_ at the foot of a hill near Frascati, on which are situated the
Centroni. They were pointed out to me by an aged peasant, for, wherever
it was possible, I tried to make the acquaintance of country people,
who very often know something about the ruins which we find mentioned
in old books. It has for a long time been the misfortune of foreigners
at Rome, not to see more than what is noticed in books. There are, for
example, three pillars, remnants of a portico, in a cellar not far from
the place in which I lived; and I was apprised of their existence by an
old man who was a scholar. Another likewise very interesting ruin exists
in a vault under the Capitol; to judge from the style of architecture,
it cannot be of a more recent date than the age of Augustus; I have,
unfortunately, not seen it myself, but a friend has sent me a description
of it. Fabretti calls the tunnel of which I spoke before, an _opus
priscae magnificentiae_. This is the _Fossa Cluilia_, by means of which
the valley was drained; it is a work of Alban origin; its continuation
towards Rome was called _Fossa Quiritium_, and is the present Marrana.
From this fact we may, at the risk of not going wrong more than a hundred
paces, fix the spot on which the ancients conceived the combat between
the Horatii and Curiatii to have taken place: respecting this point also
the most erroneous notions have prevailed. By the same means, we are
enabled accurately to point out the boundary line of Latium, and the
spot where the Romans thought Coriolanus to have been encamped. These
facts have occurred to no one, because nobody remembered that, before
Appius Claudius made the via Appia, the via Latina was the only road in
that direction. The Fossa Quiritium was regarded as the work of Ancus
Martius; it runs between the Aventine and Palatine into the Velabrum, and
terminates in the cloacae.

In most maps the walls of Rome are seen continued in the form of a
triangle beyond the Tiber towards the Janiculus; the walls forming σκέλη
proceeding from the Capitol and the Aventine. But this is altogether a
mistake. In the age of Augustus, suburbs certainly did exist beyond the
Tiber, and I have reasons for supposing that they existed there even at
the period of the republic, at least in the seventh century. But it is
a mistake to continue the walls so far, for the Romans had long ceased
heeding the walls in extending their city. The following circumstance is
a proof of this: Rome had only a single bridge across the Tiber, viz.
the Pons Sublicius. Now it is said, that the Fabii went out by the Porta
Carmentalis, and then proceeded across the bridge into the Etruscan
territory. They passed through the Porta Carmentalis because they dwelt
on the Quirinal; if they had lived on the Aventine, they would have
passed through the Porta Flumentana. The bridge, therefore, evidently lay
outside the walls, for otherwise they would have had to pass through two
gates, and two gates would have become _nefastae_. Moreover, Varro, “De
Lingua Latina,” says, that the carceres of the Circus Maximus were close
to the wall of the city,[10] which in his sense is perfectly correct; for
the _carceres_ cannot have been more than a stone’s throw from the wall
which ran from the Capitoline to the Aventine.

The city was spacious even within the circumference given to it by
Servius, but it ever increased, and suburbs sprang up around it. The
first trace of such a suburb occurs in the second Punic war. If we
possessed the second decad of Livy, we should perhaps find that it
existed even at an earlier period. The account of a great conflagration,
which occurred during the Hannibalian war, shows that a large and
beautiful suburb existed in the district between the Capitoline,
Aventine, the Circus Maximus, and the river, that is, in the region of
the _Forum olitorium, extra portam Flumentanam_.

It is natural that in a city like Rome, which had already become the
capital of a great empire, the empty spaces within the walls were
gradually filled up, and that the ancient _luci_, especially about
the Esquiline, were more and more cleared away and filled up with
buildings. The extension of large cities generally takes the direction
of the principal streets: when, for example, cities like Paris and
London extend, the newly-built houses follow the lines of the main
streets, and are continued outside the gates; the streets thus become
lengthened, and are intersected by cross roads. But this system had at
Rome to contend with a difficulty, which is generally overlooked. It
was customary with the ancients, not only at Rome but also in the Greek
cities, to build sepulchres outside the gates on both sides of the road.
The ruins of Pompeii show this distinctly. It was accordingly impossible
to continue the buildings there, without destroying the tombs. The
sepulchral monuments at Rome were subsequently destroyed by barbarism
and fanaticism; as most of them were of marble and other costly stones,
they were demolished for the sake of plunder. The district of the tombs
has now a frightful appearance: the via Appia looks like a corpse, and no
one visits it. During summer, when one might be inclined to go there, the
country is covered with corn-fields, and in winter herds of cattle graze
there; and the herdsmen are generally accompanied by large dogs which
attack strangers with great fury; Goethe was in danger of losing his
life in that district. The herdsmen are suspected of sometimes causing
strangers to be torn to pieces in order to be able to rob them, whence
it is necessary to arm one’s self when visiting the district. From an
eminence in the neighbourhood you can see the course of the ancient road
to a considerable distance, and along it you see nothing but tombs in
ruins. Some of them, as we know from Boissard’s description, were entire
as late as the sixteenth century; but the Romans have demolished and
carried away every thing, and not a stone of any value has been left. The
whole of this road was a succession of tombs, it was a real necropolis
like that of Alexandria. Hence Rome was always extended between two
diverging roads, and gardens were thus formed between the open country
and the fields. In ancient Rome you must well distinguish between _horti_
and _villae_; at present we make no distinction, and the name _villa_
is applied to a house in a garden, even within the walls of a city; but
in ancient times a villa was always at a considerable distance from
the city. _Horti_, on the other hand, still called _orti_, originally
signified mere orchards in the vicinity of the city. Such _horti_ were
bought by the wealthy at the time when the city became too confined, and
having purchased many of them together they built palaces with suitable
pleasure grounds in those districts between the great high roads. Thus
Scipio, in the work “De Re Publica,” is said to have made up his mind
to be _in hortis_. I have discovered the _horti Aemilii_, which were
situated on the border of the Campus Martius. Such studies and inquiries
make a residence at Rome extremely attractive. In the first year I could
not see my way clearly, but afterwards, when I had once discovered the
thread, I became quite at home there. Had it not been for my family and
the education of my children, whom I was anxious to have brought up in
the German way, I could never have resolved to quit Rome, because ancient
Rome became daily more clear and vivid before my mind, while modern Rome
disappeared more and more from my view; the climate also agreed very
well with me. The large palaces, to return to my subject, were situated
outside the ancient walls. It is a most erroneous opinion that the palace
of Maecenas was situated on the spot afterwards occupied by the Thermae
of Titus; for it was outside the wall in the Campus Esquilinus.

The city now became extended in various ways. Industrious artizans
established themselves by the river-side, and also on the other side
of it (_trans Tiberim_). That this latter district was inhabited as a
distinct quarter as early as the time of Augustus, is evident from the
fact, that he made it a separate region; and this is at the same time a
proof that it was thickly peopled. For although most other regions were
of nearly equal extent, this one was comparatively small, which arose
from the circumstance, that the great mass and the condition of its
inhabitants required a more watchful vigilance of the police. This is
the reason why that region was smaller than those in other parts. For
opposite reasons, another region near the Porta Capena, in which the
population was more dispersed, and which contained more palaces, was made
unusually large. Suburbs existed as early as the Punic wars, and in the
time of Marius and Sulla, the whole city was surrounded with suburbs; the
ancient walls were then forgotten, and it seems that, for the purpose of
removing all impediments of communication, even the gates were taken off
their hinges. Along the river there was no obstacle, hence buildings
were erected there under the Capitoline and Palatine.[11] It is commonly
imagined that the whole district at the reach of the Tiber was called
Campus Martius, but the Campus occupied only a part of it. At the foot
of the Quirinal, too, buildings were erected, and all these enlargements
may have narrowed the Campus Martius. In other parts the gardens were
isolated, not forming a connected quarter. One suburb was situated at the
distance of a Roman mile from the city, on the Appian road; it was even
outside the Aurelian wall, which is still standing, and was called _ad
Martis_.

When the city had become thus enlarged, there followed the conflagration
of Nero, the effects of which have not yet been made clear, but I hope
some time to be able to give a satisfactory account of it. The Palatine,
a part of Caelius and the district about the Circus were, perhaps,
completely reduced to ashes; so also the Via Flaminia on the west of the
Capitol; but other parts were less injured.

In Pliny (iii. 9), we meet with the strange expression: _Moenia ejus
collegere ambitu Imperatoribus Censoribusque Vespasianis, anno conditae
DCCCXXVII. pass. XIIIMCC._, an expression which proves in a striking
manner that an accurate knowledge of language and etymology cannot be
dispensed with, even in matters which we observe with our own eyes.
It has been unjustly inferred from this passage, that in the reign of
Vespasian Rome was provided with walls, and those, too, of a much wider
circumference than those of Servius. This arose from ignorance of the
fact that, according to the most ancient Roman usage, _moenia_ always
signifies “buildings.” In like manner, Virgil’s expression, _Dividimus
muros et moenia pandimus urbis_, contains no tautology, as was well-known
to the ancient grammarians, for the meaning is: “we break the walls,
and thereby lay open the buildings of the city.” So also Florus, who
sometimes follows the ancient usage, says: _hic igitur et moenia muro
amplexus_. We must accordingly understand the passage of Pliny as
comprising the whole complex of Rome, as it was measured in the time of
Vespasian, which, of course, is a variable magnitude. As it is generally
understood, the expression would be as absurd, as if I were to say: the
walls of the city of Cologne, in 1828, were of such or such an extent,
having, of course, had the same circumference two hundred years ago.
Rome had long since been extended beyond the ancient walls, which were
now, in fact, in the midst of the city; the towers had been taken down,
and people built houses there, the interdicts against building on the
pomoerium being no longer attended to. In like manner the foundations
of the ancient walls of London may still be discerned among the houses.
From Frontinus’ work on Aqueducts, we see how, though the police was
excellent, abuses had crept in, although not as many as at present,
because the lower administration was not carried on in so servile a
manner; when an experienced man was entrusted with the superintendence,
things went on fairly, but if not, every one took the greatest liberty.
Such was the case at Rome, until Frontinus came forward as a reformer.
The disorder was then so great that any one built a house wherever he
pleased, without asking whether he had a right to do so or not; and hence
the city ever continued to extend. I have made a series of observations
on the origin of particular buildings, in order to see approximately,
how the city became enlarged under the several emperors. In the reign
of Augustus, the Campus Martius was principally chosen for the erection
of large buildings: there Agrippa built his Thermae and the Pantheon,
and Augustus his Mausoleum; for the Campus was no longer the plain for
reviewing the citizens, nor were the mock-comitia of the centuries held
there any longer, but it was confined to a small plain near the river, as
may be seen from Pliny’s panegyric on Trajan. This part of the Campus,
according to a regulation of Agrippa, was watered throughout the summer,
and hence always presented a green lawn. The summer is at Rome much more
terrible than winter, for the grass is scorched to its very roots; in
September it is green, but in July and the dreadful month of August,
all the foliage is scorched and covered with dust, so that it presents
the most melancholy appearance, and the grounds, like the fields, are,
nearly as in Egypt, a picture of death.—In the time of Trajan the Romans
built in the same way as is now done in London, where people do not only
enlarge the town, but spare no expenses in embellishing it. Enormous
works were undertaken in the interior, merely to gain ground. To make
room for the Forum of Trajan, a part of the Quirinal was taken down, and
many houses were demolished to gain the magnificent space, so that it
cost many millions before the foundations could be laid. Antonine erected
in the Campus Martius his basilica, his column, and other edifices. Rome
was, in fact, ever increasing down to the third century. Even in the time
of Alexander Severus, although there existed men of great intelligence,
very few seem to have suspected that the nation was in a state of decay,
and that a destructive storm was approaching. Dangers in which the empire
might have perished did not become visible until the reign of Decius,
when the German tribes, the Goths, Alemanni, and Longobards (Juthungi)
crossed the boundaries of the empire. They penetrated as far as the river
Po, and as Marius had conquered the Cimbri, so Aurelian defeated those
tribes in the north of the Po, and saved Italy. Aurelian now found it
necessary to surround the city with a new wall, which was essentially
the same as the present one. He did not comprise all the suburbs within
its circumference, but was guided by the course of the hills; the whole
of the _Collis hortulorum_, however, and the mighty ravine in the
neighbourhood were drawn into it and fortified. This wall was exceedingly
strong: in the east he was obliged, as Servius had done before, to raise
it to a great height.

This was the circumference of Rome, until Leo IV. drew the Vatican
into the city and surrounded it with a wall. In the sixteenth century
the Vatican was connected with Trastevere by means of the Lungara; and
thus arose the present circumference, a fact which cannot be denied,
although it has been inferred that the wall was fifteen Roman miles in
circumference.[12] The present walls are altogether restorations, and
probably no part of them belongs to Aurelian. Under the later emperors
they again fell into decay; previous to the siege by the Goths, Honorius
ordered them to be cleared of the heaps of rubbish which had accumulated
by the side of them, and to be restored (_egestis immensibus ruderibus_).
Afterwards one third of the wall was demolished by Totilas. Very few of
the gates belonging to the time of Honorius now exist, as is clear from
the inscriptions; they can be clearly distinguished from those which were
built in the sixth century under Gregory the Great, who restored them in
every way, for the purpose of protecting the city against the Lombards.

The walls of Servius and Aurelian, although the facts were known, were by
no means properly distinguished by the antiquarians and commentators of
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was only in the eighteenth
century that a correct notion was formed of the course of the walls
of Rome, and the great D’Anville in this matter also showed his keen
judgment and ready tact, although his outline, too, is not quite correct.
The more ancient the antiquarians are, the less do they distinguish
between the two walls; they sought the Esquiline and Colline gates in the
line of the present wall, though they must have known that this did not
accord with all the rest; but where a difficulty occurred they helped
themselves by accommodation. At present the matter has been made pretty
clear; Nibby’s work on the Roman walls contains for the most part correct
views.

I will now proceed to enumerate the gates, as they are extremely
important in the earliest history of Rome. It is said that the most
ancient Rome on the Palatine had three gates; but this must be understood
to refer to the extent of Rome comprising the plain round the Palatine,
where a suburb was separated by means of a trench and palisades. These
gates are not the same in all authors; the _Porta Mugonia_ alone, near
the temple in the Via Nova, is historical; it is mentioned by Solinus,
and Tarquinius Priscus is said to have dwelt there. You must not,
therefore, seek for these gates on the hill, but below Cermalus.

The northernmost gate is the _Porta Collina_, near the Quirinal, where
the mound of Servius Tullius began. Before it there is a field, and then
comes the valley across which you pass through the gardens of Sallust
towards Monte Pincio. Here, on the road to the Porta Salara[13], we must
conceive the point where Hannibal rode up to the walls of Rome, and
hurled his spear into the city, and where Sulla defeated the Samnites.
The _Porta Esquilina_ was at the other end of the Servian agger, and
between them was the _Porta Viminalis_. Ficoroni has very successfully
made out the site of the Porta Esquilina behind the church of S. Maria
Maggiore. After the Esquiline gate there follows the _Caelimontana_, the
site of which cannot be accurately determined; but that the arch on the
Caelius with an inscription by Dolabella[14], is not a Roman gate, is
obvious to any one who has a notion of the structure of a Roman gate.
Then comes the _Porta Capena_, in the valley below the Caelius. Piranesi,
an intelligent and clever man, discovered it about fifty years ago by
well conducted excavations; but the spot has been covered over again, and
not even a mark has been put there. Then follows the _Porta Naevia_ near
the Aventine, whether on the side towards the Caelius, or at the southern
extremity, on the spot where now the bulwark of Paul III. exists, cannot
be ascertained. This gate is the largest. In order to discover any thing
more definite about it, it would be necessary to make excavations, and
it would have made me extremely happy, if I had been allowed to do so.
But gladly as I would have done it, even at my own expense, I had to
struggle with too great difficulties, especially caused by Monsignor Fea,
who always had some objection, when a proposal was made, although he had
no certain conviction of his own. He generally thwarted my attempts.
When once by accident he consented to Count Funchal making excavations
on the Capitol, the thing sought for was found. He never would be wrong,
though he is otherwise an honest man, and has the reputation of great
disinterestedness; but he is arrogant, confident, and impertinent; he
becomes enraged, and never allows a matter to be inquired into, and to
prevent it he would even have recourse to intrigues and tricks. Thus,
although I wished to make excavations at my own expense, and although I
offered to take nothing for myself, and to surrender every thing to the
Papal government—I only wished to copy what I might find—still I could
not obtain permission. And this was done, in order that new discoveries
might not overthrow the current theories. But I understand that things
are now going on better.

In that district there are two gates, the _Raudusculana_, probably at the
southern extremity, and the _Naevia_. Then came the _Porta Trigemina_,
below the Aventine, between it and the Tiber, just as the Capena was
below the Caelius. Whence the Trigemina derived its name I will mention
after the enumeration of the gates, when I shall have to speak of their
construction. The _Porta Flumentana_ was between the Circus and the
river. The last important gate, the _Porta Carmentalis_, was between the
Capitol and the Quirinal. Thus we again reach the Collina by the long
line of the Quirinal.

These are the more important gates of Rome, but there were several others
besides. I have given you a list of them, because they are generally
stated erroneously from the Naevia onwards. I cannot here attempt to
prove my statements, for it would be impossible for you to appreciate
or examine the arguments, but you will give me credit, that I have said
nothing but what, according to my full conviction, is correct, and I
can speak to you with that confidence as if I had seen the objects only
a moment ago. Independently of the large gates, there must have been
some smaller door-ways, especially in the long line between the Porta
Carmentalis and Collina, but in some other parts also, in which cases
a flight of steps must have led down the hills. These smaller means of
egress came more and more into use at the time when the fortifications
had become unnecessary, and when Rome was enlarged beyond the walls.
During the period of the republic, the Romans had no excise duties, which
were not introduced until the time of the emperors; hence I see no reason
why such means of egress should have been forbidden.

The peculiarity of the Roman gates is, that they had two arches by the
side of each other, as is the case in the Porta Nigra at Treves, for
there can be no doubt that the Porta Nigra was a Roman gate, with a
basilica on each side of it. Each of these two arches was called _Janus_,
the one _Janus dexter_, and the other _Janus sinister_; by the former
people left the town, and by the latter they entered it; and every person
kept to the right in order to avoid crowding and collision. The Porta
Trigemina must have had a threefold Janus, though I cannot conjecture for
what reason; it is possible that the third was destined for vehicles,
or that it was a mere ornament. Strange opinions are current about this
gate, as, for example, that the Horatii and Curiatii passed through it;
but this is impossible, they must have gone out by the Porta Capena.

Over the Capena there ran an aqueduct, which in the reign of Domitian
must have been damaged, whence Juvenal and Martial speak of _madida
Capena_.

The Porta Carmentalis can be regarded as a gate of the Capitol only in
an improper sense; it was connected only with the continuation of the
_clivus Capitolinus_.

The circumference of the walls of Servius Tullius thus contained ten
gates. Some of them derived their names from the hills; the Collina from
the Collis Quirinalis, which was pre-eminently called _the_ Collis, the
Capena probably owed its name to the fact of its leading to Capua, or to
the _lucus Capenas_, the grove of the Camenae; the Naevia to the Silva
Naevia, the Carmentalis to a sanctuary of Carmentis in the neighbourhood,
the Raudusculana to the fact of its being covered with brass, and the
Flumentana to the river.

The larger circumference of the wall of Aurelian extended as far as the
banks of the Tiber, where now no wall exists, because the Borgo and the
Castel Angelo are united with the city. On the left bank the foundations
of the wall are still the same, though the walls themselves have at
different times been entirely restored. Not a stone of the ancient wall
now remains, and if there should be any, they belong to the restoration
of Honorius. Totilas demolished the greater part of it; afterwards it was
repeatedly destroyed and restored again.[15]

The gates of the wall of Aurelian were called after the streets from
which they led. In former times a large road led from the Porta Collina
northward, and branched off into two, the _Via Salaria_ and the _Via
Nomentana_; the Via Tiburtina, afterwards called _Valeria_, issued from
the Porta Viminalis; and another issued from the Porta Esquilina, which
branched off into the _Via Praenestina_ and the _Via Labicana_. The _Via
Appia_ and _Via Latina_ began at the Capena, and a road branching off
from the Appia was called _Campana_.[16] The _Via Ardeatina_ proceeded
from the Porta Raudusculana, while the _Via Ostiensis_ issued from
the Porta Naevia or Trigemina, for these two must have been near each
other. The _Via Portuensis_ was on the other side of the river, and the
_Via Cassia_ ran over the hill; from the bridge _Pons Aelius_, a street
ran close by the mausoleum of Hadrian, which probably bore the name of
_Via Aelia_; but the matter is obscure. The _Via Flaminia_ proceeded
straightway from the Porta Carmentalis to Ariminum.

Not one of these roads was blocked up by the wall of Aurelian, and
wherever gates were made in the latter, they received their names from
the streets into which they led. Thus we find the Porta Flaminia, Porta
Pinciana (a secondary gate near the Collina, leading probably to a less
important way, not a high-road, a gate being necessary for the palace),
P. Salaria, P. Nomentana, and then two Portae Tiburtinae, because there
were two roads leading to Tibur; one of these gates seems to have had no
particular name of its own, though it may have been called P. Valeria.
Next came the P. Praenestina and Labicana, both in one building, though
distinct; P. Metronia (probably named after a palace), P. Latina, P.
Asinaria (P. S. Giovanni), P. Appia, P. Ardeatina, P. Ostiensis, beyond
the river P. Portuensis, P. Septimiana or Aurelia, between the Janiculus
and the river, probably named after the Thermae of Septimius Severus;
and at the bridge (Pons Aelius) the P. Aelia. With the exception of the
Pincia and Metronia, you still find almost the same gates leading to
the same roads. This circumference of Rome is mentioned by Procopius
in his account of the siege of the city. In the sixth century a change
took place in the nomenclature, many gates receiving new names from the
nearest important churches: thus the P. Asinaria was at a very early date
called P. S. Giovanni; the P. Appia, P. S. Sebastiani, from a basilica;
the P. Ostiensis, S. Pauli; P. Aurelia, S. Pancratii; the P. S. Lorenzo
(Praenestina) also received its name from the basilica S. Laurentii. The
P. Salaria and Nomentana retained their names until the sixteenth century.

I cannot enter so fully into the topography of Rome as to show you how
the streets of Rome were continued throughout Italy and the whole Roman
empire. But, as architectural structures, the Roman high-roads are the
most magnificent remains of antiquity. They consist of polished polygons
of basalt: the foundation was formed of large stones, more than a cubit
deep; over them was laid a stratum of mortar made of lime and puzzolano.
Upon this a kind of excellent bricks were broken in large pieces, and
laid in strata, over which again a cement was poured, which completely
hardened into stone. Upon this substratum the blocks of basalt were
placed, the lower surface of which was cut perfectly smooth. The polygons
were very large, but different in circumference; they are so well fitted
together, that in many parts the point of a pen-knife cannot be pressed
between them; they were cut with great care, and must have been polished
in a peculiar manner. A line is seen between two stones, but there is no
interstice. Even if accidentally the water penetrated from above, the
lower part was perfectly waterproof. It is well known that roads are
mainly injured by water. Whoever has seen those ancient roads, despises
the wretched structures of modern times; but if we were to build them
now in the same manner, we should be obliged to sacrifice their external
beauty and cover them with sand, because horses shod with iron would
not be able to run on the surface, which is as smooth as a mirror. The
horses of the ancients were not shod, and mules had either a kind of
wooden shoes or soles of matting. Near and at Tivoli large parts of such
roads exist in a state of preservation so perfect, as if they had been
made only a year ago; but no vehicles now go over them. In comparison
with ourselves, the ancients used carriages very rarely, and burdens were
mostly carried by mules. On each side of the road there was a pavement
for foot-passengers, and at intervals stones were set up, to enable men
to get upon their horses, as stirrups were unknown.

In regard to the interior of Rome, it is erroneous to speak only of
hills, for in later times they constituted only the smallest part of the
city; a great portion being situated in valleys and another in plains.
But I will first speak of the hills.

The real centre of the later city consisted of the _Capitoline Hill_,
which, though not of great circumference, is properly composed of two
hills, a southern one towards the Forum, and a northern one; between
them a considerable depression of the ground is still visible. This
depression, however, was far greater in ancient times than it is now, and
in it there was a portico open on both sides, but at present its back
is filled up with rubbish, especially from the ruins of the Capitoline
temple, which, like many other buildings, has been purposely and
barbarously destroyed. There was a _clivus_ leading up the Capitoline
hill from the Forum, which, as in the case of all the Roman hills, formed
an inclined plain ascending gradually. The names of the _clivi_ of all
the other hills, however, are not known. On the Quirinal I do not find
a _clivus_, but it had a _semita_. The meaning of this latter term is
not correctly given in our dictionaries: the _semita_ does not differ so
much from a carriage road by being less in breadth, but it is altogether
a way which no vehicles can pass, either from its want of breadth, or
from its construction in other respects, and which therefore is available
only to foot-passengers and mules; _semitae_ were ways like the one still
existing in the Vatican palace, by which the pope can ride on a mule
into his own apartment. In Germany there is nothing comparable to it;
the Italian name is _cordonata_, and it must be conceived as a strongly,
though not inconveniently, inclined plain, with high stones at certain
intervals for the purpose of stopping, so that the second step begins
lower than the point at which the first left off.[17] Semitae are also
found at gates, especially of Cyclopean towns, as at Ferentino. Before
the time of Trajan there is no trace of a clivus leading up the Quirinal;
on the Esquiline I can prove its existence; the Palatine had two clivi,
the Aventine one, etc.

Rome was essentially different from large modern cities which always
contain main streets running from one end to the other; such a street
cannot be shown to have existed at Rome, which altogether had but few
great streets. All the houses built on the same hill formed, as it were,
a small town by themselves with little, and probably extremely irregular,
streets, and thus every hill was isolated. It was only the plains and
valleys that contained some large streets. The _Esquiliae_ were not a
separate street, and the _Carinae_ near the Esquiline also were a quarter
of the city rather than a street; the _Subura_ beyond the Esquiliae was
a real street, and so also the _Via Sacra_ up to a certain point, but it
was not a main street.

The intermontium of the Capitoline hill contained the _asylum_. The
southern half of the Capitol, towards both the Tiber and the Forum,
formed the _Tarpeian Rock_, which did not, as is commonly believed,
consist of one side only. A French scholar, Dureau de la Malle, several
years ago wrote an excellent essay on this subject, entitled “Mémoire
sur la position de la roche Tarpéienne, lu à l’Académie des Inscriptions
et Belles Lettres.” The same scholar is the author of a very able
translation of Tacitus; he has been at Rome, and his work furnishes
evidence of very correct observations and sound judgment. The Tarpeian
rock was cut quite precipitous, a circumstance which at present is not
visible everywhere, because houses of six and seven stories in height
were built there, which, when demolished in the time of destruction,
formed heaps of rubbish as high as two-thirds of the rock, and upon this
rubbish houses were afterwards erected. In one part of the rock there
was a flight of one hundred steps, which was visible as late as the
twelfth century.

The exact site of the Capitoline temple is a much disputed question
among antiquarians; it is strange that no ruins of it are remaining. The
old opinion which was generally adopted until the time of Nardini, is
the true one: Fulvius, Marliani, and Donati all agreed in stating that
the temple was situated on the southern part of the hill; but Nardini
perverts the whole matter by placing it on the north side on the site now
occupied by the church and convent of Araceli; the northern part formed
the _arx_, as is clear from the history of the Gallic war; it was a very
steep height, not a fortress, but only a strong point, and was occupied
by houses of private citizens.

The Capitoline temple was built by the kings and completed by the first
consuls; it was then consumed by fire in the time of Sulla, but was
restored and consecrated by Catulus. It was burnt down a second time
under Vitellius, after which Vespasian rebuilt it with great splendour.
Twelve years later, fire again broke out in an unaccountable manner, and
Domitian restored it a third time. The immense splendour lavished upon it
was probably the principal cause of its subsequent total destruction; it
is scarcely possible to form any idea of its costly ornaments: the gates
were of bronze covered with thick and solid plates of wrought gold. This
gilding alone is said to have cost more than two millions sterling. Even
the tiles which Genseric carried away were gilt.[18]

All ancient temples consist of two main parts, the cella and the space in
front of the cella. The latter might be constructed in different ways,
it might be sheltered by a roof, or exposed to the open air, in which
case it was enclosed by four walls or a portico all around. We generally
imagine the altar to have been in the temple itself; in the ancient
Christian churches (_basilicae_) it always stood in the _apsis_, but in
the temples it did not belong to the cella of the gods, but to the space
in front of it. The cella was generally open, but could be closed; it
was usually very small. The Roman temples often were of extremely small
dimensions, and at present I scarcely know a chapel of an equally small
size, not even in Italy, where there are some incredibly little chapels;
for there were temples of which the cella was only seven or eight feet
in diameter. The cella contained the statue of the god (τὸ ἕδος), and
for this reason it was necessary to have the altar outside in the centre
of the space in front of the cella, which was either exposed to the open
air, or could easily be aired, because the statue, in consequence of the
burnt sacrifices, might have become disfigured by smoke or otherwise,
and because the bones and the like might easily have created foul air
in the cella and thus produced injurious effects. In the temple of the
Capitoline Jupiter, the cella was divided into three sacella, separated
by walls, for Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. But this cella was only the
smallest part of the building; the larger was the space before it, where
the ordinary donaria were hung up, except the more precious gifts, which
were kept in the favissae, or large catacombs under the temple in the
lautumiae. It is possible that they might still be discovered; a few
traces of them are visible in the garden of duke Caffarelli. In the
twelfth century, under Pope Anacletus II., large ruins still existed; but
a church was erected upon them, which bore the name _S. Salvatoris in
maximis_ (supply _ruinis_), but has been destroyed long ago. Such names
must always be attended to, for they often lead to important discoveries.
The heaps of rubbish lying below by the side of the river, belong
no doubt to the temple, and if excavations were made, many valuable
treasures might be discovered. I often proposed in vain to dig in the
favissae, but as I have given some impulse, I hope people will be roused
from their indifference.[19]

The hills not only had the same extent which they still have, but must
have extended much further at the time when the valleys were more
distinct. Thus a part of the Forum, properly speaking, belonged to the
Capitoline hill. The _carcer_ was at the north-eastern extremity; its
construction is ascribed to Ancus Marcius, the founder of the plebeian
order; it seems to have been intended for the plebeians, for the
patricians would probably not have tolerated the idea of such a thing.

The _Forum_ was situated below the Capitoline hill, between it and the
Palatine. This is the real point from which the reform of the topography
of Rome must proceed, for point by point can be established by the
aid of the ancient authors. I there made the beginning of some happy
discoveries, which, however, were not continued, because those who have
it in their power to grant permission, are afraid lest their arbitrary
assertions should be overturned. Materials are not wanting, and many have
undertaken the task, but a singular misfortune seems to hang over these
things. In the earlier times this part of Roman topography was sadly
bungled, even by most excellent men, and Nardini proceeded in quite a
wrong way. He is one of those who, with great industry but insufficient
learning, produced very little; he did not understand Greek, but helped
himself by means of Latin translations, whence he often commits the
strangest blunders. Notwithstanding his great diligence, he has not only
produced bad and perverse results, but has done positive harm by making
posterity acquiesce in his conclusions, for, until our own days, it was
the prevalent opinion that he had settled every point, and people were
satisfied with having read Nardini. Hence his work has been translated
into Latin and incorporated in the “Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanorum.”
There were only few able men that were not misled by his authority, and
ventured upon independent investigations after him, such as Ficoroni,
though he entered only into special points. I knew at Rome a bookseller,
a respectable and unassuming person, whose business was stopped for no
other reason but because he had disregarded the authority of Nardini.
Morelli, an excellent Italian, has written a treatise on the decay of
scholarship in Italy, in which he makes a witty application of the
scriptural expression, “Ablatum ab Israel, translatum ad gentes,” telling
his countrymen, that they have to learn their own antiquities from
foreigners, and that philology in Italy is at an end. This is not indeed
quite true, but the Italians are not sure in their own minds, they are
often influenced by a certain feeling of uneasiness, and do not possess
calm confidence. An honest inquirer need not despond; he does not mind
owning that he has been mistaken, for who is exempt from it! Whoever
makes great pretensions without having corresponding abilities, becomes
unfaithful to truth, and will endeavour to crush and calumniate others,
in order to preserve for himself dictatorial influence. Such is the case
of Fea. Roman topography, as I have said before, was brought by Nardini
to a stand still which lasted more than a century and a half. Zoëga
too has made inquiries into it: being a Dane he is almost a countryman
of mine, and I do not undervalue his learning; but if his works were
written at the present time, the true scholars of Germany would not be
a little surprised, for he was entirely deficient in real grammatical
knowledge. He directed his mind and attention to things about which a
healthy philology does not concern itself, such as the Egyptian mysteries
and the like. His reading was uncommonly extensive, but he had little
scholarship, and owing to this he will be forgotten. He had examined the
antiquities of Rome, and had read all the books upon them, but formed no
sound conception of the ancient city. Nardini was quite aware that the
Forum was the heart of Rome, both topographically and politically, but
he unfortunately took an entirely wrong direction; instead of making the
buildings succeed one another on the left, he makes them follow on the
right, and puts in juxtaposition those which belong to different periods.
Hence his confusion; his view of ancient Rome is altogether false. I have
gained the right point of view in a peculiar way, and am quite certain
of its correctness. I will relate the matter to you as an example of a
thread in a labyrinth. Pliny states that, before sun-dials were known
at Rome, the parts of the day, sunrise, noon, and sunset were cried
out. But the Romans did not calculate according to the moment when the
sun really set, but from the moment when the sun was no longer visible
in the Forum. By this means it was determined as to whether an act had
taken place at the right time or not, for the Romans were very exact
in such trifles. Now in the Forum the sun became invisible about three
minutes before the real sunset; the crier called out from the Curia,
and at the different seasons of the year stated, when he had seen the
sun. I have been on the spot innumerable times, and knew the district as
well as I knew my own room; I sought the place where the Curia must have
stood, and made experiments by watching the sun from that point at the
different seasons of the year. By this means I obtained the advantage
of certainty in regard to the whole side near the Palatine. Having once
found the Curia Hostilia, I had at the same time the Comitium[20] and
the Graecostasis. In a poem of Statius there occurs a description of
the gigantic equestrian statue of Domitian, and the poet says that it
looked towards the temple of Concord: the site of this statue I also
succeeded in discovering. It then happened very fortunately that during
an excavation an enormous cube was found, on which smaller cubes had
been fastened bearing pillars: this was the identical pedestal of the
equestrian statue of Domitian. It is clear, that its base consisted of
bricks with a coating of marble; the masonry belongs to a period which
a practised eye cannot mistake, and we may assert, that the great cubic
block was built before the time of Severus, for afterwards the masonry
became quite different. In the Monumentum Ancyranum of Augustus, the
author, in speaking of a basilica, mentions that a temple of Castor
was adjoining it; and this temple I discovered with the assistance of
Statius. Its site is a subject of great difficulty, for according to the
Monumentum Ancyranum, it was adjoining the basilica Julia, whereas it is
commonly supposed to have been situated on the other side; but I knew
from Ovid[21], that it was at the end of the Forum, and in this manner
the whole Forum was made out.

Respecting the extent of the Roman Forum equally erroneous notions are
current, because not only the district occupied by the ancient Forum,
but the whole valley far and wide, up to the eminence from which the
Via Sacra came down, has several times been covered with rubbish. This
whole district is now called Campo Vaccino, and Andreas Fulvius and
Bartholomaeus Marliani imagined that all this space, from the Capitol
to the arch of Titus, was occupied by the Forum. People were the more
tempted to assume this extent, as they entertained the most exaggerated
notions about the population and magnitude of the city, as is the case,
e.g., in Lipsius’ book, “De Magnitudine Urbis Romae.” He believes that
Rome extended north as far as Civita Castellana, a distance of from
thirty-five to forty English miles; for he imagined that the numbers of
the census under the first emperors were those of the inhabitants of the
city, whereas they embraced the whole body of citizens, and accordingly
amounted to millions. Nothing can be more senseless than what Lipsius
has written on this subject; the exaggerations are enormous: sometimes
he was misled by appearances, but sometimes he has not even this excuse.
The Forum, in comparison with the present Campo Vaccino, was small, and
in all our maps it is pushed too far towards the Capitol. It was situated
between the Tarpeian and the Palatine, but did not occupy the whole
length of the Capitoline; the triumphal arch of Septimius Severus stood
beside, and not in, the Forum.

The first question here is as to the distinction between the Forum and
the _Comitium_. In the earliest times they were as different as the
populus was from the plebs: the Comitium being the place of assembly
for the curiae (patricians), and the Forum the original market-place,
in which, however, the plebeians met for the purpose of voting. The
Comitium has been the subject of endless discussions and controversies,
but most of the opinions about it are quite foolish. Things went so far
that Nardini gained immense applause from the _imperiti_ when he declared
that the Comitium was the building of which three pillars are still
standing: but these pillars belong to the Curia Julia. The Comitium was
no building at all, it was nothing but an open place, and a part of the
Forum in its wider sense. Both the Forum and the Comitium are parts of
the same plain; at a later time the Comitium, in every-day language, was
included in the word Forum, and there can be no doubt that the portico
surrounding the Forum also inclosed the Comitium. The _rostra_ formed
the separation between the two. It is difficult to give you an accurate
idea of the rostra, for we have no word conveying an adequate notion.
Imagine a _suggestum_ about twelve feet in breadth and at least thirty
in length; imagine this to be of the height of a full-grown man, perhaps
even somewhat higher, and on both sides steps leading up to it. I should
never have been able to form a correct notion of it, had it not been
for the fortunate accident, that just during my residence at Rome the
new rostra were excavated. No person recognised it or understood what
it was; I was not inclined to enter into a dispute, but only took my
friend, De Serre, the greatest orator of the present time, to see the
spot, where if he had lived in ancient times, he would have achieved as
great a reputation as any other. The inner kernel only remains, which is
constructed of beautiful bricks and cement. The outside was probably,
or I may say certainly, covered with marble, and the beaks of the ships
(_rostra navium Antiatum_ or _Antiatium_) were walled in in the front.
So long as I had no correct notion of the rostra, I could not understand
the meaning of the words _statuae in rostris positae_; it is only on such
an extensive platform that they could be set up. Such a space is quite
natural if we bear in mind the animated character of southern oratory,
in which the speaker is in constant communication with those around him.
One may still see this. There was at Rome a highly respectable monk who
preached every Sunday, and during Lent, daily, in the Colosseum. He
stood in the open air, and walked up and down as if he were conversing
with his hearers. I think I never heard a sermon that made a deeper
impression: sometimes he stood still, and sometimes he went from one
to another of his hearers, without, however, calling any one by his
name. It is this active communication with the audience that produced
the _percussio laterum_; if a man, standing on a small platform, were
to do this often, he would become ridiculous. At Athens, the case was
different; the orators there did not move about so much, and the βῆμα
seems to have been smaller; I have not indeed found any passage about
it in the ancients, but I infer it from the locality; and according to
the descriptions we have of it, it seems that it could not have been
otherwise. Upon the rostra, at Rome, the statues stood _in loco aprico
et conspicuo_. In the most ancient language, this platform was called
_templum_, and the new name arose in 417, from the beaks of the ships,
with which the front was adorned. I have often been on that spot, and
often stood in the Roman Forum: who will describe the emotions that rise
in one’s breast on a spot where Tiberius spoke upon Augustus, and other
relations upon Germanicus (for these rostra are not the most ancient),
where all the funeral orations upon the emperors were delivered, and
where all great solemnities took place! And how wretched, how bare, and
how stripped is that spot of all its splendour! Before you, you have Rome
and its most ancient monuments, the career of Ancus Marcius; on the other
side, the place once occupied by the temple of Concord, which Camillus
built after having appeased the plebs: the lacus Servilius, where in the
days of Sulla the heads of the proscribed were stuck up; the site of the
temples of Castor and Vesta, and the Capitoline district: to such a place
one can always return with a feeling of reverence; there one may imbibe
the inspiration for writing the history of ancient times, and there
one becomes familiar with it. The most ancient rostra were, no doubt,
constructed of peperino. According to Plutarch, C. Gracchus transferred
the real sovereignty to the people, by turning towards the Forum and the
commonalty, instead of facing the Comitium where the patricians and the
senate stood. Until then it had been customary for the orator, even when
communicating something to the plebeians, to turn towards the patricians:
but Gracchus turned round, and thus symbolically threw off the mask
which he had worn until then. The present level of the Forum is about
twenty-five or twenty-six feet higher than in ancient times.

The _Curia Hostilia_ was situated on the πρόπους of the Palatine, just
opposite the narrow side of the rostra. Its name is no doubt derived
from Tullus Hostilius, who is certainly an historical personage; but we
ought not to assert that he reigned from A.U. 78 till 110, for no one
can know when he lived. This Curia existed down to the time of Cicero,
when the populace led on by Sext. Clodius, carried into it the body of P.
Clodius, who had been killed by Milo, and, in burning the corpse, reduced
the building to ashes. Even Sulla had made some alterations in the
district around the rostra, but we do not know in what they consisted.
The Curia was not restored on the ancient site, but farther to the right;
Caesar commenced the new building, and Augustus completed it: this is
the _Curia Julia_, near which the new rostra were constructed. The three
splendid Corinthian columns which are still standing, belong to this
Curia Julia; they stand parallel to the ridge of the Palatine and the
line of the Capitoline, and are generally considered to have belonged
to the temple of Jupiter Stator, while Fea believes them to be remnants
of the temple of Castor. This latter hypothesis is impossible, for we
read in Suetonius[22] that the arch of Caligula extended over the temple
of Castor as far as the Capitol: but this is impossible, if the three
columns belonged to the temple of Castor. They belong, I repeat it, to
the Curia Julia; and this accounts for the fact that the rostra are found
close by, and that the Capitoline Fasti, which formed one wall in that
Curia, were found among its ruins. There can be no doubt that the very
ancient plan of Rome,[23] which formed the floor of the church S. Cosma e
Damiano, likewise belonged to it: there could not be a better place for
it than one of the walls in the Curia Julia. The idea of Pirro Ligorio,
that the Fasti were set up in an arch, is as improbable as many others of
his views; attempts have been made to justify him, but he has evidently
been guilty of many falsehoods. Notwithstanding this, however, his papers
ought not to be neglected; they are preserved partly in the Vatican and
partly among the manuscripts at Turin.[24] Rome, accordingly, had two
Curiae, the Hostilia and Julia, which, however, did not exist at any
time simultaneously; but the two rostra, the _vetera_ and the _nova_ or
_Julia_, both existed at the same time. The _nova rostra_ were built on
the site of the ancient Curia.

The whole of the Forum was surrounded by a portico, which had been built
either in the time of the kings or at the commencement of the republic;
the columns were undoubtedly Etruscan, that is, old Doric, and the whole
was made of peperino, covered with stucco, and not high. The booths
(_tabernae_ or _mensae argentariorum_), the stalls of money-changers or
bankers, were set up in this portico to be protected against the weather.
The armour taken from an enemy after a glorious victory was hung upon the
pillars, whence the expression _postes ornare tropaeis_ in one of the
fragments of Ennius. Whether these trophies were carefully preserved, is
unknown; but the old ones probably made room for new ones, though many a
splendid memorial may have been seen there for a long time. In the Forum,
below the Capitol, but beyond the clivus, were the temples of Saturn and
Concord; further, when you look southward, having the Capitoline on the
right and the Palatine on the left, you have on your right-hand side the
temple of Castor, which was dedicated by the dictator A. Postumius; near
it was the well of Juturna, in which the Dioscuri, after the battle of
lake Regillus, washed their horses; next to it was the temple of Vesta,
of which remains would certainly be found, if excavations were made;
distinct mention of it is made in books written as late as the fifteenth
century. On the opposite side was situated the Regia and the Atrium
Vestae, which ought not to be confounded with the temple of that goddess.
Rome contained many Atria, that is, open square spaces surrounded by
houses and a portico, under which people walked in rainy weather.
Such was the Atrium Libertatis, a kind of _bourse_; the most correct
Latin name for a _bourse_ or exchange accordingly would be _atrium
negotiatorum_ or _mercatorum_. The Atrium Vestae must have been like the
cloisters of a monastery, the cells of the Vestals being built around a
square; the priestesses moreover were buried beside the Atrium, as they
had the privilege of being buried within the city. This circumstance
has caused great confusion in the antiquities of Rome, for when in the
sixteenth century the church of S. Maria Liberatrice was erected on
the left-hand side of the Atrium Vestae, and a number of tomb-stones
of Vestal virgins were found there, it was inferred at once that this
must be the site of the temple of Vesta. But this is opposed to all the
statements of the ancients. I think it was one of my friends who had the
happy idea that the temple ought not to be sought near the Atrium; I had
previously said, that I could not believe the temple to have been there,
and that, from all accounts, I must infer that it stood on the opposite
side, not far from the lacus Curtius.

The Forum contained yet another class of buildings; it certainly was a
market-place as well as a place for assembling; but in ancient times it
was also the place for the administration of justice. In like manner, our
own ancestors met under the open sky, and the estates of Lüneburg, as
late as 1660, assembled in a forest, because decrees formed in a covered
building were considered invalid. Such also was the case at Rome, all
business was transacted in the open air. This is the native and natural
custom of Italy: man there feels the necessity of living and doing his
work under the free canopy of heaven; every artizan, if the weather
permits it, works in front of his house where he has his shop. There
still exist at Rome a great many houses built in exactly the same style
as in the most ancient times. These shops have no windows, but are closed
by means of a large door; and in bad weather the people take refuge
within and work by candle-light; when the weather becomes fine again,
they resume their seats in the door or in the street. Such also was the
case with the ancients. Those who worked with their minds, had similar
arrangements: during the night they remained in their rooms, but in the
day-time they walked out into the open air, to some public place where
they dictated or wrote. The air at Rome is very good, if we consider the
dress of the ancients, which consisted of wool, over which they wore the
toga; the climate is more healthy than ours, and old age there commences
later than with us. Justice, as I said before, was administered in the
Forum in the open air; but as this was not without its disadvantages, it
became necessary to devise some protection against them. When the Romans
had become acquainted with Greece, they were much pleased with the στοὰ
βασίλειος at Athens, and the idea of building _basilicae_ suggested
itself to them. The Stoa at Athens was probably a portico composed of
several rows (we do not know how long these rows were), and afforded
both sufficient light and protection in bad weather. When, therefore, an
active intercourse between Rome and Greece had arisen, the Romans built
such basilicae as courts of justice. They are by no means imitations
of royal palaces of the East. Later Greeks, e.g., Agathias, always
translate the word basilicae, whether at Rome or at Constantinople, by
στοὰ βασίλειος. We must conceive that originally they were mere rows
of columns supporting a roof, and without side-walls. They generally
had six rows of columns in front, so that there were five entrances.
Afterwards the two extreme rows, the first and sixth, were changed
into walls; the back part also was walled up, and the tribunal for the
presiding praetor was set up in a crescent formed in this back wall.
This is the origin of the closed buildings called basilicae. As they
were well adapted for public meetings, they became, ever since the time
of Constantine, the regular types of Christian churches. What was the
construction of churches before the time of Constantine, is a question
which we cannot answer; we do not possess the slightest allusion to it.
An immense number of fables are current respecting churches said to have
been built by Constantine, but the only one which he really did build,
is still known; it is the church of the Lateran, justly called _princeps
ecclesiarum urbis et orbis_. The day on which that church was consecrated
by Constantine, is quite certain, and is celebrated every year, I
believe about the end of November. The import of this festival of the
consecration of the Church has at Rome itself been completely forgotten,
and there is not one canon of the Lateran who knows it. I have learned
it from an old Flemish gentleman, who, among much that was strange,
also possessed a good deal of interesting information. The form of the
basilicae, as I have described it, is very ancient, and in the Christian
churches it is quite simple: all have five gates, and in the interior,
four rows of columns, the two inner ones high, and the outer ones lower.
This change, however, was not a matter of necessity. From this form I
recognised the _basilica C. et L. Caesarum_, _Julia_, or _Caesaris_ in
what is commonly called the temple of Concord.

In the course of time the Forum became quite filled with basilicae,
monuments, statues, and the like; it contained three or four basilicae,
the Opimia, Porcia, Paulli, etc. Caesar set up a number of statues, so
that during the latter period of the republic there was little space
left for public assemblies, which, however, even without this, were
rarely held; the idea of a free space must in the end have been entirely
forgotten, and the comitium alone preserved this character. About sixty
years ago, the pavement of the Comitium consisting of slabs of the most
beautiful yellow Numidian marble, was discovered, but it was broken to
pieces and sold in a disgraceful manner. In later times all the edifices
were rebuilt, and the portico was restored with far more splendour (we
know this from Orosius) and floored with magnificent stones, while the
roof was of bronze and no doubt gilt.

This may suffice in regard to the Forum Romanum or Maximum. The word
Forum originally, as is stated by the ancient lexicographers, signified
“hollow ground;” but afterwards it assumed the same meaning as ἀγορά, and
thus presupposes an open space. In later times the meaning underwent so
strange a change, that the Fora, e.g., the Forum Ulpium or Trajani, were
not open spaces at all, but places wholly covered with buildings. Of the
same kind were the Fora of Nerva and Domitian. The same must be supposed
to have been the case even with the Forum of Caesar; in regard to that of
Augustus, it may appear doubtful, as to whether a portion of it was not
an open space. This change arose from the fact, that the idea of a free
space, in the case of the Forum Maximum, was entirely lost sight of, and
a Forum was regarded as a place containing courts of justice.

As, therefore, the ancient Forum was already filled with basilicae,
Caesar, wishing to build a handsome one, erected it in a separate
locality, which he purchased by the side of the Forum. This is the _Forum
Caesaris_, which was not an open space at all, but a basilica with the
temple of Venus Genitrix. It was situated at the foot of the Palatine,
by the side of the Forum Maximum, its southern part turning towards the
Vicus Tuscus, opposite the temple of Castor, as I have ascertained beyond
a doubt. I cannot give you the proofs, because I have neither maps nor
plans at hand.

The next _Forum_ planned in the same manner is that of _Augustus_, except
that a portion of it was probably an open space. It was situated at some
distance from the Roman Forum, beyond the Via Sacra and, perhaps, a
few more streets. Hirt, who is himself not rich in ideas, but in Roman
topography has often successfully revived those of earlier writers (such
as Palladio and Serlio), has demonstrated the site of this Forum. He is
not a learned man, but has a well practised eye in observing antiquities;
none of his own original views are good, but among the things he finds
in earlier authors, he can well distinguish what is correct from what
is not, a thing which learned men often cannot. The Forum of Augustus
contained the temple of Mars Ultor, where the standards of Crassus,
recovered from the Parthians, were set up, and also a magnificent
basilica; there also stood—it was a noble conception—the statues of the
most illustrious Romans, which had formerly stood in the market-place
and in the orchestra of the theatre, with the _tituli gestorum_. A
fragment of the latter is still extant fastened in a wall of the Vatican;
but it is not even possible to see whose name is mentioned in it. The
writing certainly belongs to the age of Augustus, as every one can see
who has an eye for such things. I cannot be mistaken in such a matter,
I can immediately see whether an inscription was cut before the time of
Caesar or in the age of Augustus. Such things make a residence at Rome
so pleasing, when on seeing monuments one can immediately determine to
what period they belong. The inscriptions, however, are still extant in
copies, as for instance, at Pesaro. About a Roman mile from Tivoli, I
found an overturned pedestal of a statue of Plancus, with an inscription,
which had been quite rudely cut by a common mason, probably an ignorant
slave. I was not able to convince a native of Tivoli, who even wrote on
the antiquities of his own town, that such inscriptions are genuine.

The Forum Augusti is now foolishly called Forum Nervae, probably because
it is situated near the latter; while down to the seventeenth century
its ruins were regarded as part of the Forum Trajani. The _Forum Nervae_
was very easy to be recognised by a temple built by Nerva and dedicated
by Trajan, but the ruins of it were formerly believed to belong to the
temple of Mars Ultor. Among these ruins there were six or eight columns,
which unfortunately were lying on the ground, in consequence of which
they were cut in pieces by Pope Paul V., who made use of the beautiful
marble in building an aqueduct (_Acqua Paola_). This circumstance was
so quickly forgotten that Nardini, who wrote only about forty or fifty
years later, was perfectly ignorant of a temple having ever stood there,
and that after him no modern ever even thought of it. All that was
known of this temple of Nerva, was transferred to that of Mars Ultor. I
discovered this fact from the work of Gamucci, an author of the sixteenth
century, who gives a minute account of it, and representations of the
ruins in woodcuts. I saw that three columns of exquisite beauty, which
were generally referred to the temple of Mars Ultor, could be no other
than those which he assigned to the Forum of Trajan. I also found
copper-plate engravings of the fifteenth or sixteenth century, and made
out quite clearly, that those columns were not what they were believed
to be, and that the space of the Forum Nervae was covered with houses by
Cardinal Alessandrini, under Paul V.

By the side of the Forum Augusti, another was built by Domitian, which
was called _Forum Nervae_ or _Palladium_, because he erected a temple
of Pallas in it; architraves and disfigured columns (_colonnacce_) of
it still exist. The Palladium is also seen represented in reliefs. But
Domitian’s name, as I have already observed, being detested by posterity,
it afterwards obtained the name of Forum Nervae, for Nerva dedicated the
temple of which the building had been commenced by Domitian.

The most magnificent of all the Fora was the _Forum Ulpium_, between the
Capitoline and Quirinal, a whole complex of buildings, the splendour
of which was unequalled by anything; as is seen even from the trifling
remains which have escaped destruction during the middle ages. Its centre
was adorned with the column of Trajan which made the destructiveness of
the barbarians quail. By barbarians, I do not mean the Germans, for Goths
and Vandals did not destroy buildings, but I allude to the feudalism of
the middle ages, when all strong buildings were occupied as fortresses.
Thus the senator Brancaleone knew no more expeditious way than to raze
to the ground one hundred and forty ancient edifices, because they had
been used as fortresses: such things happened at the time of the emperor
Frederick II.[25], and if it were not for this barbarism the buildings
might be still standing. The marble was used as lime, as was done even at
the time when I lived in Rome, for an ancient street was then broken down
for the convenience of a high road, and specimens of the most beautiful
architecture were burnt down at Ostia into lime.

In regard to the name Forum Ulpium, you must remember that adjectives
of gentile names were taken, without change, from the primary adjective
form, provided they applied to architectural works, whence _Forum Ulpium_
and not _Ulpianum_, _Curia Julia_ and not _Juliana_; when applied to
writings and other works, however, the adjectives take the ending _anus_,
as _orationes Tullianae_. Near the gigantic column of Trajan there were
two basilicae of immense magnitude, and also two other large buildings,
one of which, at least, contained a library. Statues of the most
illustrious men were then set up in these basilicae, as they had formerly
been in the Forum Augusti; this was the greatest honour that could be
shown to a man, and the custom was preserved down to the latest times of
the empire; the statues of Merobaudes, Sidonius Apollinaris, Claudian,
and others, were found among the ruins of those basilicae. I recommend
you to read Sidonius Apollinaris; I will not set up my authority in this
matter as of much value, but J. M. Gesner calls Sidonius Apollinaris a
_vir magnus_, although he is an incorrect writer. But he is a man of
such genius and talent, that his equal is not easily to be met with in
the course of centuries. He has something that reminds one of modern
French authors; but in regard to his mind, he is thoroughly an ancient of
the time when the night of barbarism was threatening to sink down upon
mankind.

These are the real Fora. There can be no doubt, that the basilica of
Antoninus Pius stood in the Piazza Colonna, where the façade of the
columns is still preserved. What a pity that everything is now so much
destroyed! for as late as the sixteenth century, there still existed in
that place the pedestals of a number of allegorical statues representing
the Roman provinces; some of them have been recovered though not
recognised, but most of them have disappeared. I have not seen one of
them, and have read only the notice that some have been found. Provincial
coins of Antoninus Pius also exist showing on the one side the emperor’s
head, and on the other the name of a province, as Gallia, Bithynia, etc.
That locality therefore seems to have been the _Forum Aurelium_, which,
however, is not mentioned in the Regionaria, because it was outside the
city.

Besides these, Rome had yet a different kind of Fora, which were real
market-places, for those I have hitherto mentioned are only the splendid
ones. Two of these market-places belong to the period of ancient Rome,
viz., the _Forum Boarium_ towards the Circus, and the _Forum Olitorium_
between the Capitoline and the Tiber, in the neighbourhood of the theatre
of Marcellus, where I lived for six years. The Forum Boarium was no
doubt a cattle market, where live cattle were sold, although we have
no distinct statement to prove this; the Forum Olitorium was of course
a vegetable market. Meat, however, was not sold in the Forum Boarium,
but in the _macellum_ which contained the butchers’ stalls. In Greece,
butchers’ shops were unknown; people there ate so little meat, that it
was never bought or sold in the market at Athens; for they ate meat only
when they themselves killed an animal, that is, when they sacrificed.
On such an occasion an entertainment was given on account of the meat,
whence θύειν is synonymous with “to give an entertainment.” Otherwise
both the rich and poor at Athens lived as frugally as the modern Greeks
on anchovies, the tunny fish, salt fish, salad, fruit, and olives; many
a man in easy circumstances ate nothing all day except some olives with
bread and without sitting down to a regular meal. This is the λιτὴ
τράπεζα Ἀττικὴ mentioned by Athenaeus as opposed to Macedonian luxury.
The Roman mode of living, on the other hand, was very like our own;
the Romans took a great deal of meat, especially ham, like the German
peasantry, bacon and other salt meat; they did not require a sacrifice to
feast their friends. One of their principal dishes was a kind of porridge
made of spelt; it is a very excellent dish and affords most healthy
nourishment. For children, I know nothing better than this porridge with
milk, on which I have brought up my own. There can be no doubt that oxen
were sold in the Forum Boarium, though there is a statement that it
derived its name from a brazen bull which stood there.

There are a few other names in Roman topography which may be easily
mistaken. One of them is _vicus_. Many years ago, before I had gone to
Rome, a gentleman engaged in archaeological studies said to me, that
it was utterly impossible to define what _vicus_ meant. If by this he
meant to say, that a vast deal had been written about it without making
the matter clearer, he was quite right. But the cause of this was the
base of a statue belonging to the period of the first emperors.[26] Each
region of Augustus was subdivided into _vici_, which means nothing else
but a quarter or district under the superintendence of its own police
officer. Even at a much earlier time the regions of Servius Tullius had
been similarly subdivided, in the city into _vici_, and in the country
into _pagi_, and each had its own _magister_. The word _vicus_ may be
rendered by the German _Wik_, or _Wich_; in ancient times, many towns in
lower Saxony were divided into _Wiks_. Now as it happened by accident
that sometimes a single street constituted such a vicus, and as of course
the houses on both sides of the street belonged to it, such a street
was naturally called a vicus, as, for example, the _vicus Sceleratus_.
The _vicus Patricius_ and the _vicus Cornelius_, on the other hand, are
obviously larger districts in the regio Collina and Esquilina. I think
(I may be mistaken, but I believe I am right) that in the Regionaria
every region of Augustus was regularly divided into seven vici. Many a
street at Rome is called _vico_ to this day, and a narrow lane is called
_vicolo_, which, however, is only a secondary meaning.

The word _platea_ is likewise one of those which may mislead, and of
which only vague notions are current. The general opinion, I believe,
is, that platea signifies a broad street on account of its derivation
from the Greek πλατεῖα; but it is something else; it is what we call
_place_ or _piazza_. In the early times of Rome the name does not seem
to have been used; it occurs only at a later period, when an intercourse
was established with Greece. We have to understand by it a wide open
space, such as we have in front of many large buildings; but not a
market-place. The authority which has enabled me to establish this as the
real meaning of the word, shows how necessary it is for an historical
philologer not to limit his reading: for I know it from several passages
of St. Augustin’s work, “De Civitate Dei.” St. Augustin, one of the
greatest minds, ought to be recommended on account of his intellect,
and independently of any historical information which his works may
furnish; his genius is a mighty one, and was extremely developed in
that agitated period, which forms the boundary line between the ancient
and modern world. In his account of the conquest of Rome by the Goths,
which he gives merely in passing, there are passages from which it is
quite evident that _platea_ is a space such as I have described before.
These are generally speaking, the only open spaces which Rome, after its
rebuilding since the middle ages, now possesses, as, for example, the
Piazza di Spagna below the Collis Hortulorum; a large place of the size
of the market-place of Bonn is scarcely to be found at Rome.

The first _aqueduct_ was built by Appius Caecus during the second Samnite
war; it was very low, and for the most part under ground. It led to
the Aventine, and was intended to provide a supply of good water to
the districts between that hill and the Tiber, which had scarcely any
water but that of the river. Water is still derived in one place, and I
believe even in two, from this aqueduct, without most people being aware
of it. It was built under ground, because the enemies sometimes advanced
to the very neighbourhood of Rome, and might, therefore, easily have
cut off the supply of water. Afterwards the number of aqueducts at Rome
rose to fourteen. Fresh water is a real blessing to the inhabitants of
the south; one must have lived there in order to comprehend that these
aqueducts were not a matter of luxury. The _Aqua Marcia_ led to the
Capitol; of the _Aqua Virgo_ (now Acqua di Trevi) a large _specus_ is
still visible. The greatest aqueduct was that of the emperor Claudius,
which was preserved as late as the eighth century of the Christian era;
it might easily have been restored; its arches were taken down gradually
after the restoration of Rome in the sixteenth century, because people
wanted the bricks to build their houses.

Rome had two great _Circuses_ which were destined for races, for these
were the national games of the Romans from the earliest times. The most
ancient, the _ludi magni Romani_, which were traced back to the time of
Tarquinius Priscus, were established for the patrician burgesses; but
besides these there existed, likewise, from very ancient times, _ludi
plebeii_, a very remarkable instance of the manner in which in all Roman
institutions the populus and the plebs stood by the side of each other.
Down to the latest period, these two kinds of games were never held in
the same place. In the early times the plebeians had no share whatever
in the _ludi Romani_. In the Circus Maximus the places were assigned
to the populus according to curiae, _ad spectacula facienda_,[27] as
scaffoldings are still erected on both sides of the Corso at the time
of the races. The _Circus Maximus_ may have had its present extent from
the very first, for it could not be very small on account of the chariot
races, but it was not as high as afterwards. A greater height became
necessary when, instead of the small number of the populus and their
clients, the whole Roman people took part in the spectacle; the plebeians
may indeed not have been excluded in the early times, but they had no
places assigned to them. This Circus between the Palatine and Aventine
cannot have been laid out before the building of the Cloacae, and the
carrying through of the Marrana, since previously the whole was a marsh.
At present the sewers must be blocked up, for in digging to the depth
of a few feet nothing but morass and marshy ground appears. The splendid
obelisk which now stands before the church of the Lateran, was dug out
there as late as the sixteenth century: and there can be no doubt that
valuable treasures of art are still buried there. The Circus occupied the
whole length of the valley, now la Via de’ Cerci. That form of it, of
which we have a description, was planned and undertaken by Caesar, and
probably completed by Augustus, for it is inconceivable that the short
duration of Caesar’s dictatorship should have sufficed for it. It is said
to have contained room for 300,000 men, the seats rising in terraces
above one another as in the Colosseum. On the outside, it presented rows
of porticoes one above the other, the lowest one being occupied by shops
or stalls. In the middle ages, the Circus Maximus was used as a fortress.

The _Circus Flaminius_ must have been the place for the plebeian games:
the plebs met for its deliberations and elections on the place of the
_prata Flaminia_ even before the Circus was built, when after the
abolition of the decemvirate the ancient order of things was restored;
whence the locality appears to have been essentially plebeian. The traces
of this Circus, which can still be recognised, are somewhat more numerous
than those of the Circus Maximus, although here, too, every thing is
built over; the ancient walls have been used as foundations only in
cellars and a few houses, whence the houses there are built in a curve or
crescent. In the middle ages, this Circus was used as a place for rope
making, whence the church in that part is called _S. Catarina de’ funari_.

These two Circuses were destined for chariot races, as the _Circus
Agonalis_ was for Greek games or contests. This latter Circus was
situated on the place now called Piazza Navona. It was built by Alexander
Severus, in the form of a Greek Stadium, which was in reality not very
different from that of a Roman Circus. All the houses there have the
strong ancient walls for their foundations, whence the form of the
Circus is preserved, whereas in the case of the Circus Flaminius it is
lost, buildings having been erected right across it.

_Theatres_, in the Greek sense of the term, were not numerous at Rome.
In early times there even existed a censorial interdict forbidding the
erection of a permanent theatre for plays; and when about the end of the
sixth century an attempt was made to break through this regulation, the
censors ordered a theatre, which had been built, to be pulled down. This
was a terrible piece of pedantry, and a scrupulous adherence to ancient
customs for which there was no good reason at all. Plays, therefore, were
performed before the people in the Circus or in the Forum on temporary
stages, which were erected with the greatest extravagance; the aediles
were obliged to give spectacles in order to gain popularity, and the
actors had to be paid. Subsequently the first and almost only theatre was
built by Augustus, and called after young Marcellus, his sister’s son.
Pompey had indeed erected a theatre a few years before, but it does not
appear to have been kept for the purpose for which it was built. About
one-third of the theatre of Marcellus became the property of the house of
Savelli, who made it a fortress; it was then pulled down and rebuilt as
a palace. When the family of the Savelli became impoverished, the palace
passed into the hands of the Orsini. I have lived in it for six years,
and know every corner of it well: the Doric story below and the Ionic
above still exist, but upon them enormous blocks of stone and rubbish are
accumulated; the cellars still exist with their vaults and are inhabited.
By the side of it there is an immense mound of rubbish, and close by my
residence seventy-two steps led up to a garden, which is at the top. The
house contains rooms built in the ancient fashion of about the end of the
sixteenth century.

The idea of _amphitheatres_ arose in Italy at an early period. Until
then, all gymnastic games, and even the contests of gladiators and
wild beasts (of which the humane Greeks knew nothing) were held in
the same locality in which also the more national chariot-races and
the Hellenic games took place, that is, in the Circus. But this was
connected with great disadvantages and inconveniences: the form of
the Circus was very well adapted to races, for in them it made no
difference where a person sat, whether at the beginning or at the end
of the course, for the starting as well as the arrival at the goal had
its interest for the connoisseur. But when a contest took place on a
definite spot, the immense length of the Circus rendered it a matter of
importance as to where a person sat. The Circus can scarcely be said
to have formed an ellipsis, it was in reality an irregular figure,
which cannot be described with mathematical precision, the length being
disproportionately great in comparison with the breadth. The idea then
occurred to the Romans to supply in some measure the place of a Greek
theatre by combining two theatres in the form of an ellipsis, so that
persons could see round the whole building, a thing for which the Greeks
had no occasion. This combination produced the amphitheatres, which
were not built at Rome before the time of Caesar. That they are a late
invention is clear from the fact, that, in all the provincial towns of
Italy, they are, without exception, not within the walls, but outside of
them. This observation has not yet been made by any one; and I believe I
was led to it by Lami, the excellent dean of Florence, though I may have
made it without any hint. At Rome, too, the amphitheatres were not within
the ancient city; the _amphitheatrum Flavium_ alone (the Colosseum, now
called Coliseum), which was built by Vespasian, was situated close to the
Velia, and required the purchase of a whole district. The amphitheatre
of Statilius Taurus was situated by the river-side, where enormous ruins
still exist, and where the family of the Cenci has a palace.

The amphitheatres, moreover, do not belong to the ancient kind of
architecture, but show their late origin also by a somewhat different
style. Imagine the amphitheatre intersected and composed of a large
number of segments, which are broad at the periphery but narrow towards
the interior, running in the direction of an acute angle: the interior
is on all sides surrounded by these segments. Between them are steps,
by which, from the interior, persons reached their seats; the steps
are high, though not too much so, and lead to the different terraces.
At present a person may get down even without these steps, but it is
necessary to leap from bench to bench. Great as is the perfection of
ancient buildings, yet their stairs were essentially bad, the steps
being too narrow and too high, which arose from a desire to save space.
The segments separated by the steps were called _cunei_; the interior,
or the real scene, bore the name of _arena_. In some amphitheatres, the
arena consisted of a permanent and solid floor, whereas in others, as,
for example, in the Colosseum, the floor was not fixed: several walls
traversed it in different directions, so that boards covered with sand
could be laid upon them, in order to absorb the blood of the gladiators:
hence the name arena. After an exhibition the boards were taken away, and
renewed at the next. Sometimes water was let in or trees were planted
in the ground, so that the place of the arena presented the appearance
of a forest: in short, a thousand artifices were contrived. It is a
circumstance which must be borne in mind, that the arena, at least in
the Colosseum and probably in all the larger amphitheatres of all great
cities also, was moveable. Next to the arena was the first place for
persons of rank, and in front of this first row of seats there was a
canal full of water and steep embankments to prevent the animals rushing
among the spectators. In addition to this, iron spikes were planted
before the first seat, so that even if a wild beast had leapt across the
canal, it would have run itself through with the pointed irons. This
first row of seats, which went all round, was called _podium_, a word
which, besides this technical application, occurs only in the middle ages
and in the languages derived from the Latin, in the sense of “a hill”
(Italian, _poggio_; Catalonian, _puig_; Provençal, _puy_, as also in
_Puycerda_, hill of Cerda). This row contained the seats of the emperor
and the imperial family, of the nobles and the senators, for it was
spacious enough to afford room for the whole senate. We can still with
tolerable certainty determine the place containing the imperial box.

These are the most essential points in the structure of an amphitheatre.
Many things connected with the arrangements, however, still remain
obscure, and the lower part of the Colosseum has not yet been
sufficiently excavated. It is, for example, still uncertain in what
manner it was contrived to introduce the wild beasts into the arena. All
the explanations which have been proposed are unsatisfactory. Excavations
have indeed been made, but have been discontinued partly from a fear of
weakening the building, which point certainly is not to be overlooked,
on account of the many earthquakes, and partly on account of erroneous
suppositions, because people could not understand that the arena was
moveable. Another reason why the excavations are not continued, is
the belief that at one time there was an altar in the arena, and that
accordingly the ground is sacred through the blood of the martyrs. Such
perverse notions are obstacles to the discovery of truth.

Another amphitheatre, the _amphitheatrum castrense_, was close to the
wall; Procopius calls it _Vivarium_.

I shall now proceed to speak of the _thermae_. Public baths existed at
Rome from the earliest times. Southern countries really require them,
and they were universally used until late in the middle ages. Under
Gregory I., one of the greatest and most excellent men of his period,
whose government was distinguished for its beneficial measures, though
he did not reign as a sovereign, Rome was already quite deserted; still,
from one of his letters, I have learned that the use of baths was then
quite common. Pope Hadrian I.,[28] likewise a very great man, restored
the Aqua Claudia, which had been neglected, for the purpose of supplying
the baths with water. Gregory I. states, that in his time many people
considered it sinful to bathe on a Sunday; but he himself, who was more
clear-sighted than his flock, issued a proclamation[29] advising the
people not to be so foolish as to allow themselves to be prevented by
such a prejudice. This is a proof that baths were then still in general
use. In Germany, too, they were more common in the middle ages than they
are now. Such _balnea_ or _balneae_ were very popular in ancient Rome
even before the manners of the Greeks had commenced exercising their
influence. _Thermae_ (θερμαί) were first built under Augustus; but we
must not infer from this, that previously people bathed in cold water
in the city, for whenever they wished to do this, they plunged into the
Tiber. I explain the name _thermae_ in the following manner:—It had
become customary at Baiae and other watering places to combine warm
baths with the use of the mineral waters and with sea-bathing: the life
in those places was like that in our watering-places: people frequented
them for the purpose of diverting their minds and taking care of their
bodies. Greeks (commonly called _Graeculi_) were not wanting to provide
amusements of every description with the same industry which Italians
and Frenchmen display in German watering-places. People there threw off
all cares and put aside every kind of work, whence the Roman nobles
repaired to such places every spring. This, however, required a large
fortune, for those who had to maintain themselves by their own industry
could not afford to go to Baiae and stay there for a month. For this
reason, Augustus and Agrippa, whose object was to keep the great body
of the population in comfort and good humour, built artificial baths
as a place in the capital itself, where the people, without travelling
to Baiae, might have similar enjoyments; just as at present mineral
waters may be enjoyed at a great distance from the springs. To these
places, then, every one who wished it, could go and take a bath; they
contained sulphureous baths, vapour-baths, etc., and people might lounge
there without the fatigue of a journey. The most magnificent buildings,
most luxuriously furnished, were erected for this purpose: besides the
bath-rooms, there were others, in which all kinds of amusements were
provided, such as places for the games of the time, for games at ball,
drafts, and the like, nay, even a library existed there, as at present
newspapers are kept in the Cafés. They were accordingly, in reality,
institutions to while away leisure hours in ease and comfort, and were
peculiarly fitted to extinguish the mutinous spirit of the people, and
to tame them by the enjoyments of life. These thermae became extremely
popular, whence one emperor after another contributed one to the number
already existing to prevent people being obliged to go to a distant part
of the city, and to provide each quarter with its own. The thermae of
Agrippa were outside the city, near the Campus Martius and the Pantheon,
for he would not disturb any part of the city with his new institution:
he took care, by irrigation, that everything was green in the Campus
Martius during the summer, and near to the Pantheon he ordered avenues
of trees to be planted. The thermae of Titus bear this name unjustly;
the earlier antiquarians, even as late as the fifteenth century, called
them thermae of Trajan; they existed in the Carinae and were of quite
a monstrous extent. In the middle ages the building was called Curia
Vecchia. The thermae of Caius and Lucius Caesar in the eastern part of
the city are now quite foolishly called _templum Minervae Medicae_. The
building which now bears this name, was nothing else than a large portico
belonging to the Thermae. There also existed thermae of Nero, Titus,
Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Alexander Severus (near those of Agrippa),
Decius, Diocletian, and Constantine, so that we can scarcely understand
how all these colossal buildings had room within the circumference of
Rome. In these thermae some of the choicest specimens of ancient art have
been discovered; they contained excellent galleries of paintings, and
the most beautiful statues were set up there in the most suitable places.
If the group of the Laocoon were still standing in the thermae of Titus,
where it originally stood, it would have a far more appropriate place
than that which it occupies at present.

The _Palatine_ was originally nothing but an inhabited district like the
other hills. Cicero’s house stood upon it, and coming from the Via Sacra,
one may still approximately determine the spot where it stood. Augustus,
too, lived on the Palatine, but only as a private person. Tiberius built
another house for himself by the side of that of Augustus, and probably
inhabited it before his accession. Caligula built a palace there in
another part; but notwithstanding this, the whole of the Palatine was
full of private dwelling-houses, and there was no other public building
on it except temples. The conflagration under Nero destroyed all the
buildings on this hill. Nero then erected a palace on the Palatine;
but not satisfied with this, he continued it down to the Esquiliae and
even up the Esquiliae. The so-called golden house was situated between
the two hills, on a splendid spot, and extremely well chosen. But, at a
later time, we see that the imperial palace occupied the whole of the
Palatine. We must not imagine this to have been one homogeneous and
regular building, constructed on one plan, with a large front, like our
royal palaces. Nothing is more senseless than the restorations which the
old Italian antiquarians, such as Bianchini and Panvini, have made of
this golden house: the latter has drawn an outline of a building which
never existed at all. It is only now that the eyes of antiquarians have
been opened in regard to this subject. The whole of the Palatine hill
is covered with ruins, which have raised its height. The lower part of
the building is completely filled with earth; and if a person wishes to
investigate it, he must break through the ground until he reaches these
vaults. They are a real labyrinth; I have been successful in many points
of the topography of Rome, but I have not been able to form an idea of
the imperial palace. The excavations which were made in 1724 extended
only over a small part, but the _aula Domitiani_ was then brought to
light; the outlines of an enormous hall and splendid columns, partially
preserved, belonged to this aula, and can easily be made out; but there
is also a great number of I know not what kind of chambers: I can give
you no information about them. It would be desirable to see systematic
excavations made there. The whole district is the private property of
the king of Naples, whence the pope cannot order excavations to be made;
the ambassador of the king had permission to do so, but he was recalled
from Rome. The palace must have existed as late as the middle ages,
perhaps until the 11th or 12th century; it was then reduced to ashes,
as is attested by the excavations, which have shown traces of a great
conflagration. In a ritual of the coronation of the emperors belonging
to the end of the 11th century, which has been printed from the original
of Cencius Camerarius,[30] we read—“When the emperor is crowned in St.
Peter, he and the empress proceed to the _palatium Romanum_, the emperor
entering the apartment of Augustus, and the empress that of Livia.” These
apartments are correct and have been found, and the statement shows that
they were inhabited. Some fifty years ago a French dealer in works of
art made excavations there, on which occasion many things are said to
have been found, but the place was pillaged in a most disgraceful manner.
Traces of a magnificence appeared which surpass all our conceptions:
the walls of the rooms were covered with silver plate, and large pieces
of silver texture served as tapestry; in other palaces the walls were
covered with ordinary tapestry (_aulaea_), but here silver was employed
instead. The treasures among the ruins were so numerous, that even after
the pillage some things still remained.

There are, properly speaking, only two streets in ancient Rome, which
are known as such, namely, the _Via Sacra_ and the _Subura_. The former
began at the ridge, which extended from the Palatine to the Esquiliae,
and was called _Velia_, known as the place where the house of P. Valerius
Poplicola stood; from this Velia it ran across the Forum, and on the
other side of the Palatine, the form of which is almost square, it turned
towards the boundary line between the Roman and the Sabine town. We
know from Varro, that in the language of ordinary life only the first
part of the street, namely, that on the Velia, bore the name of Via
Sacra. The buildings by which it was lined were by no means splendid;
the houses which have been dug out are very small, and no person of rank
lived there; but, at the same time, it was the street through which
the processions passed, and there were a great many statues in it. The
street, as I said before, began at the height; it passed between the
temples of Venus and Peace, and had several triumphal arches. At the
point where it touched the Forum there stood the _fornix Fabianus_. It is
possible that it may have been the custom, even in early times, to make
temporary arches of foliage on the occasion of a triumphal procession;
but the first arch made of stone was that for the triumph of Q. Fabius
Allobrogicus. The arches still existing are those of Titus, Septimius
Severus, and that of Constantine, which is entirely composed of stolen
basreliefs; but there were many more, as, for example, two of Trajan,
one of Valentinian and another of Gratian. They stood in the street of
the Ponte St. Angelo, and existed as late as the middle ages; their
inscriptions are preserved in copies.

The _Subura_ is still called by the same name. Nardini is quite mistaken
in his assertion, that the ancient Subura was situated in a different
locality, near the Lateran; no man in his senses can admit this, for it
is opposed to all our evidence. We even have the express testimony of
Varro, that its site is identical with that of the present Subura, that
is, in the plain north of the Esquiliae, whence it had the advantage of
being completely built on both sides. In it stood the house of Caesar,
and in the times of the republic the aristocracy generally lived there
and in the Carinae on the Esquiline. Afterwards, in the time of emperors,
a change took place in this respect, and every one removed to the new
quarters, whence, in the days of Juvenal and Martial, the Subura was
inhabited only by the lowest classes; at present, too, it is the abode
of poverty. The _Carinae_ were a quarter rather than a single street, in
the district of S. Pietro in Vincola. After the great fire, Nero built a
palace (not the golden house) there; and not far from it was the palace
of Titus and the thermae of Trajan.

The Quirinal had no remarkable buildings; at a later period Aurelian
erected there the temple of the Sun, the most gigantic building in all
Rome, of which vast ruins still exist in the garden of the Colonna
family. At that time there was a taste for everything gigantic, because
architects were no longer able to produce the beautiful. The _Viminal_,
too, contained nothing worth noticing. The Carinae, as I have already
remarked, were on the _Esquiline_. Within the walls of Servius Tullius, I
know of no particularly remarkable edifice belonging to the early period,
though it contained a large number of small temples. The same must be
said of the _Caelius_ in its narrower sense; only one arch still exists
there; in the middle ages it contained many buildings.

On the rugged side of the _Aventine_, towards the river, stood the temple
of Diana, which, according to tradition, Servius Tullius had built as
a point of union for the Romans and Latins, and in which the table
containing the ancient treaty was preserved. On the same hill there
existed the thermae of Decius and a number of other buildings. I have
already observed, that the Porta Trigemina was on the Aventine towards
the river. On the side of the Palatine towards the Aventine there was a
flight of marble steps, called the _Scala Caci_; one tradition assigned
it to the Palatine, and another to the Aventine, a discrepancy which
probably arose from the opposition between the inhabitants of the two
hills.

Having thus rapidly passed over the hills, I shall now proceed further. A
_suburb_ was first formed between the Palatine, Aventine, and Esquiline
on the one side, and the Tiber on the other. I have already mentioned
as a part of it the _Forum olitorium_, which was at the same time a
fish-market, and still exists unchanged. The suburb became a thickly
inhabited district, and in it Augustus built the theatre of Marcellus and
the great portico of his sister Octavia.

Another suburb extended along the Tiber as far as Ponte Sisto at the
great reach of the river, where the amphitheatre of Statilius Taurus
was situated; it occupied the whole side of the river, which in our
maps is erroneously called Campus Martius. We generally imagine that
this Campus was the only one the Romans had; but this is a mistake, for
Campi also existed in front of other hills and gates; and like the great
Campus, they were gradually covered with houses, though they were neither
as extensive nor as important as the Campus Martius. One of them was
the _Campus Esquilinus_, in the plain before the Esquiline beyond the
agger, and the _Campus Caelimontanus_ at the foot of the Caelius (now
the palace of the Lateran) was another. These two Campi are as clear as
possible, and are frequently mentioned; their destination was the same
as that of the Campus Martius, and when in consequence of inundations
the games could not be held in the latter, they were transferred to the
Caelimontanus or the Esquilinus. Both these Campi were national property.
Ever since the time of Augustus, houses were built in the Campus Martius.
It contained the well known _septa_, a place fenced round, in which the
centuries voted; even Pompey had built his theatre on the very border of
the Campus; Agrippa erected his thermae there, and his incomparably more
beautiful Pantheon; and Augustus had there his Mausoleum, from which an
avenue of trees led to the buildings of Agrippa. Alexander Severus built
there new thermae, a circus, and several triumphal arches, so that the
Campus Martius entirely disappeared. In the second and third century Rome
extended more and more in that direction, whence at present that part
is thickly covered with houses. Of the buildings which are found there,
I have already mentioned the thermae of Alexander Severus, the Circus
Agonalis, and the structures of Agrippa, and I shall now say a few words
about the _Mausoleum, of Augustus_. This building formed a gigantic mass,
and was as imperishable as the pyramids. The descriptions we have of it
are very obscure, nor do its remains enable us to form an idea of it;
the drawings of its remains, which were made in the sixteenth century,
are very doubtful. A large bas-relief may still have existed, also a
water basin made of stone, which has disappeared in an unaccountable
manner; but otherwise I believe that the drawings contain restorations.
It is said that there was also a kind of suspended gardens with the
soil artificially carried into them, but this may be founded on some
misunderstanding.

The _mausoleum of Hadrian_, at present the Castel S. Angelo, was even
a much larger structure. Its restoration, which we see in drawings,
is anything but trustworthy; but there are drawings of the fifteenth
century, in which a small portion, which was then still uninjured, is
represented. At present we still see an immense pile impregnable and
inaccessible, into which there was only one entrance like that of a cave,
with a passage leading to the burial place. There Hadrian, Antoninus
Pius, and Antoninus the philosopher were buried. Inscriptions about it
are still found in the Itinerary of Einsiedeln, which belongs to the
seventh or eighth century. This building was used as a fort at a very
early period; Belisarius there defended himself against the Goths: the
Roman garrison consisted of Huns who hurled the statues with which
the building was adorned against the enemies. It is possible that
the Barberini Faun was on that occasion thrown down, as it was found
there at the time when Urban VIII. built the fortifications. During
subsequent wars the Castel S. Angelo was often defended, as for example,
when under Crescentius the city refused to surrender to Otho III. The
greatest devastations took place in the fourteenth century, when the
Romans, who were then little better than barbarians, wanted to level the
whole structure with the ground, because it had occasioned them great
annoyance: at that time many more inscriptions were preserved than at
present. For weeks and months they laboured in tearing away the marble
coating and the outward ornaments, but not being able to get through they
gave it up at last. Pope Alexander VI. built some towers as means of
defence, and on that occasion the destruction was carried still further.
But after that time, three inscriptions still remained in the sixteenth
century. The present condition, which is still imposing, is the work of
Urban VIII. who made a regular fortress of it. In order to provide it
with artillery, he caused the bronze of the vestibule of the Pantheon to
be melted and eighty cannons to be made of it, which, during the French
revolution, were carried by Murat to Naples. The costly sarcophagi of
porphyry, which belonged to the mausoleum of Hadrian are dispersed; one
of them still exists in the palace Borghese, and another, generally
called the sarcophagus of Agrippa, probably also belonged to it.
Trajan’s ashes were contained in an urn which stood on his column. Hence
the opinion that the gilt ball on the obelisk in front of the Circus
contained the ashes of Augustus; but this is only an erroneous opinion
of the middle ages; it was opened under Sixtus V. when the obelisk was
removed, and nothing but dust was found in it; but how this dust had got
into it, no one can tell, perhaps it was introduced by rain. It certainly
was not the ashes of Augustus, for we know distinctly where Augustus and
his family were buried. There still exists in the Capitol a very simple
coffin containing the remains of Agrippina; its side has the inscription
_Ossa Agrippinae Germanici_. During an accidental excavation near San
Carlo and the Corso, a _bustum_ of the Caesars was discovered, on which
their bodies were burnt; each imperial family had a distinct place for
this purpose. At present several monumental stones of such _busta_ exist
in the Museo Pio-Clementino; they always have an inscription, such as _C.
Caesar hic crematus est_. I believe there still exist half-a-dozen of
such inscriptions.

Not far from the _moles Hadriani_ there was a third _Circus_, built by
Nero, and by the side of it stands the church of St. Peter. According to
a tradition, the iron gate, where the apostles Peter and Paul suffered
the death of martyrs, still exists there; but according to others, Peter
died on the Janiculus, the _mons aureus_ of the middle ages. There, too,
a suburb arose as early as the time of Justinian; the church of St. Peter
attracted many inhabitants, and the place was especially occupied by
Germans, Saxons, and Lombards, who went to Rome for devotional purposes,
or were engaged in the service of the Praefectus to defend the pope. They
had their quarters (_scholae_) there, whence the name _schola Saxonum_,
and in the same district we have the Ospidale in Sassi. This suburb was
surrounded with walls by Leo IV. and called _Burgus_ (_Borgo_).

_Trastevere_, on the same side of the river, though separated by a great
space, was a suburb as early as the time of Augustus; it now contains
the oldest houses in Rome, which belong to the eleventh and twelfth
centuries. Augustus had gardens there, and during the republican period a
_navale_ existed there on the south of the Aventine. On the same bank of
the river there was a _naumachia_, a district surrounded by a wall, which
could be filled with water for mock-fights with small boats.

Ancient Rome had originally only one bridge, the _Pons Sublicius_; it
consisted at first entirely of wood, and could be taken down for the
purpose of defending the city against the attacks of an enemy. This
bridge remained for a long time the only one. The _Pons Milvius_, in the
neighbourhood of Rome, was likewise very ancient, but was three Roman
miles distant from the Porta Carmentalis. After the third Punic war,
Scipio, as censor, built a second bridge (_Pons Palatinus_) across the
Tiber. It was situated before the Velabrum, near to the Pons Sublicius,
and between it and the island. Not a trace of the Pons Sublicius now
exists. The Milvian bridge was at first likewise made of wood, and no
doubt that of Scipio also. The latter remained throughout the middle ages
until the sixteenth century. There have been hydrostatic disputes about
this bridge, as to whether it was built flat against the current of the
river or not; it does not, however, seem probable, that, if it had been
constructed on a wrong principle, it should have existed for a period of
1700 years; we must rather suppose that during this long interval the
Tiber changed its course. In the sixteenth century, when the river had
retreated, the bridge broke down. I am of opinion that Cavaliere Linotte,
who asserts this, is right, although he is not a man of learning: such
investigations do not require much learning, and good common sense
is often of greater assistance. In the same century, the bridge was
restored, but twenty years later it broke down again; at present only
a few arches of it exist, and the first, on the opposite bank, may be
assumed with certainty to be the one that was built by Scipio. A poor
woman had established a garden upon its ruins, and for the payment of a
trifle I was allowed to go there as often as I liked.

The _island_ which, according to tradition, was formed out of the corn
thrown into the river after the expulsion of the Tarquins, is remarkable
for the temple of Aesculapius. Even in very early times, and long before
the age of Augustus, the incredibly tasteless attempt was made to give
to that temple the form of a ship, in imitation of the vessel in which
the god had been conveyed to Rome; it was built of travertine. During
the middle ages a considerable part of the temple still existed, as may
be seen from a drawing of Boissard, which was made in the fourteenth
century. Old people under Pius VI. still saw a great deal of it, but
afterwards a large part of the wall was used for other purposes; in like
manner a splendid part of the thermae of Titus was destroyed as late as
1796.

The island was connected with the mainland on both sides by the _Pons
Cestius_ and the _Pons Fabricius_, which were very ancient. Next came the
_Pons Senatorius_, on the spot now occupied by the Ponte Sisto; _Pons
Aelius_ near S. Angelo, and the _Pons Milvius_ outside the city, now
Ponte Molle.

I shall now proceed to speak of


LATIUM

as the country of the Latins. We shall first take Latium Proper, then the
coast from Antium to Terracina, which was originally a Tyrrhenian and
afterwards a Volscian country, and lastly the country of the Hernicans.
But I have previously to make some remarks about the port towns of Rome.

All rivers of any importance carrying sand or mud form a delta, their
mouths being pushed forward by the tides or the nature of the seas. Down
to a certain point, they flow in a straight line, and then divide into
two arms, leaving a low sand-bank between them. Such are the deltas of
the Po, the Mississipi, the Nile, and the Ganges. The Tiber forms a
similar πρόχωσις, and the ridges of sand on both sides become more and
more widely separated from each other. On the left arm, which accordingly
must have existed as early as that time, king Ancus Marcius, who is no
doubt an historical personage, built the town of _Ostia_. I believe I
can prove that Ancus Marcius concluded a treaty with the Latins, by
which a number of the Latin towns, I mean those between Rome and the
sea, were ceded to Rome, while other places remained united with Latium.
In after times, Rome twice concluded similar treaties with Latium.
Ostia was founded as a pure Roman colony, and became the port town of
Rome. Afterwards it grew into a very large place, as is clear from the
extensive and very splendid ruins. It was first destroyed in the war
between Marius and Sulla, and afterwards frightfully devastated by the
Vandals; in the ninth century it existed again, but was then destroyed by
the Saracens. The great pope Leo IV. restored it, but the new town was
not of long duration. At present the atmosphere is very unhealthy, which
was not the case in the time of ancient Rome; whence we must infer, that
then there were no marshes in the neighbourhood, for the poisonous air
comes from the marshes. The district is at present so neglected that the
place is completely deserted.

In the time of the Antonines, Ostia was the summer residence of the
Romans, probably those of the middle classes, who had no large estates
and could not afford to remain away from Rome for any great length of
time. A very pleasing description of it occurs in the apologetic work of
Minutius Felix, the scene of which is laid at Ostia. The Roman jurists
spent their vacations there. The beauty and wealth of the place at that
time form a remarkable contrast with its present condition, for scarcely
any persons but criminals live there; for a long time past Ostia has
been a sort of asylum, where murderers are safe against the danger of
being seized by the police. This is one of the most fearful changes: the
country round it is an immense swamp inhabited by buffalos.

In the reign of Claudius an artificial port was formed on the right arm
of the Tiber, which was deeper, the course of the river having been
regulated. Trajan extended the port, and this _Portus Romanus_ now became
the real sea-port of Rome, a depôt for the immense supplies required for
the city. At present, too, the little maritime commerce of the Romans is
carried on along the right bank of the Tiber.

I will not mention all the places of ancient Latium which happen to be
once noticed by ancient writers, many of them are mere names of destroyed
places; much more might indeed be made out than has yet been done, but
the advantages would not be very considerable. We must conceive Latium
in the earlier times to have been divided into three parts: 1. _Alba
and its perioeci_, or thirty neighbouring and dependent places, said to
have been colonies, and called _Albenses_; 2. the _Latin demi_, about
Alba and its territory, the number of which we may assume, without fear
of being mistaken, to have likewise amounted to thirty. They formed the
Latin state, and stood in the same relation to Alba in which Latium
afterwards stood to Rome; 3. the _Tyrrhenian towns on the coast_, which
were properly foreign to the body of the Latin state, but may possibly
have been in alliance with it. I have succeeded in throwing more light
upon this relation between Alba and the Latin towns than I myself
could formerly have expected; I have found all the names of the thirty
Albensian towns, but the list of the others is not complete.

ALBA generally appears to us almost as a mythical place, because it
vanishes from Roman history at so early a period; but there can be no
doubt that its existence is a perfectly historical fact, and that, too,
in the relation I have just indicated. But it never was the mother-city
of Rome; the first elements out of which Rome grew up may, perhaps, at
one time have constituted a portion of the towns which, in a state of
dependence as perioeci, were united with Alba into one state, but may
have separated themselves from it at an early period: Rome itself was
never founded by Alba. The place where Alba was once situated is still
so distinctly marked that it cannot be mistaken. From the testimonies of
the ancients, we know that it was situated at the foot of the Alban hill,
forming one long street, high above the Alban lake, whence its name
_Alba Longa_. Every one in that district shows the spot near the place
called Palazzuolo, where may be seen the ancient tomb of a praetor with
six fasces distinctly cut into the rock. This site has been recognised by
several Italians, chiefly men without learning, but who had eyes to see
that on this spot the rock has been cut away to a considerable height.
This part must be conceived to have been below the town, so that the
lake, even when its waters were very low, rendered the town perfectly
inaccessible. The present level of the lake is the result of a tunnel
(_emissarius_); but I am of opinion that formerly it must have been
much lower.[31] In this manner the town was safe on that side, for the
rock was cut away to such a height as to render it impossible to scale
it by means of ladders; on the precipitous side of the rock opposite no
artificial protection was necessary. Thus the town could be attacked
only on the two accessible sides, which for this reason were fortified.
The summit of the hill was probably fortified by an arx. The hill, now
called Monte Cavo, though only 2,900 French feet in height, is one of the
highest in that district; from it a person acquainted with Roman history
enjoys the most magnificent prospect, for he may there survey the whole
territory of the Roman state such as it was until the fourth century
of the city. On this summit stood the very ancient temple of Jupiter
Latiaris, which was certainly as old as the temple on the Capitoline,
and a road led up to it which is still quite intact, and is made in
the same style as the Roman high roads. There the Alban dictators once
used to ride up to offer their thanks to Jupiter Latiaris for victories
they had gained; Roman generals also triumphed there, when they could
not obtain permission from the senate to celebrate their triumph in the
Capitol; there lastly the Feriae Latinae were celebrated. The temple is
now completely destroyed, and the foundation stones, which still existed
there, were broken down in the 18th century. The large blocks of stone
were too huge for the puny race, and were, accordingly, broken to pieces
to build a monastery. The last remains, consisting of beautiful square
blocks, were carefully raised from the ground in the year 1780 or 1790.
The Monte Cavo, like the lake, is of a volcanic nature.

LAVINIUM, which is nothing else than Lacinium in Oenotria (both forms
being only dialectic varieties of Latinium), was the real sanctuary
of Latium, and every year a common sacrifice was offered there by
all the Latins. There is a tradition, that six hundred families were
sent thither from Alba, that is, ten from every demos, the thirty
Albensian and the thirty Latin towns. In this manner the statement
of Dionysius of Halicarnassus resolves itself into a general formula
of a common settlement, proceeding from Alba and _commune Latium_
(this is the correct name for all the Latins, like κοινὸν Θεσσαλῶν).
Originally Lavinium was regarded as common property, like Washington;
but when subsequently it became a place of importance, it obtained its
independence, and was a town like all the others.

Besides Lavinium, which was fabulously said to be a Trojan colony,
there existed on that coast, between the Tiber and Antium, two other
places, LAURENTUM and the Rutulian ARDEA, which are familiar to us
from the Aeneid. The ending _entum_ in Laurentum is Pelasgian, as in
the case of Maluentum and others; but it is Latinised, the native form
probably was οῦς, Λαυροῦς. After the Volscian calamity, when the whole
Latin confederacy broke up, Ardea was a separate town: it received
a Romano-Latin colony, and accordingly entered into an entirely new
relation. Cyclopean walls are still found there, but the place is so
desolate, that at present it has only thirty houses with about eighty
inhabitants.

The most important of the Latin towns in the vicinity of Rome was
TUSCULUM; it was distant only a few miles and could be seen from Rome,
being situated above Frascati. During the middle ages, it was destroyed
by the degenerate Romans, and never restored on the height, but the
survivors were obliged to settle at the foot of the hill, which was the
origin of the modern Frascati. The ruins of Tusculum which have been
dug out are very important; the theatre was found with very beautiful
statues in it, but it has been covered over again. A number of pedestals
with inscriptions also were found, which are no doubt as ancient as
the persons they described; some are as old as the period after the
Hannibalian war, as for example, the one of Fulvius Nobilior, the
conqueror of Aetolia: nowhere have so many ancient stones been brought
to light; but the number of inscriptions belonging to the earlier times
and even to the Augustan age is extremely small. The whole district
belongs to Lucien Bonaparte, who has made excavations, in the process
of which very many things of importance have been discovered. If he had
continued them, extraordinary things would certainly have been brought to
light; but he has no interest for anything except works of art, statues
and the like, and it is impossible to make him see the importance of
the remains of antiquity. He has the most unhistorical mind, and is
unable to understand of what interest antiquities can be to history: the
most beautiful things have been sold by him. He is one of those men who
enjoy a high degree of celebrity without deserving it: he is lively,
but absurd, and an extremely bad epic poet. He has laid out a garden on
a hill, and on a box-tree in it he has inscribed in order the names of
the greatest epic poets, beginning near the root: out of modesty he has
put his own name lowest, and ascends up to Homer. It was impossible to
induce him to make excavations according to a regular plan. I have often
been in despair about it: this is a grief which a man may often have
to bear in Italy, because excavations can be so easily made. The Fasti
Capitolini are of extreme importance in Roman history; three large pieces
of them had been found behind the church of S. Maria Liberatrice, and I
implored the authorities to grant me permission to dig there, offering
to bear the expenses myself; but I could not obtain permission, and
was told that it would be done in due time, and that our descendants
also must have something to do. Such things are a severe trial of one’s
patience. If excavations were made at Tusculum, a Roman Herculaneum would
be found. I do not mean to say that buildings equally well preserved
would be discovered, but the ruins are very large, and the streets would
certainly be found. When I was there, excavations were accidentally made
below a wall, but they were afterwards stopped, for Lucien Bonaparte was
inexorable. Once, during excavations which were continued only for a
few weeks, a whole street with the walls of the houses up to a certain
height was discovered; it was of the most perfect construction, although
it was only the street of a country town, for Tusculum was certainly
not larger than Coblenz. The street was completely filled with pieces
of architecture, which had fallen down during the barbarous process
of destruction: columns of the most beautiful marble were found, but
broken to pieces, and statues of the most exquisite workmanship, such as
one might expect to find at Rome during its most brilliant period. The
architecture is that of the imperial period; the street also contained
a well, the water of which was carried down from a hill. Very ancient
inscriptions also were found, one of which contained the name of A.
Sicinius, who is mentioned by Livy in the war against Perseus. If the
Forum were laid open, Fasti and law-tables would no doubt be brought
to light; it is still possible to say whereabouts it must have been
situated. In like manner the site of the Forum of Praeneste was known,
and fragments of the Fasti of Verrius Flaccus were found there, although
the excavations were made very carelessly. In later times Tusculum was
the most brilliant among the Latin towns.

The second Latin town in point of rank was TIBUR, now celebrated, under
the name of Tivoli, for its waterfalls, the charming nature of the
country, and the beauty of its ruins. Some persons erroneously consider
the sepulchral monument of Cellius, built in the age of Augustus, to be a
temple of the Sibyl. Tibur ruled over a considerable number of dependent
towns. Its present circumference dates from the middle ages, for in
antiquity it was considerably smaller. All these towns were very little,
though they have a great name in history. Two learned Jesuits, Cabral and
Del Ré, have written a very good topographical history of Tivoli.

The third Latin place is PRAENESTE, now Palestrina. This metathesis is
common in Italian; even when they write correctly, they speak badly from
affectation, especially the higher classes: instead of _una capra_,
the Roman people usually say _una carpa_. The _l_ and _r_ also are
interchanged: at the time of the French revolution, when a republic was
forced upon the Romans, they were unable to pronounce the name, and
said _la Repubrica_. I have found traces of a form _Penestra_ belonging
to the time when the western empire still existed; in the middle ages
_civitas_ was always added, and the simple names were thereby completely
suppressed; people, therefore, did not say _Lanuvium_, but _civitas
Lanuvina_, and so also _civitas Penestrina_. Praeneste was an immense
place both in regard to its extent and to its fortifications, and was
situated on a hill. Fortuna was its tutelary divinity, whose temple with
its _temenos_ occupied the acra, and the whole of the present little
town of Palestrina is situated within the ruins of that temple. We
still possess descriptions of it belonging to the end of the thirteenth
century; many parts of it must then have been preserved; in the
fourteenth the town was taken by pope Bonifacius VIII., and everything
was then destroyed with barbarous fury; at present we can only admire the
immense substructions on the side of the hill, for the town, like many
others, was built up the hill in the form of terraces; and when it was
intended to enlarge the town, a new terrace was built.

In Roman history Praeneste does not appear as an important town till
after the Gallic time. As to the impatience with which it, more than any
other Latin town, bore the Roman yoke during the fifth century, from the
Samnite wars until the war of Pyrrhus, we have distinct indications,
although history is silent about it. The Praenestines made repeated
attempts to shake it off; but although they were unsuccessful in this,
still they gained the respect of the Romans, and obtained from them an
honourable relation, with which they were satisfied. After this, they
were the most faithful allies of the Romans, and during the Hannibalian
war they were as attached to them as they had previously been intrepid
in their struggles for their own independence. During the Social War
they obtained the franchise, and were passionate champions of the Marian
party. Marius the younger there sustained the terrible siege, after which
Sulla took the town, and shewed the first symptoms of his raving cruelty:
he butchered the whole population, and established a colony of veterans
in the place. The town became quite desolate. Most of the Latin towns had
perished at an early period.

LANUVIUM, afterwards _civitas Lanuvina_, on the Via Appia, still shows
remains of a large wall, and indications that it once was a splendid
town; it must not, however, be supposed to have been very extensive.
Among its buildings, I may notice the temple of Juno Lanuvina, a common
sanctuary for the Romans and Latins.

ARICIA was situated on the same road; its arx was on a height, but the
town itself in the valley; at present the road most inconveniently and
dangerously runs right across the height. Aricia was somewhat nearer Rome
than Lanuvium; for a time it seems to have been the first among the Latin
towns, I allude to the period after the banishment of the kings, when
Rome and Latium were separated. The temple and grove of Diana Aricina
were near the beautiful lake of Nemi, not far from Aricia.

GABII, one of the most ancient towns, has a traditional greatness in
the earliest history of Rome. Dionysius still saw its extensive walls,
of which at present every vestige has disappeared, but the ruins of
the cella of a vast temple of Juno may still be seen. History does not
inform us when the town was destroyed, but it was probably during the
period of the Aequian wars, for after them it is no longer mentioned in
the history of the republic; and in the age of Cicero it was a deserted
place. Excellent remains were found there during the excavations made by
Prince Borghese; he came upon ruins of the Forum, various works of art,
many inscriptions and statues, which, though not of the first order, are
yet of good workmanship. Under the Roman emperors a population appears
to have again assembled in several of those towns, which were situated
on high roads; whence they rose again, though they remained small places
with a wretched population of vagabonds from all parts, who did not form
a civil community, although they had a civic constitution. Hence Gabii
at a later period had a bishop. This also accounts for the fact, that
works of art belonging to a late period of Rome are found in those early
destroyed places. At present Gabii is quite deserted.

The place for the general assemblies of the Latins was near the Alban
lake, which, like a crater, is environed by a high ridge of surrounding
hills. The place of meeting is supposed, and I think justly, to have been
on the other side of this crater; but there is no evidence to support
this view. The spot is now occupied by the town of Marino, below which
there is a beautiful well, generally believed to be the well of Ferentina.

The tunnel of the Alban lake, a wonderful work, is one of the curiosities
of Latium; it runs nearly three Roman miles under ground towards the
place of its destination, and was intended to carry off the water of
the lake, which, when, in consequence of earthquakes, the subterraneous
passages had become blocked up, rose above the ridge of the crater and
inundated the country. I have already spoken about this extraordinary
structure in my History of Rome,[32] and shall, therefore, confine myself
to a brief recapitulation. It is difficult to form a clear idea of the
matter. Imagine the crater filled to the edge, and bear in mind that it
was intended to give to it a level about 200 feet lower. In order to
attain this, a line was first drawn in the contemplated direction of the
tunnel, and by this line it could be seen how deep it must be to answer
its purpose. In order to obtain the level, and at the same time to employ
a great many hands, shafts were sunk along the whole line at a distance
of less than a hundred feet from one another. It was easy to calculate
how deep each shaft ought to be, so as to bring the bottom of the tunnel
to the level which it was intended to give to it. These numerous shafts
also facilitated the running off of the water on account of the pressure
of the air, and at the same time rendered access to the tunnel easy.
On any other plan only few persons could have been employed at a time,
whereas now from every shaft two parties worked in opposite directions
and broke through the rock. This working of different parties towards one
another also insured their keeping the exact level. This tunnel, which
was the admiration even of ancient Rome, has now existed for a period
of 2500 years; it is still entire, and will exist in all time to come,
unless some great revolution of the earth shall break it to pieces. The
Roman cloacae are of the same character, and will endure until the last
day of the earth. There are many such tunnels in the Roman territory, of
which at present the advantages alone are perceptible, but whence they
carry the waters can no longer be ascertained. Such is the case near
lake Nemi: the whole valley of Aricia was formerly a lake, which is now
perfectly drained. There, too, a great thing was effected by a little
tunnel: the valley of Aricia is one of the most fertile in the world, and
is still the same as it is described by Pliny. The fertility in Italy is
so great that wheat, unless it is weeded, cannot grow; agriculture there
requires a degree of industry of which we have no idea; if any one were
to introduce there the system of Flemish or English agriculture, it would
lead to ruin.

The _Vallis Albana_ is the modern valley of Grotta Ferrata.

In the east of Latium, in its narrower sense, we have the towns of


THE HERNICANS.

We know only five of them; ANAGNIA was the capital, to which the
others were opposed as a political body. We here again find a parallel
phenomenon: the same relation which existed between Alba and the
Albensian towns, and between Rome and the Latin towns, appears to have
existed between Anagnia and the towns of the Hernicans. This is briefly,
but officially, alluded to in the Triumphal Fasti, where Q. Marcius
Tremulus triumphs _de Anagninis Hernicisque_. The other towns were
_Frusino_, _Ferentinum_, _Verulae_, and _Alatrium_. There can, however,
be no doubt that they had more towns; some must have been taken from
them by the Volscians and Aequians, while others may have continued to
exist, but decayed and perished, so that we have no information about
them. Livy, in speaking of the last war against the Hernicans, says,
_omnes Hernici nominis populi_, except three. I have a conjecture which
is a combination of several traces, and according to which their number
was forty. All the five above-mentioned places still exist; they are
generally small and poor, with the exception of Anagnia, which is a place
of some consequence; but all of them are still imposing on account of
their ruins and their mighty Cyclopean walls, in which towers and gates
are still preserved.

Servius, on the Aeneid, and the ancient Scholia on Virgil, fragments of
which were published about ten years ago by A. Mai from a Veronese MS.,
state that the name _Hernici_ is derived from the Sabine word _hernae_,
which Arndt very happily compares with the Swiss _firn_ (mountain);
as there exists a radical affinity between the two languages, such a
comparison is certainly admissible. According to this, the Hernicans
were a Sabine or Marsian colony. Another statement, however, though of
very weak authority, in Julius Hyginus, makes the Hernicans Pelasgians.
If we consider that the Sabines pressed forward at a comparatively late
period, perhaps about the time of the foundation of Rome, and that the
Hernicans dwelt on the other side of the Oscan nation of the Aequians,
it is probable that the Hernicans, like the Latins, were of Tyrrhenian
origin. An etymology like that mentioned before is very captivating, and
it is not easy to get rid of it; but if we ask ourselves, What is the
ground of the derivation? How could the name come from their habitations?
Did the other Sabines call them Hernicans in the same manner in which
the Scotch Lowlanders call the Gael in the mountains Highlanders? It is
possible that the name Hernicans is only a surname to another national
name; they may, in this case, have belonged to a different race, and have
received that surname from the Sabines. That a people should call itself
mountaineers from its habitations is very surprising. The derivation
may be very accidental: in like manner the Thuringians might be said to
owe their name to the old word _Taure_, which signifies “mountain.” If
we assume that the Hernicans were Tyrrhenians, they occupied exactly
the district in which they could have maintained themselves against the
shock of the Ausonians, who were pressed on by the Sabines. But nothing
decisive can be said on this point, we can only form conjectures; and
we must carefully distinguish between what is conjectural and what is
certain.[33]

There is no occasion for saying anything more about the towns of the
Hernicans which I have mentioned. On the side of a rock, near the town
of Ferentinum, there still exists a fragment of a will engraved in the
stone. A wealthy citizen leaves a legacy, and fixes the interest of
his landed property. The late Madame Dionigi, who made a drawing of it
and published it, states that two of the pieces of land still exist in
that district and bear the same name. A great many things of this kind
continue to exist in some parts of Italy from ancient times; he who lives
there in intimate familiarity with every-day affairs, and who does not
mind spending months in those places, may recover the past to an extent
which we believe altogether impossible.

The Hernicans formed part of the Roman and Latin confederacy, and had
their share in the Feriae Latinae. In ancient times they were allied
with Rome on equal terms, and shared with her and Latium all that they
conquered in war. Afterwards this alliance was broken up, as I shall
show in the second volume of my History,[34] because being weak and
powerless, they could no longer claim their former rights. After the
Gallic calamity, when Rome had fallen, they made themselves independent,
and thirty years later the ancient treaty was renewed, and remained in
force for fifty years, to the great advantage of the Hernicans. They were
a small people, which did not extend, while Rome enlarged her dominion
immensely. Hence the Romans demanded that the relation which had hitherto
subsisted between them should be discontinued. In consequence of this, a
war arose between them and the Hernicans, in which the latter had reason
bitterly to repent their presumption.


THE VOLSCIANS AND AEQUIANS.

Both these Ausonian nations lived within the boundaries of Latium in
its wider sense. The Volscians were subdivided into smaller parts, the
Antiatan, Ecetranian, and other Volscians without any definite name. All
the coast towns, as far as the upper Liris, were Volscian, as e.g. Anxur
or Terracina, Privernum, Sora, Arpinum, Fabrataria, Fregellae, etc. The
Aequians, on the other hand, dwelt on the one side as far as Praeneste,
and on the other as far as lake Fucinus in the north. The Aequians and
Volscians are almost always mentioned together, just as Romans and
Latins, whence it is probable that isopolity existed between the two
nations. Every man belonging to one nation might take up his abode among
the other with which it was in isopolity: he there enjoyed higher rights
than an alien; he was not, indeed, a full citizen, but a free member of
the community; he was what was termed in the middle ages a pale-burgher.
This is a relation which, on the whole, is seldom rightly understood by
German jurists, and even by K. F. Eichhorn, who, in other respects, is
a man of the greatest merit in matters of German law. Such an isopolity
must have existed between the Aequians and Volscians; but besides this,
they must have had another political connection, for a large party of the
Aequians very frequently made common cause with a numerous body of the
Volscians.

It is an important point to decide, as to whether the Volscians always
inhabited the towns on the coast from Antium as far as Terracina,
which are called Volscian, or whether they took possession of them as
conquerors. At first I shared in the general error, thinking that they
had always been Volscian; afterwards, I began to doubt—the first step
towards truth—and to consider the possibility of its being otherwise;
and now I am convinced that the country was originally inhabited by
Tyrrhenians, that it was afterwards conquered by the Volscians, and that
this event did not occur till after the banishment of the kings. All the
places on the coast from Terracina to Antium, as well as Velitrae in the
interior, were once Pelasgian, and may be justly called Latin, this being
the ancient and common name. Receive this result of my inquiries with
confidence; there is no danger of your being mistaken. In like manner,
the Aequians extended their dominion in the direction of the Latins and
Hernicans at the expense of both.

All the Volscians did not form one common state: the people of Arpinum,
Sora, Anxur, Formiae, and Fundi may, at the time of their first conquest,
have mutually assisted one another; but when their possessions were
secured, when Antium and Ecetrae had become Volscian, the towns situated
farther behind probably did not exert themselves for the other Volscian
places.

In regard to the Aequians, it would almost seem, as if they had formed
one compact state, although each of the several towns could, by itself,
do little or nothing; scarcely one of them is deserving of notice. If
we possessed the ancient commentaries on the Aeneid, we should know a
great deal more about the ethnography and chorography of those parts.
Virgil speaks of Nersae as one of the principal towns of the Aequians:
_et te montosae misere in proelia Nersae_;[35] editors have unwarrantably
changed this into _Nursae_, and referred it to Nursia, which is an
Umbrian town in the Apennines beyond the Sabines, to which the Aequians
never penetrated. People will not own, that there are things of which
they know nothing. The books of Servius unfortunately have come down to
us only in a wretched abridgment: if we examine the first two books,
of which we have the original, we cannot but feel respect for Servius
as a great grammarian. In like manner, the name of mount Vesulus—in
the illustration of the boar inhabiting the marshes of the valley of
Laurentum and the heights of Vesulus—has been senselessly referred to a
hill near the sources of the Padus.[36] The hill must have been in the
neighbourhood of Laurentum, in a district which Virgil knew very well,
and which must afterwards have lost its name. I can well imagine what
kind of a place Vesulus may have been, but it was most assuredly not a
glacier of the Alps. This is one specimen of the perverse manner in which
Virgil has been commented upon; an able commentary on the Aeneid, not
too diffuse, has yet to be written; in regard to the Eclogues and the
Georgics, Voss has done everything that can be desired.

The Aequians extended as far as lake Fucinus. When in the middle of
the fifth century the Romans subdued them, they destroyed nearly fifty
of their places, and forced the franchise upon them. Afterwards they
obtained favourable terms and fair treatment, but the first shock of the
war was terrible.

In the second and third books of Livy, the Volscians and Aequians
generally come in contact with each other on mount _Algidus_. There are
different opinions as to what mountain is meant by this name; scholars
commonly rely on a passage in the Itineraries, where a place _Algidus_ or
_Algidum_ is mentioned. The district is now never visited, because it is
the haunt of fearful robbers; however, after I had left Italy, a friend
of mine visited and described the localities. Between the countries of
the Latins and Hernicans, there was a high and cold table land, _locus
algidus_, not hills in the proper sense, but a rugged district covered
with wood (_ilex_). At present there remain but slight traces of that
forest, which is a little to the north of Velitrae. As the Aequians and
Volscians were contiguous there, they separated the Hernicans from the
Romans and Latins, and thus were pernicious to the latter. According to
these statements, you will have no difficulty in finding the situation of
mount Algidus in your maps.

ANTIUM was a Volscian place; I do not mean to say that the whole
population consisted of Volscians, but it had received a Volscian colony,
which gave the prevailing name; as Virgil says, _Tusco de sanguine
vires_, so we may say of Antium, _Volsco de sanguine vires_. In ancient
times, Antium was an important maritime and commercial place, but
also the haunt of pirates; afterwards it became a _colonia maritima_,
that is, its inhabitants were bound to serve in maritime war, and on
extraordinary emergencies; they had the Roman franchise, but not the
right of voting. The place was greatly favoured, and in the course of
time became the emporium of the whole Latin country; its harbour was much
better than that of any of the other towns on the same coast, such as
Laurentum and Lavinium, which had only road-steads. At a later time, it
was artificially improved, a circumstance which had become necessary, for
the mud of the Tiber, which was carried along the coast, filled up the
harbour. Afterwards Antium was one of those places, in which the wealthy
Roman nobles were fond of taking up their summer residence, especially
during the first century after Christ. Nero changed it into a military
colony, but of an irregular kind.

TERRACINA or ANXUR, was a large and ancient Tyrrhenian city; Anxur is
acknowledged to be its Volscian name. Its double name alone leads to the
supposition that the place had a mixed population.

ECETRAE, one of the central points of the Volscian population, must be
looked for in the interior of the country, above the Pontine marshes, and
not far from Ferentinum. It afterwards entirely disappears like so many
other places in that district. I cannot explain this otherwise, than by
supposing that the Romans have drawn a veil over the Samnite wars. The
time when so many places were destroyed there, must have been that when
the Samnites penetrated into the heart of Latium.

The Volscians, like the Aequians, belonged the Ausonian race, of which
I have spoken in the general survey of the Italian nations. If you
compare the names, you will find that the Opicans and Apulians were one
and the same people, and that the names of the ancient Italian nations
have undergone various changes without a difference in meaning. Thus
the _Aequi_ are also called _Aequani_, _Aequuli_, and _Aequiculi_, all
of which are one and the same name, just as _Graeci_ and _Graeculi_,
and _Hispani_ and _Hispalli_, which were originally used without any
difference of meaning. The Aequians and Volscians, as I said before,
belonged to this Oscan or Ausonian race, to which Latin writers also give
the name _Aurunci_, while the Greeks call them _Ausones_. The same name
often has a general signification, and sometimes again it is applied
only to a special part, just as _Thessalians_ sometimes signifies the
inhabitants of the country of Thessaly, and sometimes the population
of Cyzicus, Ravenna, and Agylla, without there being any necessity of
thinking of colonisation. In the same manner, Auruncans or Opicans
are both the name of the whole race, and at the same time the name of
separate portions. This changeableness in the use of names renders the
survey of the history of ancient nations difficult, as the ancients
themselves never express an opinion on this twofold meaning, and as those
whose works are extant, are often themselves in error about it.

The Volscians, thus regarded as a portion of the Ausonians or Auruncans,
extended from the Apennines in the neighbourhood of Arpinum along the
Liris, south of the Hernicans as far as the coast of Antium. But there
can be no doubt that they dwelt farther east, and the migration of the
Cascans and Priscans was certainly owing to a commotion among that race.
The Aeneid contains many traces of the original population of Latium, as
for example, when the poet says, _Memini Auruncos ita ferre senes_.[37]

I have already spoken of the Volscians on the coast, of Antium,
Terracina, and of the Ecetrani, whose name is often mentioned in history,
but whose town is not spoken of anywhere; from one passage of Livy[38]
alone, it may be inferred that it was situated near Ferentinum: it is
possible that it may have been taken from the Hernicans by the Volscians.
The population of such towns must never be conceived to have been
totally changed. The Gauls, and similar uncivilised nations, sometimes
did extirpate the ancient population; but people like the Romans and
Volscians only settled as colonists among a conquered population, taking
a part of its territory for themselves, either for the purpose of
cultivating it themselves or of changing the former owners into coloni.
Such also was the case with the population of Antium, as I have already
mentioned. In the second volume of my Roman History, I shall explain,
what in Livy’s history is quite inconceivable, namely, how it happens
that Antium appears as a thoroughly Volscian town, which can be accounted
for only by the idea we form of the power of the Volscian colonists.
Livy is not the only cause of the confusion, but the annalists of the
seventh century also have their share in it. If we had but Fabius, we
might safely say, that we required no further deductions to discover
the ancient relation, which in his work was undoubtedly quite clear and
obvious.

FUNDI and FORMIAE likewise belong to those Volscian towns established on
ancient Tyrrhenian foundations; but ARPINUM, the birth-place of Marius
and Cicero, is the most immortal among the Volscian towns. The present
circumference of the walls shows that it was a large and strong place.
This town, impelled by necessity, remained faithful to the Romans when
they were hard pressed by the Samnites.

FREGELLAE is found in our maps in the vicinity of Arpinum, and not far
from the Liris. It is remarkable in history, and its first occurrence
in Livy throws considerable light upon the course of events. It was
a Volscian town, and was destroyed by the Samnites; the Romans then,
contrary to the ordinary Italian law of nations, sent a colony into
it. The Samnites, who were allied with the Romans, denied their right
to establish a colony there. This was one of the chief causes of the
second Samnite war. The Samnites, however, were wrong in claiming it,
for Fregellae was the key to the Via Latina, and hence the security of
the Roman frontier demanded that the place should be in the hands of
the Romans: to the Samnites it was a point of attack, to the Romans it
was a means of defence; unless, therefore, the Samnites intended to
make war upon the Romans, they were wrong in opposing its occupation
by the Romans. Such circumstances must be taken into consideration, in
deciding upon the justice or injustice of a question. It is difficult
to comprehend how that town rose to such extraordinary power. Pyrrhus
conquered it, and it suffered greatly; but from the last book of Livy
we see that thousands of Sabellian families, Samnites, Pelignians, and
others had settled there. This circumstance, however, was followed by
consequences unfortunate for Fregellae. The numerical increase made
the town proud, and during the disputes between the Latin colonies and
Rome, it claimed to be at their head. Encouraged by the measures of the
Gracchi, it obstinately demanded the franchise long before the Italicans
came forward. On the whole, ancient history presents many parallels to
modern history, sometimes they occur on a larger scale in antiquity and
sometimes in modern times. The relation here alluded to is that of the
Irish in their connection with England. When Ireland, in 1782, demanded
its independence, the Anglicans in their claims against England, went
far beyond the Roman Catholics and the other dissenters, and they alone
gained advantages. A small parallel in comparison with the great one in
antiquity occurs at Geneva, in the relation between the _bourgeoisie_
of the suburb St. Gervais to the _citoyens_ of the old town, where the
_natifs_ had all the real power, while the _habitans_ possessed only
very little. Fregellae, then, stood at the head of the Latin colonies,
and looked with pride upon its power; its inhabitants believed that Rome
would not allow matters to come to extremes, and if they should come to
that, they counting the population of the Latin colonies found that they
were stronger than Rome by many hundred thousands: they thought that
they might oppose the Romans, degraded by freedmen and poverty, with an
able force of free country people. But the result was quite different.
Rome acted with cunning: the Italian allies had not yet made up their
minds, and did not yet take part in the interests of the Latins, thinking
that the Latin colonies would take care of themselves alone, and that,
if it should come to a war, they would become reconciled with Rome, and
leave the Italian allies to settle their affairs as best they could.
Even the other colonies showed no common interest, perhaps because they
were jealous of Fregellae, or they hesitated because they were so much
scattered among the Umbrians, Etruscans, etc., and for that reason were
wanting in courage. Fregellae thus stood alone: it was conquered and
destroyed by L. Opimius, and never restored. Fabrataria, another colony,
was established in its vicinity.

The Latin colonies, _Interamnium_, _Sora_, and _Casinum_, formed a
complete chain of fortresses in the same district. It was partly before
the outbreak of the second Samnite war, and partly during its progress,
that the Romans were anxiously bent upon establishing fortified places;
and these measures made them as secure as France was by its frontier
fortresses. Their frontier was thus very effectually protected against
the Samnites, for all those fortresses were planned with great sagacity.
The Samnites, who, besides their unsatisfactory constitution, had no
fortresses, were thus weak, and the Roman army could enter Samnium
without meeting with any obstacle. They were not inferior to the Romans
in bravery, but were nevertheless conquered by them, because they were
not agreed as to the manner in which the war should be carried on. It is
pitiable to see how the excellent people year after year became more
unhappy, because they could not raise themselves above their traditionary
prejudices, though their salvation depended upon it.


CAMPANIA.

This name has likewise different meanings. In the Roman sense, it is the
country of the Campanians, as Samnium is the country of the Samnites; but
the Campanians (on coins they are called _Capani_) are the inhabitants
of Capa or Capua. In this sense Campania is a country of small extent,
comprising Capua and the neighbouring places, Atella, Acerrae, Saticula,
Calatia, Abella, Casilinum, Vulturnum, and Linternum. All these places
were situated on the south of the Vulturnus, with the exception of
Saticula; the _ager Falernus_, between the Vulturnus and Liris, however,
likewise belonged to Campania. The Greeks, on the other hand, applied the
name Campanians to all the nations of southern Italy belonging to the
Oscan race, and this accounts for the fact that the name Campania was
also used in a wider sense. This, however, occurs only in later times;
and the extent of country which is marked Campania in all our maps, even
in those of D’Anville, was not generally so designated until the time of
Augustus. The name then embraced the whole country between the Vulturnus,
the Liris, and the heights of the Apennines about Arpinum and Aquinum, so
as to include Cales and Teanum,—in one word, all the Oscan tribes north
of the Vulturnus as far as the frontier of the Volscians. I think I have
already observed, in the account of the division of Italy into regions,
that the expression _Campania Romae_ was used as early as the fourth
or fifth century of our era; it is found in the abridgment of Servius,
which, however, was made in the seventh century. The name Champagne has
quite a different origin, probably from _campus_, a plain, whence _Campi
Catalaunici_, which also comprise the foreign immigrants such as the
Goths and others.

You must bear in mind this difference of meaning, in order that in
reading the ancients, e.g., Livy, you may not fall into the mistake of
believing that Campania is the name for the country which is so marked in
our maps.

Advancing from the Liris, we come upon Ausonian tribes and CALES, which,
according to Livy, was an Auruncian town. It was conquered by the Romans
in the interval between the great Latin and the second Samnite war, and
received a Roman colony.

TEANUM was a town of the Sidicines, likewise an Ausonian people. That
northern district between the Vulturnus and the Liris, which did not
extend as far as the mountains, is one of the most delightful and fertile
countries; it is not, indeed, as productive as southern Campania, the
_agri lugubres Campaniae_, the πεδία Φλεγραῖα, the coast country from
Terracina to Gaeta and Formiae, where a man has the feeling as if he were
in a paradise full of the most indescribable beauties—I was there in the
month of March, when spring was already displaying all its loveliness;
the summer, too, is not so scorching as in the neighbourhood of Rome, for
the country is well watered, and that even in the middle of summer;—but
the neighbourhood of Teanum is a most delightful hilly country, with a
beauty and richness of trees which form a great contrast with those of
Latium. This was the country of the Falernian and Classic wines. Teanum,
according to Strabo, was a large town; but the present ruins do not show
many traces of that greatness, though the silver coins which are found
there show that Strabo is correct.

The LIRIS deserves the name of _taciturnus amnis_; it has no strong
current, except in winter, when the heights are covered with snow. The
VULTURNUS is quite different; descending from the neighbouring hills it
has a strong current; but it is not a beautiful river, being extremely
muddy. It is, however, a pleasure to see the active flow of its waters.
On its banks was situated

CASILINUM, on the site of the modern Capua, which is celebrated for
the extraordinary defence of the Praenestine cohort against Hannibal:
the perseverance of a besieged town is always interesting, and excites
veneration. The garrison murdered the Campanian inhabitants, that the
provisions might last so much longer. Hannibal took the place, and after
that time it is not often mentioned again. The situation on the Via Appia
somewhat raised its importance in the time of the emperors; its means of
subsistence, as was the case with all places on high roads, were derived
from commerce.

If we compare the present condition of Italy with what it was in ancient
times, say under Nero or at the time of Pliny, there can be no doubt that
Rome itself is only a shadow of what it then was; I have calculated that
its population then amounted to from 600,000 to 700,000 souls. But the
territory around Rome was in those days far more desolate than it is now:
it is at present more thickly peopled, better cultivated, and happier.
Under the later emperors the country may have somewhat recovered; in
the fourth century, previously to the plague under Gallienus, it may
have had a larger population, and so also in the time of Theodosius.
But I entirely agree with Hume, against Wallace, that the population of
Italy in antiquity was far less numerous than at present, except in Rome
itself. Naples was then only a country town, of about 20,000 or 30,000
inhabitants, while at present it has 400,000. But notwithstanding all
this, Italy possessed incomparably more wealth than at present, so that
a small town was of much greater importance than one at present with a
far larger population; a third-rate town, for example, was illustrious
for its works of art to a much greater extent than any modern town of any
country.

The name CAPUA is now transferred to the town built upon the ruins
of Casilinum; ancient Capua was destroyed by the Saracens during the
Lombardic period: its ruins can still be recognised; and among them the
remains of an amphitheatre are particularly remarkable; but no ancient
Campanian ruins are found there. I never was there, because at the time
the country was not safe, and there are no high roads in those parts: I
was a whole month at Naples, but was too much engaged to go to Capua. The
inhabitants of the district are reported to form a band of robbers, and
many a one is said to have had sad experience there. Notorious districts
of this kind, however, are different at different times: you may often go
to such a place without exposing yourself to any particular danger, while
at other times it would be madness to approach it. During my residence
at Rome, e.g., it was impossible to visit mount Algidus, whereas at
present I have no doubt whatever that a person may go there without any
danger. Capua is regarded by the ancients as an Etruscan colony, but we
have every reason for supposing that it never was Etruscan. There is, in
all probability, some confusion here between Etruscan and Tyrrhenian,
because the Etruscans occupied the country of the Tyrrhenians as far as
the Tiber, and the name of the latter must have been confounded with
the former; the other places on the coast, unless they were Greek, were
likewise Tyrrhenian. The name of this Tyrrhenian Capua is compared
by the ancient grammarians with _Campi_, the name of the Pelasgian
Chaonians. The town was taken, about the middle of the third century of
the Roman era, by the Oscans, who were pressed onward by the Sabellians.
At that time the district was under the supremacy of Cumae. But the
Oscans did not remain long in the undisturbed possession of the place;
the Sabellians having once established themselves in Samnium, did not
stop short there, but pressing onward, compelled the Oscans at Capua to
enter into an arrangement with them, and to admit a portion of them as
epoeci—a phenomenon not unusual in ancient times. But such an alliance
was generally formed with faithless intentions, and either the ancient
inhabitants murdered the conquerors, or the latter expelled the former:
at Capua the Samnites made themselves masters of the city, but they
seem either to have been expelled by the ancient population, or else to
have become amalgamated with them. The Oscans had, perhaps, become a
commonalty, and afterwards rose again; in the Roman period, at least,
the Oscans are the ruling people at Capua. The greatness of the city is
well known from Livy: it stood to Rome in the relation of isopolity; it
had not submitted _in deditionem_, as is erroneously stated by Livy: its
relation to Rome was the same as that of the ancient Latins, and as a
compensation for the Roman conquests, it received an extension of its own
territory. In these circumstances, Capua could with satisfaction look
upon herself as the second city of Italy; but she was ambitious enough
to wish to become the first, and with this view, faithlessly entered
into an alliance with Hannibal against Rome, which was then in great
distress, but had not broken its obligations towards Capua. We may say
without hesitation, that Rome was generous towards Capua, and this was
no trifling matter for Rome in its weakness: Rome then formed alliances
which benefited other people. As Rome had grown and developed immensely,
while the others had remained behind, and as Rome, nevertheless, acted
towards them as before, we cannot help calling this generous, and the
conduct of Capua unjust and ungrateful. A fearful judgment came upon
Capua: it was not, indeed, destroyed, but the Campanians, especially the
nobles, experienced a terrible fate. The city was afterwards again filled
with all manner of people, and became a domain of the Roman republic.
Subsequently, several unsuccessful attempts were made to establish a
colony there, until J. Caesar founded one of 5000[39] Roman citizens.
From this time forward Capua was a regular colony, and remained a
respectable town as long as the Roman empire existed.

MINTURNAE, near the mouth of the Liris, and SINUESSA, belong to
Campania in its wider sense; both are prominent places in the system of
fortifications which the Romans carried out during the second Samnite war.

The FALERNIAN DISTRICT, between the Vulturnus and the Liris, probably
derived its name from a destroyed town, Faleria.

The Oscan towns around Capua probably stood to that city in the same
relation as Latium did to Rome. Among them I will notice ATELLA,
between Capua and Naples, because the well-known _Atellanae_ originated
there. These Atellane farces are truly analogous to the modern farcical
comedies, the principal personage of which also appeared in the ancient
Atellanae. In a very useful glossary of the Neapolitan dialect, I found
it stated, that the buffoon (_pulcinella_) was a real jester who lived
200 years ago; but the fact is, that he has been the same through the
course of many centuries from the first introduction of the Atellanae.

ACERRAE deserves to be mentioned on account of the cruelty of which
Hannibal was guilty towards its senate—the only cruel act that can be
really laid to his charge. The town was destroyed in the second Punic
war, and the Romans did nothing to restore it, although it had been
faithfully attached to their cause.

NOLA was situated at a greater distance from Capua, and was not one of
the Campanian towns properly so called; it was independent, and in no
way subordinate to Capua. It might be doubted whether it was really
an Oscan town; in Justin it is called a Chalcidian settlement, and I
have no doubt that the whole chapter in which this occurs is taken from
Timaeus. The coins of Nola have a perfectly Greek character and Greek
inscriptions; this is indeed the case with those of Capua also, though
not in the same degree as with those of Nola. My opinion is, that these
places were originally Tuscan, and that during invasions of the Oscans
and Sabellians, Capua lost this Tusco-Tyrrhenian character, while Nola
retained it longer. If then the Greeks call the latter place Chalcidian,
they do so because it received Greek, probably Chalcidian, epoeci from
Naples, and not barbarians. All these towns were situated in the midst
of barbarians, who, for the purpose of commercial transactions, even
advanced to the Greek towns on the coast, and accordingly much more to a
place which, like Nola, was situated in the midst of the country. Nola
was built in that splendid plain of Campania, which extends between the
Vulturnus and Naples: it is a perfect plain, with quite a volcanic soil;
notwithstanding this, however, it is not dry, but very well watered,
and almost marshy, whence the country abounds in draining canals lined
with poplars. Nola, situated on the other side of mount Vesuvius, whose
torrents of lava never reach so far, forms with Capua and Naples a
triangle. In the second Samnite war it appears to have been an important
town, for it sent 2000 men to Naples to defend that place against Rome;
but in the course of the same war it was taken by the Romans. In the
Hannibalian war, the fidelity of Nola was of infinite importance to Rome.
At Nola the most beautiful Campanian vases have been found: they are made
of an extremely fine clay; but they ceased to be manufactured as early
as the time of Augustus, for the art of making them had been lost. They
were made of clay mixed with asphalt, and then burnt, but so slightly
that the asphalt was not changed by the process, hence the lightness and
extraordinary fineness of the material. The darkness of the colour arises
from the admixture of asphalt. Professor Hausmann of Göttingen first
re-discovered the nature of the composition, and the experiments he made
with it which were perfectly successful. This is really an interesting
discovery, of which good use might be made, if not in Germany, at least
in Italy. The art had died away to such a degree, that in Caesar’s time
amateurs collected vases from Capua as well as from Corinth, and even
opened tombs for the purpose of obtaining them. The vases of Arretium
continued to be manufactured in the time of Augustus. The Campanian vases
are not jars containing the ashes of deceased persons, such as we find
elsewhere in tombs: the body was not burnt, but the skeletons are found
in coffins, and on each side of the coffin, four, six, or eight vases
of this kind are set up. As they were so slightly burnt, they are often
found broken and crumbled, and it is a rare thing to find a large one
preserved entire. They must be treated with great care, when brought to
light and exposed to the atmospheric air.

CUMAE is the most ancient Greek colony in those parts, though it
certainly cannot be as ancient as it is said to be. In the first edition
of my Roman History, I had not sufficiently considered this point; it is
one of the few subjects on which the objections raised against my view
are well founded. I am now convinced, that the statement of Timaeus, for
to him it belongs, is false. Certain it is, that Cumae was an ancient
Chalcidian colony; but it might even be doubted whether the Chalcidian
towns in Sicily were not more ancient. When Capua was taken by the
Samnites, Cumae, too, was conquered, and lost its Greek character: the
Greek population, which until then had formed the ruling class, became
subjects; their fate was that of the American aborigines: they were not
indeed extirpated, but lost their political existence. Gradually the
Italicans spread more and more, and many families from Campania removed
to Cumae, which thus gradually became Italian. The same also was the fate
of Naples, though not to such a degree. Cumae for a long time ruled over
the whole Phlegraean plain, that is, the Acte between the Vulturnus and
mount Vesuvius. _Dicaearchia_, on the site of the modern Puzzuoli, was
then the port town of Cumae. In the time of king Darius, it was colonised
by Samians, probably in the reign of Polycrates and Syloson.

Another Greek colony from Eretria had settled in the island of ISCHIA,
which bore the Greek name Αἰναρία. It is a large extinct volcano, which,
however, has repeatedly been active both in ancient and in modern
times; for the island is remarkable for its internal fire, which is not
yet quite extinct, and is still distinctly perceptible; hence it also
contains hot springs; it is a truly paradise-like place on account of
the fiery character of its whole nature, its soil, and its vegetation.
The Greek colony afterwards disappears, and the island became Oscan
simultaneously with Cumae.

Between Ischia and the main land of Naples, there are several other
islands, which were no doubt called PITHECUSAE. One of them is NESIS
(the modern Nisita), that is, the little island (νησίς), a proof showing
how early the modern Greek pronunciation of the η became prevalent. The
ancients do not mention it.[40] Another island was PROCHYTA. All these
islands had Eretrian colonies.

DICAEARCHIA was a beautiful port, which was, no doubt, likewise taken by
Campanians. After the capture of Capua, it came into the hands of the
Romans, who established a Roman colony there, and called it PUTEOLI,
though this name may have existed previously. The place then became the
real port of Rome, for Ostia was bad, and the Portus Romanus on the
right arm of the Tiber was not fit for sea-ships. The port of Puteoli,
on the other hand, was naturally very beautiful, and even in the time of
Augustus pains were taken to make use of the nature of the locality for
the purpose of extending the port. Puzzolano, so excellent as a cement
for water and harbour-works, was ready at hand in abundance, and in the
greatest perfection. In the neighbourhood of Rome it is likewise found,
but is not so beautiful; near Centumcellae, it was also employed in
making the harbour, but it had to be conveyed thither from a distance.
Its abundance in the neighbourhood led to the building of the molo of
Puteoli. This _moles_ of Caligula is in reality not so mad a scheme as it
is commonly described: it was suggested by the wishes of rational people,
but its gigantic extent was the work of madness: when ever Caligula took
up a good idea, he at once turned it into something irrational. The whole
commerce and intercourse of Rome with her transmarine provinces at that
time was carried on by way of Puteoli; and it was there that St. Paul
landed, for the voyage along the coast from cape Misenum to the mouth
of the Tiber was very dangerous. The ships of that period were in many
respects excellent, but in others they were very deficient. It must be
supposed that at Puteoli the ships were generally so far unladen as to
enable them to sail into the Tiber at Ostia; they also found at Puteoli
more easily than on the Tiber, advantageous cargoes to carry back. So
long as commerce supplied only the actual wants, so that there was little
or no speculation, it was carried on by means of large fleets, or,
according to the modern expression, of register vessels. In this way,
Rome received from Egypt her supplies of corn, glass, linen, and papyrus.
Such fleets, however, did not come from Egypt alone, but also from
other quarters, among which Ionia, for example, is expressly mentioned.
The expression for these fleets is κατάπλους, as we see from Lucian’s
dialogue of this name; but the term is also quite commonly used by Latin
writers of the second and third century.[41] Puteoli, as a Roman colony,
was very celebrated on account of its situation and at the same time as
a watering-place. Pope Gregory the Great quite seriously thinks that the
hot springs of Puteoli are connected with purgatory.[42]

The real watering-place, however, was BAIAE, towards cape Misenum. It
is very remarkable that at present the district is quite pestilential;
if a man were to sleep there one night during the summer, he would be
seized with a bilious fever, in consequence of the poisonous air. A
French officer, who imagined this to be a mere prejudice, made a bet
that he would sleep in the villa Borghese: he was urgently requested
not to do it, but the next morning he was quite swollen, and after a
few days he died of a putrid fever. The same is the case at Baiae, and
yet the ancients, as we see from a fragment of Cicero’s speech _in
Clodium et Curionem_, most commonly stayed there in April, when it is
already dangerous. I have discovered the explanation of all this, from
a conversation with a common man. He said to me that the nature of the
Pontine marshes was a very strange thing, that it was not possible for
any one in summer to sleep there without fatal consequences, and that
it was the same in many parts of Latium; but, he added, that to his
own knowledge sailors and boatmen, even in the dangerous season, slept
in their boats very near the coast without injuring their health. This
proves that the poisonous atmosphere does not extend across the water.
The man’s remarks contain a significant hint. I remembered that the
English ambassador, with whom I often took a walk there—he was not a
man of learning—directed my attention to the fact, that beyond mount
Posilipo, in the midst of the sea, ruins of ancient Roman houses were
found, and he observed that the Romans must have had a singular taste in
thus building houses in the midst of the water, and connected with the
mainland by means of bridges, although there was no beauty to attract
them. To abandon such a charming coast, and to build a house in the sea,
was, he thought, a strange fancy. When, afterwards, I heard the account
of the man I mentioned before, the matter ceased to be a mystery to me.
Even at Formiae, and certainly at Baiae, the Romans built houses into
the sea, in order to isolate themselves from the bad air: these are the
_moles jactae in altum_, and on them people were safe.

The country there is indescribably beautiful and charming, and besides
Baiae, the lake AVERNUS, surrounded by very ancient forests, is likewise
a spot of great interest. Near it, a road has been cut through the rock
leading to Cumae. Such roads were often constructed for the purpose
of shortening the distance and avoiding the heights, for the Romans
generally endeavoured by every means to shorten the roads. A similar
road leads from Naples to Puzzuoli, likewise made to avoid a hill, which
it would be very difficult to cross: hence the _crypta Pausilippana_,
_Puteolana_, _Neapolitana_.[43] The Avernus was, no doubt, originally
called ἄορνος, and with the digamma ἄϝορνος. This etymology has been
rejected, because it implied the statement that birds could not fly over
the lake, which, it is said, is an absurdity. But no bird settles there
without dying in consequence, on account of the quantity of carbonic
acid which is exhaled by the earth and the lake; dogs, too, are not safe
there, but men may pass without any danger.

NAPLES[44] was originally called PARTHENOPE, and was, no doubt, situated
on mount Posilipo, towards Nisita, where the crypta turns towards the
cape. Afterwards, NEAPOLIS was built a few miles from it on the other
side of the cape; and it is a mistake to believe that the two places
were nearer each other. Parthenope was a colony of the Eretrians of
Ischia, while Neapolis was a Cumaean settlement with an admixture of
Athenians; and after the establishment of the latter place, Parthenope
was called PALAEPOLIS. In the second Samnite war, Palaepolis was taken
by the Romans, and must have been destroyed, for it entirely disappears;
Neapolis, on the other hand, became a federate town of Rome, and was
treated with kindness. Strabo, however, relates, that the town was
so much distracted by internal disturbances, as to be obliged to
concede the franchise even to the Campanians, its natural enemies. But
notwithstanding all this, it remained a perfectly Greek city until the
imperial times; this is evident in the reign of Augustus, evident from
a letter of the emperor M. Aurelius to Fronto, and evident, also, from
Petronius; there exists, moreover, a great number of Greek inscriptions
of the third century. Afterwards, we lose our thread. But the chapel
of the ancient church of S. Rosa at Naples contains Greek inscriptions
of the period when Naples was a free city, under the protectorate of
Byzantium, that is, of the seventh or eighth century.[45] Traces of Greek
words still exist in the Neapolitan dialect. The Italian word _golf_ is
evidently formed from κόλπος; the gulf of Naples is specially called
_the_ gulf; but the ancients also called it κρατήρ.

On this gulf, at the foot of mount Vesuvius, were situated the celebrated
towns of POMPEII and HERCULANEUM, remarkable for their destruction and
their re-discovery. Both are called Oscan, though it is said in regard
to Herculaneum, that at an earlier period it was Tyrrhenian. But from
their ruins, especially those of Herculaneum when compared with those of
Roman origin, it is clear that the place had assumed an entirely Greek
character. Pompeii was conquered by the Romans in the Social War, and
there, too, we can clearly distinguish the ancient Oscan and the more
recent Roman town.

In ancient times, the bay of Naples was encircled by a wreath of towns,
extending all over the coast from Naples to Sorrentum and the promontory
of Minerva; but I cannot trace them here, and must now proceed to the
interior of Italy.


THE SABELLIANS, SABINES, SAMNITES.

I am now going to speak of the great Sabellian nation; I shall treat of
it according to its tribes beginning with the Sabines, who formed the
original stock.

The names _Sabini_ and _Sabelli_ are the same, just as _Hispani_ and
_Hispalli_, _Graeci_ and _Graeculi_. The form _Sabelli_ is either a
diminutive or changed by a pleonasm, _Sabinulus_, and, with a change of
vowel, _Sabellus_.[46] This nation occupies a large extent of country
in history; but we should be mistaken, if we were to suppose, that all
the tribes included under the name were pure Sabines and that they
alone inhabited the countries governed by them; for they did not by any
means extirpate the ancient inhabitants when they conquered a country.
According to a tradition admitted by Cato himself, which contains some
truth, but disfigured, the Sabines had originally come from Amiternum,
the highest district of the Abruzzi, or as we may call them, the real
Apennine Alps. We must not, indeed, understand this, as if the Sabines
had been autochthons there, as has sometimes been asserted; but the
meaning is, that the tribe from which the different Sabellian cantons
issued, came down from those mountains. The ancients say no more than
this, but later writers have converted it into a genealogical connection.

We cannot decide how far the Sabellians constituted one race with the
Opicans and Auruncans, whether they were akin in a degree like that
subsisting between the upper and lower Germans, the Suabians and Saxons,
or the Germans and Scandinavians, or whether they were as foreign to
each other as the Romans were to the Etruscans. That they differed from
each other, is expressly attested. But the ancients are too inaccurate
in these matters to allow a careful modern inquirer to accept their
statement without hesitation; and although Varro attests that the Sabines
and Oscans spoke different languages, still we cannot ascertain, whether
he meant only different dialects, or entirely different languages. In
like manner, the extension of the Sabellians in southern Italy from the
Apennines can be traced only very indefinitely. This much, e.g., is
attested, that the neighbourhood of Beneventum was previously occupied
by Oscans, without their being the original natives of it; they must
have extended even farther upwards into the country of the Marsians, and
must have been expelled by the Sabines. The name Maluentum shows, that
originally a people of Tyrrhenian origin dwelt between the Apennines and
the valley of the Calore. Before the Sabines conquered that district,
they probably had their abode in the eastern Apennines. The real and
unmixed Sabines occupied a considerable extent of country; in the
narrowest sense, they did not touch the sea on either side, either the
Adriatic or the Lower Sea, but they extended so far, as to be separated
from the latter only by a narrow strip of land, from Amiternum to the
vicinity of Rome. But they sent forth branches of their nation which
established themselves in other parts and became great nations.

The Sabellian people had this peculiarity, that they formed both distinct
tribes and different confederations. Some of them accordingly, such as
the Picentians, were without any federal relations, while the four tribes
dwelling in the Abruzzi, the Marsians, Marrucinians, Pelignians, and
Vestinians, were on many occasions inseparably united, and evidently
formed a confederation with isopolity, similar to that subsisting between
the Romans and Latins; it was, no doubt, at the same time, at least
a defensive, if not an offensive, alliance. The supremacy must have
belonged to one of these tribes by rotation, so that each of them may
conveniently be called a canton. They stand completely by themselves, and
without any connection with the mother people, the Picentians, Samnites,
etc. This isolation of the Sabellian tribes was their misfortune. The
Marsians and their allies never assisted the Samnites, but allowed
themselves to be captivated by the Romans, by favourable terms, first
to remain neutral, and afterwards to become their allies. Nor can the
Samnites be regarded as a compact nation in their struggles against
Rome; if this had been the case, they would unquestionably have offered
a very different resistance, for they had a large population and an
extensive territory. The Samnites, like the northern tribes, formed a
confederation, but their bond of union was scarcely closer than that
among their neighbours: they formed perfectly distinct states, which
joined one another for a common purpose. The Hirpinians, Caudines, and
Pentrians certainly formed a confederation; but the Frentanians did not,
strictly speaking, belong to this union; they separated at an early time.
To these we must add a fifth Samnite state, to which Nuceria Alfaterna
belonged; its name is unknown, though it was perhaps called Alfaterna,
and extended from Surrentum to the Silarus. Scylax of Caryanda clearly
proves, that this district, from Surrentum to the Silarus, before it was
occupied by Greeks, was inhabited by Samnites, and the same is manifest
from Livy’s account. When the Romans penetrated there, Nuceria was a
Samnite town, and they conquered it as such. In this manner we have,
exclusive of the Frentanians, who took no great part in the second
Samnite war, four Samnite cantons, which were very populous. In no map
are the Caudines mentioned as a tribe, but that they were one is clear
from Strabo and Velleius; manuals of geography and maps mention Caudium
only as a town.

The LUCANIANS proceeded from the Samnites, but became quite independent
of them. The connection with the mother-country was extremely loose
with all these people; their migrations are quite different from those
of other nations: they are conquests of emigrating bands of men, who
for this reason lose their language and national character, and adopt
those of the old inhabitants. According to a tradition, the Lucanians
emigrated from Samnium as a _ver sacrum_. This phenomenon occurs among
all the Italian nations: a people made a vow, that all boys born within a
certain year should, after the lapse of twenty years, emigrate and seek
a new home for themselves. Thus the Lucanians emigrated, and spread from
the frontiers of Samnium as far as Rhegium on the straits of Messina.
The ancient inhabitants were subdued, and thus three strata of different
nations were mixed together: the ancient Oenotrians were conquered by the
Oscans, and the Oscans by the Samnites. But these subjects afterwards
rose against their rulers, and formed an independent state under the name
of BRUTTIUM. The Bruttians, therefore, did not belong to the Sabellians;
they must be regarded as a mixture of Oenotrians and Greeks, and were
Greek rather than Italian, whence they were treated by the Romans as
Greeks. The Greek language was so firmly established there, that in Terra
di Lecce, about Otranto, documents were composed in the Greek language as
late as the fifteenth century; specimens of it occur in the Biblioteca
Barberini. In the town of Rossano in Calabria, Greek was spoken as late
as the sixteenth century,[47] and in Sicily Greek poetry was written
in the twelfth; when the Arabs were expelled the remaining population
consisted of Greeks, and it was not till a later period that they became
Italians. The praetor of Messina was, ever since the Greek times, called
_Stratigo_, until in 1672[48] the people revolted against Spain, when
the constitution and the office were abolished. The laws of king Roger
and of Frederic II. were written in Greek.

In this manner, the component parts of the Sabellian nation, from the
Picentians down to the Lucanians, presented different shades of their
national character. The Sabine blood in some of them was probably not
of more importance than the Frankish blood is among the modern French;
for the 20,000 Franks of king Clovis were easily lost among the millions
of Gauls. In our neighbourhood on the Rhine, however, the population is
almost entirely Frankish, as the Franks settled here in great multitudes.
The population here on both sides of the Rhine, and as far as the low
German dialect is spoken, that is, as far as Andernach, is descended from
the Ripuarian Franks. In the Netherlands also, there are Franks, but
strongly mixed with Gauls, Batavian and Frisian tribes; still, however,
the population is more Frankish than in France, and in northern France it
is more so than in the south; from the Loire to Gascony only the lords
of the land are Franks. In Languedoc, there was only a French garrison,
and the remaining population, for centuries, remained Gothic. Although,
therefore, the Franks extended even beyond the Pyrenees, their race, from
the Main to Spain, presented very great differences. The country now
called Franconia, scarcely contains any Franks at all. We cannot wonder,
therefore, at the fact that in antiquity the Lucanians and the Sabines of
Reate did not understand one another.

The constitution of the Sabellian nations seems to have been essentially
democratic, so that in the course of time the subjects acquired the full
right of free country people. This nation, then, in point of manners
and character, was extremely respectable, and this is the special
glory of the ancient Sabines, Marsians, and of the Samnites with their
confederates; the Picentians and Lucanians are less deserving of this
praise. The Latin poets, from Virgil to Juvenal, always set forth the
former, when they want to describe the frugal Italian mode of living.
If the nation had but formed one compact state, it would not have been
too weak at all. The Samnites had as many free citizens as the Romans
and Latins, but although their forces were numerically equal to those
of the Romans, still there was this difference, that they did not form
one body. There can be no question that the different cantons had the
supreme command by rotation, and this constituted their great weakness
in the conflict with Rome, for in courage and perseverance the Samnites
were assuredly not wanting. Even when in one year they gained great
advantages they were useless, as in the next year the command belonged to
another nation. C. Pontius was the only man among the Samnites capable
of governing a state: he might have saved his country, if it had trusted
him unconditionally—the Romans would, no doubt, have raised him to the
consulship year after year. But it would seem that he had the supreme
command only in one town—he was probably a Caudine—while in the next
year the Pentrians had the management of affairs. Other men did much,
sacrificed everything, and dreaded nothing, but he alone had the power
of saving his country. To what extent their country was ravaged, may be
seen from the newly discovered fragments of Polybius, in which Pyrrhus,
on entering Samnium, is described as terrified at the devastation of the
country: the Romans had ravaged it in such a manner, that all traces
of human habitations had disappeared: it was just what Peloponnesus is
at present,[49] consisting of heaps of ruins and ashes, the villages
were destroyed, trees were torn up, and not a trace of agriculture
or the plough was left. All this the Samnites bore with inflexible
determination; their desperate courage several times brought matters
to a turning point, but they lacked the greatest of all things, the
courage to sacrifice their prejudices and to change their constitution
in such a manner as to adapt it to the circumstances of the time. Their
descendants, in the Marsian or Social War, discovered their mistake, and
adopted a new constitution; from the little we know of it, we must infer,
that it was extremely well devised: it seems to have resembled that of
the United States of America, concentrating the nation in regard to
foreign enemies, but leaving the municipal sovereignty untouched. It is a
pity that we do not know more about it; still, however, many things can
be conjectured.

Of all the towns in the country of the Sabines proper, CURES is most
renowned in tradition. The country of the Sabines, beginning at the Anio,
extends beyond Amiternum, and consists of several divisions. The portion
between the Nera and Anio is a hilly country; it is most adapted to the
cultivation of olives, which, if well taken care of, would produce there
excellent oil; corn, too, can be grown there, but it is unfavourable to
the cultivation of the vine, whence Sabine wine was considered bad by
the ancients, and is so still. In the angle descending towards Rome, the
ancients mention no important towns; but farther up, we come to REATE
and INTERAMNA. Reate is said to have been a very ancient place of the
Aborigines, that is, the Prisci, and to have been taken from them by the
Sabines. Near Reate the olive-growing district rises tolerably high into
the Apennines. Lake VELINUS is situated there in a very wide hollow; it
is said formerly to have been several miles in circumference, like lake
Fucinus. When Curius Dentatus conquered that district for the Romans
(463), he executed one of the most magnificent works in the world. He
drew off the water from the lake in such a manner as to gain thereby
several square miles of the most beautiful land; and at the same time
the beautiful waterfall of Terni was formed. The crater of the lake
is shut up on one side by the lofty Apennines, and on the other by a
ridge of rock, which confined the river. Curius, therefore, according
to a statement in one of Cicero’s letters, cut through the ridge which
separated the river from the Nera. The level of this canal was from 130
to 140 feet above the river, and this gave rise to the matchless cascade,
of course without any intention on the part of Curius, for it was not
his object to create beautiful scenery. A person who has seen that
waterfall, can no longer take any pleasure in that of the Rhine, near
Schaffhausen. Every one knows the canal through the rock, for thousands
of travellers visit the falls of Terni, and generally drive about a mile
further to lake Lugo for the purpose of hearing the beautiful echo. I
visited it accompanied by my friend Brandis; I knew what is generally
known in Italy, though not so generally in Germany, that there is a
cutting through the rock, and I said to our guide that I wanted to go up
the canal as far as the lake. The man made difficulties, saying that it
was not a road for gentlemen, but fit only for rustics. But I insisted
on carrying out my plan, and we thus came to the canal which is cut
through the rock at an immense depth. When the man observed that we were
interested in it, he said, I will take you to see another curiosity,
which no one goes to see, if the road is not too difficult for you. It
was a Roman bridge, the existence of which was then altogether unknown:
it consists of a single arch, and is a splendid work constructed of
large blocks without any cement—a work like the cloacae; there can be no
doubt that this bridge also is a work of Curius. It is not mentioned in
any book of travel. The same guide told us that the people of Reate and
Terni once had a law-suit about an aqueduct, and that the former applied
to Cicero, and the latter to an advocate of the last century:[50] a
remarkable instance of the manner in which legends arise.

The frontier of the Sabines proper extends from the Anio to the
Apennines, and the people in that part are called simply the Sabines.
Here we have to take into consideration the tradition, that they did not
originally inhabit the country south of Reate, but that they overpowered
the ancient inhabitants of the Ausonian race. In the early history
of Rome, these Sabines are of great importance; they are one of the
constituent elements of Rome, and the Sabine settlements on two of the
Roman hills formed part of ancient Rome. Afterwards too they act a
prominent part, for during the first sixty years after the expulsion of
the kings Sabine wars are frequently mentioned. It is true, that history
contains much that is apocryphal, but the fact that there were wars with
the Sabines is certain, only we must not imagine that all the Sabines
took part in them. We cannot suppose that the Sabines of Amiternum sent
their troops to the Tiber, any more than we can assume that, during the
Volscian wars, the more distant towns of the Volscian nation took part
in them. After the time of the decemvirate, and perhaps even before, the
Romans had established with them the same relation of isopolity, which
had already existed in the third century, but had been broken up. It was
then restored, perhaps even survived the Gallic calamity, and continued
until 463, when M’ Curius conquered the Sabines. After this subjugation,
we read in our meagre accounts _Sabinis civitas data est_, which is the
_civitas sine suffragio_. At the end of the first Punic war, the Sabines
were constituted as two tribes, whose names, Quirina and Velina, alone
clearly show that they consisted of Sabines. From this it is generally
inferred, that the whole nation then obtained the full franchise; but
this supposition is inconsistent with what we read in Livy (xxviii.
45) about the preparations of Scipio. This passage is one of the most
suggestive in regard to Roman affairs: I have often referred to it, and
shall often have to return to it; it clearly shows, which towns had the
Roman franchise, and which were only federate towns. Reate and Amiternum
are there mentioned in the same relation as the Umbrians, Etruscans,
Marsians, and Pelignians; they supported Scipio in his undertaking by
voluntary contributions and by recruiting for him, which would not have
been possible, if they had had the franchise. Napoleon treated dependent
nations far more severely than the French themselves, but the Romans
were nobler in this respect, and as they were the rulers, they also
considered themselves bound to make exertions which they did not expect
from their subjects. In many respects it was far more advantageous to be
a Roman ally than to be a Roman citizen. There were towns on which no
demands were made until the end of a campaign, because it would have been
contrary to their privilege; and the _coloniae maritimae_ often became
really impertinent in insisting upon their privileges.

I have little to say about the towns in the country of the Sabines
proper. The most important among them are REATE and AMITERNUM, neither
of which has a history of any consequence. It is said that there still
exist considerable ruins of Amiternum, but I have not seen them. It was
the birth-place of the historian Sallust. The fact that, during the
seventh and eighth centuries, Roman authors arose in this as in the Oscan
districts, is a proof how easy the transition from their language into
the Latin must have been; not one Roman author arose in Etruria.

The other parts of the Sabine country are high and mountainous; they have
a true Alpine character, with all the peculiar vegetation of the Alps;
even Icelandic moss grows there. As to the constitution of the Sabines
and their union into one state, nothing is known.


PICENUM.

The north of the country of the Sabines was occupied by the Sabellian
tribe of the Picentians in the Marca Ancona, between Abruzzo, the
frontier of the Sabines and Marrucinians, and the Aesis. Their country
begins at the heights on the other side of the Apennines, and slopes
down to the Adriatic, being one of the most beautiful hilly countries;
but it has already something of the character of northern Italy, and the
air is not southern; olives, however, still grow there, though not of the
same beauty, and they are of a different type. The air and atmosphere
are nearly the same as in Lombardy. Picenum forms the boundary between
Central and Northern Italy.

According to tradition, this country was originally inhabited by
Pelasgians, and was taken possession of by the Sabellians at a later
period, through a _ver sacrum_. Such emigrations took place in
consequence of a vow made either in times of distress, or during the
calamities of war; but sometimes also they were the consequence of
over-population. The emigrants were always guided by divine signs,
concerning which there existed special legends. The Cumaeans related that
their ancestors had been guided by a dove flying before their ships;
others were led by a bull (as Cadmus to Thebes), the Hirpinians by a
wolf (_hirpus_), and the Picentians by a woodpecker (_pica_) which flew
before them. Traces of a longer continuance of the earlier population
in the country may still be distinctly recognised. In other respects
those districts are obscure to us, because the history of the times in
which they acted a part is so obscure, or rather is entirely lost to us.
This is the case, e.g., with the Picentian war, which was related in the
thirteenth book of Livy, and with the expeditions of Cn. Pompeius Strabo
during the Social War.

ASCULUM, the capital of the Picentians, was a very large place, as,
according to report, may still be seen from its ruins. The historical
importance of this town belongs to the Social War, which broke out there;
it was here that the first act of hostility against Rome was committed
in a tumult which broke out in the theatre, and in which the Romans were
murdered. The new fragments from Diodorus, discovered by A. Mai, throw
some light upon these events. The town was taken, and we may easily
imagine what was the fate of a place whose inhabitants had imbrued their
hands with the blood of the commissioners of the senate who were sent to
reprimand them. Asculum was not destroyed, but its fate was probably like
that of Capua. After that time a class of towns in Picenum are mentioned
under the name of _praefecturae agri Piceni_, from which we may recognise
that Cn. Pompeius Strabo deprived the Picentians of their municipal
institutions, and constituted them in this new form. This also shows that
the Italians did not gain the franchise as simply as we generally imagine.

The Picentians are said to have been a very populous nation. At the time
of their subjugation, after the war with Pyrrhus, their number is stated
to have been 360,000, which evidently comprises not those alone who were
capable of bearing arms.

The most important town in that whole country is ANCONA, which is the
Latin form of the name, the Greek being Ἀγκών. It is one of the latest
Greek settlements, a truly Greek town, founded by Dionysius in the 100th
Olympiad; but we do not know whether the colonists were Syracusan exiles,
or colonists sent out by Dionysius according to a definite plan. I am
inclined to believe that Dionysius himself established the colony. The
latter period of the elder Dionysius and the first of the younger are
obscure to us on account of the absence of a regular plan in the work
of Diodorus: he sometimes becomes tired in following up a history which
he has carried through a series of years with the greatest minuteness;
he then passes away from it, and leaves it out altogether. There does
not exist a more thoughtless writer than this Diodorus of Sicily. Ancona
remained a Greek town for a long time, and continued at a very late
period to be connected with Constantinople, whence in the twelfth century
it placed itself under the protection of Manuel Comnenus against the
emperor Frederic I. Ancona is one of the very few ports on that coast
of Italy, and Trajan increased this advantage by building the molo which
still exists.

A people mentioned under the name of PRAETUTII bordered on Picenum; there
is great uncertainty about them, and it is not clear, whether they were
Sabines, or whether they belonged to the ancient Tyrrhenian population.
The town of HADRIA, from which the sea derives its name, was situated
there.


THE UPPER CONFEDERATION OF THE MARSIANS, PELIGNIANS, MARRUCINIANS, AND
VESTINIANS.

The four Sabine tribes of the upper confederation occupied the country
from the hills, which form the watershed between the Liris and the
Vulturnus, to the Adriatic. They formed together one confederate state,
and their connection is repeatedly alluded to in our authorities, as, for
example, in Polybius, where he enumerates the Italian contingents levied
against the Cisalpine Gauls; and in Ennius where we read _Marsa manus,
Peligna cohors, Vestina virum vis_. At the time when the Vestinians
declared for the Samnites, and the Romans wished to overcome them by a
sudden attack, Livy remarks that the Romans ought to have considered
that, by attacking the Vestinians, they would also make the Marsians,
Marrucinians, and Pelignians their enemies. They were united as a
confederation, in the same manner as the Romans were united with the
Latins and Hernicans. In regard to origin, they were the same as the
far ruling Samnites, but in their political system they were entirely
different from them. Once only, in the second Samnite war, they hesitated
as to whether they should not join the Samnites against the Romans;
but the latter succeeded in preventing it. It was the consequence of
the fatality by which the Romans were destined to become the rulers of
Italy, that the Marsians began to move during the interval between the
second and third Samnite war: it was then a piece of folly on their
part, which they had reason bitterly to repent; they ought to have done
so before, and to have joined the Samnites. They were subdued and had
to submit to hard terms, though afterwards the Romans again placed them
in an honorable position, in which they remained until the outbreak
of the great Marsian or Social War. There existed various causes, why
they separated themselves from the Samnites, so that the latter did not
obtain the support which, had the others not been infatuated, ought
to have been given to them. It has often been observed, that people
of quite different religions do not hate one another as much as those
belonging to different sects of the same religion, even though their
differences should be slight, nay the more trifling the differences are,
the bitterer is their hatred. Thus, e.g., in France the Jansenists and
Jesuits, as they are called, are more embittered against each other,
than either of them is against the Calvinists; the united and non-united
Armenians are enraged against each other, though their difference is
only a formal one not affecting their dogmas. The Samnites and the other
tribes were one nation, but the Samnites had become great, and hence
the unfortunate envy and jealousy of their less powerful kinsmen. This
is the chief reason, why they formed friendship with the Romans. They
had, however, another reason besides, which afforded them a specious
pretext, and draws a veil over the odiousness of their conduct. They were
mountaineers and a pastoral people, who, during winter, required pastures
for their sheep which they sent down into the plains of Apulia. Now, the
Romans had succeeded in attaching the Apulians to their interests and in
establishing themselves in their country. Hence the nations that were not
on friendly terms with Rome, were excluded from the winter pasture in
Apulia. If the Marsians and their confederates had entertained different
sentiments, they would have resolved, in conjunction with the Samnites,
to expel the Romans from Apulia, which might have been a matter of no
great difficulty.

I have shown in the first volume of my Roman History, that these four
tribes belonged to the Sabine race: in regard to the Pelignians it is
clear from Ovid, and the scholiast on the Aeneid proves it in regard
to the Marsians. Each of these four tribes was in its own territory
sovereign and independent; each also may have been subdivided, but in
their relation to foreign countries they formed one state. In speaking
of their separation from the Samnites, I was obliged to mention their
disgraceful faithlessness, but this does not detract from their worth
in other respects. It is acknowledged on all hands, that on account of
their extraordinary and antique simplicity and frugality, they belonged
to the most respectable nations of Italy; these virtues were preserved
there at a time when the other Italians had long sunk into degeneracy,
and when the Romans had completely abandoned the severe manners of their
ancestors. This is the praise bestowed upon them by Virgil and even by
Juvenal; the latter may in his expressions be alluding to earlier poets,
but he could not possibly have written in the manner in which he has
done, unless at least a shadow of the ancient manners had been preserved
there. They were at the same time extremely industrious; their country
was for the most part mountainous; agriculture was indeed carried on in
the valleys, but it was not very productive, and the greater part of
the country was pasture land. They had no wealth; but their strength
lay in their contentment. Their valour was not less celebrated than the
simplicity of their manners, and this feature too procured them the
greatest respect among all the Italian nations; thus Ovid boasts of the
_miles Pelignus_, his countryman. The Romans had a proverb saying, that
they never triumphed over them and never without them. The former part
of this saying may be an exaggeration, for there can be no doubt that
they were conquered in the third Samnite war; it is possible, however,
that no triumph over them was celebrated; Livy does not mention it, and
the Triumphal Fasti of that period are lost.

The MARSIANS dwelt about lake _Fucinus_ (Lago di Celano), which is as
clear as crystal, and is formed by the confluence of small brooks and
subterraneous springs; Virgil calls it _vitrea unda_, and elsewhere it
is described as _pellucidus lacus_. There is no visible outlet of its
waters; they rise at intervals of several years, and decrease again. It
must discharge its waters somewhere by subterraneous passages, which, we
do not know how, sometimes close and then open again. When these passages
are closed, the lake rises, overflows its banks, and covers large and
beautiful tracts of country. In order to prevent such devastations, the
emperor Claudius attempted to construct an immense canal to the Liris.
The first attempt, however, failed on account of the great distance;
a second succeeded for a time, but the canal then became obstructed.
Before the time of the French revolution, renewed efforts were made to
restore it, as the lake was greatly increasing; but while I was in Italy
it decreased, and afterwards continued to do so still more; more than a
Roman mile of land has thus been left dry, whence we must infer that new
outlets have been opened. Many interesting antiquities have been found
there.

MARRUVIUM was the capital of the Marsians, who themselves were sometimes
called after it _Marruii_ or _Marruvii_. It was taken by the Romans and
changed by them into a Roman colony; it is remarkable for being the
northernmost town in those parts that has Cyclopean walls. Petit-Radel
has inferred from this, that the Pelasgian race extended to those
districts, but I cannot decide as to whether he is right or wrong. He has
very confused ideas about the ancient nations, and is, therefore, little
qualified to pronounce judgment; still, however, it is possible that he
may be right.

The PELIGNIANS, the second tribe in the northern Sabellian confederation,
are mentioned with the same praise as the Marsians. If we had Livy’s
work complete, we should know more of their valour than what is related
about the Pelignian cohort in the second Samnite war. As it is, their
greatest glory consists in having produced Ovid, not to acknowledge
whose merits as a poet would be a sign of narrowmindedness or prejudice.
He was a native of SULMO, which he calls _Peligni pars tertia ruris_.
It would, therefore, seem that, as elsewhere in Italy the towns of the
same tribe formed one community, so each country contained a number of
places, representing a similar division. The country of the Pelignians
accordingly was divided into three parts. The second town was CORFINIUM,
which, in the Marsian war, became the capital of the Italicans under the
name of _Italica_. It has now disappeared, but Sulmo still exists under
the name of Sulmona.

The capital of the MARRUCINIANS was TEATE, which is at present only a
small insignificant place; in ancient times it was great, as we must
infer partly from statements in ancient authors, and partly from its
ruins. The Teatine monks derive their name from the circumstance that
their monastery was at Teate. We have a tolerable number of coins of
this town. The family of the Asinii, especially Asinius Pollio, the most
celebrated of them, were Marrucinians.

The VESTINIANS had no towns of any name, and seem to have been the
weakest among the four tribes; it is either for this reason that they are
least spoken of, or because they were inferior to the others in character
and moral worth.


THE SAMNITES.

The real name of this nation in Oscan was _Sauini_ or _Savini_. On the
denarii which were coined during the Social War, we read on the one side
_Safinim_, a genitive plural, and on the other _C. Papi Mutil_, the
name of the celebrated Samnite commander. The Papii were as important
a Samnite gens as the Cornelii among the Romans. I will not decide
whether the name _Safinim_ applies to the Samnites alone or to the whole
Sabellian race, as all the Sabellian tribes took part in the insurrection
of the Social War. In Greek they are called Σαυνῖται, and their country
Σαύνιον, formed from the same root as the Oscan name. Scylax of Caryanda,
who, as you remember, lived at the time of Philip of Macedonia, says of
the Samnites: διήκουσιν ἀπὸ θαλάσσης εἰς θάλασσαν, that is, from the
upper to the lower sea. On the upper sea we find the Frentanians whom
Strabo reckons among the Samnites; Samnites also were the ruling people
in the country about Herculaneum, Pompeii, and the cape of Minerva as
far as the frontiers of Lucania. If we follow the traces which occur in
Livy, the country of the Samnites is more extensive also in the north
and south than we find it in our maps, even those of D’Anville. It here
becomes very manifest how insufficient a single map is to form correct
boundary lines. Thus Samnium, in the map of D’Anville, whom I name here
only _honoris causa_, is quite unsatisfactory; there ought to be a whole
series of Maps to show the different boundaries at different times.
The geography of towns, however, may be studied from a single map. It
is utterly impossible for a man attentively studying ancient history
with D’Anville’s map before him, to form a clear notion of Samnium. Its
extent in that map does not refer to any particular time at all, though
it answers most to the Augustan region of that name, but it does not
it exactly represent either. According to Livy, the Apulians, when
pressed by the Samnites, threw themselves into the arms of the Romans;
the Samnites had captured Luceria and conquered several places in the
Apulian high lands, nay, they had extended their possessions as far as
Venusia and Acheruntia, but were repelled by the victorious Romans. In
the west, too, we meet with Samnites; Fregellae had been taken by them
from the Volscians, but was afterwards likewise taken possession of by
the Romans. In like manner we find Sora, and even Casinum, in the hands
of the Samnites. The case of the latter town is mentioned by an author in
whose work we should hardly look for it, and yet it is a statement which
ought not to escape the notice of an historian. The historical inquirer
must also examine the grammarians whose works contain facts of the
greatest historical importance in fragments and accidental quotations.
Such is the case, e.g., in the commentary of Servius and the scholiast
on Juvenal;[51] it is, however, not only in writers of this class and in
Festus that we may expect historical statements, but we find them in the
authors of real grammars, such as Nonius, Diomedes, and Priscian; they
contain much that is of value and ought not to be despised. Such also is
the case here, for it is Varro who, in his work “De Lingua Latina,”[52]
states, that Casinum was inhabited by Samnites. Hence we see that they
extended as far as the neighbourhood of Arpinum and Monte Cassino, and
that they had subdued the whole district between the upper Vulturnus and
the upper Liris. It was, therefore, for the purpose of extending their
dominion in that part, that they undertook the war against the Sidicines.

The Samnites, as we have seen, did not form a compact nation, they were
not united by one capital, they had no permanent government to keep
the whole together, and they formed no _civitas_, but a _populus_,
not a πόλις, but an ἔθνος. They consisted of four or five different
tribes, which were not more closely united with one another than the
Romans, Latins, and Hernicans, or even not more closely than the Romans,
Latins, and Volscians of Ecetrae were at various times. Thus it happened
that the Frentanians, though a Samnite people, concluded, during the
second Samnite war, a separate peace with Rome and allowed her armies a
passage through Abruzzo into Apulia. Velleius Paterculus states, that
on one occasion the Romans were defeated by the Caudines alone, and in
the Triumphal Fasti we read, that a general triumphed _de Samnitibus
omnibus praeter Pentros_. So long as the Romans stood on a footing of
equality with the Latins and Hernicans, the Samnites were able to keep
them within due bounds; but when they themselves had assisted the Romans
in reducing the Latins to the condition of subjects, the compactness
of the Roman state was against them, and they were no longer equally
matched. No wonder, therefore, that they succumbed to the Romans; but
it is surprising to find that, after all, they were able to hold out in
a struggle like the second Samnite war, which lasted twenty-four years
and a half. And notwithstanding this, they rose again with the force of
despair, which hopes for nothing and destroys its own existence.

We must conceive each Samnite tribe to have had its own senate, from
which deputies were elected to deliberate on common affairs, as the
Romans and Latins did at the Feriae Latinae. In this manner the Samnite
praetors and imperators met, perhaps with deputies and the heads of the
senate (_decem primi_).

Samnium, in this extended sense, is a country presenting very different
aspects. The part extending on the coast from Herculaneum as far as the
Silarus, belongs, according to its physical features, most decidedly
to southern Italy; I will not say that it is essentially a Hellenic
country, but it is like a Hellenic, it is a Tyrrhenian country. It
had originally a Tyrrhenian population, though it was governed by
Samnites, and at an earlier period probably by Oscans. In the interior,
we have the Apennines, a very beautiful mountain country with some very
fertile valleys, and on the whole such as we generally understand by a
mountainous region. The hills nowhere rise to the height of the Abruzzi,
and nowhere beyond the limits of vegetation; they are woody mountains,
and the forests are for the most part still preserved. The country of the
Frentanians is hilly, and in no way remarkable.

The Samnite tribes were distributed in the following manner:—The
FRENTANIANS dwelt on the other side of the Apennines as far as the
Adriatic. The PENTRIANS were the northernmost tribe in the interior,
between the country of the Pelignians and the neighbourhood of
Beneventum; their capital was Bovianum. In the south of them we have the
CAUDINES, who unquestionably possessed the whole district about the river
Calor, a tributary of the Vulturnus, and Beneventum. The HIRPINIANS dwelt
still farther south, between the Caudines, Lucanians, and Apulians. On
the south-west of the Hirpinians the coast district extended from mount
Vesuvius to the river Silarus; the Samnites of this last district, as
I have already observed, are not known to us under any certain ethnic
name, though it is probable that they may have been called _Alfaterni_ or
_Alfaterini_.

In maps you will find in that district where Salernum was situated,
the name _Picentia_ or _Picentini_; but this name does not belong to
the early times. Strabo says that they were transplanted thither as
an ἀποδασμὸς of the Picentini on the upper sea. This must have taken
place before the Hannibalian war, for at that time the Picentians were
among the nations which rose against Rome. This is not the place for
entering into minute discussions, I will only state, as the result
of my inquiries, that this happened after the Samnite wars. When the
Romans conquered that district and found it greatly depopulated,
they transplanted the Picentini thither for the purpose of preventing
the communication of the Samnites with the lower sea; for they might
obtain assistance from the Tarentines, with whom they were on terms of
friendship. By the same means, the very enterprising Agathocles, who
would have liked to gain a firm footing in southern Italy, was kept
away from that coast. The communication with the Lucanians, who were
allied with Rome during the second and third war, also was kept open in
this manner; and it was of great importance to Rome to maintain this
connection.

Among the Frentanians there is no town worth mentioning.

Among the Pentrians we have BOVIANUM, which appears in Roman history at
first as a great place; but all Samnite towns of the interior had this
feature in common, that they were, properly speaking, not fortified. This
circumstance has led to a foolish assertion which occurs in the writings
of some of the ancients, though men like Strabo did not believe it. The
friendship subsisting between the Samnites and Tarentines gave rise to
a wish among the former to be regarded as kinsmen of the Tarentines,
and hence the fancy that the Samnites were a Lacedaemonian colony. This
singular notion was then supported by accidental circumstances, as for
example, by the fact that the Samnite towns were open places. There is in
reality no trace of a truly fortified town in all Samnium; but the case
of those towns which the Samnites conquered beyond their own frontiers
is of course different. The Samnite towns were situated on hills, the
sides of which were cut precipitously; and such a situation may at first
have been sufficient; but it was of no avail against bold and daring
enemies like the Romans, who attacked a place, _cingebant corona_, and
then stormed it by means of ladders. The consequence was, that Bovianum
and other towns, when the Romans were masters of the country around,
offered no resistance, but were scaled and devastated. But they soon
rose again, though with smaller houses and of less extent. During the
Samnite wars, Bovianum was destroyed three or four times in the course
of a few years; and hence we may form some idea as to the condition in
which it must have been. But notwithstanding all this, we again find it
as a respectable town at the period of the Hannibalian war; in that of
Sulla it was entirely destroyed; and he sent a military colony into the
place, because he wanted to punish it, but did not rebuild it on its
ancient site; the new town he founded in the neighbourhood of the old one
was called _Bovianum Undecumanorum_. In like manner, he did not restore
Faesulae, but founded Florentia, at some distance on the river Arnus. At
Arretium he followed the same system. At present, Bovianum is quite an
insignificant place; it occupies the site of the Roman and not of the
Samnite town. From this one example, you may infer the fate of all the
Samnite towns: many of them, the conquest of which is mentioned by Livy
in his ninth and tenth books, entirely disappear from the earth, so that
they are not mentioned either by Pliny or by Ptolemy. The country is
at present full of towns and villages, but very few of their names are
indicative of their ancient origin. In all Samnium there is not a single
ruin belonging to the period preceding the Roman dominion. I have not
been there, but Count Zurlo, a Samnite by birth, who has examined his
own country very carefully, has assured me that, with the exception of
the few Samnite denarii and some copper coins, no antiquities older than
the Roman dominion are found in all Samnium, from the extreme frontier
of the Pentrians to that of the Hirpinians; nor are there any tombs
which are of such frequent occurrence in Campania. But it could not
have been otherwise, for the Romans systematically destroyed everything
in that country; otherwise such an utter disappearance of everything
would be unaccountable: both during the third Samnite war and in that of
Sulla, the Romans attempted to extirpate the whole nation. Strabo says
that only ἴχνη πόλεων ἀμαυρὰ were left; and as the nation so also its
language disappeared. Such was the revenge Sulla took for the battle at
the Colline gate! He not only butchered the prisoners of war, but after
having become master of Italy, he rooted out the whole population.

In the country of the Pentrians, there are a few places, especially on
the west of the Vulturnus, concerning which it is doubtful whether they
were properly Samnite, that is, belonging to the Pentrians, or whether
they were Oscan towns conquered by the Samnites. Places of this kind are
ALLIFAE and AQUINUM[53], a large town on the Via Latina and a praefectura
Romana, that is, it had the Roman franchise before its being conferred
upon all the Italians, but the administration was in the hands of a Roman
praefectus. Aquinum was the birth-place of the great poet Juvenal. A
third town was AESERNIA, which, after the third Samnite war, became a
Roman colony.

Previously to the second Samnite war, the dominion of the Samnites
extended over the whole district between the upper Liris and the
Vulturnus. They had occupied Casinum and Fregellae, and the second war
broke out, because the Romans wanted to fortify Fregellae for the purpose
of protecting their own frontier against the Samnites. The letter of the
treaty in this instance was at variance with reason, for the Samnites in
possession of Fregellae might have become dangerous to Rome herself.

BENEVENTUM was the most important place in central Samnium, although
there can be no doubt that Caudium gave its name to the people. The
Romans changed the name of the town because of its ominous meaning; for
it is said to have formerly been called _Maleventum_. But Maleventum or
Maluentum is not a Latin word at all, but has its origin in the Greek
Μαλοῦς, Μαλόεις, Apple-town. This name too, therefore, shows that Itali
(Siculi) dwelt there before the Oscans. Salmasius, in his “Exercitationes
Plinianae” (a book of which we may well say, φάρμακα πολλὰ μὲν ἐσθλὰ
μεμιγμένα, πολλὰ δὲ λυγρά), first drew attention to the etymology of
Maleventum. The whole plan of that book is beneath criticism; it is a
real chaos, and we cannot help being vexed at the careless haste with
which he has put together the most erroneous opinions. But it contains
much information culled from writers which are otherwise not often read.
Salmasius is unfortunate in his emendations, in mythology and grammar he
is bad, though sometimes he makes a very good remark, as e.g., on the
subject now under our consideration. In the history of the Samnite wars,
Beneventum is but rarely mentioned, whence it would seem that it was then
still an insignificant place. But the Romans conquered it, and after the
third Samnite war established a colony there, as they generally did _in
locis opportunis_; and by means of this colony they in reality broke the
power of Samnium. After this time Beneventum maintained itself by the
side of the sinking Samnite towns, and was of great importance to the
Romans in the Social War. Under the empire it was a very considerable
provincial town, whence there are few places of which such splendid ruins
are extant; among others we there have a triumphal arch of Trajan.

CAUDIUM, on the road from Capua to Beneventum, must once have been a
considerable town, because it gave its name to the people. As a town,
however, it is scarcely mentioned, and only Horace in his journey to
Brundusium speaks of _Caudi cauponae_. This is one of the instances which
we have seen before in the case of Gabii, Fidenae, and others: on the
site of destroyed places afterwards new ones arose out of inns which were
built at stations on the high-roads. Several Samnite places, which are
mentioned in Livy, but of which the sites cannot be ascertained, may have
been situated there. We can scarcely form conjectures about them.

The third Samnite tribe, or, including the Frentanians, the fourth, are
the HIRPINIANS, in the district of the modern Avellino, inhabiting one
of the most beautiful hilly countries, between Beneventum, Lucania, and
Salernum. It possesses extraordinary advantages over the northern part
of the territory of Naples in regard to climate, for it is a perfectly
southern country, although its heights are not inconsiderable: its
capital was COMPSA, about which I have nothing particular to relate;
it was one of the towns that joined Hannibal, and after having already
suffered greatly during a previous conquest, it was completely razed
to the ground somewhere between the seventh and tenth year of the war.
But as it was afterwards rebuilt, the Romans nevertheless restored its
independence. During the Social War it made common cause with the Samnite
nation.

The really Greek portion of the Samnite territory is about the cape
of Minerva from Surrentum to Salernum. On the ridge of this part,
between mount Vesuvius and Salernum, we have NUCERIA, a very large and
flourishing town, the wealth and character of which are attested by its
extremely beautiful silver coins, which are in no way inferior to those
of Greece.

I have already mentioned _Pompeii_ and _Herculaneum_ in speaking of
Campania. SURRENTUM is well known as one of the most enchanting places
on the whole face of the earth. Although the ancients were not as
enthusiastic in their admiration of beautiful scenery as the moderns,
still even among them it was celebrated as a place of indescribable
charms.

The coast on the bay of Salernum was occupied by the PICENTINI, whom I
have already mentioned, and whom the Romans had transplanted thither from
Picenum after the Samnite wars. In the earliest times, a great number
of Tyrrhenian places existed on that bay, from which it is evident that
there was in that part a considerable Pelasgian population, which, though
subdued, maintained itself for a long time.

SALERNUM was not a place of great importance in antiquity, but in the
history of the middle ages it is celebrated as the place of residence
of the Lombard kings. Until the Hannibalian war, Salernum and the
surrounding country belonged to the Campanians, for the Romans appeased
their allies of those places on which they had conferred the franchise
without the suffrage, by ceding domain lands to them. Afterwards Salernum
became a Roman colony. The river Silarus formed the boundary between that
part of Samnium and Lucania.

On the coast of the most southern part of Samnium, AMALFI arose as a
flourishing republic at an early period of the middle ages, during the
time of the Lombards. The local belief is, that Amalfi was a Roman colony
of the imperial period. For reasons which we can easily imagine, the
opinion became established, that Constantine had led a Roman colony to
Constantinople; and at Amalfi a tradition sprang up, that a fleet with
Roman colonists, destined for Byzantium, was wrecked on that coast,
or compelled by adverse winds to land, and that the colonists then
established themselves there. This whole story is neither more nor less
credible than so many others about colonies which were said to have
been founded by the heroes returning from Troy. Amalfi is never before
mentioned, and became important at the time when the Lombards conquered
the interior of the country, and pushed the inhabitants towards the
coast; the people naturally called themselves Romans as opposed to
Lombards and barbarians. The town, like Naples, was under the direct
protection of Constantinople, and was altogether non-barbarian; it
belonged to the class of free cities, which had preserved a free Roman
municipal constitution, and was very different from the free cities which
arose under German laws.


APULIA.

The name Apulia, no doubt, signifies the country of the _Apuli_. _Apulus_
is of the same formation as _Romulus_, the same as _Romanus_, just as
_Graeculus_ is the same as _Graecus_, etc. Accordingly, _Apulus_, _Apus_,
and _Apicus_, and with a change of vowel, _Opicus_, are identical. The
Oscan language has the letter _p_ where the Latin has _qu_ (pronounced
as _k_), and just as in the Greek dialects π and κ are interchangeable.
_Apulus_, therefore, is in no way different from _Aequi_, _Aequuli_,
_Aequani_. If we attentively trace the dialects, there is scarcely any
nation which admits such great changes in them as the Oscan. It is a
very correct and ancient law of logic, “principia praeter necessitatem
non esse multiplicanda,” and in the history of ancient nations, too, it
ought not to be lost sight of. It certainly is true, that sometimes we
recognise the existence of many quite different nations living close
to one another—in the Caucasus and in America, there are districts of
not many square miles, in which great numbers of languages are spoken,
that do not bear the slightest resemblance to one another; and in like
manner essentially different nations dwell side by side in a portion of
Africa—but we, nevertheless, cannot adopt such lists of nations as are
given by the ancients, for they are not rationally arranged, and are
often without any meaning at all. The ancients had no interest in forming
accurate notions on such points; when they dwelt upon inquiries of this
kind, matters became almost worse: they then wrote thoughtlessly, putting
down things as essentially different, which seemed to present ever so
slight a difference, and treating as identical those which were really
different. There does not exist a more singular mass of confusion than
in Pliny’s account of the different nations. I know from experience,
how many stages a man has to pass through before he arrives at positive
certainty upon such questions. Garve very truly says, “the second is the
beginning.” A person assuming that in Italy everything was originally
different, feels as if a wheel were spinning round in his head; and he
soon arrives at the conviction that his supposition has no meaning, and
gives up the whole matter in despair. I have experienced this same thing,
but did not rest until I arrived at a definite result. The subject does
not suffer from its being confused: many things are treated with scorn,
merely because they are abused; if things were not represented in a false
light, there would be no danger of things deserving attention ever being
scorned. But it does happen, when things are erroneously conceived, and
are defended with obstinacy, when they cannot be defended at all. It is
the sad but natural consequence of such a defence of what is opposed to
reason and truth, that many men despise even that which is deserving
of consideration. Hence so many follies. A fancy of this kind during
the period of my youth, was the belief in perfectibility, when people
imagined that in every respect they were far above their ancestors. But
it is an equally great folly unconditionally to praise our ancestors,
and to forget that there is an endless number of points in which we move
sometimes forward and sometimes backward. The question whether an entire
period is superior or inferior to another, is of a very different nature,
and one which it is difficult to answer, if it is put in a rational way.
I should least of all wish to exchange the present time for the middle
ages, which fools only praise as the happiest era in history. There can
be no doubt that in the middle ages life was more intense, sympathies
were stronger, and activity was more vigorous; but our age has other
advantages, and our progress in science especially is immense. When I
compare the moral condition of our age with what it was a hundred or a
hundred and twenty years ago, I cannot hesitate for a moment, with a full
knowledge of all the facts, to say that our age, not only in Germany, but
even in France, is infinitely better.

He, therefore, is the true friend of antiquity who disentangles it from
its confusion and places it in its true light. The ancients knew but
little about the nations of Italy, and later writers, especially Pliny,
knew no more, so that we cannot even discern how far Cato saw clearly in
this matter, and how far not. He still recognised that the Aborigines
of Latium belonged to a race akin to the Greeks, a fact which Varro no
longer understood. From Fabius down to Cato and Pliny, the knowledge of
the early history of Italy decreased more and more.

As all names of countries are derived from those of nations, as _Italia_
from _Itali_, _Graecia_ from _Graeci_, so _Apulia_ is formed from
_Apuli_. Pliny says that there were _tria genera Apulorum_: 1. _Apuli
Teani_; 2. _Daunii_; and 3. _Apuli Lucani_. From Strabo, we see that
the real Apulians dwelt in the north-west of Apulia as far as the river
Cerbalus: these are the Oscans. But the Daunians were Itali, dwelling
at Arpi (Argyrippa), a Greek town, and at Canusium. They are put in
connection with the Tyrrhenians, Turnus (the same as Turinus) being
called a son of Daunus. The Daunians in Apulia, therefore, are the
ancient Tyrrheno-Pelasgian inhabitants of that country, akin to the
Peucetians, who were likewise regarded by the Greeks as Pelasgians. The
Oscans, who did not maintain themselves in their conquests in Samnium,
rose to power in Apulia, and the Daunians remained in the country as
the subject people. The _Apuli Lucani_ are, doubtless, nothing else
than portions of Apulia, which were peopled either by Lucanians or by
Samnites, and, therefore, at all events, by a Sabellian race; in these
parts, the ancient Itali were governed by them, so that a Samnite-Oscan
population was the ruling people, whose subjects originally consisted,
for the most part, of Itali, with whom, however, some Oscans also may
have been mixed. Whether these Lucanians had proceeded from the already
constituted nation of the Lucanians, or directly from Samnium, is a
question which can no longer be answered. The chaos is, I hope, cleared
up by this explanation. Apulia furnishes rich materials for ethnography,
and far more than Samnium which is otherwise a much more splendid
country.

Apulia has the form of a theatre (Greek geographers would call it
θεατροειδές). The Greeks called it Iapygia, though this name embraces a
greater extent of country, all Messapia and Calabria being included, so
that Tarentum also belonged to Iapygia. The name _Iapyx_ again is only
a dialectic variety of _Apulus_. The Latin termination icus is in Oscan
_ix_, as we see in _Meddix Tutix_, the title of the highest magistrate,
which the Romans changed into _Maddix Tuticus_: hence _Iapicus_ =
_Apicus_ = _Opicus_. When I repeatedly direct your attention to view this
point rightly, I do not do so from distrust, but because I know, from my
own experience, how difficult it is to make up one’s mind to believe that
Iapygia and Apulia are the same name. I myself have long been mistaken
about this, and did not see the truth until I became familiar with the
remains of the Oscan language, and was thus enabled to establish the
etymology.

Apulia is surrounded by a semicircle of not very high hills, beginning
with mount Garganus on the Adriatic, continued by the chain of the
Apennines, and then separating Apulia from Samnium and Lucania.
Afterwards this range terminates in low hills towards Terra di Lecce.
The inner part of the semicircle, containing the thymele, orchestra, and
stage, is formed by the plain of Apulia, a chalk country, like Champagne
or the kingdom of Leon in Spain. It is, however, not a perfect plain, but
has small elevations (_verrucae_); it has very few rivers, the springs
not being able to break through the ground. As the chalk lies in strata,
the waters are drawn down towards a few rivers, which traverse the plains
without being fed by tributaries, just like the Minho and Douro in the
kingdom of Leon, and the Aisne, Marne, and Seine in Champagne. The
AUFIDUS is a very powerful river, its bed is cut very deep; in summer
its water is low, but during the winter every shower of rain swells it
immensely. The plain through which it flows is a barren chalk-field;
water is found there by boring very deep wells, so that the country
requires much rain. After a good rain in the autumn, the land covers
itself with excellent and extremely rich grass. In some parts where
irrigation is possible, where the soil is a little mixed, and where it
is carefully tilled by man, the country is excellent for growing corn,
which ripens at an extremely early season. An intimate friend of mine at
Naples was intendant of Apulia, and from him I learned that the harvest
of wheat in Apulia takes place about the end of May, that is, three weeks
earlier than at Athens, where the 20th of June is the harvest season, a
fact which it is of importance to know in reading Thucydides, who often
describes the season of the year by mentioning the harvest-time. About
the foot of the hills, Apulia is altogether barren, at least at present,
but I cannot say whether the same was the case in antiquity. The country
is now for many miles covered with nothing but ferula and ferns.

Western Apulia, which Pliny calls by the name of _Teani Apuli_, the
country of the real and genuine Apulians, is of very little importance
in history. The towns of Apulia mentioned in history, belong to the
Daunians. Apulia was not a politically united country, it presents even
less of national unity than Samnium, for it contained several systems of
towns which were quite independent of, and even hostile to, one another.
Arpi and Canusium were the most important towns, and the others seem to
have been grouped around them.

ARPI, in Greek, Ἀργυρίππα, shows by its name its Pelasgian origin; it
is the same as Argos. Some indeed call it Ἄργος Ἵππιον, but this name
occurs but rarely, and it is doubtful whether it is a genuine ancient
name, or whether it arose from later etymological speculations. Arpi was
the first place that joined the Romans. All the Apulian coins have Greek
inscriptions; those of Arpi bear the inscription ΑΡΠΑΝΩΝ, but in point of
artistic execution, they are not quite Greek, and those who have eyes
for such things cannot fail to discover a peculiar character. Other works
of art also have been dug out of the ground in Apulia, and those who have
practised eyes do not find it difficult to distinguish bronzes of Apulia
from those of Lucania. Those of Apulia are extremely beautiful in their
way, but still have something strange about them. In the days of Strabo
it was still possible to perceive, from the vast circumference of the
walls, that Arpi had once been a large place, but it was deserted. You
cannot conceive a greater contrast than that between Samnium and Apulia:
in the latter country all the towns were fortified with walls and other
works, while in Samnium they were protected by nature against hostile
attacks. The fidelity of Arpi during the second Samnite war was rewarded
by the Romans with large possessions, but in the Hannibalian war it
received its fatal blow. At present it has entirely disappeared. Apulia
has, on the whole, very few ruins, which is the consequence of the soft
chalk-stone, of which all monuments were made, and which cannot stand
against the influence of the weather.

We should not believe that CANUSIUM was a town of such importance, were
it not expressly attested by Strabo, that Apulia was divided between Arpi
and Canusium. In Livy, it appears as an insignificant place. We may also
infer from Strabo, that during the second Samnite war, it was at the head
of the Apulian towns which had joined the Samnites, while Arpi sided with
the Romans. After the battle of Cannae, the Romans, by an inconceivable
carelessness on the part of Hannibal, were enabled almost under his very
arrows to retreat to the walls of Canusium, where they rallied and then
proceeded to Venusia. In the second Punic war, Canusium does not appear
to have been hostile to Rome; in the Samnite war, as I have already
observed, it supported the Samnites, but the whole country afterwards
submitted to the Romans on terms which were by no means unfavourable.
Still, however, they revolted during the war with Pyrrhus: it cannot be
accurately traced what influence this step had on their fate. The town
suffered severely in consequence of both its revolt from Rome and from
the hostility of the Carthaginians, and the Apulian towns did not easily
recover after being once destroyed. In the time of Strabo, it was a
deserted place, large walls enclosing a number of decayed houses. In this
light the town also appears in Horace’s journey to Brundusium. It is now
called Canosa.

SIPONTUM and SALAPIA belonged to the territory of Arpi. The name Sipontum
(Σιποῦς) betrays its Tyrrhenian origin. All these places suffered
severely during the Hannibalian war. When the Romans punished Arpi for
its revolt, they deprived it of the dominion over these towns, and sent
a colony to Sipontum. The neighbourhood of Sipontum is a salt plain and
therefore unhealthy.

LUCERIA was situated on the height between Arpi and Beneventum. It was
an Apulian town, but was captured by the Samnites, as I have clearly
ascertained, and was afterwards taken from them by the Romans, and
changed into a Romano-Latin colony. The establishment of this colony in
so distant a country is one of the bold measures of the Romans, whereby,
after the long struggle, in which even the greatest exertions proved
unsuccessful, they decided the final issue of their war against the
Samnites.

VENUSIA was another great creation of the Romans; it is uncertain whether
it belonged to Apulia or Lucania, but it was situated at the foot of
mount Vultur, which is probably the Oscan word for mountain in general.
It was likewise a Romano-Latin colony, founded after the third Samnite
war by the Romans, who were then on friendly terms with the Lucanians and
ruled over Apulia. By this colony they prepared their future undertaking
against Tarentum, as by it they completely cut off the communication
between the Samnites and that city. In a fragment of Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, in the Excerpta of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Romans
are said to have sent 20,000 colonists to Venusia, that is 20,000
families, or at least 20,000 men capable of bearing arms: this number is
incredible, there must be a mistake here. By admitting the neighbouring
Oscan and Lucanian people, Venusia must, in the course of time, have
become much estranged from Home, for, during the Social War, it was the
only colony which, according to a statement in Appian, rose against Rome.
From the expressions of Horace it may be inferred, that afterwards it
became one of the military colonies of Caesar.[54] The town will ever be
memorable as the birth-place of Horace.

Having thus gone through Apulia in the Roman sense, we shall proceed in a
south-eastern direction to the people of the POEDICULI or PEUCETII. The
name is a double derivative, as we often see in ethnic names, e.g., in
Aequiculi; the simple form was no doubt Poedi, though it does not occur
anywhere. The people themselves are not mentioned in Roman history; we
find them in a state of subjection, but do not see when they fell into
that condition; their name is not mentioned in the Triumphal Fasti; and
the struggle with them cannot have been great. The name Poediculi appears
to be very different from Peucetii, and yet the difference consists
only in a transposition of the letters. It is attested and generally
acknowledged, that the two names belong to the same people; they are
called by the Greeks Pelasgians, and belonged to the same race as the
Oenotrians, together with whom they are placed on a level with the
Thesprotians, Epirots, and Arcadians. This is, in fact, quite natural,
for as the Daunians were of this race, the Peucetians, living still
nearer to Greece, certainly belonged to it.

BARIUM, the most important place among the Peucetii, occupies no
prominent position in ancient history; but in the middle ages, it was
the seat of the Byzantine governors (Capitani) of southern Italy: its
present name is Bari. The physical nature of the country of the Peucetii
is very remarkable; it is still the same chalk soil as in Apulia, but
it has here the peculiarity of constantly forming saltpetre: there is
no place in Europe that bears any resemblance to it. There are large
holes in the ground in the shape of funnels, in which the saltpetre
is collected: this phenomenon is extremely remarkable, showing the
formative tendency of mineral nature. The country, though without
water and dry, is not really barren, but still the want of water has
its great disadvantages. The Terra d’Otranto (Terra di Lecce), or the
Iapygian headland, however, which projects farther into the sea, is a
much more fertile and favoured country; it has indeed the same physical
conformation, but the upper stratum does not exclude the water; it is
richer in springs, and accordingly more fertile. For the cultivation of
olives, it is the most excellent country in the world, but it is not
suited for first class wines. The olive-tree grows very well with less
moisture, and even at this day it is very excellent there, although the
art of cultivating it has sunk very low. It was in vain that I requested
the papal government to add to the plants in the botanic garden which
are cultivated for ordinary use, those also which are of interest to the
scholar. At Naples something has been done for the cultivation of olives,
and many things which have been handed down from antiquity may still be
recognised. The Iapygian headland is a beautiful hilly country, covered
all over with olive plantations. The olive is not a handsome tree, nearly
resembling a willow; its varieties, however, like those of the vine, are
very numerous; it spreads very rapidly, and is almost imperishable, as if
Minerva had given it immortality. It is said that near Tivoli it lives
a thousand years, though no one can prove it; but certain it is, that
it can live several hundred years: it then becomes quite hollow, like a
willow, and continues its life through its bark. At this stage its fruit
is most perfect, but the root of the tree requires the greatest care,
and to prevent the tree being thrown down by the winds, the root must be
covered with a great quantity of soil. All agriculture in Italy is still
the same as in antiquity, and as we find it described in the “Scriptores
Rei Rusticae;” you may still see every point as described by Varro.


MESSAPIA

had a somewhat greater extent than the present Terra di Lecce. The
ancient Greek name is ἀκτὴ Ἰαπυγία. It is a beautiful hilly country, but
its geography is in a singular predicament. The name Messapii is only
once mentioned by the Romans, and that in the Triumphal Fasti; but we
know from Strabo, that Messapia was inhabited by two different nations,
the Messapians and Calabrians; and from other authorities we learn that
the inhabitants of Brundusium were Calabrians. In the course of time,
the name Calabria became established among the Romans for the whole of
Messapia. It is remarkable, however, to find, that in the middle ages the
name was transferred to Lucania and Bruttium, whereas Calabria Proper
ceased to have this name. The explanations given of this singular change
are unsatisfactory.

The inhabitants of the western side of this Acte were the SALLENTINES,
while the eastern coast, from the Iapygian promontory to Brundusium,
was occupied by CALABRIANS. The strangest traditions are current about
the origin of the Sallentines: they are sometimes called Bottiaeans
and sometimes Cretans; in short, they share the character of the
Tyrrheno-Pelasgian nations. But were the Calabrians of the same race? I
believe not, and am rather inclined to think that they were immigrating
and conquering Oscans; for the fact, that Ennius of Rudiae in Calabria
calls Oscan and Greek his mother tongues, shows that, during the Roman
period, Oscan was spoken there. All the towns in those parts were
δίγλωσσοι, that is, they spoke Tyrrhenian and Oscan. In like manner,
the Albanese spoke both Greek and Albanese, as had formerly been the
case with the Albanese at Argos and in Hydra. So also every man in the
towns of upper Silesia, who makes any pretence to education, and even
in rural districts, speaks German, although the national language is
Polish. At Ragusa, all respectable persons, both nobles and commoners,
speak Italian and Slavonian. A priest of Ragusa, who was a dear friend
of mine, told me, that the little children at school do not commence by
learning Slavonian, but Latin and Italian, and that all books are written
in Italian, which language is explained to the children while they learn.
The educated classes in Corfu speak Italian quite perfectly, and as
correctly as it is spoken in Tuscany.

As we know that Brundusium arose after the expulsion of the Pelasgian
inhabitants, it seems beyond a doubt that the Calabrians formed the last
train of the Oscan immigrants who came from the north through Apulia.
The oracles which are said to refer to this country, have no authority
whatever; they all belong to the period of Timaeus, or are but little
older than his age.

There must have once been a town of the name of Σαλλοῦς or Sallentum,
from which the name of the Sallentines is derived. The existence of
such a town has, in fact, been assumed by many moderns, and those who
have read “Telemachus” will remember that it is mentioned in that book.
This is in reality correct, but the existence of the town cannot be
historically proved: it must have perished at a very early period. In
ancient times the Messapians were mortal enemies of the Tarentines, who
had endeavoured to make them ἀνάστατοι; but the Messapians maintained
their independence. When, centuries later, circumstances were changed,
and the neighbours had come in closer contact, Messapia placed itself
under the protection of Tarentum.

The towns in the country of the Messapians are unimportant; there still
exist very beautiful ruins, especially a fine temple on the Iapygian
headland; and in the neighbourhood of Manduria a complete wall still
exists. The two most important towns were Hydruntum and Brundusium.

HYDRUNTUM (Ὑδροῦς), now Otranto, had probably Tarentine epoeci, by whom
it was hellenised. It was a place of great consequence, being the point
from which people sailed across to Apollonia and Oricus, as now people
sail from Calais to Dover. Hydruntum retained this character until the
Norman period, and as long as southern Italy was connected with the
eastern empire.

BRUNDUSIUM was distinguished for its excellent harbour, which was valued
the more because there was not a single good harbour between Brundusium
and Ancona. It consisted of several branches, and could admit more ships
than ever sailed in those seas. For this reason the Romans secured the
possession of that town as early as possible, and established a Latin
colony there. At present the harbour is partly filled up with mud.


ANCIENT OENOTRIA.

The Oenotrians in southern Italy are the real Itali. I shall speak of
them first, and after having put them in their right light, I shall pass
on to the Greek towns on the the coasts, which are commonly called Magna
Graecia.

Oenotria is the same as Italia in the limited sense of the name. You
remember the varying circumstances, according to which the name Italia
was given to a larger or smaller extent of country, and that in its
widest sense it embraced the country as far as the Tiber and mount
Garganus. In consequence of the extension of other nations, the Itali
were afterwards confined to the southern country, and thereby became
so compact, that they were wholly governed by the Greek colonies on the
coast, and hence when, e.g., a person went from Sybaris to Posidonia,
or from Croton to Terina, he had to pass, if not through a country
altogether peopled by Greeks, at least through one governed by Greek
towns. Oenotria thus became Italy proper; but it cannot be said, on the
other hand, that the name Italia was transferred from that small district
to the whole of the peninsula. If we were confined to the Roman writers
alone, and if we had no information from Greek authors, especially
Dionysius and Strabo, we should be in utter ignorance about the
Oenotrians, and we should scarcely have any idea of Italian archaeology.
From this we may infer how much more information must be lost about more
distant countries, which had no literature of their own. The Lucanians,
whom we afterwards find spread over the whole of that country, occupied,
at the period of the Persian wars, only the north-eastern portion of
Lucania, while all the rest of the country afterwards called Lucania,
and the whole of Bruttium, were inhabited by Oenotrians. On the coast,
Greek colonies were established, which ruled over them as sovereigns,
so that the greater part of the Oenotrians were reduced to a state
of servitude, but another portion of them was never subdued. These
Oenotrians were Pelasgians or Siceli of the same stock as the Epirots,
as is stated by the scholiast on the Odyssey, on the authority of the
Macedonian Mnaseas, the disciple of Aristarchus. _Siceli_ and _Itali_
are the same, as was recognised even by the ancients; the names are also
etymologically identical, _Italus_ being the same as _Vitulus_, the
sibilant taking the place of the digamma. In a narrower sense, the name
Siculi was applied to the Oenotrians, the inhabitants of the southernmost
part of Italy. It is very strange to find that this very ancient mode of
designation re-appears in the geography of the middle ages, for in the
division of the Byzantine empire into provinces, the southernmost part
of Italy was called Sikelia. This is generally referred to the vanity
of the Byzantine court, which is said to have been desirous to have a
province called Sicily, after the island had been taken from it by the
Arabs. This indeed is not impossible; but I believe it to be a very
arbitrary conjecture, and am rather inclined to believe that the country,
in ordinary life, still continued to be called Sikelia, as the earliest
Italians were called Siceli by Thucydides and Timaeus (in Polybius). In
this manner, the name was probably propagated, and this also seems to
have been the origin of the strange appellation of “the two Sicilies,”
which at present is indeed quite absurd, but, in its origin, was probably
quite intelligible.

Besides these Siceli, which, in some districts that can no longer be
defined, were called _Italietes_ and _Morgetes_, there existed in
southern Italy yet another race of the Oenotrians, called CHAONIANS or
CHONIANS. This name also re-appears in Epirus. The metropolis of the
Chaonians was called Chone, and had been situated not far from Croton; it
may have been destroyed by the Greeks.

In their state of dependence on the ancient Greek towns, these Oenotrians
became completely hellenised. During the first century after the Greek
settlements, they were not yet subdued, but they were reduced at the time
when Sybaris and Croton had reached their highest prosperity. This is
proved by the colonies of these two cities on the western coast, which
oblige us to assume that the intermediate country was subject to them.
Hence the almost fabulous accounts of the immense population of Sybaris
and Croton, which must be understood to refer, not to the population
of the cities alone, but also to comprise their subjects. The fall of
Sybaris, in Olymp. 67, 3, was the death blow to the Greek dominion in
southern Italy, and to the subjects who all lived in willing submission;
for in the course of a long time a relation had arisen, in which the rule
of Sybaris had become milder and milder, and in which the nations became
more and more united with it. It was probably after the foundation of
Thurii in the territory of Sybaris, that the Lucanians appeared in the
northern part of the country, the modern Basilicata. They first attacked
Posidonia and captured it; they next conquered the western part of the
whole country, which derived from them the name of Lucania, and then
advanced more and more against the Greek towns, as on the eastern coast
against Thurii and Croton, which now dropped their former jealousy in
order to defend themselves against the common enemy. But they were so
far reduced as to be confined within their own walls. This extension of
the Lucanians becomes manifest about the beginning of the Peloponnesian
war. Strabo is not correct in saying, that the Lucanians expelled the
Oenotrians and Chonians, for they only subdued them. The decisive battle
of Laos between the population of Magna Graecia and the Lucanians, in
which the latter gained the upper hand, belongs to the period of the
conquest of Rome by the Gauls; and this battle prostrated the Greeks
for ever. Lucania now became a great state, extending from the frontier
of the Hirpinians to the gates of Rhegium. But it did not long maintain
itself in this extent. The Sabellian Lucanians were not numerous enough
to rule over so large a territory. The consequence of their victory
over the Greek towns was, that the latter were broken, and that the
ancient serfs of the Greeks in those parts, a portion of the Lucanians
themselves, and the subjects of the Lucanians, constituted themselves as
an independent state under the name of the Bruttii. Henceforth Lucania
was reduced to about one half of its former territory; but it retained
this extent until the last period of the Roman empire, and under its name
a separate region of Italy was formed.

Lucania was fearfully devasted during the several wars which were carried
on there. The resistance of the Lucanians against the Romans was not so
desperate as that of the Samnites, whence they did not suffer so much
when at length they were obliged to succumb. But they committed the
folly of throwing themselves into the arms of Hannibal; the consequence
of which was that the Romans destroyed their towns one after another;
some of them, however, which remained faithful to Rome, especially the
capital, Petelia, were severely treated by Hannibal. After the war a
great part of their territory became Roman domain land. Still, however,
they recovered to some extent; they then took part in the Social War, but
do not appear to have suffered much. The result was that they obtained
the Roman franchise. But they again suffered severely during the servile
war of Spartacus, whose real head-quarters were in Lucania and Bruttium;
at that time the country was changed into a wilderness. From Cicero’s
speech for Tullius, we see that at Thurii every thing was burnt down.
Lucania is a woody mountainous country, and the Apennines in those parts
are full of the most beautiful forests; during the latter period of the
republic large estates were formed there; the free population was for
the most part extirpated, and the large farms were managed by slaves,
coloni being seldom employed, and wherever slaves put their feet, not a
blade of grass remained. Hence, during the first centuries of the empire,
the country was almost deserted, and was employed only as pasture land;
the population had become completely uncivilised. From the edicts of the
emperors during the fourth and fifth centuries, we see what terrible
people those slaves were: the severest laws were enacted merely to
establish some security; they were disarmed, and for ever forbidden the
use of any weapons whatsoever.

BRUTTIUM was in the same condition; it had been laid waste as early as
the Hannibalian war. After the war of Pyrrhus, the Bruttians had obtained
tolerable terms from the Romans, and their subsequent revolt was not
provoked by any act on the part of the Romans. They suffered especially
from the circumstance that Hannibal, during the latter years of his war
established himself among them, recruited his armies there, and carried
many of their young men capable of bearing arms with him to Africa. He
was obliged, against his own inclination, to make heavy demands upon the
country. The Romans, on the other hand, afterwards took fearful vengeance
on them; although the events had been brought about less by the desire
of the Bruttians than by unavoidable circumstances. The Romans deprived
them of their political existence, and treated them as a people among
whom only _servi publici_ for all manner of services were levied. By this
means, the Bruttians were reduced to a state of helotism. This is one
of the reasons why they are not mentioned at all during the Social War;
another circumstance contributing to the same result was that the Romans
did not regard them as Italicans, but as Greeks.

I have not much to say respecting the towns in the interior of the
country. PETELIA, an ancient Pelasgian town, the origin of which was
connected with Greek traditions, was the capital of Lucania. CRUMENTUM
was the most important town in the interior; the form of its name is
like those of others with which we have become acquainted: the Pelasgian
Κρυμόεις or Κρυμοῦς changes its termination into _entum_, and signifies
“the cold,” or “frosty,” from its situation on a high hill.

In time of war, the Lucanians had a common magistrate, called βασιλεὺς
by the Greeks, and _imperator_ by the Romans, and a common constitution;
but we know nothing about the political forms of the Bruttians. The
inscriptions on Lucanian coins are Oscan, written in Greek characters;
but the people, also, spoke Greek perfectly, so that the fact of
the Pseudo-Pythagorean books being called Lucanian is not against
probability. The Lucanian coins are far less beautiful than those of
Bruttium, which have Greek inscriptions, and are like the most beautiful
coins of Greek cities. Though, therefore, they destroyed Greek towns,
still they learned and cultivated the arts of the Greeks. CONSENTIA
was the capital of the Bruttians, and the modern Cosenza is likewise a
capital.

The great SILA forest, in the north of Bruttium, was of great importance
to the Bruttians; it was very extensive, and such a large forest shows
the desolation of the country from war. It furnished the Romans with
excellent timber for ship-building, and also yielded a considerable
revenue from the manufacture of tar.


GREEK TOWNS ON THE COAST OF ITALY.

CALLIPOLIS (now Gallipoli), a colony of Tarentum, situated on the
Iapygian promontory on the south-east of Tarentum, has no historical
interest. But TARENTUM itself is all the more important. This city is
generally spoken of by the ancients, and especially by Livy, with great
moral contempt. I am quite sure that no man is less disposed to put forth
paradoxes than I: on the contrary, every paradox is repulsive to me,
and calls forth in me a feeling of distrust. There are, however, many
points in history on which we cannot help asserting the very opposite
of the opinion generally current. People speak of the Tarentines as if
they had been completely lost in luxuries and effeminacy, and as if
they had really deserved the frightful fate they had to endure; they
are spoken of with contempt, because, it is said, they embarked in
great undertakings, but did not possess the strength to carry them out
by themselves, and lived in a constant round of sensual pleasures. But
it is especially the ὕβρις and βδελυρία which the Tarentines displayed
towards the Roman ambassadors, that has made an indelible stain on their
character. Now, although I am far from believing that the Tarentines were
deserving of any unusual degree of moral respect, yet I must positively
assert, that the things for which they are so generally condemned, are
for the most part false, and in some points the allegations against them
are no grounds for condemnation. It is impossible to despise a people
which, while the other Greek towns succumbed to the Italians, rose to
such greatness during that very period, and without being favoured by
any outward circumstances. Such a thing cannot be done without skill,
ability, and character; it is not a mere fortunate accident, especially
in a republic, where a brilliant period cannot be brought about by a
single great ruler, as in a monarchy. Moreover, Tarentum produced an
Archytas, who was, perhaps, the greatest philosopher, mathematician, and
statesman, in all antiquity, unless we may except Thucydides who, if
he had wished it, might have become equally great in the sciences; but
he took no interest in them. Such a man usually cannot expect the most
favourable reception among his countrymen, the voice of envy and jealousy
immediately rising against him. But Archytas was, notwithstanding all
this, repeatedly placed at the head of the state as its strategus, and
with such confidence, that the democratic Tarentines allowed themselves
to be guided and directed entirely by him. This circumstance alone would
convince me, that they do not deserve the harsh sentence which posterity
has pronounced upon them: however much they may have degenerated fifty
years later, at that time their prosperity was not undeserved.

Ancient Tarentum was a very extensive place; the modern town with
its 18,000 or 20,000 inhabitants, though, it is true, they live very
close together, does not occupy more space than the ancient acra, the
original Laconian colony, around which the new town arose and extended.
This immense new town has disappeared, though its circumference can
still be recognised. It is well known, that the origin of Tarentum
is connected with the history of Laconia; the story has indeed some
historical foundation, but is evidently perverted; and the statement
about Phalanthus and the Parthenii has no historical character at all.
In very many states, in which no connubium existed between the different
parts of the population, the persons sprung from unlawful marriages
between members of the ruling and those of the subject people, endangered
the government of the ruling class. Such were the Parthenii. For about
two centuries and a half the Tarentines were powerful far and wide,
but an attempt they made about the time of the Persian wars, to reduce
the Messapians to the condition of helots, failed, and they suffered
a defeat from which for a century they could not recover; the defeat,
according to Herodotus, was the most bloody that had ever been sustained
by a Greek nation. Still, however, Tarentum afterwards recovered, and
that too at a period when we should least expect it, when Thurii,
Croton, and other towns sank, and when in many parts the towns entirely
disappeared. It may be, that Tarentum offered a place of refuge to the
Greeks expelled from Caulon and other places; but the people must have
made every effort to overcome their difficult circumstances, for their
city became very powerful. It now assumed altogether a commercial and
manufacturing character, and became the real emporium for southern
Italy, and perhaps for Samnium also. Salt was a lucrative article of
its commerce; it had excellent wool, cloth manufactories, and dyeing
establishments; purple in particular was made there in the greatest
perfection. Tarentum was in every respect an industrial place, with
extensive navigation and fisheries. Such a population could not possibly
feel inclined to serve in the army as a heavy-armed infantry, such as
was then required; their cavalry was anything but contemptible; it
was distinguished for peculiar tactics of its own. The fact that they
enlisted foreign mercenaries, ought not to be made a subject of reproach
to them, as they were a commercial people, and as it was the general
practice of the Greeks at that time. That they took into their pay
foreign princes with their whole armies, may have been imprudent; but in
this respect too they did no more than what was done by England, which,
during the eighteenth century, often took whole regiments of foreign
countries into its service, a system which the United States of the
Netherlands followed ever since the time of Maurice of Orange. It was
the natural consequence of circumstances; and it is absurd to expect of
such a wealthy commercial people, that it should be as great in war as
an agricultural people. They, no doubt, did not conceal from themselves
the fact that their military system was bad; but politics cannot always
control all circumstances. The Tarentines certainly do not deserve the
reproach of ingratitude towards Alexander of Epirus, for his intention
was to set himself up as king of southern Italy, and he first acted as
an enemy towards them. The fate of Tarentum in its contest with Rome is
known from history: after the fall of Samnium, it threw itself into the
arms of Pyrrhus, after whose death it was betrayed and sold. According to
the Roman historians, Rome treated the city very generously, leaving it
independent: this independence, however, may have been a mere name; the
Romans for a longtime kept a garrison there, which, in the Hannibalian
war defended the old town against the siege of Hannibal. The new town
threw itself into the arms of the Carthaginian, but he could not maintain
it, and the inhabitants were obliged to surrender to the Romans, who now
took cruel vengeance and destroyed the place. In the time of C. Gracchus
it became a Roman colony.

The Greek towns of Southern Italy are comprised under the general name of
MAGNA GRAECIA; whether this name also included Tarentum, or whether it
was limited to the coast of Oenotrian Italy, and whether it also embraced
the interior, these are questions which, so far as I know, the ancients
do not decide, though the name was in use at a very early period. If we
possessed the work of Antiochus of Syracuse, a contemporary of Herodotus,
it would perhaps furnish us information about it; from Ephorus and
Eratosthenes we could hardly expect to learn anything on this point. It
is possible also that the name ἡ μεγάλη Ἑλλάς may not have been confined
to the Greek towns.

In enumerating these towns, we may follow a twofold system: we may either
trace them along the coast, beginning with the one next to Tarentum and
thus proceeding as far as Posidonia, or we may arrange them according to
the Greek tribes to which they belonged, and according to the alleged
periods of their foundation. The first system may be traced on any map
where they follow one another in this order: Metapontum, Heraclea, Siris
(which is found in very few maps), Sybaris (afterwards Thurii), Croton,
Scylletion, Caulon, Locri, and Rhegium: on the other side, we have
Hipponium, Laos, Pyxus, Elea, and Posidonia. These towns were colonies
of different tribes, but the most important among them were of Achaean
origin. The original number of the latter was four, which again became
the mother towns of the rest; even in regard to the fourth, however,
it is not certain whether it was not a colony of Croton. Sybaris was
the most ancient among them: next came Croton; Metapontum, the third,
was of much more recent origin; and the fourth, was Caulon or Caulonia,
concerning which, as I have already said, it is doubtful whether it was
an Achaean colony, or whether it received at the same time settlers from
Croton, as was the case at Apollonia which was founded by Corinth and
Corcyra conjointly.

The colonies of the Locrians are equally ancient, and, according to
tradition, they even belong to an earlier date. Both these sets of
colonies again founded others: the Achaean Laos founded Scidros, Elea
(a mixed colony), and Posidonia; and the Locrians built Hipponium and
Medina. There were also Ionian colonies of different kinds; Siris was
a very ancient Colophonian settlement; Rhegium, a Chalcidian colony of
a more recent date, afterwards founded Pyxus. Elea, too, may be called
Ionian, inasmuch as the fugitives from Phocaea were admitted there, as
those from Colophon had been at Siris. They accordingly lie, as it were,
in chronological strata above one another, not proceeding in their origin
from the same points.

In regard to some of these colonies, the same question presents itself
which we had to answer in the case of those in Asia Minor, namely,
whether they were really ancient Greek colonies in the sense in which
they are so called by our historians, or whether they are not partially
of earlier origin, so that, being originally founded by people akin to
the Greeks, they afterwards assumed an entirely Greek character. This
is really probable in the case of some of them, but nothing certain
can be said about it. This opinion is most plausible in regard to the
Locrians, for the accounts of their origin are too mythical, and they
act a part in all the ancient traditions relating to the period of the
Siculi and Itali. The only definite tradition about their origin is the
one mentioned by Aristotle, of which I shall speak in due time. The fact,
that the Achaeans appear as a colonising people, is likewise mysterious,
as they are so insignificant in the early history of Greece. However,
Zacynthos, too, is an Achaean colony, and one of the results of the
historical inquiries of modern times is, that very little is known about
Greek history previous to the Persian wars. Many changes, therefore, may
have taken place, of which we are completely ignorant: as the Achaeans
passed through a revolution in Aegialos, it is at all events possible,
that previously they were a more important people, and that after the
Doric migration the oppressed perioeci may have assembled and emigrated
from Peloponnesus, just as the Minyans are said to have emigrated from
Taenaron to other parts. But these things scarcely admit of sober
criticism, and I will not dwell upon them. I shall now enumerate the
towns according to the common practice beginning with the most important.
The Achaean colonies will be mentioned first.

SYBARIS, according to tradition, was the most ancient among the Achaean
towns. It has a great name, but in the period of historical certainty it
had ceased to exist. The greatness of Sybaris is beyond a doubt, but all
the details related about the luxuriousness of its inhabitants, their
wealth, their works of art, and their final catastrophe, are either
doubtful or altogether fabulous. The numbers of its inhabitants and of
the men capable of bearing arms are exaggerated in an almost oriental
fashion, for at its destruction, the city is said to have had 300,000 men
capable of bearing arms; the manner also, in which Croton is said to have
gained the battle, is a mere silly story. But we need not wonder at the
fabulous character of these accounts, or at the obscurity of the history,
for all the early history of Greece is in the same predicament, and Roman
history too begins very late. We must be on our guard not to measure the
history of the western nations by the standard of eastern annals. Even
if we trace the contemporary records among the Hebrews only as far as
the time of Solomon, we already reach a very early period compared with
that to which history ascends in Greece. There can be no doubt, that the
Egyptians had annals from the period of the seventeenth dynasty, that is,
from the time of Sesostris and Amenophis, or the expulsion of the Hycsos;
but the Greeks had no such ancient contemporary records, and although
there existed certain annalistic tables, as for example, the list of
the priestesses at Argos, still they did not, like the oriental annals,
constitute a history, but were mere lists of years. It is of extreme
importance to an historical philologer, to know how late Greek history
commences. At the period of my youth, I and those of the same age with me
grew up under the most erroneous notions in this respect. I was already a
young man, when it first occurred to me to doubt the truth of the stories
about the Messenian wars and about Aristomenes; in the common histories
of Greece no doubts were expressed, the events were assigned to definite
years, and were narrated as confidently as if they were reported on the
best historical authority. People are not yet sufficiently free from
these thoroughly erroneous notions, although a right view has already
gained some ground. All we know about Sybaris with certainty is, that it
was destroyed several years before the period which we regard as the time
of the expulsion of the Roman kings; Greek writers place the destruction
three years before this event; but synchronistic statements of this kind
are of no value. Posidonia and Laos on the opposite coast were colonies
of Sybaris, whence we may suppose that all Lucania, with the exception of
Metapontum, was subject to it. Sybaris and all those towns became great
and powerful within an incredibly short period, which probably arose
from the fact of their being commercial colonies. The rapidity, with
which commercial cities rise, is exemplified by New York, which 120 years
ago had no more than 1000 inhabitants, while at present its population
amounts to upwards of 140,000. The same increase has taken place at
Philadelphia. If, as is generally supposed, Sybaris at the time of its
destruction had existed for two centuries, we may easily admit that it
had become great and powerful, and hence there is nothing impossible in
the statement, that it ruled over four nations and twenty-five towns. We
must also bear in mind, that those Greek towns might grow up even with
much greater rapidity than the English colonies in North America; for
in the latter all the settlers were Europeans, and consequently quite
foreign to the original population; in southern Italy, on the other hand,
the greater part of the population consisted unquestionably of native
Oenotrians, who were by no means foreign to the Greeks. In countries
where the natives were foreign to them, as on the Euxine, their colonies
never rose so rapidly as on the coasts of Asia Minor and Italy, where
they settled among kindred tribes. Cyrene, which was a large city,
perhaps forms the only exception in this respect.

In regard to the history of Sybaris, it is certain that Sybaris and
Tarentum, being Achaean and Dorian towns respectively, were hostile to
each other, and that there was a time when Sybaris and Croton, both of
Achaean origin, were on friendly terms. The object of the dispute with
Tarentum was the fertile district between the Acalandrus and the Siris,
which was called Siritis; and in order to maintain their possession of
it, the Sybarites are said to have invited other Achaeans to come over,
and these latter are reported to have founded—

METAPONTUM.[55] Its name shows the same formation which we have already
observed on several other occasions, and leads us to a form Μεταποῦς,
analogous to Μαλοῦς. This town, which was founded under the protection
of Sybaris, may in reality not have been in a state of independence
as long as Sybaris was a powerful state; in order to preserve the
possession of its territory, Metapontum required the protection of the
Sybarites against the neighbouring Oenotrians and Apulians; but after
the fall of Sybaris, Metapontum may be regarded as an independent town.
In the traditions we have of this place, as in those of several others,
statements about its earlier Oenotrian condition are mixed up with those
about its later Hellenic character; the Pelasgian traditions about it
always refer to the Trojan legend, and hence Metapontum is mentioned as
a Pylian colony. During the period down to the time when the Lucanians
became powerful, the place, from the extraordinary fertility of its
territory, became so wealthy as to equal the richest Greek towns in
Italy. The Metapontines are said to have sent a θέρος χρυσοῦν to Delphi,
which was probably a golden sheaf, the produce of the tithes. Their great
wealth is also attested by the very numerous gold and silver coins of
Metapontum, of very beautiful workmanship, and mostly of great antiquity.
Afterwards, however, all the towns in those parts were overpowered
by the Lucanians, and Metapontum, also, which was deprived of its
territory, must have lost its greatness in consequence. Afterwards, it
suffered severely from the Greek and Epirot armies, which were called
into the country by the Tarentines. Alexander of Epirus and Cleonymus
of Sparta for a time occupied Metapontum with garrisons, and Cleonymus
in particular acted with disgraceful cruelty: he took hostages, and
plundered and pillaged the town. After that time it never recovered. In
the war of Pyrrhus, Metapontum was an insignificant place; in the second
Punic war, it attached itself to Hannibal, and afterwards it is, as if
a wave had passed over it and washed it away, though we do not know how
or when; but we hear no more of it. In the age of Strabo, it was a small
place, but in point of fact, it had perished.

The destruction of Sybaris by the Crotoniats was the death-blow to the
Greek towns in those parts, for the Crotoniats were not able to protect
the country against the invading Lucanians and Oenotrians. Some of the
surviving Sybarites withdrew to their colonies of Laos and Scidros, and
others built a small place of the name of Sybaris in a distant part; all
attempts to rebuild the ancient city failed, for Croton and the vengeance
of the emancipated serfs prevented it. In this distress they applied to
the Athenians, who in the days of their greatness appear everywhere as
the defenders of the Hellenic name: on this occasion, too, they were
ready to assist the unfortunate Sybarites, and invited colonists from
all parts of Greece to settle at Sybaris. The reason why Croton did not
oppose this new settlement may have been the fact, that the people of
the interior were advancing more and more; the Crotoniats probably felt,
that a powerful Greek colony in the neighbourhood might be very useful
to them: Posidonia, too, was probably already lost. At a deliberation
of the Spartans and their allies, a Greek said, that if Athens were
destroyed, “the spring would be taken out of Hellas,”[56]—the destruction
of Sybaris had taken the spring out of Magna Graecia. The settlement at
THURII succeeded without any opposition on the part of the Italicans.
It was called an Athenian colony; but the Athenians formed only a small
portion of the population, which consisted of Dorians and Ionians,
islanders as well as emigrants from the mainland, who had been invited by
the Athenians, without any distinction, as to a general Greek enterprise;
the Athenians did not reserve for themselves any petty advantages,
being satisfied with the consciousness that history would call them the
restorers of Sybaris. Thurii must have been a strong colony, whence
it soon rose to importance. The ancient name was probably ominous, as
Sybaris had been destroyed twice, or perhaps even three times. The name
Thurii is said to have been derived from a well. This is possible; but
the emblem of Sybaris on ancient coins (for there are some very ancient
ones) is always a bull, whence it is quite possible, that this emblem may
have been the cause of the name, for θούριος signifies _ferox_, fierce,
wild. Thurii soon became involved in constant wars with the Lucanians;
but fifty or sixty years after its foundation it was already so powerful
that it could lose more than 10,000 men in battle against the Lucanians.
This loss, however, was a blow from which it never could thoroughly
recover; it was soon after confined to its own territory, and perhaps
even obliged to pay tribute to protect itself against the devastations
of the Lucanians. In the wars of the Tarentines and the other Greeks
against the Lucanians, Thurii is indeed still mentioned, but it sank more
and more, until in the end it was taken and plundered by the Lucanians.
Afterwards, it placed itself under the protection of the Romans, who,
however, were unable to prevent its being plundered a second time by
the Tarentines. Subsequently it sank so low, that after the Hannibalian
war a Latin colony was established there; but this colony was equally
unfortunate, for during the war of Spartacus it was razed to the ground,
as we see from the fragments of Cicero’s speech for Tullius, recently
discovered by A. Mai.

The next place is CROTON, which, according to tradition, was founded
shortly after Sybaris. There exist very contradictory accounts about
this town, and it is difficult to discover any connection among them.
Heyne has written several essays on all the towns of Magna Graecia; he
ought not to be undervalued, but nearly all his works were written in too
great a hurry; he had overburdened himself with official business and his
own undertakings, and it is melancholy to see how a man of such truly
beautiful talents does not rise above mediocrity in his writings. On
the whole, he has only produced imperfect works; if he had concentrated
himself more, if he had been willing to do less, and if he had not been
possessed by an unfortunate πολυπραγμοσύνη, he would certainly have
acquired a great and lasting reputation. The best intentions in such a
case are of no avail; posterity will not heed them; for it does not ask,
What is the number of a man’s works? but, What are they? His fate may be
described in the words of Scripture: “He is gone hence, and not a trace
of him is left behind.” Heyne also founded a school which was bad, though
his followers were celebrated in Germany, as if they were great scholars.
From it, however, men proceeded, who, though outwardly belonging to it,
kept themselves independent of the school, as F. A. Wolf and others, who
are the real restorers of the sound philology which is now flourishing.
Heyne’s essays are pleasant to read; but he who is familiar with their
subjects, sees before him a man who does not take the trouble to examine
things, who is satisfied with vague conceptions, and shows the greatest
indifference as to what is possible and what is not; it is only now
and then that a bright idea reminds us of his original talent. But,
notwithstanding all this, Heyne’s essays ought not to be left unread.
Very different is the case of Bentley, and I must strongly recommend to
you every thing he has written on similar subjects.

There is great difficulty in the tradition about Croton, according to
which it was so powerful that it became insolent, and attempted to subdue
the Locrians; the Locrians, however, it is said, owing to the favour of
the gods, who took pity on the oppressed, gained quite an unexpected and
glorious victory over them. Hereupon, tradition says, the Crotoniats
renounced war and lived in effeminacy, until Pythagoras appeared among
them, and by a new religion which he taught, and by new ordinances,
introduced a fresh spirit and improved manners among them. Yet here again
the mystery is, how, during that very period of moral debasement, the
Crotoniats could stand in the same relation to Sybaris, as that in which
Locri stood to Croton. One might be inclined to place the battle on the
Sagra, according to Justin and other indications, between Olympiad 70
and 80; and I myself formerly entertained this opinion; but after the
discovery of the “Excerpta de Sententiis” from Diodorus and Polybius, it
cannot be doubted that the ancients placed it in Olymp. 50. From this,
then, it follows, that the stories of their insolence, effeminacy, and
moral debasement, must be regarded as mere arbitrary inventions. Although
no such exaggerated numbers are mentioned in the case of Croton as in
that of Sybaris, yet 100,000 armed men are said to have been arrayed
against the Locrians on the Sagra, and the circumference of the city
is said to have been twelve Roman miles; Livy, who no doubt took the
account from Polybius, states it to have been 100 stadia, and this does
not appear fabulous. The greatness of Croton belongs to an early period,
but afterwards its power must have sunk in consequence of circumstances
which are unknown to us. Traces of internal commotions occur in the
well-known account of the persecution of the Pythagoreans. This sect
went hand in hand with the aristocracy; its downfall was connected with
the development of democracy, and was not so much the consequence of its
religious as of its political character. This accounts for the fact, that
Croton had already ceased to be a powerful state, when, according to
Diodorus, Magna Graecia becomes prominent in history, that is, about the
time of the foundation of Thurii. When the Lucanians were spreading far
and wide, and Thurii received its fatal blow at Laos, the Crotoniats are
not mentioned with any degree of distinction, but are treated like the
inhabitants of the other cantons of that country. But if it had been a
town of small extent, Dionysius the elder would not have been so anxious
to gain possession of it; he besieged and conquered it in a nocturnal
surprise, by attacking it on a side where it was believed to be almost
inaccessible. This capture of Croton, which Diodorus strangely says
nothing about, must have been very destructive in its effects upon the
place. Dionysius, it is true, afterwards quitted it, and it recovered
its independence, but thenceforth its fate was always very deplorable.
Croton was obliged to submit to Alexander of Epirus, though he inflicted
no injury upon it; but Agathocles, in his undertaking against Corcyra,
besieged it in passing; the town was then governed by the tyrant
Menecrates, whom Agathocles deceived by pretending that he was anxious to
form connections with him; but he then suddenly changed the course of his
fleet which was bound for Corcyra, and having landed at Croton, captured
the town. Not quite twenty-five years later, in A.U. 450, the Romans
under P. Cornelius Rufinus took it by assault; and this catastrophe,
as we see from Livy’s account of the Hannibalian war, completely broke
its power. It now shrunk together within its ancient circumference
in the same manner as e.g., Pisa, or Leyden, which once had 100,000
inhabitants, while at present it has only 20,000. When a person walks
on the ramparts of Pisa, he sees the modern town concentrated in the
centre of its ancient circumference. Pisa is at present as desolate as
many an eastern city, such as, e.g., Basra or Ispahan; such also was the
condition of Rome in the middle ages, especially during the time when the
popes resided at Avignon. The arx of Croton was situated in the centre of
the town, and around it a few houses were still standing: all the rest
had become changed into fields. In the Hannibalian war, the Bruttians
took the town and demanded of the inhabitants to share it with them, but
the Crotoniats preferred emigrating to living together with them. The
Bruttians then established a colony there, but after the conclusion of
the war they were expelled by the Romans, who now sent a colony thither;
but this was not very successful either. At present Croton is a little
country-town.

It is remarkable that, considering the importance of the cities of Magna
Graecia, so few monuments of antiquity are found in all of them: there
are cameos and coins of Tarentum, but few statues.

In the neighbourhood of Croton there was a temple of _Juno Lacinia_
on the Lacinian promontory. This promontory on the one side, and the
Iapygian on the other, inclose the gulf of Tarentum. Lacinia is generally
taken as a proper name of Juno, and from it the name of the promontory
is derived; but this is incorrect: the adjective is an ethnic name, and
_Juno Lacinia_ and _Acra Lacinia_ are nothing else but Juno and the
Acra of the Lacinii, that is, the Latini, in the sense in which all
the Pelasgian Italiots are so called. According to the most authentic
accounts, this temple of Juno Lacinia is more ancient than the Greek
settlements on those coasts; in the remotest times it was the common
sanctuary of the Oenotrians, and afterwards it passed into the hands of
the Crotoniats. During the period of Croton’s greatness it was extremely
rich, and traces of its wealth existed as late as the Hannibalian war;
but in the course of this war it was profaned and plundered by the
Romans. Hannibal had his head-quarters there for a long time, and caused
a large tablet, containing a history of his own exploits in the Greek
and Punic languages, to be set up in the temple. How valuable would such
a document be, if it were preserved! I shall pass over the small places
south of the Lacinian promontory, and proceed to—

CAULON or CAULONIA, a small Achaean town, which had a common diet with
the other places.

LOCRI, was probably not a real Greek colony, but a Hellenized place. If
Locri was a Greek colony, this fact, too, would show, what is everywhere
probable from their very situation, that the Ozolian Locrians and those
πέραν Εὐβοίας once belonged to each other, and that they were torn
asunder only by the immigration of the Dolopians; and that accordingly
they were a much larger people. We must, therefore, be on our guard
not to blame Virgil, as he has been blamed for calling the Locrians
_Narycii_. People say, it is inconceivable that the Locrians should have
been called _Narycii_, as mount Naryx was situated opposite Euboea, while
the Italian Locrians were descended from the Ozolian Locrians (according
to Strabo). Virgil did not conceive the Locrians as divided, but as one
unbroken race, extending from the Corinthian to the Euboean sea. The
Locrians in Italy are called Ἐπιζεφύριοι, that is, ἐπὶ Ζεφυρίῳ, on the
promontory of Zephyrium. Hitherto the traditions about these Locrians
have been a curious puzzle. The ancient excerpts from the twelfth book of
Polybius contain traces of a great controversy of Timaeus, who is raving
against Aristotle on account of what he had said about the origin of the
Locrians. But what Aristotle actually had said, is not mentioned by the
epitomizer, and it could only be guessed that he had derived their origin
from slaves. Besides this, there was a passage of Dionysius Periegeta,
in which he says of the Locrians σφετέρῃς μιχθέντες ἀνάσσαις, on which
the passage of the scholiast is incomplete. But from the new “Excerpta
de Sententiis,” the whole matter has become clear. Aristotle relates the
following tradition. In the first Messenian war, the Locrians furnished
the Spartans with auxiliaries, and all their men capable of bearing arms
had taken the field. During their absence, their wives and daughters led
a licentious life with their servants; and from fear of their returning
masters, the servants with their concubines emigrated. Timaeus in saying
that this story sounds fabulous, made easy game of Aristotle, if he
supposed that Aristotle believed it to be true; but I would undertake to
answer for it that Aristotle did not give the story as a real historical
tradition, but that he mentioned it only as a legend of the Locrians.
He no doubt asserted that the Italian Locrians were not a colony of the
Greek Locrians, and that, if they were Locrians, they were so only
through the women. Timaeus might easily have investigated the matter; but
his object was only to find fault with Aristotle. But such disgraceful
conduct always receives its punishment in due time, and Polybius has
prepared it for him. If here, as everywhere else, we put aside the
mythical story, we find that the foundation of the Locrian state in Italy
belongs to the period of the decay of the constitution of the _gentes_,
when in various places illegitimate marriages between the ancient
families and the δῆμος gave rise to a mixed race, which became dangerous
to the aristocracy, and was, therefore, obliged to emigrate. The same
fact forms the basis of the story about Phalanthus and the Parthenii.

But whatever may have been the origin of the Locrians, they bore in
ancient times a very respectable character, for they defeated the
Crotoniats in the battle on the Sagra. The Greek proverb ἀληθέστερα τῶν
ἐπὶ Σάγρᾳ must probably not be taken quite literally, at least, not in
our narrative, in which it is said that the Dioscuri decided the issue
of the contest. In like manner, St. James is said to have appeared on a
white charger in the army of Ferdinand Cortez: a distinguished officer,
who had been present at every point of the battle and seen nothing, got
himself out of the difficulty by saying, that he had not been worthy to
behold the saint. Such, also, may have been the case with the Dioscuri in
the battle on the Sagra. At all events, however, the Locrians, through
that battle, secured their independence, and for a period of 150 years
thereafter, they lived in happy prosperity, which was disturbed by
Dionysius, who endeavoured to gain influence in the Greek towns of Italy
by marrying a citizen of one of them. A Rhegine maiden being refused to
him, he took a Locrian for his wife. For this reason Locri was greatly
favoured; but after Dionysius’ death, his son, on being obliged to
withdraw from Sicily, betook himself to Locri, where he raged like a Nero
or an Elagabalus. When, afterwards, he was forced to return to Sicily,
the Locrians took vengeance on his family, and then had to sustain a
siege, during which, there being no hope of pardon, they offered a most
vigorous resistance, and risked their all upon it. Their territory fell
into the hands of the Bruttians, but in the war of Pyrrhus, Locri was
still a considerable state. On that occasion, however, they acted an
unworthy part: they first requested the Romans to send them a garrison
against the Bruttians, and then betrayed it into the hands of Pyrrhus.
After this, Pyrrhus placed a garrison of Italicans and Bruttians there,
who again betrayed the town to the Romans. Sixty years later, the
Locrians delivered up a Roman garrison into the hands of Hannibal: they
then repented of their treachery—a fickleness which, often occurs among
the Greeks—and again opened their gates to the Romans. But this last act
was not set down to their credit, for Q. Pleminius, who was left behind
there by Scipio with a garrison, conducted himself like the commanders
of the troops of the League during the thirty years’ war, like Colonel
Hatzfeld at Rostock, and as the imperial commanders in general, with
their Croats, conducted themselves in Germany. Pleminius treated the town
as if it had been taken by the sword; at length, however, the Locrians
succeeded in inducing the Roman senate to interfere, and to punish the
offender; the account of his conduct gives us some idea of the manner
in which war was carried on in those times. The town continued to exist
after these events, but was quite insignificant; its greatest importance
consisted in a temple of Proserpine with a rich treasury. Pyrrhus
had plundered the sanctuary, but being warned by visions in a dream,
he restored the treasures; Q. Pleminius afterwards plundered it more
effectually.

The next town, RHEGIUM, was a Chalcidian colony, of a much more recent
date than the others, being founded about Olymp. 50. During the period
when it was the residence of Anaxilaus, it was a powerful city. At the
time of the Sicilian expedition, Rhegium, like all the other Chalcidian
towns, was allied with Athens. The Rhegines refused to give one of
their daughters in marriage to Dionysius, and were injudicious enough
to insult him, by saying that they had no other girl suited to him
except the daughter of the hangman, which was the most offensive thing
they could have done. At the time when Corsica was still independent,
no Corsican ever took the office of hangman, but from hatred of Genoa,
the Corsicans always appointed a Genoese. Dionysius laid siege to the
town, and the Rhegines defended themselves with the courage of lions,
but were overpowered; and their fate was terrible. But the situation of
the town is so fortunate, that a town will always exist there in spite
of earthquakes and other ravages. A hundred years later, Rhegium was,
if possible, still more unfortunate. In the war of Pyrrhus, a Campanian
legion, at the request of the Rhegines themselves, was sent there by the
Romans, for the purpose of cutting off the communication between Pyrrhus
and the Mamertines in Sicily. But this garrison, under the command of
Decius Jubellius, massacred the male inhabitants, and took possession of
their wives and children. At the conclusion of the war, the Romans took
the town by force, and the 300 survivors of the 4,000 who had composed
the Campanian legion, were beheaded in the Forum at Rome. The surviving
Rhegines were then called together, and their territory was restored to
them. Henceforth, Rhegium remained a prosperous little commercial town,
and experienced no further misfortunes.

HIPPONIUM, a colony of Locri, was taken and destroyed by the Bruttians,
and then rebuilt by the Carthaginians, which is the only instance of a
Carthaginian town in Italy. During the latter period of Agathocles, and
shortly before the war with Pyrrhus, the Bruttians seem again to have
been masters of the place. Afterwards the Romans established a colony
there, under the name of _Vibo Valentia_.

Proceeding along the coast in a northern direction, we come to LAOS,
on the line which subsequently formed the frontier between Lucania and
Bruttium. It was a colony of Sybaris, and is celebrated on account of
the defeat sustained by the united towns of Magna Graecia, especially
Thurii, against the Lucanians, who wanted to relieve the town from a
siege. At that time, the Lucanians had already extended themselves along
the coast, and Posidonia was their first conquest.

PYXUS or BUXENTUM, between Laos and Posidonia, was founded by the
Rhegines at the time of Anaxilaus and Micythus, who were contemporaries
of Darius Hystaspis. There can be no doubt that it was afterwards taken
by the Lucanians, but it was snatched from them by the Romans, who
surrendered it to the Campanians at the settlement they made with them,
whence Buxentum is afterwards mentioned among the Campanian towns. After
the Hannibalian war, the Romans established a colony there.

ELEA or VELIA, a town which preserved its Greek character in a wonderful
manner, was situated not far from Buxentum. It was a colony of the
Phocaeans, established in the reign of Cyrus, after they had in vain
endeavoured to form a settlement in Corsica (Olymp. 60). In the history
of literature, Elea is remarkable for the great and profound philosophers
who formed the Eleatic school. As Amalfi, though surrounded by Lombard
armies, preserved its pure Italian and Roman character, so Elea remained
a Greek place down to the latest times. The father of the poet Statius
was a Greek of Elea, and Statius’ _Graia Selle_ is nothing else than
Elea, as Markland has shown; some persons have strangely referred it to
Epirus, and some perhaps do so still. Elea was allied with Rome, and was
honoured and distinguished by her. It perished at a time which can no
longer be defined, in consequence of the ravages of barbarians.

POSIDONIA or PAESTUM was the most powerful among the Greek cities on
that coast. The place still has the most beautiful Greek ruins in all
Italy, and three ancient temples are preserved there in tolerable
completeness; before the first half of the eighteenth century, they
were not known at all, for they were not discovered till 1730. The
cause of this may have been the circumstance, that they are situated
in a very pestilential and deserted district; but at present they are
known to everybody. The ruins belong to the ancient Greek period, when
Posidonia was still powerful. There have also been found great numbers
of coins of a very ancient style, resembling those of Sybaris, which
are at least as old as the sixtieth Olympiad, and perhaps even older.
Posidonia was conquered by the Lucanians, though it is unknown at what
time, and it remained under their dominion until the war of Pyrrhus,
when the Romans established a colony there under the name of Paestum.
The fact, that previously the Lucanians had a colony there, is clear
from the account of Aristoxenus, in Athenaeus, about an annual festival
which the inhabitants celebrated quite in the ancient Greek fashion,
and at which they, among other things, complained of their losing their
Greek character and peculiarities, and of their becoming barbarians in
consequence of their being ruled over by barbarians. Athenaeus indeed
mentions the Romans as their rulers, but he is either mistaken in
the name, or the book which he quotes was not by Aristoxenus, but a
_pseudepigraphon_, which is certainly possible. It is interesting on this
occasion to become acquainted with the nature of the colonies, and with
the manner in which a new ruling class of men establish themselves among
the people, introducing their language and manners to such an extent
as to cause the nationality of the ancient inhabitants to disappear.
The most striking example of this phenomenon is the diffusion of the
language and manners of the Arabs over the East and Africa: all the
languages which were previously spoken there, Greek, Latin, Egyptian,
and Syriac, having given way to the Arabic. In like manner, the Turkish
language has become predominant in Armenia and Hyrcania. This accounts
for the fact, that, although the Arab immigration into Spain was not
very numerous in comparison with the ancient inhabitants, yet when in
the thirteenth century Andalusia was re-conquered by the Christians, the
people spoke nothing but Arabic. The Ommayad khalifs had introduced
the Arabic language by putting to death any one refusing to adopt it.
The term colony, therefore, is very vague: we generally imagine that
the colonists constitute the real body of the people; but this is not
so, for the colony only furnishes the form. I very well remember, that
about thirty-five years ago, when I read that account of Aristoxenus, the
matter appeared to me strange; but the mixture of the two nationalities
clears up everything.


ETRURIA.

Etruria is in every respect a highly important and interesting country,
and in ancient history it is at the same time great and powerful; it
derives a particular interest from the fact of its being the mother
country of the modern Tuscans, a people on whom all the honour of Italy,
in regard to intellectual and artistic greatness, rested during the
middle ages no less than in modern times, just as the honour of Greece
rested on Athens. In the whole range of modern history there is not a
people, which is so strongly marked with the antique character as the
Florentines; they possess all the great qualities of the Athenians,
without their light-headedness. They also have been too severely judged
of; I do not, indeed, mean to say that they are faultless, but they are,
in spite of any faults, deserving of the highest respect. A man who is
familiar with the old Italian literature and history, cannot but feel
the greatest affection and attachment to Tuscany, and this affection and
attachment are unconsciously transferred to the ancestors of the modern
Tuscans. But the great renown enjoyed by the ancient Etruscans is not
owing to this, but rather to the irresistible charm with which man is
drawn towards that which is mysterious and enigmatical. We can, indeed,
see that the Etruscans were a very remarkable people, and that in regard
to the fine arts, they occupy, next to the Greeks, the highest rank in
antiquity; yet so many monuments and inscriptions of this same people
are perfect mysteries to us; inscriptions exist in great numbers, but
are altogether inexplicable. All the statements of the ancients about
the Etruscans are full of contradiction. The difficulties have been
increased by the opinion which has been established for a long time, that
the Romans derived the greater part of their institutions and character
from the Etruscans, an opinion which formerly I also entertained. But I
have given it up, and in the second edition of my Roman History I have
honestly stated my reasons. The cause of the great confusion among the
ancients about them is the supposition that the Etruscans and Tyrrhenians
were the same people. I have shown in my history that the Greeks, who
are here our only authorities, as we have no other statements, called
the Tyrrhenians Pelasgians, and Tyrrhenians existed not only on the
coasts of Etruria, but occupied the whole coast of Italy down to the
Oenotrian frontier, before the Ausonians subdued those districts. Being
Pelasgians, the Tyrrhenians, according to the views of the Greeks, were
of the same race as the ancient Meonians in Lydia, as the inhabitants
of Lemnos and the islands near the Hellespont, and as the occupants of
the neighbouring coasts. Hence also the tradition about the connection
between the two. These original inhabitants of Etruria, from Luna as
far as the Tiber, were then overpowered by a nation invading Italy from
northern Europe, just as we have seen in the case of the Illyrians; Greek
historians afterwards called the conquerors Tyrrhenians, partly because
a large proportion of the population of Etruria actually was Tyrrhenian,
and partly because the whole country bore the name Tyrrhenia. In like
manner the English are called Britons, and the Spaniards in Mexico and
Peru Mexicans and Peruvians; and in the same way the Greeks applied
the name Oscans to the Sabellians inhabiting Lucania and Samnium,
although the Oscans were the subjects and the Sabellians the ruling
people. As the conquerors have often entirely changed the language of
the conquered people (the coins of Posidonia, when in the end it had
become Roman, have Latin inscriptions in Latin characters), so the
language of the Tyrrhenians, under the dominion of the Etruscans, gave
way to the language of the rulers; and hence we cannot be surprised at
finding on Etruscan monuments none but the mysterious Etruscan language.
I mentioned before the Mexicans as an illustration: the Spaniards who
conquered Mexico amounted only to a few thousands, while the country they
subdued contained many millions of inhabitants. The latter, it is true,
were extirpated by inhuman cruelty, epidemics, and the like; but still
the fact of the Spanish language having become quite universal there
remains a remarkable phenomenon. The Spanish colonists had scarcely any
women with them, and accordingly took native Mexican women for their
wives, whence we might expect to find the Spanish language would have
disappeared all the more naturally and easily. It is a foolish opinion
to believe that the depopulation of Spain was the consequence of the
emigration to the provinces in America; for the number of emigrants to
the new world was on the whole but small. Granting that in the course
of time a few hundred thousand emigrated, the men who arrived there
entirely without families, exercised such an influence upon the language
of millions, that at present not a man in the city of Mexico speaks
Mexican, and the native language exists only in the remotest districts;
the commonest Indian speaks Spanish. There are even large provinces in
New Spain where the ancient language has entirely disappeared, without
its being possible to show that any considerable immigrations ever took
place. In the Baltic provinces of Mecklenburg and Pomerania, where
the ruling families have always remained the same, where the nobility
consists for the most part of Wendish families, and where the Germans
have never appeared as conquerors, the Wendish language is entirely lost,
merely because the introduction of Christianity from Germany was in the
course of a few centuries followed by the German language. The ancient
Tyrrhenian language may, even before the conquest, have become unsettled
and shifting, as the Umbrians occupied the interior of the country while
the Tyrrhenians inhabited the coasts.

The inquiries into the Etruscan language have hitherto yielded no results
at all; all the alleged explanations by Mazzochi, Passeri, and Lanzi are
mere delusions. I must direct your particular attention to the incredibly
small compass of what is commonly called learning. Common sense has
often been most disgracefully trampled under foot, and intuitive truth
has been overlooked and disregarded; and this has been the case more
particularly in the inquiries about the ancient Italian languages. People
have been extremely anxious to discover the Etruscan language, and who
should not be so? I would readily give a considerable part of my property
as a prize to any one who should discover it; an entirely new light
would thereby be thrown upon the character of the nations of Italy. But
desirable as this object is, it does not follow that it is attainable;
it is deplorable, however, if people assume it to be attainable without
examining as to whether the method they adopt be the correct one. Passeri
and Lanzi enjoy quite an undeserved reputation; they have treated the
ancient Italian languages of the Etruscans and Umbrians in quite a
disgraceful manner; and I have many years ago expressed my indignation
at the absurdity with which the inquiry is pursued. Lanzi assumes that
Etruscans and Tyrrhenians are the same,—a fact which has never been
doubted—that Tyrrhenians are Pelasgians, and that Pelasgians are ancient
Greeks: he then proceeds, without having any general principle to guide
him, to interpret words merely according to some remote resemblance in
sound to Greek or Latin words, and by this process he elicits a sense
which is no better than if it had been his object to make the whole
inquiry ridiculous. Any one who has a taste for Greek must reject such
trash with the greatest indignation. There are only a very few words the
meaning of which can be guessed: on all the tomb-stones we read _avil
ril_ followed by a number (the Etruscan and Roman numbers are the same),
whence we may suppose these two words to mean _vixit annos_; sometimes
we find _ril_ alone, which may accordingly mean “year.” It is possible
that the word is indeclinable, and it may even be imagined that all nouns
in Etruscan, as in many eastern languages, are indeclinable. Now Lanzi,
not being able to find a similar word in Greek or Latin, objects to the
interpretation of these words which alone are known; and he connects
_avil_, which probably signifies _vixit_, with the Greek αἰών, though he
would prefer a word with a stronger resemblance. On several works of art
we find the word _turce_ added to a name, which he interprets ἐποίει,
and I will let this pass; but he adds that _turce_ is nothing but the
contracted τὸ ἔρξε, that is, τοὖρξε. Such things have found admirers,
and even in Germany! I feel no inclination to speculate where I do not
stand on firm ground; but it certainly is much more probable, that _ce_
is the termination of the noun, like _us_ in Latin; and accordingly I
say “_turce_ may be the same as _Tuscus_, for _r_ and _s_ are very often
interchanged.” In the fifteenth century, a number of bronze tables were
found at Gubbio in Umbria, with inscriptions partly in Etruscan and
partly in Latin characters, but in an unknown language: who knows what
these tables contain! A man with the faculty of divination possessed
by Champollion might perhaps be able to explain the language, but it
requires a full consciousness of the analogy of languages; this is
the only way in which it might be made out, but it is impossible to
explain it by itself. The Italians, like Passeri, have proceeded on
the supposition that the Etruscans were _haruspices_, interpreters of
lightning, and the like, and that consequently their monuments contain
all kinds of _fulguratio_: on such premises they then attempted to
translate the inscriptions with a truly revolting impertinence: you can
scarcely form an idea of this kind of nonsense. I say this because I have
been described as wanting in modesty by people who no doubt may have been
extremely modest all their lives; and the remark has been added, that I
had not read the productions of those inquirers. But I have read Lanzi’s
work, and deliberately declare that it is thoroughly bad. Lanzi was a man
of talent and acuteness, but completely ignorant of Greek literature,
and he had but a poor knowledge of Latin. He was an encyclopaedist, who
undertook much, but finished only half of what he undertook. I have here
expressed my conviction with the fullest confidence, that it is not only
my conviction, but the pure truth. It is possible that a resemblance may
be discovered between the Etruscan and the Ligurian language.

The ancients were far less concerned about the Etruscans than the
moderns; they took indeed an interest in them, but did not enter deeply
into the inquiry about them; and it may be that they were prevented by
their utter ignorance of the Etruscan language. Herodotus relates that
the Etruscans were a Lydian colony, a statement which has been correctly
refuted even by Dionysius, who says that Xanthus the Lydian did not
say anything about it; that the Lydians did not bear the slightest
resemblance to the Etruscans in language, customs, manners, or religion;
and that there existed no traditions about such a colony either among the
Lydians or among the Etruscans. Herodotus had heard, that Tyrrhenians
existed in Italy as well as in Lydia (where, however, the Meonians,
and not the entirely foreign Lydians, were Tyrrhenians); his idea of a
colony was a mere inference from his knowledge that the Tyrrhenians and
Meonians were nations of the same race. But Tyrrheni and Tusci are the
same words, and so are Tyrrheni, Turini, Turni; Tusculum is nothing but
the town of the Tyrrheni; Etrusci and Tusci, however, are different, and
the name Tusci was afterwards transferred to the Etrusci. The native name
of the Etruscans was Rasena. Previously to the Gallic conquest, the same
Etruscan nation was also established in the plains of Lombardy; and,
according to Livy, all the tribes about the river Padus, such as the
Raeti and others belonged to it. It is, moreover, quite in accordance
with all analogy to suppose that the nation had come down from the Alps
in consequence of commotions in the north. Here we must also bear in mind
the other tradition which states that, before the time of the Etruscans,
the Umbrians dwelt in Etruria, and that 300 Umbrian towns were destroyed
by the invading Etruscans. No importance can be attached to the number
300, which is only a multiple of 3; 3, 30, 300, and 600, all signify only
“very many,” and in other circumstances the same might be expressed by
4, 16, 64, etc. I am persuaded that the time is not far distant (it may
have arrived already), when no man will think of quoting the statement
of Herodotus about the Lydian origin of the Tyrrhenians as an authority
against other opinions. Everything which, after the lapse of hundreds or
thousands of years, has to be made out by reason and argument meets with
opposition, and this is in accordance with nature; nay, it is good that
it is so, as it imposes upon us the duty to give to our doctrines the
greatest possible distinctness, and to expound them so clearly as to make
them intelligible to all.

It is well-known that Etruria, south of the Apennines, contained twelve
ruling towns, to which the others were subject. We must not, however,
suppose that there existed no more than twelve places deserving the name
of towns, but they were twelve sovereign cities, and all the others were
dependent upon them. This fact is certain and beyond all doubt. They
were all situated within the district from the Apennines about Luna
and the Tiber. But which of the Etruscan towns they were, is quite a
different question; some of them are certain, others can be named only
with probability, while others, again, can only be guessed. Descending
from the north, we find the following towns, which Livy, in his account
of the second Punic war, distinctly affirms, were ruling cities:
Volaterrae, Populonia, Rusellae, and Tarquinii; and in the interior,
Arretium, Perusia, Caere and Clusium. Four accordingly are wanting,
either because they had perished, or because they had ceased to belong
to the Etruscan nation. Veii and Vulsinii had been destroyed, and Capena
had become a Roman municipium. But whether Capena ever was one of the
sovereign cities, may seem doubtful. All these relations belong to so
remote a period, and the notices we have of them in the ancient authors
are so vague, that we must be extremely cautious. The case of Cortona
is particularly doubtful. Livy, near the close of the first decad,[57]
mentions it as an Etruscan town; but at the time of the second Punic war
he does not name it among those which distinguished themselves by the
support they gave to Scipio. Herodotus, in speaking of his own time, says
that Cortona[58] was inhabited by Pelasgians who were foreign to the
Tyrrhenians, that is, to the Etruscans and Ombricans. This is a great
mystery, which it is impossible to solve with any degree of certainty.
Had Cortona become Etruscan in the middle of the fifth century, while
during the first half of the fourth it was still Tyrrhenian? or did
Herodotus transfer to his own time that which was correctly applicable
only to an earlier period? Different conjectures may be entertained as
to why it is not mentioned in the second Punic war: Livy either forgot
it, or the town had, perhaps, not been included in the general peace
which the Etruscans concluded with the Romans at the time of the war with
Pyrrhus; it is possible also that it may have concluded a separate peace,
or that it had been conquered. For the books of Livy and Dionysius,
containing the account of that period, are lost, and the brief extracts
furnish no satisfactory information. We may, therefore, have recourse to
several modes of explanation, but we must be cautious and not regard as
certain what is merely possible.

One or two places at the least, therefore, are still wanting. On the
coast we find Cossa, a large town, the walls of which still exist, and
show that the place was strongly fortified. But it is called Cossa
Volcientium, whence it is probable that it was no more Etruscan than
Falerii, which, geographically speaking, likewise belonged to Etruria. We
may, however, take it almost for certain that Faesulae, situated beyond
Florence, was one of the twelve towns. It is not indeed mentioned in the
history of the wars with the Romans, that is, in the ninth and tenth
books of Livy; but we can draw no inference from this, as the eleventh
and twelfth books are wanting. From these last we should have learned,
whether at that period it was one of the Etruscan towns or not.

In a physical point of view, Etruria may be divided into three parts.
The central portion is formed by the main stock of the Apennines, both
those in the neighbourhood of Siena and those in the north of the river
Arno, for they belong together, having been separated only by the hand
of man to make an opening for letting the Arno pass through. This part
comprises the whole of the Apennines, which now separate Tuscany from
Bologna and Romagna, together with the interior from the neighbourhood
of Siena to the Roman towns of Aquapendente and Viterbo. This range of
mountains contains indeed many beautiful valleys, but in some parts
there are none, and on the frontiers of Tuscany and Bologna the country
consists of rough, wild and inhospitable mountains, which at present have
scarcely any wood at all; in ancient times it was different, for thick
forests appear to have existed at least on the frontiers of Etruria and
the country of the Gauls. The second part comprises the whole territory
extending below Volterra, the so-called Maremma, or hilly coast land.
It embraced the whole of _Suburbicaria Tuscia_, the modern Patrimonio
di. S. Pietro, a district formerly containing the towns of Vulsinii
and Saturnia, and at present Tuscanella and others, and extending to
the very gates of Rome. The geological character of this part is quite
different from that of the Apennines; it is of a volcanic nature, the
lakes of Vulsinii, Bacanae, and all the others in that district are
decayed craters, and volcanic stones and productions of every kind are
found there in all directions as on the opposite side of the Tiber. The
country is at present extremely unhealthy, and was in all probability
never quite healthy on account of the bad quality of the water; there
seem to be really poisonous exhalations. In ancient times, however,
important towns existed there notwithstanding, and there was no doubt a
corresponding degree of agriculture; at the time when Florence and Siena
were flourishing republics, the state of the country was likewise better
than it is now. It was ruined by the princes of the house of Medici,
who made the towns responsible for the whole amount of taxes, as is the
custom in the East; when one place was decayed, the others had to make
up the sum among themselves. In some parts this system was carried so
far, that during the second half of the seventeenth century, under Cosmo
III., whole villages were ruined; and it was the greatest misfortune for
the country that this Cosmo reigned for a period of half a century. In
this manner the country became desolate by fiscal extortions. Wherever
the population has once become extinct, it rarely re-appears; the emperor
Leopold II. did every thing in his power to mend matters, but it was
of little avail. The third part comprising the marshy country from the
Arno as far as the Gonfalina, is a large and low district with many
marshes and lakes, extending as far as Luna and Pescia; it has quite the
appearance of the countries in the Netherlands. In the time of Hannibal,
it was one continuous marsh, but he made his way through it, and deceived
the Romans, who thought it impossible for him to advance through that
morass, and accordingly considered themselves quite safe. We may say in
general that the manner, in which the Romans at that time carried on
the war, was beneath all criticism. The upper Arno was formerly a lake,
and near Faesulae, too, there was a lake, but they have been drained by
making a passage for the waters through the Gonfalina and La’ncisa.

I shall now proceed to give you an account of the separate towns,
mentioning at once the things for which they were remarkable at different
periods, for our time is too short accurately to separate the geography
of the different periods.

LUCA. The northern part about Luca was afterwards in the hands of the
Ligurians, and nothing is known about it in regard to the Etruscan
period. Soon after the Hannibalian war, the town was taken by the
Romans who established a colony there, for the purpose of securing the
possession of the country. Throughout the middle ages, Luca was a place
of considerable importance.

LUNA, situated on the sea-coast, in the neighbourhood of the modern
Carrara, was anciently likewise Etruscan, and of importance to Rome
on account of its excellent harbour. The whole coast of Etruria has
but few harbours, and there is only one other at Populonia; but that
of Luna had the advantage of being at once the nearest and very good.
Before the Romans had formed a communication with Spain by land, the
military communication with that country was kept up by means of the port
of Luna; and the Romans had long been masters of the greater part of
Spain, before the communication through Gaul was opened. Luna was also
important on account of its quarries of white marble, called _marmor
Lunense_. The Romans did not commence to work in marble till a very late
period: before the time of Augustus it was not very extensively used,
and he first erected buildings of native marble. During Cicero’s youth
the Romans began to employ Carystian and Numidian (yellow) marble in
private houses, no doubt, for small pillars; and in the time of Pompey,
the use of foreign marble became a little more common. But in the reign
of Augustus it became very general, whence marbles of every kind are
found in the ruins; Carrara marble was employed in vast quantities, the
white Pentelian was less common. After the time of Augustus, it was
customary to use bricks for the internal parts of walls, and to cover
or incrustate, as the Italians say, the outside with slabs of marble.
At a later period of the empire this custom extended so far, that it
became an indispensable luxury to cover the walls even of private houses
with most costly kinds of marble. The temple of Apollo on the Palatine
seems to have been constructed of solid Carrara marble. When the Romans
advanced as far as Luna, the Etruscans were, probably, no longer masters
of the place, but it seems to have belonged to the Ligurians. In the
middle ages it was destroyed by the Saracens.

PISA also appears to have been Etruscan, but it never was a sovereign
city. It is regarded as a colony of Pisa in Elis (whence _Pisae Alpheae_
in Virgil); but this is a groundless fancy, and it is an undoubted fact
that Pisa was an ancient Tyrrhenian place. In the Hannibalian war,
it was an important military station to the Romans, who succeeded in
remaining masters of it. Afterwards it became a military colony. The
great importance of the place is manifest from the number of ruins and
remains of every description, although the town is not often spoken of.
In the middle ages it rose rapidly and became great at once, just as the
gods in the Aeneid step forth from the clouds, without any one having
anticipated them. In the eleventh century, when the Pisans constructed
their cathedral with its baptistery and tower, Pisa must have been a city
of gigantic power and greatness. Its inhabitants possessed a wonderful
taste for the arts even during the darkest periods of the middle ages,
when at Venice (I will not mention Rome which was quite barbarous) not
the slightest trace of such a taste was perceptible. The Venetians, as
late as the thirteenth century, melted down all the Greek works of art
in bronze which they could carry away; the preservation of the colossal
horses from Chios, in the Piazza S. Marco, is almost a mere accident: the
strange deliberation as to whether they should be melted down or not, is
well known. For half a century afterwards the horses stood neglected in
some shed, until civilisation advanced, and they were set up in their
present place. At Pisa, on the other hand, the taste for the arts was so
far developed that, as early as the eleventh century, the city employed
an architect, probably from the south of France (his name is Bruschetti,
as is stated in the excellent inscriptions), to build a church, which is
as magnificent as any structure belonging to the period of the emperors
of declining Rome, or of the Byzantine rulers. The Pisans, moreover,
carefully collected during their expeditions, especially at Rome, columns
and other antiquities, and obtained similar treasures as presents from
the emperors. During the twelfth century they collected fragments of
ancient architecture, sculptures, and especially sarcophagi which they
put together in their cemetery (Campo Santo); they then surrounded the
cemetery with a wall and a portico, and thus affectionately preserved
the remains of antiquity. The bodies of men of rank were buried in these
sarcophagi. Such was the spirit in which Nicolo Pisano, a gigantic
genius of the middle of the thirteenth century, made bas-reliefs more
beautiful than any that were produced at Rome during the third century
of our era; not only does he show great genius in invention, but also in
the beauty of his sculptures. The civic laws of the Pisans were based
upon remnants of the Roman law, nay, edicts of praetors, which had not
been introduced into the Justinianean Code, were preserved there; so
that Pisa, at a later period, remained an essentially Roman city, though
it was governed by a Lombard nobility. The vicissitudes of Pisa were
terrible and deplorable. The Genoese overpowered and cruelly destroyed
it: the more bravely and valiantly the city resisted, the more fearful
was its destruction. Afterwards it was subdued by the Florentines. No
republic ever carried the persecution of its subjects so far as Florence
carried that of the Pisans. The Florentines distrusted them so much, that
the Pisans were not only excluded from all honourable offices, but were
not allowed even within their own city to practise certain professions
or engage in certain trades; they were not allowed, e.g., to embrace
the professions of physicians and lawyers, or to carry on a wholesale
mercantile business, but they were limited to the small and common
trades. The consequence of this was an insurrection, but the Pisans
were subdued, and of the 100,000 inhabitants which Pisa had had during
the middle ages, not more than 8,000 remained at the time when Cosmo de
Medici entered upon the government. Athens was in a similar state of
decay during the period from Alexander to the last Philip of Macedonia.

VOLATERRAE, no doubt one of the ancient sovereign cities, was situated
at some distance from the coast. In the history of the Roman wars, it
acted a very prominent part; and from the vigorous manner in which it
supported Scipio, we see what a powerful place it must have been; but
it distinguished itself more especially by the resistance it offered
to Sulla. When the fate of the whole Marian party was already decided,
Volaterrae still sustained a war for two years, and did not surrender
until it was compelled by want of provisions. We do not know what was
the fate of the town, but we do know the character of the conqueror, and
may therefore presume that it was a most fearful one. Sulla established
a military colony there, and deprived the inhabitants of the franchise.
The ancient circumference of the city can still be distinctly traced:
it occupied all the surface of a very considerable hill, which rises
above the lower hills of an almost level and beautiful country. The wall
clearly shows the difference between the Pelasgo-Cyclopean and the more
artistic Etruscan mode of fortification. The Etruscan fortifications
were constructed along the upper edge of a hill as real walls, and the
sides of the hill below the walls were not cut precipitous; the Pelasgian
places, on the other hand, have no walls on the edge of the hills, but
the sides of the rock are cut down so as to be precipitous, and are
provided with substructions. Another difference consists in the fact,
that the Etruscan walls are built of regular square blocks, forming
parallelograms one perpendicularly above the other. The blocks are very
large, and generally put together without cement, their edges being cut
very sharp. The fortifications of Volaterrae are among the most perfect.
After the time of Sulla, or at least after that of Augustus, Volaterrae
was a military colony. It was the birth-place of the poet Persius, who
for this reason more than once alludes to the circumstances of his native
place, and can be understood only by those who are acquainted with them.
The hill on which Volaterrae stood, consists of alabaster, in consequence
of which many works in that material were executed there; hence the
sarcophagi of Volaterrae with Etruscan inscriptions, are made of
alabaster. During the middle ages the town was still very considerable;
but it has decayed, especially through the greatness of Florence.

The next place after Volaterrae in the south is POPULONIA, POPULONII or
POPULONIUM, for all these forms occur. On Etruscan coins it is called
_Puplana_, for the Etruscan alphabet has no _o_ nor any short vowels.
There is a statement which seems quite credible that Populonia was a
colony of Volaterrae. In later times it was one of the more important
Etruscan towns, and acted a prominent part in the wars against Rome,
of which an account is given in the tenth book of Livy. It had the
sovereignty of the neighbouring island of _Ilva_ or _Aethalia_, a Greek
name suggestive of its Pelasgian origin. The mountain of this island
consists of large masses of iron, which by the Catalanian method can
easily be transformed into the most excellent steel. The west of Europe
was, to a great extent, provided with iron from Elba, as it was imported
into the eastern parts from the Black Sea. The working of the mines of
Elba, however, seems to be of a more recent date than the composition of
the Odyssey, for in this poem the south of Italy is provided with iron
from Temese. The ancients notice it as a singular phenomenon, that the
iron could not be smelted in Elba, and that it was necessary to do this
on the continent; but this is a Greek absurdity, and an inability to
comprehend things connected with ordinary life, which we not unfrequently
meet with in the ancients. It was reported in Greece, that it was
necessary to transport the iron to Populonia, and the imagination of
the Greeks immediately invented a reason. The truth is simply this: in
later times there was a want of wood in Elba, and it was found cheaper
to convey the iron to Populonia, than to import wood into Elba, for
Populonia possessed smelting establishments. In like manner, the copper
ore found in Cornwall is conveyed to Wales and smelted there. Populonia
was a wealthy maritime town until it was destroyed by Sulla; and from
that time it has been a heap of ruins, which were seen by Strabo. The
town was never restored.

The moderns who have written on ancient geography are tolerably unanimous
in their opinions, that VETULONIUM was situated in the neighbourhood
of Populonia. Dionysius mentions it as a large city, which carried on
war against Rome, while Livy does not notice it either in the first
decad, where he describes the great Etruscan war, or in his account of
the Hannibalian war, or in any other place. It must accordingly have
disappeared at a time of which we know nothing. There exist coins with
Etruscan inscriptions, which unquestionably belong to Vetulonium. In a
forest near Populonia large ruins are found, which have been assigned
to Vetulonium, but this is a mere conjecture, and nothing can be said
with any degree of certainty about the situation of the place. I have
often thought, that it might possibly be Orviedo which was called _Urbs
vetus_ as early as the eighth century. However, the place has entirely
disappeared, and all that is said about it rests on mere conjecture.

There now follow RUSELLAE and COSSA, the latter of which, as I have
already observed, was probably not an Etruscan town; at a later time it
received a Latin colony.

TARQUINII appears in our histories as an Etruscan town, but that in the
most ancient times it was a real Tyrrhenian place, is attested by the
tradition of its having been founded by Thessalians; the name Tarchon,
which is mentioned as archegetes and is connected with Telephus, points
in the same direction. At the time when Tarquinii is drawn into the
traditions about Rome, and connected with Tarquinius Priscus, it probably
is still a Tyrrhenian town. In the war with Pyrrhus, Tarquinii, like
nearly all the Etruscan towns, formed an alliance with Rome in a general
peace, of which I shall speak in the third volume of my History of Rome.
By this peace the Etruscan towns were placed in a relation to Rome quite
different from that of the other towns of Italy, because the Romans
were anxious to gratify their wishes in order to prevent their forming
connections with Pyrrhus. This is one of the occurrences where Providence
directly interferes in the affairs of the world for the purpose of saving
a state from destruction. Such also was the peace between Russia and
Turkey in 1812, whereby the French army was prevented from retreating
to Turkey, and was thus left to its fate. In like manner, Soltikoff,
after the battle of Kunersdorf, ordered his troops to stand still. The
determination of the Etruscan towns to accept the peace of the Romans
forms a similar turning point in ancient history. After this, Tarquinii
remained faithful to Rome, until it disappeared in the time of the
Roman emperors. In the age of Cicero it still existed; in the war of
Sulla it was probably not destroyed, though severe sufferings may have
been inflicted upon it. The site which it once occupied, the modern
Corneto, is remarkable for the monuments which are discovered there,
and are more numerous than in any other place of Etruria. They are made
of clay, and are of a very peculiar character, approaching the Grecian
style, while those found in the interior of Etruria are altogether
different in workmanship from Greek monuments. The decay of Tarquinii
must perhaps be ascribed to the choking up of its good harbour, and to
the rise of _Centumcellae_, one of the few places in Italy the origin
of which belongs to a late period. Until the time of Trajan no town
existed there; it was only a summer palace of the emperor with a mineral
spring, for that volcanic region contains many hot springs. Trajan, who
in general did much to promote the navigation of the Italians, built a
harbour there, and constructed the _molo_ which still forms the harbour
of Civita Vecchia; and near it arose the town which received its name of
Centumcellae from the imperial palace. The town continued to increase
in importance, especially during the period of the decay of the empire,
when the Portus of Rome became more and more filled up, while that of
Centumcellae was capable of receiving larger ships. The Saracens took
the place, but the inhabitants withdrew, and built in the interior of
the country the town of _Leopolis_, named after pope Leo IV. When, in
consequence of the victory of Ostia, the danger of the Saracens was
removed, the inhabitants of Centumcellae returned, and from that time the
town has been called _Civita Vecchia_. It is, therefore, not an Etruscan,
but a Roman town.

CAERE with the port towns of _Fregenae_, _Alsium_, and _Pyrgi_, was
situated nearer the mouth of the Tiber. Caere was anciently called
_Agylla_, and as such it is said to have been Pelasgian or Thessalian:
it is, moreover, expressly mentioned that the town was taken by the
Etruscans. As later writers believed in the Lydian origin of the
Etruscans, this misunderstanding gave rise to the account that Agylla
was taken by the Lydians. Agylla existed as a Tyrrhenian town until
a very late period. In the account of Herodotus, where the Phocaeans
settle in Corsica, and are attacked and expelled by the Carthaginians
and Agyllaeans, Agylla does not yet appear as an Etruscan town. When the
Agyllaeans, after treating their captives treacherously, had experienced
the wrath of heaven, they consulted the oracle of Apollo at Delphi,
which no Etruscan town ever did; they, moreover had a _thesaurus_ at
Delphi, and the mention of _thesauri_ there does not go farther back
than the fortieth Olympiad. It must therefore have been after this time
that the Etruscans advanced into those districts. The names of Pyrgi
and Alsium also attest their Tyrrhenian origin. It is probable, lastly,
that Caere, because of its Tyrrhenian origin, was on such friendly terms
with Rome, that during the Gallic calamity the Romans carried their
sacred treasures in safety to Caere. Afterwards they were involved in a
protracted war with each other; a truce was concluded and renewed from
time to time, until Caere gradually entered the general relation in which
the Etruscan towns stood to Rome. In this condition, we find Caere in the
time of the Hannibalian war. Afterwards it is no longer mentioned, except
that we find it entered as a Marian colony in the lists of colonies drawn
up by Hyginus and Frontinus.

VEII was situated not quite ten English miles from Rome. Its
circumference, according to Dionysius, was like that of Rome under
Servius Tullius, and the same as the ancient Attic ἄστυ. However, it is
scarcely credible that Dionysius should have possessed such accurate
information about a town which had been razed to the ground long before
his own time. It is well known, that Veii was destroyed by the Romans
even before the Gallic period, because the plebeians had declared that
they would emigrate to Veii, if the patricians thought them unworthy of
being members of the same state. For this reason, the patricians and the
senate systematically destroyed the place. Its site is undoubted, but
scarcely any traces of Etruscan remains are found there. In the reign
of Tiberius, we find it mentioned as a military colony, but we do not
know when or how it was constituted as such. About thirty years ago,
excavations were made on the spot, and some beautiful works of art, and
among them a very fine statue of Tiberius, were discovered; but most of
the things found there are not above mediocrity, and all the inscriptions
refer to the restoration of the place by Tiberius. Henceforth, and down
to the overthrow of the western empire, Veii remained a small country
town in the neighbourhood of the capital. A bishop of Veii occurs as late
as the fifth century. It is quite in accordance with the natural course
of things, that places which were great before Rome rose to eminence,
and for a time her equals, were in the end subdued and perished in the
wars with their rival. In places of this kind a new population gradually
sprang up, and corporations were formed which were nothing else but
military colonies, and could not last long, as most of the men were
unmarried. Such a population was generally of the worst kind, consisting
of inn-keepers, carters, and the like; the places were in reality suburbs
of Rome, though at a considerable distance from it.

CAPENA was about the same distance from Rome as Veii; it is mentioned
in the earlier times, but afterwards completely disappears, and its
inhabitants, according to all appearances, were removed to Rome after the
Punic war. SUTRIUM and NEPET were for a long time the frontier towns of
Etruria towards the territory of Rome.

VULSINII, situated on lake Bolsena, was one of the largest Etruscan
towns. When after the Gallic war we find Etruria in arms, we must suppose
that the Vulsinians were the soul of those undertakings. They were
involved in hostilities with Rome even before the Gallic war; afterwards
they are, for a time, not mentioned at all, whence their relations with
Rome seem to have ceased; the frontier heights between Rome and Etruria
were allowed to grow wild and to become covered with an impenetrable
forest, as has been the case in modern times in the neighbourhood of
Licca, on the frontier between Croatia and Turkish Bosnia. This is the
_Ciminian forest_, the description of which in Livy is exaggerated in
a ridiculous manner; it often happens that his great imaginative power
leads him to make descriptions which would be excellent in a novel,
but are ludicrous in a work where truth is the object. The history of
Vulsinii is remarkable both for its facts and for its fables. It is a
fact that ever since A.U. 440, and for a period of thirty years, Vulsinii
offered a resistance to the Romans, which larger Etruscan towns recoiled
from, and that at length Rome, in the height of her power, when she was
the mistress of Italy, with difficulty conquered and then destroyed it.
In later times it re-appears, for Sejanus was a native of Vulsinii.
Metrodorus of Scepsis says that the real cause of the destruction of
Vulsinii was the circumstance that the Romans wanted to obtain possession
of 2000 magnificent statues which existed there. This is a fable, and no
doubt the view of a Greek, which he attributed to the Romans. The latter
were far from attaching such value to works of art; gold and silver were
the things they sought after. The real reason was that Vulsinii, by its
thirty years’ resistance, had distinguished itself above all Etruscan
tribes; and the Romans, therefore, were determined to take the sap
out of the tree, so as to prevent its ever growing again. The ancient
inhabitants had called in the Romans against their slaves. These slaves,
however, must not be understood to have been domestic slaves, but serfs,
or the subdued ancient population, whom elsewhere the Etruscan magnates
kept in servitude, while the Vulsinians had given them freedom and the
franchise. The commonalty, having thus become free, did not stop short
there, but, indignant at the ancient wrong done to them, they attacked
their former tyrants; they did not, however, expel, but only weakened
them. The latter then applied to Rome, and preferred having their town
destroyed to living on a footing of equality with the commonalty. The
correct spelling of the name is _Vulsinii_ and not _Volsinii_, for,
as I have already mentioned, the Etruscans had no _o_; hence we find
_Vulsinii_ in the Capitoline Fasti, though in genuine Roman words it is
more correct to write _o_ after _v_, as _volnus_ and not _vulnus_.

In the centre of Etruria there was no ruling city, nay, no Etruscan place
at all. Augustus established there _Sena Julia_ as a military colony,
the sixth legion being stationed there. As there was no road through the
centre of the country, but only one along the coast, and another through
the eastern part, Augustus made the one running by Aquapendente.

The Etruscan towns in the eastern part of the country were Clusium,
Perusia, Cortona (though its Etruscan character is doubtful), Arretium,
and Faesulae.

The greatness of CLUSIUM belongs to the most ancient times, for in Roman
history it is not of any importance; nor do the Romans mention any ruins
of Clusium, for all that is related of the buildings of Porsena, belongs
to the domain of fable.

PERUSIA was situated east of Clusium. During the period described in
the ninth and tenth books of Livy, Perusia acts the same part as the
other Etruscan towns; but after having suffered a defeat, it concluded
a truce. The Perusines undertook the war in a foolish manner, and
the first reverse discouraged them. Here, too, a military colony was
afterwards established, probably by Sulla. The town is remarkable in
history for the obstinate resistance it offered to Augustus, as in fact
the descendants of Sulla’s soldiers in the military colonies were almost
everywhere opposed to the party of Caesar. The town was taken and the
most illustrious citizens put to death, or rather butchered, at the altar
of Julius Caesar. Afterwards a new military colony was sent thither under
the name of _Colonia Julia Augusta Perusina_.

CORTONA, also a military colony, probably likewise founded by Sulla, was
situated on a very high hill and in a very strong position. Its ancient
walls do not appear to have been particularly strong.

ARRETIUM was more important than Cortona, and probably one of the largest
cities of Etruria. Its greatness may be inferred from the fact that in
the Hannibalian war it furnished arms for 30,000 men of the army of
Scipio. We must not, however, conceive these towns to have been confined
to their own territories, but as sovereigns of districts of many square
miles, whence they were able to do things which seem to us impossible.
Arretium was an industrial place, and rich by its manufactures,
especially its potteries, like Staffordshire in England; whence Augustus,
in a fragment of a letter to Maecenas, calls him a Tuscan potter.
Augustus often tried to be witty, but his witticisms were mostly dull.
The pottery of Arretium was highly valued even during the middle ages,
though otherwise few collections were made. At present such vessels are
extremely rare: I have brought with me from Italy a small piece as a
relic, for I am not rich enough to purchase an entire Arretine vase.
They are not painted, but have figures, leaves, animals, and the like,
in relief, and are of exquisite beauty. Arretium completely shared the
fate of Etruria itself. There were three different Arretiums, _vetus_,
_fidens_ and _Julium_. Sulla destroyed the city, sold its inhabitants
as slaves, and founded in the vicinity a new colony for his soldiers,
under the name of _Arretium fidens_. Augustus built _Arretium Julium_ in
the neighbourhood of the two others. The modern Arezzo occupies the site
of Arretium Julium, whence it contains no Etruscan antiquities; but the
Roman town was much more important than the present Arezzo. If systematic
excavations were made in the neighbourhood, many things might certainly
be discovered. I regret not having visited the Grand Duke of Tuscany, an
excellent young man, full of taste for, and appreciation of, knowledge,
for I might perhaps have induced him to make excavations, especially near
Arezzo and Chiusi.

FAESULAE was situated on a hill above Florence. Florentine traditions
call it the metropolis of Florence, which would accordingly be a colony
of Faesulae; but a statement in Machiavelli and others describes Florence
as a colony of Sulla, and this statement must have been derived from some
local chronicle. Faesulae was no doubt an ancient Etruscan town, probably
one of the twelve. It was taken in the war of Sulla, and was then in
the same desperate condition as Arretium and Volaterrae, both of which
were deprived by Sulla of their freedom and territory. Hence a Sullanian
colony is mentioned by Cicero as existing there in the war of Catiline.
My conjecture is, that Sulla not only built a strong fort on the top of
the hill of Faesulae, but also the new colony of Florentia below, and
gave to it the _ager Faesulanus_. If this be true, the statement before
alluded to would be correct, though we cannot trace it to any authentic
source. The Etruscans built their towns on inaccessible hills in order
to be able to control their subjects; the Romans not being under this
necessity, built their towns in convenient and accessible places, to
which they could make roads. Faesulae could not be reached, except on
foot or on horseback; no vehicle could get up the hill, whereas the
Romans employed many vehicles in the intercourse among the towns. But
although Florentia was a colony of Sulla, the _agrimensores_ subsequently
describe it as a colony of the triumvirs, and it is indeed possible that
not one of the twenty-eight military colonies of Sulla may have been
kept up until the time of the triumvirs. This subject is in the greatest
confusion, and no one has yet attempted to clear it up. First we have
the colonies of the republic, then the military colonies of Sulla, then
again a second series of military colonies under Caesar, and lastly those
of the triumvirs and Augustus. The earlier colonies lost their character
through the Lex Julia, and became municipia; then followed the Sullanian
and Julian colonies, so that the same place at three different times may
have had three different colonies. This view of the matter makes clear
that which Cluver and Cellarius, with all their merits, have left in
utter confusion.

Within the territory of Tuscia or Etruria, we find on the banks of the
Tiber a place, or rather a tribe, which in all our maps is described as a
part of Etruria, but which the ancients, Strabo, e.g., expressly say did
not belong to Etruria. This is the people of the FALISCANS. Respecting
their nationality, the ancients have in reality only this negative
statement, and we cannot ascertain to what race they belonged, except
by divination and indirect evidence. Virgil in his Aeneid speaks of
_Aequi Falisci_, which the commentators, and even the ancient scholiasts,
taking _Aequi_ as an adjective, translate “just Faliscans”; but it is
highly probable that _Aequi_ is a name, and that we have to regard the
expression in the same light as, e.g., _Chaonii Campi_, where Campi is
explained even by the scholiasts as the name of a people. The identity
of the Aequians and Faliscans is confirmed also by other evidence. Among
the Faliscans we find the word _hirpus_, whence their language may be
inferred to be a branch of the Oscan, in which, as we have seen, this
word signifies a wolf. Lastly, the name of the Faliscans may be traced
at once to that of the Volscians, _Volsci_, _Volisci_, _Falisci_; and
as we know that they were of foreign, that is, non-Etruscan origin, we
cannot, considering the geographical position of the people, doubt the
correctness of the view here expounded. There is some plausibility also
in the other tradition which is traced to Cato, that the country, before
it was taken possession of by the Faliscans, was inhabited by Siculians.
This quite agrees with our supposition of successive conquests. The most
ancient inhabitants were Pelasgians, who were succeeded by an Ausonian
people, and the latter again are pushed onward by the Sabines; for it
should be observed, that the Sabines did not penetrate between these
Faliscans and Aequians and the Volscians until a later period.

The Faliscans had several towns, of which FALERII was the most important.
For reasons which are quite unknown to us, the Romans, after the first
Punic war, conquered and destroyed this town. This fact is all we know;
but we may suppose that the place, to escape from oppression, was
tempted to a rash and inconsiderate act, for the condition of Italy
was then such as to render any undertaking against Rome hopeless.
The town was afterwards restored. Near Civita Castellana, there is a
place called Falera, which is no doubt the ancient Falerii; Faliscan
inscriptions are still found there. It was a deeply rooted mistake among
the first scholars after the revival of letters, to suppose that Civita
Castellana was the ancient Veii; but this error was refuted even by Lucas
Holstenius. The real town of Falerii was situated a little to the east of
it.

Mount SORACTE, which is always visible from Rome, was in the country of
the Faliscans. Horace, in one of his Odes, speaks of Soracte as being
covered with snow, and this has given rise to the erroneous inference,
that the climate of Rome is now changed and milder than in antiquity. The
Abruzzi, Leonessa, and other heights, may be covered with snow, without
its being cold at Rome, but when there is snow on mount Soracte the cold
at Rome is severe. This is indeed not often the case; but when it does
happen, the snow-capped Soracte, is seen very distinctly from Rome.
Horace has not availed himself of a poetical license in this respect. I
mention this, because people, very frequently, if not generally, speak
of poetical license as if an inaccurate expression in a poet ought to
be pardoned. There may, indeed, be poets of this kind, as, for example,
Ausonius, and Greek poets of the period of decay; and modern poets, too,
very frequently make use of such licenses; but it is quite certain that
the good poets of antiquity give to things only such epithets as are
quite clear and true to their own minds.


UMBRIA.

Of this country I have little to say. Umbria, in its proper sense, in
which the name is used by the Romans, is situated for the most part in
the Apennines, though we cannot even positively assert that it extended
to the southern slope of the Apennines. But in more ancient times it
extended much farther on both sides. There is great probability in the
tradition that the Umbrians were confined to their small territory
by the Etruscans, who are said to have taken 300 Umbrian towns. This
number, however, must not be taken literally, for it is only a general
number like μυρίοι, and _sexcenti_. Its earlier and larger extent is
also attested by the river Umbro in the territory of Siena, and by the
fact, that even at a later time a part of Etruria continued to be called
Umbria. At one period the Umbrians also possessed the whole country about
Rimini as far as the mouth of the Padus; there they were either expelled
or subdued by the Gauls, or, as is still more probable, completely
extirpated, for the Gauls were most fearful enemies and barbarians in the
strictest sense of the term, annihilating and devastating everything that
came in their way. During the Roman period, the Umbrians were extremely
weak, and down to the fifth century, when the Romans came in contact with
them, they were no doubt tributary to the Gauls. What could they in fact
have done against such an enemy? They were obliged either to repel them
or pay tribute to them. We know that other neighbouring tribes did so,
whence it is probable that the Umbrians did the same. The Gauls, who so
often advanced to the lower Tiber, cannot have come through any other
country but Umbria, for the Etruscans in their towns defended themselves
against them, and were protected in the north by the Apennines. Hence the
unfortunate country of Umbria had constantly to suffer from the passages
of the Gauls, who, in like manner, always took their road to Apulia
through Picenum.

At the time when the Umbrians come in contact with the Romans, they seem
to act as one nation, though it does not follow from this that they
actually formed one state. A fact, however, which may seem to support
this view is, that the different districts of the country are mentioned
under the name of _tribus_ or _plagae_ (_tribus Materina_, _Sapinia_),
which denote parts of one great whole. Yet this union, if it did exist,
can have embraced only a portion, for the Sarsinates, or Sassinates,
stood apart, and in the war of Pyrrhus they alone, for a time, defended
their independence against the Romans. The Umbrians allowed themselves to
become involved in the war of the Samnites and Gauls, but appear to have
carried it on without energy; and a treaty seems to have been concluded
with them similar to that with the Etruscans, for both are mentioned
among the nations which supported Scipio. I am well aware that Italicans
did the same, but they did it in a different manner.

Several of the Umbrian towns were made Roman colonies, especially
_Spoletium_ and _Narnia_, previously called _Nequinum_; both places
were fortified by the Romans (Narnia after the second Samnite war,
and Spoletium afterwards), for the purpose of keeping the country in
subjection, and of protecting the frontier against the Gauls.

All Umbria was full of towns: _Hispellum_, _Tuder_, _Fulginium_,
_Assisium_, _Camerinum_, and _Iguvium_ (Gubbio), were places of
considerable importance. In the last of them, tables have been dug out
of the ground with inscriptions in Etruscan and in another language in
Latin characters; the latter language seems to resemble the Latin and
Oscan. When once the Oscan language shall be better known, more light
will perhaps be thrown upon the Umbrian language also. The name _Umbria_
and the Greek Ὀμβρικοὶ seem actually to be akin to Ὀπικοί, which is in
fact intimated in a passage of Philistus; whence the Umbrians probably
belonged to the great Ausonian race. So far as I have seen Umbria, it
is a very excellent and picturesque country; the Apennines are there
much more beautiful than in Tuscany; they are covered with particularly
fine forests, and have magnificent, rich, and fertile valleys. All the
rest of Italy is ill-suited to the breeding of oxen, but Umbria has the
most splendid kinds: I have seen a herd of white oxen near the well of
Clitumnus, which consisted of the finest and noblest animals of the kind;
they were like those in southern Poland and Russia. The cattle here in
Germany is wretched. The extension and change of the races of animals
in Italy may be traced back to the times of antiquity: buffaloes, for
example, were introduced into Campania in the seventh century, when the
country was almost a wilderness.


GALLIA CISALPINA OR TOGATA.

Down to the middle of the fourth century, the country beyond the
Apennines was called northern Etruria, but after that time it bore the
name _Gallia Cisalpina_ or _Togata_, but it extended further than Etruria
proper, for the sea-coast as far as the river Aesis never belonged to
Etruria.

The country now called Lombardy in its narrower sense, was inhabited
in the earliest times by Ligurians, as is clear from most indubitable
indications, and hence we must suppose, that subsequently they were
driven by the Etruscans across the Ticinus. But these events belong
to too remote an epoch, and I cannot say much either of this or of
the Etruscan period. Certain it is that Etruscan towns existed in
those parts, and that Etruscans dwelt there as the conquerors of the
Ligurians and as the lords of the land; and there can be no doubt that
after descending from the Alps the Etruscans established their first
settlements there. _Melpum_ is said to have been a great Etruscan
settlement in the neighbourhood of Milan; and _Felsina_ (Bononia),
_Mutina_, _Parma_, and _Brixia_, are spoken of in the same way. _Verona_
is sometimes called Raetian and sometimes Etruscan, and _Mantua_ is
called Etruscan by Virgil. It is possible that Verona may have been
termed Raetian because it was situated on the Raetian frontier, and may
for all this have been an Etruscan town.

The immigration of the Gauls into those parts is assigned by Livy in a
most unhistorical manner to the time of Tarquinius Priscus; he has no
other reason for it than the very legendary connection supposed to have
existed between this emigration of the Gauls, and the settlement of the
Phocaeans at Massilia. There is much more probability in the statement,
that not long before the attack upon Rome by the Senones, the Gauls had
first poured down upon all Italy in great masses. This is supported by
the express testimony of Polybius, that they had shortly before come
across the Alps, and also by the tradition that they took Melpum in the
same year in which Veii was taken by Camillus (358). Just at that time,
the Etruscans on quitting Veii seem to have turned their attention to an
object of greater interest in a different direction. About that same time
the Gauls appear in Slavonia and Lower Hungary, where they stirred up the
Triballians, and according to an ancient tradition the Gauls migrated
at the same time across the Alps and across the Rhine. They evidently
marched into Italy through Switzerland, which may previously have been
inhabited by quite different tribes. The ruins on the Ottilienberg in
Alsace have a complete Etruscan appearance; they strongly resemble the
fortifications of Volaterrae, and are situated on the plateau of a hill:
they are altogether foreign to the Celtic character; the Celts had
nothing of the kind. The supposition of the antiquarians of Alsace, ever
since the time of Schoepflin, that, as those ruins are not Celtic, they
belong to the decaying period of Rome, perhaps the reign of Valentinian,
is extremely unfortunate. These ruins are far more ancient than the
Celtic period, and belong to a people, which was expelled by the Gauls.
The great Gallic migration was a mighty commotion extending from the
frontiers of Spain to the Ukraine. In the subsequent counter-movement of
the Slavonic migrations, the Gauls were driven back from east to west;
and then they appear under the name of Cimbri together with the Germanic
nation of the Teutones, and return to their ancient homes as ravaging
conquerors.

The Gauls who settled south of the Alps consisted of several tribes,
partly entire and partly ἀποδασμοὶ of those of which a portion remained
behind in Gaul. In this light we must view the _Boians_; very few of
them may have remained in Gaul itself; the greater part advanced into
the country south of the Po, and another branch settled in Bavaria and
Bohemia. On the whole there were about four or five Gallic tribes which
settled in Italy on both sides of the Po; but besides them large numbers
of volunteers, individuals and roaming vagabonds joined and strengthened
one tribe or the other. I shall enumerate them in the order in which
we find them established, beginning in the west. The Ticinus forms the
frontier between the Gauls and Ligurians, as it still forms that between
the territories of Milan and Piedmont.

1. The INSUBRIANS, in the modern territory of Milan proper.

2. The CENOMANIANS, in the territory of Brescia and Bergamo, between lake
Garda and the mouth of the Po.

3. The BOIANS, in the south of the latter; their territory is made too
small in all our maps; they occupied the county from Piacenza to the sea,
including Parma, Modena, Reggio, Bologna and Ferrara. They were divided,
according to Cato, into 112 pagi.

4. The SENONES, in the modern Romagna and Urbino, as far as the Aesis and
the frontiers of Picenum.

5. The LINGONES must have occupied the country to the north of the
former, that is Ferrara and the territory of Rovigo.

In the later political geography of the Romans, Gallia Cisalpina is
divided into two parts which are very different from each other, viz.,
_Gallia Cispadana_ and _Gallia Transpadana_. In political terminology
the latter acquired a greater extent, not being limited to the country
between the Ticinus and lake Garda, but also comprising Venetia. The
inhabitants of all this country, who received the _jus Latii_, were
called _Transpadani_. The _Cispadani_ are not much spoken of, which
arose from particular circumstances, which I will explain to you because
history does not do it. I have mentioned to you, that the whole country
south of the Po, from Piacenza to the frontier of Picenum, was inhabited
by two Gallic tribes, the Boians and Senones. The Senones were extirpated
to a man, as, e.g., the Eretrians were extirpated by the Persians. The
Romans invaded their country, burnt down their villages, and carried off
their women and children into slavery; the men, capable of bearing arms,
who in their despair returned, like beasts of prey whose young ones are
taken from them, to save their families, were completely defeated, and
those who escaped fled to the Boians. The whole of modern Romagna became
a complete desert, such as we sometimes find in the history of Germany,
e.g., the desert of the Avars in the time of Charlemagne, and Servia,
after its devastation by Attila, when it was in such a condition that
the ambassadors of Theodosius II. travelled seven days without finding
any other traces of man, except the bodies of the murdered inhabitants.
After its devastation, the Romans gave up the country partly to Roman
citizens and partly to Italicans, who might cultivate it as they pleased,
for it had become _ager publicus_. C. Flaminius afterwards distributed a
portion of it _viritim_ among Roman citizens. There now arose in those
extensive districts entirety new settlements, the names of which are of
a peculiar character: _Faventia Pollentia_, _Florentia_ and _Placentia_
are all names derived from verbs implying a favourable omen. Other places
are termed _Fora_, and according to the American practice they might be
called territories; they were inhabited by Roman citizens, who fully
enjoyed the benefits of the Roman law, but did not form corporations.
They lived isolated from one another, and thus were deprived of that
advantage which was so important in antiquity, I mean, of the privileges
of corporations: they had no magistrates to administer justice, whence
there were many acts which they could not perform at all. It was contrary
to the feelings of the Romans to appoint magistrates according to
districts, and it was for this reason that they instituted Fora, places
in which court-houses were built, and where a praefect, appointed by the
praetor urbanus, resided, and where, accordingly, judicial business could
be transacted.

The Boians survived the Senones about ninety years; during the
Hannibalian war, they were enraged against the Romans, who, by fortifying
and colonising Placentia and Cremona, had planted the yoke upon their
necks, but the vengeance of the Romans was such, that in the course of
about ten years they extirpated the whole Boian nation. A fragment of
Cato in Pliny (iii. 15) furnishes express testimony on this subject, and
the account in Livy, too, speaks distinctly enough. After this, no Boians
are mentioned in Italy. In treating of Roman history, and especially of
the _Lex de Gallia Cisalpina_, the question often presents itself to us,
how it happens that in Cicero’s time we hear such frequent mention of
Gallia Transpadana, while Gallia Cispadana is never spoken of. The matter
is explained by what I have said. The Gallic population of the latter was
utterly annihilated; in regard to the Senones, it is expressly attested,
and the survivors of the Boians were not more numerous than, for example,
those of the Indian tribes in America. The whole country then was taken
possession of by Romans and Italicans in the manner before described, and
several colonies, such as Mutina, Bononia, Parma, etc., were established
in it; the country, however, was partly _ager publicus_ and partly _ager
divisus_. In this manner, the whole country south of the Po was severed
from Gaul, and all that remained of Gaul consisted of a small territory
north of the Po, between the Ticinus and the lake of Garda; and this
latter is the country of the Insubrians and Cenomanians, who, together
with the Venetians, formed those Transpadani, who, through Cn. Pompeius
Strabo, obtained the _jus Latii_ of the later kind.

The following are the towns in the territory of Gallia Cispadana,
proceeding from west to east:—PLACENTIA, the first Roman colony in those
districts, was established two years before Hannibal’s passage over
the Alps. Like Cremona, it was situated on the northern bank of the
river, and its fortification was one of the most energetic measures for
maintaining the Roman dominion in those parts.

PARMA, a Latin colony, was founded like MUTINA after the Hannibalian war.

BONONIA, anciently called Felsina, and at present Bologna, was a
remarkable place even in antiquity on account of its favourable
situation, though it can in no way be compared with what it was during
its subsequent greatness. We may estimate its ancient circumference with
tolerable accuracy from the extent of the town in the middle ages, which,
however, was scarcely the fifth part of what it is at present.

In the subsequent province of Flaminia, which ever since the time of
the exarchate was called _Romania_ (Romagna), there existed several
towns between Bologna and Rimini, such as _Faventia_, _Forum Cornelii_,
_Forum Popillii_, and others. Most of them were as ancient as the time
of the Roman republic, but their history is unimportant. Ever since the
beginning of the exarchate, their sad celebrity is that their defence and
conquest are much spoken of.

RAVENNA, the centre of the whole province of Flaminia, was originally
a Pelasgian town, and is called Thessalian. In ancient times, it was
situated, like Venice, in a lagoon, an arm of the sea extending from
the mouth of the Po to the south of Rimini. Ravenna was built there on
stakes like Venice. Such continued to be its condition in the time of
the Roman emperors. It was inaccessible from the main land, from which
it was separated by that arm of the sea, or rather by so shallow a marsh
that persons could reach the city only with very flat boats, and not
without a very accurate knowledge of the shallows. This strong position
was probably the reason why Ravenna subsequently became the seat of the
imperial government, for no place in Italy was considered sufficiently
strong even when protected by a courageous garrison. Ravenna at that
time was situated in the midst of the sea, and the streets were formed,
as at Venice, by means of canals, by which the communication between
its various parts was mainly kept up. A suburb of the name of _Classes_
was situated on the main land opposite. The lagoons have gradually been
filled up. During the Pelasgian period, the arm of the sea may have been
deep, but in the middle ages it was filled up. A pier was constructed
between Ravenna and the suburb Classes (near it was the military port,
whence the name Classes), and this pier seems to have greatly contributed
to the filling up of the lagoons. When Belisarius made war on the Goths,
Ravenna was still situated on the sea, but during the middle ages the
sea vanishes, and the history of this gradual change can be accurately
traced in documents. At present Ravenna is not only not a maritime town,
and without a trace of its ancient canals, but it is situated, like
Mexico, at a distance of from one and a half to two Roman miles from
the sea, and near Classes not a trace of a harbour is left. Ravenna’s
greatness belongs to the period of Rome’s decay. As early as the time of
Augustus, a fleet was stationed there for the purpose of enabling the
Romans, in case of a war or an insurrection, speedily to convey troops
to the frontiers of Noricum, and to Pannonia; and afterwards a fleet
was always ready there. In the time of Theodosius and Honorius, the
town became important as the seat of government; under the Goths, too,
it was the capital notwithstanding the unpleasantness of its situation;
during the period of the Lombards it was the seat of the exarch or
Greek governor of Italy. Hence the many extremely remarkable buildings,
which still distinguish Ravenna from all other towns, and there is no
place possessing so many edifices erected at a time when otherwise
very little was done in the way of building. At the time when Ravenna
became a capital, it had probably not yet reached its full extent; and
as its population greatly increased, it was necessary to enlarge and
embellish the place. Its decay began when it ceased to be the seat of
the exarch. The town is remarkable also in the history of the Roman law,
for notwithstanding its conquest by the Lombards, it never assumed the
character of a Germanic town. Hence it became the seat of the grammatical
and juristical schools, in which ancient literature continued to be
taught. The form in which the ancient scholiasts have come down to us
seems generally, speaking, to have been given to them in the school at
Ravenna. Savigny has shown that the Roman law was taught there until the
eleventh century, and that its juristical school was not transferred to
Bologna till the time when the Roman law became established beyond the
frontiers of Italy.

The ancient town of ARIMINUM (Rimini) is situated to the south-east of
Ravenna; it was a Latin colony established about the end of the fifth
century as a frontier fortress and a place of arms to protect the Romans
against the Cisalpine Gauls. The town is frequently mentioned in history,
especially during the Hannibalian and Gallic wars. The Romans there
awaited the invasion of the Gauls, the Apennines being impassable. A
friend once told me that he had always pronounced the name Arimīnum,
until many years ago his attention was directed to a passage of Lucan,
which shewed him that it ought to be pronounced Arimĭnum. Lucan is
sometimes useful in teaching us the correct pronunciation of names of
places, which do not elsewhere occur in poetry. Otherwise he is, on the
whole, not a pleasing writer, though in some points he contains valuable
information, but he is not sufficiently polished. It was through his
poem, that the gap in the second book of Caesar’s “Bellum Civile” was
discovered. But the most useless of all writers is Silius Italicus, and
yet some things may be gleaned even from his works; no ancient author, in
fact, is so bad, as not to furnish us with some useful information.

Further south on the coast, we find the towns of _Pisaurum_, _Fanum_, and
_Sena Gallia_, of which scarcely any thing is to be said.

GALLIA TRANSPADANA. The INSUBRIANS occupied almost exactly the modern
territory of Milan, for Ticinum was regarded as one of the Ligurian
towns. Comum also did not belong to Gallia Transpadana, which comprised
Milan, Lodi, and a part of the territory of Cremona. During the 200
years in which the Gauls were masters of that district, it contained,
properly speaking, no towns, and MEDIOLANUM, the principal place of the
Insubrians, was an open village, though it may have been very large. The
Romans treated the Insubrians more gently than the Boians, whence their
country was not so cruelly devastated. In consequence of its relation
to Rome, the village of Mediolanum became a town; but when or how this
happened, we have no means of ascertaining. In the time of Caesar and
Cicero, Mediolanum is already mentioned as a town, and, according to
the description of Strabo, it appears to have even been a considerable
one. The district of Milan is extremely fertile; its vicissitudes have
been terrible, but it has always been restored, the causes of which
must probably be sought in the particularly favorable circumstances of
its situation. It is certainly not owing to the peculiar character of
its inhabitants, of whom antiquity did not entertain any more favorable
opinion than that which is current about the modern Milanese, who
are said to be the most lazy and awkward among all the Italians. The
atmosphere is heavy, and both ancients and moderns assert, that this has
a great influence upon the inhabitants. Now this town of Milan which in
the time of Strabo appears as a considerable country town, ever continued
to increase under the emperors. In the letters of Pliny we find it spoken
of as a large place, in which, according to the custom of the time,
public teachers of rhetoric and grammar were appointed and salaried, and
formed what we might call a university. During the second century Milan
became larger and larger. In the war of the emperor Aurelian with the
Goths, it was devastated, but soon recovered again. The emperor Maximian
took up his residence there, so that it became a capital of the empire.
Ausonius who lived about eighty years later says, _Mediolani mira omnia_,
and _mirus_ at that time signified “beautiful” or “magnificent.” In the
reign of Theodoric it was a very large and important city, though this
emperor did not reside there. In the war of Belisarius its fate was very
melancholy: Datius, the bishop of Milan, had been intriguing with the
imperial general and promised to deliver up Milan to him; but the plan
was betrayed, the Goths entered Milan, and, if we can take the account in
Procopius literally, put the whole population to the sword. The calamity
must indeed have been fearful, though it can scarcely have been as bad
as it is said to have been. In the time of the Lombards we again find
it as a great city, though it was under a disadvantage because Pavia,
in its neighbourhood, was the capital of the Lombards; and a rivalry
between those two cities continued to exist until a late period of the
middle ages. This kind of hostility was quite common among the Italian
towns. In the case of large cities, this feeling may to some extent
be excused, though it cannot be justified; but at present, when those
towns are altogether devoid of character, that hatred is the only thing
which has been propagated to them from better and more glorious times.
Verona was the first Italian town in which I made a stay, and in which
I had any conversation with the people; they very soon began to speak
contemptuously of the other cities, to each of which some abusive name
was applied. Such were the first things I heard in Italy; the idea that
they are all countrymen and Italians is treated by them with ridicule;
and even the inhabitants of different towns under the same sovereign
have no fellow-feeling. When you speak to a Milanese, you find that he
does not regard the Veronese as his countrymen; the inhabitants of some
districts in Tuscany appear to him much more in that light, and he feels
as foreign to the Lombards as to the French. It is distressing to see
this distracted state of Italy. A Florentine treats it as a heresy and
flies into a passion, when you speak to him of a _favella Italiana_, he
cannot hear of anything but a _favella Toscana_. It is well known, that
the emperor Frederic Barbarossa afterwards destroyed Milan, and compelled
the inhabitants to live in five scattered villages; but they returned
nevertheless. Subsequently, the wars at the end of the fifteenth and the
beginning of the sixteenth century brought such severe sufferings upon
Milan, that it would necessarily have perished, if this were possible.
It fell into the hands of the Spaniards, and in the sixteenth century was
visited by a plague which carried off three-fifths of its inhabitants. In
the seventeenth century, the plague again made sad ravages, and destroyed
half the population. At present, it is still constantly increasing. He
who has a taste for classical antiquity cannot regard these Lombard towns
as belonging to it; for their importance does not commence until the
decline of the Romans.

COMUM was situated at a distance of about twenty miles from Milan; it
was a town of Alpine tribes of the Raetian race, and not Gallic. The
modern Como is not the same as the ancient Comum, but is identical with
the _Novocomum_ of ancient geography which was founded and honored with
privileges at a later period by Cn. Pompeius Strabo and Julius Caesar.

BERGAMUM also was not a Gallic town, but belonged to the mountain tribes
of the district. Brixia, like the whole district between Lodi and Mantua
belonged to the Cenomani.

LAUS POMPEIA, now Lodi, was founded by Cn. Pompeius Strabo, not, however,
as a Roman town, but “as a colony in a place already existing” in the
Roman dominion.[59]

BRIXIA is called a Cenomanian town, but it must not be inferred from this
that the Cenomani occupied the whole territory of Brixia, for the whole
valley of the Camuni was Raetian. The conquering Gauls did not dwell in
the mountains, but in the plains fitted for the breeding of cattle and
their rude agriculture. If we draw a line from lake Garda to Brixia, and
thence northward towards the Adda, so as to separate Bergamum from the
country of the Gauls, all the country north of that line did not belong
to Italy before the time of Augustus, not even in its wider sense, but
to the Alpine tribes. Catullus says of Brescia _Veronae mater amata
meae_, which is unaccountable, for Verona was a small Gallic town. It
is possible that Brixia may have been the seat of a conventus, somewhat
in the same relation in which the metropolis in Asia Minor stood to the
other towns; this is probable enough, or else Catullus alludes to the
ancient Etruscan times, in which case Brixia would be the mother city of
Verona.

MANTUA, according to Virgil (_Tusco de sanguine vires_) a Tuscan town;
the manner in which he speaks of it, shows that it was a town with a
territory, which was divided into twelve districts. Although he describes
it as a considerable town, it does not appear in this light, and we must
probably make some allowance for the poet’s partiality for his native
city. Its territory, however, may have been extensive, as is evident from
the fact that it was contiguous to that of Cremona.

VERONA, to the north of Mantua, is remarkable because for a considerable
period it was the seat of the Lombard kings, as before it had been the
residence of Theodoric, who in the German lays is called Dietrich of
Bern. There can be no doubt that the name of this far-famed chivalrous
town was transferred to Berne in Switzerland, which was built by duke
Berthold of Zähringen. Its ancient circumference may still be recognised,
and from it we see how small those towns in the north of Italy were
during the imperial period, in comparison with what they were in the
middle ages. The whole of Lombardy, Tuscany, and Venice were far more
flourishing in the middle ages than at any period in classical antiquity.
If we compare Italy during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries with
what it was in the days of Cicero, it is as a garden compared with a
desert. The ancient town of Verona occupied scarcely one-fourth of the
extent which it had in the time of the princes of Della Scalla; it still
has the same circumference, but is desolate notwithstanding its 60,000
inhabitants. However, that Verona was a great and wealthy town even in
antiquity, may be seen from the splendid gate of the emperor Gallienus
(which also shews that it was a Roman colony), and from the splendid
amphitheatre. Its fate has not been so disastrous as that of Milan; for
throughout the middle ages it was not visited by a single great calamity.
It is singular to observe how some towns are ever visited by misfortunes,
while others are spared. Verona has acquired immortal celebrity from
being the birth-place of Catullus, who and Lucretius are unquestionably
the greatest Roman poets. The name C. Valerius is surprising, and people
have been foolish enough to connect it with the ancient Valerian gens;
but the fact is, that in the seventh century the Veronese must have had
some Valerius for their patron. The name is extremely common on the
stones which are dug out in the neighbourhood of Verona, and I have seen
the name Valerius with different cognomina on at least twelve or fifteen
of them. In antiquity the town was situated on a reach of the Athesis
(Adige), but it now occupies both sides of the river.

In the division made by Augustus, Verona was contained in the Regio
Veneta, but it is only in an improper sense that it can be said to have
belonged to the nation of the VENETI. No ancient writer distinctly states
to what race the Veneti belonged. They are said to have resembled the
Illyrians in dress and manners; but the very way in which this statement
is made, shows that its author did not regard them as Illyrians. Polybius
assuredly knew how to distinguish the Illyrian language, as well as
people in northern Germany can distinguish the Slavonian language without
having themselves any knowledge of it. I have no doubt that the Veneti
belonged to the race of the Liburnians, and that accordingly they were a
branch of the wide-spread Tyrrheno-Pelasgians, in consequence of which
they also became so easily Latinized. Patavium not only had its own
Trojan legends, but it was by no means a barbarous town like those of
Dalmatia; it must have had a different origin, otherwise it could not
have produced the most eloquent of Latin historians.

Within the territory of Venetia, we meet with a people called EUGANEI,
who seem to have been regarded as the more ancient inhabitants, among
whom, according to tradition, the Trojans established themselves. Two
things must be distinguished in the legend of Antenor, though it cannot
claim to be historically true. First, the Patavinians regarded Antenor
as their κτίστης, just as the Latin towns looked upon Aeneas as the
leader of a Trojan colony. Secondly, the fact of Antenor being described
as a leader of the Heneti, is a mere play upon words originating in the
resemblance of the names. In Venetia assuredly nothing was known about
the Heneti, a people in Paphlagonia. But, however this may be,—

PATAVIUM was a very ancient and large town, and it is strange that it
appears as such in Roman history all at once. It is mentioned as early as
the fifth century, during the expedition of the Spartan Cleonymus; it is
also spoken of at the time of Caesar and of the triumvirs. But Strabo is
the first who describes Patavium as a large town, and in such a manner
as to make it evident that it was an ancient place. He says that, next
to Rome, it was the wealthiest city of Italy, that Patavium alone had
500 Roman equites, each of whom, as is well-known, must have possessed
at least 100,000 denarii: this gives us some idea of the enormous amount
of local wealth. In the time of Augustus, it was a large commercial and
manufacturing place; the whole district is in fact very industrial,
and its colony, Venice, besides its commerce, is also celebrated for
its great industry. Patavium is always said to have been destroyed by
Attila: when he advanced as far as the Po, a number of inhabitants of
Patavium and other towns are said to have taken refuge in the islands
of the Venetian lagoons, and to have protected themselves there. I do
indeed believe, that the tempest of the Huns passed over all those towns,
and that the destruction was fearful; but I cannot believe that Padua
perished. It never ceased to be a town, and was an important place during
the Gothic and Lombard periods, and throughout the middle ages.

Nor can the foundation of the new city in the lagoons (Venice) have been
occasioned by that sudden invasion of the Huns; the place must have
been inhabited to some extent even before. This lay in the nature of
circumstances. Sailors, and other people of the same kind, sought refuge
in a place where they were beyond the reach of the barbarians. They went
there not only on account of the Huns, but of all barbarian immigrants,
for there they were safe against ill-treatment and other horrors, and
land was not the thing they wanted. When Theodoric reigned in Italy, they
were his faithful subjects; and they were afterwards under the dominion
of the Eastern empire. The discussions which were in vogue during the
seventeenth century, as to whether Venice could trace its liberties to
the Roman times, were silly and quite useless. There are what are called
Fasti of the Venetian consuls, but they are altogether apocryphal, a
forgery of the Lombard period; they contain only late Lombard names, and
do not appear to be authentic until the middle of the seventh century.

AQUILEIA, the extreme town of Italy, was a Roman colony planted for the
purpose of securing Venetia, of offering resistance to the Noricans
and extending the Roman dominion against them, of protecting the Roman
supremacy in the Adriatic, and of keeping up the communication by land
with Istria. The town, favoured by its situation, gradually increased,
and became an emporium for the commerce with the northern countries,
no doubt, even with the interior of Germany, to which the products of
the south, wine, oil, and the like were exported. It cannot be said
with certainty whether Aquileia was also a military colony. Under the
emperors, it was one of the largest cities, and was carefully fortified
as a place of arms for all Italy against the northern nations and the
Getae.

Italy extended in the north as far as Istria; but a part of Istria, as
far as Pola, was united in the division of Augustus with Italy; this
was founded upon the correct view that, according to the course of the
mountains, the frontier was formed by the highest ridge of the Julian
Alps and their whole continuation down to the southern point of Istria.
In this manner Istria was divided into two parts.


LIGURIA.

The part of the continent of Italy which remains to be considered, was
probably not regarded by Polybius as belonging to Italy, or at least
only partially. Liguria, in the widest sense, extended as far as Gaul,
nay, as far as the frontier of Spain; but Italian Liguria, in the sense
in which Augustus made it a part of Italy (not in the later sense in
which it signified the territory of Milan), comprised the Genoese Alps,
the continuation of the Alps forming the southernmost part of Piedmont,
and the hilly country about Turin, with Alessandria, and a part of
the territory of Montferrat. The Genoese Alps, that is, the range of
the Alpes Maritimae as far as Briançon and mount Cenis, are among the
highest and wildest parts of the Alps, while the more northern slopes
of the mountains as far as the Po and the Ticinus belong to the most
splendid and fertile parts of northern Italy. It is not a plain, like the
territory of Milan and the country on the lower Po, which is evidently,
like Egypt, an ancient bay of the sea, filled up in the course of time;
but it is a hilly country. Its population in ancient times was altogether
Ligurian, and the Salassi, in the valley of Aosta, are the only tribe,
mentioned in after times, regarding which it is uncertain whether they
were Ligurians or Celts; the Taurini were, in my opinion, Ligurians.
Although the language is changed in modern times, still the fact of
French being spoken by the inhabitants of the valley of Aosta, and not
Italian, is of some significance in connection with their origin: they
have changed their language in a manner analogous to their origin.
There is little resemblance between the French and the ancient Celtic,
there being only some analogy in grammar, but not in words; in the
south of France, on the other hand, as far as it was once inhabited by
Aquitanians, Iberians, and Ligurians, the people speak Provençal, while
the north of France, which was once inhabited by Celts, has a different
dialect. This Romano-French, which has grown on Celtic ground, extends
all over Savoy as far as Aosta, and shows that the country was originally
inhabited by Celts. The Alpine tribes in those parts were not completely
subdued until the time of Augustus. During the period of the decline of
the Etruscans, the Ligurians spread far into the interior of Tuscany;
and soon after the Hannibalian war, the Romans came in collision with
them, not because they had offended the Romans, but the latter only
wanted to gain a passage through their country to Spain. I have already
observed that physically we can distinguish the countries once inhabited
by Etruscans and Ligurians, and a greater contrast can scarcely exist. In
Etruria the powerful cities ruled as sovereigns over all the neighbouring
places and extensive territories; the Ligurians, on the other hand, were
absolutely democratic, and had scarcely any towns. A port town like Genoa
was a small place, but otherwise they lived in villages on the hills
and in the valleys; the equality subsisting among them has no parallel
anywhere except in modern Europe. They had no slaves; all were thoroughly
free, and the Ligurian, working in the sweat of his brow, performed as a
free labourer the services which were elsewhere the work of slaves. This
difference in character is clearly manifested in the kind of resistance
offered to the Romans by the Etruscans and by the Ligurians. For the
same reason Charlemagne found it infinitely more difficult to subdue
the Saxons and Frisians, for they were free people, and although there
were some serfs among them, yet freedom had never been really crushed.
The Turingians, on the other hand, who ruled over extensive territories,
in which the ancient inhabitants had become serfs, were conquered at a
blow; so also the Alemanni, who possessed a large country extending as
far as the lower Rhine: they had no basis. As they ruled over serfs, the
greater part of the population was foreign and hostile to them. On the
other hand, it took centuries to subdue the Obotritae and Slavonians,
who defended their own independence. Such, also, was the case of the
Ligurians: they consisted of a large number of small tribes, which
unfortunately defended themselves each separately. If they had kept
together, they would have been invincible, for each of them held out with
the most determined perseverance. Their misfortune makes one’s heart
ache: they were crushed by the Romans one by one, just as a strong wall
is demolished piece by piece. The conquerors were obliged to transplant
them into foreign countries; and one of their tribes is said by Pliny to
have been transplanted thirty times, in order to break up all connection
among them. Many thousands of them were led into southern Italy, and
settled in the modern kingdom of Naples, where their language was not
understood, and where they themselves were unwelcome neighbours. The
extraordinary industry of the Ligurians in agriculture and navigation,
their frugality, and in short, all that we know of them reflects great
honour upon them. We cannot, therefore, look upon their destruction with
less sadness than upon that of Numantia. Little can be said about the
geography of this people.

GENUA is situated on one of those spots which will always be the site of
a great commercial town, on account of the excellent harbour which nature
herself has made. Its situation is of that fortunate kind that it cannot
become unfavourable even in the course of time, like so many harbours
which have become useless during the middle ages by the accumulation of
sand or mud. After the Punic war, Genua was destroyed, but was restored
soon after; and there can be no doubt that even in antiquity it was a
respectable town.

AUGUSTA TAURINORUM, a military colony of Augustus, was likewise a
considerable town, but not to be compared with what it came to be at a
later period. In comparison with the modern city of Turin, it was no
doubt always a small place. On the whole, you must not conceive such
military colonies to have been very large; the ancient Roman towns were
much smaller than those of modern times; we generally imagine them to
have been larger on account of the importance they have in history; but
on an average they were not larger than, for example, Bonn. A place of
the extent of Cologne, would have been a very considerable town in the
time of the Romans. After the decline of Rome under the emperors, Italy
had rather a numerous population, but in the age of Cicero and Augustus,
as I have already remarked, it was certainly far more thinly peopled
than at present. The population of the modern kingdom of Naples, north
of the Faro, is reported to be 6,000,000, while under Charles V. it is
said to have amounted to only 600,000. It is, indeed, said that, under
Charles V., families were counted and not persons; but admitting that the
number of persons was 2,000,000, which is the highest that can be made
out, still it is an undoubted fact, that in less than three centuries
the population has become more than trebled. I do not believe that, in
the reign of Augustus, the population was larger than under Charles V.
The astonishment with which Polybius and others mention the fact, that
previously to the Hannibalian war, Italy as far as the Cisalpine frontier
had 700,000 men capable of bearing arms, is too decisive to allow us to
suppose that the country was thickly peopled. Italy clearly reminds us
of the condition of Germany after the Thirty Years’ war, of which we
have descriptions in books of travel; and that state of Italy, as we see
from Lucan, continued until a late period. I have read a description of
Germany by an Italian who travelled in the country thirty years after the
war, and who saw the villages and buildings everywhere in ruins, and even
the towns were full of heaps of ruins and decaying houses.

The valley of Aosta, the country of the Salassians, is remarkable for its
gold-dust and gold-washings in the river Doria. Gold still exists there,
but little, for such veins often are entirely drained.


SICILIA.

In passing on to the islands, I shall first speak of Sicily, the queen of
the islands in the Mediterranean. It derives, like Italy and most other
countries, its name from its inhabitants, and Sicilia is the country of
the Siculi. I have already said that Itali and Siculi are the same name
in different dialects, and that accordingly both denote the same people.
The general tradition of antiquity is, that the Siculi migrated from
Italy into the island, and pushed the Sicani, its previous inhabitants,
into the western and southern parts. Those who go back to the mythical
ages, represent the island in the most ancient times as inhabited by
Gigantes, Cyclopes, and Laestrygones. It is a widely-spread opinion among
the ancients, that the Sicani belonged to the race of the Iberians. The
Sicani called themselves Autochthons, while, according to others, they
had come from Iberia, having been displaced by Ligurians; but such an
emigration, so far across the sea and by so many intermediate countries
as the Balearian islands and Sardinia, or, if you please, along the coast
of Africa, is incredible in the case of a people like the Iberians, who
never were great navigators. I believe that, in this account, we can keep
only to this one point, that, according to the conviction of those who
most thoroughly understand the circumstances, the Sicani belonged to the
Iberian race, even if we admit that the tradition about their emigration
is without foundation; and this is very possible. It is equally possible
that the story about the emigration of the Siculi from Italy is without
foundation; at least our authorities for it are not authentic. Another
question is, as to whether the Sicani and Siculi were everywhere
different people; the testimonies of the ancients must, of course, be
of the greatest weight to us in this matter. I am not one of those who
build history upon the mere names of nations, and am, therefore, not much
inclined to lay great stress upon the resemblance of the two names; but
Virgil uses Sicani and Siculi as synonymous, and this leads us to infer
that he probably had more ancient authors before him, who had done the
same. It is true also, that such a change of form is not unprecedented,
for _Aequus_, _Aequanus_, _Aequulus_, _Aequicus_, and _Aequiculus_, are
only derivatives from the same basis; and in like manner we might regard
_Sicanus_ and _Siculus_ as simple derivatives of the stem _Sicus_. I
should believe this to be quite correct, were it not that the ancients
speak so positively of the Iberian origin of the Sicani. I should, in
fact, reject this origin, were it not certain that Iberians existed in
Corsica, Sardinia, and the Balearian islands, and in ancient times, when
the Celts dwelt as far as the Sierra Morena, probably even on the coast
of Africa. The Basque language is foreign to all European languages known
to us; it belongs, as it were, to a different part of the world. But
however this may be, the two nations in Sicily were different from each
other, though we cannot say whether the difference was one of race or of
a less striking nature. The Siculi inhabited the north-eastern part of
the island, and the Sicani the southern and western.

At the time when the Phoenicians were in possession of the most important
islands of the Aegean, as Thasos and Cythera, and had settlements in
most of the Cyclades; they also occupied strong points on the coast of
Sicily; they were generally small places in little islands, headlands
and the like, not being intended as agricultural settlements, but as
factories. But they disappeared in consequence of the Greek colonies,
which commenced at an early period, and according to the traditions from
annals of which Thucydides probably made indirect use through Antiochus,
soon after the beginning of the Olympiads. The colonies came from two
of the Greek tribes, the Dorians and Chalcidians. In Italy, there was,
properly speaking, only one Doric city that was really great, whereas in
Sicily Doric cities preponderated both in number and greatness, witness
Syracuse, which Timaeus calls the largest Greek city, Agrigentum, which
was but little inferior to Syracuse, Gela, Selinus, and Camarina. Zancle
(afterwards Messana), Naxos, Leontini, Catana, and Himera, on the north
coast, were of Chalcidian origin. All the towns on the north-east, on
a line from Syracuse to Palermo, were Chalcidian, and those on the
south-west of it were Dorian. In speaking of the towns of Sicily, I shall
make some deviation from the general rule I have hitherto followed, and
enumerate them not in their natural succession, but according to their
magnitude.

Sicily, like most other countries which are surrounded by the sea on
two sides, presents the physical character of two different countries.
In Andalusia and Algarvia, the character of the animal and vegetable
world up to the mountains is African; and, in like manner, the southern
part of Sicily is completely African, and the palm-tree grows there
as beautifully as in Tunis and Tripoli; but the country north of cape
Heraeum is quite different.

If we except the south-western coast and the district about Leontini,
Sicily is altogether a mountainous country. Mount Aetna is the real
central knot of the island, and the highest mountains proceed from it in
a north-eastern direction as far as cape Pelorus just opposite to Italy.
The Heraean range likewise proceeds from Aetna in a western direction,
while another chain extends southwards. This last range is considerably
lower than the others, but still high enough to form the watershed
between the eastern and western coast. In the part between Palermo and
Messina, the mountains approach very close to the coast, so that often
two places situated on the coast are not connected by a road, just as is
the case in many parts of Liguria. Hence, during the wars of the Romans,
we never find that the northern coast formed their scene of operation,
which it is in all the wars on the south coast, for in this latter part
there are roads, and armies can move. But on the northern coast there
never was any communication either in the Punic wars or in those of the
middle ages and modern times. It is of importance to know this in order
to understand the history of the first Punic war.

AETNA is the highest mountain both of Italy and Sicily; it had only very
few eruptions in antiquity, but they were sometimes of a violence which
has never been equalled in modern times. According to Thucydides, the
third eruption, after the settlement of the Greeks in Sicily, occurred
in his own days, in the time of the Peloponnesian war. We need not,
however, scrupulously insist on this number, for it is possible that
all the eruptions were not recorded, and that there had been some at
a time when no annals were yet kept. The eruptions of which we know,
belong to Olympiads 70, 82,[60] and Olymp. 88, 3, or the sixth year
of the Peloponnesian war. The greatest subsequent eruption in ancient
times occurred after the death of Caesar. A still more terrible one
is recorded by the earliest Byzantine writers of the age of the Greek
emperor Anastasius or Zeno. During the eruption in the age of Caesar, the
ashes are said to have been thrown as far as Peloponnesus and Africa,
which is probably no exaggeration; but it seems scarcely possible that,
in the reign of Anastasius, the ashes should have been carried as far
as Constantinople, though it certainly is very difficult positively to
assert anything about these powers of nature.

ERYX (monte S. Giuliano), situated in an isolated position on the western
promontory, is a mountain of great historical interest. It is high, but a
tame mountain, and is celebrated for its temple of Venus Erycina; but it
has been immortalised in history by the defence of Hamilcar Barcas, who
was blockaded there by the Romans for years, and maintained himself in
spite of all difficulties: that defence is one of the greatest events in
military history.

Whether Sicily derived the name _Trinacria_ from its three promontories,
which seems to us very probable, or whether this is only apparent, and
the name arose from a Siculian town of a similar name (Trinacia or
Thrinacia), independently of the form of the island, is one of those
questions, concerning which it is best to confess that they cannot be
satisfactorily answered.

SYRACUSAE, at first probably SYRACUSA, was the greatest Greek city in
Sicily. The plural form of the name probably did not come into use until
the time when several towns were united in one great city; afterwards,
during the decline of the language, it was again called Syracusa. There
exists an abridgment of six books (from 21 to 26) of Diodorus Siculus,
which was no doubt made in Sicily itself, but at a late period, for it
already contains several modern Greek expressions, and among others,
also the form Syracusa. Those of the Byzantine writers who did not
want to write learnedly, likewise have the singular. It is well known
that Syracuse was a Corinthian colony led out by the Bacchiad Archias;
the first settlement was formed in the island of Ortygia (to which the
modern Siragossa also is confined), for the sake of safety against the
attacks of the inhabitants of the interior. It commenced its career
as a commercial place; and this first colony was small like all the
other Greek settlements, as, for example, Cyrene. The island in the
Doric dialect was called νᾶσος, and the Romans also retained this name
(_Nasos_), as we know from Cicero’s Verrine orations. A suburb of the
name of _Achradina_ (from ἀχράς, the wild pear-tree) arose on the main
land opposite the island. This suburb, which increased considerably, is
the Syracuse of the middle period, that is, under the first Gelo and the
first Hiero, until the time of the Peloponnesian war. Nasos then became
the Acra, but Achradina alone was fortified. By the side of this latter,
again two large suburbs arose, _Neapolis_ and _Tycha_; they seem to
have commenced at two different gates, and perhaps ran parallel to each
other, but were separated by a considerable intervening space. They, too,
became important towns, so that Syracuse was a tetrapolis. The last two
of these places which had not been fortified at all, or only feebly, were
surrounded by Dionysius with a wall which he constructed at a distance of
about three miles from the island. Above Syracuse there runs a range of
hills, and you may easily understand its situation, by comparing it with
the neighbourhood of Bonn, the plain extending between the Vorgebirge
and the Rhine: the city must be conceived to be situated in the plain
upon the Rhine, whence it gradually extends towards the Vorgebirge. These
hills, which, just like our Vorgebirge, bound the plain stretching to
the sea, were called _Epipolae_. They were from early times surmounted
by forts, the object of which was to protect the district in the petty
wars with the Siculians; during the Athenian war also they were very
dangerous on account of the great enlargement of the city. Dionysius
then fortified the city by building two mighty walls up the heights, so
as to enclose those forts which now became citadels. The whole of the
intermediate space between the walls, however, must not be imagined to
have been covered with buildings, for between Neapolis and Tycha there
were extensive tracts which can never have been built upon; the quarries
also could not be built over, as is clear from the whole surface of the
ground. But the circumference of the city was enormous.

The misfortunes of Syracuse are very painful: it was visited by such a
succession of devastations that we can hardly understand how it could
maintain itself: it must have possessed an unusual degree of vital power.
I believe that its happiest period was the reign of the last Hiero,
though the population may at that time already have been much smaller
than it had been in the earlier prosperous periods. In the Hannibalian
war, when the city was taken by the Romans, Neapolis and Tycha were
completely destroyed, and the alleged mildness of Marcellus was of no
avail, for the work of destruction was completed with barbarous fury. At
the capture of Achradina, Marcellus ordered to spare the lives of the
inhabitants, and not to carry away a free-born Syracusan into slavery.
This is always praised as an act of great humanity; but a new fragment in
the excerpts from Diodorus shows that this apparently humane order did
not prevent the complete pillage of the city: the Syracusans were robbed
of everything, and freedom alone was granted to them. But this gift
rendered their condition worse even than that of slaves, who received at
least some food from their masters, while the free men died of hunger, no
person supplying them with anything. Thus it happened that many a free
man gave himself out to be a slave in order to find a purchaser and food.
This is probably the most fearful occurrence in all ancient history.
After that time there existed in Neapolis and Tycha only a few isolated
buildings and temples, and the population disappeared; even in Achradina
only very few inhabitants appear to have remained, for in Cicero’s time
the real population was again confined to the island of Nasos; the same
appears to have been the condition of the city under the emperors, and
at present it is still the same. Under Augustus a Roman colony was
established there; still, however, the whole island of Sicily was so
essentially Greek, that under the emperors it was always regarded as a
part of Greece. Even at the time of the Norman conquest, in the eleventh
century of our era, Greek and Arabic were the only languages spoken there.

Although the Syracusans are not among those Greeks who excite our
sympathy for them in the highest degree, yet their history is one of
the most melancholy in ancient times. The whole of Greek history is
very saddening in its course, but none more so than that of Syracuse,
and if we seriously contemplate it, it is heartrending. The Syracusans
throughout show a lawlessness which rendered them incapable of governing
themselves; their only salvation was a mild usurper, as, for example,
the last Hiero; he was a mild and kindly man, although even he did
things which make us shudder; but this was natural in the case of Greek
usurpers. The history of Syracuse begins with an aristocratic form of
government, the first settlers ruling over a considerable territory, and
the ancient inhabitants having become serfs (κιλλικύριοι). Servitude
afterwards disappears, and a demos is formed, which is increased by new
settlers from all parts of Greece, and has to struggle with the lords of
the soil (γάμοροι). Gelo, one of these lords, put himself at the head of
the demos, and for the sake of appearances established a democracy, but
set himself up as tyrant. Under Hiero, Syracuse was extremely prosperous;
with him the tyrannis ceased and democracy was restored, but was found
wanting as soon as it was put to the test, and a struggle gradually
arose between the wealthy few and the multitude. During this struggle
there arose Dionysius I., an ambitious man, not a benefactor of the
people, though he was useful in several respects, for the people could
not do without a ruler. He was succeeded by his unworthy son, quite a
detestable person; it was now impossible to live without a usurper,
but it was equally impossible to endure him. The distressing condition
became worse in consequence of the unsuccessful undertaking of Dion,
respecting whom Plato was so singularly mistaken, and whom he regarded
in the light of his own ideal of what a man should be. Timoleon, a
really great man, expelled Dionysius by force, and restored happiness
and prosperity to the city for a period of twenty years. He ruled solely
by his personal authority, and the people, for once, were grateful to
him. After his death, fresh divisions arose, and Agathocles, a bold
but oriental miscreant of unprincipled impudence, usurped the supreme
power. Under his dominion of Syracuse became great and brilliant, but not
prosperous: it was fearfully ill used; it became a den of robbers, and
mercenaries of every description deluged the city with torrents of blood.
Long protracted, and devastating internal wars then followed, after which
came the more than fifty years’ reign of Hiero, during which Syracuse was
confined to a small territory. It often ruled over the whole island; but
the state of things was ever changing.

The population of Syracuse is estimated at 1,200,000 souls; and this
number is adopted in a great many books, but it is quite inconceivable.
The population of all Sicily at present amounts to from 1,600,000 to
1,700,000, and seventy or eighty years ago it was only 1,200,000.
How then is it possible, that Syracuse alone should have had such a
population of free men? Diodorus indeed speaks of thirty myriads, but
they must be understood as the numbers in the Roman census, that is,
as comprising not only the citizens of Syracuse, but including all the
inhabitants of the towns which stood to Syracuse in the relation of
isopolity. Hence we may assume that Syracuse itself, at the time of
its highest prosperity, contained within its walls at the most 200,000
inhabitants, including both free men and slaves, and I should be
surprised to find that it actually did amount to so much. You remember
that Thebes, when it was destroyed by Alexander, contained only 30,000
persons of every age, rank, and sex. The statements about the population
in antiquity are monstrously exaggerated; the numbers are not always
fictitious, but are founded upon misunderstandings.

AGRIGENTUM (Ἀκράγας, according to the common derivation of such names,
where ς is changed into _ntum_) was the second large city in Sicily.
Plans of it are found in books of travel, and in Graevius’ Thesaurus;
but nothing can be more erroneous than they are, for towns in the
neighbourhood are represented as parts of Agrigentum, which they never
were. It was a Rhodian colony, and was inferior in greatness to Syracuse
alone. The population is said to have amounted to 200,000 souls; but
the case is quite similar to that of Syracuse, as is clear from another
statement, which mentions only 20,000. Both numbers may be correct, if
we take the 20,000 as that of the real citizens, and the 200,000 as
comprising all the isopolites of Agrigentum. But notwithstanding all
this, the population of Sicily in ancient times was far larger than
it is at present; its numbers in the towns of the island change with
incredible rapidity. In the middle ages, Messina had 140,000 inhabitants;
at the end of the seventeenth century, the ill-usage of the Spaniards
reduced them to somewhat less than 100,000, and the plague brought them
down to 90,000; afterwards, by the systematic oppression, the object
of which was to crush Messina and to raise Palermo, they were reduced
to 40,000; and before the earthquake their number amounted only to
25,000; at present it is said to be 70,000. Such is the vitality in
those southern countries, and such are the changes in their population.
In the north, too, fluctuations occur, but not to the same extent as in
the south, where people have so few wants, and many can live in the open
air without a cover for their heads until some favourable opportunity
occurs. Immense ruins of Agrigentum still exist: it was situated on a
hill and was visible from the sea at a great distance, whence Virgil
says, _Arduus hic Acragas ostendit maxima longe moenia_. I have already
directed your attention to the fact that _moenia_ signifies “large
buildings in a city;” the walls of Agrigentum had nothing striking, and
parts of them ran in the valley, so that Virgil cannot have alluded to
them. The buildings of the city were not yet quite completed when they
were destroyed in the Carthaginian war; they were much larger than those
at Syracuse or any other of the Greek towns of Sicily. Before the war
in Olymp. 93, Agrigentum was the wealthiest city in the island; but
the stories of the riches of particular citizens, as, for example, of
Gellias, which Diodorus relates after Timaeus, are quite fabulous, for
Timaeus was credulous. In Olymp. 93, Agrigentum was taken and completely
destroyed by the Carthaginians; the town was defended in the most
unfortunate manner, or not defended at all: the Greek generals during
that war were so wretched and senseless, that the Agrigentines had enough
to do in trying to save themselves, leaving their city with all its
treasures a prey to the enemy. It was afterwards restored indeed, but the
new town was only a shadow of what it had been before. In consequence of
the treaties by which Selinus was ceded to the Carthaginians, Agrigentum
was re-united with the Greek part of Sicily, of which Syracuse, under
Dionysius and Timoleon, was the capital. Afterwards the character of the
wars between the Greeks and Carthaginians was no longer as destructive
as it had been before, for Carthage was satisfied with subduing and
ruling over the Greek towns. After the reign of Agathocles, Agrigentum
again fell into the hands of the Carthaginians. In the first Punic
war, it was taken by the Romans, and on that occasion one part of its
inhabitants made their escape, while others perished or were sold as
slaves. Towards the end of the Punic war, it was again implicated in
an insurrection against the Romans, in consequence of which it became
so desolate that the Romans, to prevent the complete extinction of the
place, established there colonists from other Sicilian towns. Agrigentum
is indeed mentioned in Cicero’s Verrine orations, but it is clear that it
was quite an insignificant town; under the Roman emperors it remained in
the same condition, and may have been of little more importance than the
modern Girgenti. The gigantic ruins of the ancient city are situated on
the plateau of the hill: the severest blow it ever received was that in
Olymp. 93, and subsequent earthquakes also contributed to its destruction.

SELINUS, nearer the western promontory, was likewise a Dorian settlement.
It was an extensive, wealthy, and important town at the time when the
Carthaginians, after the unsuccessful attempt under Gelo, who confined
them to their three factories, Motye, Panormus, and Soloeis, were
expelled from all other parts of the island. But during the unfortunate
Carthaginian war, by means of which Dionysius raised himself, it was the
first town that was captured and destroyed. After that time, it is indeed
still mentioned, and in fact never ceased to exist, but was never again
incorporated with the Greek portion of Sicily. It remained subject to
Carthage, as long as she had any possessions in the island, and then came
into the hands of the Romans, but never acquired any importance.

GELA, likewise an ancient Dorian settlement, was abandoned by its
Greek inhabitants during the Carthaginian war, and destroyed by the
Carthaginians. Even before this, the place had several times changed its
population: in the time of Gelo it was restored, but after the repeated
destructions by its enemies, it recovered only partially. It received
its death-blow shortly after the time of Agathocles, when Phintias,
the tyrant of Agrigentum, transplanted its inhabitants to the town of
Phintias, founded by himself.

CAMARINA experienced the same fate as Gela.

On the southern coast there existed, at different times, several Doric
towns, as _Heraclea_ in the territory of Agrigentum, _Acrae_, and
_Casmenae_, but they are of no importance.

NAXOS, the most ancient among the Chalcidian or Ionian settlements, was
situated between mount Aetna and the Sicilian straits; it was in fact
the earliest Greek colony in Sicily. It is doubtful whether Naxos was
destroyed by Gelo or Hiero. During the great period of Sicilian history
its name is not mentioned.

ZANCLE, afterwards MESSENE or MESSANA; the cause of this change of
name is obscure. The story about Gorgus, the son of Aristomenes, and
Manticlus, is untenable and chronologically impossible. Still, however,
there must have been a mixture of Messenians which gave rise to the
name. Samians, who had fled from their own country, treacherously took
possession of the town in which they had been hospitably received.
More than two hundred years later, their descendants were punished for
the deed by the Campanian mercenaries of Agathocles, who butchered the
inhabitants who had allowed them a passage through their town. After
this time the place was always called Messana, while the inhabitants
bore the name of Mamertines, which was the general designation for Oscan
mercenaries. These Mamertines retained their Italian character, without
becoming hellenised in any way; and even as late as the time of Verres we
find them mentioned with their Oscan names, the praenomen and the nomen
gentilicium. Their coins, however, have inscriptions in Greek characters,
and I have no doubt that in the course of time the Mamertines also became
hellenised. The Roman element in the western countries was powerful in
regard to the Celts, Iberians and others; but it was unable to cope with
the Greeks, against whom the Romans did not gain one inch; no Greek
town ever became Latinised, unless all its inhabitants perished. Among
non-Greek nations, such as the Pannonians, Dardanians, and the other
tribes in those countries, the Latin language became predominant within
an extremely short period. The name Mamertines remained in use until the
time of the Roman emperors, but it then disappears, and the name Messana
is again generally employed.

CATANA, likewise a considerable Chalcidian town, was situated near the
river Simaethus, at the foot of mount Aetna. Hiero I. carried away the
inhabitants, and founded a new town; but after his death everything was
restored. After the time of the Athenian expedition, Catana was nearly
always under the influence of Syracuse.

TAUROMENIUM, in the neighbourhood of Naxos between mount Aetna and
Messana, was founded in the time of Timoleon. It was situated on mount
Tauros, which was quite inaccessible. The derivation of its name ἀπὸ
τῆς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ταύρου μονῆς is strange. With the exception of Phintias, it
was the youngest of the Greek towns in Sicily. These late colonies are
essentially different from the earlier ones: they had no oecistae and
no institutions according to the ancient forms, but being the result
of circumstances they did not observe the traditionary formalities.
Tauromenium was very strong by its situation; and, in consequence of the
nature of its locality, its ruins are more perfectly preserved than those
of any other Greek city in Sicily. The splendid theatre was cut in a
semicircle into the rock, and still exists in its ancient beauty. In the
history of literature, Tauromenium is celebrated as the birth-place of
the historian Timaeus, who, as we have learned only recently, spent the
greater part of his long life of ninety years in exile at Athens, where
in all probability he also died. The fifty years of his exile embrace the
whole reign of Agathocles.

LEONTINI was situated at some distance from the coast. It is a mistake
in translations and other books to call this town Leontium, a name which
does not occur anywhere. Its original name must have been Λεοῦς, although
this form is not found in the extant monuments either. As Messana was
called Mamertini, from its Oscan inhabitants, so also in the case of
Leontini, the name of the people was used as the name of the town. It
was the chief place in the most fertile corn district of Sicily, and
the _campi Leontini_ are often mentioned on this account. The town was
destroyed by the Syracusans at least three times, but always recovered
itself.

HIMERA, on the north coast, was a colony of Chalcidians mixed with
Dorians, but in such a manner that the νόμιμα Χαλκιδικὰ prevailed. In
Olymp. 93, it was destroyed by the Carthaginians. The town itself was
never restored, but around some hot springs in the neighbourhood (θερμὰ
Ἱμεραῖα) a small town of the name of _Therma_, or _Thermae_, arose, whose
inhabitants were called _Thermitani_. This town is remarkable as the
birth-place of Agathocles, who, though a monster, is yet an important
person in history. Himera was one of the genuine ancient Greek colonies.

On the north coast between Himera and Messana, there were several Greek
towns of uncertain origin, which were probably founded by neighbouring
cities, and were afterwards inhabited by Greeks of all kinds. Places of
this kind are _Cephaloedion_, _Mylae_, and _Calacte_; they are not of
great importance, and I cannot here enter into any detail about them.

In the time of Thucydides there existed three Punic towns on the
north-west coast of Sicily, viz., _Soloeis_, _Motye_, and _Panormus_.
Motye was the principal place among them, and stood to Carthage in the
same relation as Utica, Leptis, and others. About thirty years before
the passage of Xerxes into Europe, at the time of the expulsion of
Tarquin, the Carthaginians were already in possession of a province in
Sicily; they then concluded a treaty with Rome, which has been preserved
by Polybius. Ancient Greek history gives us no information about this,
but rather makes it appear as if their attempt in the time of Gelo to
establish themselves in Sicily had been the first; but the treaty with
Rome is indubitable. The statement that the victory of Salamis, and that
of Gelo over the Carthaginians at Himera, took place on the same day, a
coincidence on which Herodotus lays great stress, is likewise untenable,
for it is opposed to the account which we have in the Parian marbles from
Timaeus. The origin of the fiction evidently lies in the desire to have
a parallel. Gelo’s victory must be dated seven or nine years later than
the time to which it is assigned by Diodorus. After that defeat, the
Carthaginians always maintained themselves on the north-western coast,
where no Greek town existed. When, in the course of time, the power of
the Carthaginians had greatly increased, and when they displayed a love
of conquest, the neighbouring town of Egesta threw itself into their
arms. The Greeks in Sicily were, on the one hand, extremely careless, and
on the other fool-hardy in giving provocation, and these circumstances
gave rise to the unfortunate war with Carthage. In the second war with
Dionysius, Motye, which until then, had been the chief place of the
Carthaginians, was destroyed. They now built a new town, Olymp. 100,
of the name of _Lilybaeum_: when it was taken by the Romans, it had
existed about 150 years. It was the seat of the Carthaginian government,
a regular Carthaginian eparchy being established in those parts, which
is always called ἡ Φοινικικὴ ἐπαρχία. Bochart’s etymologies, from the
Semitic languages, are often quite without foundation, but he explains
the name Lilybaeum quite correctly as ‎‏‎‏ללבי‏‎, that is, opposite to
Libya. _Soloeis_ was an unimportant place.

PANORMUS became a great town under the dominion of the Carthaginians.
It is strange that both Soloeis and Panormus are Greek names; the money
coined in the latter place at the time of the Carthaginian dominion in
Sicily, is likewise Greek, from which we must infer that Panormus was not
a Punic colony like Lilybaeum. The natural advantages of its situation
are very great: it has an excellent harbour, as even its name intimates,
and its site is in a beautiful fertile plain on the coast, above which
mount Hercte rises at the entrance of the harbour. This mountain was a
very important post during the first Punic war.

LILYBAEUM remained an important place even under the Romans, though
its name is afterwards but rarely mentioned. The Romans, for financial
purposes, divided Sicily into two provinces, viz., Syracuse and
Lilybaeum; they were governed by one praetor, but had different financial
administrations, because the systems of taxation were different in the
two parts. So long as Carthage existed, the Romans kept up Lilybaeum as
a place of arms and a military port; but the place afterwards lost this
importance, because its harbour was gradually filled with sand. It is at
present known only for its excellent vineyards.

DREPANA, the modern Trapani, near Lilybaeum, was another strongly
fortified port town of the Carthaginians, and is still of importance.
All these places act a conspicuous part in the first Punic war.

EGESTA, or SEGESTA, was situated in the neighbourhood of Drepana.
Thucydides says that its inhabitants were Trojans; and the unanimous
voice of antiquity calls the Egestans and the Elymi, there and about
mount Eryx, Trojans. I have explained my opinion on this point in
my Roman History, and shewn that Trojans here means Tyrrhenians or
Pelasgians, like those occupying the coasts of Italy and Sardinia. The
name Trojans, therefore, seems to have been a general Pelasgian name,
which was commonly applied to the Mysian Trojans, because they were
the most important, just as the name Hellenes was commonly given to
the people of Argos. All these nations were connected by religion and
their common sanctuary of Samothrace, the Trojan character of which
is undeniable. The Segestans are called by the Greeks barbarians, and
they were certainly non-Greeks; but when we consider the ruins of their
temples, which are not only grand but splendid, and are in no way
inferior to the most beautiful Greek edifices; and when we see their
coins, which equal the finest specimens made in Greece, we must confess
that the word “barbarian” cannot be understood here in the same sense in
which it is applied to Thracians, Getae, and Macedonians, who were not
even able correctly to imitate the formation of Greek words. Afterwards,
Segesta, like all the rest of the island, became completely hellenised;
Cicero always calls the Siculi Greeks, and the names of the Segestans,
wherever they occur in history, are Greek. Segesta was an unfortunate
place, for it was the occasion of the deplorable expedition of the
Athenians to Sicily, of which we can only lament the final issue. It
would have been fortunate, if the Athenians had been able to carry it
out with energy, for the fate of Greece would have taken a different
direction. The Segestans have much to answer for to Sicily, to Greece,
and to all the world, for they misled the Athenians by their delusive
promises. After the defeat of the Athenians, the Chalcidian towns one
by one concluded peace, and the Segestans, abandoned by every one, were
obliged to throw themselves into the arms of the Carthaginians. Under
their protection, the town was safe and prosperous for a period of about
ninety years, until the time when the power of Agathocles reached its
highest point. But when Agathocles was victorious for a time, it was
taken by the sword, and treated like Magdeburg in the Thirty Years’ war.
Afterwards a population again assembled there; in the first Punic war
Segesta is mentioned again, and submits to the Romans under an appeal to
its Trojan origin.

The towns in the interior of Sicily were originally partly Siculian
and partly Sicanian, though it is now impossible to draw a line of
demarcation between them. In the north, about mount Aetna as far as
Henna, all the towns, such as Henna, Centuripa, Agyrion, Halesa,
Aluntion, and many others, were probably Siculian. The Siculians, even
after the time of Gelo, formed distinct states and had their own kings.
Diodorus compiled his history in a most unsystematic manner: when he is
engaged with the history of a nation, and it occurs to him, that he has
dwelt upon it long enough, and that he has neglected another, he all at
once breaks off and begins to discuss the latter. Such is the case in
his history of Sicily: he is often very minute, relating the events of
a nation year after year, but then he is for a time quite silent about
it. After the time of Gelo and Hiero, we find a Siculian kingdom, under
a prince called Ducetius, which was very dangerous to the Siceliots.[61]
Afterwards we see the Siculians broken up into many small states, some
of which were hellenised at a very early period. The power of the Greek
tyrants often extended very far into the interior; and those of Syracuse
at times ruled almost over the whole island; during such times, Greeks
settled in all parts of it. These things are often mentioned only
accidentally, as for example, in the case of Diodorus himself, who is
called a Siceliot, though he belonged to a Siculian town. At that time
the Siculian and Sicanian languages no longer existed and Greek was
spoken everywhere.

HENNA, situated in the centre of the country, was the most important of
all the Siculian towns. Henna, and not Enna, is the correct spelling,
for so we find it on a very ancient Greek coin; and only later Latin
ones have Enna, whereas all the good Latin MSS., such as the Codex
Puteanus of Livy, as well as the inscriptions, have the H, as in _ordo
populusque Hennensis_; in after-times the pronunciation was modified. I
do not, however, mean to say, that if you find Enna in a poet, you must
at once correct it into Henna, for such things depend upon authority;
the ancients often pronounced a word with an aspiration, which we cannot
accurately imitate, and which, therefore, has disappeared in Italian
and other modern languages. Henna is celebrated as the central seat of
the worship of Demeter and Persephone, which spread thence into Italy,
and was also adopted by the Greeks. It was probably different from the
worship of Demeter at Eleusis; but we cannot speak positively about this
matter, and in my opinion, it is a mere waste of learning and ingenuity
to institute inquiries about it.

CENTURIPA (_Centuripini_, Κεντόριπα), near the slope of mount Aetna, was
the greatest town of the interior at the time of the Romans. In the age
of Cicero, its citizens were the wealthiest in all Sicily. In the first
Punic war, they had been enabled by circumstances, about which we have
no information, to put themselves in an extremely favourable relation
to the Romans; this had been done at a time when the other Siculian
places had allowed themselves to be tempted to rise against Rome; and in
consequence of this, Centuripa was honoured with great privileges. It
derived special advantages from the extensive confiscations which were
often made of whole districts. On such occasions, the Roman equites
speculated to acquire large estates, and the Centuripans undertook as
farmers (_aratores_), or agricultural speculators, the cultivation of
large districts; the existence of such aratores is known from Cicero’s
Verrine orations. Centuripa then remained the centre of Sicilian
agriculture, probably until a very late period. _Agyrion_ was situated in
the neighbourhood of Centuripa.

I have already said in general how Sicily became a desolate country.
When many towns had already been destroyed in the wars of Agathocles,
the first Punic war, which lasted twenty-four years, was extremely
destructive, because it was carried on at the expense of that small
country; the Syracusan kingdom alone, which was in the enjoyment of
order and protection, was exempted. Then followed the second Punic
war, and the senseless insurrection of the Syracusans and of nearly
all the inhabitants of the island. They were punished by the Romans in
such a manner, that all cultivation disappeared from the greater part
of the island; the towns perished and were changed into large estates;
the corn-fields in the interior were changed into pastures, on which
large numbers of cattle and hosts of slaves were kept, while the free
population was almost entirely extirpated. Hence the insurrection of
Eunus, in the year of Rome 620; a war was then carried on with great
exertion for years, and was not brought to a close until several Roman
armies had been defeated. Thirty years later, a second similar Servile
war broke out, which, though it did not last quite as long as the first,
yet completely ruined several towns: the slaves took possession of the
fortified places, and annihilated the free population. As regards the
period of the Roman emperors, we only know that Augustus established
colonies in some places, but the rest of the island was quite desolate,
there being only some large estates and stations for post horses. The
Regestum of pope Gregory the Great, which contains the last accounts of
Sicily before it fell into the hands of barbarians, shows the island
in this wretched condition. The Roman see possesses large estates in
Sicily, and the correspondence with their stewards reveals to us the
condition of the island and the nature of such estates: we see that the
country was in a state of utter decay.


SARDINIA.

Sardinia fully confirms the observation regarding the identity of the
physical character of countries on two sides of the same sea. There does
not exist a more senseless notion than to imagine that rivers form the
natural boundaries between two countries; the same physical features
appear on both sides of a river: rivers are lines of communication, but
mountains separate countries from one another. The Suabian and Bavarian
races are separated by the range of the Vorarlberg. Sardinia, in its
physical structure, belongs to Africa, if not wholly, at least its
southern part as far as the mountains. This character shows itself both
in the vegetation and in the animal life of the country: the _musimon_,
an animal foreign to all the rest of Europe, is not found anywhere out of
Africa except in Sardinia.[62] The character of the population also is
African, whence Cicero, in his speech for Scaurus, says: _Afer aut Sardus
sane, si ita se isti malunt nominari_. The island is not, like Sicily,
traversed by lofty mountains; it is only in the northern part that
the mountains reach any considerable height; the rest is only a hilly
country; many parts of the coast are plains, extensive and low marshy
districts, which may be termed savannahs, whence great quantities of salt
are obtained there. The physical identity with Africa manifests itself
also in another very important point: the opposite coasts of Sardinia and
Africa are celebrated for their banks of coral, while they are not found
near Sicily, Spain, or the Balearian islands.[63]

According to the most ancient tradition, the inhabitants of Sardinia
were Tyrrhenians, who appear in various forms and personifications,
in the story about Aristaeus, in the Iolai, and in many other ways.
If Tyrrhenians did exist there, they can only have been settlers on
the coasts, for a part of the inhabitants, such as the _Noraces_
and _Balari_, were certainly of Iberian origin, and belonged to the
same race as the inhabitants of the Balearian islands. In regard to
others again, it is equally certain that they were of Libyan origin,
for they are stated to have resembled the Berbers in language, in
bodily structure, complexion, and hair. The _Sardi Montani_, perhaps a
mixture of Iberians and Libyans, were in later times confined to the
mountains. These mountains, however, must not be conceived as Alps,
for heights of a less lofty character were sufficient for those people
to maintain themselves in them. The highlands of Scotland also do not
contain any high mountains, they are only inaccessible, and yet the
population has maintained itself there throughout all the changes of
nations. The sea-coast was occupied at an early time by Punic colonies,
which afterwards became masters of the island, with the exception of
the interior, over which they exercised no other influence than that
which a powerful nation on the coast always possesses over the other
inhabitants. In like manner the Dutch did not rule over the interior of
Ceylon, the prince of Candy being sovereign, though he was obliged to
comply with the wishes of the Dutch whenever they insisted upon it. Such
was the condition of Sardinia during the second Punic war, when we meet
with Hampsicora and Hiostus as Sardinian princes. The Punic settlements
consisted for the most part of Carthaginians mixed with Libyans, as the
Carthaginians themselves were a mixed race (Λιβυφοίνικες), or with Greeks
from Sicily and Magna Graecia. The Libyans must not be conceived as
negroes: in their physical features they are not very unlike Europeans,
and scarcely differ at all from southern Europeans, so that the mixture
could take place without any difficulty. The mixture of the Libyphoenices
with the Sardinians is attested by Cicero in an interesting fragment
of his speech for Scaurus. The Punic language accordingly predominated
everywhere on the coast, and all the known names of the Sardinians are
Punic, e.g., _Aris_, genitive _Arinis_, which is nothing else than the
Hebrew Aaron; so also Caralis and others. I said before, that Sardinia,
near the coast, has extensive low grounds, which are, for the most part,
marshy and unhealthy: this peculiarity, (_aër gravis_), which is still
the reason of the scanty population of the island, was known even to the
historians of antiquity; the country was very dangerous to the Roman
soldiers, many of whom died there of fevers. This we see from Tacitus’
annals[64] to have been the case in the time of Tiberius, and such it
continues to be at the present day; in most parts it is impossible to
remove the unhealthy character of the land by cultivation.

There are still many Punic remains in Sardinia; but there also are a
few Cyclopean walls, which can neither be ascribed to the Punians nor
to the Sardinians of the interior, but must be Greek. They are minutely
discussed in Millot’s description of Sardinia, which is a bad book,
but contains valuable information about those Cyclopean walls. Timaeus
spoke of ruins which were referred to the Iolai, the alleged ancient
Greek colonists. Most of the antiquities that have been dug out of the
ground, belong to the Roman period, but some also are Punic and have
Punic inscriptions. Many belong to the rude barbarians of the interior,
especially certain hideous and deformed idols resembling those of the
Wends and American Indians.

There were no towns in the interior of Sardinia, the mountaineers living
either in villages or caves; their dress consisted, as at present,
of skins of the musimon (_mastrucae Sardorum_), forming a sort of fur
jackets. They were very poor mountaineers, and the only booty the Romans
made there consisted of slaves. In a letter of pope Gregory the Great,
in his Regestum, a people of the name of _Barbaricini_ is mentioned in
the interior, and this confirms the identity of the Sardinians with the
Libyans, for Barbaricini is only a derivative form of Barbari, a name by
which the Greeks and Romans designated more particularly the Berbers in
Africa. During the Punic period there were, properly speaking, only three
towns that were of any importance, viz., Caralis, Sulci, and Nora.

CARALIS, the modern Cágliari (not Cagliári, as it is commonly pronounced,
for the inhabitants themselves say Cágliari), was the Carthaginian
capital with an excellent harbour.

SULCI and NORA, likewise of Phoenician origin, are mentioned indeed in
history, but were places of no particular importance. Considerable ruins
of the Roman period are still found at Nora, and Caralis has what is
called a beautiful ancient theatre. In the accounts I have seen of it, it
is called so, but owing to the uncritical manner in which the subject is
treated, I cannot say whether it is a real theatre or an amphitheatre.

Sardinia is still the country in which European civilisation and the
change of manners resulting from it, have taken less root than in any
part of Europe: those who regard civilisation as an evil, must consider
Sardinia to be a paradise. In no country have witches been burnt at
so recent a period, and the practice, perhaps, still prevails; the
government has not yet been able to suppress the custom of taking
revenge for bloodshed. The villages make war upon one another, and no
one can travel with safety along the high roads, unless he purchase the
protection of a party or a village, as in the East, or else he must
acquire the rights of hospitality. According to the accounts we have of
the condition of the island, we may imagine it to be something like that
which certain persons call the golden period of the middle ages. But with
all this barbarism, the greatest immorality prevails, especially among
the priests. The country is in a perfect state of anarchy, being governed
according to ancient privileges, which have never been changed at all;
the country population is in a state of complete dissolution. When the
island has an able governor, he can keep order only by the utmost rigour,
without which he can do absolutely nothing. It is deplorable that, in
these circumstances, the administration of the island is not entrusted
to able men, the propriety of which I have often urged. I sometimes
desired natives of Sardinia to come to me that I might examine their
language, which is very peculiar; you cannot say that it is Italian, it
contains indeed very much Latin, but much also that is quite foreign.
The Sardinian mountaineers are said to have many words in their dialect
which are radically different from all other European languages. As much
information has at present been collected about the Berber language,
my object was to question the natives and to examine their words to
see whether they were Berber or Basque. But I could not succeed, the
people were too timid and did not come. I have now placed my hope upon a
friend, Count Castiglione, of Milan, a great linguist, who has studied
the language of the Berbers; he may perhaps be more successful. The
island, from the earliest times, always made the impression of a wild
and ungenial country, which, poor as it was, was severely treated by
the Carthaginians, for they are said to have forbidden the cultivation
of grain, in order to compel the Sardinians to import their supplies
from Spain and Africa. In like manner Spain, for a long time, would not
tolerate the cultivation of European grain in her American possessions,
and when at length she allowed it, she forbade the planting of olives and
vines.

It was the universally established opinion among the ancients, that
Sardinia was the largest island, and larger than Sicily. This opinion,
though erroneous, is found in all ancient writers, and we cannot say what
may have given rise to it.


CORSICA.

Whether _Corsica_ and the Greek name Κύρνος are etymologically connected
with each other, must be left undecided; I for my part believe, that the
resemblance of the first syllable in the two names is only accidental.
Corsica was regarded by the ancients as still more wild, uninhabitable,
unhealthy, and barbarous than Sardinia; it was inhabited partly by
Ligurians and partly by Iberians, and its inhabitants maintained their
independence till about the time of the first Punic war, when the
Carthaginians seem to have established themselves in the island, at least
near its magnificent harbours. It would indeed be inconceivable, if they
had overlooked a harbour like that of S. Lorenzo. It is self-evident,
however, that the inhabitants of the interior remained quite independent,
for even the Genoese, though they lived so much nearer the island, were
never able entirely to subdue them. At present it is, properly speaking,
in a state of anarchy, though it is connected with the powerful monarchy
of France; what, therefore, must have been its condition under the
Carthaginians, whose dominion did not last long! At an earlier time
the Phocaeans had attempted to settle at Alalia (Aleria), but had not
succeeded. The Romans undertook an expedition to it as early as the
first Punic war; but the only result of it was, that they expelled the
Carthaginians, without they themselves being able to take possession of
the island. It was not till a much later period that they subdued it, but
they seem to have felt that it was not worth while to spend so much money
and blood for the purpose of enabling themselves to remain there.

MARIANA and ALERIA are the only two towns of Corsica deserving to be
noticed; both were Roman military colonies, the former founded by Marius,
and the latter by Sulla. At the time of the Roman emperors, Corsica, like
several islands in the Archipelago, served as a place to which condemned
persons were exiled, _relegatio in insulam_.

Corsica is altogether a mountainous island, with the exception of a
narrow tract of coast, which forms unhealthy lowlands with small rivers.
The mountains are not high, and form one of the ramifications of the
Apennines, but are very impassable and intricate.


HISPANIA.

The name Hispania, as Bochart correctly states, is in all probability
of Punic origin, derived from ‎‏צפן‏, _Sapan_, _Span_, from which, an
_i_ being prefixed, _Ispania_, or _Hispania_, was formed. In southern
as well as eastern languages, the pronunciation of an _s_, followed by
a consonant, is facilitated by prefixing a vowel, whence _Scipio_, in
ordinary life, is called _Iscipio_. You recollect the notion of the
Greeks about the four parts of the world, according to which Hesperia was
the western and Europe the northern part; in this division, Spain was a
part of Hesperia. The Greeks called the people _Iberians_, the country
_Iberia_, and the river _Iberus_. This name of the river must have been
of native origin or have been used by the Carthaginians, for the Romans
also employed it, though they called the people _Hispani_ and the country
_Hispania_. We do not know by what name the people called themselves;
it is possible that the Basque language may throw light upon it; but in
the masterly treatise on that language by Baron Humboldt, nothing is
said about this point. Afterwards, and in the Acts of the Apostles, the
country was called _Spania_, and it may have borne this name generally
among the Alexandrians and in the unjustly decried Hellenistic language.
The Byzantine writers also call it so, unless they employ the correct
name Iberia.

Spain is destined by nature, almost more than Italy, to form one compact
state; no one can have a doubt about this, when looking at the three
seas by which it is surrounded. Nevertheless, however, it did not become
united as one whole till a late period, though this happened before the
time of which we have written records; for there can be no doubt that
previously it was divided into two distinct countries. On the one side,
the Pyrenees formed its natural boundary towards Gaul (in the course of
time, however, they were crossed, and the Iberians ruled over the country
from the Garonne to the Rhone); but at an earlier period another natural
boundary line was formed by the Sierra Morena, an extensive range of
mountains, which, for a couple of centuries, formed the boundary between
the Christian and Mahommedan parts of Spain. These same mountains, no
doubt, also separated the Iberians from the Celts. The heights in the
north of Spain, whence the Tagus, Durius, and Minius, flow towards
the sea, and whence, on the other side, smaller rivers carry their
waters towards the Ebro, were inhabited by Celts, who are also called
_Celtiberians_. Other Celts bearing the name _Celtici_ dwelt in Algarbia
and the Portuguese Estremadura, and others again inhabited the province
Entre Douro e Minho in the north of Portugal. These three Celtic nations
were quite isolated in Spain. The Celtiberians were not pure Celts, but
as even their name indicates, a mixture of Celts and Iberians; but the
Celts in Portugal are expressly stated to have been pure Celts. These
latter attracted the attention even of the ancients, especially of the
excellent Posidonius, who made so many correct observations, but allowed
himself in this instance to be misled. He is of opinion that the Celts
had immigrated into Spain, for he reasoned thus: as the Celts could
migrate into Italy and across the Danube as far as the Dniepr, it was
far less difficult for them to enter the neighbouring country of Spain.
But such isolated parts of a nation cannot have arrived in a country by
immigration; on the contrary, the Iberians appear extending themselves
and in possession of Aquitania and Languedoc at a very early period;
how then could the Celts, not being able to maintain the Pyrenees, have
spread over the whole peninsula? It is probable, nay almost evident,
that it was the Iberians that migrated and extended themselves, and this
opinion agrees with the most ancient traditions of the Celts in Ammianus
Marcellinus, according to which they were once masters of all the west
of Europe, but were expelled from many parts. If we suppose that the
Celts dwelt as far as the Sierra Morena, and that the Iberians, perhaps
reinforced by their kinsmen from Africa, pressed them forward, this
supposition would account for some Celtic ruins which are still extant,
and the Celts may have capitulated in a manner similar to that described
in the book of Joshua. As one part of England was occupied by Germans so
completely as to destroy every trace of the ancient inhabitants, while
elsewhere, as e.g., in Devonshire, the Britons, in large numbers, lived
among the Germans and became mixed with them; so the Iberians expelled
the ancient Celtic population, wherever the nature of the country did
not protect it; but the Celts maintained themselves in the mountains
between the Tagus and the Iberus, and the Iberians only subdued them, and
then settled among them. In the course of time the two nations became
amalgamated, and thus formed the Celtiberians, whose character, however,
is essentially Iberian.

Spain may be naturally divided into four main parts. The first is
Andalusia, which is formed by the Sierra Morena, which separates the
valley of the Baetis (Guadalquivir) from that of the Guadiana. This
part is a compact country by itself, being separated from Murcia by the
heights in the east. The second part is bounded on the south by the
range of Orospeda, and in the north by that of Idubeda, which extends
in an eastern direction towards the sea. These mountains separate the
river basins of the Tago and Douro from that of the Ebro, and run at a
right angle with the Sierra Morena. This division comprises the greater
part of Valencia, Aragon, and Catalonia, that is, the whole river basin
of the Ebro. The third division consists of the mountainous countries of
Galicia, Asturias, and Cantabria. The fourth, lastly, consists of the
river basin of the Tago. These divisions are so completely founded on the
natural features of the country, that throughout the history of Spain
they appear with perfect distinctness, and hence they may also be taken
as a guide in ancient history.

Andalusia, the southernmost part, is almost identical with ancient
_Baetica_, and, as is observed even by Strabo, is a country quite
different from the rest of Spain. It has indeed many points of
resemblance with Valencia, but is at the same time essentially different
from it: it is in fact a country of a superior character. While Valencia
is flat, and well watered, but wanting in energy, Andalusia and Granada
are countries matured by the sun in the highest degree; they are scarcely
European, but almost like tropical countries. The eastern division, or
the country of the Iberus, if we examine its northern parts, Aragon and
Catalonia, already greatly resembles a northern country. Valencia stands
in the middle between them. The whole of the northern division is a
mighty mountainous country; the mountains in Asturia and Biscay are very
high, though they do not reach the snow line; the highest parts are in
the neighbourhood of the sources of the Douro. The country of the Tago
is throughout a table-land, very high at its commencement, piercingly
cold and unhealthy as far as the frontier of Portugal, and almost without
any mountains; at the commencement alone we have the ranges separating
Old and New Castile. Between the Sierra Morena and the Douro, we have
the large plain of Estremadura, which is fertile but unhealthy, and
perfectly flat; the plain of Leon is scarcely inhabitable on account of
its drought and barrenness; the southern parts of Castile are productive,
and the continuation of the valley into Portugal changes its character so
much as to become extremely rich; it still contains large plains, but the
greater part is a beautiful hilly country.

The principal rivers are the _Baetis_ (Guadalquivir), _Anas_ (Guadiana),
_Tagus_ (Tago), _Durius_ (Douro), _Minius_ (Minho), and in the east,
the _Turia_ (Guadalaviar) and the _Iberus_ (Ebro). In antiquity, Spain
was particularly celebrated for its gold and silver mines, and for the
gold found in the sand of its rivers, as in that of the Tagus, which,
for this reason, is called by poets _aurifer amnis_. The largest silver
mines, where both silver and lead were found, existed in the territory
of Carthagena in Murcia; but Asturia, too, contained veins of precious
metal. Spanish wool was not particularly valued in antiquity, and it was
not till the middle ages that sheep-breeding was improved in Spain.

Baetica produced abundance of grain, besides which the ancients derived
from other parts of Spain a kind of hemp, called _spartus_, which was
spun like hemp, and out of which ropes and cables were manufactured.

The ancients were universally of opinion that the Spaniards, exclusive
of the Celtic inhabitants and the few Greeks and Punians who had settled
there, consisted of two nations, the _Turdetanians_ and the _other
Spaniards_. This opinion originating with Artemidorus, is set forth
by Strabo so confidently, that we must believe him to have had other
and more weighty authorities than Artemidorus. They even speak of a
difference in language. For a long time, I too entertained this opinion,
because I trusted the ancients; but I have only a very vague notion of
the Iberian language. W. von Humboldt is the only man in Europe who has
examined those languages with a true grammatical genius, and he has
declared that all the proper names from one end of Spain to the other,
absolutely belong to one and the same language, and that the names of
places among the Cantabri, Ilergetes, Lusitani, Turdetani, etc., must
all be traced to roots in the Cantabrian language. To this argument we
must submit; nothing can be said against it: in matters of this kind, the
later Greeks often went very far astray, for which reason we ought not
to admit them as authorities without great caution. But, admitting that
all names of places are Cantabrian, the opinion of the ancients may be
based upon something else, viz., the knowledge that the nation, during
its extension from the south to the northern parts, underwent various
modifications, and that more especially those who dwelt in the north
among the conquered people, assumed a character quite different from that
of the inhabitants of Andalusia, who lived by themselves.

The Turdetanians were a people possessing a considerable degree of
civilisation, for they had an alphabet of their own; and many of their
inscriptions and coins with characters unknown to us are still extant.
Many Spanish coins cannot be explained at all, and of many the meaning
is extremely uncertain. I hope that, if the investigations are carried
on judiciously, the Libyan alphabet, which is said to be like that of
the Spaniards, will be discovered in the course of time, and the Libyan
inscriptions will be explained. Men will then rise up like Baron von
Humboldt, who will fathom the Libyan language, and then the Spanish
inscriptions also will be read. In Cilicia, too, inscriptions have
been found, which have not yet been read, and many more may still be
discovered; but no one has as yet occupied himself with them. These
investigations, however, ought to be undertaken with a sober mind, for
otherwise they lead to nothing. In ancient history, we often fancy we
see nothing, and yet there is much to be discovered. Lately, e.g., an
Englishman travelling in Cilicia from Adana to Tarsus,[65] where a pass
is cut along the sea-coast for the purpose of making a road (just as
above Coblenz the rocks advance close to the river), found, as he himself
told me, a large inscription on the side of the rock in characters
which are quite unknown. There still are alphabets to be deciphered and
languages to be discovered; in these matters a rich harvest may yet be
made. I do not think that the inquiries into eastern languages will ever
be carried on with any excess of zeal; but I do believe that we shall
arrive at a point where we may regard them as a step gained for further
historical investigations. When the Zend language is once discovered,
we shall be able to read the inscriptions of Persepolis, and also those
of Babylon. These things may be likened to the horizon: the farther you
advance, the more the circle widens. Historical knowledge is as capable
of extension as physical knowledge, and great discoveries remain yet to
be made. Klopstock says: “Many laurels are yet to be gained,” we must
only strive to gain them. The Spanish inscriptions have been treated as
senselessly as the Etruscan ones, nay, even more so. Without any point
to start from, which is not quite wanting in the Etruscan inscriptions,
these Spanish records have been explained by means of a barbarous mixture
of Greek and Latin, which the decipherers themselves invented for their
own convenience. And such nonsense even finds its admirers! It will
indeed be difficult to explain those inscriptions with the aid of the
Basque language, for the present Basque is certainly not the same as that
spoken in the time of the Romans, though it may not be as different as,
for example, the modern high German literary language is from that of
the earlier ages; but the difference certainly cannot be less than that
existing between the present popular dialect of Suabia and that of the
thirteenth century.

The nations of Spain presented the greatest differences in their manners,
for they formed compact nations, and much closer unions than either in
Greece or in Italy; but we cannot say what were the causes which kept up
this union. Thus much is clear, that during the historical period most of
the Iberian nations had their kings, whom the Romans call _reguli_. The
Romans greatly respected the Spaniards on account of their courage and
determination, but what distinguishes them most, is their attachment to
their chiefs, which was even stronger among the Iberians than among the
Celts; it was quite common with the followers of a chief to make away
with themselves, if he fell in battle, that they might serve him in his
future state. Isolated instances of cities being defended with desperate
courage also occur among other nations of antiquity, as in the case of
Abydos and Petelia; but in Spain this was the general rule: the towns
never surrendered either in their wars against Carthage or against Rome,
and when they could no longer resist the force of hunger, they devoted
themselves to destruction. The same obstinacy in defending their towns
appears in the middle ages, and in modern times, as, for example, at
Saragoza and Gerona: nothing in modern history can be compared with this,
except the defence of Missolunghi.

Another peculiarity is, that the Spaniards, except the Celtiberians,
had in antiquity the same weakness which still characterises them. I
allude to the complete alienation and the great exasperation between the
several nations; they show the same inveterate national hatred which
still exists, e.g., between the Castilians and Aragonians. I was once
acquainted with an Aragonian, who, though otherwise an honourable man,
told me, that it would be quite impossible for him to form a friendship
with a Castilian. The same is at present the case in Italy, but in former
times people of the same race, such as the Sabellians, often faithfully
kept together; but the Spanish nations never appear united. It is equally
remarkable that the Spaniards, again excepting the Celtiberians, though
excellent defenders of their towns, are good for nothing as soldiers in
the field. The Spanish militia defended itself behind its walls, but did
not persevere in the field; the Samnites, on the other hand, are the
very reverse, for they are by no means distinguished in their sieges. In
Condé’s history of the Arabs, a general, in his despatch to the Kaliph,
says of the Spaniards: on horseback they are eagles, in the defence of
their towns, lions, but in the field they are women. Such they were in
the wars against the Arabs, and such also in those against Napoleon: they
never fought a battle in the open field that did not bring disgrace upon
them; and the same men, who, in their towns, would bury themselves under
their ruins, rather than listen to a word about capitulation, took to
flight without any necessity. The Celtiberians, on the other hand, appear
in a very favourable light; and the Cantabrians and Asturians, too,
defended themselves in their mountains almost as in fortresses.

All Spain is full of towns.

Modern Andalusia, the country of the Turdetani, claims a very ancient
civilisation, for its inhabitants had a literature and laws composed in
verses, and are also said to have had a kind of historical books.

In the traditions of the Greeks, Iberia belongs to Hesperia, and their
earliest information about it refers to _Tartessus_, which was visited
at an early period by the Phocaeans. Its situation is beyond a doubt;
it is justly placed in the neighbourhood of Seville, near the mouth of
the Baetis; but whether it was a town or a country, whether as a town it
was different from Hispalis, or whether it was identical with ancient
Hispalis, these are questions which we can answer only by conjectures.

GADES (_Gadir_, in Phoenician and Hebrew “a fence”) is the most ancient
settlement of which we have any accurate information. In the Heracleae,
the island on which Gades was situated was called _Erythea_, and the
ancients say that it consisted of two islands, a circumstance which has
caused much difficulty to modern geographers, as it was impossible to
find the two islands. But no Andalusian would be puzzled by it. Cadiz,
together with Leon, now certainly forms one island, but originally Cadiz
was an island by itself, and its present union with Isla de Leon is the
consequence of a causeway, which was made at a time unknown to us, from
Gades to the larger island; this artificial causeway is discernible even
at the present day. Gades was a Phoenician settlement, independent of
Carthage, and as truly Punic as the latter city itself. But when the
prosperity of Carthage rose higher and higher, and when, at the same
time, that of the other Phoenician colonies was sinking more and more,
then Gades also was obliged to acknowledge the supremacy of Carthage.
Nothing is more natural and more in accordance with human passions and
feelings, than that this Punic city was more hostile to the Carthaginians
than any other place that had been subdued by them; we cannot, therefore,
be surprised at finding that, in the course of the second Punic war, its
hatred of Carthage led it to declare in favour of the Romans, as Utica
did afterwards. Hence Gades obtained very favourable terms from the
Romans, and remained a privileged city until the time of the emperors;
afterwards it received the Roman franchise. Cadiz is one of those places
which experienced scarcely any reverses of fortune in ancient times; and,
with the exception of the barbarous invasion of the Arabs, I do not know
that Cadiz was ever visited by a single misfortune.

Part of the coast of Granada was likewise occupied by Punians, for
MALACCA (the royal city) also was a Punic colony. Before the dominion of
the Carthaginians, the inhabitants were called _Bastuli_. Here, as well
as in Africa, the facility with which the Phoenicians became amalgamated
with foreign nations is very striking.

CARTHAGO (the modern _Carthagena_, properly _Cartha Chadta_ or New
Town) was the real capital of the Carthaginians in Spain, and its name
is as common as the Greek Neapolis. Notwithstanding its importance and
strength, the town was not as large as we are inclined to imagine; at the
time of its capture by Scipio, it appears small both in population and
circumference, if we compare it with other maritime cities and capitals.
It was founded by Hamilcar Barcas, who first established the dominion of
the Carthaginians in Spain, which, however, was not of long duration.
Though Gades and the towns on the coast of Granada were Punic, we must
not, on that account imagine that, previously to the time of Hamilcar
Barcas, the Carthaginians had a province there. Their influence, indeed,
was great even before; their commerce was extensive and lucrative,
the Spanish mines may have been chiefly worked by Punians, and Spain
was the recruiting place for their armies; but no part of Spain was a
Carthaginian province before the end of the first Punic war. It was the
great idea of Hamilcar Barcas richly to indemnify his country for the
loss of Sardinia and Sicily, an idea which no one was better qualified to
realise than he, by paralysing the Romans with determination, cunning,
and skill. The lately-discovered precious fragments from Diodorus throw
great light upon the admirable manner in which he carried this plan
into effect. Turdetania was subdued first, Hannibal then carried the
war almost as far as Salamanca, and the modern New Castile and Valencia
were subdued by him. These acquisitions, however, must not be regarded
as permanent conquests, the object of the Carthaginians being rather to
terrify the Spaniards and to accustom them to a feeling of dependence.
The Carthaginians were otherwise hard and hated masters, but the great
Hamilcar, his great successor Hasdrubal, and the great sons of Hamilcar,
founded the Carthaginian dominion in Spain in such a manner as to secure
to Carthage the attachment of the natives, a point in which the Romans
never succeeded. Much depended upon circumstances, the Carthaginians,
e.g., were less rigorous in observing the connubium than the Romans,
and Hannibal himself married a Spanish woman of Castulo, which shows
what liberty was allowed in this respect: when the commander-in-chief
of a province did this, we may easily imagine in what manner persons of
inferior rank acted. The Romans had no connubium at all with the natives.

If we proceed to the interior of Andalusia, we find the valley of
the Baetis to be one of the richest and most fertile countries in
Europe; it is still a paradise, and will ever remain so, in spite of
the devastations of war and the worst government. I know, from an
eye-witness, who saw the country in the years 1810 and 1811, that its
prosperity and high state of cultivation were altogether unchanged, and
quite as good as before.

HISPALIS (the Arabs call it _Iabilia_, whence the modern name _Sevilla_)
was the ancient capital of those parts. It does not act a prominent part
in history, and is not often mentioned; but we know that, notwithstanding
the greatness of Gades, it had its own importance, as sea ships sailed
up as far as Hispalis. In the time of the Romans, it seems to have risen
still higher in consequence of various favours conferred upon it.

CORDUBA was the real Roman capital of the province; it was, no doubt, an
ancient Spanish town with a Roman colony, which bears the strange name
of _Colonia Patricia Corduba_. It is as impossible for us to understand
what circumstance gave rise to this name, as it is to determine the
time at which the colony was founded. It was not a military colony,
nor can it have been founded before the year of the city 641, in which
year[66] Narbo, the first Roman colony out of Italy, was founded. This
event caused great sensation, for until then all attempts to establish
colonies in foreign countries had failed. Corduba, therefore, cannot have
been founded before the seventh century; and it perhaps belongs to the
time when Metellus had the command in Baetica. Corduba is destined by
nature to be a princely city; and it was the centre of Roman civilisation
and literature in those parts. It was not only the native place of the
Senecas, but it was so completely a Latin town, that _poetae Cordubenses_
were spoken of even in Cicero’s time; they were not indeed mentioned
with praise, but it was not their language that was censured; they were
deficient only in manner and in skill. In the history of literature,
Corduba is remarkable as the native place of the family of the Senecas;
it afterwards retained the same importance which it had during the first
century. It passed from the hands of the Romans into those of the Goths,
and lastly into those of the Arabs; but it is always honourably spoken of
as a distinguished city.

If I had time to dwell longer on this subject, I might relate to you
much that is of great interest about Baetica; but for the present I will
select only two localities.

SALTUS CASTULONENSIS, leading to Castulo, is exactly the same road across
the Sierra Morena, which leads to Andujar. In the history of the Roman
wars, it is very important, and again became so in 1808, when General
Dupont was obliged to surrender there.

MUNDA was situated in the mountains of Granada. It seems strange to us,
that the war between Caesar and the sons of Pompey was decided in those
parts, so near the coast at the extreme end of Spain; but if we consider
the nature of the locality, we cease to wonder: the country is strong
and fertile at the same time, so that the armies were not in danger of
suffering from want of provisions. This shews that the sons of Pompey
were wise in establishing themselves there.

The inhabitants of Baetica were called by the Romans _Turduli_ and
_Turdetani_. People generally distinguish between these two names, and I
believe that Strabo did so too; but I think that they are only intended
to indicate slight shades of difference between two people of the same
race.

The country of the _Edetani_ (the modern province of Valencia) had
VALENTIA for its capital. You remember my mentioning the fact that Roman
names of places were derived from verbs of which the meaning was a
favourable omen. Valentia is an instance of this, and another town of the
same name existed in Italy. Other names of the same kind are Pollentia,
Potentia, Florentia, Vincentia, Faventia, etc. The town of Valentia was a
Roman settlement; I do not believe that it was a colony, but it must have
been founded at an early time, for it is certainly mentioned in the war
of Sertorius. It is situated on the river Turia, which is celebrated in
antiquity for the glorious but unsuccessful battle of Sertorius.

The ancient town of SAETABIS, one of the largest manufacturing places of
Spain, was situated in the same district; a very fine kind of linen was
made there from flax grown in the country.

SAGUNTUS or SAGUNTUM (both forms are supported by authority), was
situated to the north of Valentia. It is well-known that this place
was the occasion of the second Punic war, and Polybius in speaking of
it makes a beautiful and correct observation respecting the difference
between the immediate occasion and the cause of a war. Saguntum was the
occasion, but certainly not the cause of the war. It is very singular
that not only Appian, whose geographical ignorance of Spain surpasses
everything, but even Roman authors almost universally assume Saguntum
to have been situated on the left side of the Ebro; this, however, is a
mistake, for it was situated on its right side, and at a considerable
distance from it to the south. According to one tradition, it was a
colony of Ardea, that is, a Tyrrhenian settlement and it is very probable
that there may have been a Tyrrhenian admixture; but according to others
it was an Achaean colony of Zacynthos: the resemblance of the name was
too tempting not to suggest the derivation. The Tyrrhenians are often
called Achivi, and as Zacynthos was Achivan, both things were mixed
together in this manner. It is much more credible that Saguntum was a
colony of Ardea, founded at a time when the Ardeatans were great and
powerful. Taraco, on the opposite side of the river, is likewise said
to have been a Tyrrhenian town. But admitting that the Saguntines were
originally Tyrrhenians, they certainly, in the course of time, became
complete Spaniards, as many other colonists identified themselves with
the natives; and the Saguntines, against whom Hannibal fought, were
Spaniards. It would lead too far here to speak of the fate of Saguntum,
and of the uncritical treatment of its history by Livy, and his strange
misconceptions. Livy, in this part of his work, probably followed
Caelius Antipater, and thereby spoiled the beginning of his third decad,
which is otherwise so excellent: his account of Saguntum is a childish
exaggeration, and well suited to a rhetorician like Caelius. Saguntum
was restored by the Romans, and remained a considerable town under the
empire; large ruins of an amphitheatre still exist near Murviedro.

We now come to the Iberus, into which several rivers from the north
discharge their waters; one of these, the _Sicoris_ (Segre), is a river
of some importance. The Romans acquired influence and formed connections
in the country between the Ebro and the Pyrenees about the same time
when Hamilcar was actively engaged in the south to extend the power of
Carthage; and the inhabitants of Catalonia, at least those on the coast,
had at that time already submitted to the Romans. As the power of the
Carthaginians was spreading in Spain, the Catalonians thought they could
protect themselves only by applying to some distant state which had no
armies in the neighbourhood, which levied no taxes, and to which they
had only to furnish troops in case of need. TARACO, properly the capital
of all Spain, was the chief city in fair Catalonia throughout the Roman
period; and from it _Hispania Taraconensis_, which embraced the greater
part of Spain, derived its name. After the time of the Hannibalian war
there were two _Hispaniae_, and one praetor resided at Carthagena, and
the other at Taraco. It was in its character of a capital that Taraco had
a temple of Roma and Augustus. It was a wealthy place, but afterwards
declined, and in the middle ages it was eclipsed by the neighbouring—

_Barcelona_, which, however, is not mentioned during the period of the
Roman republic, but only under the empire. Its ancient name is BARCINO;
the termination _no_ or _ino_ is of common occurrence, as for example, in
Ruscino, and seems to have been a dialectic peculiarity of those parts.
Barcelona, has an excellent harbour, and its situation is very strong on
account of the mountain which rises above the city. At the time of the
Visigoths, it surpassed Taragona in importance, but in ancient history it
does not occur.

On a more distant part of the coast, we meet with two Greek settlements,
EMPORIAE, from which the modern Ampurias has its name, and RHODE. The
latter is called a Rhodian colony; but Rhode, as well as Emporiae, was
probably a colony of Massilia, by whose support it was maintained.

The country between the Ebro and the Pyrenees was in ancient times
inhabited by many small tribes, as the Ilergetes, Lacetani, Cosetani,
etc.[67]

ILERDA, the modern Lerida on the Sicoris, is a town of great historical
importance in the interior of Catalonia. It is remarkable in the history
of Rome, and especially that of Caesar, who there compelled Afranius
and Petreius to capitulate. These events, which are interesting in
themselves, also show how an extraordinary man overcomes the most
difficult circumstances, and gains advantages even where all chances seem
to be against him.

OSCA (now Huesca), an ancient town farther inland, in Aragon, was, for
a long time the head-quarters of the great Sertorius. It must have been
a town of great importance to Spain, for the standard of the Spanish
coinage is called _argentum Oscense_.

We have thus rapidly passed along the whole coast from the Baetis to
the Pyrenees; but in the valley of the Ebro I have still to notice
CAESARAUGUSTA (Saragoza). Spain is the real country of the great and
flourishing military colonies of the Romans; Gaul had but few of them,
such as Cologne, which, however, was of a mixed character, as Germans
there dwelt together with the veterans. Cologne and Lyons were national
towns rather than real military colonies of the Romans; but those in
Spain were pure military colonies, differing from those of Italy in the
fact that the latter, with the exception of Placentia and Cremona, were
established in towns which had existed before, whereas those in Spain
consisted of newly-built towns. These foundations of towns belong to the
age of Augustus and his successors. Augustus evidently had a twofold
object in view, first to reward his veterans, and secondly to Romanise
the Spaniards. The population in those parts had been almost annihilated
during the unfortunate wars, and hence Augustus sent out whole legions
to establish themselves there. In this manner arose _Emerita Augusta_,
the modern Merida, which must have been an immensely large town, for it
contained the veterans of three legions. He gave them extensive estates,
so that the territory of the town must have been a whole province,
and the ancient inhabitants could not possibly till their lands. The
veterans became the lords of the soil. Caesaraugusta was a town of
this kind. Augustus was a distinguished man, whatever we may think of
him; in regard to intellect and talent we may rate him very low, and
I believe that he even deserves to be ranked lower than is generally
done; but he was a ruler of great ability; and the fact that the time
in which he lived was deplorable and full of confusion, must not induce
us to be unjust towards him. The age in which he lived was morally bad,
but the cause of this lay in the period which preceded it, just as the
horrors of the French revolution must be set down to the account of
those who had the power in their hands before it broke out; had these
men been better, the ferment of the dregs of the people would have met
with quite a different resistance. But the whole fabric was rotten and
in a state of dissolution. In like manner the age of Augustus was bad,
because it was the offspring of a bad and corrupt period. It was as
impossible to save the Roman republic, as it was to restore the republic
of Florence after the reign of Alexander de Medici. The men who had
conspired against Caesar may have been the best and noblest, but they
were extremely unwise, they ought to have taken into account the actual
circumstances. Alcmaeon, the profound Pythagorean, says, that men perish,
if they do not understand how to fit the beginning to the end.[68] This
is very frequently the case in history; and hence the noblest endeavours
often lead to unfortunate results. The regulations of Augustus for the
government of the state were, for the most part, extremely praiseworthy.
I do not mean to say that it was his object to lead the nation to what
is good and noble, or to ennoble their motives for action—in this he,
like many other statesmen, had no faith—but he wanted to prepare for his
subjects’ security an undisturbed existence, and outward prosperity; and
in this respect his efforts were well directed, and he did not regard
the Romans as slaves. In like manner, his regulations concerning the
provinces were very rational, and his colonies, among which Caesaraugusta
has immortalised his name more than any other, are proofs of the same
wisdom.

_Emerita Augusta_, _Pax Augusta_ (Badajoz), _Pax Julia_ (Beja, in
southern Portugal) are similar colonies in the interior. These are the
principal ones, for there are several more, which are less celebrated.
Vespasian afterwards continued the same system, whence several Spanish
places have the surname _Flavia_. They were, however, no longer
absolutely Roman colonies, but Spanish towns upon which he engrafted
military colonies. This lasted until the second century, and I remember
no colony of a more recent date than the reign of Trajan. _Legio_, the
modern Leon, was likewise such a military colony; even at present its
walls remind us of the form of a Roman camp, and all military colonies of
the Romans regularly had the form of a camp.

We shall pass through the country from west to east, but can consider it
only in masses. The westernmost people were the LUSITANIANS, occupying
a country somewhat different in extent from the modern kingdom of
Portugal, for it did not extend so far north, and in the south it did
not go beyond the frontier of Algarbia, but in the east, it extended
much farther into Spain. The Lusitanians were the most civilised among
all the Spanish nations. They do not seem to have been subdivided, but
to have formed one compact state with one national government, which,
however, does not appear to have had a high degree of intensity, as is
proved by the history of Viriathus. At the time when the Romans made
themselves masters of Spain, the Lusitanians distinguished themselves
by their perseverance and firmness; their valour is displayed in the
great undertaking of Viriathus for their liberty. Every one knows the
cruelty and faithlessness of Servius Galba, who induced them to enter
into a capitulation with the Romans, and then treacherously massacred the
greater part of them.

OLISIPO was even then the most important town in Lusitania. We may
assume, without any hesitation, that, under the Roman emperors, the
country enjoyed a far higher degree of prosperity than at present; Spain,
on the other hand, on its first appearance in history, is in a state
of great disorganisation. Owing to its situation, Olisipo was a great
emporium even under the Romans.

We pass over other Lusitanian places: I have already told you that two
Celtic tribes dwelt in the country of Portugal, the _Celtici_ in the
south near the frontier of Algarbia, and the _Celtae_ in the north
between the Douro and Minho.

The ORETANI occur on the Orospeda in Spain proper, north of the Sierra
Morena; but I will not mention all the tribes, I shall confine myself to
two which act a prominent part in ancient history, and the districts of
which must be known in order to understand the campaigns of Hannibal:
I allude to the CARPETANI and VACCAEI. The former dwelt about the
Tagus; although it is not expressly said, that _Toletum_ (Toledo) was
their capital, we must in all probability suppose it to have been their
central town. This town, owing to its central position, is destined
by nature to be a capital, and such we find it to have been under the
Goths. In the time of the Romans also it must have been a place of great
importance, though it is not mentioned as the seat of the praetor: this
is one of the obscure points in the history of the fourth and fifth
centuries. Afterwards, in the time of the Moors, it was the residence
of the governors and kaliphs, and subsequently of the kings of Castile,
until the seat of government was absurdly transferred to Madrid,
for Toledo has a much more splendid situation in a far more healthy
district. The _Carpetani_ (Καρπήσιοι) act a prominent part in the third
book of Polybius and in the twenty-first of Livy, for they offered a
brave resistance to the Carthaginians during their progress towards the
interior of the country.

The _Vaccaei_ dwelt on the Durius, and _Salmantica_, the modern
Salamanca, was their capital. This was the farthest point to which
Hannibal advanced in his campaigns. The Vaccaei, in their struggle
against the Romans, appear as one of the most heroic nations.

All these tribes were completely Iberian; but further east we reach
IDUBEDA, the mountains of Soria, a ramification of the Pyrenees
between the Tagus and Durius on the one hand, and the Iberus on the
other, and extending as far as the Sierra Morena, which separates
Aragon from Castile as completely as the Pyrenees separate Spain from
France. The language of the Aragonese is Provençal and quite foreign
to the Castilian. Those mountains were inhabited by four tribes, which
are of great celebrity in Roman history under the common name of the
CELTIBERIANS. The most important among them are the _Aruaci_ or _Arevaci_
and _Berones_; and their chief town was NUMANTIA, which has acquired
imperishable fame in history. The tribe to which Numantia belonged was
insignificant, and the town is an instance of a phenomenon which is
otherwise of rare occurrence in Spain, namely, it was independent of the
tribe to which it belonged. I have already stated, that the Celtiberians
must be regarded as Iberians, who subdued the Celts, though the latter
maintained themselves in the country. The Iberian character of pride and
perseverance shows itself most strikingly in them, because they were the
masters there, and in a most favourable situation, living among a subject
population upon which they could devolve the burdens of life. However
much accurate historical knowledge may be lost, yet it is certain that
the Celtiberians are one of the most respectable nations of antiquity,
_non sine laude nominandi_. During the Carthaginian period, they
preserved their liberty unimpaired; but when the Romans systematically
undertook the subjugation of Spain, they first came in contact with the
Celtiberians, who had formerly been on terms of friendship with them, and
had served in their armies as mercenaries. But when attempts were made
upon their liberty, they refused to listen to any terms of submission.
They were intelligent enough to look upon the war with the Romans as
a great misfortune; when, therefore, Tib. Gracchus, the father of the
illustrious tribunes, and a son of the Tib. Gracchus who had fallen at
Beneventum in the Hannibalian war, had the supreme command in Spain, the
Celtiberians, having confidence in his honesty, concluded peace with him
on terms which the weaker people could accept without disgracing itself,
and by which their existence was not so far degraded as to make death
preferable. They observed the peace conscientiously, but not so the
Romans, who, at last, under the second Scipio, succeeded in destroying
Numantia: that victory is a degradation to Scipio as much as, in the
reign of Tiberius, it was a degradation to the men who were obliged to
lend their names to pass disgraceful _senatus consulta_.

Some of the Celtiberian towns were protected only by their situation;
this was the case at Numantia, though certainly not with any reference
to Sparta on principle, for as the town had no more than 4000 armed
men, such a principle would have been ill suited to them, and it would
not assuredly have been any degradation to protect the town by means of
fortifications.

The Celtiberians, that is, the remnants of the devoted nation, afterwards
re-appear in a remarkable manner in the time of Sertorius. They were
not all united in their attachment to him, a singular proof of the
clear and rational manner in which those Spaniards viewed their altered
circumstances, although they had very great men for their leaders. They
did not look backwards, and their object was neither to restore the
condition of independence which had existed previously to the Hannibalian
war and which it was impossible to revive, nor yet absolutely to repel
the Romans. They readily availed themselves of the presence of Sertorius
for the purpose of forming themselves into an Hispano-Latin nation and
of acquiring a national existence, which promised a development from
the actual circumstances. This is a very interesting fact, and deserves
to be well pondered over: after great changes of circumstances, light
sometimes dawns on men; they do not look back into the past, but set
before them a fixed object suited to their circumstances, and do not
follow any visionary schemes. Thus the Celtiberians were now ready to do
what their ancestors a hundred years before would not have done. But they
did not succeed. The fall of Sertorius and the victory of the Romans were
things over which they had no control; Providence here decided the issue,
and the failure does not prove that their undertaking was not wisely
calculated.

There now only remains the northern region of Spain, which extends
from the western sea to the Gallic frontier. We there meet with three
principal tribes, viz., the CALLAICI (in modern Galicia), the ASTURES (in
Asturia and the greater part of Leon), and the CANTABRI (in Biscay in
its greatest extent). These three nations had many things in common both
in their national character and in that of the country they inhabited;
though this circumstance does not exclude essential differences. The
Callaici were the first that were conquered by the Romans, which was
accomplished as early as the commencement of the seventh century, by
Dec. Brutus, hence surnamed Callaicus. But still his campaign did not
produce any permanent results in regard to the occupation of Spain, the
consequences being scarcely more lasting than those of the campaign of
Domitius Ahenobarbus on the Elbe. The Astures and Cantabri, on the other
hand, maintaining their independence much longer, were not subdued until
the period from the year 14 to 10 B.C., or 740 of the city. Augustus
himself conducted the war against those little mountain tribes for three
or four years, employing all the resources of the empire which could at
that time send hundreds of thousands into the field. Hence we cannot
think of the national efforts of those Spanish nations without feeling a
high degree of respect for them. But as the Saxons maintained themselves
after the cruel butcheries of Charlemagne, and as the Westphalians and
Lower Saxons are among the most unchanged of the tribes of Germany, and
developed themselves with greater freedom and national individuality than
the nations of southern Germany; so the Cantabri and Astures preserved
their independence and nationality in spite of the Roman conquest. The
Astures, however, did not succeed so completely as the Cantabri; Romans
must have settled among the former, which led them to adopt the Roman
language, whereas the Cantabri at this day speak the ancient Spanish
language, and their present institutions, which have no doubt grown out
of their very ancient customs, might certainly throw light upon their
ancient laws and institutions. But unfortunately, so far as I know,
satisfactory information about these matters is not to be found anywhere.
The Cantabri were afterwards called _Vascones_, and in our days Basque.
The very name of Astorga (_Asturica_), the ancient capital of the
country, shews that Asturia comprised the greater part of Leon.

The Romans divided Spain into _Hispania citerior_ and _ulterior_, which
was quite a matter of accident, as after the Hannibalian war they had
two armies and two praetors in Spain. Gradually Roman settlements were
formed, the armies remained there for a long time, and the soldiers
married native women. Hence, as is the case in India through the English
troops, a half cast people arose, who were foreign to the Romans, but
regarded themselves as Latin, and gradually acquired various kinds of
privileges. This gave rise to the foundation of the town of ITALICA,
where the sons of those Romans assembled; Valentia probably arose in the
same manner. Until the time of Galba, the Spaniards, with the exception
of the Roman colonists, were subjects, but that emperor conferred on some
of them, and Vespasian upon all, the _jus Latii_, in the later sense, in
which Pompeius Strabo had conferred it upon the Transpadani.[69]

Iberian tribes dwelt not only on the south, but also on the north of the
Pyrenees. Caesar, whom Tacitus justly calls _summus auctorum_, in fact,
calls the Aquitanians a people of the Iberian race. They inhabited the
modern Guienne, extending but little beyond the Garonne. It is still
doubtful whether all the tribes south of the Garonne were Iberians;
the Bituriges in Burdigala can scarcely have belonged to them. It was
probably not a compact Spanish population, the basis was Celtic. Hence
Ausonius speaks of Burdigala as a Celtic town, for in one passage he
mentions Celtic as the native language of its inhabitants. In the
districts immediately bordering upon Spain, however, the Spaniards
undoubtedly predominated, and in fact, even at the present day the Basque
language is spoken at Bayonne, and as far as Bearn.


GALLIA.

Caesar represents Gaul as bounded by the Pyrenees, the sea, the Alps and
the Rhine. This unfortunate statement about the Rhine has been appealed
to as a reason for separating from Germany the country in which we are
living, an idea which has taken root in the heads of many men, and is
still frequently expressed, especially by Frenchmen, without paying
any regard to the fact that this country was inhabited by Germans. The
expression of Caesar is nothing else than a loose definition of what in
his time was regarded as Gaul, and without making any pretensions to
accuracy. For when he says that Gaul consists of Aquitania, Celtica, and
Belgium, he employs the name in much too extensive a sense, according
to the custom of deriving the name of a country from that of its
inhabitants, for Aquitania was Iberian and did not belong to it. On
the other hand, the greater part of Britain and Hibernia was likewise
inhabited by Gauls, nay, in Caesar’s time, they extended over the
south of Germany, while at a somewhat earlier period, in the time of
the Cimbri, they not only were in possession of southern Germany and
Lombardy, but also of Bohemia and Pannonia, down to the very heart of
Thrace, the country of the Ukraine, beyond the river Dniepr, and even a
portion of Asia Minor. The Tectosagae, in Asia Minor, were as much Gauls
as those on the Rhone. The name Gaul, therefore, is something purely
accidental. The Latin terminology, which at an earlier period correctly
made Picenum the frontier of Gaul, is in this instance very incorrect in
including Belgium as a part of Gaul, whereas it ought to have been called
Cimbria, for the Belgae were essentially different from the Gauls.

What I have here said about the nature of Gaul, is intended as a
justification of Eratosthenes, a great man, who has been unjustly
censured by Strabo, another very distinguished man, whom I never mention
without gratitude and respect. Eratosthenes assigned to the Celts a vast
extent of country: he disliked the common names of the parts of the
earth because they appeared to him erroneous, and instead of them, he
makes other great divisions, calling the north-west of Europe Celtica;
he then places the Scythians in the north, and between these two, the
Celto-Scythians (of course according to the inscription of Olbia, from
which we learn that Celts had settled in the Ukraine),[70] in the
east, the Indians, and again, between the Indians and Scythians, the
Indo-Scythians; then the Ethiopians, and between these latter and the
Indians, probably the Indo-Ethiopians, though they are not mentioned.
Now, Strabo censures this view of the great extension of the Celts; and
modern authors, who have written on the subject, have quietly repeated
the censure, although it is quite unjust. We must not imagine that France
alone was inhabited by Celts; but they occupied the extent of country
described in their tradition, from the Sierra Morena, almost from the
mouth of the Baetis, that is, from Lusitania in Spain to the country
about the Tanais in the East; I do not, of course, here specify any
particular time, but I speak in general.

To confound the Germans with the Celts is an error, which, though now
less common than formerly, still makes its appearance here and there.
I can speak positively on this subject, because I am to some extent
acquainted with the Celtic language, and because, in my earlier years, I
spent some time in Scotland, where I became intimately acquainted with
the language spoken in the Highlands. I have a distinct recollection of
it, and know a great many of its words. I can positively assert, that
the grammar has not the least resemblance to the German; its conjugation
and declension by changes at the beginning of words is quite foreign to
the German dialects. If, e.g., a word in the nominative begins with _m_,
it forms the genitive by a _w_; conjugation is effected by auxiliary
verbs, but the system is quite different from ours. It is true that
a considerable number of words are German or Scandinavian; but these
can be recognised at once as foreign importations, for they have no
connection with Celtic roots. The Highlanders are not a wild people, and
I am very fond of them, but they are unpolished. Their foreign words
are for the most part such as denote domestic furniture or anything
which presupposes a state of civilisation above the merest elements,
such as a chair, a bench, and the like; words of this kind are generally
of German or Scandinavian origin. Such foreign words can very easily
be recognised in all languages. Many words, on the other hand, have a
manifest affinity with Latin; this is undeniable; but I do not by any
means wish to intimate that they are imported, for how could they have
got into the language of the Scottish Highlanders? I have said in my
history, that there are affinities between languages spoken by different
nations, without their being genealogically traceable to one nation, and
without one nation being descended from the other; but they stand to
each other in the relation of varieties which, owing to certain common
peculiarities, belong to the same species. Such is the case between
the Celtic and Latin. Pliny calls the polar sea _mare Cronium_, which
English and Scotch scholars explain quite simply and correctly as _mar
Cronni_, that is, Frozen sea.

The Celts, so far as we can trace them, differ immensely from the Germans
not only in their language, but in their religion, their manners, and, in
short, in everything. About sixty or seventy years ago, the false belief
in their identity was so general in Germany, that no one entertaining a
different opinion would have been listened to, although the testimonies
of the ancients are clear, and no reader of Caesar can believe him to
be in favour of the identity. The same is the case with Tacitus, who
distinguishes the German, Gallic, and Pannonian languages.

Another erroneous opinion, though less general, is, that, the Gauls and
Belgae were in reality one nation, or at least that the Belgae were
a mixture of Gauls and Germans. It is true that some support of this
opinion may be found in the best ancient writers, but those who maintain
it confound that which is accidental with that which is general. I will
not doubt that the inhabitants of northern Belgium and of the Netherlands
are mixed; the mixture,however, does not consist of Gauls, but of Cymri
and Germans. We must not in any way conceive the relation between Gauls
and Belgae, as if the former were pure, and the latter mixed Celts. Gauls
and Belgae exist at this day, and are different in language and names:
under the name of _Gael_, we find them in Ireland and the Highlands of
Scotland, and under that of _Cymri_ or _Bolgs_ in Wales and Britany.
Formerly they were much more widely spread, all over the west of England,
from Cornwall to Cumberland, and the Picts also belonged to them; they
called themselves _Bolgs_ or _Firbolgs_ (from _fir_, a man, _Belgian
men_). This nation is confounded by the ancients with the Gauls, and in
the accounts of their emigration they are simply called Galli, Γαλάται;
they were however, Cymri, not indeed exclusively, but at least chiefly.
This is clear even from the fact that, both in Macedonia and Italy,
their king is called Brennus; and it has long been known, that _brenin_
both in Welsh and in the language of lower Britany signifies king. The
Romans took it to be a proper name, just as they did in the case of the
Etruscan Lucumo. This Cymrian language has been confounded with the
Gaelic of the Highlands of Scotland, and the two have been spoken of as
dialects of the same language; but this is certainly incorrect. I myself
know little about it, but quite enough to agree with those who maintain,
that they are two different languages, not indeed as different as Basque
and Gaelic, for the Basque has not the least resemblance to either of
them. I once heard an English officer boldly assert, that soldiers from
the Highlands of Scotland conversed with the people of Ireland; but
this is as impossible as it would be for a person unacquainted with
Slavonic to converse with a Slavonian. No native Gael can understand the
smallest Welsh sentence; the whole grammar of the two is different. It
is further said that the two languages have a number of words in common,
and that one fourth of all the words are akin to one another; but this
statement seems suspicious, as it is not confirmed by any glossary.
But admitting that the agreement actually exists, it is only a local
affinity, two nations having in some points a resemblance, while their
fundamental characters are nevertheless different; so that they have
either diverged immensely from the same root, or else incline towards
each other, proceeding from totally different races. An investigation of
this subject belongs to general philology, and if it were always entered
upon with sound principles, many prejudices would be dispersed, and much
that is mysterious would be cleared up. According to what I have said, we
cannot conceive the Belgae and Celts to be as nearly allied, as, e.g.,
the Scandinavians and Germans, or the Goths and Saxons, but they are as
foreign to each other as the Persians and Slavonians; in the languages
of the two last nations, many forms, nay, many particles and words, are
the same, but the grammar is different. We must, therefore, be on our
guard not to transfer to the Belgae that which we know of the Gauls; we
know nothing of the institutions of the former, while those of the Celts
are well known. _Gael_ is the root of the old German word _Welsh_, which
signifies anything that is not German.

The Celts may have had much in common with the Cymri, but their
constitution was peculiar to them; we have no proof to show that what
Caesar says about them also applies to the Belgae. The existence of an
aristocratic constitution, which, in the case of many other nations is
assumed only from misinterpreted expressions, cannot be doubted among the
Celts. We find among them two ruling tribes, the knights and the priests,
the well-known Druids; the rest of the people were mere serfs. This
circumstance, as I have observed on other similar occasions, intimates
that the Celts, in the countries where we know them, were conquering
foreigners, and that the power which drove them out of Spain, led them
into a country, where, in their turn, they subdued other people. My
conjecture is, that this latter people, extending over nearly the whole
of France, was no other than the Cymri, who, being pressed by the Celts,
advanced northward, and threw themselves upon German tribes; and this
circumstance produced the mixture of Belgae and Germans in the north.

It is well known that the Druids were a caste,[71] but it is impossible
to ascertain whether the Druids and knights were two different castes,
like the Brahmins and warriors in India, or whether the Druids were only
a branch of the military caste, which occupied itself with matters of
religion. Certain it is, however, that all the power was divided between
these two, while the people lived in a condition which Caesar describes
by the term _clientela_, that is, bondage. It was not exactly what we
call serfdom; for the Celtic people were dependent only in relation to
their feudal lords, whose retinue they formed, but in other respects they
were free; and besides them, slaves are expressly mentioned.

The religion of the Druids was bloody and cruel, and for this reason it
was the only one that was attacked by the Romans; though they may have
done so also because that religion formed an obstacle to the Romanising
of Gaul. Success was not difficult, and the Druids were completely
crushed. It is possible that some of the later commotions of which we
read in Tacitus, as, e.g., those of Sacrovir and Classicus, may have been
connected with religion. The Druids also were the depositories of a kind
of science and literature, for they had poems which it was unlawful to
commit to writing. In the transactions of ordinary life, they used the
Greek alphabet.

In the time of Caesar, it would be erroneous to speak of the Gauls as a
really barbarous nation. It is true that everything connected with the
arts, such as their coins and idols, is detestable, but in other things
they seem to have reached the same stage of civilization at which our
ancestors were in the time of the Othos. The population was very large;
but the Cimbrian war made fearful havoc, and the misery resulting from
it surpasses all our conceptions. In the time of Caesar, they had only
partially recovered from it, and yet they present the appearance of a
pretty strong population: their towns were considerable, the country
was well cultivated; and all we hear of them suggests to us the idea
of a rude rather than a barbarous state of things. The Romans became
acquainted with water-mills and saw-mills in Gaul, nor were manufactures
wanting there; but the Gauls were prevented by their treaties with the
Romans from cultivating vines and olives. Their style of architecture is
very common among ourselves, but was utterly unknown among the Greeks and
Romans: the buildings consisted of wooden frames and wicker work, and
even the walls of their towns were joined by means of beams, a method
which was very surprising to the Romans. This is the reason why there are
so very few remains of the ante-Roman period.

The Gauls very quickly adopted the civilisation of the Romans, who
established themselves in the southern province about the year of the
city 630, and thence extended their dominion towards Lyons. In Pliny’s
time that country was so completely changed, that he declares it to
be not a province but a true Italy. The rest of Gaul also soon became
Romanised, though the Latin language did not spread there with equal
facility; and we may probably assume that at the time of the Frankish
conquest the Celtic language had not yet become extinct. Still, however,
a dialect of Latin, different in character from our Latin, was diffused
all over Gaul; and this is the root of the Romance or Provençal language.
The study of Roman literature spread more and more; Gaul always had
men of good abilities, and thus a peculiar literature was formed, of
which Rheims, then called _Durocortorum_, was the seat and centre. I
think I have discovered a new proof of an ancient rustic form of this
name, according to which it was pronounced _Durocortoro_; I allude to
a fragment from Fronto in Consentius:[72] _et illae vestrae Athenae
Durocortoro_, where the corrupt termination is probably intentional,
Fronto sneering at Consentius, because the inhabitants of the country did
not correctly pronounce the name of their own university town.

The inclination of the Gauls to separate from Rome, and to constitute
themselves as a distinct nation, manifests itself as early as the reign
of Tiberius, and then again under Vespasian. Afterwards, we have the
insurrection of Clodius Albinus, in the reign of Septimius Severus, and
another in that of Gallienus, when, for a time, the Gauls had their
own emperors, who resided at Treves, until Tetricus betrayed them to
Aurelian. In all these movements we find, at an early date, considerable
symptoms of a feeling of nationality, which was particularly strong
during the fourth century, when Constantius Chlorus maintained himself
there. Gaul always tried to set up opposition emperors: we must not,
however, assert that this was so easy because those governors were
stationed on the frontier, but it was because the nation met them
in their desire. In the fifth century, a peculiar literary spirit
manifested itself in Gaul, and nearly all the more important productions
of literature during that century, both ecclesiastical and profane,
belong to Gaul. It possessed at that time many men of genius, whose
only disadvantage is the fact of their language being quite rustic,
that is, it is the language of common life. Men of this kind are: the
talented Sidonius Apollinaris, Bishop Salvianus of Marseilles, Claudianus
Mamertus, Avitus, Cassianus, who was altogether a theological writer, but
a man of great ability and genius, and Sulpicius Severus, who is even a
very elegant writer, and deserves to be strongly recommended; his diction
is not without faults, but he displays great intellectual worth, sound
understanding, and a singular independence of judgment, at a time which
bordered on a most terrible period. The Gauls, however, were excited
rather than stunned by that unhappy period.

The whole of Gaul, which the Romans describe as their province, consisted
of sixty-four _civitates_. In the time of Tiberius, there existed a
number of separate tribes, each of which governed itself as a distinct
state, and the same also continued afterwards. The Romans then divided
Gaul into _Gallia Narbonensis_, _Aquitania_, and _Gallia Lugdunensis_.
Each of these provinces consisted of a number of such _civitates_,
which accordingly were both towns and states, and that more so than at
present the French departments. They were absolutely subject to the
Romans, but, before they obtained the Roman franchise, they had their own
institutions. A _civitas_ was governed by a senate, of which the members
resided in the capital, and every thing was managed according to their
ancient rights and usages. The Roman franchise was first conferred upon
them under Augustus; but they did not obtain the right of being elected
to high offices or into the Roman senate. This franchise, however, was
confined to the _provincia Romana_, which extended as far north as
Lyons. The particulars are not known, but some _civitates_ within the
Province had only the _jus Latii_. Afterwards many individual Gauls
obtained the full franchise, including the right of being elected into
the Roman senate. Claudius extended the franchise to Gallia Narbonensis,
at the same time conferring upon the inhabitants the right of becoming
members of the senate. Under Galba, the remaining Gauls also obtained the
franchise, but not the Belgae. Tacitus (_Ann._ iii. 44) states that the
sixty-four Gallic _civitates_ revolted, which no doubt is the sum total
of all the Gallic _civitates_, though it is not certain whether Gallia
Narbonensis is included or not.

After the Gallic migration, and previously to the Roman dominion in Gaul,
some states had raised themselves to a kind of supremacy, and many others
were in a condition of dependence. After the stormy period of migration,
two tribes, the _Arverni_ and _Aedui_, unfortunately for Gaul, had risen,
and tried to crush each other, as Athens and Sparta did in Greece. About
two hundred and sixty years after the capture of Rome by the Gauls, these
two tribes were the most powerful in the country; and all the others
were obliged to acknowledge the majesty of either the one or the other.
The Romans, who protected the Allobroges, became involved in a war with
the Arverni; and it must have been on that occasion, perhaps after the
victory of Q. Fabius, that they concluded the alliance with the Aedui,
in which the latter were declared _fratres populi Romani_: with their
assistance, the Arverni were greatly humbled. After this, the Aedui were,
for a time, at the head of affairs; but soon the Cymri or Cimbri, driven
back from the east of Europe, inundated Gaul. The Aedui then lost their
power, and the Sequani, in Franche Comté, rose in their place. Caesar’s
expressions on these affairs are unusual and strange, and require
explanation.

The southern coast of Gaul, from the frontier of Catalonia, had formerly
been inhabited by Ligurians. In the earliest times, they were mixed
with Iberians, for Scylax of Caryanda says, that Ligyans, mixed with
Iberians, occupied the country from the Pyrenees to the river Rhodanus.
The Iberians spread there as they did in Aquitania. The conquest of
the Iberians is repeated in that of the Visigoths and of the Arabs,
and extends as far as the Loire. The Iberians were the rulers, and
the Ligurians the subject people. At a later period, the inhabitants
of Languedoc were Gauls, who had evidently advanced again and taken a
portion of the conquest from their conquerors, otherwise Caesar would
have described the inhabitants of those districts as Iberians. The Gauls,
probably, spread southward as well as eastward.

NARBO, on the coast, was a large commercial city, which had long been a
great emporium, and from which a commercial road passed right through
Gaul to the Loire. Its harbour is now filled up with sand, like nearly
all others on that coast; in antiquity, it was very well adapted for
merchant ships, though not for ships of war. During the period between
the Gracchi and the Cimbrian war, the Romans founded there the town of
_Narbo Martius_ (in the provincial dialect _Narbona_), which, on account
of its importance, was the provincial capital, without being politically
the seat of the government. This was its condition in the time of Caesar
and under the empire; but in the middle ages the place decreased in
importance, because it is unhealthy.

Besides Narbo, there are very few important places in that beautiful
hilly country between the Rhone and the Pyrenees. I may mention, however,
_Agatha_, a Massilian colony. _Nemausus_ (Nismes) must have been a great
city under the Romans, as we may infer from the ruins still existing.
_Beterrae_ (Beziers) can scarcely be believed to have been a Gallic town;
many Greek coins, with beautiful Greek inscriptions have been found
there; and I suspect that it was a Massilian settlement.

The coast from the Rhone to Italy ought not to be regarded as a part
of Gaul, but of Liguria. How far the Ligurians dwelt inland, cannot be
ascertained; but the neighbourhood of Avignon was inhabited by Celts
mixed with Ligurians, as is manifest from the name of the _Celtoligyans_
who formed the population of that part. It is probable that the
Ligurians extended on the one hand towards Italy as far as the Cottian
Alps, and on the other, in Gaul as far as the frontier of the Allobroges
and the Basses-Alpes. But in these latter parts, the Ligurians must be
regarded as the original inhabitants, and the greater part of the coast
was afterwards taken from them by the Iberians. Marseilles was not the
only Greek city there, but a number of Greek settlements existed all
along the coast: Nizza is the ancient _Nicaea_, Antibes is the ancient
_Antipolis_, and the name of the _Hierian islands_ shows that they were
occupied by Greeks.

MASSALIA or MASSILIA. The origin of this city is frequently assigned to
the reign of Cyrus, in consequence of a confusion between the settlement
of the Phocaeans on the Ligurian coast, and their emigration after
the conquest of their city by Harpagus; but the two events are quite
distinct. Massalia was planted for commercial reasons, and was originally
a factory, whereas the emigration of the Phocaeans was undertaken by them
for the purpose of escaping from the dominion of the barbarians. Massalia
did not contain those elements of growth and development which it would
have had among a kindred people in Greece or Sicily; but it nevertheless
became great at an early period, through its trade and commerce and
through the reputation of its eunomia. Its relation of friendship with
Rome was assuredly based on historical tradition and was very ancient;
the presents sent by the Romans to the temple of Delphi were deposited
in the treasury of the Massaliots. According to a statement of Trogus
Pompeius in Justin, Massalia had to carry on serious wars with Carthage
on account of the coral fisheries; Justin, indeed, speaks only of
fisheries, but he probably alludes to the coral fisheries on the coast
of Africa, which the Provençals possessed throughout the middle ages
and down to the present day. Massalia acknowledged the supremacy of
the Romans, who willingly and zealously supported the city against the
neighbouring barbarians. In consequence of the fall of Carthage, the
commerce of Massalia seems to have been greatly extended, and after the
destruction of Carthage, it appears, in fact, to have stepped into its
place. We cannot say with certainty how long Greek culture maintained
itself at Marseilles, but it certainly preserved it longer than is
commonly believed; traces of it occur at a very late period, and copies
of the Greek gospels were made there as late as the ninth and tenth
centuries. In the third century of our era, it is still called a Greek
city; when, however, the Ligurians began to become Romanised, their
influence was irresistible, and even Greeks were overpowered by it.

ARELAS or ARELATE was a great place during the decline of the Roman
empire and during the middle ages; the modern Arles, just as the modern
Ravenna, is only a shadow of what it once was. In later times, Arelate
was the capital of Gaul.

AQUAE SEXTIAE (Aix), the first town founded by the Romans in Gaul, was
a military colony. It is celebrated for the victory which Marius gained
there. There were several other military colonies on the Rhone and in
Gallia Narbonensis, such as _Forum Julii_ (Fréjus), _Avineo_ (Avignon),
_Arausio_ (Oranges), _Nemausus_ (Nismes), but not Narbo. In the interior,
as well as in the west and on the north-eastern frontier, there were
but few military colonies; Lyons was not one of them, but there existed
several _coloniae civiles_. _Colonia Augusta Rauracorum_ (Basle) was a
military colony.

Beyond the Isara, we reach the extensive country of the ALLOBROGES,
who were a great and extensive nation even as early as the time of
Hannibal, when they occupied nearly the whole of Dauphiné and the greater
part of Savoy. They allied themselves with Hannibal, and vigorously
opposed the Romans in the wars of Fabius Allobrogicus and Domitius, but
were overpowered; they were, however, not subdued until the war which
immediately followed that of Sulla; their complete subjugation cannot be
assigned to an earlier period than that of Caesar, for at the time of
the Catilinarian conspiracy it was, properly speaking, not yet complete.

VIENNA was no doubt a capital even in the time of Hannibal; under the
emperors it was a very important town.

LUGDUNUM, at the confluence of the Arar (Saone) and the Rhodanus, was
a colony founded by Munatius Plancus in the earliest part of the reign
of Augustus. It may have been a Gallic town before, otherwise it would
scarcely have received a Gallic name; and this supposition quite agrees
with the system of the ancients, to found colonies in places already
existing as towns. Ancient Lugdunum was very small in comparison with
the modern Lyons; but it afterwards became the residence of the Roman
governor of the provincia Lugdunensis.

The country north of Lyons between mount Jura and the Cevennes was
inhabited by three tribes. The _Arverni_, the westernmost of them,
occupied the very heart and centre of Gaul, so far as height and
ramification of the mountains are concerned. That district exhibits
traces of an immense volcanic activity at some remote period. On the
north-east of the Arverni, we have the _Aedui_ (not _Haedui_), in
Bourgogne, and the _Sequani_ in Franche Comté. In the seventh century
of Rome, these three nations were the most powerful in Gaul; and the
Arverni and Aedui were contending for the supremacy. The Arverni and
Allobroges were allied, and Q. Fabius and Cn. Domitius, who carried on
war against them, broke the power of both in two campaigns. The Arverni,
like all Gallic tribes, are said to have had kings, and names of kings
occur on their barbarous coins; according to some accounts which must
probably be traced to Posidonius, their power was very great. After the
war of Fabius and Domitius, the greatness of the Arverni was completely
gone; in the wars of Caesar, they act a very subordinate part, and when
the Aedui, their former rivals, were humbled, the Arverni displayed
a malicious satisfaction. During the latest period of the Roman
empire, however, they again rose to a certain moral importance: when
the Visigoths settled in Languedoc and made Toulouse the residence of
their kings, when the Burgundians and other tribes advanced from the
east, when northern Gaul was isolated from Spain and Italy, and when
the war extended from the north-west to the Rhone, the Arverni, who now
regarded themselves as Romans, and felt the greatest aversion against the
barbarians, distinguished themselves by their manly and heroic resistance
to the hostile conquerors. They were indeed ceded to the Goths, but the
barbarians did not settle among them, as they had done in other countries
by force of arms. The country of the Arverni is called by Gregory of
Tours that of the _Romana nobilitas_. Sidonius Apollinaris does the
greatest honour to his province.

The _Aedui_ are termed _fratres populi Romani_ as a recognition of
their political fraternity and equality, but not on account of any
relationship, as Lucan thinks. _Augustodunum_ was their most important
town.

The _Sequani_ rose after the fall of the Arverni, just as the Boeotians
and Aetolians did in Greece after the decay of the great states. When
Caesar arrived in Gaul, his conquest averted from the country the
calamity which, four centuries and a half later, actually came upon it, I
allude to its conquest by the Germans; for Ariovistus and the Suevi had
already settled in the country, as was afterwards done by the Franks:
if the first conquest had succeeded, the country would have been called
Suabia instead of France. Caesar subdued the Sequani.

_Tolosa_, on the left of the Arverni, was the most important town on the
upper Garonne, and was remarkable for the temple and the gold accumulated
in it, which the Romans, under Caepio, had taken as booty in the Cimbrian
war. When Caesar appeared there, the people were already subject to the
Romans.

The real _Aquitanians_, as I have already observed, were Iberians; but
Augustus extended Aquitania for political convenience as far as the
Loire; historically it did not extend beyond the Garonne.

_Burdigala_ was an ancient emporium. These towns were always favoured by
the natural advantages of their situation.

According to Caesar, the _Matrona_ and _Sequana_ formed the frontier
between Celtic Gaul and the Belgae. This is generally understood, as if
those rivers had always been the permanent line of separation between
the two nations, but if this had been the case, we should not be able
to understand how the inhabitants of Lower Britany could be of the same
race as the Belgae. In order to account for this fact, people have had
recourse to an immigration, and it is alleged that, owing to the influx
of Angli, Saxons, and Frisians into Britain, a part of the British
population quitted their native island and settled in Lower Britany.
But this alleged colony of Britons is not supported by any historical
evidence; the writers of the fifth century say nothing about it, and what
they do say, does not refer to an immigration, but to the fact that a
part of Armorica, in the fifth century, made itself independent of Rome.
We may assert, on the contrary, that, at an earlier period, the Cymri
inhabited a much greater part of Gaul, and that in Lower Britany alone
they maintained themselves against the invading Celts, while Normandy and
the other countries were conquered by the Gael. The physical nature of
Lower Britany also was favourable to its isolation; marshes and forests
render it inaccessible, whence the inhabitants also remained free from
Roman contagion. In this manner, the Cymrian element was preserved
against the influence of the Gauls.

In the fourth and fifth centuries, the northern coast from the Loire
to the frontier of the Netherlands, was called _Tractus Aremoricus_ or
_Aremorica_ which in Celtic signifies “maritime country.” The commotions
of the third century, which continued to increase during the fourth and
fifth, repeatedly drove the Romans from that country. French antiquaries
imagine that it was a regularly constituted Gallic republic, of which
Chlovis had the protectorate, but this is wrong.

The country north of the Matrona and Sequana was inhabited by the BELGAE,
who belonged to the race of the Cymri, and were mixed with Germans only
accidentally, because conquered Germans lived among them. The _Remi_,
with their capital of _Durocortorum_, were the most distinguished tribe
among them in the time of Caesar, and they continued to be great for
a long time after, although during the Roman wars they had, properly
speaking, fallen from their height. The frontier between the Belgae and
Germany is involved in much obscurity; in regard to many tribes, such
as the Menapii, it is even doubtful as to whether they were Germans
or Cymri. The _Treviri_, according to Tacitus, were _ambitiosi circa
Germanicam originem_. On the whole, it would seem that eighteen or
nineteen hundred years ago the frontier of the Germans was pretty much
the same as it is now. Alsace was occupied by Germans, and the Vosges
mountains, and the modern Walloon district about Liege probably formed
the boundary. It is possible that at a later period Brabant and Flanders
were still Cymric, but nothing decisive can be said about this.[73]

The German nations were divided, in the Roman administration into two
great parts, _Germania prima_ and _secunda_, which were connected with
Gaul only on account of the general government, but were not included
by the Romans in the name of Gaul; and at a later time, they were
politically separated, because they were under a military government.

Treves was the capital of these parts; in Tacitus it is still called
TREVIRI, but afterwards AUGUSTA TREVIRORUM. Ever since the third century,
it was probably a considerable city, though not in its circumference,
which people generally are inclined to make much too large; it does
not appear to have been much greater than that of its present walls,
which, however, is not inconsiderable, if the place was well peopled.
The amphitheatre was no doubt outside the walls, as in all Roman towns,
except Rome itself. The greatness of Treves extends from the middle
of the third to the fifth century; the architectural remains, as is
evident from their style, belong to that period. It is the period after
Maximinus, or somewhat later, after Valerian, when the barbarians
advanced on all sides; the Gallic emperors resided at Treves.

COLONIA AGRIPPINA (Cologne) was less important; it was a frontier
fortress and a prosperous colony; but by no means of the importance of
Treves.

Traces of Roman settlements are particularly numerous in upper Alsace.
_Germania prima_ and _secunda_ were not confined to the left bank of the
Rhine: in the reign of Trajan, the Romans had extended the frontier to
the line marked by the _limes_ running through a part of Nassau, across
the Maine, and as far as the Alps. This _sinus imperii_ did not form
a separate province, but belonged to Germania on the left bank of the
Rhine, being one of those _provinciae Germaniae_, which had their own
_praesides_. It was, on the whole, a favourite practice at that time to
divide the power among several magistrates.


BRITANNIA.

Britain was known in the most remote times; but its name does not occur
until the Macedonian period; it was previously designated by the name
of _Cassiterides insulae_. The tin trade can be traced to a very early
period; for the first attempts to smelt copper were made by mixing it
with tin. The brass of the ancients, the real χαλκός, consisted for the
most part of tin, and all the ancient Roman ases consist of copper and
tin. Ὀρείχαλκος, from ὀρεύς, a mule, is something different (Messing),
and the spuriousness of the mixture is indicated even by its name. A
plentiful supply of tin is not found in any part of Europe, except
Cornwall, whence it is quite certain that the name Cassiterides refers to
Britain. The trade in it was carried on from Gades; but the Massilians
had, no doubt, their share in it, as we may infer from the voyages of
Pytheas. In the geography of Eratosthenes, the British islands are
already mentioned in the plural; but before the time of Caesar, this part
of the world was buried in great obscurity.

Britain, like Gaul, was inhabited by the two nations, the Gael and the
Cymri; but it is very difficult and problematical to draw the boundary
line between the two. The north seems originally to have been occupied by
Cymri, though, according to Tacitus, who in this matter also is a weighty
authority, apparently with an admixture of Germans or Scandinavians. At
present, the inhabitants in the west, from Cumberland down to Cornwall,
so far as the ancient population is preserved, are Cymri; but we do not
know whether these Cymri retreated to those parts during the conquests
of the Angli and Saxons, or whether they had dwelt there even before. In
Ireland nearly the whole population is Gaelic; the north, about Ulster,
contains only feeble traces of Belgae or Cymri, and if this observation
be correct, it is a proof of a conquest having taken place. From Ireland
the Gaelic population spread into Scotland, but it is uncertain whether
in this latter country they strengthened the Gael who already dwelt
there, or whether they expelled tribes of the Cymri. These events belong
to a comparatively recent period. The Picts, in the south-west of
Scotland, unquestionably belonged to the Cymrian race.

All Britain, like the country on the east of the British Channel, was
inhabited by a number of small tribes, each of which had its own peculiar
institutions. But they were much more uncivilised than those in Gaul,
which had unquestionably been much benefited by their intercourse with
Massilia and Rome. The conquest of Britain was attempted by Julius
Caesar from a mere love of enterprise, and without any definite object,
but he soon gave it up. Under Augustus the Romans were little concerned
about Britain, and Tiberius only wanted stillness and stagnation, whence
his generals could not attempt any great undertakings: he scarcely
allowed them to defend themselves when they were hard pressed. This
state of things ceased under Claudius, who undertook an expedition into
Britain without Rome having any real interest in it. The conquest was
wonderfully successful: a great part of England was subdued, and colonies
were established in the country. A part of the inhabitants soon became
Romanised, built towns according to the Roman fashion, and obtained the
Roman franchise. Under Domitian, Agricola carried his conquests as far as
the interior of Scotland. The hostility of the Picts induced Hadrian, and
afterwards Severus, to build frontier walls against the northern tribes.
Britain soon acquired the appearance of a civilised country, but the
Romans did not concern themselves about Ireland. In the third century,
Britain also acquired a kind of political importance, but it always
remained subordinate to Gaul. Afterwards, during the invasions from the
north, the inhabitants shewed great weakness and helplessness and were
unable to defend their frontier walls. In no part of Europe has the
ancient population been so utterly annihilated as in the eastern parts of
England by the conquest of the Saxons.

The towns in Britain are not of any great historical importance;
_Camalodunum_ alone ought perhaps to be mentioned. _London_ shows how
successful the Romans were in selecting sites for towns. Tacitus, when
speaking of the people in the south-west of England, says that they
resembled the Spaniards, and he suspects that they were of Spanish
origin. It is not impossible that Iberians may have spread as far as
those districts, but whether there be any foundation for this opinion
or not cannot be decided, for all historical traces are lost. It is
possible, however, that there may have been a tradition, that the Gauls,
who had conquered the north of Spain, were afterwards expelled from
it; in this case we should be obliged to suppose that the Gauls, when
driven out of Spain, arrived in Britain by sea. With few exceptions, all
the stories of the middle ages relating to ancient times are devoid of
historical value. The tradition of Irish chronicles—that their ancestors
came from Spain—though it is interwoven with a tissue of fables, may yet
not be altogether without some foundation. In the British legends, on
the other hand, there occur stories, as if in the time of the Romans the
country had been governed by native kings. English antiquaries, attaching
too much weight to these stories, have imagined that Britain was a kind
of feudal kingdom under the supremacy of Rome, whereas, in truth, it was
governed like every other province.


CELTIC NATIONS ON THE EAST OF THE RHINE.

In order to complete the account of the Gallic race, let us turn our
attention to the eastern banks of the Rhine. Caesar and Tacitus speak of
Gauls dwelling in southern Germany, and expressly state that they spoke
Gallic. One of these nations is the _Aravisci_; another the _Boii_,
probably in Bohemia, but elsewhere also. These Boians appear as a great
people on the Danube as well as in Italy, whereas in Gaul itself there
are but few traces of them. No one can deny emigration in this instance,
where a nation diverges in two opposite directions, the one dwelling
on the north, and the other on the south of the Alps. The Boians were
afterwards extirpated, and that probably by the Cymri. The _Norici_ in
Carniola and Carinthia, are likewise mentioned as Gauls under Gallic
kings; after the period of the Hannibalian war, about the time of the
foundation of Aquileia, they were on terms of friendship with the
Romans. They occupied the country from the frontiers of Italy as far
as the Danube, but were not connected on their Italian frontier with
the other Gallic tribes, being separated from them by the Raetians and
Vindelicians. In the east, however, they were connected with a succession
of Gallic tribes, and probably in the west also, that is, in the north
of the Vindelicians and of the Danube. The _Vindelici_ were a Liburnian
people, north of the Raetians at the foot of the Brenner, and probably
in Bavaria also; but their frontier on the northern slope of the Alps
and farther towards the Danube cannot be defined. In the east of the
Norici, we find the _Taurisci_, and further on, the _Scordisci_, both
terrible nations, which for two centuries (down to the seventh century of
Rome) spread terror far and wide among the nations of those parts. The
Scordiscans were extirpated by the Romans in an internecine war, or at
least so much reduced that afterwards the Getae completely annihilated
them: in the first century after Christ, they can scarcely be said to
have existed at all. These nations appear in those countries at a time
of which Caesar speaks as of a bygone age, that is, about Olymp. 100,
soon after the Gauls had taken possession of Gallia Cisalpina. The time
at which the tide of migration from the west crossed the Rhine, cannot
be determined, but after it had once commenced it continued to flow
to far distant countries in the east. Some of the tribes established
themselves in the districts they had conquered, while others pressed
onward, until they met with some insurmountable obstacle. The Tauriscans
and Scordiscans displaced the Triballians, and extirpated the greater
part of the Illyrians, while they subdued the rest; for a period of two
centuries they then ruled over those countries as far as the frontiers of
Macedonia, and at times over Macedonia itself; afterwards, when Rome had
destroyed the kingdom of Macedonia, they even invaded Greece. About the
end of the fifth century of Rome, they dwelt for a time in Macedonia,
until they were expelled by Antigonus Gonatas. In like manner they
subdued Thrace, which thus was a Gallic empire until the middle of the
sixth century of Rome, when it was completely destroyed. All the foreign
tribes which we meet with in Asia Minor, and which for a period of fifty
years traversed Western Asia like nomades, belong to the same current of
migration which left behind the Tauriscans and Scordiscans, and overran
Thrace; they threw themselves into Asia, and settling in Phrygia, there
formed what was afterwards called _Galatia_. They were gradually tamed
by the kings of Pergamus, by time, and by the Asiatic climate and mode
of life. After the war with Antiochus, the Romans took the opportunity
to attack them for the purpose of protecting the people of Western Asia
and of preventing any germs of development being formed there. Now
whether the Gauls whom we afterwards meet with on the north bank of the
Danube, were a branch of that great current, which in its onward course
became divided, turning on the right into Thrace, and on the left into
Wallachia, is a question concerning which we can only form conjectures.
It certainly is possible: but it is also possible that another migration
may have spread in the north of the Carpathians. But it is an undoubted
fact, that, during the sixth century of Rome, at the time of the wars
of Philip and Perseus, the great nation of the _Bastarnae_ dwelt on
the lower Danube and in Wallachia. From the monuments of Olbia, in the
neighbourhood of the modern Odessa, on the Dniepr, it is manifest that at
the time when the great inscription was set up, Olbia was inhabited by
Gauls; and among them are mentioned the _Sciri_, who afterwards, during
the great migration of nations, are spoken of along with the Rugians.
Unfortunately the inscription bears no date, though it probably belongs
to the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century of
Rome: at that time, then, the Gauls extended as far as the Ukraine. The
first thirty years of the seventh century must be regarded as the end
of that migration; hence the expedition of the Cimbri, that is, Cymri,
belongs to that period, for most of those Gallic tribes were, no doubt,
Cymri, and the names of their chiefs are Cymric. This supposition also
agrees with the account of Posidonius, that the Cimbri (Cymri) came
from the Euxine.[74] The Bastarnae remained in the country about the
Carpathians until the time of Tacitus, and maintained themselves against
the Sarmatian immigration, which first set the Cymri in motion. I have
written a separate treatise on the migration of the Sarmatians.[75] In
Herodotus we find the Scythians on the Tanais as far as the Banat, all
Moldavia and Wallachia was occupied by them, and the Triballians are
found in Lower Hungary; but, afterwards, the latter occur in Moldavia,
the Getae in Wallachia, and the Celts between these two. The different
periods, therefore, must be carefully distinguished.

Johannes Müller was the first to propound the correct view about the
Cimbri, maintaining that they were not Germans, but Celts, and that they
did not come from the north. The work in which he proves this was his
earliest production, and at the same time his most critical one, but he
does not understand the nature of the Gallic migration. The Teutones were
unquestionably Germans.




AFRICA.


CYRENAICA.

The coast of Libya between the Syrtes and Egypt, both begins and ends
with a narrow, inhabitable, and yet barren tract of land; but in the
middle, where the country reaches the northernmost parallel, it is
beautiful, inhabited, and of considerable breadth. The eastern coast of
the Syrtes is a complete sandy desert, still, however, not so much so
as to be totally uninhabitable; towards Egypt, the country is stony,
dry, and incapable of cultivation. But between Berenice and a little to
the east of Cyrene, it is beautiful, richly watered, and fertile. The
whole forms a slope; the interior of Africa is considerably elevated,
and the desert, too, where it is removed from the coast, is high, while
towards the coast the land sinks down; only the tract on which Cyrene is
situated, forms another table-land rich in wood and springs of water.
From Cyrene downwards to the sea, the country is likewise well watered
and capable of cultivation. The elevation of Cyrene is so considerable,
that the harvest time differs by a full month from that in the lower
country. The coast, however, is not so beautiful nor so well fitted to be
inhabited as the higher country.

CYRENE is situated at a distance of about ten English miles from the sea,
but the beautiful country extends much farther into the interior; in the
neighbourhood of Barca and Berenice, the fertile country is less broad.
There are different traditions about the first settlement at Cyrene;
according to one, the town was founded by Aristaeus and his mother
Cyrene, and according to another by the Antenorids. This we learn from
Pindar’s epinician hymns and his scholiasts; and these statements clearly
show, that either a Tyrrheno-Pelasgian settlement existed there before
the arrival of the Greeks, or at least that there was a belief that the
coast had previously been inhabited by Pelasgians. Confusions, like that
of Aristaeus with the Trojan Agenorids, also occur among other nations,
among whom Tyrrhenian traditions existed. These legends, moreover, show
different phases: according to one, the colonists who founded Cyrene
came from Thera, whereas, according to Apollonius Rhodius, in his
Argonautics, Triton, the Libyan god of the sea, gave to the Argonauts a
clod of earth, which, on being thrown by them into the sea, formed the
island of Thera. Here, then, we have again the same fluctuation as to
mother-city and colony, which we have seen so often. Afterwards Cyrene
was Doric, and unquestionably a colony of Thera. It was originally a
small settlement, but during the period of the great commotion in Greece,
about Olymp. 40, people from all parts of Greece flocked to Cyrene, being
invited to defend the colony against the Libyans. Cyrene thus became
great, and acquired the circumference which is still indicated by its
magnificent ruins. Its kings traced their origin to the heroic ages, and
are mentioned in history down to the Persian period, after which they
disappear. The isolated situation of Cyrene was extremely fortunate, and
few Greek cities have been visited by so few great calamities as Cyrene.
When the Persians ruled in Egypt, Cyrene was little more than nominally
dependent, for the deserts by which it was separated from Egypt, afforded
it the means of putting itself in a favourable relation to Persia. When
Egypt was governed by native kings, Cyrene was doubly well off, because
it was for the interest of the Egyptians to keep up a good understanding
with the Greeks. At the time of the overthrow of the Persian empire,
Cyrene placed itself under the protection of Alexander; afterwards it
fell into the hands of Magas, a half-brother of Ptolemy Soter, under whom
the country became very prosperous, because Greeks and Greek civilisation
withdrew to that coast. It then was for a time an Egyptian province, but
again emancipated itself; on which occasion it was severely ravaged.
Afterwards it became an appanage principality of the family of the
Ptolemies, until in the end it came under the dominion of Rome, under
whose rule it gradually decayed. In the history of Hadrian, we hear of
the subjugation of rebellious Jews in Cyprus and Cyrenaica, which may
have been one of the more immediate causes of the decay of Cyrene, so
that in the time of Synesius it appears as a deserted, inactive, and
insignificant place. Greek civilisation, however, maintained itself there
for a long time, as we see from the letters of Synesius, the talented
bishop of Cyrene in the fifth century. The city was at last destroyed
during the Arab conquest, and has never recovered since that time. At
present it is in a condition like that of Palmyra: the wandering Arabs
encamp among the ruins of its temples, and the few peasants living in the
neighbourhood destroy the monuments still more.

BERENICE is the westernmost place on the same coast. Three towns,
Berenice, Arsinoe, and Ptolemais, derived their names from members of
the royal family of Egypt. Berenice was a newly-built town, situated on
the frontier towards Carthage. At present not a trace of it remains,
but the ruins of ARSINOE, or Tauchira, are very numerous. According to
the description of Della Celia, a Genoese physician, the walls measure
three Italian miles in circumference, and are covered all over with
inscriptions. The most ample materials for history might be discovered
there. The origin of the town is unknown.

BARCA, founded in the reign of the third Arcesilaus, was an ἀποδασμὸς of
the Cyreneans, and for a long time hostile to Cyrene. Afterwards its
name was changed into _Ptolemais_, and it is still called _Tolometa_,
which arose out of _Ptolemaide_.

_Apollonia_ was the port town of Cyrene.

On the west, Cyrene bordered upon the great republic of


CARTHAGE.

The frontier between these two states was as natural as any can be
between two countries. The whole district from the bay of the lesser
Syrtis, or the country of Tripoli, is a deep sandy desert, of which
only a few parts, the neighbourhood of Tripoli, and the ancient Leptis,
are capable of cultivation. But agriculture there being limited to
sandy districts, produces nothing but _durra_, the African millet, and
palm trees, which succeed in sandy ground, if it is well watered. The
desert advances close to the coast, and the inhabitable coast tract is
interrupted and unequal. On the east of Leptis, where the desert retreats
farther into the interior and around the great Syrtis, the country forms
a real sea of sand, which is far more dangerous than the Sahara, where
the ground is for the most part firm; on this Syrtis, on the other hand,
persons sink deep into the sand at every step.

On the frontier there were boundary marks, called _Arae Philaenorum_. The
tradition about them was as follows:—Once the Cyreneans and Carthaginians
being involved in a dispute about their frontiers, determined to send
out men from the two extreme towns of their countries at the same
moment, agreeing that the point of their meeting should be the frontier.
This tradition is probably an invention, like so many other things
which Sallust relates from Punic authorities. The SYRTES are generally
described by the ancients, especially by the earlier Greeks, as one only.
The Syrtis, they say, has tides, and is a bay full of sand-banks, which
are sometimes sufficiently covered with water and sometimes rise above
the water like lagoons. The existence of tides in the Mediterranean has,
until recently, been denied, and all the statements of the ancients
regarding them have been rejected, as in general ancient geography,
about thirty or forty years ago, was treated with extreme recklessness.
Tides do exist beyond all doubt, but they occur in a very irregular
and unaccountable manner. They are very unequal: at Venice you may see
it every day, and during a spring tide, the water rises as much as one
foot and a half; it also exists in the Archipelago and in the Euripus
near Chalcis, where it comes from the north, which has given rise to the
story about the death of Aristotle.[76] It is said, that at Naples the
tides are not perceptible, but that at Antium they are, especially when
there is a spring tide. The peculiarity of the Syrtes, which the ancients
asserted, and which moderns have denied, is that a current runs into the
Syrtes and thus throws vessels on the sand-banks. This arises from the
meetings of two currents, one of which comes from the Adriatic and the
other from the Aegean; the one coming from the Euxine encounters that
coming from the Ionian sea, and moves round in a curve, as in general all
currents of the sea move in curves. We cannot wonder, therefore, that
during a north-west wind, ships, sailing from Sicily to the Archipelago,
were thrown into the Syrtes: the danger was, of course, much greater
for the ancients than for us. The countries round the Syrtes are the
most wretched and melancholy districts of all the inhabited parts of the
earth; they are worse than the desert itself, except that water is not
wanting for so long a period as in the desert. The caravans dig wells,
but the water is bad.

The whole of the western part of the north coast of Africa, of which
Carthage is the central point, was once under the dominion of Carthage,
from the Syrtes to the straits of Gibraltar, though that dominion was
not the same everywhere. The modern Algiers and Morocco contain no
traces of Carthaginian colonies; there existed in those parts nothing
but Carthaginian forts and factories for commercial purposes; but Tunis
and Tripoli, that is, the whole coast from Hippo to Leptis, was covered
with Punic towns. Some of them were more ancient than Carthage (which was
for this reason called “New Town”); Utica, Hippo, Leptis, and perhaps
also Hadrumetum, and others whose names can no longer be ascertained,
were, like Gades, direct colonies of Tyre and Sidon in Phoenicia, and
had been founded at the time when so many Phoenician settlements were
formed on the coasts of Greece, in the islands of the Archipelago, and
in Cyprus. It was during that period of the greatness of Phoenicia,
which lies beyond our history, that numerous colonies were established
on the coast of Africa. We do not know what circumstances directed the
attention to those parts, for the Libyans were a great people. The nature
of the country is very different in different parts: Tripoli (which
is inhabitable from the head of the lesser to the greater Syrtis), is
the foreland of the desert, while Tunis is much more fertile. Here the
northern chain of mount Atlas terminates; and the western part of Tunis
is a mountainous, beautiful, and fertile country. One range of the
mountain extends as far as the sea, forming a hilly country, with the
beautiful promontory and the bay of Carthage. The territory from this
promontory as far as the Syrtes is, according to all descriptions, one
of the most fertile countries, though the district in which Carthage was
situated was less healthy and of a less agreeable climate. _Byzacene_,
or the eastern coast of Tunis, on the other hand, is very healthy, and
has no overpowering heat, except in rare cases when the poisonous wind
blows from the desert this wind is much more frequent at Carthage and it
neighbourhood.

This coast, then, was thickly studded with towns, the more ancient ones
were Tyrian, and the more recent ones Carthaginian settlements. The
inhabitants of the latter are called _Libyphoenices_, whence, from their
very name, we cannot suppose that they were of pure Punic blood: they
were Punians who had admitted Africans among them, and their language was
a corrupt Punic. The Carthaginians were greatly inclined to mix with, and
admit other tribes, which accounts for the fact of their language being
so widely spread: all the civilisation adopted by the Africans was Punic.
The Carthaginians had a peculiar Libyan alphabet, and when the writing
of the Tuariks is once discovered, I hope the Carthaginian inscriptions
also will be deciphered. Their literature, however, was Punic. The Romans
gave the library of Carthage as a present to the kings of Numidia;
that library contained the native historical records of Africa, from
which such singular statements were extracted by Sallust in composing
his Jugurtha, and the key to which must still be discovered: they did
not contain real history, but we can see from them in what light those
nations regarded their history.

The language of the original inhabitants of northern Africa was
perhaps more widely spread than any other: this is the language of the
Berbers, which was once spoken from the Canary islands in the west to
the cataracts of the Nile, and in some parts it is spoken even at the
present day. It is singular that the nation speaking that language
embraced tribes of quite different physical characters, whites as well
as blacks (though not negroes); the ancients, in fact, distinguish
between Gaetulians and Melanogaetulians, though they regard them as one
nation. Harsh rudeness was a generally prevailing characteristic of the
nation, but in proportion to the extent of country occupied by it, it
was not numerous; at present their descendants occur only in the oases
of the desert, while formerly they extended from the Mediterranean to
the banks of the Niger; on the coast they have nearly everywhere been
displaced by the Arabs, who are still gaining ground, so that now they
are found only in some parts of Algiers and Morocco. The Romans called
them _Afri_, and the Greeks, Λίβυες; it has been supposed that the latter
name is connected with that of Levante or Leguante. The name by which
the nation designates itself, viz., Amazirgh, Mazirgh, or Mzirgh, is
found, according to an observation of Castiglione, even in Herodotus,
who speaks of Μάσυες; this is the correct form occurring in the MSS.,
instead of which the printed editions erroneously give Μάξυες. The name
_Massaesyli_, which was given to the western Libyans between the lesser
Syrtis and the Ocean, also is nothing but Mazirgh Shilha, for they also
call themselves Shilhas. The eastern tribes are called _Massyli_, which
is the same as Μάσυες, for the termination _yli_ seems to be the common
Italian one, which we find in _Aequuli_ for _Aequi_. The Carthaginians
probably called them by this name. The bilingual inscriptions, which
exist in considerable numbers, would throw more light upon the language
of those countries, if they were deciphered, and they may possibly
contain the key by which the Punic inscriptions also are to be explained.

It is singular that the Romans called those nations _Numidae_, which
is not a proper name, but a common noun. The Greek form was νομάδες,
and from this the Romans made _Numidae_, a circumstance which shows to
what extent Greek words were in common use among the Romans. Afterwards
_Numida_ and _Numidia_ became names of the nation and the country, so
that, no doubt, Masinissa called himself king of Numidia. These tribes
extended from the boundary of the Carthaginian territory to the river
Molochath (Mulucha), which still may be regarded as the frontier of
Algiers. We must not, however, suppose that the country beyond that
river was occupied by a different race, for it was only another tribe
of the same stock. These latter were called _Mauri_ (Μαυροὶ, Blacks, in
the Alexandrian dialect), a name which became as firmly established for
the western tribes as Numidae was for the eastern ones. The country in
the south, between Mount Atlas and the Sahara, as far as the Niger, was
inhabited by the _Gaetuli_ and _Melanogaetuli_, the modern Tuariks. The
Melanogaetuli were unquestionably of the same race as the Gaetuli, but
had no doubt arisen from a mixture with the Aethiopians, who dwelt there.
They were accordingly a dark mixed race like that at present in Darfoor.
We do not know by what name they called themselves.

The _Garamantes_ are placed too far to the south-east in our maps; they
were the inhabitants of the modern Fezzan, and the present town of Germa
was their capital, where Roman inscriptions are still found among the
ruins. The dominion of the Romans in those parts, about which nothing is
said by ancient geographers, belongs to the second century, when they
extended their power in different directions, for under Trajan they
entered far into the interior of Arabia, and in Nubia they advanced as
far as Dongola, the surrounding tribes being too weak to offer effectual
resistance. The distance between Tripoli and Fezzan is about forty days’
journey. The town of _Augila_, mentioned by Herodotus, in the country
of the Nasamones, is called to this day Audyeelah or Eudyeelah; the
name of the Nasamones themselves has not yet been re-discovered. Count
Castiglione has written a very beautiful essay on those countries in
the form of an appendix to his work entitled “Les Monnaies des Arabes
frappées en Afrique.”

Herodotus divides Africa into four parts, the agricultural, the
mountainous, the country of beasts of prey, and the desert. Beyond the
river, Nigritae also are mentioned, but we must not imagine that either
this name or that of the river Niger has anything to do with _niger_,
black; it is the Punic _nahar_ which signifies “a river,” and shows the
intercourse of the Carthaginians with those countries. The same fact
has also been confirmed by the discovery of balls and staves of glass
of exquisite beauty in those parts. The art of treating glass in such a
manner as to include in a white glass a number of flowers, balls, and
other objects, without injuring the outlines, is assuredly of Phoenician
origin, and at present quite unknown. Some specimens of such glass are
found in Italy, where it was partly employed to ornament rooms, and quite
a similar piece of glasswork has been discovered in the tomb of a negro
king in Guinea, whither it had evidently been exported from Carthage.
Such pieces are said to have been used as ornaments for victors, and
there is even a tradition among the negroes, that these glass ornaments
have from time immemorial belonged to their sceptres. Servius states,
that the Romans gave to the chiefs of the Berbers ornamented sticks
instead of sceptres; the same custom still exists, but the sticks are not
adorned with silver.

The name _Marmarica_ is derived from _mar_, salt, with a reduplication
very frequent in those languages.

Among all the settlements on that Coast, CARTHAGE is by far the most
illustrious. The situation and greatness of the city are described
in the later excerpts from Diodorus of Sicily, in Strabo, and in
Appian’s Punica. One point, however, must not be lost sight of in these
descriptions, viz., the ancients assume that Carthage covered the
peninsula which was connected with the mainland by the isthmus, and that
the isthmus was cut off by means of a wall. But the fact is, that the
whole of the peninsula was not occupied by the city, which, in that case,
would have been immensely large. M. Humbert, a Dutch lieutenant, who
was long engaged in the service of the pasha of Tunis, and was a good
observer, discovered during his excavations, some years ago, the ruins
of ancient Carthage and the walls by which it was surrounded. He made an
excellent ground plan of those remains, which, however, has never been
published, but exists only in MS. According to this plan, the peninsula
contained two towns, the ancient Punic Carthage on the south side,
perhaps not occupying one-half of the peninsula, and Roman Carthage on
the other side towards Rome, which had been built by J. Caesar: lying
under the curse of Scipio, the site of the ancient city could not be
occupied by a new town. The remains of Roman Carthage are far more
numerous than those of the more ancient city; the little that is to be
seen of the latter consists of gigantic works about the harbour (Cothon).

Ancient Carthage consisted of two parts, viz., the city called _Bozra_
(the Greeks call it Βύρσα), and the suburb _Megara_, the Punic name
of which was probably Magal. The remaining part of the peninsula may
have been included under this name. These suburban districts were
protected against the attacks of the barbarous Libyans by walls across
the isthmus.[77] We must not imagine that there was a separate acra
besides Byrsa, the elevation of which is insignificant, only the point
containing the temple of Aesculapius may perhaps be compared to a
real acra. According to Timaeus, Carthage was built thirty-seven[78]
years before the commencement of the Olympiads; this may be regarded
as a settled date, as we see from the work of Josephus against Apion,
for the Phoenician authorities, which he followed, are thoroughly
trustworthy, and perfectly agree with the books of Samuel and Kings in
the Old Testament. The books of Judges are of later origin, and contain
chronological impossibilities; but from the time of David we have
contemporary and quite trustworthy history; some few erroneous dates are
probably mere slips in writing. In the reigns of Manasseh and Amon there
are a few incorrect statements, and I have shown where the mistake of
from twenty to thirty years is probably concealed,[79] but I cannot say
how the text is to be emended. After the first three centuries, Carthage
had already acquired many possessions in Byzacene, that is, the country
from the headland on the bay to the lesser Syrtis; in Sardinia, too,
it exercised a powerful influence, and some Punic settlements already
existed in Spain. But not long before that time, Carthage was still
engaged in deadly war with the Libyans, and its rule certainly did
not extend to the interior of Africa. The real greatness of the city
lasted about 150 years, from about the close of the Peloponnesian to the
commencement of the first Punic war.

UTICA (Atica, the Old Town, as opposed to Carthage, or New Town) was
situated not far from Carthage. The simplicity and constant repetition
of the Phoenician names show the want of poetry in that nation; the
Greeks have an endless variety of names. _Utica_ and _Hippo_ are the
two old towns on that coast; they were more ancient than Carthage,
and independent of it, being sometimes even allied with it on equal
terms. This honour they retained until the second Punic war; they also
concluded treaties with full independence, but were virtually subject to
Carthage. Hence in the war of Agathocles, both declared in his favour,
and in the same manner they acted in the war of the mercenaries, until,
in the end, they separated themselves entirely and joined the Romans,
whence, notwithstanding their Punic origin, they remained _civitates
foederatae_. It is interesting to observe, how easily Greek culture was
engrafted upon those Punians; the Carthaginian senate, on one occasion,
found it necessary to enact a law against it,[80] and at times Utica had
a theatre, in which Greek plays, translated into Punic, were performed.
Both St. Augustin and Apuleius (the latter was a native of Madaura in
the interior) spoke Punic as their mother tongue, whence we see that the
people throughout the province of Carthage spoke Punic, and that the
language of the Amazirghs had become extinct. In some parts of the coast,
Latin was spoken. When the Arabs conquered the country, the inhabitants
still employed the Punic language, and the adoption of the Arabic was
facilitated by the kindred nature of the two languages. The foreign
elements in the languages of Tunis and Malta are probably derived from
that of the Amazirghs; Latin also is mixed up with them.

The coast of _Byzacene_ is one of the most fertile in the world: the
olive-tree, which is one of the richest blessings of the temperate zone,
was, strange to say, not introduced into those parts until a late period,
and that district is the only one in which the palm and the olive-tree
grow side by side. In the earlier times, Carthage obtained its oil from
Greece and Italy. The coast was studded with towns, just like the country
of Cyrene. Notwithstanding the destruction of Carthage, those countries
were perhaps never so well cultivated and so thickly peopled as under the
Roman emperors, especially in the reign of Severus, as is attested by
Tertullian, a contemporary writer, and by the immense number of ruins in
the territory of Tunis.

_Zeugitana_ is the basin of the bay of Tunis. The southern part of the
eastern coast of Tunis was called _Byzacion_, _Byzacene_ or _Byzacitis_.
_Tunis_ deserves to be mentioned among the provincial towns on account of
its subsequent importance, of which antiquity knows nothing.

The greater part of the Carthaginian territory was given by the Romans to
Masinissa, who, by the most shameless usurpation, and by the support of
the most faithless policy on the part of the Romans, endeavoured to make
himself master of it; for after the second Punic war, the Carthaginians
still possessed an extensive territory. Even before, Numidia had received
nearly all the districts which had been conquered in war, such as Zama,
and other places.

The Numidian kings resided at CIRTA, that is, “the town,” in the Punic
language, which is another proof of the poverty of its nomenclature. This
town rose to greatness under Masinissa, and still more under Micipsa,
who drew into it a Greek colony, just as in the time of Louis XIV,
French colonies were established in the north of Germany. The time of
that colony belongs to the period in which Corinth was destroyed and the
whole of Greece was devastated, and when the poor Greeks were scattered
all over the earth. Under Constantine the Great, its name was changed
into _Constantina_, and large Roman ruins still exist there. It was a
Roman colony founded by P. Sitius of Nuceria, who assembled an army of
Roman fugitives and Gauls that had served under the African princes,
and received Cirta from Julius Caesar, after the conquest of Juba, as a
place to settle in. It is, therefore, a colony of quite a peculiar kind,
differing essentially from all other colonies.


AETHIOPIA, AEGYPTUS.

The Ethiopians, with the earliest Greeks, are the black people in the
south-east and south-west, whence Indians and Ethiopians are synonymous,
the southern Indians being black. I believe that the Indian peninsula
was conquered by the Indians, and that the black race was subdued by
them. Ethiopia, with the Greeks, is only a vague name for Africa. Its
derivation from αἴθω is erroneous, but it is doubtful whether the nation
had any special name by which it designated itself. We must, however,
distinguish the _Leucaethiopes_, that is, the Fellatahs, or Fellahs,
whom Ptolemy distinctly places on the Senegal, to which locality they
are also assigned by the great D’Anville. The name Ethiopians was
afterwards limited to the Abyssinian race and the tribes belonging to
them, and these latter nations still call their country Ithopya, though
we can hardly suppose the name to be of native origin. The excerpts from
Agatharchides of Cnidos, a most excellent writer of the seventh century
of Rome, who for a long time resided in Egypt, but does not call the
nations by their own names, but only by appellatives, are very obscure,
and have been entirely neglected. He gives information about nations
which are found at present only in the innermost parts of Africa: he
describes, e.g., the Hottentots and Bushmen, whom he calls Acridophagi,
that is, eaters of grasshoppers, so that even those living in the
distant south were noticed by him. The Hottentots cut out one of their
testicles, a fact with which he was acquainted.

Ethiopia proper is highly remarkable in ancient history: in Scripture
it is called Koosh, and its kings are distinguished from those of
the Mauri. The country of these Mauri was in very ancient times a
great state in the south of Egypt; its capital, _Meroe_, contrary to
the express testimony of the ancients, has generally been placed too
near Egypt; it was probably situated in the neighbourhood of Sennaar.
The Meroites had a peculiar kind of civilisation; and there can be
no doubt that the hieroglyphics, and all that we afterwards find
as Egyptian civilisation, originated among them. At a very remote
time they conquered Egypt; the ancients themselves trace to them the
knowledge and religion of the Egyptians; they describe their monuments
as Ethiopian, and all that can be made out by historical inquiry is
confirmatory of this view. The southernmost monuments of Egypt, between
the two cataracts, are the grandest and most ancient; then follows
Thebes, and as we advance northward, the monuments become smaller and
more insignificant. But monuments are found also higher up the river
to the south of Meroe. The accounts in Diodorus about the condition
of that city are perfectly credible and satisfactory. The Egyptians,
like the Celtiberians, Celtoligyans and others, were a mixed people, in
which one nation ruled while the other obeyed. In the Greek documents
of Egypt, such as contracts, and the like, we find a singular custom,
occasioned by the extremely small number of proper names: the notary,
in order to prevent confusion, added a description of the persons
concerned. Accordingly, we can clearly distinguish the different races,
for we find such characteristics as short, yellow, flat nose, curly
hair, and the like.[81] The most ancient idols resemble negroes, as,
for example, the celebrated Isis of Elephantine. Among the mummies,
too, there are a great many negro forms, faces altogether non-European,
different both in their skulls and teeth; and this is another sign that
Egypt was conquered by the Ethiopians, who settled among the conquered
people. Champollion the younger is not only an honest man, but has no
doubt discovered the truth. The most ancient documents we have, go
back as far as the eighteenth dynasty of Manetho; and the seventeenth
and eighteenth dynasties are probably the period when the yoke of the
Hycsos was thrown off in consequence of this conquest. The original
inhabitants were probably Libyans, who extended as far as lake Mareotis,
for Mareotis is a Libyan name; and Egyptians, in the sense in which
Herodotus understands the name, do not occur beyond the Canobian mouth of
the Nile. The original inhabitants, therefore, may have been under the
dominion of a Semitic race, which among the Egyptians bore the name of
Hycsos, and was intensely hated by the later Egyptians. This expulsion of
the Hycsos, which is so often represented on monuments, was the result
of the establishment of the Kooshites in Upper Egypt, who thence also
spread over Lower Egypt. The modern Egyptians have scarcely a trace left
of the ancient physiognomy; their features are rather Libyan. The Copts
have harsh and rude features, but they are just those of the Berbers,
whence they are different from the Arabs and Syrians. The mummies which
are brought to Europe belong to the higher castes, descended for the most
part from Ethiopians—a race which has now disappeared: the great mass of
the nation consisted of natives. The settlement of the Egyptian warriors
(μάχιμοι) in the south of Meroe, of which Herodotus speaks, is nothing
else but another instance of the confusion of the two poles in legends
about migrations; arising from the fact that a tribe was found in those
southern parts resembling the one ruling in Lower Egypt. The story, as it
is related, is only ridiculous. This also accounts for the institution of
castes, for wherever they exist they originate in conquest.

Upper and Lower Egypt differ most widely from each other: the former
is a narrow and deep valley, which is but rarely overflowed by the
river; Middle Egypt is more frequently exposed to inundations; and Lower
Egypt, in antiquity, was put under water by every rising of the Nile;
at present it is only the districts between the arms of the river and
the neighbourhood of Damietta that are overflowed. This is accounted
for by the circumstance that after every inundation the river leaves
behind a stratum of mud, whereby the country is constantly raised: on
the bank the different years may be traced by very thin strata, a fact
which has been unjustly denied. In ancient times, the arms of the Nile
were large rivers, while at present ships of some size cannot sail
into any of the mouths of the river, because the bed has been so much
elevated. But the surrounding country has been raised much more; for in
the time of Herodotus all the towns were situated on hills rising above
the ground which was usually inundated; but this is not the case now,
the lower parts having been filled up, and the extensive marshes in the
Delta having, for the most part, become arable land, while the ancient
lakes are changed into marshes. Upper Egypt must have been irrigated
by artificially raising the water. There is, moreover, this remarkable
change in the climate of Egypt, that, while in Herodotus’ time it never
rained in Upper Egypt, at present there are occasional showers, though
never without violent thunderstorms.

THEBES was the ancient capital of Upper Egypt; but it had fallen from
its greatness even before the Persian conquest, for Psammetichus, for
the sake of commerce, had transferred the capital to Lower Egypt, and
he was strong through the support of foreigners. From that time, Thebes
was always in opposition to the rulers; it was eclipsed by Memphis,
and afterwards by Sais, but it still regarded itself as the repository
of ancient wisdom and as the venerable seat of religion. The city was
greatly deserted and decayed; but there is no reason for doubting its
immense magnitude; its ruins are gigantic, and its temples are as vast
as cities. Thebes received its death-blow during the unfortunate
rebellion against Ptolemy Physcon; under the Romans, too, it was
frequently the centre of insurrection.

PTOLEMAIS, the next town after Thebes down the river, was founded by the
first or second Ptolemy against the seditious disposition of the Thebans;
it was a σύστημα Ἑλληνικὸν in the proper sense of the term, with Greek
institutions, both public and private, and Greek was the language of the
place. By means of this city, the Ptolemies endeavoured to keep Upper
Egypt in subjection, while, on the other hand, they admitted colonisation
to Alexandria for similar purposes, exercising their power from above
through a number of local magistrates. In other respects, the Ptolemies
did not favour Greek colonisation as much as the Seleucidae, for they
confined it to Ptolemais and Alexandria.[82]

MEMPHIS never was comparable to Thebes in size and importance, for it
contained only very few large buildings, of which at present no traces
exist. All the buildings, such as royal palaces and the like, must have
consisted of unburnt bricks. The city was large and populous, but it
already represents a different state of things: the transfer of the
capital to this place must be regarded as the epoch in which the pyramids
were built, that is, as the age of Sesostris. Its citadel is called
λευκὸν τεῖχος (_arx alba_, _murus albus_ is a wrong translation), just
as the walls of Moscow had different colours, and as at Ecbatana the
parapets of the different circles.[83]

SAIS, a still more recent capital, was built by Psammetichus and his
successors, entirely with a view to be near the sea. In its vicinity were
the _castra praetoria_ of the Ionians and Carians, by the aid of which
those kings maintained their dominion.

ALEXANDRIA was, properly speaking, situated beyond the frontiers of
Egypt, and it was only on the consideration that water of the Nile from
the arm of Canobus flowed into lake Mareotis, that it could be said
to belong to Egypt, for it stood in reality on Libyan ground. It had
been a much frequented port even in the time of the Egyptian kings,
being protected by the island of Pharos at the entrance of it; but the
kings kept a garrison there for the purpose of preventing strangers
from landing. The place had formerly been called _Rhacotis_. Alexander
is justly praised for having perceived the advantages of the locality,
which is so well fitted to form a point of communication between Africa,
Europe, and Asia: he was not generally very fortunate in his choice of
places. Alexandria was probably destined by him to be the capital of
his empire, seeing he intended to conquer, at least, the north coast of
Africa and southern Italy, and in general all countries so far as he
was not checked by the temperate zone and his own ambition. Of the city
founded by Alexander, every trace has disappeared, and all that remains
belongs to the Roman period. The city rose with wonderful rapidity,
and three distinct bodies of citizens were formed in it. The noblest
consisted of Macedonians and Greeks, who, like Greek citizens, were
divided into phylae and demi. The intention was that it should appear
as a free city; and the Macedonians and Greeks were according to all
appearance, not kept distinct. The second part, consisting of a numerous
Jewish colony, formed a demos, enjoying civil, but no political, rights;
these Jews were not allowed to dwell in three out of the five regions
into which the city was divided. The third body, which in point of
numbers was the largest, consisted of native Egyptians, who, however,
were regarded almost as bondsmen, like the Lettonians and Esthonians
at Reval and Riga. Cleomenes, by Alexander’s command the founder of
Alexandria, was a wicked adventurer, but an able man. The city rose
greatly even under the first Ptolemy; but it afterwards continued to
increase in consequence of its extremely favourable situation. It was the
legitimate staple of commerce, which had there its necessary centre; it
was almost in the exclusive enjoyment of the trade with Egypt, Africa,
Arabia, and India. Ptolemy Physcon destroyed the greater part of the
Macedonian and Greek inhabitants. Caesar’s war was very destructive,
for the struggle was carried on in the very streets of the city; and
from that time the suburb in the island of Pharos remained deserted;
at least under Tiberius it still was so. During the empire, Alexandria
was the scene of several insurrections; the one occurring in the reign
of Diocletian was fearful, but that emperor took such bloody revenge,
that the city probably never recovered; and for a century afterwards the
whole part called Bruchion was quite uninhabited. D’Anville has made a
ground-plan of Alexandria.

The island of _Pharos_ was situated in front of the city, and between
it and the coast there were excellent places for anchoring, which
communicated with one another, but were separated by cliffs. The
Ptolemies constructed a causeway across the narrow channel by means of
draw-bridges. Thus arose the two harbours, the old and the new one, which
are at present separated by a neck of land, but are much inferior to
what they were in antiquity; they have been spoiled during a long period
of barbarous neglect, and especially by throwing ballast overboard. The
ships of the Mahommedans enter only the western port, which is the safer
one. The island of Pharos contained the celebrated light-house, one
of the improvements of an age in which the feelings and the heart had
already become greatly deteriorated, but in which the mechanical arts had
made considerable progress. Lucian, who often embellishes history, here
also furnishes a story which is as absurd as it well can be. He says that
Sostratus of Cnidus built this light-house, and that, against the will
of Ptolemy, he caused his own name to be engraved under the inscription
in praise of the king.[84] But according to Strabo, Sostratos was the
king’s minister, and acquired the special favour of his sovereign by
building the light-house at his own expense. The inscription, Σώστρατος
Δεξιφανοῦς Κνίδιος θεοῖς σωτῆρσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν πλωιζομένων is quite in the
style of the time; the θεοὶ σωτῆρες are Ptolemy and Berenice. The whole
space between the harbour and lake Mareotis was occupied by the city of
Alexandria, and in the time of Augustus a large suburb is said to have
existed at a distance of thirty stadia from the city, in the direction of
Canobus. Alexandria is a classical place in the history of nations and of
literature: it was the residence of Eratosthenes, the first geographer we
meet with in the history of the world.[85]

NAUCRATIS, below Sais in Lower Egypt, was a Greek settlement, under
the supremacy of Egypt, nearly in the same manner in which Macao is a
Portuguese town: Greeks dwelt there and had their own magistrate, or, so
to speak, their own consul. Many authors are said to have been natives
of the place; Phylarchus, e.g., is called Naucratites, but it was mere
pedantry and affectation to speak of Naucratis instead of Alexandria as
the Greek city.

The Egyptian towns generally had two names, one Egyptian and the other
Greek; the native names are preserved in Coptic fragments, and have been
made out by Champollion; a map also has been made with these names. The
modern names are formed from the Arabic.


SOME MORE GREEK COLONIES.

PHASELIS, on the coast of Lycia, was a Doric colony; but the date of its
foundation is unknown. The place deserves to be noticed as the frontier
town between Greece and the barbarians, in what is commonly called the
peace of Cimon. This peace probably never existed as a regular treaty
of peace, but there certainly was a treaty between the Greeks and the
satraps of Asia Minor, which the later Greeks, contrary to historical
truth, extended into a peace.[86]

PAMPHYLIA is a country full of large and flourishing towns, of which we
have numerous coins with a peculiar language, and an alphabet akin to
the Greek; these coins have all the beauty of Greek art, and we may well
ask, whether Greece ever had anything more beautiful. The Cilician coins,
especially those of Tarsus, are of the same kind. We do not know to what
race those people belonged; certain it is that they were not barbarians
any more than the Lycians and Lydians. In regard to intellectual culture
and political organisation, they were equal to the Greeks. Lycia had a
very happy federative constitution, quite in the spirit and according to
the principles of the Greeks.


CYPRUS.

The only Greek colonies in that eastern part of the sea occur in
Cyprus; but we are not informed by any one author at what time they
were established. The statement, that Teucer founded Salamis, refutes
itself, and all the traditions about colonies referring to the Trojan
times are worthless; they either mean generally that the colonies belong
to a very early time, or they are inventions. We cannot now determine
in what manner Salamis in Cyprus arose, and we are not in a condition
to say as to whether the island of Salamis off the coast of Attica ever
was sufficiently flourishing to send out colonies. The Greek settlements
in Cyprus were connected with very great difficulties. We see this
from the prophets, for their Chittim is no doubt Cyprus; subsequently
the name became more extended, for in the books of Maccabees it also
comprises Greece, including even Macedonia. Hence the name of _Citium_,
the Phoenician capital of the island, is nothing else but Chittim. In
the time of the prophets, the island was under the dominion of the
Phoenician cities; and we may ask, how could Greeks establish themselves
there? This question may be answered from the Old Testament and from
the fragments of Berosus in Eusebius. It can have been no other period
than that during which Nebuchadnezzar carried on his protracted wars in
Phoenicia and Syria, and destroyed ancient Tyre, in consequence of which
the Phoenicians were very much reduced. It is also possible that the
somewhat earlier expeditions of Sanherib and Assarhaddon may have been
the occasion. We know, from Berosus, that, in Olymp. 20, a Greek army
landed in Cilicia, which is a sign of a commotion among the Greeks at
that time, about which history furnishes no information. I connect these
movements with the extensive emigration of the Greeks and Carians who
entered the service of Psammetichus in Egypt. Accordingly, we may assume
that the Greek settlements in Cyprus were founded between Olymp. 20 and
40; and we cannot wonder that, one hundred and twenty years later, during
the war of Darius Hystaspis, the Greek towns of Cyprus had already become
great.

The principal places, _Salamis_ and _Amathus_, were as purely Greek as
the cities in Asia Minor; _Lapathos_ and others were smaller. In the time
of Evagoras, after the Peloponnesian war, Salamis was the ruling city of
the island, and in reality sovereign. _Soli_ is absurdly connected with
Solon.

In later times, Greeks and Phoenicians lived peaceably together in the
island. _Citium_ was the capital of the Phoenicians, and the native
place of the philosopher Zeno. We have no information about the race of
the native Cyprians; but, under the predominating influence of the two
ruling nations, they became partly Hellenised and partly Punicised.

Cyprus is justly called by the ancients one of the most blessed countries
in the world; there are but few parts of it which are unhealthy. Its rich
copper mines and its timber were of particular importance to the ancients.


PHOENICIA.

The Phoenicians extended from the frontiers of the Philistines to those
of Cilicia near Myriandros. It is an ancient tradition, that they had
immigrated into that country from a distance, and this tradition is
confirmed by its situation; it is quite clear that they cannot have
been the original natives. Of the northern towns, it is quite certain,
that they were colonies of those in the south. Would that we had their
history, which was quite authentic up to a very remote period! They were
a nation which had been pressed onward from the south towards the north.
According to a tradition in Herodotus, they had come from the Red Sea,
and according to another, from the Persian gulf. The latter of these,
which has much engaged the attention of modern historians, is of no value
at all. It would seem most probable, that they were one of those nations
that were pressed onward by the emigration of the Hycsos.




FOOTNOTES


[1] _Hist. of Rome_, vol. i. p. 130.

[2] “Not _Junia Norbana_. Laws with two qualifying adjectives always had
two authors, but our law originated with L. Junius Norbanus.” According
to a more recent view, the Norbani belonged to the Vibii, and the name
_Junia_ in our law is derived from M. Junius Silanus, who was consul in
A.D. 19.—ED.

[3] _Hist. of Rome_, vol. i. p. 81, foll.

[4] Sismondi, _Hist. des Republ. Italiennes_, i. p. 249; but he explains
the name to mean _la grande côte_; it moreover belongs to the ninth
century as a surname of Grimoald II.—ED.

[5] _Hist. of Rome_, i. p. 194, note 560.

[6] _Hist. of Rome_, vol. i. p. 389, foll.

[7] “I am of opinion that this hill did not belong to the Aventine:
I have heard this at Rome from a man, in whom I do not place much
confidence; he may perhaps have read it somewhere: there is so much
that is indifferent in books, that we often pass over that which is of
importance because we imagine it to be indifferent.”

[8] _Lect. on Rom. Hist._, vol. i. p. 60, 3d edit.

[9] Respecting this flight of steps, however, see Urlichs in the
_Beschreibung der Stadt Rom._ vol. iii. 2, p. 373, and the same author in
his _Beschreib. Roms_, p. 256.

[10] v. § 153, ed. Müller, who, however, gives his own conjecture _ad
muri speciem_ instead of the common reading _a muri parte_. The MSS. have
_a muris partem_.—ED.

[11] In one set of notes, the following passage occurs on p. 53, after
the word “necropolis,” line 17 from foot, and may perhaps be introduced
here: “There was no road between the Aventine and the river; outside the
Porta Collina, Esquilina, Caelimontana, and Carmentalis no enlargement of
the city could take place.”—ED.

[12] Compare Bunsen in the _Beschreib. der Stadt Rom_, i. p. 646, foll.

[13] Some MSS. here have a name, which seems to suggest the _Porta Pia_.
Bunsen says, “at the juncture of the street of the Porta Pia with the
street of Porta Salara” (_Beschreib. d. Stadt Rom_, i. p. 625).—ED.

[14] See the _Beschreib. der Stadt Rom_, iii. 1. p. 490.

[15] Compare above, p. 58.

[16] I have supplied this name, the MSS. containing something which is
evidently quite misunderstood.—ED.

[17] Comp. _Hist. of Rome_, vol. iii. p. 304, note 518.

[18] “I will mention only one example, to show how rich the Roman
gildings were. In the Forum of Trajan the letters of an inscription
were cut into the rock, and the letters themselves consisting of gilt
metal were sunk into the openings. This is the method according to
which the letters of inscriptions were generally put. In others the
bronze letters were nailed to the wall, traces of which are still
visible on the triumphal arch at Nismes, and French scholars have very
ingeniously attempted from these holes of the nails to make out the whole
inscription. In the Forum of Trajan a bronze letter has been found, the
gilding of which was valued at a ducat; all the rest had of course been
carried off as plunder.”

[19] See, however, the _Beschreib. d. Stadt Rom_, iii. 1. p. 22, foll.

[20] In one MS. the words “the Curia” are here added; is perhaps the
Curia Julia meant?—ED.

[21] _Fast._ i. 707; some MSS. have Dionysius.—ED.

[22] _Calig._ 22. I owe this reference to the kindness of Professor
Urlichs, who further observes: “Niebuhr was thinking of this passage, and
combines two facts contained in it, for Suetonius does not expressly say,
that the arch built by Caligula passed over the temple of Castor.”—ED.

[23] Bunsen in the _Beschreib. der Stadt Rom_, Pref. xl., iii. 2. p.
33.—ED.

[24] Compare Bunsen, _l. c._ Pref. p. xxiix.—ED.

[25] More accurately in 1257; comp. _Beschreib. d. Stadt. Rom_, i. p.
247.—ED.

[26] The so-called _Basis Capitolina_, Gruter, _Inscript._ CCL.,
reprinted in Becker’s _Handbuch d. Röm. Alterthümer_, vol. i. p. 717;
compare Bunsen in the _Beschreib. d. Stadt Rom_, vol. i. p. 174.—ED.

[27] Livy, i. 35.

[28] “We still want a political history of Rome, which would show that a
very great deal that is praiseworthy is to be said of many a pope.”

[29] Epist. xiii. 1.

[30] Muratori, _Antiq. Ital. med. aevi_, i., p. 101; the passage here
quoted occurs in p. 108; Pertz, _Monum. Germ. Legum_, ii., p. 187, who
assigns this _Ordo Coronationis_ to the year 1191; the book of Cencius,
_Liber censuum Romanae Ecclesiae_, was written in 1192.—ED.

[31] See _Hist. of Rome_, vol. i., p. 204.

[32] Vol. ii. p. 507, foll.; comp. _Lect. on Rom. Hist._ vol. i. p. 248,
3d edit.—ED.

[33] Comp. _Lect. on Rom. Hist._, vol. i. p. 149, 3d edit, which
passage belongs to the Lectures delivered in 1828-29. In the _Hist. of
Rome_, vol. i. p. 101, and ii. p. 82, however, the Sabine origin of the
Hernicans is considered more probable. The number forty also is connected
with this view, because the number four is Sabine. I will therefore
not suppress the fact, that most of my MSS. have _fourteen_ instead of
_forty_, which may possibly contain a different combination, though I
have been unable to divine what it can be.—ED.

[34] In the third vol. of the new edition; as for the special passages,
see the Index to it.—ED.

[35] _Aen._ vii. 744.

[36] _Aen._ x. 708.

[37] Virgil, _Aen._ vii. 206.

[38] _Hist. of Rome_, vol. ii. p. 93, notes 194 and 195.—ED.

[39] Our authorities state 20,000; but Niebuhr seems to mean families,
as only fathers of three children were admitted. Cicero, however, thinks
that the _ager Campanus_ was not sufficient for more than 5000 persons.
The most important passages relating to this subject are collected in
Orelli, _Index Leg._ s.v., _Lex Julia Agraria_ p. 188.—ED.

[40] This is a mistake, or else an error in the MSS., for Nesis is
mentioned by Cicero, _ad Att._ xvi. 1, 1; 3, 6; 4, 1; and by Seneca _Ep._
53.—ED.

[41] “It is a great mistake to believe that a period must be better
known the nearer it is to us. This is not the case in antiquity. There
can be no doubt that, e.g., we know the internal condition of Rome in
the time of Cicero much better than during the second century after
Christ, when we know nothing but what can be gathered from Pliny’s
letters. A merely mechanical mind imagines that a period about which
nothing is written, had nothing worth knowing; but whoever has an eye
for the remains of antiquity, sees distinctly what has existed. Thus,
for example, the _monte testaccio_, _mons testaceus_ or _testarius_ at
Rome is not mentioned anywhere until we come to the documents of the
seventh and eighth centuries, and the most ridiculous pains have been
taken to discover it at an earlier period. It is not mentioned in the
Regionaria, hence, it is said, it must have arisen afterwards, about the
period of the eighth century, when Rome was a desert. The matter can be
explained very simply. Every one who has practised eyes, knows what is to
be recognised in those thousands of shells; but there are antiquaries who
can see nothing at all except what they read in books. The ancients made
very little use of wooden vessels, they nearly always used pottery ware.
This produced an enormous quantity of shells. It was thought inexpedient
to throw them into the river, and there must have been some police
regulation, that all shells should be thrown on one heap. I was on the
spot when a wall was dug out, and it was found that the heaps of shells
extended up to the very walls of the city. I caused the digging to be
continued farther, and found shells everywhere. It must have been a marsh
which was filled with shells to a depth of five feet. Under Honorius a
wall was built to defend Rome against the barbarians; it has a double
inscription, in one of which we read _egestis immensis ruderibus_. Under
Augustus a regular police was instituted, and all shells were regularly
thrown there. Now, imagine Rome with nearly a million of inhabitants;
assuredly many carts were employed every day in carrying away the broken
vessels, which were all thrown on one spot, and may have already filled
the whole place. When Aurelian built his wall, a portion was perhaps
thrown back, and this may have been the beginning of the hill. According
to Andr. Fulvius, the wall of the city under pope Clement VII., at the
commencement of the sixteenth century, was so much covered on both sides,
that it was impossible to walk there: a road was then made, and part of
the rubbish was carried to the Forum, which was filled with it. Such you
must imagine the _rudera immensa egesta_ to have been. About the time
of Honorius the wall had been cleared, not to have a hill outside, on
which the Goths might have planted their engines to harass the city. He
removed the rubbish on both sides, and thus raised an immense mound of
shells. This explanation is as certain as if it were described in ancient
authors, though not a single author speaks of it. Such also is the case
with other phenomena which present themselves at Rome, and about which
not one passage can be referred to.”

[42] Niebuhr was probably thinking of _Dial._ iv. 55, though Puteoli is
not mentioned there, but Taurania, a place assumed to have existed in
Campania.—ED.

[43] Comp. Seneca, _Epist._ 57.—ED.

[44] Comp. _Lect. on Rom. Hist._ vol. i. p. 348, foll., 3d edit.—ED.

[45] “I know that Greek inscriptions have also been discovered at
Ravenna.”

[46] “I have adopted the ancient practice of calling the whole nation
Sabellians, and the original tribe Sabines, because there is no instance
of the Samnites, Marsians, etc., having been called Sabines, but only
Sabellians.”

[47] Compare _Hist. of Rome_, vol. i. p. 64, foll.

[48] This is the date in the MSS., but it ought probably to be 1720.—ED.

[49] This alludes to the war between the Greeks and Turks in 1828.—ED.

[50] Il buon Braccio; _Hist. of Rome_, vol. iii. p. 415, note 713.

[51] “I mean the ancient one, whose scholia have now been discovered;
for there also is another scholiast belonging to the middle ages, who is
imperfect and bad, and belongs to the period of decay. The ancient one
lived at the best period of Latin grammarians.”

[52] vii. 29 ed. Müller.

[53] “Pronounce _Arpīnum_, but _Arimĭnum_; I say this, because I have
heard many otherwise good scholars say _Arimīnum_.”

[54] Comp. _Lect. on Rom. Hist._ vol. iii. p. 138.

[55] “Do not allow yourselves to be misguided by my occasionally
departing from the regular division, for I follow the historical
connection subsisting between the towns.”

[56] There is probably some mistake here; for what was said on that
occasion is, that Greece ought not to be deprived of one of its eyes.
It was Gelon, who, using a similar metaphor, spoke of “the spring being
taken out of Greece,” when he was invited to take part in the war against
the Persians (Herod. vii. 162).—ED.

[57] ix. 37.

[58] Comp. _Hist. of Rome_, vol. i. p. 34, note 89.

[59] The words in inverted commas have been supplied by me; comp. Ascon.
_Comm. in Pison._, p. 3, ed. Orelli.—ED.

[60] These two dates occur in some MSS., but can scarcely be correct; the
earlier eruption mentioned by Thucydides belongs to Olymp. 75, 2; and
it seems impossible to ascertain the date of the first. Comp. Ullrich,
_Beiträge zur Erklär. des Thukydides_, p. 92, foll.—ED.

[61] “The _Siculi_ were the natives, and the _Siceliots_ the Greeks who
had settled in the island. Similarly the Romans sometimes distinguished
between _Siculi_ and _Sicilienses_, but not by far as consistently as the
Greeks, for no Greek ever confounded the two.”

[62] According to Berghaus, _Länder- und Völkerkunde_, iii. p. 404, it is
found also in Corsica, Greece, and the Greek Archipelago.—ED.

[63] The more correct view is given by Berghaus, _l. c._ p. 460.—ED.

[64] ii. 85: _si ob gravitatem coeli interissent_.

[65] This name is only a conjecture of mine; one MS. has _Colero_.—ED.

[66] More correctly in 634, M. Porcio Catone, Q. Marcio Rege Coss. See
_Vell. Pat._ i. 15.—ED.

[67] “Geography is a pleasant and easy study: the vivid representations
it furnishes us of localities, often enable us clearly to understand an
historical event; we often see, e.g., why a victory was not followed up,
or how it might have been followed up. I do not like to set myself up
as a pattern, but when I was a young man of your age, or even younger
(I was scarcely seventeen years old), I read Strabo with the greatest
attention. Whenever I had read a book, I endeavoured to reproduce it by
writing down an abstract of it. It is not advisable to rely on books; and
I therefore endeavoured to produce the substance in another form. Those
who go through Strabo in this manner, even in their leisure hours, cannot
fail to acquire a thorough knowledge of geography. Let those who have
any taste for chorography read books of travel and similar works, as for
example, Bory de St. Vincent, _Tableau de la peninsule de l’Ibérie_, or
Alex. Laborde, _Tableau de l’Espagne_, which are especially valuable in
assisting us to understand Livy’s account of the Spanish war. Strabo’s
description of Spain is particularly excellent, but he is too often
carried away by his learning and his desire to explain the Homeric poems;
by reading his description you acquire an indelible and correct picture
of Spain. A scholar must read the ancient authors systematically and
repeatedly, sometimes with one particular object in view, and sometimes
with another.”

[68] In Aristotle, _Probl._ xvii. 3: τοὺς ἀνθρώπους φησὶν Ἀλκμαίων διὰ
τοῦτο ἀπόλλυσθαι, ὅτι οὐ δύνανται ἀρχὴν τῷ τέλει προσάψαι.

[69] See above, p. 33.

[70] Comp. _Kleine Schrift._ vol. i. p. 384.

[71] See, however, _Hist. of Rome_, vol. ii. p. 527.

[72] p. 2031, ed. Putsch.

[73] The restoration of the text here is uncertain, for towards the end
of these Lectures the number of MSS. becomes smaller and smaller, and
some of the best do not contain the last Lectures at all.—ED.

[74] “The _Cimmerians_ on the Euxine cannot be connected with these
occurrences, for they belong to a period about two centuries earlier than
that at which the Cymri can possibly have arrived in those parts.”

[75] _Kleine Schrift._, vol. i. p. 352, foll.

[76] According to some of the Fathers, he threw himself into the Euripus,
because he had been unable to discover the law by which the currents of
the sea were regulated.—ED.

[77] One MS. here has the addition “As Constantinople is by the wall S.
Floriano.” Should it not be S. Romano?—ED.

[78] Should be thirty-eight; see _Hist. of Rome_, vol. i. p. 271.

[79] _Kleine Schrift._, vol. i. p. 209, note.

[80] Justin, xx. 5.

[81] Comp. _Lect. on Anc. Hist._ vol. i. p. 46, foll.

[82] Comp. _Lect. on Anc. Hist._ vol. iii. p. 298, note 3.

[83] Herod. i. 98.

[84] Lucian, _Quom. Hist. Conscrib. sit. 62_. “Lucian’s story about
Herodotus is equally devoid of historical foundation.”

[85] It is certain that in the time of the Roman emperors, the
Alexandrians pronounced Alexándreia, and they probably did so even under
the Ptolemies; the Alexandrian dialect is in fact the root of the modern
Greek.

[86] Comp. _Lect. on Ancient Hist._, vol. ii. p. 9.




INDEX.


    Abantes, 176

    Abdera, 212, 233

    Abella, ii. 127

    Aborigines, ii. 35, 147

    Abruzzi, ii. 11

    Abydos, 218, 235

    Academia, 99

    Acanthus, 231

    Acarnanes, 125, 252

    Acarnania, 142, 147 foll., 265

    Acciajuoli, 107

    Acerrae, ii. 127, 132

    Achaei, 26, 150, 154

    Achaean towns in Magna Graecia, ii. 189

    Achaia, 28, 30, 33, 34, 37, 79 foll., 151

    Achaia Phthiotis, 162, 164

    Acharnae, 92, 110

    Achelous, 144, 256

    Acheron, 257

    Acheruntia, ii. 159

    Acherusian Lake, 256

    Achradina, ii. 258

    Achrida, 309

    Acqua di Trevi, ii. 88

    Acra, ii. 264

    Acragas, ii. 261

    Acridophagi, ii. 340

    Acroceraunia, 255

    Acrocorinthus, 45, 46

    Actaea tellus, 42

    Acte, 35, 42, 85

    Actium, 152

    Acusilaus, 11

    Adjectives in _ius_ and _ianus_, ii. 84

    Ad Martis, ii. 55

    Aeas, see Aous.

    Aedui, ii. 312, 317

    Aegae, 80 _n._

    Aegeae (in Macedonia), 278 foll., 290

    Aegean sea, 182

    Aegialea, Aegialos, 34, 36, 82

    Aegina, 33, 45, 54, 64, 180, 183, 196;
      temple of Zeus Hellenios and its sculptures, 55

    Aegion, 80, 82

    Aegira, 80

    Aegirussa, 87

    Aegyptus, 21; ii. 3

    Aegyptus (the Nile), ii. 3

    Aelian, 158

    Aemilia, ii. 28

    Aemonia or Haemonia, 132, 159, 160

    Aenaria, ii. 135

    Aenea, 252, 289

    Aenianes, 142, 155, 172, 252

    Aenos, 233

    Aeolis, 145, 160, 206, 215 foll.

    Aepy, 69

    Aepys, 58

    Aequani, ii. 123, 254

    Aequi, ii. 4, 23, 119, 120

    Aequi Falisci, ii. 229

    Aequiculi, ii. 123, 254

    Aequicus, ii. 254

    Aequuli, ii. 123, 254

    Aeschines, 19

    Aeschylus, 119; ii. 8

    Aesernia, ii. 164

    Aethalia, ii. 220

    Aethiopia, ii. 340

    Aetna, ii. 256

    Aetoli, 42, 77, 125, 137, 252, 254

    Aetolia, 126, 136 foll., 252

    Aetolian mountains, 157

    Afri, ii. 334

    Africa, ii. 327

    Africanus, Julius, 51

    Agamemnon’s kingdom, 33

    Agatha, ii. 313

    Agatharchides, ii. 340

    Agathocles, 88; ii. 261, 266

    Agger, the, of Servius Tullius, ii. 43, 48

    Agiadae, 56

    Agis, 58 _n._, 4

    S. Agnolo, in Pescivendolo, 238 _n._ 2

    Agora at Athens, 98;
      in Piraeeus, 102

    Agraei, 147, 270

    Agrianes, 296

    Agrigentum, ii. 255, 262

    Agrimensores, ii. 229

    Agrippa, ii. 57, 95

    Agrippina, ii. 103

    Agylla, 160; ii. 223

    Agyrion, ii. 270, 272

    Aix, ii. 315

    Alabaster, ii. 220

    Alalia, ii. 278

    Alaric, 50

    Alemanni, 306; ii. 57, 251

    Alba, 115, 126

    Alba Longa, ii. 107

    Alba in Picenum, ii. 28

    Alban hills, ii. 12

    Albanese, 301; ii. 178

    Albanus Lacus, ii. 12, 51

    Albanus mons, ii. 38

    Alberti, Battista, 7

    Alcaeus, 56, 219

    Alcmaeon, 148

    Alcmaeon, the Pythagorean, ii. 296

    Aleria, ii. 278

    Aleuadae, 164

    Alexander, son of Craterus, 49

    Alexander, son of Philip, 198, 264

    Alexander Aetolus, 144

    Alexander Severus, ii. 57

    Alexandria, 223, 233, 264; ii. 344

    Alexandrian School, 160, 223

    Alfaterna, ii. 143

    Algarvia, ii. 255

    Algidus, ii. 38, 121

    Alis, 77, 252; comp. Elis.

    Allifae, ii. 164

    Allobroges, ii. 315

    Alopeconnesus, 234, 235

    Alpes, 284

    Alpes Maritimae, ii. 11, 17

    Alpes Cottiae, Graiae, Juliae Nepontiae, ii. 18;
      Noricae Penninae, Raeticae, ii. 18

    Alpes Apenninae, ii. 28

    Alpes, a region of Italy, ii. 29

    Alpis Cottia, Alpes Cottiae, region of Italy, ii. 29

    Alpes Penninae, region of Italy, ii. 28

    Alphabets, 302

    Alpheus, 30

    Alsium, ii. 223

    Aluntium, ii. 270

    Alyzia, 151, 152

    Amalfi, ii. 167

    Amantia, 306

    Amasea, 20

    Amastris, 250, 251

    Amathus, ii. 349

    Amazirgh, ii. 334

    Ambracia, see Ampracia.

    Amisus, 248, 249

    Amiternum, ii. 149, 150

    Ammianus Marcellinus, ii. 281

    Amorgos, 190

    Amphictyones, 129 foll., 252

    Amphilochii, 147, 259, 263, 265, 269, 280

    Amphipolis, 232, 286, 294

    Amphipolis in Syria, 291

    Amphissa, 124

    Amphitheatrum, ii. 91

    Amphitheatrum Castrense, ii. 93

    Amphitheatrum Flavium, ii. 91

    Amphitheatrum Statilii Tauri, ii. 91, 100

    Amphitheatrum vivarium, ii. 93

    Ampracia, 47, 138, 149, 263, 265, 270, 280, 307

    Ampracian Gulf, 151

    Ampurias, ii. 294

    Amurath, 50

    Amyclae, 58, 61

    Anagnia, ii. 116

    Anacreon, 211

    Anactorion, 149, 152, 252

    Anaphe, 190

    Anas, ii. 283

    Anauros, 160, 169

    Anaxagoras, 212

    Anaximander, 208

    Anaximenes, 208

    Ancon, 152; comp. Ancona.

    Ancona, ii. 152

    Andalusia, ii. 255

    Andania, 69

    Andros, 184, 187

    S. Angelo, 63; comp. Malea.

    S. Angelo in Pescaria, 238 _n._ 2

    S. Angelo, castle of, ii. 101

    Angli, 135

    Anio, ii. 21

    Anthedon, 117, 122

    Anthemus, 289

    Antibes, ii. 314

    Anticyra, 133

    Antigonea, 268

    Antigonea, 73; comp. Mantinea.

    Antigonids, 283

    Antigonus Gonatas, 49

    Antigonus Carystius, 307

    Antioch, 234

    Antiochus of Syracuse, ii. 188, 255

    Antiparos, 186

    Antipater, 292

    Antipater’s poem on Corinth, 50

    Antipolis, ii. 314

    Antium, ii. 122

    Antoninus, emperor, ii. 57

    d’Anville, 9, 10, 18, 45 _n._, 168, 227, 257, 289; ii. 58, 127,
        158, 340

    Anxur, see Terracina.

    Aones, 113

    Aous, 307

    Ἀπειρῶται, 252

    Apelles, 210

    Apennini montes, ii. 11, 18

    Apia, 27

    Apidanos, 160

    Ἀπόκλητοι, 140

    Apollo, temple of, at Gryneon, 216

    Apollonia in Africa, ii. 330

    Apollonia on the Aous, 273, 307; ii. 189

    Apollonia in Thrace, 226

    Apollonius Rhodius, 168, 175, 201, 271 _n._, ii. 328

    Apollonius, tyrant of Cassandrea, 88

    Appian, 304; ii. 30, 292, 336

    Apricots, 252

    Apuleius, 172; ii. 338

    Apuli Daunii, ii. 170

    Apuli Lucani, ii. 170

    Apuli Teani, ii. 170

    Apulia et Calabria, ii. 28

    Apulia, 252; ii. 4, 5, 7, 12, 26, 154, 159, 168

    Apulus, ii. 168

    Aqua Appia, ii. 87

    Aqua Claudia, ii. 88

    Aqua crabra, ii. 50

    Aqua damnata, ii. 50

    Aqua Marcia, ii. 88

    Aqua Virgo, ii. 88

    Aquae Sextiae, ii. 315

    Aquileia, ii. 248

    Aquinum, ii. 127

    Aquitani, ii. 313, 317

    Aquitania, ii. 313

    Arabic language, ii. 205, 206

    Arachthos, 256, 307

    Arae Philaenorum, ii. 330

    Aragonese language, ii. 299

    Araethyrea, 53; comp. Phlius.

    Arar, ii. 316

    Aratores, ii. 272

    Aratus, 49, 53

    Arausio, ii. 315

    Arcades, 71, 75

    Arcadia, 29, 30, 31, 33, 69, 70 foll.

    Archaeanactidae, 246

    Archelaus, 293

    Archilochus, 183, 186

    Archytas, ii. 186

    Arctinus, 208

    Ardea, ii. 109

    Ardyaei, 300, 306, 311

    Arelas, Arelate, ii. 315

    Aremorica, ii. 318

    Arena, ii. 46, 92

    Areopagus, 96

    Aretinus, 261 _n._ 2

    Areus, Areas, 262 _n._

    Arevaci, ii. 299

    Ἀργεῖοι, 26

    Argentum Oscense, ii. 295

    Argolis, 29, 34, 37

    Argos, 25, 30, 34, 36, 37 foll., 39, 161

    Argos Amphilochicum, 166, 263, 266, 270, 307

    Ἄργος Ἵππιον, see Arpi.

    Argos in Orestis, 166, 269

    Argos in Thessaly, 278

    Argyripa, see Arpi.

    Argyrocastro, 268

    Aricia, ii. 115

    Arimaspae, 208

    Ariminum, ii. 26, 164 _n._, 241

    Arion, 220

    Arisba, 218

    Aristides, Aelius, 20, 293 _n._

    Aristodemus, 56

    Aristodemus, tyrant of Elis, 88

    Aristophanes, ii. 8

    Aristoteles, 16, 23, 54, 78, 223, 255, 307; ii. 200, 296 _n._, 331

    Aristoxenus, ii. 205

    Arles, ii. 315

    Armorica, ii. 25

    Arnauts, 301

    Arndt, E. M., ii. 10

    Arne, 113, 160

    Arno, ii. 21, 215

    Arpi, ii. 170, 172

    Arpinum, ii. 119, 124, 159

    Arretium, ii. 163, 213, 227

    Arretium, vases of, ii. 134

    Arretium, vetus, fidens, Julium, ii. 227

    Arrian, 118

    Arsinoe, ii. 329

    Artemidorus, ii. 283

    Artyni, 43

    Aruaci, ii. 299

    Arverni, ii. 312, 316

    Arx, ii. 48, 67

    Asbestus, ii. 44

    Asclepiadae, 204

    Asculum, ii. 151

    Asia, 22

    Asine, 67, 69

    Asinia gens, ii. 157

    Asopus, 116

    Aspetus, 261

    Asphalt, springs of, 305

    Aspropotamo, 145; comp. Achelous.

    Assisium, ii. 233

    Assos, 218

    Astacos, 241

    Asteria, 184

    Astorga, ii. 302

    Astures, ii. 301

    Asturica, ii. 302

    Ἄστυ, 93

    Astypalaea, 195

    Asylum, ii. 66

    Atarneus, 223

    Atella, ii. 127, 132

    Athamania, 280 _n._ 2

    Athenae, 55, 89, 93 foll.;
      the city of Hadrian, 96, 99;
      acropolis of, 97;
      buildings, 100, 106;
      population, 107;
      allied with Aetolia, 143

    Ἀθηνᾶ Πολιάς, temple of, 97

    Athenaeus, 20, 54, 108; ii. 85, 205

    Ἀθηναῖοι Βοιωτοί, 112

    Ἀθηναῖος, 91

    Athenians, 98; ii. 194

    Athesis, ii. 246

    Athos, 226, 229, 280

    Atintanes, 269, 311

    Atreids, 33

    Atrium, ii. 77

    Atrium Libertatis, ii. 77

    Atrium Vestae, ii. 77

    Attica, 84, 90 foll.

    Atticus, T. Pomponius, 267, 272

    Ἀττικός, Ἀττική, 91

    Attius, 181

    Audyeelah, ii. 335

    Aufidus, ii. 22, 171

    Augila, ii. 335

    Augusta Taurinorum, ii. 252

    Augusta Trevirorum, ii. 319

    S. Augustin, ii. 87

    Augustodunum, ii. 317

    Augustus, 308; ii. 9, 44, 94, 96, 103, 137 _n._, 227, 295, 296

    Aula Domitiani, ii. 97

    Aulaea, ii. 97

    Aurelia, ii. 28

    Aurelianus, ii. 58

    M. Aurelius, emperor, ii. 140

    Aurunci, ii. 6, 123

    Ausonia, ii. 6, 123

    Ausonius, ii. 242, 303

    Αὐταγγελτοί, 130

    Autariatae, 309

    Aventinus, ii. 39, 41, 49, 100

    Avernus Lacus, ii. 139

    Avignon, ii. 315

    Avineo, ii. 315

    Avitus, ii. 311

    Axius, 224, 282, 286

    Azan, 71

    Azanes, 71


    Bacanae, lake, ii. 214

    Bacchus, worship of, 233, 289

    Bacchylides, 187

    Badajoz, ii. 296

    Baetica, ii. 282

    Baetis, ii. 281, 283

    Baiae, ii. 94, 138

    Balari, ii. 274

    Balnea, balneae, ii. 94

    Βάλτος, 145, 256

    Barbarians, 26; ii. 8

    Barbaricini, ii. 276

    Barbié du Bocage, 10, 95, 97, 118, 257, 289

    Barca, ii. 329

    Barcelona, ii. 293

    Barcino, ii. 293

    Bardylis, 300

    Bari, ii. 175

    Barium, ii. 175

    Basilicata, ii. 182

    Basilica of Antoninus, ii. 57, 84

    Basilica Julia, s. L. et C. Caesarum, ii. 80

    Basilica Opimia, ii. 80

    Basilica Paulli, ii. 80

    Basilica Porcia, ii. 80

    Basilicae, ii. 79

    S. Basilius, 106

    Basque, ii. 302

    Basque language, ii. 254, 285

    Basra, ii. 198

    Basse-Bretagne, ii. 25, 318

    Bastarnae, ii. 325

    Bastuli, ii. 288

    Beaujour, Felix de, 293

    Beef, 31

    Beia, ii. 296

    Belemina, 62

    Belgae, ii. 306, 319

    Belgium, ii. 10, 304

    Belisarius, ii. 44

    Βῆμα at Athens, ii. 74

    Benacus, ii. 27

    Beneventum, ii. 26, 142, 164

    Bentley, Richard, 253; ii. 196

    Berenice in Epirus, 268;
      in Cyrenaica, ii. 329

    Bergamum, ii. 244

    Berne, ii. 245

    St. Bernard, mount, ii. 17

    Beroea, 291

    Berones, ii. 299

    Berosus, ii. 349

    Beterrae, ii. 313

    Beziers, ii. 313

    Bianchini, ii. 96

    Bias, 209

    Bituriges, ii. 303

    Boccaccio, 107

    Bochart, 22; ii. 268, 279

    Boebeis, lake, 155, 160

    Boeotarchs, 115

    Boeotians, 113 foll., 123, 160

    Boëthius, ii. 28

    Boii, ii. 235, 236, 323

    Boion, 134

    Boissard, ii. 53, 105

    Bolgs, ii. 306

    Bomii, 138

    Βωμὸς Ἐλέους, Αἰδοῦς at Athens, 98

    Βωμὸς of Fama and Ὁρμή, 99

    Bonaparte, Lucien, ii. 110

    Bononia, ii. 234, 238

    Boreas, 17

    Borghese, Prince, ii. 114

    Borgo, ii. 44, 46, 103

    Bory de St. Vincent, ii. 294 _n._

    Borysthenis, Borysthenopolis, 243

    Bosporus, 182, 236

    Bosporus, kingdom of, 245

    Bottiaci, Bottiacis, 225, 288

    Bottii, 226, 277

    Botzen, ii. 10

    Boundaries, natural, ii. 273

    Bovianum, ii. 162, 163

    Βουλευτήριον at Athens, 98

    Βουλή, 130

    Bozra, ii. 337

    Brancaleone, ii. 83

    Brenin, ii. 306

    Brennus, 134

    Brescia, 170

    Breuni, 299

    —_bria_, Thracian suffix for Town, 237

    Brienne, 107

    Brilessus, 92

    Britain, 20; ii. 320

    Britany, see Basse Bretagne.

    Britons, ii. 207, 281

    Brittia, ii. 28

    Brixia, ii. 234, 244

    Brocchi, ii. 39, 50

    Bröndstedt, 187

    Bronzes, ii. 173

    Brundusium, ii. 177, 179

    Bruttii, ii. 28

    Bruttium, ii. 26, 144, 183

    Bryseae, 59

    Buffaloes, ii. 233

    Bullii, Bulliones, 301, 306

    Bulwark of Pope Paul III., ii. 60

    Bura, 29, 80

    Burdigala, ii. 303, 318

    Burgus, see Borgo.

    Burial places of the poor at Rome, ii. 46

    Buschetti, ii. 218

    Bushmen, ii. 340

    Bustum of the Caesars, ii. 103

    Butadae, 86

    Buthroton, Buthrotos, 259, 267, 271 foll.

    Buxentum, ii. 204

    Βύρσα, ii. 337

    Byzacene, Byzacitis, Byzacium, ii. 332, 338, 339

    Byzantium, 237

    Byzantius, Byzantinus, 238


    Cabral, ii. 112

    Caelius, hill, ii. 41, 100

    Caelius Antipater, ii. 293

    Caere, ii. 213, 223

    Caesar, C. Julius, 11, 50, 51, 306; ii. 241, 303, 306, 313

    Caesaraugusta, ii. 295

    Calabri, ii. 177

    Calabria (Terra di Lecce), 255; ii. 26, 177

    Calauria, 44

    Cales, ii. 128

    Caligula, ii. 96, 136

    Callaici, ii. 301

    Callimachus, 144, 202, 269, 271 _n._

    Callipolis on the Hellespont, 236

    Callipolis in Magna Graecia, ii. 185

    Calor, ii. 161

    Calvinists, ii. 154

    Calydon, 136, 145

    Camalodunum, ii. 322

    Camarina, ii. 255

    Cambunii montes, 157

    Cameos, ii. 199

    Camerinum, ii. 233

    Camiros, 196

    Campagna di Roma, ii. 27

    Campagna di Lavoro, ii. 28

    Campania, ii. 5, 26, 28

    Campania Aurelia, ii. 28

    Campania Romana (Romae), ii. 27

    Campania suburbicaria, ii. 28

    Campanian vases, ii. 133

    Campi, ii. 128, 130

    Campi Catalaunici, ii. 128

    Campo Santo, ii. 218

    Campo Vaccino, ii. 73

    Campus Caelimontanus, ii. 100

    Campus Esquilinus, ii. 100

    Campus Martius, ii. 49, 55, 56, 95, 100

    Καμπυλίδαι, 260

    Camuni, ii. 244

    Candauian hills, 285

    Canobus, ii. 344

    Canosa, ii. 174

    Cantabri, ii. 302

    Canusium, ii. 170, 173

    Capena, ii. 213, 225

    Capharean rocks, 178

    Capitoline temple, ii. 67

    Capitolinus, ii. 42, 65

    Capua, ii. 127, 130

    Caralis, ii. 276

    Κάρβανοι, ii. 8

    Carcer, ii. 69

    Cardamyle, 69

    Cardia, 234, 235

    Cardinals, ii. 45

    Cares, 77, 123, 184, 192, 197, 203, 205, 217

    Carinae, ii. 66, 95, 99

    Carpathos, 195

    Carpetani, Καρπήσιοι, ii. 298

    Carthaea, 141, 187

    Carthago, ii. 330, 336

    Carthago nova, ii. 288

    Carystus, 177

    Casci, Cascus, ii. 35, 123

    Casilinum, ii. 127, 129

    Casinum, ii. 159

    Casmenae, ii. 264

    Cassander, 228, 296, 297

    Cassandrea, 228, 235, 298; comp. Potidaea.

    Cassianus, ii. 311

    Cassiopea, 263, 272

    Cassiterides insulae, ii. 320

    Castalia, 129

    Castanea, 158

    Castaneae nuces, 158

    Castiglione, ii. 277, 334

    Castulonensis saltus, ii. 291

    Catacombs, 106; ii. 46

    Catalani, 107

    Catalogue, see Homer.

    Catana, 176

    Κατάπλους, ii. 136

    Cato, M. Porcius, ii. 8, 141, 230, 238

    Cattle, breeding of, ii. 233

    Catullus, ii. 245, 246

    Caucones, 26, 77

    Caudium, ii. 165

    Caudini, ii. 143, 161

    Caulon, Caulonia, ii. 189, 199

    Caunii, 201

    Καυσία, 292

    Caystrus, 210

    Celano, ii. 156.

    Celia, ii. 68

    Celia, Della, ii. 329

    Celtae, ii. 280, 281, 298, 306, 326

    Celtiberi, ii. 280, 300

    Celtici, ii. 280, 298

    Celtic language, ii. 305

    Celtoligyes, ii. 313

    Cenchreae, 45, 51

    Cencius Camerarius, ii. 97 _n._

    Cenomani, ii. 236, 238

    Census at Rome, ii. 72

    Centaurs, 159

    Centrones, ii. 50

    Centumcellae, ii. 136, 223

    Centuripa, ii. 271

    Ceos, 184, 187

    Cephaloedion, ii. 267

    Cephallenia, 142, 143, 153, 154

    Cephallenian islands, 153

    Cephisus, 92;
      the Phocian, 117

    Ceramicus, 97

    Ceras (χρυσοῦν), 237

    Ceraunian mountains, 255

    Cerigo, see Cythera.

    Cermalus, ii. 59

    Cerynea, 80

    Ceylon, ii. 274

    Chaeronea, 122

    Chalcedon, 238, 242

    Χαλκιδῆς ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης, 225, 282

    Chalcidice, 227

    Chalcidian towns, in Epithrace, 176;
      in Sicily and Italy, 176; ii. 189

    Chalcis, in Acarnania, 151, 252;
      in Euboea, 134, 176, 179, 183, 207, 273;
      in Syria, 291;
      alleged town in Thrace, 227

    Chalk, ii. 39

    Χάλκος, ii. 321

    Champagne, ii. 128, 171

    Champollion, the younger, ii. 210, 342

    Chaones; comp. Chones.

    Χειμάῤῥους, 144

    Chemi, ii. 3

    Cherson, 245

    Chersonesus, 42

    Chersonesus, town, 245

    Chersonesus Taurica, 245

    Chersonesus Thracica, 233

    Chios, 161, 205, 206, 213

    Chittim, ii. 349

    Chone, ii. 11

    Chones in Italy, 260; ii. 181

    Christian religion at Athens and Rome, 106

    Church S. Catarina de’ funari, ii. 89

    Church S. Cosma e Damiano, ii. 76

    Church S. Maria Liberatrice, ii. 78

    Church S. Maria Maggiore, ii. 59

    Church S. Salvatoris in maximis, ii. 68

    Cicero, _in Clodium et Curionem_, ii. 138, 147;
      _pro Cluentio_, ii. 46, 96;
      _pro Scauro_, ii. 273, 275;
      _pro Tullio_, 183, 195

    Cilicia, ii. 284

    Cilicians, 185

    Κιλλικύριοι, ii. 260

    Cimariotae, 260

    Cimbri, ii. 235, 312, 326

    Ciminian forest, ii. 225

    Cimmerii, 221

    Κιμώνειον τεῖχος, 97

    Cimon, peace of, ii. 348

    Cios, 241

    Cipollino, 178

    Circaeum, ii. 39

    Circus Agonalis, ii. 89, 101

    Circus of Alexander Severus, ii. 101

    Circus Flaminius, ii. 89

    Circus Maximus, ii. 52, 88

    Circus of Nero, ii. 103

    Cirrha, see Crissa.

    Cirta, ii. 339

    Cispius Mons, ii. 43

    Cithaeron, 91, 116

    Citium, ii. 349

    Civita Castellana, ii. 230

    Civita Vecchia, ii. 223; comp. Centumcellae.

    Civitas added to names of towns, ii. 112

    Civitates, ii. 312

    Classes, ii. 239

    Clay, works in, ii. 227

    Clazomenae, 206, 212

    Claudianus Mamertus, ii. 311

    Clemens of Alexandria, ii. 9

    Cleobulus of Lindos, 201

    Cleomenes, 49, 62, 66

    Cleomenes, architect of Alexandria, ii. 345

    Cleonae, 41

    Cleruchia, 181

    Clientes, 43

    Clientela, ii. 308

    Clisthenes, 86

    Clivus, ii. 48, 66

    Cloacae, ii. 47

    Clovis, 262

    Clusium, ii. 213, 227

    Cluver, Philip, 6

    Cnidus, 204

    Cnosus, Cnossus, 192, 193

    Coae vestes, 190

    Coals, 78

    Codex Theodosianus, ii. 27, 29

    Coins, ii. 3, 163, 172, 184, 193, 195, 199, 205, 210, 221, 265,
        266, 284

    Colchis, 248

    Collis, i.e. Quirinalis, ii. 62

    Collis Hortulorum, see Hortulorum.

    Cologne, ii. 295

    Colonia Agrippina, ii. 320

    Colonia Augusta Rauracorum, ii. 315

    Colonia Maritima, ii. 122

    Coloniae Civiles, ii. 315

    Colonies, Greek in Italy and Sicily, 31, 177; ii. 255;
      in Asia Minor, 205;
      in Macedonia and Thrace, 224;
      Latin, ii. 31;
      Roman, ii. 125, 205, 290

    Colonna, cape, 110; comp. Sunion.

    Colophon, 176, 206, 212

    Colophonian colony in Magna Graecia, ii. 189

    Κόλπος μέλας, 234

    Colosseum, ii. 92

    Columna Trajani, ii. 83

    Κωμηδόν, 93, 260

    Comitium, ii. 73, 80

    Commune, 150;
      C. Latium, ii. 109

    Comparative Ethnography, ii. 6

    Compsa, ii. 166

    Comum, ii. 241, 244

    Conipodes, 43

    Connubium, ii. 289

    Consentia, ii. 184

    Constantina, ii. 339

    Constantinople, 238, 241; comp. Byzantium.

    Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 245

    Constantine, emperor, 264

    Conventus Civium Romanorum, 313

    Copae, 122

    Copais, lake, 74, 114, 117

    Copts, ii. 342

    Corals, banks of, ii. 274

    Coral fishing, ii. 314

    Corax, 186

    Cordonata, ii. 65

    Cordos, see Corinth.

    Corduba, ii. 290

    Cordubenses poetae, ii. 290

    Corcyra, 47, 175, 177, 272

    Corcyra, town, 275

    Corcyra melaena, 314

    Corfinium, ii. 157

    Corfu, ii. 178

    Corinna, 118

    Corinth, 35, 36, 38, 44, 48, 50, 68, 89, 134, 151, 207

    Corinthian Gulf, 81

    Coriolanus, ii. 51

    Corn, ii. 283

    Corn trade, 243

    Corneto, ii. 222

    Corniculum, ii. 38

    Corone, 69

    Coronelli, 8

    Corphi, 274

    Corsica, ii. 203, 278

    Cortona, ii. 213, 227

    Cos, 32, 204

    Cosetani, ii. 294

    Cosenza, ii. 184

    Κόσμοι, the, of the Cretans, 194

    Cosmo, III. de Medici, ii. 215

    Cossa, Cossa Volcentium, ii. 214, 221

    Cothon, ii. 337

    Cranae, 112

    Cranai, 154

    Κρατήρ, ii. 140

    Craterus, 49

    Cremona, ii. 238, 245, 295

    Crenidas, 285

    Creophilus, 209

    Cresphontes, 57

    Κρησφύγετον, 260

    Crestonaea, 287

    Crete, 48, 141, 161, 190

    Κρητίζειν, 195

    Crissa, 45, 127

    Crissaean Gulf, 116

    Cromna, 250

    Cronium Mare, ii. 305

    Crossaea, 287, 289

    Croton, Crotona, 109, 152

    Crotona, 262 _n._

    Crumentum, ii. 184

    Crypta, ii. 139

    Ctesicles, 108

    Cumae, 176; ii. 2, 134, 151

    Cuneus, ii. 92

    Cures, ii. 147

    Curetes, 137

    Curia Hostilia, ii. 75

    Curia Julia, ii. 73, 76

    Curia Vecchia, ii. 95

    Curius Dentatus, ii. 147

    Curzola, 314

    Cyclades, 114, 183

    Cyclopes, ii. 253

    Cyclopean works, 40, 41, 60, 145, 154, 260; ii. 48, 109, 116, 156,
        219, 275

    Κύκλος, 93

    Cydon, Cydonii, 192

    Cydonia, 194

    Cyllene, 78

    Cyme Phriconis, 216

    Cymri, ii. 306, 312, 318, 321

    Cynaetha, 75

    Cynosarges, 99

    Cynurii, 41

    Cyparissia, 69, 83

    Cyprus, ii. 348

    Cyrenaica, ii. 327

    Cyrene, ii. 192, 327

    Cyrillian alphabet, 302

    Cyrillus, 302

    Κύρνος, ii. 278

    Cyrrhus in Syria, 291

    Cythera, 39, 55, 63, 114, 182

    Cythnos, 184

    Cytinium, 134

    Cytoros, 250

    Cyzicus, 160, 207, 241; ii. 123


    Dalmatia and Dalmatians, 305, 312

    Δαναοί, 25

    Dardani, 284, 304

    Dardanus, 241

    Daunia, ii. 4

    Daunii, ii. 3

    Decelea, 111

    Decius, emperor, ii. 57

    Delium, 122

    Delos, 51, 183, 184

    Delphi, 17, 126, 129, 261; ii. 223

    Delta of rivers, ii. 105

    Demetrias, 166, 167, 235

    Demetrius Phalereus, 165

    Demetrius of Pharos, 314

    Demetrius Poliorcetes, 52, 53, 167, 198

    Demi of Attica, 86, 110

    Democritus, 233

    Demosthenes, 44, 168, 197, 227, 228, 236, 246

    Dessaretae, 301, 309

    Diaconiae of the Christians at Rome, ii. 45

    Dialect, the Laconian, 136;
      Latin dialects, ii. 34

    Diana, at Ephesus, 210;
      at Rome, ii. 99

    Dicaearchia, ii. 135

    Dicaearchus, 121, 224

    Δίγλωσσοι, 227, 267; ii. 178

    Dignitaries, secular, ii. 45

    Dimalon, 301

    Diocletian, 313

    Dion Cassius, 297

    Dion Chrysostomus, 90, 242, 293

    Diodorus of Sicily, 119, 126, 310; ii. 151, 152, 197, 198, 257,
        259, 261, 263, 267, 271, 289, 336, 341

    Diomedes, his kingdom, 33, 34, 36

    Diomedes, ii. 159

    Dion, 289; ii. 260

    Dionigi, Madame, ii. 118

    Dionysius I., ii. 260

    Dionysius II., ii. 260

    Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 94; ii. 48, 109, 211, 221, 224

    Dionysius Periegeta, ii. 200

    Dionysius Thrax, 175

    Dioscuria, 248

    Dodona, 160, 173, 254

    Dodwell, 158

    Dolonces, 234

    Dolopes, 155, 172, 184 _n._, 252, 280

    Dolopian mountains, 157

    Domitian, ii. 29, 83;
      Aula Domitiani, ii. 97;
      Statua equestris, ii. 71

    Donati, ii. 67

    Doria, river, ii. 253

    Dorians, 192, 196, 203

    Doris, 134

    Dositheus magister, 175 _n._

    Drachmae and tetradrachmae of Athens, 104

    Drepana, ii. 268

    Drepane, 272

    Drino, 284, 312

    Druids, ii. 308

    Dryopes, 41;
      in Messenia, 67, 173, 184

    Dulichium, 146

    Dureau de la Malle, ii. 66

    Durius, ii. 283

    Durocortorum, Durocortoro, ii. 310, 319

    Durra, ii. 330

    Dwarf palm, ii. 255

    Dyme, 80

    Δυναστής, 219

    Dyrrachium, 308; comp. Epidamnus.


    Earth, notions of the ancients of, 15;
      earliest division of, 22;
      in a burning state, 307

    Ecetrae, ii. 122

    Echinades, 145, 148

    Edessa, 277, 291

    Edetani, ii. 291

    Edones, 288

    Egesta, ii. 269

    Egribos, 180

    Eichhorn, K. F., ii. 119

    Εἴδωλον, 97

    Einsiedeln, itinerary of, ii. 101

    Eion, 232

    Eionae, 42

    Ἐκκλησία, 130

    Elatea, 132

    Elea in Oenotria, 212; ii. 189, 204; comp. Velia.

    Eleus, 234

    Eleusis (Eleusina), 90, 92, 109

    Eleutherae, 112

    Eleutherolacones, 62

    Elimiotae, 277, 278, 282

    Elis, 30, 34, 36, 77;
      κοίλη, 59;
      town, 78

    Emathia, 277, 286

    Emerita Augusta, ii. 295

    Emporiae, ii. 294

    Empti venditi, ii. 36

    Encheleans, 299

    England, ii. 45, 187, 281

    Ἐνιῆνες, 172

    Enna, ii. 271

    Ἐννέα ὁδοί, see Amphipolis.

    Ennius, 158; ii. 77, 177

    Epaminondas, 66, 75, 118

    Epeans, 34, 77

    Ephesus, 210

    Ephorus, 32, 57, 153

    Ephyra, 44

    Epidamnus, 273, 308

    Epidaurus, 38, 42;
      temple of Aesculapius, 44

    Epidaurus Limera, 62

    Epipolae, ii. 258

    Epirus, 142, 251

    Epirotae, 125, 275

    Eratosthenes, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 81; ii. 188, 304

    Erchomenos, 122, see Orchomenos.

    Erechtheum, 97

    Eretria, 176, 177, 273, 277

    Eridanus, ii. 20

    Erineos, 134

    Erymanthus, 30

    Erythea, ii. 287

    Erythrae, 120, 206

    Eryx, ii. 257

    Esquiliae, ii. 66, 96

    Esquiline, ii. 43, 100

    Eteobutadae, 87

    Eteocretes, 191, 192

    Ἔθνος, 132

    Etruria, ii. 26, 206

    Etrusci, 48, 191; ii. 4, 10, 23, 234

    Etruscan walls, ii. 48, 219;
      columns, 77;
      language, 209;
      writing, 220

    Euboea, 175

    Euboean sea, 116

    Eudyeelah, ii. 335

    Eudoxus, 19

    Euenus, 137, 145

    Euganei, ii. 247

    Eugubinian Tables, ii. 210

    Eumenes, 235

    Eunuchs, 211

    Euripides, 119

    Euripus, 178

    Europe, 22, 23

    Eurotas, 30, 59, 60

    Eurypontids, 56

    Eurysthenes, 56

    Eurytanes, 138

    Eusebius, 51, 166; ii. 349


    Fabius Maximus, ii. 39

    Fabius Pictor, ii. 124, 170

    Fabrataria, ii. 119, 126

    Fabretti, ii. 50

    Faesulae, ii. 163, 214, 215, 228

    Falera, ii. 230

    Falernian wine, ii. 128

    Falernus ager, ii. 127, 132

    Falisci, ii. 229

    Fanum, ii. 241

    Fasti Capitolini, ii. 76, 110, 226

    Fasti of the Venetian consuls, ii. 248

    Fasti of Verrius Flaccus, ii. 111

    Fasti Triumphales, ii. 116

    Faun, the Barberini, ii. 102

    Fauriel, 258

    Fauvel, 96

    Faventia, ii. 237, 239

    Favissa, ii. 69

    Fea, ii. 60, 70

    Fellatah, ii. 340

    Felsina, ii. 234, 238

    Ferentinum, ii. 66, 116, 118

    Festus, ii. 159

    Feudalism, 37

    Ficoroni, ii. 59, 70

    Firbolgs, ii. 306

    Fire, the, of Nero, ii. 55, 96

    Firn, ii. 117

    Flaminia, ii. 28

    Flamininus, T. Quinctius, 63

    Florentia, ii. 163, 228, 237

    Florentines, ii. 16, 206

    Florus, ii. 56

    Fora, ii. 237

    Formiae, ii. 124, 139

    Fornix Fabianus, ii. 98

    Forum, meaning of, ii. 80

    Forum Augusti, ii. 47, 81

    Forum Aurelium, ii. 85

    Forum Boarium, ii. 85

    Forum Caesaris, ii. 81

    Forum Cornelii, ii. 239

    Forum Domitiani, ii. 80

    Forum Julii, ii. 315

    Forum Nervae, ii. 80, 83

    Forum Olitorium, ii. 85

    Forum Palladium, ii. 83

    Forum Popillii, ii. 239

    Forum Romanum, s. Maximum, ii. 81

    Forum Trajani, s. Ulpium, ii. 80

    Fossa Cluilia, ii. 50, 51

    Fossa Quiritium, ii. 51

    France, population of, ii. 145

    Franks, 306; ii. 5, 145

    Frascati, ii. 109

    Fratres populi Romani, ii. 317

    Fregellae, ii. 119, 124, 159

    Fregenae, ii. 223

    Fréjus, ii. 315

    Frentani, ii. 4, 24, 143, 158, 161

    Frisians, ii. 251

    Frontinus, ii. 56

    Fronto, 293 _n._; ii. 310

    Frusino, ii. 116

    Fucinus, lake, ii. 156

    Fulginium, ii. 233

    Fulvius, Andreas, ii. 67, 72, 137 _n._

    Funchal, ii. 60

    Fundi, ii. 124


    Gabii, ii. 38, 113

    Gades, ii. 287

    Gael, ii. 306, 318

    Gaetuli, ii. 333, 335

    Γαλάται, ii. 306

    Galatia, ii. 325

    Galli, ii. 306, 321

    Gallia, ii. 303

    Gallia Cisalpina, ii. 9, 232

    Gallia Cispadana, ii. 24, 236

    Gallia Lugdunensis, ii. 311

    Gallia Narbonensis, ii. 311

    Gallia Togata, see Gallia Cisalpina.

    Gallia Transpadana, ii. 24, 236, 241

    Gallipoli, ii. 185; comp. Callipolis.

    Γάμοροι, ii. 260

    Gamucci, ii. 82

    Garamantes, ii. 335

    Gardens, see Horti.

    Garganus, ii. 4, 171

    Garigliano, ii. 22

    Garve, ii. 168

    Gatterer, 276

    Gela, ii. 255, 264

    Gell, Sir William, 154

    Genauni, 299

    Geneva, ii. 125

    Genua, 43; ii. 251

    Geranean mountains, 29

    Germa, ii. 335

    Germani, ii. 306

    Germania prima, ii. 320

    Germania secunda, ii. 320

    Gesner, J. M., ii. 84

    Getae, ii. 324, 326

    Γετῶν ἐρημία, 243

    Gigantes, ii. 253

    Glagolitian alphabet, 303

    Glass, ii. 335

    Gnosus, Gnossus, see Cnosus.

    Goethe, ii. 53

    Gold mines, 91, 285, 295; ii. 283;
      in rivers, ii. 283;
      gold sand, ii. 253

    Gomphi, 156

    Gonfalina, ii. 215

    Gortyn, Gortyna, 193

    Gothofredus, Jac., ii. 29

    Goths, 106, 123, 311; ii. 11, 19, 58

    Gracchus, C., ii. 75

    Graeculi, ii. 94, 123, 141

    Γραικοί, 25

    Gras, 217

    Greece, 7, 24

    Greeks, 43, 49

    Greek language in Southern Italy and Sicily, ii. 144

    Gregory the Great, ii. 58, 94, 137, 272, 276

    Gregory of Tours, ii. 10, 317

    Gronovius, J. F., 238

    Grotta Ferrata, ii. 50

    Gryneon, 216

    Gubbio, ii. 210, 233

    Guilletière, de la, 8

    Guiscard, Robert, 50

    Gytheion, 61


    Hadria, ii. 153

    Hadrian, emperor, 73, 96, 105

    Hadrian I., pope, ii. 93

    Hadrumetum, ii. 332

    Haedui, see Aedui.

    Haemonia, 132, 159; comp. Aemonia.

    Haemus, 284

    Halesa, ii. 270

    Haliae, 42, 44;
      Ἁλιῆς, 44

    Haliacmon, 286

    Haliartus, 121

    Haliartus, lake of, 117

    Halicarnassus, 203

    Haller of Nürnberg, 187

    Halonnesus, 181

    Halys, 249

    Hamilcar Barcas, ii. 257, 289

    Hannibal, 265; ii. 19, 59, 132, 183, 199, 289

    Harpocration, 86, 163

    Hausmann, ii. 133

    Hebrus, 283

    Hecataeus of Miletus, 11, 13, 17, 23, 307

    Hecatonnesus, 215, 217

    Ἕδος, ii. 68

    Εἵλωτες, 59

    Helice, 28, 80, 81

    Helicon, 116, 128

    Hellanicus, Phoronis, 160

    Hellas, see Greece.

    Ἑλλὰς συνεχής, 24

    Ἕλληνες, Ἕλλοι, 25

    Hellenistic dialect, ii. 280

    Hellespont, 182

    Helos, 58, 59

    Helvetii, 311

    Heneti, ii. 247

    Henna, ii. 270, 271

    Hephaestia, 181

    Heraclea in Bithynia, 245

    Heraclea in Chersonesus, 245

    Heraclea in Magna Graecia, ii. 189

    Heraclea on the Liburnian coast, 312

    Heraclea ἐν Μαριανδύνοις, 250

    Heraclea in Sicily, ii. 264

    Heraclea ἡ ἐπὶ Τραχῖνι, 142, 143, 171

    Heracleia, 114

    Heracleids, 36

    Heraclitus, the philosopher, 210

    Heraea, 143

    Heraean hills, ii. 255

    Heraeon in Samos, 210

    Hercules, 114

    Hermione, Hermion, 38, 42, 43

    Hernae, ii. 117

    Hernici, ii. 38, 116

    Herodes Atticus, 50, 99, 105

    Herodotus, 13, 17, 18, 23, 47, 56, 72, 107, 120, 126, 135, 155,
        168, 172, 224, 299; ii. 211, 212, 267, 343

    Hesiod, 52, 216; ii. 36

    Hesperia, 22

    Hestiaea, 178

    Hestiaeotis, 161

    Heyne, 127; ii. 39, 196

    Hiera, 190

    Hierapytna, ii. 35

    Hierian islands, ii. 314

    Hiero II., ii. 260

    Hieronymus of Cardia, 235

    Highlanders of Scotland, ii. 306

    Hills of Rome, ii. 41

    Himera, 176; ii. 266

    Himerius, 106

    Hindoo, 156

    Hippo, ii. 332, 338

    Hippodamus of Miletus, 101

    Hipponax, 210

    Hipponium, ii. 189, 203

    Hirpini, ii. 26, 143, 151, 161, 165

    Hirpus, ii. 230

    Hirt, A., ii. 81

    Hispalis, ii. 290

    Hispalli, ii. 123, 141

    Hispania, ii. 279

    Hispania citerior, ii. 302

    Hispania Tarraconensis, ii. 293

    Hispania ulterior, ii. 302

    Hispellum, ii. 233

    Holstenius, Lucas, ii. 230

    Homer, 15, 22, 25, 32, 52, 111, 120, 148, 151, 162, 173, 176, 196,
        224;
      Hymn on Apollo, 183, 253;
      comp. Iliad, Odyssey.

    Homeridae, 213

    Honey, 92

    Honorius, ii. 58

    Horatii and Curiatii, ii. 51

    Horace, ii. 43, 165, 175, 231

    Horti, ii. 53

    Horti Aemilii, ii. 54

    Horti Sallustiani, ii. 59

    Hortulorum mons s. collis, ii. 43, 57

    Hottentots, ii. 340

    Huesca, ii. 295

    Humbert, ii. 336

    Humboldt, Wil. von, ii. 279, 283

    Hume, ii. 45, 129

    Huns, 123, 311

    Hyantes, 113

    Hycsos, ii. 342

    Hydrea, Hydra, 44, 54

    Hydruntum, ii. 179

    Hyes, 113

    Hyginus, Julius, ii. 117, 224

    Hyle, 120

    Hylice, 117

    Hylli, 269, 299, 305, 313

    Hymettus, 91

    Hypate, 172

    Hyperboreans, 17

    Hyperides, 82

    Ὑποθῆβαι, 119


    Ialysos, 196

    Janiculus, ii. 44

    Jansenists, ii. 154

    Janus dexter, sinister, ii. 61

    Iapydes, 299

    Ἰαπυγία ἀκτή, ii. 177

    Iapygian promontory, ii. 176, 199

    Iapyx, ii. 171

    Jason of Pherae, 164

    Iberia, ii. 279

    Iberians, ii. 254, 279, 312, 322

    Iberus, ii. 279, 282

    Ida, 193

    Idubeda, ii. 299

    J. Jerome, 51, 302

    Jerusalem, 17

    Jesuits, ii. 154

    Iguvinian tables, ii. 210, 233

    Jinghis Khan, 310

    Iguvium, ii. 233

    Ilerda, ii. 294

    Ilergetes, ii. 294

    Iliad, 173, 214; comp. Homer.

    Ilion, 218

    Ilisus, 92

    Illyrians, 48, 297, 311; ii. 324

    Illyrian language, 302

    Illyrian mountains, 304

    Illyricum, Ἰλλυρίς, 267, 297

    Ilva, ii. 220

    Imbros, 105, 181

    Inachus, 307

    Inferum mare, ii. 22

    Inscription of Protogenes, 244

    Inscriptions, 270 _n._; ii. 110, 221, 275, 284, 285, 334

    Insubres, ii. 236, 238

    Interamna, ii. 147

    Interamnium, ii. 126

    S. John, Evangelist, 211

    Iolcos, 167, 168,
      gulf of, 159

    Ionia, 79, 84, 161, 205

    Ionians, 84

    Ionian colonies in Magna Graecia, ii. 189

    Ios, 189

    Josephus, ii. 337

    Ireland, ii. 321

    Iron, ii. 220

    Ischia, 177

    Iscipio, ii. 279

    Isis of Elephantine, ii. 341

    Isopolity, 138, 140

    Ispahan, ii. 198

    Issa, 312

    Isthmus of Corinth, 45

    Istria, 304; ii. 249

    Itali, ii. 6, 179

    Italians, 43; ii. 37

    Italica, see Corfinium.

    Italica in Spain, ii. 302

    Italici, ii. 6

    Italiots, ii. 181

    Italus, ii. 1, 3

    Italy, 101; ii. 1, 10, 14, 23, 25, 129, 256

    Ithaca, 143, 153

    Ithome, 65, 68;
      temple of Zeus Ithomatas, 68

    Ithopya, ii. 340

    Itinerary of Einsiedlen, ii. 101

    Judges, books of, ii. 337

    Iulis, 187

    Jus Latii, ii. 32

    Jus Municipii, ii. 32

    Justin, 263, 309

    Juthungi, ii. 57

    Juturna, well of, ii. 77

    Juvenal, ii. 7, 62, 155


    Koosh, ii. 341

    Kopitar, 302


    Labeatis, lake, 312

    Laborde, Alex., ii. 294 _n._

    Labyrinth, 194

    Lacedaemon, κοίλη, 59

    Lacetani, ii. 294

    Lacini, ii. 33

    Lacinium, ii. 109

    Lacinus, ii. 34

    Laconia, 56

    Lacus Curtius, ii. 78

    Lacus Servilius, ii. 75

    Lakes, with subterraneous outlets, 29

    Lampsacus, 241

    La’ncisa, ii. 215

    Languages, affinities of, ii. 305;
      roots of, ii. 307

    Languedoc, ii. 145

    Lanuvina, 237

    Lanuvium, ii. 113

    Lanzi, ii. 209

    Laocoon, group of, ii. 96

    Laos, ii. 189, 192, 203; comp. Laus.

    Lapathos, ii. 349

    Lapithae, 159, 160

    Laplace, 46 _n._

    Larissa, arx of Argos, 40

    Larissa, in Thessaly, 161, 164, 167

    Las, 58

    Lateran, ii. 80

    Latin dialects, ii. 34

    Latin grammar, ii. 36

    Latin language, 261; ii. 25

    Λατίνη, ii. 30

    Latins, ii. 3

    Latin confederacy, ii. 31

    Latin colonies, ii. 31

    Latinitas, ii. 33

    Latinum nomen, ii. 31

    Latinus, ii. 36

    Λάτιον, ii. 30

    Latium, 115; ii. 5, 26, 30, 51, 105

    Laurentum, ii. 109, 122

    Laurion, 91

    Laus, ii. 22; comp. Laos.

    Laus Pompeii, ii. 244; comp. Lodi.

    Lavici, ii. 34

    Lavini, ii. 33

    Lavinium, ii. 33, 109, 122

    Lebadea, 122; comp. Livadia.

    Lebedos, 211

    Lechaeon, 45, 51

    Legio, ii. 297; comp. Leon.

    Leleges, 26

    Lembi, 300

    Lemnos, 105, 160, 180, 181; ii. 207

    Leo IV., ii. 58

    Leon, the Salaminian, 111

    Leon, in Spain, ii. 171, 297

    Leon, Isla de, ii. 287

    Leonessa, ii. 19

    Leontini, ii. 255, 266

    Leontion, 80

    Leopold II., ii. 215

    Leopolis, ii. 223

    Lepanto, 124 _n._; comp. Naupactus.

    Lepreon, 79

    Leptis, ii. 332

    Λεπτόγεως, 92

    Lerida, ii. 294

    Lesbos, 180, 217

    Lessing, ii. 39

    Leucaethiopes, ii. 340

    Leucas, Leucate, 47, 148, 149, 151, 152, 252

    Leuctra, 121

    Levant, ii. 334

    Lex Aelia Sentia, ii. 33

    Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, ii. 238

    Lex Julia, ii. 32

    Lex Junia Norbana, ii. 33

    Leyden, ii. 198

    Libanius, 106

    Libethrides, 288

    Libri pontificii, ii. 36

    Liburnians, 272, 299, 304; ii. 3, 246

    Liburnicae, 300 _n._

    Libyans, ii. 274

    Libye, 22

    Λιβύες, ii. 334

    Λιβυφοίνικες, ii. 274, 333

    Libyan Alphabet, ii. 284

    Licentia poetica, ii. 231

    Light-house in Pharos, ii. 346

    Ligorio, Pirro, ii. 76

    Ligures, ii. 16, 24, 217, 234, 312

    Liguria, ii. 9, 27, 249

    Lilybaeum, ii. 268

    Lime, ii. 39

    Limestone mountains, 305

    Limes, ii. 320

    Limnae, 61

    Lindos, 196

    Linen, ii. 292

    Lingones, ii. 236

    Linternum, ii. 127

    Lipsius, ii. 73

    Liris, ii. 22, 128

    Lissus, 312

    Livadia, 117; comp. Lebadea.

    Livonia, ii. 37

    Livy, 264, 281, 296; ii. 48, 173, 225, 238, 293

    Locati conducti, ii. 36

    Locri Narycii, 125; ii. 200

    Locri Epicnemidii, 123

    Locri Epizephyrii, ii. 189, 200

    Locri Opuntii, 123

    Locri Ozoli, 123, 142, 252; ii. 200

    Locrian colonies in Magna Graecia, ii. 189

    Lodi, ii. 244; comp. Laus Pompeii.

    London, ii. 47, 56, 322

    Longobardi (Lombards), ii. 5, 11, 73, 58

    S. Lorenzo, ii. 278

    De Luc, ii. 18

    Luca, ii. 216

    Lucan, 313; ii. 241, 255

    Lucani, ii. 5, 145, 170, 180

    Lucania et Brittia, ii. 28

    Lucania, ii. 26

    Luceria, ii. 159, 174

    Lucerum, ii. 41

    Lucian, ii. 136, 346

    Lucretius, ii. 246

    Lucumo, ii. 307

    Lucus Capenas, ii. 62

    Ludi Magni Romani, ii. 88

    Ludi plebeii, ii. 88

    Ludias, 286, 292

    Lugdunum, ii. 316

    Luna, ii. 216

    Lungara, ii. 58

    Lusitani, ii. 297

    Lycaeus, 30

    Lyceum at Athens, 99

    Lychnidas, 309

    Lycians, 192

    Lyctus, 192, 194

    Lycurgus, 128, 191

    Lydians, 206, 217

    Lyncestians, 277, 278, 282

    Lyons, ii. 295, 316

    Lysander, 122

    Lysimachia, 234


    Macar, 218

    Macedonia, 275

    Macellum, ii. 85

    Mac Gregor, clan of, 266

    Μάχαιρα, 301

    Machiavelli, ii. 228

    Macra, ii. 24

    Macrii, 175

    Macris, i.e. Corcyra, 175, 272

    Maeander, 206

    Maecenas, his palace, ii. 54

    Maenalii, 71

    Maenalus, 30

    Magal, ii. 337

    Magister vici, pagi, ii. 86

    Magna Graecia, ii. 188

    Magnesia in Asia, 168

    Magnesia on the Maeander, 220

    Magnesia near mount Sipylus, 221

    Magnesia in Thessaly, 165, 166

    Magnetes, 155, 164, 252, 277

    Mahomed, 107, 234

    Malacca, ii. 288

    Malea, cape, 60

    Μαλιακὸς κόλπος, 159, 171

    Malii, 155, 171, 252

    Maltese language, ii. 338

    Maluentum, ii. 142, 164

    Mamertini, ii. 8, 265

    Mamertus, see Claudian.

    Manduria, ii. 179

    Manii, 305, 313

    Mannert, 10

    Mantinea, 73;
      lake of, 39

    Mantua, ii. 24, 234, 245

    Maps of Ptolemy, 5;
      the most ancient Latin, 5;
      Greek, Arabic, 5;
      of the Greeks, 17

    Marathon, 92, 110

    Marble, 91, 177, 186; ii. 267

    Mare inferum, ii. 22

    Mare superum, ii. 22

    Mare Tuscum, ii. 22

    Mare Tyrrhenicum, ii. 22

    Maremma, ii. 214

    Mareotis, ii. 342

    Mariana, ii. 279

    S. Marino, ii. 114

    Marinus of Tyre, 21

    Marliani, Bartholom., ii. 67, 72

    Marmarica, ii. 336

    Marmor Parium, ii. 267

    Maronea, 233

    Marrana, ii. 49, 50

    Marrucini, ii. 23, 26, 142, 153

    Marruvium, ii. 156

    Marshes, Pontine, ii. 138

    Marsi, ii. 4, 24, 26, 142, 145, 153, 155

    Martial, ii. 62

    Martius, Campus; comp. Campus Martius.

    Massaesyli, ii. 334

    Massalia, 212; ii. 314

    Massic wine, ii. 128

    Massilia, 212; ii. 314; comp. Massalia.

    Massyli, ii. 334

    Mastrucae, ii. 276

    Μάσυες, ii. 334

    Matapan, cape, 30

    Matrona, ii. 318

    Μαυροί, ii. 334

    Mausoleum Augusti, ii. 101

    Mausoleum of Hadrian, ii. 101

    Μάξυες, ii. 334

    Mazirgh, ii. 334

    Mazzocchi, ii. 209

    Mecklenburg, ii. 208

    Mecone, 52; comp. Sicyon.

    Meddix Tutix, ii. 171

    Medici, Princes of, ii. 215

    Mediolanum, ii. 242; comp. Milan.

    Mediterranean Sea, tides in the, ii. 331

    Medma, ii. 189

    Megalopolis, 75, 169

    Megara, 87, 237

    Megara, suburb of Carthage, ii. 337

    Megaris, 84, 87

    Mela, Pomponius, 11

    Melanogaetuli, ii. 333, 335

    Melcarth, 182

    Meleager, 137

    Melesigenes, 214; comp. Homer.

    Meletios of Janina, 8, 122, 257

    Melii, 171

    Melite, 314

    Melos, 180, 189

    Melpum ii. 234; comp. Milan.

    Melville, general, ii. 18

    Membliarus, 190

    Memnon, 198

    Memphis, ii. 344

    Menapii, ii. 319

    Mende, 228

    Menelaus, 33, 60

    Meones, 205; ii. 207, 211

    Meonia, 168

    Merida, ii. 295

    Meroe, ii. 341

    Mesembria, 242

    Messana, ii. 255, 262; comp. Zancle.

    Messapia, ii. 177

    Messe, 59

    Messene, Messenia, 36, 64, 125;
      the town of Epaminondas, 66, 68

    Messenian wars, 65

    Metapontum, ii. 189, 193

    Metathesis, ii. 112

    Methodius, 302

    Methone in Messenia, 67, 69

    Methone in Pieria, 224, 289

    Methymna, 220

    Metrodorus of Scepsis, ii. 226

    Mexicans, ii. 208

    Mexico, 191

    Migrations of nations, 310

    Milan, ii. 241; comp. Mediolanum.

    Milanese, ii. 242

    Miletus, 206, 248

    Millot, ii. 275

    Milo, see Melos.

    Mimas, 215

    Mimnermus, 212

    Minius, ii. 283

    Minos, 190, 191

    Minturnae, ii. 132

    Minutius Felix, ii. 106

    Minyes, 74, 77, 114; ii. 190;
      Thessalian, 160

    Mirus, ii. 242

    Misitra, 61; comp. Sparta.

    Missolunghi, 145

    Mitylene, 219

    Μιξέλληνες, 226, 242, 314

    Mnaseas, ii. 180

    Modern Greek, 261 _n._;
      pronunciation, 124 _n._

    Modon, see Methone in Messenia.

    Moenia, ii. 65, 262

    Moles Hadriani, ii. 101

    Molochath, ii. 334

    Molotti, Molossi, 254, 259, 261, 268

    Molottian dogs, 258

    Molottian kings, 263

    Monembasia, 62; see Epidaurus Limera.

    Mons Albanus, ii. 38

    Mons Testaceus, ii. 137

    Monte Cavo, ii. 38; see Mons Albanus.

    Monte S. Giuliano, ii. 257; comp. Eryx.

    Monte Testaccio, ii. 137

    Monti Latini, ii. 38

    Monumentum Ancyranum, ii. 72

    Mopsopia, 85

    Morea, 27

    Morelli, ii. 70

    Morgetes, ii. 181

    Moriah, hill, ii. 48

    Morosini, 8

    Moscow, ii. 344

    Motye, ii. 267

    Mucianus, ii. 40

    Müller, Johannes, ii. 326

    Müller, C. O., 276

    Mulucha, ii. 334

    Mummies, ii. 342

    Munda, ii. 291

    Munychia, 100

    Murcia, ii. 49

    Murus Servii regis, ii. 48, 49

    Murviedro, ii. 293

    Muscles, development of, ii. 16

    Museum in Athens, 96, 99

    Musimon, ii. 273

    Mutina, ii. 234, 238

    Mycale, 209

    Mycalessus, 122

    Mycenae, 33, 35, 38, 41, 114

    Myconos, 184, 187

    Mygdonia, 277, 288, 294

    Mylae, ii. 267

    Mylitta, 182

    Myriandros, ii. 350

    Myrina, 181

    Myron, 210

    Mysi, 205

    Mytilene, see Mitylene.

    Myus, 208

    Mzirgh, ii. 334


    Nabis, 56, 63

    Naphtha, springs of, 154

    Naples, population of the kingdom, ii. 252

    Naples, city, 43, 177

    Napoli di Malvasia, 62

    Nar, ii. 21

    Narbo, Narbo Martius, Narbona, ii. 313, 315

    Nardini, ii. 67, 70, 73

    Narnia, ii. 233

    Naryx, 125; ii. 200

    Nasamones, ii. 335

    Nasos, ii. 258

    Naucratis, ii. 347

    Naumachia, ii. 103

    Naupactus, 66, 125, 142

    Nauplia, 41

    Navale, ii. 103

    Navarino, 70

    Naxos, island, 180, 184, 188

    Naxos in Sicily, 176; ii. 255, 264

    Neapolis, part of Syracuse, ii. 258

    Necropolis of Alexandria, ii. 53

    Negroponte, 180

    Nelids, 33

    Nemausus, ii. 313, 315

    Nemi lake, ii. 12, 115

    Νεώσοικοι, 101, 105

    Nepet, ii. 225

    Nequinum, ii. 233

    Neri, 107

    Nero, ii. 96;
      his golden house, ii. 97;
      his palace, 97

    Neriton, 151

    Nersae, ii. 120

    Nesis, ii. 135

    Nesti, 305, 313

    Nestor, 77

    Netherlands, ii. 145, 187

    Nestos, 281, 282, 286

    New York, ii. 192

    Nibby, ii. 44, 59

    Nicaea, ii. 314

    Nicander, 223

    Nicopolis, 152

    Nicolo Pisano, ii. 218

    Niebuhr, B. G., 303 _n._

    Niger, ii. 335

    Nigritae, ii. 335

    Nile, 19, 23; ii. 343

    Nisaea, 87

    Nisita, ii. 135

    Nismes, ii. 313, 315

    Nisyros, 195

    Nizza, ii. 314

    Nola, ii. 132

    Νομάδες, ii. 334

    Nomen Latinum, Fabium, etc., ii. 32

    Nomentum, ii. 38

    Νόμος, ὁ κοινὸς τῶν Ἑλλήνων, 131

    Nonius, ii. 159

    Nora, ii. 276

    Noraces, ii. 274

    Noricum, ii. 313

    North wind, 16

    Notion, 212

    Notitia imperii, ii. 28

    Notus, 17

    Novocomum, ii. 244

    Nuceria, ii. 143, 166

    Numantia, ii. 300

    Numbers, Greek, signs of, 163

    Numidae, ii. 334

    Numidia, ii. 334

    Nursia, ii. 120

    Nymphaeum, 307


    Obelisk, ii. 89

    Obotritae, ii. 251

    Odessus, 243

    Odyssey, 192, 253; comp. Homer.

    Odysseus, 148

    Oeneus, 137

    Oeniadae, 138, 145, 149, 150

    Oenoe, 111

    Oenotria, ii. 3, 179

    Oenotrians, ii. 180

    Oeta, 116, 128, 157

    Oetaei, 172

    Ofanto, ii. 22

    Ogygia, 184

    Olbia, 243;
      inscription of, ii. 304, 325

    Olenus, 80, 81

    Olisipo, ii. 297

    Olives, in Peloponnesus, 31;
      in Argolis, 40;
      in Corinth, 51;
      Sicyon, 52, 131 _n._;
      in Italy, ii. 15, 151, 176;
      Africa, ii. 339

    Olympia, 79

    Olympian games, 79, 128

    Olympieum, 97, 99

    Olympus, 17, 155, 157, 287

    Olynthus, 227

    Ὀμβρικοί, ii. 233

    Onean mountains, 29

    Onomarchus, 132

    Opica, ii. 6

    Opicans, ii. 4, 7, 23, 123

    Opican language, ii. 5

    Opici mures, ii. 7

    Oppius mons, ii. 43

    Opus, 125

    Oranges, ii. 315

    Orbelos, 283

    Orchomenos in Arcadia, 41, 74

    Orchomenos in Boeotia, 74, 114, 122

    Ὀρείχαλκος, ii. 321

    Oreos, 178

    Orestis, 166, 259, 265, 269, 280, 283

    Oretani, ii. 298

    Oricus, 268

    Orneae, 41

    Oropo, 113

    Oropus, 112

    Orosius, ii. 80

    Orospeda, ii. 282

    Orpheus, 287

    Orthagoras, 53

    Ortygia, comp. Delos, 184

    Ortygia in Sicily, ii. 257

    Orviedo, ii. 221

    Osca, ii. 295

    Oscan language, ii. 34, 168

    Oscense argentum, ii. 295

    Oscans, see Opici.

    Ossa, 155, 158

    Ostia, ii. 106, 136

    Othrys, 155, 156

    Otranto, ii. 179

    Ottilienberg, ii. 235

    Ovid, 242, 271

    Oxylus, 77, 137


    Pace, Roman, 46 _n._

    Padus, ii. 20

    Paeones, 286, 287, 288, 297

    Paestum, ii. 205; comp. Posidonia.

    Pagae, (Pegae), 88

    Pagasae, 165, 167

    Pagasaean gulf, 155, 165

    Pagus, ii. 86

    Painters, school of, at Sicyon, 52;
      at Bologna, ibid.

    Palace of Nero, ii. 99

    Palace of Titus, ii. 99

    Palaepolis, ii. 140

    Palatinus, ii. 41, 96

    Palazzuolo, ii. 108

    Pale, 154

    Pale-burghers, ii. 119

    Palestrina, 237; ii. 112

    Pallene, 226, 280

    Palmerius, see Paulmier.

    Pamisus, 30, 64, 67

    Pamphylia, ii. 348

    Panaetolium, 147

    Panaeton, 111

    Pandionids, 85

    Pangaeus, 284, 285

    Panionium, 215

    Pannonii, 297

    Panormus, ii. 268

    Pantani, ii. 47

    Pantheon of Agrippa, ii. 56, 95, 101

    Panvini, ii. 96

    Parauaei, 263, 265, 269

    Parian Chronicle, ii. 267

    Parma, ii. 234, 238

    Parnassus, 116, 128, 157

    Parnes, 92

    Paros, 182, 184, 186

    Parrhasii, 71

    Parrhasius, 210

    Parthenii, ii. 187, 201

    Parthenon, 98

    Parthenope, ii. 139

    Parthini, 300, 306, 311

    Passaro, 263, 267

    Passeri, ii. 209

    Patavium, ii. 246, 247

    Patrae, 80, 82

    Patres conscripti, ii. 36

    Patrimonium D. Petri, ii. 28, 214

    Paul III., bulwark of, ii. 60

    Paulmier de Grentemesnil, 7, 275

    St. Paul, Apostle, ii. 136

    Paulus Diaconus, ii. 27

    Pausanias, 90, 96, 120

    Pavia, see Patavium.

    Pax Augusta, ii. 296

    Pax Julia, ii. 296

    Pedasos, 69

    Pegae, see Pagae.

    Pelagonii, 269

    Pelasgi, 25, 71, 77, 160, 180, 182, 184, 192, 204, 220, 227, 253,
        287, 299; ii. 3, 23, 151, 175, 207

    Πελασγικὸν τεῖχος, 97

    Pelasgiotis, 161

    Pelasgian endings, —_entum_ —_untum_, ii. 109

    Pelasgus, 27

    Pelion, 158

    Peligni, ii. 4, 23, 26, 142, 153, 155

    Pella, 229, 282, 286, 289, 291

    Pellana, 62

    Pellene, 80, 82

    Pelopidas, 118

    Pelopidae, 217

    Peloponnesians, 135

    Peloponnesus, 26, 30

    Pelops, 27, 43, 217

    Pelorus, cape, ii. 255

    Penelope, 154

    Peneus, 155, 158

    Penestae, 43

    Πενεστεία, 161

    Pentadactylon, 30

    Pentelicus, 91

    Pentrians, ii. 161

    Peparethus, 181

    Peraebi, Peraebia, 155, 160, 164, 166

    Pergamus, kingdom of, 221

    Pergamus, Pergamum, town, 221, 222

    Pergamus, kings of, 55

    Pergamus, school of, 222

    Periander, 49

    Perinthos, 236

    Περίοδοι γῆς, 12

    Περίπλοι, 12

    Περίπλους περί Πόντον Εὔξεινον, 248

    Perizonius, 7

    Perrevos, 258

    Persius, ii. 220

    Peru, 191

    Perusia, ii. 213, 227

    Peruvians, ii. 207

    Petelia, ii. 184

    Peter the Great, 294

    Petit-Radel, ii. 156

    Petronius, ii. 140

    Peucetii, ii. 3, 170, 175

    Phaeaces, 272

    Phalantus, ii. 186, 201

    Phalerus, 55, 95, 100

    Phanagoria, 246

    Pharae, 80

    Pharos, 312, 314

    Pharos, near Alexandria, ii. 346

    Pharsalus, 161, 164, 165, 167

    Phaselis, 203; ii. 347

    Phasis, river, 23

    Phasis, town, 248

    Pheidon, 38

    Pheneus, 75

    Pherae in Laconia, 58, 69

    Pherae in Thessaly, 161, 164, 167

    Pherecydes, historian, 11

    Pherecydes, philosopher, 187

    Phigalea, 76, 143

    Philadelphia, ii. 192

    Philaeni, altars of, ii. 330

    Philetas, 271 _n._

    Philip of Macedonia, 280

    Philippi, 91, 285, 295

    Philomelus (Philonomus?), 58

    Phintias, ii. 264

    Phlegra, 226

    Phlegraean fields, ii. 12, 128

    Phlius, 36, 53

    Phocaea, 212

    Phocians, 123

    Phocis, 126

    Phoenice on the Adriatic, 267

    Phoenicia, ii. 350

    Phoenician settlements in Africa, ii. 332

    Phoenicians, 114, 182, 184; ii. 254, 332

    Phrynichus, 208

    Phthia, 162

    Phthiotans, 155

    Phthiotis, 142, 159, 161, 162

    Phylarchus, ii. 347

    Phyle, fort in Attica, 110

    Phylae in Attica, 86

    Piazza Navona, ii. 89

    Piceni, ii. 24, 142

    Picentini, ii. 161, 166

    Picenum, ii. 26, 150

    Picenus, ii. 28

    Picts, ii. 321

    Pictures, galleries of, ii. 96

    Piedmontese, ii. 16

    Pieria, 224, 277, 286, 288

    Pierides, 288

    Pietramala, 307

    Pimplea, 287

    Pimpleides, 288

    Pincius mons, ii. 43

    Pindar, 118; ii. 328

    Pindus, 128, 135, 156, 255

    Piraeeus, 94, 100

    Piranesi, ii. 59

    Pirates, 199, 300 _n._

    Pirene, 51

    Pisa in Elis, 79

    Pisa in Etruria, ii. 198, 217

    Pisatis, 77

    Pisaurum, ii. 241

    Piscivendulus, 238 _n._

    Pithecusae, ii. 135

    Placentia, ii. 237, 238, 295

    Plains in Attica, 92;
      in Boeotia, 117;
      in Thessaly, 155

    Plan of ancient Rome, ii. 77

    Plataeae, 112, 115, 120

    Platea, ii. 87

    Plato, ii. 260

    Plautus, miles gloriosus, 52

    Πλήμμυρα, 144

    Pleuron, 136, 145

    Pliny, the elder, 11, 255, 278, 304, 309; ii. 25, 38, 39, 49, 55,
        168, 169, 172, 251, 310

    Pliny the younger, ii. 57, 242

    Plutarch, 47, 118

    Pnyx, 96, 99

    Pococke, Richard, 8

    Podium, ii. 92

    Poediculi, see Peucetii.

    Poggio, ii. 92

    Pola, ii. 9

    Polar circles, 19

    Polichna in Megaris, 87

    Polichna in Crete, 191

    Πολίχνιον, 134

    Πόλις, 93, 260

    Πολιτεία, 140

    Pollentia, ii. 237

    Polybius, 19, 60, 76, 79, 81, 82, 118, 137, 143, 146, 149, 174,
        254, 308; ii. 1, 2, 9, 31, 146, 197, 200, 235, 246, 249, 267,
        292, 298

    Polycletus, 210

    Pomoerium, ii. 56

    Pompeii, ii. 34, 52, 140, 166

    Pompey, 82

    Pomponius, see Mela.

    Pomerania, ii. 208

    Pons Aelius, ii. 63, 64, 105

    Pons Cestius, ii. 105

    Pons Fabricius, ii. 105

    Pons Milvius, ii. 104, 105

    Pons Palatinus, ii. 104

    Pons Senatorius, ii. 105

    Pons Sublicius, ii. 51, 103

    Pontine Marshes, ii. 138

    C. Pontius, ii. 146

    Pontos Euxeinos, 207

    Population of Greece, 121;
      of France ii. 145

    Populonia, ii. 212, 220

    Populus Romanus Quirites, ii. 36

    Porphyry, 60

    Porta Aelia, ii. 63

    Porta Appia, ii. 63

    Porta Ardeatina, ii. 63

    Porta Asinaria, ii. 63

    Porta Aurelia, ii. 63

    Porta Caelimontana, ii. 60

    Porta Capena, ii. 54, 60, 62

    Porta Carmentalis, ii. 51, 61, 62

    Porta Collina, ii. 59, 62

    Porta Esquilina, ii. 59

    Porta Flaminia, ii. 63, 89

    Porta Flumentana, ii. 60, 62

    Porta Labicana, ii. 63

    Porta Latina, ii. 63

    Porta Metronia, ii. 63

    Porta Mugonia, ii. 59

    Porta Naevia, ii. 60, 61, 62

    Porta Nigra at Treves, ii. 62

    Porta Nomentana, ii. 63

    Porta Ostiensis, ii. 63

    Porta Pinciana, ii. 62

    Porta Portuensis, ii. 63

    Porta Praenestina, ii. 63

    Porta Raudusculana, ii. 61, 62

    Porta Salara, ii. 57, 63

    Porta S. Giovanni, ii. 63

    Porta S. Lorenzo, ii. 63

    Porta S. Pancratii, ii. 63

    Porta S. Pauli, ii. 63

    Porta S. Sebastiani, ii. 63

    Porta Septimiana, ii. 63

    Porta Tiburtina, ii. 63

    Porta Trigemina, ii. 61, 62, 99

    Porta Valeria, ii. 63

    Porticus round the Forum, ii. 78

    Porticus of Octavia, ii. 100

    Portolani del Mare, 13

    Portus Romanus, ii. 106, 135, 223

    Ποσειδῶν Ἐνοσίχθων, 28, 81

    Posidonia, ii. 189, 192, 205, 208

    Posidonius, 20; ii. 280, 316

    Potidaea, 224, 226, 227, 228

    Pouqueville, 307

    Praefectura Romana, ii. 164

    Praeneste, ii. 32, 38, 111;
      Praenestine dialect, ii. 34;
        Forum, 111

    Praesos, 191

    Praetutii, ii. 153

    Prasiae, 62

    Prasias, lake, 296

    Praxiteles, 121

    Prevesa, 152

    Priene, 209

    Prisci, ii. 35, 123

    Prisci Latini, ii. 36

    Priscian, ii. 159

    Priscus, ii. 35

    Privernum, ii. 119

    Prochyta, ii. 135

    Procles, 56

    Procopius, ii. 11, 27, 63, 93, 243

    Προμαντεία, 129

    Proni, 154

    Propertius, 271 _n._

    Propontis, 207, 237

    Πρόσχωσις, ii. 39

    Πρωτεύοντες, 245

    Provençal language, ii. 310

    Provincia Romana (Gaul), ii. 311

    Provincia suburbicaria, ii. 27

    Prumnis, 38

    Prytaneum at Athens, 98

    Pseudo-Philip, 293

    Psophis, 75, 143

    Ptolemais, ii. 330

    Ptolemais (Egypt), ii. 344

    Ptolemy, geographer, 21; ii. 340

    Ptolemy Soter, 291

    Puig, ii. 93

    Pulytion, 101

    Puplana, see Populonia.

    Purple dyeing, ii. 187

    Puteoli, ii. 136; comp. Dicaearchia.

    Puy, ii. 93

    Puycerda, ii. 93

    Pydna, 224, 289

    Πυλιακὸς κόλπος, 159, 171

    Pylian kingdom, 34

    Pylos, the Messenian, 69

    Pylos, the Triphylian, 69

    Pyramid, 46 _n._

    Pyrgi, ii. 223

    Pyrrhus of Epirus, 266

    Pythagoras, 209

    Pythagorean writings, ii. 184

    Pythagoreans, ii. 197

    Pytheas, 19; ii. 321

    Pytho, 128; comp. Delphi.

    Pyxus, ii. 189, 204


    Quinarii, Illyrian, 309

    Quinctilian, 118

    Quirinalis mons, ii. 41, 61, 99

    Quirium, ii. 41


    Raeti, ii. 212

    Raetia prima, secunda, ii. 27

    Ragusa, 54; ii. 178

    Raphael Volterranus, 5

    Rasena, ii. 211

    Ravenna, 145, 160; ii. 9, 20, 123, 239

    Ré, del, ii. 112

    Reate, ii. 150

    Regia, ii. 77

    Regio transpadana, ii. 26

    Regiones Italiae of Augustus, ii. 26

    Regiones of Severus, ii. 27

    Reguli, ii. 285

    Reichardt, 10

    Relegatio, ii. 279

    Religion of Ceres and Proserpina, ii. 271

    Remi, ii. 319

    Rennell, 9

    Rhacotis, ii. 345

    Rhamnus, 110

    Rhegium, 176; ii. 189, 202

    Rheims, ii. 310

    Rhenea, 184, 185, 187

    Rhine, country of the, ii. 145

    Rhion, cape, 30, 124

    Rhode, ii. 294

    Rhodope, 283

    Rhodes, 32, 196, 198, 199

    Rhodes, town, 197

    Rhypes, 80

    Rimini, ii. 241

    Roche, Otto de la, 106

    Rogus, 271

    Roha, 291

    Rome, 96, 101, 115, 126, 306; ii. 41, 129, 198, 230, 267

    Roma, ii. 41

    Romance languages, ii. 310

    Romania, ii. 239

    Rostra, ii. 74, 76;
      vetera et nova, 76

    Rubicon, ii. 9

    Rudiae, ii. 177

    Rusellae, ii. 212

    Russian alphabet, 302


    Sabellian tribes, ii. 5, 23, 141

    Sabine language, ii. 5, 23, 141

    Sabines, ii. 149

    Saetabis, ii. 292

    Safinim, ii. 158

    Sagra, ii. 197

    Saguntum, ii. 292

    Sais, ii. 344

    Salamanca, ii. 298

    Salamis, island, 86, 90, 111, 112

    Salamis, in Cyprus, ii. 348, 349

    Salapia, ii. 174

    Salassi, ii. 249

    Salernum, ii. 161, 166

    Salentini, ii. 177

    Sallentum, ii. 178

    Sallust, ii. 6, 150, 333

    Salmantica, ii. 298

    Salmasius, ii. 165

    Salona, Salonae, 303, 313

    Salt, ii. 187

    Saltpetre, ii. 176

    Same, 153;
      town, 154;
      comp. Cephallenia.

    Samnites, ii. 5, 141, 145, 157, 162

    Samnium, ii. 5, 26, 28

    Samos, 180, 204, 209

    Samothrace, 182; ii. 269

    Samuel, books of, ii. 337

    Saone, ii. 316

    Sappho, 152, 219, 220

    Saragoza, ii. 295

    Sardi montani, ii. 274

    Sardinia, ii. 273

    Sardinian language, ii. 277

    Saronic gulf, 46

    Sarsina, Sassina, ii. 232

    Saticula, ii. 127

    Saturnia, ii. 214

    Sauini, ii. 158

    Σαύνιον, Σαυνῖται, ii. 158

    Savigny, ii. 241

    Savini, ii. 158

    Savoy, ii. 10

    Saw mills, ii. 309

    Saxons, ii. 321

    Scala, ii. 100

    Scaliger, 238

    Scardus, 157, 283, 284

    Scepsis, 218

    Scheria, 272

    Schola Saxonum, ii. 103

    Scholiast of Juvenal, ii. 159

    Scholiast of the Odyssey, ii. 180

    Scholiast of Virgil, ii. 116, 155

    Scholiasts, ii. 240;
      of Apollonius and the Iliad, 160

    Sciathos, 180

    Scidros, ii. 189

    Scillus, 79

    Scione, 228

    Sciri, ii. 325

    Scironian rocks, 90

    Scodra, 301, 312

    Scolos, 120

    Scomius, 284

    Scopades, 164

    Scopelos, 180

    Scotland, ii. 321

    Scriptores historiae Augustae, ii. 26

    Scriptores rei agrariae, ii. 28

    Scriptores rei rusticae, ii. 177

    Scupi, 283, 285

    Scylax of Caryanda, 12, 19, 23, 44, 67, 79, 150, 155, 168, 188,
        229, 298; ii. 143, 158, 312

    Scylletion, ii. 189

    Scymnus, 38, 42, 248, 298

    Scyros, 105, 173, 180

    Scythae, 244, 310; ii. 8, 326

    Segesta, ii. 269

    Segre, ii. 293

    Seleucus, 291

    Selinus, ii. 255, 264

    Sellasia, 62

    Selle, ii. 204; comp. Elea.

    Σελλοί, 25

    Selymbria, 237

    Semita, ii. 65

    Sena Gallia, ii. 241

    Sena Julia, ii. 226

    Seneca, ii. 290

    Senones, ii. 236

    Septa, ii. 100

    Septimontium, ii. 42

    Sequana, ii. 319

    Sequani, ii. 312, 316, 317

    Seres, 231, 233

    Seriphos, 184, 186

    Serrae, 231

    De Serre, ii. 74

    Servitude, 205

    Servius, 260; ii. 116, 120, 159

    Servius Tullius, wall of, ii. 49

    Sesamos, 250

    Sestos, 234, 235

    Shakespere, 107

    Shaw, 8

    Shilha, ii. 334

    Sibylla, 212

    Sicani, ii. 254

    Siceli, ii. 253

    Sicilia, ii. 253

    Sicilienses, ii. 270 _n._

    Siceliotae, ii. 270 _n._

    Sicily, ii. 256;
      the two Sicilies, 181

    Sicoris, ii. 293

    Siculi, ii. 3, 4, 35, 180, 254, 270

    Sicyon, 30, 34, 37, 38, 51

    Σιδηροφορεῖν, 125, 137

    Sidicini, ii. 128

    Sidonius Apollinaris, 292 _n._

    Sierra Morena, ii. 280

    Sigonius, ii. 32

    Sila, forest, ii. 19

    Silarus, ii. 22, 23

    Silius Italicus, ii. 241

    Silver mines in Attica, 91, 295;
      in Siphnos, 186;
      in Spain, ii. 283;
      in Thasos, 183;
      in Thrace, 183, 284, 285

    Simonides, 187

    Singitian gulf, 286

    Sinope, 249

    Sinuessa, ii. 132

    Siphnos, 184, 186

    Sipontum, ii. 174

    Siris, ii. 189

    Siritis, ii. 192

    Sismondi, ii. 37 _n._

    Sithonia, 226, 229, 230, 280

    Slaves, in Aegina, 54;
      Athens, 108, 119;
      Italy, ii. 183;
      Corinth, 108

    Slave trade in Delos, 185

    Slavery, 205

    Slavonian languages, 303

    Smyrna, 214

    Social War, 240; ii. 113, 151

    Sol, temple of, ii. 99

    Soli, ii. 349

    Solinus, ii. 59

    Soloeis, ii. 267, 268

    Sophocles, 36

    Sora, ii. 120, 126, 159

    Sostratus of Cnidus, ii. 346

    Σωτῆρες θεοί, ii. 347

    Spalatro, 314

    Spain, ii. 279

    Spania, ii. 280

    Spaniards, ii. 285

    Sparta, 33, 36, 58, 60

    Spartan kings, 58 _n._

    Spartus, ii. 283

    Spercheus, 160

    Spezzia, 44, 54

    Sphacteria, 69

    Spoletium, ii. 233

    Spon and Wheler, 8

    Sporades, 183

    Stadium, 45 _n._ 1;
      at Athens, 97

    Stagira, 231

    Statius, ii. 72, 204

    Στενὰ τῆς Ἀντιγονείας, 268

    Stenyclaros, 69

    Stephanus Byzantinus, 261

    Sthenelus, 33, 34

    Στοὰ βασίλειος, ii. 79

    Store Seitz, ii. 37

    Strabo, 11, 20, 58, 86, 90, 101, 162, 173, 218, 249, 275, 277, 283,
        297, 304, 305, 307; ii. 17, 140, 144, 161, 163, 173, 174, 177,
        242, 282, 294, 304, 336

    Strategi, in Phocis, 132

    Stratos, 142, 150

    Streets of the Romans, ii. 63

    Στροβιλοειδής, 221

    Strymon, 231, 282, 286

    Strymonian gulf, 281

    Stuart, 96

    Stymphaei, 258, 269

    Stymphalian lake, 29, 74

    Stymphalus, 74

    Styra, 178

    Styx, 257

    Subura, ii. 66, 98, 99

    Suburbicariae provinciae, ii. 27

    Suburbs of Rome, ii. 51, 54, 100

    Sulphureous springs, 146, 189

    Summer at Rome, ii. 57

    Suetonius, ii. 3, 76

    Sulci, ii. 276

    Suliots, 258

    Sulmo, ii. 157

    P. Sulpicius, 55

    Ser. Sulpicius, 55, 90

    Sulpicius Severus, ii. 25

    Sunion, 91

    Superum mare, ii. 22

    Surrentum, ii. 166

    Sutrium, ii. 225

    Switzerland, French part of, ii. 10

    Sybaris, ii. 181, 189, 190

    Syme, 32

    Sympolity, 140

    Synesius, ii. 329

    Συνοικισμός, 294

    Syracuse, 47, 161: ii. 255, 257;
      population, 261;
      province, 268

    Syros, 184, 187

    Syrtes, 256


    Tabernae, s. mensae argentariorum, ii. 77

    Tacitus, 11; ii. 302, 306, 312, 319, 321, 322

    Taenarus, 28, 30, 60

    Ταγός, 164

    Tagus, ii. 282, 283

    Taman, Tamacan, 247

    Tamyrace, 247

    Tanagra, 122

    Tanais, 23;
      town, 247

    Taphians, 148

    Tar, manufacture of, ii. 185

    Taraco, ii. 293

    Tarentum, ii. 185

    Tarpeian rock, ii. 66

    Tarpeius mons, ii. 41

    Tarquinii, ii. 212, 222

    Tarquinius, father or son, ii. 47

    Tarquinius Priscus, ii. 59

    Tartessus, ii. 287

    Tauchira, ii. 329

    Taulantii, 300, 305, 306, 308

    Ταυρική, 244

    Taurini, ii. 252

    Taurisci, ii. 325

    Ταῦροι, 244

    Tauromenium, ii. 266

    Taygetus, 28, 30, 31, 60, 66

    Teanum, ii. 128

    Teate, ii. 157

    Tectosagae, ii. 304

    Tegea, 72

    Τεῖχος, 111

    Telegonus, 153

    Telemachus, 154

    Temenus, 57

    Temese, ii. 220

    Temnos, 216

    Tempe, 174

    Temple of Aesculapius, ii. 104

    Temple of Apollo at Gryneon, 216

    Temple of the Palatine Apollo, ii. 217

    Temple, the Capitoline, ii. 67

    Temple of Concordia, ii. 77

    Temple of Diana, ii. 99;
      of Diana Aricina, ii. 113;
      of Diana at Ephesus, 210

    Temple of Juno Lacinia, ii. 199

    Temple of Juno Lanuvina, ii. 113

    Temple of Jupiter Latiaris, ii. 108

    Temple of Jupiter Stator, ii. 76

    Temple of Castor, ii. 72, 76, 77

    Temple of Mars Ultor, ii. 82

    Temple of Roma and Augustus, ii. 293

    Temple of Saturn, ii. 77

    Temple of Sibylla, ii. 112

    Temple of Sol, ii. 99

    Temple of Venus Erycina, ii. 257

    Temple of Venus Genitrix, ii. 81

    Temple of Vesta, ii. 75

    Temples, Roman, ii. 68

    Templum (the Rostra), ii. 74

    Templum Minervae Medicae, ii. 95

    Tenea, 51

    Tenedos, 215, 217, 218

    Tenos, 184, 187

    Teos, 211

    Terni, see Interamna.

    Terra di Lavoro, ii. 12; comp. Campagna di Lavoro.

    Terra di Lecce, ii. 176

    Terra d’Otranto, ii. 176

    Terracina, ii. 119, 122, 123

    Tetradrachmae, 281; comp. drachmae.

    Τετραρχία, 163

    Teucrian Trojans, 287

    Teutones, ii. 235, 326

    Teverone, see Anio.

    Tharyps, Tharypas, 261

    Thasos, 114, 182

    Theagenes, 88

    Theatre at Athens, 98;
      in Piraeeus, 102

    Theatre of Marcellus, ii. 90, 100

    Theatre of Pompey, ii. 90, 100

    Theatres in Rome, ii. 90

    Thebe in Phthiotis, 171

    Thebes in Egypt, ii. 343

    Thebes in Boeotia, 114, 118, 120; ii. 261

    Themistius, 292 _n._

    Themistocles, 100

    Theodosia, Theudosia, 246

    Theophrastus, 220

    Theopompus, 158, 163, 253, 298, 300

    Thera, 28, 64, 189

    Therma, Thermitani, ii. 266

    Therma (Thessalonica), 225, 282, 286, 295

    Thermae, ii. 94

    Thermae of Agrippa, ii. 56, 95, 101

    Thermae of C. and L. Caesar, ii. 95

    Thermae of Caracalla, ii. 95

    Thermae of Decius, ii. 99

    Thermae of Diocletian, ii. 95

    Thermae of Nero, ii. 95

    Thermae of Alexander Severus, ii. 95, 101

    Thermae of Septimius Severus, ii. 95

    Thermae of Titus, ii. 94, 95

    Thermae of Trajan, ii. 99

    Thermaic gulf, 225, 286

    Thermon, 146

    Thermopylae, 129;
      pass of, 157

    Θέρος χρυσοῦν, ii. 193

    Thespiae, 115, 121

    Theseus, temple of, at Athens, 93 _n._, 107

    Thesprotia, 256

    Thesprotians, 160, 254, 259, 260

    Thessalians, 113, 132, 160; ii. 123

    Thessaliotis, 161, 162

    Thessalonica, see Therma.

    Thessaly, 142, 155, 224, 280;
      Κοινὸν Θεσσαλῶν, 161;
      fasti of the strategi, 166;
      Thessalian women, 172

    Θολερός, 145

    Θόλος, 98

    Thrace, 224, 280

    Thracians, 232, 277, 287, 288; ii. 8.

    Thria, 92

    Θριάσιον πεδίον, 92

    Thrinacia, ii. 257

    Thucydides, 1, 26, 42, 44, 92, 94, 110, 124, 125, 126, 136, 137,
        138, 147, 150, 164, 172, 173, 184, 190, 225, 251, 254, 260,
        284; ii. 172, 181, 186, 255, 256

    Thurii, ii. 189, 195

    Thuscia suburbicaria, ii. 28, 214

    Thybris, see Tiber.

    Θυεῖν, ii. 85

    Thyrea, 39

    Tiber, ii. 21, 46, 49

    Tiberina insula, ii. 49, 104

    Tiberius, emperor, ii. 96

    Tibullus, ii. 29

    Tibur, ii. 32, 111

    Tiburnus, see Anio.

    Ticinum, ii. 241

    Ticinus, ii. 236

    Tides in the Mediterranean, ii. 331

    Timaeus, 128, 298

    Timber, 295

    Timoleon, 49; ii. 261

    Tin, trade in, ii. 320

    Tiparenus, 44

    Tiryns, 34, 38, 41, 114

    Tisamenus, 57

    Tivoli, ii. 29, 38, 82

    Tmarus, or Tomarus mons, 260, 269

    Τοιχώρυχος, 101

    Toledo, ii. 298

    Toletum, ii. 298

    Tolemata, ii. 330

    Tolosa, ii. 317

    Tomb of Hadrian, ii. 101

    Tomi, 242

    Toronean gulf, 231, 286

    Torona, 230

    Totila, ii. 58

    Tournefort, 8

    Trachinians, 142

    Trachis, 171

    Tractus Aremoricus, ii. 318

    Trajan, ii. 57

    Trajan, column of, ii. 84

    Transpadani, ii. 32, 236, 238

    Trans Tiberim, ii. 44, 54

    Trapani, ii. 268

    Trapezus, 248

    Trastevere, ii. 44, 58, 103

    Treres, 221

    Tretus, 39

    Treves, ii. 320

    Treviri, ii. 319

    Triballi, ii. 235, 326

    Tribus Materina, ii. 232

    Tribus Quirina, ii. 149

    Tribus Sapinia, ii. 232

    Tribus Velina, ii. 232

    Tricca, 162, 167

    Trichonis, Lake, 146

    Trinacia, ii. 257

    Trinacria, ii. 257

    Triphylia, 33, 34

    Triphylians, 70, 77, 79

    Tripodes, 87

    Tripolis, ii. 332

    Tritaea, 80

    Triumphal Fasti, ii. 116, 160, 177

    Triumphal arch of Caligula, ii. 96

    —— —— —— Constantine, ii. 99

    Triumphal arch of Gratian, ii. 99

    —— —— —— Septimius Severus, ii. 99

    —— —— —— Titus, ii. 99

    —— —— —— Trajan, ii. 84, 99

    —— —— —— Valentinian, ii. 99

    Troezen, 38, 42

    Trogus Pompeius, 264

    Trojan war, 217

    Trojans, 27

    Tuder, ii. 233

    Tufo, ii. 39, 46

    Tunese language, ii. 338

    Tunis, Tunes, ii. 332, 339

    Tunny fisheries, 239, 250

    Tunnel of lake Copais, 117;
      of the Alban lake, ii. 50, 108, 114

    Turduli, ii. 291

    Turia, ii. 283

    Turingi, ii. 251

    Turini, ii. 211

    Turkish language, ii. 205

    Turni, ii. 211

    Turnus, ii. 170

    Tusci, ii. 26, 211

    Tuscia, ii. 26; comp. Thuscia.

    Tuscia et Umbria, ii. 27

    Tusculana, scil. civitas, 237

    Tusculum, ii. 109, 211

    Tycha, ii. 259

    Tymphaea, see Stymphaea.

    Τυραννίς, 88

    Τύραννοι in Phocis, 132

    Tyras, 243

    Tyrrheni, 181, 191,231; ii. 3, 33, 37, 120, 205, 207, 292

    Tyrrhenicum mare, ii. 22


    Ufens, ii. 40

    Ulpium, not Ulpianum, Forum, ii. 83

    —— _ulus_, the termination, ii. 168

    Umbri, ii. 11

    Umbria, ii. 231

    Umbro, river, ii. 232

    University at Athens, 105

    Utica, ii. 332


    Vaccaei, ii. 298

    Valentia, ii. 291

    Valeria, ii. 28

    Valesius, see Valois.

    Valois, the brothers, 7

    Varro, ii. 52, 142, 177

    Varus, river, ii. 9

    Vascones, ii. 302

    Vasilipotamos, 60; comp. Eurotas.

    Vaticanus mons, ii. 44

    Vaudoncourt, 257

    Veii, ii. 213, 224

    Velabrum, ii. 47

    Velia, ii. 98

    Velia, ii. 204; comp. Elea.

    Velinus, ii. 147

    Velitrae, ii. 38, 120

    Velleius, ii. 144, 160

    Vendée, 311

    Veneti, ii. 11, 24, 238, 246

    Venetia, ii. 25, 27

    Venetia et Histria, ii. 27

    Venice, 43, 102; ii. 217, 248

    Venusia, ii. 159, 174

    Ver sacrum, ii. 144, 151

    Verona, ii. 24, 234, 243, 245

    Verulae, ii. 116

    Vestini, ii. 24, 26, 142, 153

    Vesulus, ii. 121

    Vetulonium, ii. 221

    Via Aelia, ii. 63

    Via Aemilia, ii. 28

    Via Appia, ii. 51, 53, 62

    Via Ardeatina, ii. 63

    Via Aurelia, ii. 28, 29

    Via Campana, ii. 63

    Via Cassia, ii. 63

    Via de’ Cerci, ii. 89

    Via Domitiana, ii. 29

    Via Egnatia, ii. 283

    Via Flaminia, ii. 28, 63

    Via Labicana, ii. 62

    Via Latina, ii. 51, 62

    Via Nomentana, ii. 62

    Via Ostiensis, ii. 63

    Via Portuensis, ii. 63

    Via Praenestina, ii. 62

    Via Sacra, ii. 66, 98

    Via Salaria, ii. 62

    Via Tiburtina, ii. 62

    Via Valeria, ii. 29, 62

    Vibo Valentia, ii. 203

    Vicus Cornelius, ii. 86

    Vicus Patricius, ii. 86

    Vicus Sceleratus, ii. 86

    Vienna, ii. 316

    Viminalis mons, ii. 42, 99

    Vindelici, ii. 324

    Vine, cultivation of in Boeotia, 117;
      in Italy, ii. 14;
      in Peloponnesus, 31

    Virgil, 125, 158; ii. 34, 42, 48, 55, 120, 146, 200, 229, 234, 245,
        254, 262

    Viteliu, ii. 3

    Vitellia, ii. 3

    Vitellius, Vitalus, ii. 3

    Vitulus, ii. 3

    Volaterrae, ii. 212, 219

    Volcanic veins, 146;
      in Italy, ii. 12, 38

    Volsci, ii. 23, 119

    Voltaire, ii. 6

    Voss, J. H., 12, 22; ii. 121

    Vulsinii, ii. 213, 214, 225;
      lake, ii. 214, 225

    Vulturnum, ii. 127

    Vulturnus, ii. 22, 128


    Wall of Servius Tullius, ii. 49;
      of Aurelian, ii. 58, 62;
      of Honorius, ii. 58

    Wallace, ii. 129

    War, the Sacred, 133;
      the Lamian, 139

    Washington, 129

    Wasiliki, 53

    Water, quantity of at different periods, 29

    Watering places, ii. 94

    Water mills, ii. 309

    Wendish language, ii. 25, 208

    Westphalia, ii. 301

    Wheler, 8

    Wieland, 233

    Wik, Wich, ii. 36

    Winds, 15

    Wolf, Fr. A., 253; ii. 196

    Wood, trade in, 295

    Wool, Spanish, ii. 283


    Xanthus of Lydia, ii. 211

    Xenophon, 79, 104, 126, 150, 173, 229

    Ξόανον, 97


    Zacynthus, 143, 151, 153, 154

    Zama, ii. 339

    Zancle, 65, 176; ii. 255, 264

    Zeno, the Stoic, ii. 349

    Zephyrium, cape, ii. 200

    Zeugitana, ii. 339

    Ζεὺς Ἐλευθέριος, 121

    Zmyrna, 215

    Zoëga, ii. 70

    Zurlo, Count, ii. 163


THE END.

WERTHEIMER AND CO., PRINTERS, FINSBURY CIRCUS

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78452 ***