INTRODUCTION.

WHOEVER, in the present state of historical criticism, undertakes a history of the city of Rome, is placed in an embarrassing position. He finds himself called upon, almost at the outset, to give an account of some vast works, remains of which, allowed by the best judges to be of very high antiquity, are still visible, and cannot therefore be explained away like the record of a law or a treaty. We are, of course, alluding to such works as the Tullianum, the Cloaca Maxima, the remains of the Servian wall, &c. Other contemporary works of equal splendour, as the Capitoline and other temples, the coexistence of which, though they have now vanished, with the structures still extant, can hardly admit of a rational doubt, unless we are to reject in a lump the concurrent testimony of all antiquity, likewise require their history to be explained. A writer who seeks this in ancient authors, finds these works unanimously attributed to some Roman kings, and especially to a dynasty of Etruscan origin. It may possibly occur to such a writer that if anything were likely to preserve the memory of men and their actions, it might be such works as these, with which their names

were inseparably connected, and continuously handed. down from father to son. But if he turns to an historian of the modern school, he finds that these Etruscan kings and their deeds are nothing better than unsubstantial creations of the brain. The general picture before us,' says Dr. Arnold,' in reference to these kings, is a mere fantasy. Under these circumstances there is nothing left for an historian of the city but to choose between two courses: either to tell his readers that the Tullianum, Cloaca, &c., are undoubtedly very ancient works and anterior to the Republic, but that no idea can be formed as to whom they should be ascribed to; or to follow the narrative handed down by ancient authors. After some deliberation, we have adopted the latter course. Our reasons for so doing are briefly the following.

It would, of course, be impossible to discuss in the compass of this Introduction the general question of the credibility of the early Roman history. We can only state the reasons which have led us to doubt a few of the conclusions of modern critics about some of the more prominent facts of that history, and about the existence, or the value, of the sources on which it professes to be founded. If it can be shown that the attempts to eliminate, or to depreciate, some of these sources, can hardly be regarded as successful, and that the general spirit of modern criticism has been unreasonably sceptical, and unduly captious with respect to the principal Roman historian, then the author will at least have established what at all events may serve as an apology for the course he has pursued.

Among the most important early records possessed by

Cicero, in his

the Romans were the Annales Maximi. De Oratore, speaks of them as extant in his time,1 and states that, from the earliest period down to the pontificate of P. Mucius, the Pontifex Maximus was accustomed to write down all the events of each year, and to transfer them to an album, or white board, placed before his house, so that the people might know them. These annals, he adds, are still called Maximi; a name derived from the Pontifex Maximus. Their existence is also attested by Varro2 and Quintilian;3 by Cato, in his Origines, as quoted by Aulus Gellius; and Pliny cites their very words. Servius says that the annals had been edited in eighty books; he does not say at what time; but as he speaks of the ancients (veteres) as having done it, the edition must have been long before his age: and indeed Verrius Flaccus, a writer of the reign of Augustus, as quoted by A. Gellius, cites the eleventh book of them. But the following arguments have been advanced by Niebuhr against their existence :

'Now I grant Antonius in Cicero says that this custom had subsisted from the beginning of the Roman State : but it does not follow from this that Cicero meant to assert, the annals in possession of the Roman historians, who did not begin to write till so late, reached thus far back. Those of the earlier times may have perished; which Livy and other writers, without specific mention of

the Annales Maximi, state as having happened at the destruction of the city by the Gauls and certainly this fate may easily have befallen them at that time; as the tables perhaps were not yet transferred into books, and it is still less likely that any transcripts of such books should be in existence; besides, they may not have been preserved in the Capitol, where the chief pontiff did not reside, and where he had no occasion to keep his archives, like the duumvirs of the Sibylline books.

'I think we may now consider it as certain that those annals really met with such a fate at that time, and that they were replaced by new ones.'1

How far the Annals preserved may have reached back, we will consider further on; at present we are only concerned about the preservation of the authentic ones. We do not think that a series of conjectures, like those advanced by Niebuhr, can lead us to a certainty of their destruction, against the express testimony of the best authors to the contrary; nor is it a very satisfactory mode of reasoning to adduce Livy's testimony for their destruction, and at the same time to admit that he does not specifically mention them. Sir G. Cornewall Lewis seems to have felt the weakness of this argument, and therefore adds that if there was so important an exception as a complete series of contemporary national annals, Livy could scarcely have failed to mention it.2

To this we answer that, if they had survived-and we have seen that their existence is established by the best testimony-it would have been superfluous on the part of

1 Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. i. p. 212 (Engl. transl.) The italics in the passage quoted are our own, and are merely intended to call the

reader's attention to the deductive process.

2 Credibility &c. vol. i. p. 158.