history, namely, a register of the years of the kings in the Capitol. We are afraid, however, that Livy's words will not justify us in claiming this: 'Omitto Licinium Sextiumque, quorum annos in perpetua potestate, tanquam regnum in Capitolio, numeratis.' Regnum here is only an invidious name for the lengthened hold of power enjoyed by the tribunes Licinius and Sextius. The passage is wrongly punctuated in the editions. We should read: Quorum annos, tanquam regnum, in Capitolio numeratis:''whose years of perpetual power, resembling a reign, you count in the Capitol: that is, in the Libri Magistratuum preserved in the Capitol. เ Besides these regular and formal Annals, and Fasti, or lists of Consuls, there were other documents which would collaterally assist the historian of the early Roman times. We must remember that the Romans were acquainted with the use of letters from the very foundation of the city. Thus Cicero, in the person of Scipio, remarking upon the apotheosis of Romulus, observes: And this is the more to be admired in Romulus, that other men who have been deified existed in less erudite times, when it was easy to invent such stories, as the ignorant are easily imposed upon. But the age of Romulus is less than six centuries ago, when learning and the art of writing had long been established, and all those ancient errors exploded which arise from an uncultivated state of society."1 And he corroborates this statement by showing the enlightened state of Greece at that period. Niebuhr, indeed, so far from questioning this, seems almost to go into the opposite extreme. Thus, he says in 1 De Rep. ii. 10. What would Cicero have said of apotheosis in literate times as a proof of virtue had he lived under the Empire ? his Lectures, We have no reason to deny that history was written at Rome previous to the banishment of the kings.'1 The scepticism is contemptible which says that the Romans had no history before the time of Fabius' (Pictor). Again: In the last books of Livy's first decade, we have such accurate accounts of the campaigns against the Samnites, that I have no doubt but that either Q. Fabius Maximus himself wrote for his house the history of the wars in which he was engaged, because his house was of great political importance, or that the Fabii possessed numerous documents relating to the early history.' He even finds fault with Livy on this score, and accuses him of saying that, during the long period previous to the destruction of Rome by the Gauls, history was handed down by tradition, and that all written documents were destroyed in the burning of the city.'4 We should have thought this a slip of the pen, had not the same charge been repeated more circumstantially in the following Lecture. But Livy says no such thing. As it is impossible to suspect Niebuhr of misconstruing, we presume that, in the passage in question, he must have read memoria for memoriæ.5 But all the editions have memoriæ, and we do not find any various reading noted. If memoria is an emendation, it is a most unhappy one. For, first, it makes Livy utter the nonsense, that memory was the only faithful guardian of events; and secondly, it makes him contradict himself in the same breath, by saying, in the first portion of the sentence that letters were rare, and in the second that there were none at all. 1 Vol. i. p. 6. 2 Ibid. p. 21. 3 Ibid. p. 20. 4 lbid. p. 5. . 5 The passage is as follows: 'Parvæ et raræ per eadem tempora literæ fuere, una custodia fidelis memoriæ rerum gestarum.'-Lib. vi. 1. Wherefore, even if the editions had read memoria, it would have been necessary to alter them. When Livy says that letters were rare at that period, he is only speaking comparatively, with reference to his own times, the full literary splendour of the Augustan age. But with the previous remarks of Niebuhr we cordially agree. The instances which he adduces there of historians before the historical epoch, though only from conjecture, are in the highest degree probable; but, as Niebuhr of course well knew, the existence of such domestic historians may be proved from ancient testimony. Thus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus tells us, that in the families of those who had been censors, memoirs were carefully handed down from father to son; that in his time there were many censorial families in which such memoirs were still preserved, and that he had himself inspected some of them. Those to which he alludes were previous to the Gallic conflagration, and mention the census taken in the consulship of L. Valerius Potitus and M. Manlius Capitolinus, in the 118th year after the expulsion of the kings, and consequently two years before the burning of the city. In fact, when we reflect upon the nature of the early Roman state, the ambition, rivalry, and love of glory of the great families, the desire to perpetuate the memory of events, so strongly manifested by the keeping of public registers, by inscriptions, public statues, private images, and the like, it would have been strange indeed if the men who had played a great part in public affairs, and who possessed the means of recording their acts in writing, should, with an unnatural apathy, have neglected to do so. 1 i. 74. Other sources of history were funeral orations and sepulchral inscriptions, alluded to by Cicero1 and Livy.2 Both these authors advert to them, indeed, as having been the means of introducing falsifications into history, in order to gratify family pride. But these But these very remarks show that they were on their guard against such falsifications, and therefore that they were not so utterly careless of the principles of historical criticism as it serves the purpose of modern writers to represent them as having been. Besides, the truth might in most cases have been elicited by comparing the memoirs of several families, and the whole with the public registers. Neither can we suppose the ancient Romans to have been universally braggarts; nor would these falsifications have materially affected the main stream of history. Thus, for instance, all authors were agreed that A. Cornelius was dictator in B. c. 322; but it was disputed whether he or the consuls conducted the war against the Samnites: some saying that he was created dictator only to start the quadriga in the Roman games, instead of the prætor, L. Plautius, who was hindered from doing so by illness.3 But in this matter, the principal point, allowed on all hands, is that the Samnites were beaten, and whether by A or B is a matter of importance only to A and B and their families. Admitting, however, that many minor errors may have crept into early Roman history from this source, still this does not invalidate the great bulk of it, and reduce it to nothing better than a mere fantasy. Other historical materials, besides public annals and private memoirs, were domestic laws and foreign treaties, recorded upon brass and other durable materials, inscrip 1 Brutus, 16. 2 viii. 40. 3 Liv. viii. 40. tions upon statues and buildings, the archives of neighbouring states, &c., &c. Our limits will not permit any long inquiry into the nature and preservation of these documents; and we shall therefore conclude this sketch of the original sources by recording a few instances of treaties, laws, &c., made before the Gallic conflagration, and undoubtedly preserved to later times. But we should always remember that there must have been a great many more of them than those whose existence is accidentally recorded by ancient writers. The earliest Roman treaty mentioned to have been committed to writing is that of Romulus with the Veientines; but as neither this, nor a treaty of Tullius Hostilius with the Sabines, is recorded to have been preserved to later times, we shall pass them over. The first treaty undoubtedly extant in the classical age of Roman literature was the league formed by Servius Tullius with the Latin cities. Servius caused the terms of it, and the names of the cities belonging to it, to be engraved on a brazen column; which was preserved in the Temple of Diana on the Aventine, and inspected by the historian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in the reign of Augustus.2 Sir G. C. Lewis' repudiation of it, because there is nothing to show that the name of Servius occurs in it,' seems to be a pushing even of the most sceptical criticism beyond its legitimate bounds. Possibly the name did not occur. We are far from certain that the names of the kings ever appeared at all in such documents; but at all events the high antiquity of the monument was attested, as Sir G. C. Lewis admits, by the early Greek characters, in which it 1 Dionys. ii. 55 and iii. 33. b 2 Ibid. iv. 26. |