Chapter XII: Part 12

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.