Chapter II: Part 2

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.