History of Rome | Page 6

divided?
29. What description is given of Lucania?
30. By what people was Bruttium inhabited?
31. What is the geographical situation of Apulia?
32. What description is given of Calabria?
33. What islands belong to Italy?
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See Pinnock's History of Greece, Chap. I.
[2] See Historical Miscellany,
Part II. Chap. I.
[3] These colonies, sent out by the Sabines, are said to have originated from the observance of the Ver sacrum (sacred spring.) During certain years, every thing was vowed to the gods that was born between the calends (first day) of March and May, whether men or animals. At first they were sacrificed; but in later ages this cruel custom was laid aside, and they were sent out as colonists.
[4] The history of these colonies is contained in the Historical Miscellany,
Part II. Chap. ii.
* * * * *
CHAPTER II.
THE LATIN LANGUAGE AND PEOPLE--CREDIBILITY OF THE EARLY HISTORY.
Succeeding times did equal folly call. Believing nothing, or believing all.--_Dryden._
The Latin language contains two primary elements, the first intimately connected with the Grecian, and the second with the Oscan tongue; to the former, for the most part, belong all words expressing the arts and relations of civilized life; to the latter, such terms as express the wants of men before society has been organized. We are therefore warranted in conjecturing that the Latin people was a mixed race; that one of its component parts came from some Grecian stock, and introduced the first elements of civilization, and that the other was indigenous, and borrowed refinement from the strangers. The traditions recorded by the historians sufficiently confirm this opinion; they unanimously assert that certain bodies of Pelasgi came into the country before the historic age, and coalesced with the ancient inhabitants. The traditions respecting these immigrations are so varied, that it is impossible to discover any of the circumstances; but there is one so connected with the early history of Rome, that it cannot be passed over without notice. All the Roman historians declare, that after the destruction of Troy, ?neas, with a body of the fugitives, arrived in Latium, and having married the daughter of king Lati'nus, succeeded him on the throne. It would be easy to show that this narrative is so very improbable, as to be wholly unworthy of credit; but how are we to account for the universal credence which it received? To decide this question we must discuss the credibility of the early Roman history, a subject which has of late years attracted more than ordinary attention.
The first Roman historian of any authority, was Fa'bius Pic'tor, who flourished at the close of the second Punic war; that is, about five centuries and a half after the foundation of the city, and nearly a thousand years after the destruction of Troy. The materials from which his narrative was compiled, were the legendary ballads, which are in every country the first record of warlike exploits; the calendars and annals kept by the priests, and the documents kept by noble families to establish their genealogy. Imperfect as these materials must necessarily have been under any circumstances, we must remember that the city of Rome was twice captured; once by Porsenna, and a second time by the Gauls, about a century and a half before Fabius was born. On the latter occasion the city was burned to the ground, and the capital saved only by the payment of an immense ransom. By such a calamity it is manifest that the most valuable documents must have been dispersed or destroyed, and the part that escaped thrown into great disorder. The heroic songs might indeed have been preserved in the memory of the public reciters; but there is little necessity for proving that poetic historians would naturally mingle so much fiction with truth, that few of their assertions could be deemed authentic. The history of the four first centuries of the Roman state is accordingly full of the greatest inconsistences and improbabilities; so much so, that many respectable writers have rejected the whole as unworthy of credit; but this is as great an excess in scepticism, as the reception of the whole would be of credulity. But if the founders of the city, the date of its erection, and the circumstances under which its citizens were assembled be altogether doubtful, as will subsequently be shown, assuredly the history of events that occurred four centuries previous must be involved in still greater obscurity. The legend of ?neas, when he first appears noticed as a progenitor of the Romans, differs materially from that which afterwards prevailed. Romulus, in the earlier version of the story, is invariably described as the son or grandson of ?neas. He is the grandson in the poems of N?vius and Ennius, who were both nearly contemporary with Fabius Pictor. This gave rise to an insuperable chronological difficulty; for Troy was