Lectures on the History of Rome, from

the earliest times to the commencement of the first Punic War. By B. G. Niebuhr. Edited by Dr. M. Isler. Translated, with many additions from MSS. by Dr. L. Schmitz, F.R.S.E. Rector of the High School of Edinburgh. 8vo. pp. xxii. 552.

THE additional, or rather preliminary, volume of Niebuhr's lectures has appeared, as we were led to expect, though under different circumstances to what was imagined. It is edited not by Dr. Schmitz, the able supervisor of the two former volumes, but by Dr. Isler of Hamburgh, from two courses delivered at Bonn in 1826-7 and in 1828-9, and consists essentially of the latter course, incorporating whatever is important in the former. A few transpositions have also been made (see the note at p. 143), and, though exterior exactitude is thus given up, the editor takes the respon sibility upon himself, thinking that thus "the treasures entrusted to his care" could best be disposed of, in which opinion we fully agree. The work is translated by Dr. Schmitz, whose co-operation was on all accounts desirable; and, as he possessed some excellent notes, he has made use of them, so that the English edition is more complete than the German one.

To the question, Why should the Lectures be published, on that portion of Roman History on which Niebuhr has written? the Translator replies, partly in his own words, and partly in the German Editor's,

"The present lectures contain a more popular and familiar exposition of the subject: they therefore may be used as an introduction to, or as a running commentary on, Niebuhr's great work.... Many points are set forth in these lectures more clearly and distinctly, nay sometimes even more minutely, than in the larger work.

For a review of the two volumes previously published, and of the "Roman History" by Dr. Schmitz, the editor, see Gent. Mag. July and Oct. 1847. GENT. MAG. VOL. XXIX.

The Editor remarks accordingly (p. 85, note) that the discussion on the Etruscan origin of Servius Tullus (ib. and p. 123) is clearer and more definite in the Lectures than in the History. Niebuhr does not attach great importance, it here be remarked, to the speech of the Emperor Claudius, which makes Servius an Etruscan military adventurer; for his legislation is too mild for such a personage, and has a completely Latin character. (p. 124.)

may

On the nature of Roman History in general, he observes, that it becomes

much clearer after the battle near Lake Regillus.

"In the history of the period which follows, we find ourselves upon real historical ground: we may henceforth speak with certainty of men and events, although now and then fables were still introduced

into the Fasti. That errors did creep in is no more than the common lot of all human affairs, and we must from this point treat the History of Rome like every other history, and not make it the subject of shallow scepticism, to which it has already been too much sacrificed." (p. 159.)

On the other hand, during the early period, when history is chiefly inferential, he says,

"If we obstinately determine to see where no historical light is to be obtained, the intellectual eye is injured, as is the physical when it violently exerts itself in the dark." (p. 21.)

This acute remark is partly directed against arguments deduced from the "We must resemblance of language. 3 T

be greatly on our guard against the miserable desire to construe the history of nations from their names, a desire which has given rise to many hypotheses and fancies. He instances the opinion, now apparently exploded, that the Getæ and the Goths are the same people; and the theory that the FirBolgs in the Bardic History of Ireland were Belgians (as Mr. Moore regards them, Hist. of Ireland, i. 82), whereas Niebuhr inclines to the idea that they were a Danish colony. However, on the changes of nations, he observes that "a solution of these difficulties, free from all objections, is utterly impossible," and that "he who is engaged in such investigations must often be satisfied with evidence which has the appearance of truth.” (p. 22.)

His account of his own researches, though less copious than the reader would wish, deserves to be quoted:

"The longer I have been engaged in

these investigations, the more satisfaction have I derived from them. I am conscious of having searched after truth without allowing myself to be dazzled by authority. When I find that statements which I had absolutely rejected are, after all, correct in a certain sense, and that they have become imperfect only through want of knowledge, or through having fallen into oblivion, I am always greatly rejoiced. This has happened to me frequently." (p. 344.)

At p. 191, he informs us, that the jus agrarium (which forms one of his principal discoveries) was the first point that led him to a critical investigation of Roman history; for in his earlier years he had occupied himself more with the History of Greece. The circumstances attending the abolition of servitude in Holstein, which seem to have altered the nature of leasehold property, led him to examine into its nature among different nations, and thus he came to consider the ager publicus of the Romans, till when, the principle of the agrarian law was a perfect riddle to him, in reading Plutarch and Appian. At p. 214, he mentions that the discovery of the Curia Hostilia has been the key to all his investigations on Roman topography.

The following passage might almost serve for a motto to his own labours: "If we remove from history that which

is strange and incredible, and give a clear exposition of the real relations of life, let no one say that thereby history is injured or loses in dignity; such sentiments are unhealthy and diseased." (p. 179.) No inconsiderable part of his system consists in a new arrangement of events, of which he speaks thus: "When a leaf of a book has been misplaced it must be put right, if you do not wish its author to talk nonsense. The same is the case when an historical fact is assigned to a wrong time." (p. 184.) He instances the history of Coriolanus, which Livy, he argues, has related in the wrong place. "I see no reason why I should not believe that during a famine at Rome a Siceliot king sent a supply of corn to the city; but tyrants do not appear in Sicily till some olympiads after the time in which the history of Coriolanus is placed. I believe Coriolanus was first impeached by the plebes, but no one would have dared to do this before the Publilian law.

The whole history must either be rejected as a fiction, or be assigned to quite a different time." (p. 185.) He makes other objections to the story, for which we refer the reader to the narrative.

A general remark at p. 70,"Do not mistake possibilities for historical facts," amounts to a canon of criticism, and should always be before the mind of the investigator of history, or indeed (mutato mutando) of any science whatever. At p. 243 he says, that "to distinguish what is true for different periods is the only thread that can guide us through the labyrinth of Roman history." Formerly it was customary to make no such distinctions, and hence Justus Lipsius, whom Niebuhr praises in other respects, "has by his authority done much mischief in Roman antiquities." (p. 181.) As Niebuhr's principles in constructing the early Roman history are now well known, not only through his own works, but also through minor histories founded upon them, any specific account is unnecessary. We shall

therefore content ourselves with inviting the reader's attention to some detached points, connected especially with the Lectures.

The two first Lectures are devoted to the origin of Roman history and

the nations of ancient Italy,-" Cette Italie antique que Niebuhr a comme ressuscitée et rendue à la lumière."* The Roman history, properly speaking, begins with the third. The question concerning the earlier name of Rome is not discussed, though the subject is hinted at in p. 40. He shows, at p. 35, that several towns in that vicinity bore Greek names, and that "as certain as Pyrgi signifies towers, so certainly does Roma signify strength;" adding, "I believe that those are quite right who consider that the name Roma in this sense is not accidental." Of legendary stories, such as the Trojan origin, he says, "The less we take these ancient traditions literally, the more probability we find in them." (p. 17.) How little the narratives of dark ages, even when they come near to the period in question, are to be relied upon appears from that of Charlemagne, whose history was interpolated, within two centuries of his own time, with the account of an expedition to Jerusalem, in the Chronicle of Benedict of Soracte. (p. 8.) He traces the origin of Rome to the fusion of two nations, who spoke a different tongue. "Of the two elements of the Latin language, the Greek and the not-Greek, the latter answers to the Oscan language. All words relating to agriculture, domestic animals, produce of the field, and the like, are Greek or akin to Greek. We see then a conquered agricultural people, and a conquering one, coming from the mountains, which did not pursue agriculture." (p. 28.)

This theory is hostile to the legend of the Trojan colony, though Niebuhr acknowledges it to be comparatively ancient among the Romans. He rejects the story of Rea, so far as regards the policy of Aurelius in making her a vestal, partly for a reason which by anticipation may be termed Salic. "This part of the story was composed without any insight into political laws, for a daughter could not have transmitted any political rights."† (p. 37.)

* Lerminier, Histoire du Droit, 1829, p. 360. This passage originally appeared in a review of M. Gans' work on the Right of Succession, Berlin, 1824.

+ Virgil's expression, regina sacerdos, is so far happy as it embodies the popular idea of her being heiress to the crown.-REV.

He calls the rape of the Sabine women an historical impossibility (p. 2), which appears too strong, as the principle of a connubium not existing between neighbouring towns, to which he often refers, is a sufficient foundation for it. The abduction of Christian wives, on the occasion of a religious festival, by the Turkish settlers at Joannina in the 15th century (see Hughes's Travels, i. 19, 8vo.), is a parallel case, which has not, that we are aware of, been quoted in its support.

At p. 60 he observes, that "the transportation of the Latins to Rome must be regarded as the origin of the plebs," that is, of course, in the peculiar sense of the word. The object of the cloaca maxima, he considers, "was not merely to carry away the refuse of the city, but chiefly to drain the large lake which was formed by the Tiber between the Capitoline, Aventine, and Palatine, then extended between the Palatine and Capitoline, and reached as a swamp as far as the district between the Quirinal and Vincinal." (p. 66.)

After describing the enormous mound constructed by Servius Tullus, he remarks,

"Here then we have another proof of the absurdity of the opinion of Florus and others, who regarded the time of the kings as a period of infancy (infans in cunis vagiens); on the contrary, after the period of the kings the greatness of Rome was for a long time on the decline." (p. 122.)

In connexion with this passage another may be quoted from the period preceding the Gallic invasion, which he regards as a prosperous one:-"Rome thus recovered from the decline into which she had sunk ever since the regifugium." (p. 284.)

He candidly observes that the accounts of Livy and Dionysius concerning the profligate tyranny of the decemvirs "must be received with the same caution as the stories of most tyrants in antiquity." As the people were dissatisfied with their new constitution, owing to restlessness after a period of excitement, "hence even if the decemvirs had not been bad, or if

Appius Claudius had been the only bad one among them, they could not easily have maintained themselves, nor could things have remained quiet."

41 the same lezen larv nie? The account of the duenavirs is brief, Lut it is particularly ismin 14.

The Gulv sin is a muljet cu which Le has bestowel great attention, and whA L- has ably treat si, estecially when the diffinity of st truth from romance is & nobicrel. He calls Livy's account of the interposition of Camillus a "fairy-tale-like embellishment." and further inters, that after leaving Rome the Gauls traversed all Italy, and returned along the shores of the Adriatic. There is no doubt, he argues, that the Equians received their death-blow at that time from the devastations of the Gauls, for henceforth we hear no more of their hostilities against Rome. (p. 341.) This is extremely probable, for when Rome itself was nearly crushed it is likely that other states disappeared entirely. Of another rival state he says, "The conquest of Veii was one of the most decisive events in history, for it delivered Rome from a counterpoise which checked her development." (p. 317.) We quote an instructive remark, in

his account of the Samnite wars.

"The Samnites show how much may be gained by a nation for its descendants by heroic perseverance, even when in the end it succumbs; for the lot of the Samnites was always more bearable than that of many other nations which were subdued by Rome." (p. 378.)

Nor would we pass over an observation on the good conduct of the Romans at the battle of Asculum, in which they were beaten by Pyrrhus, that "it was not a defeat, but only a lost engagement." (p. 543.) The distinction is judicious, and will often be of use in reading military history for instance, that of our William III. in his campaigns against Condé and Luxembourg.

There are several able dissertations tradined of which we would men

at in Survius Tallus, already referre, to, and those on the Tribunes 781-2% on the mode of proceed

in the assenes of the people 2. on the history of Coriolanus (294), on the Laws which were formory supposed, but erroneously, to have been brought from Greece (244), es the Roman criminal law (268), and

the Plebiscitu (271). He observes that, here the discovery of Gaius, the most absurd notions were current about the criminal law; but the fragments of Graius and the labours of Sav TLY have made everything much

(p. 271). Another subject, on which much care has been bestowed, is the state of Tarentum at the time ct its war with Rome (425-7): he exculpates the Tarentines from much of the blame they usually bear, and the whole passage may be considered as an act of historical justice.

Several important geographical notices are interspersed. At p. 314, after describing the emissary of the Alban Lake, he does not hesitate to say, that

this structure eclipses all the works of Egypt; they are wonderful, but useless; this is practical and useful." Having observed that Gallia Cisalpina is much too large in our maps, and even in D'Anville's, he proceeds to say, with a happy comparison:

"During this Gallic migration we are again made aware how little we know of the history of Italy generally our knowledge is limited to Rome, so that we are in the same predicament there as if of all the historical authorities of the whole German empire we had nothing but the annals of a single imperial city." (p. 327.)

In a note at p. 333, on the battle of the Alia, the exact features of which, as described in history, cannot be traced, he says it is difficult to recognise the places in Lombardy where the battles of 1799 were fought, because the roads have since been laid differently, and the same is the case with various sites in Germany. This may serve to exonerate historians from the charge of topographical inaccuracy, of which, for instance, we once heard Clarendon accused, in his account of the two battles of Newbury, by a neighbouring investigator, who pro

bably was not aware of the changes the ground undergoes.

The literary notices are less numerous than would have been the case if that part of the subject had not been treated in the Lectures previously published; hence they are chiefly of an incidental kind, but valuable as touches from a master's pencil. He describes Livy, in his account of the military tribunes, as "displaying the confusion of a man who, with all his genius, is yet in reality only a rhetorician, and proving that he was as little acquainted with the political affairs of Rome as with the regulation of her armies." (p. 278.) Still he recommends him as "whose works you cannot study too much, both as scholars and as men who seek and love that which is beautiful," and compares his faults, which cannot be denied, to those of a friend. (p. 372.) Varro is even worse than Pliny; he knows that the Latins are a combination of two nations, but he confounds everything, representing the aborigines as the conquering and the Siculians as the conquered people." (p. 26.) "Varro had read immensely, but he ought not to be called a learned man, on account of his confusion." (ibid. note.)

one

66

Dionysius, though he did not comprehend the relations in the contests between the patricians and plebians, yet gave faithfully what he found in his authorities. (p. 283.) "A perfectly satisfactory chronology of Roman history is an impossibility, for it was not till the first Punic war that the commencement of the year was fixed." (p. 507, note.) It is little known how much Virgil altered the ancient tradition, which, in its original form, was rough and harsh, as Latinus is said to have fallen in the war against Eneas, and Lavinia became a prisoner of war. (p. 29.) · He terms St. Augustin “one of the greatest minds, endowed with the keenest judgment." (p. 163.)

was

Of Bochart, he says, that he " one of the last ingenious philologers in France; and of an intellect superior to his opponent Ryckius. Salmasius was far less clear-headed than he." (p. 16.) "Scaliger, by one of the most brilliant discoveries, found out that Catullus calls the Romans gens Romuli Ancique, where Romulus represents the burghers, and Ancus the common

alty." (p. 101.) Mai has edited the Veronensian Scholiast on Virgil incorrectly. (p. 188.) "Heyne often saw what was right, but rarely carried it out." (p. 192.) Doujat has best investigated the condition of the nexi. (p. 169, note.) "The impositions of Annius of Viterbo, Ingherami, and others, have misled Dempster, and through him Winckelmann was deceived." (p. 70.) At p. 213, he praises the works of Sigonius and Beaufort, especially for the later times. Manutius, though excellent, " is in the dark even more than others" as to the earlier ones. "The work of Adam is in many respects invaluable; but the first part contains a great deal which is incorrect." Recent works on Roman antiquities, we may observe, are gradually superseding it.

"During the eighteenth century the antiquities of the Roman law, especially the jus publicum, were sadly neglected: I except Schulting. Heineccius, a man deserving of all honour, possessed great talent and learning, but did not know what course to take; he laboured under the same mistake as the men of the sixteenth century, whose disciple he was, and had no independence of judgment." (p. 344.)

At p. 205 he remarks that Perizonius has sifted the account of the 306 Fabii with great critical sagacity. The same writer has shown the story of Cincinnatus to be apocryphal. (p. 229). From the President Brisson much may be learned, though he goes too far, for he wishes to amend everywhere. (p. 50). Sismondi places the democracy of the Italian towns too early. (p. 107). The Mohocks of Queen Anne's time are traced to similar practices in Paris, during the minority of Louis XIV. The same nuisance existed also in ancient Rome and Mitylene. (p. 228).

Several passages of a political nature, and interesting for their sagacity, might be selected from these Lectures. He considers gradation, as distinguished from precipitation, as "the secret of great statesmen." (p. 91). From history we learn that "honest men may belong to the most opposite parties." (p. 197). While reprehending the legislative conceit of our own age, he maintains its advantages, and argues that "a person who looks with fondness upon past ages, and would fain