thrown by that of which we are wholly chronological discrepancies and difficulties destitute-direct proof of the contrary. so repeatedly noticed by Livy himself, and At the same time we must be careful not still more strongly by an author named to press his authority too far. Livy does Clodius, cited by Plutarch, who is probably not say (what Niebuhr represents him as the same with the well-known annalist saying) that there were no written records Claudius Quadrigarius. This writer, inof the period before the invasion of the deed, expressly asserted that the old regisGauls, nor that all such as might have once ters had perished at the burning of the city, existed perished in that catastrophe. His and that those existing in his time were the words are not even inconsistent with the fabrication of a subsequent age. It is resupposition that there might be preserved markable, also, that Licinius Macer, who from a much earlier time some scanty and seems to have taken more pains than any meagre chronicle, such as we may suppose other annalist to investigate these questions, the Pontifical Annals to have been, not and is repeatedly appealed to by Livy, reunlike the earliest chronicles of the middle fers for the names of the consuls not to the ages, or those which recorded the last ex- pontifical registers, which, if extant and piring struggles of the Western Empire. genuine, would have been conclusive on the It is almost certain that the series of these subjects, but to certain linen rolls (lintei annals which was familiar to Cicero, and libri) which were preserved in the temple which he has characterized in the brief but of Juno Moneta, one of those which, from expressive phrase, that nothing can be its situation on the Capitoline hill, must more jejune,' commenced with the very have escaped the Gaulish conflagration. earliest period of the city, probably with Another argument, on which great stress its actual foundation. It is certain also has deservedly been laid by Niebuhr as that the mode in which they were kept-well as by Sir G. Lewis, is derived from a the Pontifex Maximus himself writing on a whitened board the principal events of the year, together with the names of its chief magistrates-clearly indicates that the custom derived its origin from a remote antiquity. However scanty and imperfect such a record might have been, it would still be of inestimable value, as giving a fixity to the floating mass of popular traditions, and securing at least a skeleton of truth, whatever might be the character of the external covering in which it was enveloped.

Unfortunately the prospect of any such resource disappears on a closer examination. There are the strongest reasons for believing that the original annals of the Pontiffs-supposing them to have been really kept from a very early periodperished in the burning of the city, and that those which bore their name in the time of Cicero were in fact a later compilation. In the first place, it is almost incredible that if there had been such a remarkable exception to the general loss of historical documents at that period, it should not have been noticed by Livy. Moreover, it is highly probable that when he speaks of the Pontifical Commentaries' as having perished on that occasion, he means to include under that designation the records in question, which are variously called the Annales Maximi and Annales Pontificum. Again, the existence of such an authentic and contemporary register as these annals would have been, had they been preserved in their integrity, would have been decisive of the

passage of Cicero,t in which he tells us that an eclipse of the sun was recorded in the Annales Maximi, as well as by Ennius, as occurring in the year of Rome 350, and that the other eclipses had been calculated back from thence as far as the one which accompanied the death of Romulus. This statement seems clearly to imply that there was no authentic contemporary record of any earlier eclipse. Bet if there was one thing more than another that the Pontifical Annals made a point of recording it was this very class of phenomena. Cato, indeed, complained that they contained little else. The inference would appear to be conclusive that these annals did not exist in an authentic form for the earliest periods.

But if we are compelled to give up the existence of even the most scanty and meagre contemporary chronicle, it may well be asked, what authority could there be for the first three centuries and a half of the Roman history? Unassisted tradition could certainly have done little for so long a period; and we have already seen that even the close of that period was already far removed from the days of Fabius and Cincius, the first whom we know to have committed those traditions to writing. And yet there is a general consistency in the

*Plut., num. i.

De Repub., i. 16.

Non enim rubeo scribere, quod in tabula apud pontificem maximum est, quoties annona cara, quoties lunæ aut solis lumini caligo aut quid obstiterit-Cato ap. Aul. Gellium, ii. 28.

1

broad outlines of the received history, so soon as we have eliminated from them the obviously poetical and romantic element, which carries to our minds the conviction that they must be founded on a basis of truth. This is apparent even in the histories of the wars of the infant republic, although it is there that the romantic and fictitious element most strongly prevails; but far more strongly is it marked in the internal history of the commonwealth, and the records of the gradual development of its constitution. As this is by far the most important part of the early history of Rome, it is fortunately also by far the most satisfactory; and we must express our conviction-wholly unshaken by the numerous instances brought forward by Sir G. Lewis, of discrepancies in points of detail that such a consistent and intelligible outline of constitutional history could never be the result of mere unsupported popular tradition.*

which it was wrung piecemeal from their reluctant grasp.

Many other circumstances combined to render the same families the natural depositaries of a traditional history very different from what might otherwise have existed. There is, as we have already observed, a great probability that, though the authentic series of the Pontifical Annals was not preserved without interruption, the custom itself was derived from a very early period; and the Pontifex Maximus was, in the first ages of the republic, always of necessity a patrician, while the choice was practically limited to a few great families. These would undoubtedly preserve in their memory a very considerable portion of the contents of documents of such public interest, and of which they were the privileged authors and sole depositaries. Thus, even if the Tables them.selves perished in the Gaulish conflagration (as we have seen reason to think probable), a great part of their contents would be preserved, and might easily be supplied and restored after the catastrophe. Nor is it credible that a people so attached to ancient precedents, and who were in the habit in all ages of heading their treaties and other public documents with the names of the consuls, should not have preserved some record at least of the names and succession of these magistrates, as well as of the triumphs they had celebrated that crowning glory of the Roman pride and ambition.*

The fact was, we believe, that such tradition was not unsupported. There were numerous causes in the framework of Roman society which essentially contributed to give fixity and stability to what would otherwise have been vague and fluctuating. Foremost among these we must place that strong attachment to forms and precedents, which was even more marked in the Roman character than it is in our own, and would cause the rituals and formularies, the ceremonies and observances, which were inseparably bound up with their political as well as religious institutions, to But besides these, the same families be transmitted with superstitious care would undoubtedly possess a large body of through successive generations. Even in traditions of their own, which would be by the days of Cicero a standard was set up on no means without historical value. Even the hill of the Janiculum, whenever the in modern times, family traditions, however people was assembled in the Campus Mar- liable to be disfigured by partiality, have tius; and the assembly was broken up if a remarkable character of permanence; the standard was torn down, because that and this must have been far more strongly had been the signal of the approach of an the case with the Roman Gentes, which enemy, when the frontier of Rome had been had often their own peculiar sacred rites, within a few miles of the Tiber, instead of and many other traditional peculiarities, on the Rhine or the Euphrates. A people which were handed down from generation so studious to perpetuate old usages would to generation. Nor have we any reason scarcely fail to preserve some account of to assume that such traditions were transthe events in which they originated, and mitted purely by oral delivery; and there which gave them their significance; nor are at least some reasons which would lead would the haughty patrician families, who to a different conclusion. It was a custom had once monopolized the whole power in the state, be disposed to forget, any more than to forgive, the successive steps by

We observe with pleasure that Dr. Liddell, in his recently published History of Rome,' which we had not read when the above paragraph was written, has come to a similar conclusion with regard to the authenticity of the constitutional traditions.

It is probable that this was very much the character of the 'lintei libri,' already noticed; but we do not know with certainty at what time they were composed. The Fasti Triumphales' and 'Consulares,' now extant, are undoubtedly a late compilation, and hardly entitled to more authority than Livy or Dionysius, though apparently (like the annalistic notices in Diodorus) derived from independent sources.

universal in later times with all noble Some of them have a purely romantic and families to adorn the halls of their houses poetical aspect; others bear the obvious with the portraits or busts of their ances- character of what have been called etiolotors; and though we do not know how gical legends-stories invented to account early this custom originated, there is one for the derivation of names, or the origin circumstance which seems, like the whit- of customs, the true significance of which ened board of the Pontiffs, to derive it was forgotten. Many of them again are from a remote antiquity. The images clearly sacerdotal traditions, preserved by were of wax-not of stone or marble, or the different sacerdotal bodies, and subseeven of terra-cotta, though the use of this quently introduced into the annals as last material for statuary was certainly historical events. Yet some few points known at Rome, as well as in Etruria, even here are historical-at least the main from a very early period. These images fact is in all probability true, as in the case were accompanied, as we are expressly of the destruction of Alba, though the cirtold, by inscriptions, not only recording cumstances and the date are alike uncerthe names of those whom they represented, tain. The wars of Romulus and Tatius, but commemorating their exploits-inscrip- for instance, are obviously fabulous in their tions probably brief and simple enough, present form; but the introduction of a not unlike those which still exist upon the Sabine element into the Roman nationtombs of the Scipios, but which would ality, and its combination with the Latin serve to perpetuate the memory of the ma- | one, is a fact which cannot be doubted, gistracies they had borne, and the exploits and the influence of which may be traced they had performed. Nor can we doubt through a great part of the Roman customs that every noble scion of the house of and institutions. In like manner the conthe Fabii or Quinctii could repeat by heart quest of Antemnæ and Canina by Romuthe whole list of these ancestral inscrip- lus, and that of Politorium, and other Latin tions. The custom of delivering funeral towns, by Ancus Marcius, cannot be reorations on the death of each distinguished ceived as positive historical facts to which member of a family, which not only re- we can assign their definite place in hiscounted the virtues and exploits of the tory; but it is nevertheless certain that deceased, but recapitulated those of his these and other small towns in the neighancestors, must have tended to the same bourhood of Rome had been reduced under result, and served to revive and perpetuate the dominion of the rising city before the through each succeeding generation the period when it threw off the kingly form memorials of the family. And though of government. The treaty with Carthage, these orations very probably were not in already adverted to as a document of unearly times committed to writing, their doubted authenticity, sufficiently proves substance would undoubtedly be transmitted that before the close of the monarchy the from father to son, and they would thus Roman state had really risen to a position have become valuable auxiliaries, in con- of no inconsiderable power, and that the solidating and fixing the traditionary his- traditional greatness of the Tarquins was tory. no mere fiction of the popular fancy.

Unfortunately this last class of authorities would be wanting for the period which preceded the commonwealth; and it must be admitted that when, in tracing back the stream of Roman history, we arrive at the period of the regal government, the traces of anything that has even a semblance of historical character become very few and very faint. The chronology of the whole period has long been shown to be wholly arbitrary and fictitious: and this in itself negatives the supposition of any contemporary record, or even any connected tradition that could supply its place. The received history of the kings of Rome bears indeed the appearance, on a somewhat closer scrutiny, of a string of detached legends, strung together into a semblance of chronological sequence, but obviously derived from very different sources.

The result of the preceding inquiry appears to us to be, that, though we have no proof of the existence of any contemporary record for the period preceding the burning of the city, yet there must have existed, at least from the beginning of the commonwealth, many sources from which a tolerably authentic narrative, correct in its broad and general outlines, however defective in its details, could be put together. Many of the records which perished on that occasion were of a class which could easily be preserved in the memory, and probably were in fact so preserved, until they were at a later period again committed to writing. And if it was attempted, as appears to us most probable-at a time not long after the catastrophe, or at all events long before the days of Fabius and Cincius -to put together such a chronicle as might

replace the earlier series of the Annales | been laid hold of by the detractors of NieMaximi,there would not be wanting the ma- buhr as the ground of a most unjust charge terials for such a work. No doubt these ma- of plagiarism, because the same idea had terials would be far from possessing either already been suggested more than a centuthe completeness or the authenticity of a ry and a half before by Perizonius—a fact genuine contemporary chronicle, but they which had been so completely forgotten would be in the main substantially true that it would probably have remained unand a body of annals so composed would known to all his detractors had not Niebuhr bear very much the same relation to the himself, with his wonted candour, brought later annals that the earlier portions of the it to light. Sir G. Lewis, on the contrary, Saxon Chronicle do to the latter parts of as well as the most recent German histothe same document. We do not know rian, Dr. Schwegler, reject altogether the from what materials or at what time the supposed discovery, and refuse to admit former were compiled, though there is good the poetic element among the ingredients reason to assume that they are not, like of the early Roman history. But we canthe later portions, a really contemporary not discover that either the one or the other record; but we do not on that account re- has brought forward any new arguments ject them altogether as fabulous. Hengist against the theory, or has weakened the and Horsa may be, and indeed very proba- force of the strong presumption in its fably are, mere mythical personages, like vour. Sir G. Lewis, indeed, has not even Romulus and Remus; but the Saxon con- noticed the striking analogy of the instanquest of England is not the less an histori- ces produced by Mr. Macaulay; from the cal fact; and the occurrence of this Spanish history of Mariana-an author mythical element at their commencement frequently styled the Spanish Livy-who cannot be reasonably assumed as vitiating has reproduced as history without the all the subsequent annals of the Heptarchy. slightest suspicion the substance of the old Their authority has been generally admit- ballad of the Cid; as well as that of the ted by all our historians, and whether they amours of Edgar with Elfleda, which are are founded on earlier chronicles which narrated with equal confidence by Hume, have now disappeared, or rest mainly on though they rest only on the authority of the basis of popular tradition, there is no popular ballads. reason to doubt the substantial correctness Sir G. Lewis may indeed object-and of their meagre and scanty narrative. this is in fact the substance of his objection But, it may reasonably be objected, this to the whole theory-that in these cases is not the character of the early Roman we have direct evidence that the tales in history. So far from being meagre or question were taken from such ballads, scanty, the narrative is full and copious in and that we have no such evidence in the the extreme. It is related with circumstan- case of any of the early Roman legends. tial minuteness, with a richness of detail, But when we consider how purely accidenand above all with an abundance of per- tal is our knowledge of the sources from sonal anecdote and traits of individual which the Spanish and English historians character that remind us rather of histori- in both cases derived their materials; and cal romance than of meagre annals; they how easily all trace of them might have resemble rather Xenophon's Cyropædia' disappeared, we cannot wonder that we or Walter Scott's Ivanhoe' than the Sax- should have no such proof remaining in on Chronicle. From whence could all a case where the whole of the early histhese details have been derived? The an- torical literature of the country is lost to swer given by Niebuhr, and generally us. If the works of Fabius and Cincius, of adopted by subsequent writers is from Cato and Licinius Macer, had been prepopular poetry. Hardly any of Niebuhr's served to us in their integrity, and no discoveries if such it may be called allusion had been found in them to these have attracted more attention than this. In this country it has acquired especial prominence from the manner in which it was turned to account by Mr. Macaulay in his spirited lays of Ancient Rome, as well as from the clearness and ability with which the theory is set forth in the preface of that charming volume. It has been extensively adopted and applied, especially by German writers, to the early history of other countries. On the other hand, it has

6

early poetical sources, the objection, though still far from conclusive, would have been entitled to much weight: as it is, it is surely unreasonable to require that kind of proof, which, from the nature of the case, could scarcely by possibility be still forthcoming.

The greater part of Sir G. Lewis's argument is directed against the hypothesis that these lays had been worked up into a longer poem, or a kind of popular epic

We

an addition by no means essential to the argument of Dr. Schwegler that the Rotheory, and which has, we believe, been mans were essentially an unpoetical peoaccepted by few of Niebuhr's followers. ple, we should find it sufficient to point Indeed, his own views on this subject are to this deep and intense admiration for the by no means clear and consistent. In writings of Nævius and Ennius; but the some passages he certainly speaks of the best answer to this charge is to be found Lay of the Tarquins' as a great his- in the stories themselves. There they are; torical poem, ending with the battle of and their poetical colouring, as well as their giants' at the Lake Regillus; and supposes poetical merit, is unquestionable. the history of Romulus and the war of know that they do not owe this character Tullus Hostilius with Alba to have been to the inventive power of Livy; and it will each the subject of a single poem, neces- scarcely be contended that they derived sarily, therefore, of considerable length. it wholly from Ennius. We must therefore But he admits also the existence of shorter suppose them to be popular legends nardetached lays, in a separate form, as well rated in poetical style, at a period when as of the still earlier lays or ballads which literature was yet in its infancy, and poformed the foundation of the longer poems. lished prose writing unknown. The preWhether these ballads were ever worked sumption appears to us irresistible that up into more extensive poems, such as the they would assume the form of that popu Nibelungen Lied or the Spanish poem of lar poetry which is common to all ages and the Cid, before they passed into the hands almost all countries. Even at the present of the annalists and received their final day, in a very different state of society, poetic treatment at the hands of Ennius, is and certainly one far more prosaic than a question which we have no means, of that of the rude husbandmen and warriors deciding; but that there once existed of the infant Roman state-in the midst of among the Romans a considerable body the dingy streets and smoky chimneys of of ballad poetry, which was still extant in London or Manchester, not an event occurs the days of the elder Cato, though its loss that is not caught up and celebrated in was already lamented by Cicero, is a fact popular poetry. And the very metre emwhich appears to us established on unques- ployed is often the same with the old tionable evidence. It was this body of popu- Saturnian verse, which, rude and irregular lar poetry to which alone Nævius could refer as it was, differed but little, if at all, from when he represented himself as the last of that which we find in many of our own old the Roman poets, after whose death the ballads and nursery rhymes, as well as in Muses would forget how to speak Latin; the old Spanish poem of the Cid and in the and which must have furnished the ma- heroic lays of modern Greece.* terials out of which Ennius constructed the noble poem that was at once adopted by the Romans as their national epic. We have no doubt that the almost unbounded popularity enjoyed by this great work, which was published no long time after the prose histories of Fabius and Cincius, exer*Mr. Macaulay appears to us to have apprehendcised a material influence over the subse-ed the true nature of the Saturnian verse in the quent history of Rome, and contributed to admirable preface already quoted; while Sir G. perpetuate the poetical character so strong-Lewis, following too closely the pedantic grammarily impressed upon its earlier portions; but we have no doubt also that he was indebted for its numerous poetical episodes to the songs of far earlier and ruder minstrels, whose rugged strains were forgotten when the more polished hexameters had banished the rough Saturnian metre. But the care with which the poems of Nævius and of Ennius himself were cherished and stored up in their memory by the Romans of the days of Cicero, and even of Augustus, was doubtless but the representative of that with which their ancestors preserved the ruder ballads that had been the delight of their still ruder forefathers.

If any answer were required to the

We come then to the conclusion that the materials for this part of the Roman history were composed, as represented by Niebuhr, mainly of two classes. The first, or what may be called the prosaic element, was de

ans of later times, has endeavoured to limit the character of this rude and primitive metre, or rather rhythm, in a manner wholly at variance with its origin and usage. The very grammarians who give us an account of its structure, admit that it was difficult to find verses, of sufficiently regular construction, to serve as models in the whole poem of Nævius. The same thing might be said of the poem of the Cid, the regular metre of which is only a longer Saturnian verse, but its irregularities defy all control. But if this was the case with the later and comparatively regular poem of Nævius, how much more must it have applied to the ruder and earlier ballads, or to those extempore military strains which were the unfailing ac companiment of every triumph, from the days of Suet., Cæs., 51). This custom is in itself a sufficient Cincinnatus to those of Julius Cæsar (Liv., iii. 29; proof, were all others wanting, of the aptitude of the Romans for ballad poetry.