CHAPTER I. LAND AND PEOPLE
The fundamental peculiarity of Roman history is the fact that it is the history, not of a country or, in the proper sense, of a nation, but of a city. In Egypt, Thebes was at one time dominant, and Memphis at another; the supreme centre of Mesopotamia shifted between Babylon and Nineveh; whilst in Greece, Athens and Sparta long contested the supremacy. But in all these cases, with the possible exception of the Babylonian, the country as a whole gave its name to the people, and the city was, at best, only the heart of the civilisation; whereas Rome came into power as an isolated community within a little city, the very environs of which were at first hostile territory.
This city chanced to be located in Italy, but for some centuries the names “Roman” and “Italian” were in no sense synonymous. Indeed at an early date the main part of Italy was inhabited by people who were not at all under Roman dominion, and when the legions of Rome issued forth to conquer the territories and the little peninsula, the wars that led to this result had all the significance of foreign conquest. And when these conquests had spread beyond the bounds of Italy proper until, finally, they took in practically all of the civilised world that was worth conquering, except the Parthian kingdom in the far East, it was still the single city on the Tiber which was regarded as constituting the essence of the vast dominion; and the citizen who had come to share in the full rights and privileges of this vast domain needed no other specific designation than the single word “Roman.”
From the point of view of the ethnologist, Greeks and Romans had strong points of difference. The Greeks were dominated by a temperament perhaps more acute and sensitive than that of any other nation of the ancient world. They developed the fine arts in all their main branches—pottery, sculpture, architecture, grammar, and philosophy—to a height which has never been excelled by any subsequent people. But they paid the penalty of their sensibility and their versatility by an instability of purpose, a lack of civic discipline, which speedily worked their downfall.
The Romans developed comparatively little culture. Almost all the lasting monuments of the Romans were partly inspired by intercourse with the Greeks. On the other hand, as might have been expected of a people whose home was within the walls of a city, they were as eminent in the framing of laws, and in the art of government, as the Greeks were in the fine arts. The versatility and levity of the Greek, and his undisciplined life of individual freedom, ruined the nation of the noblest promise in all history. The virile stability of the Roman, and his conception of freedom as subordinate to the duties of patriotism, made him master of the civilised world for many centuries.
To these two nations the world owes, perhaps, an equal debt. The peoples of modern Europe arose from the ruins of the Roman empire, and inherited from it the soundest laws and the best examples of government; which, in some respects, they have been able to improve upon; and, when they had progressed far enough in civilisation, they discovered the culture of the Greeks and developed it, each nation in accordance with its genius and its needs, into the civilisation of the later centuries.
The testimony of language has been accepted as proving that the Romans were Aryans, but that term itself has come to have a somewhat doubtful meaning, as we have already seen. The affinity of their language seems to make it clear that the Romans were more closely allied to the Greeks than to any other of their known contemporaries, and it has been assumed as proven that the ancestors of these two peoples remained in contact with each other long after their separation from the primitive Aryan swarm. But the problem in its entirety deals with many questions that are obscure in the extreme: just when or just how these supposititious Aryans migrated into Italy; what manner of people—what race even—they found there; to what extent they commingled ethnically with the races which they there met and conquered; these are all questions to which authentic history can give but the vaguest answers.[a]
THE LAND OF ITALY
It is difficult in attempting a geographical sketch for the purpose of elucidating Roman history, to determine where we ought to begin and where to end. For during a long period we are hardly carried out of sight of the Capitol; and at the close of that period we are hurried with startling rapidity into the heart of every country, from the Atlantic to the mountains of Asia Minor, from the ridges of the Alps to the plains that lie beneath Mount Atlas. But since the origin and composition of the people we call Roman depend upon the early state and population of Italy at large, and since in course of time all Italians became Romans, it will be well to follow the usual custom, and begin with a geographical sketch of the Italian peninsula.
This peninsula, the central one of the three which stretch boldly forward from the southern coasts of Europe, lies nearly between the parallels of north latitude 38° and 46°. Its length, therefore, measured along a meridian arc, ought to be about 550 miles. But since, unlike the other two Mediterranean peninsulas, it runs in a direction nearly diagonal to the lines of latitude and longitude, its real length, measured from Mont Blanc to Cape Spartivento, is somewhat more than seven hundred miles.
To estimate the breadth of this long and singularly shaped peninsula, it may conveniently be divided into two parts by a line drawn across from the mouths of the Po to the northern point of Etruria. Below this line the average breadth of the leg of Italy does not much exceed one hundred miles. Above this line both coasts trend rapidly outwards, so that the upper portion forms an irregularly shaped figure, which lies across the top of the leg, being bounded on the north and west by the Alpine range from Illyria to the mouth of the Var, on the south by the imaginary line before drawn, and on the east by the head of the Adriatic Sea. The length of this figure from east to west is not less than 350 miles; while from north to south it measures, on the average, about 120 miles.
The surface of the whole peninsula, including both the leg of Italy and the irregular figure at the top, is estimated at about ninety thousand square miles, or an area nearly equal to the surface of Great Britain and Ireland. But a very large proportion of this surface is unproductive, and a great part even incapable of tillage.
The geographical features are simple. No deep gulfs and inlets are to be expected; for these are only found when mountain chains jut out into the sea, and maintain themselves as headlands, while the lower land between is eaten and washed away by the ceaseless action of the waves. Such phenomena are presented by Greece, and by the western coasts of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. But in Italy there is but one uniform mountain chain. On the northern or Adriatic slope of the Apennines, indeed, a number of gorges open to the sea in a direction transverse to the main line of the mountains. But the projecting spurs which form these gorges are not considerable in height; and on the southern or Mediterranean side the main range sinks towards the sea in subordinate or secondary ranges, more or less parallel to the principal chain, and therefore seldom admitting of abrupt headlands with deep embrasures between. There is, however, one exception. At the foot of Italy the central range forks off into two great branches, one running towards the toe of the peninsula, the other forming the heel. The low lands between these two ranges have been scooped out by the waves, and here has been formed the great Gulf of Tarentum, a vast expanse of sea, measuring from point to point no less than eighty miles. But except this great gulf, the coasts of the peninsula are indented by comparatively gentle curves. On the northern side the single inequality is presented by the projecting mass of Mount Garganus, which forms with the lower coast what is now called the Bay of Manfredonia. On the sole of the foot, below the Gulf of Tarentum, we find the Bay of Squillace (Sinus Scylacius). After passing the Straits of Messina, first occurs the Bay of St. Eufemia (Sinus Vibonensis), which is separated from that of Squillace by a mass of granitic rocks less than twenty miles in breadth. A little higher up we come to a wide sweep in the coast, known by the name of the Bay of Policastro.
That part of the southern coast which is most irregular deserves particular attention from the student of Roman history. Between the point where ancient Lucania borders on Campania, and that at which Latium begins, a distance of about 120 miles, the coast-line is broken into three fine bays, the Bay of Pæstum or Salerno on the south, the Bay of Gaeta on the north, and between them the smallest but most famous and most beautiful of the three—the Bay of Cumæ or Naples. From Cape Circello (Circeii), which forms the northern horn of the Bay of Gaeta, the coast-line runs onward to Genoa, unbroken save by the headlands of Argentaro and Piombino in Tuscany. But these do not project far enough to form any recess worthy to be named. Nor is the little Bay of Spezzia, just north of Tuscany, deserving of mention as a geographical feature.
The same circumstance which prevents Italy from abounding in deep bays and bold headlands also prevents its coasts from being studded with islands, which are but relics of projecting mountain chains. If we omit Sicily, which is in fact a continuation of the peninsula separated by a channel of two or three miles broad, and the Lipari islands, which are due to the volcanic action still at work beneath Etna and Vesuvius, the islands of Italy are insignificant. Capreæ (Capri) on the one hand, Prochyta (Procida) and Ischia on the other, are but fragments of the two headlands that form the Bay of Naples. Igilium (Giglio) and Ilva (Elba) stand in a similar relation to the headlands of Argentaro and Piombino. Besides these may be named Pontiæ (Ponza), Pandataria, with a few more barren rocks off the Bay of Gaeta, and a few even less important on the coast of Tuscany.
Except in northern Italy, which abounds in noble rivers, the narrowness of the peninsula forbids the existence of really large streams. Yet, the Apennine range, which forms on its southern side long parallel valleys, enables numerous torrents and rills which descend towards the south to swell into rivers of not inconsiderable size. Such especially are the Arno and the Tiber. Their waters are separated by the hills which terminate in the headlands of Argentaro and Piombino, so that the Arno flows northward, and enters the sea on the northern frontier of Tuscany, after a course of about 120 miles; while the Tiber runs in a southerly direction receiving the waters of the Clanis from the west, and those of the Nar (Nera) and Velinus from the east, till its course is abruptly turned by the Sabine hills. The entire length of its channel is about 180 miles. These two well-known rivers, with their affluents, drain the whole of Etruria, the Sabine country, and the Campagna of Rome.
Similar in their course, but on a smaller scale, are the Anio (Teverone) and the Liris. They both rise in the Æquian hills, the Anio flowing northward to swell the stream of the Tiber a little above Rome; the Liris, joined by the Trerus (Sacco) from the west, running southward so as to drain southern Latium and northern Campania, till it turns abruptly towards the sea, and enters it about the middle of the Bay of Gaeta, after a course of about eighty miles.
The Vulturnus and the Calor run down opposite valleys from the north and south of the Samnite territory, till they join their streams on the frontier of Campania, and fall into the Bay of Gaeta only a short distance below the Liris. Both of these streams measure from their sources to their united mouth not less than one hundred miles.
The only other notable river on the western coast is the Silarus (Sele), which descends by a channel of about sixty miles from the central Apennines of Lucania into the Bay of Pæstum or Salerno. In the foot of Italy the mountains come down so close to the sea that from the mouth of the Silarus to the lower angle of the Gulf of Tarentum, the streams are but short and rapid torrents. Of these it is said that no fewer than eighty may be enumerated between Pæstum and the Straits of Messina. The Gulf of Tarentum receives some streams of importance. The Bradanus and Casuentus (Basento) enter the gulf within four miles of each other after a course of about sixty miles. The Aciris (Agri) is to the south of these. The Siris (Sinno), notable as the scene of the first battle between Pyrrhus and the Romans, is a mere torrent, as is the Galesus upon which Tarentum stands.
The northern or Adriatic coast is almost devoid of lateral valleys, such as are found on the other coast, and therefore has few considerable streams. The Aufidus (Ofanto) in Apulia, renowned in Roman history from the fact that the fatal battle of Cannæ took place upon its banks, rises on the opposite side of the same range from which the Calor flows, and runs a course of about eighty miles. The Sagrus (Sangro) stands in the same relation to the Vulturnus as the Aufidus does to the Calor, and conveys the waters of the Fucine Lake from the Æquian hills through Samnium, by a nearly similar length of channel. But the largest river of this side is the Aternus, which finds its way from the Sabine hills into a valley parallel to the main range, and thus prolongs its course. It is joined by a number of smaller streams, and attains a considerable volume of water before it reaches the sea at the point where the Marrucinian coast abuts on that of Picenum.
The whole coast from Mount Garganus northward is ploughed by numberless torrents which descend in rapid course down steep mountain gorges. Of these we need but name the Æsis between Picenum and Umbria; the Metaurus in Umbria, famous for the defeat of Hasdrubal; the Rubicon, which formed the boundary of Roman Italy on the northern side, as did the Macra (Magra) on the opposite coast.
The limestone mountain tract that occupies the whole narrow peninsula from the great valley of the Po downwards is often too steep, bare, and rugged to be capable of cultivation. There are, however, many rich plains of limited extent, among which Campania ranks first; and many narrow but fertile valleys, in which nature rewards the smallest labour with bountiful returns.
Ancient Roman Tower near Rome
In speaking of lakes, we must resume our twofold division of the peninsula. On the Alpine slopes of the great valley of the Po, the granitic and ancient limestone rocks break into vast chasms at right angles to their general direction, in which the waters of the rivers that flow downwards to join the Po accumulate and form those lakes so well known to all lovers of natural beauty. Such are Lake Benacus (Lago di Garda) formed by the waters of the Mincius; Larius (Lago di Como) by those of the Adda; Verbanus (Lago Maggiore) by those of the Ticino; not to mention the lakes of Lugano, Orta, and others, smaller, indeed, but hardly less beautiful.
But Apennine Italy, considering the great extent of its mountain districts, does not present many considerable lakes. Nor are these formed by the accumulated waters of rivers flowing through them, like the lakes of northern Italy or Switzerland. For the most part, like the lakes of Greece, they have no visible outlet, but lose their waters partly by evaporation, partly by underground fissures and channels. The Fucine Lake in the Æquian hills feeds the Sangro, and Lake Bradanus in the south feeds the river of the same name. But the celebrated Lake Trasimene in Etruria, and the lakes of the volcanic district, as the “great Volsinian Mere,” the lakes of Alba, Nemi, Amsanctus, and others, have no visible outlet. These, in fact, are the craters of extinct volcanoes. Roman history contains legends which relate to the artificial tapping of these cauldrons; and some of the tunnels cut through their rocky basins still remain.
The abundance of water which is poured over the hills is apt to accumulate in marshy swamps in the low districts towards the sea. Such is the case along the lower course of the Po, on the coast lands of Tuscany, and in the lower part of the Campagna of Rome. Mantua, which stands a little above the junction of the Mincio with the Po, is surrounded by marshes; and the whole coast between Venice and Ravenna is a swamp.
To keep the Po and its tributaries within their channels, the Lombards of the Middle Ages raised embankments on either side of the stream. But these embankments cause the rivers to deposit the whole of the mud with which they are charged within their channels, and the quantity thus deposited is so great that it is necessary to raise the embankments continually. Hence, in the course of centuries, the bottoms of the rivers have been elevated considerably above the plains; so that the streams of Lombardy in their lower course are in fact carried along huge earthen aqueducts. In time, human industry will not be equal to raise these embankments in sufficient strength, and a deluge will ensue more fearful than those which the poet of Mantua seems to have witnessed.
EARLY POPULATION OF ITALY
It is a common remark that mountains are the chief boundaries of countries, and that races of men are found in their purest state when they are separated by these barriers from admixture with other tribes. Italy forms an exception to this rule. It was not so much the “fatal gift of beauty,” of which the poet speaks, as the richness of its northern plain, that attracted successive tribes of invaders over the Alps. From the earliest dawn of historic knowledge, we hear of one tribe after another sweeping like waves over the peninsula, each forcing its predecessor onward, till there arose a power strong enough to drive back the current, and bar aggression for many an age. This power was the Roman Empire, which forced the Gauls to remain on the northern side of the Apennines, and preserved Italy untouched by the foot of the foreigner for centuries. No sooner was this power weakened, than the incursions again began.
But if the northern barriers of the peninsula failed to check the lust of invaders, its long straggling shape, intersected by mountains from top to bottom, materially assisted in breaking it up into a number of different nations. Except during the strength of the Roman Empire, Italy has always been parcelled out into a number of small states. In the earliest times it was shared among a number of tribes differing in race and language. Great pains have been taken to investigate the origin and character of these primeval nations. But the success has not been great, and it is not our purpose to dwell on intricate questions of this kind. We shall here only give results so far as they seem to be established.
It is well known that it was not till the close of the republic, or rather the beginning of the empire, that the name of Italy was employed, as we now employ it, to designate the whole peninsula, from the Alps to the Straits of Messina. The term Italia, borrowed from the name of a primeval tribe which occupied the southern portion of the land, was gradually adopted as a generic title in the same obscure manner in which most of the countries of Europe, or (we may say) the continents of the world have received their appellations. In the remotest times the name only included lower Calabria; from these narrow limits it gradually spread upwards, till about the time of the Punic Wars its northern boundary ascended the little river Rubicon (between Umbria and Cisalpine Gaul), then followed the ridge of the Apennines westward to the source of the Macra, and was carried down the bed of that small stream to the Gulf of Genoa.
But under Roman rule even this narrower Italy wanted that unity of race and language which, in spite of political severance, we are accustomed to attribute to the name. Within the boundaries just indicated there were at least six distinct races, some no doubt more widely separated, but all marked by strong national characteristics. These were the Pelasgians, the Oscans, the Sabellians, the Umbrians, the Etruscans, and the Greeks.
It is certain that in primitive times the coasts and lower valleys of Italy were peopled by tribes that had crossed over from the opposite shores of Greece and Epirus. These tribes belonged to that ancient stock called the Pelasgian, of which so much has been written and so little is known. The names that remained in southern Italy were practically all of a half-Hellenic character. Such were, in the heel of Italy, the Daunians and Peucetians (reputed to be of Arcadian origin), the Messapians and Salentines; to the south of the Gulf of Tarentum, the Chaonians (who are also found in Epirus); and in the toe the Œnotrians, who once gave name to all southern Italy. Such also were the Siculians and other tribes along the coast from Etruria to Campania, who were driven out by the invading Oscan and Sabellian nations.
The Oscan or Opican race was at one time very widely spread over the south. The Auruncans of lower Latium belonged to this race, as also the Ausonians, who once gave name to central Italy, and probably also the Volscians and the Æquians. In Campania the Oscan language was preserved to a late period in Roman history, and inscriptions still remain which can be interpreted by those familiar with Latin.
The Umbrians at one time possessed dominion over great part of central Italy. Inscriptions in their language also remain, and manifestly show that they spoke a tongue not alien to the Latin. The irruption of the Sabellian and of the Etruscan nations was probably the cause which broke the power of the Umbrians, and drove them back to a scanty territory between the Æsis, the Rubicon, and the Tiber.
The greatest of the Italian nations was the Sabellian. Under this name we include the Sabines, who are said by tradition to have been the progenitors of the whole race, the Samnites, the Picenians, Vestinians, Marsians, Marrucinians, Pelignians, and Frentanians. This race seems to have been naturally given to a pastoral life, and therefore fixed its early settlements in the upland valleys of the Apennines. Pushing gradually along this central range, the mountaineers penetrated downwards towards the Gulf of Tarentum; and as their population became too dense to find support in their native hills, bands of warrior youths issued forth to settle in the richer plains below. Thus they mingled with the Opican and Hellenic races of the south, and formed new tribes, known by the names of Apulians, Lucanians, and Campanians. These more recent tribes, in turn, threatened the great Greek colonies on the coast, of which we shall speak presently.
We now come to the Etruscans, the most singular people of the peninsula. This people called themselves Rasena, or Rasenna—a name that reminds us of the Etruscan surnames Porsenna, Vibenna, Sisenna. At one time they possessed not only the country known to the Romans as Etruria (that is, the country bounded by the Macra, the central Apennine ridge, and the Tiber), but also occupied a large portion of Liguria and Cisalpine Gaul; and perhaps they had settlements in Campania. In early times they possessed a powerful navy, and in the primitive Greek legends they are represented as infesting the Mediterranean with their piratical galleys. They seem to have been driven out of their trans-Apennine possession by early invasions of the Gauls; and their naval power never recovered the blow which it received in the year 480 B.C., when Gelo, tyrant of Syracuse, defeated their navy, combined with that of Carthage, on the same day on which the battle of Salamis crippled the power of Persia.[2]
But who this people were, or whence they came, baffles conjecture. It may be assumed as certain, that Hellenic settlers came in by sea from the western coasts of Epirus, which are distant from Italy less than fifty miles; and that the Opican, Umbrian, and Sabellian races came in from the north by land. But with respect to the Etruscans all is doubtful. One well-known legend represents them as Lydians, who fled by sea from Asia Minor to avoid the terrible presence of famine. Another indicates that they came down over the Alps, and the origin of their name Rasena is traced in Rætia. On the former supposition, Etruria was their earliest settlement, and, pushing northward, they conquered the plain of the Po; on the latter, they first took possession of this fertile plain, and then spread southward over the Apennines.
Their language, if it could be interpreted, might help to solve the riddle. But though characters in which their inscriptions are written bear close affinity to the Greek and Roman alphabets, the tongue of this remarkable people has as yet baffled the deftest efforts of philology.
Of the Greek settlements that studded the coast of lower Italy, and gave to that district the name of Magna Græcia, little need here be said. They were not planted till after the foundation of Rome. Many of them, indeed, attained to great power and splendour; and the native Osco-Pelasgian population of the south became their subjects or their serfs. Sybaris alone, in the course of two centuries, is said to have become mistress of four nations and twenty-five towns, and to have been able to raise a civic force of 300,000 men. Croton, her rival, was even larger. Greek cities appear as far north as Campania, where Naples still preserves in a corrupt form her Hellenic name, Neapolis. The Greek remains discovered at Canusium (Canosi) in the heart of Apulia, attest the extent of Hellenic dominion. But the Greeks seem to have held aloof from mixture with the native Italians, whom they considered as barbarians. Rome is not mentioned by any Greek writer before the time of Aristotle (about 340 B.C.).
From the foregoing sketch it will appear that Latium formed a kind of focus, in which all the different races that in past centuries had been thronging into Italy converged. The Etruscans bordered on Latium to the west; the Sabines, with the Umbrians behind them, to the north; the Æquians and Volscians, Oscan tribes, to the northeast and east; while Hellenic communities are to be traced upon the coast lands. We should then expect beforehand to meet with a people formed by a commixture of divers tribes; and this expectation is confirmed.
Tradition tells us that the aborigines of Latium mingled in early times with a people calling themselves Siculians; that these Siculians, being conquered and partly expelled from Italy, took refuge in the island, which was afterwards called Sicily from them, but was at that time peopled by a tribe named Sicanians; that the conquering people were named Sacranians, and had themselves been forced down from the Sabine valleys in the neighbourhood of Reate by Sabellian invaders; and that from this mixture of aborigines, Siculians, and Sacranians arose the people known afterwards by the name of Latins. Where all is uncertain, conjecture is easy. But all conjectures bear witness to the compound nature of the Latin nation.[b]
BEGINNINGS OF ROME AND THE PRIMITIVE ROMAN COMMONWEALTH
About fourteen miles upstream from the mouth of the river Tiber, and on either bank of the latter, rise gentle slopes, the higher on the right, the lower on the left; to the latter for at least two and a half thousand years the name of the Romans has been affixed. It cannot, of course, be positively declared how and when it arose, it is only certain that in the oldest form of the name known to us, the inhabitants of the province were not called Romans but—with a change of pronunciation natural enough in the more ancient stages of a language but not continued in the Latin known to us—Ramnians or Ramnes; an eloquent witness to the immemorial antiquity of this name. The exact derivation cannot be determined; it is possible that the Ramnes are the people of the stream. But they did not dwell alone on the bank of the Tiber. In the oldest classification of the Roman citizens, we find traces showing that the nation derived its origin from the fusion into a single commonwealth of three once apparently independent tribes, the Ramnes, the Tities, and the Luceres: that is, from a synoikismos like that whence Athens arose in Attica.[3]
Again, after the union, each of these three ancient communities, which had now become demes, owned a third of the common lands, and was similarly represented in the militia as well as in the council of the elders, whilst in the religious organisation the numbers of the six vestal virgins, the three high priests of Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus, are apparently to be referred to this threefold division.
The most wanton absurdities have been founded on the existence of the three elements into which the ancient Roman commonwealth was divided; the irrational idea that the Roman nation was a mixed race is connected with it, and its supporters labour in various ways to represent the three great Italian races as the component elements of ancient Rome, and to transform the people which developed its speech, its government, and its religion with a purity and national spirit attained by few others, into a confused mass of Etruscan, Sabine, Hellenic, and, still worse, even Pelasgic elements. Setting aside the sometimes contradictory, sometimes groundless hypotheses, all that can be said concerning the nationality of the various elements of the ancient Roman commonwealth may be summed up in a few words. That the Ramnes were of Latin origin cannot be doubted, since they gave their name to the new Roman commonwealth and maintained the chief place amongst the three tribes, so that they must have decided the nationality of the united community.
As to the descent of the Luceres, nothing can be said except that there is no obstacle to their being regarded as a Latin tribe like the Ramnes. On the other hand the second of these tribes is unanimously derived from that of the Sabines, doubtless on the authority of a respectable and authentic tradition of the “Titian brotherhood” which claimed to have been founded on the admission of the tribe to the confederacy for the preservation of its peculiar national ritual. Traces of such an aboriginal Sabine worship are in fact to be found in Rome; as for instance the honouring of Maurs or Mars and of Semo Sancus, side by side with the corresponding Latin Dius Fidius. It was at a very remote period, when the Latin and Sabine tribes were yet unquestionably far less distinctly unlike in language and customs than were the Roman and the Samnite later, that a Sabellian community entered into a Latin tribal union; exactly in the same way that some centuries afterwards the Sabine clan of Attus Clanzus, or Appius Claudius, and his clients emigrated to Rome, obtained a grant of land on the right bank of the Anio and was soon completely absorbed into the Roman community.
Death of Remus
(From a picture by Mirys)
A fusion of various nationalities did of course take place; but we are not therefore justified in counting the Romans amongst mixed peoples. With the exception of isolated national institutions transplanted into the ritual, the existence of Sabellian elements is never manifested in Rome, and in especial the Latin tongue affords no support to such an hypothesis. It would indeed be more than surprising if the addition to the Latin nation of a single tribe from one of the races nearest allied to the Latin, had affected its nationality in perceptible fashion; and in addition it must by no means be forgotten that, at the time when the Tities settled near the Romans, the Latin nationality had its headquarters at Latium, not at Rome. The new threefold Roman commonwealth was, in spite of its quickly assimilated Sabellian element, just what the tribe of the Ramnes had been—a part of the Latin nation.
Long before an urban settlement rose on the Tiber, those Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres may have had their township on the Roman hills and tilled their fields from the surrounding villages, at first separately and afterwards in concert. The festival of the wolf, lupercalia, which the family of Quinctii celebrated on the Palatine Hill, may be a tradition of this earliest time; it was a festival of peasants and shepherds which preserves the homely sports of patriarchal simplicity in a way equalled by none other, and remarkably enough was the one of all the heathen festivals which survived for a time in Christian Rome.
From these settlements, then, sprang the later Rome. Of the actual foundation of the town as the legend relates it, we cannot of course in any sense speak; Rome was not built in a day. It is, however, well worth considering by what means Rome could have attained to her eminent political position in Latium, when the nature of the locality would rather lead us to an opposite expectation. The site on which Rome stands is less healthy and less fertile than that of most old Latin towns. The vine and the fig tree do not thrive in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome, and there is a lack of bountiful springs—for neither the excellent fount of Camenæ before the Porta Capena, nor the Capitoline well, afterwards enclosed in the Tullianum, yields much water. To all this was added the frequent overflowing of the river, which, owing to its very slight incline, was unable during the rainy season to carry seaward the copious influx from the mountain streams with speed enough to prevent its flooding the valleys and low tracts of land which opened between the hills, and reducing them to a mere marsh. The place is by no means alluring to the settler and even in ancient times it was said that it could not have been its fitness for colonisation which attracted the first immigrant farmers to that unhealthy and infertile spot in a favoured district; but that necessity, or rather some other very special reason, must have prompted the building of the town.
The strangeness of the choice is acknowledged even in the legend; the tale of the foundation of Rome by refugees from Alba, under the leadership of the Albanian princes Romulus and Remus, is nothing but a naïve attempt of early quasi-history to explain the strangeness of the establishment of the city on so unfavourable a site, and at the same time to connect the origin of Rome with the common metropolis of Latium. It is especially from such fairy tales which purport to be history and are nothing but inventions made on the spur of the moment and not particularly clever, that serious history has to disencumber itself; but perhaps it is permissible to go a step further, and after considering the special features of the neighbourhood, to advance a positive theory, not as to the origin of the place, but as to the cause of its swift and astonishing prosperity and of its peculiar position in Latium.
Let us look first at the ancient boundaries of the Roman territory. To the east the towns of Antemnæ, Fidenæ, Cænina, Collatia, and Gabii lie in the near neighbourhood, some of them not five miles distant from the gates of Servian Rome; the boundary of the province must consequently have been hard by the city gates. Fourteen miles to the south we come on the powerful communities of Tusculum and Alba, and here the Roman territory seems not to have extended farther than to the Fossa Cluilia, five miles from Rome. Similarly, in the southwesterly direction, the boundary between Rome and Lavinium was already encountered at the sixth milestone.
Whilst on the land side the Roman province was everywhere confined to the narrowest possible limits, on the other hand, from the earliest times it stretched uninterruptedly along both banks of the Tiber in the direction of the sea; and no place representing an ancient provincial centre nor any sort of trace of an ancient provincial border is encountered between Rome and the coast. It is true that legend, which can assign an origin for everything, is here also able to inform us that the Roman possessions on the right bank of the Tiber, the “seven hamlets” (septem pagi), and the important salt-works at its mouth were taken by King Romulus from the Veientes, and that King Ancus fortified the tête de pont, the “Mount of Janus” (Janiculum), on the right bank of the Tiber, and on the left laid the foundation of the Roman Piræus, the harbour town at the “mouth” (ostia) of the river. But on the other hand the fact that the possessions on the Etruscan bank must have belonged to the very earliest Roman territory is attested by a better witness, namely by the grove of the creative goddess (Dea Dia) which stood in this very place, at the fourth milestone of the road subsequently made to the harbour, and was the original high place of the Roman Arval festival and Arval brotherhood. Indeed, from time immemorial, the clan of the Romilii, probably the most distinguished among all the Roman clans, had its seat here; the Janiculum was a part of the town itself and Ostia a citizen colony, that is, a suburb. This cannot have been mere chance. The Tiber was the natural highway of Latium, and its mouth, on a coast so poorly provided with harbours, was the necessary place of anchorage for ships.
Moreover, the Tiber formed, from the earliest times, the frontier defence of the Latin stock against their northern neighbours. No place is better qualified than Rome to be both the entrepôt of the Latin river and sea commerce and the frontier fortress of Latium. She combined the advantages of a strong position and the immediate neighbourhood of the river; she commanded both banks of the stream down to its mouth; she was equally convenient for the river-ships descending the Tiber or the Anio or, in those days of moderate-sized vessels, for those designed for the sea; and she afforded better protection against pirates than the towns lying immediately on the coast. That it was to these commercial and strategical advantages that Rome owed, if not her origin, at least her importance, numerous proofs are forthcoming, which are of far greater importance than the data furnished by historical romances. With these are connected her early relations with Cære, which was to Etruria what Rome was to Latium, and consequently became the city’s closest neighbour and commercial ally; thence came the extraordinary importance of the bridges over the Tiber, and of bridge building generally in the Roman commonwealth, and hence the galley in the city arms.
This was also the origin of the ancient Roman harbour dues, which were originally imposed only on goods for sale (promercale), and not on those which passed to and from Ostia for the shipper’s own use, and thus were really a tax on trade. And hence, to anticipate, arose the relatively early appearance of coined money in Rome and the commercial treaties with states over-sea. Thus, from this point of view at any rate, Rome may be regarded as the legend implies, rather as a created than a gradually developed town and rather as the youngest than the oldest of the Latin towns. Doubtless the land had been already to some extent brought under cultivation and towns planted on the Alban hills as well as many other heights of the surrounding country when the Latin frontier emporium rose on the Tiber.
Whether it was a decree of the Latin confederacy, or the genius and insight of some unknown founder, or the natural development of commerce, which called the city of Rome into existence, we have not even grounds to conjecture. But there is another point to be observed in connection with the position of Rome as the emporium of Latium. When history begins to dawn upon us Rome stands in contrast to the league of the Latin communities as a single enclosed city. The Latin custom of dwelling in open villages and only using the common town as a fortress and place of assembly or in time of need, was, in all probability, far sooner restricted in the Roman province than anywhere else in Latium. Not that the Roman had ceased to manage his farm himself, or to regard it as his real home; but already the unhealthiness of the country air had had the effect of inducing him to fix his abode on the more airy and healthy heights of the town; and with the farmers a numerous non-agricultural population of foreigners and natives must have been established there for a long time. This to some extent accounts for the dense population of the Roman territory, which at most can only be reckoned as extending over 115 square miles of soil, part of it marsh and sand, and yet, according to the city’s oldest constitution, furnished a city militia of thirty-three hundred freemen, and therefore must have counted at least ten thousand free inhabitants.
But there is something more. Everyone acquainted with the Romans and their history is aware that the peculiarity of their public and private existence lies in their municipal and commercial life, and that the distinction between them and other Latins, and Italian nations generally, is before all the distinction between the citizen and the farmer. It is true that Rome was not a mercantile city like Corinth or Carthage; for Latium is an essentially agricultural district and Rome was, and remained, above everything a Latin town. But the distinction of Rome above the crowd of other Latin towns must still be referred to her commercial position and to the influence of that position upon the character of her citizens. If Rome was the emporium of the Latin district, it is easy to understand that here, over and above the Latin husbandry, a vigorous municipal life quickly developed itself and so laid the foundation of her pre-eminence. The tracing of the course of this mercantile and strategic development of the city of Rome is far more important and far easier than the thankless task of making a chemical analysis of the insignificant and very similar communities of antiquity; we can follow this development to some extent in the traditions concerning these successive walls and fortifications of Rome, whose erection must have gone hand in hand with the advance of the Roman commonwealth to importance as a city.
Both in former and recent times many attempts have been made to give an historical character to the legend that the three different communities which composed the ancient Roman nation once dwelt within separate walls on the Seven Hills; but the scientific inquirer is obliged to banish it to the same regions as the battle of the Palatine and the graceful story of Tarpeia.
There exists, it is true, a real and very decided distinction between the fortification of the Capitol and the erection of the town walls. The Capitol is in name and fact the Acra of Rome, the town with one gate and a town fountain, the carefully fenced “spring house” (tullianum). That this fortification dates far back to a time when as yet there was no settlement at all in this neighbourhood, is shown by a custom which was scrupulously observed down to a late period, and according to which private houses did not and perhaps were not allowed to stand on the twin peaks of the Capitol.
On the other hand the town contained a treasure chamber with the archives, the prison, and the oldest place of assembly for the councillors as well as the citizens. The space between the two peaks of the Capitoline Hill, the sanctuary of the angry Jupiter (Vediovis) or as it was called in the later hellenising period, the Asylum, was covered with a wood and evidently originally intended to shelter the peasants and their flocks when flood or war drove them from the plain.
In Rome, as everywhere else, the urban settlement must have begun not within but below the citadel; when it was considerable enough to call for the protection of a wall and moat, the town proper first came into being outside the Capitol, and to this, again, suburbs were added, and as these also prospered and required to be defended, new walls were added and in the marshes a new dike, until a whole series of such separate circumvallations surrounded the citadel. It was the memory of this which was preserved in the “festival of the Seven Hills” (Septimontium), whose celebration was continued long after the ancient fortifications had ceased to exist.
The “seven circles” are the Palatine; the Cermalus, a branch of the Palatine extending towards the swamp (Velabrum) which in early days stretched between it and the Capitol; the Velia, the ridge which connected the Palatine with the Esquiline and afterwards almost completely disappeared owing to the constructions erected under the empire; the three summits of the Esquiline, Oppius, Cispius, and Fagutal; and finally the Secusa or Subura, an ingenious stronghold on the low ground between the Capitol, the Esquiline, and the Palatine. It is obvious that these walls did not spring up all at once. According to credible witnesses the oldest constructions only embrace the Palatine or the primitive Rome, called at a later period “the square” (Roma quadrata) from the shape of the Palatine Hill which was that of an irregular square. The gates and walls of this ancient urban circle remained visible down to the time of the empire; the position of two of them, namely the Porta Romana, near S. Giorgio in Velabro, and the Porta Mugionis at the arch of Titus, are still known to us, and the wall encircling the Palatine is even described by Tacitus from his own observation, at least on the side facing the Aventine and the Cælian. Although, of course, the earliest seat of the trade of the community was not here but at the citadel, still there are sufficient indications to show that this was the centre and the original seat of the urban settlers. On the Palatine was to be found its holy symbol, the so-called “outfit vault” (mundus) in which they had deposited all the requisites of a household and added a handful of their beloved native earth. Here too stood the building in which the curiæ assembled, each at its own altar, for religious and other purposes (curiæ veteres). Here too was the sanctuary of “the wolves” (lupercal), the house of assembly for “the leapers” (curia saliorum), and the dwelling of Jupiter’s priest. It was on and round this hill that the legend of the founding of the city was principally localised, and the believer was shown the straw-covered house of Romulus, the shepherd’s hut of his foster-father Faustulus, the holy fig tree on to which the coffer containing the twins was driven, and other similar relics.
The Palatine was, and remained, the most aristocratic quarter of the city and therefore subsequently gave its name to the first Servian district. The oldest offshoots may have been the settlement on the branch of the Cermalus and the Velian heights, both of which were immediately connected with the Palatine and, under the Servian division of the town, were apparently included in the Palatine quarter. The position of the suburb on the Cermalus, between the town wall and that of the citadel, as well as the designation of the principal street by the name of “the Tuscan,” seems to indicate that this settlement was not voluntary but reserved for the custody of colonists of foreign race.
Beyond this there was a settlement on the Carinæ, the farthest summit of the Esquiline, with the fortress for defence against the Sabines in the valley of the Subura; this afterwards became the second Servian quarter. At that time the Esquiliæ (which did not properly speaking include the Carinæ) formed, as the name signifies, a suburb (exquiliæ, the same as inquilinus). That the town should have extended itself in this direction is explained by the simple fact that the people remained on the heights, especially on the Palatine and the Velian, avoiding both the isolated hills and the swampy and wholly defenceless valleys which lay between. At a later time the suburb was included in the town, and under the Servian division it became the third quarter.
The “bridge of piles” (pons sublicius) thrown across that natural pier, the island in the Tiber, and the tête de pont on the Etruscan shore, the citadel of the Janiculum, remained outside the fortifications of the “Seven Hills.” And as, for military reasons, it was necessary to be able to break down or burn the bridge at the shortest notice, there arose a fixed rule which down to a very late period was observed as a traditional religious law, that no iron could be used in the construction of the bridge, but only wood. Thus a town came into being, but nevertheless the real and complete amalgamation of the various bodies which formed the settlement was not yet effected. As there was no common city altar, but the separate altars of the different curies merely stood side by side in the same neighbourhood, so not only did the distinction between citadel and town continue, but the seven circles themselves were rather a collection of urban settlements than a united town until the gigantic defensive works, ascribed to King Servius Tullius, surrounded the inner and outer city and the open suburbs with a single great wall. But before these strong works were set in hand, the position of Rome in relation to the surrounding district had doubtless entirely changed.
As the primitive uncommercial and inactive epoch of the Latin stock corresponds to the period in which the husbandman drove the plough on the Palatine as well as over the other hills of Latium, and the place of refuge on the Capitol, which in ordinary times stood empty, presented only the commencement of a fortified settlement; and as later the flourishing settlement on the Palatine and within the seven circles coincides with the occupation of the estuary of the Tiber by a Roman community and generally with the progress of the Latins to a free and active intercourse, and urban civilisation especially in Rome, and indeed to a firmer political consolidation both of the separate states and of the confederacy; so does the establishment of a single great city by means of the Servian rampart belong to that epoch in which the city of Rome was enabled to contend for the supremacy of the Latin confederacy and finally to get the upper hand.[c]