Pinnock's improved edition of Dr. Goldsmith's History of Rome. Oliver Goldsmith
Читать онлайн книгу.
Oscan language, they must have been of the Ausonian race. The chief towns were the Greek settlements on the coast, Consen'tia, Cosenza; Pando'sia, Cirenza; Croto'na, Mame'rtum, Petil'ia, and Rhe'gium, Reggio.
31. Apu'lia extended along the eastern coast from the river Fren'to, to the eastern tongue of land which forms the foot of the boot, to which Italy has been compared. It was a very fruitful plain, without fortresses or harbours, and was particularly adapted to grazing cattle. It was divided by the river Au'fidus, Ofanto, into Apu'lia Dau'nia, and Apu'lia Peuce'tia, or pine-bearing Apu'lia. The chief towns were, in Dau'nia, Sipon'tum and Luce'ria: in Peuce'tia, Ba'rium, Can'næ, and Venu'sia.
32. Cala'bria, or Messa'pia, is the eastern tongue of land which terminates at Cape Japy'gium, Santa Maria; it was almost wholly occupied by Grecian colonies. The chief towns were Brundu'sium, Brindisi: Callipolis, Gallipoli: and Taren'tum.
33. The islands of Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia, which are now reckoned as appertaining to Italy, were by the Romans considered separate provinces.
Questions for Examination.
1. How is Italy situated?
2. By what names was the country known to the ancients?
3. How is Italy bounded on the north?
4. What districts were in northern Italy?
5. What was the extent of Liguria, and the character of its inhabitants?
6. How was Cisalpine Gaul divided?
7. By whom was Cisalpine Gaul inhabited?
8. Why was it called Togata?
9. What are the principal rivers in northern Italy?
10. What are the chief cities in Cisalpine Gaul?
11. When did the Romans subdue this district?
12. Did the Venetians resist the Roman power?
13. What are the chief divisions of central Italy?
14. How is Etruria situated?
15. By what people was Etruria colonized?
16. What were the Tuscan cities?
17. How were the cities ruled?
18. What was the general form of Tuscan government?
19. For what were the Tuscans remarkable?
20. What was the geographical situation of Latium?
21. What were the chief towns in Latium?
22. What towns and people were in Campania?
23. For what is the soil of Campania remarkable?
24. What description is given of Umbria?
25. What towns and people were in Picenum?
26. From whom were the Samnites descended?
27. What was the character of this people?
28. How was southern Italy divided?
29. What description is given of Lucania?
30. By what people was Bruttium inhabited?
31. What is the geographical situation of Apulia?
32. What description is given of Calabria?
33. What islands belong to Italy?
CHAPTER II.
THE LATIN LANGUAGE AND PEOPLE – CREDIBILITY OF THE EARLY HISTORY
Succeeding times did equal folly call. Believing nothing, or believing all. —Dryden.
The Latin language contains two primary elements, the first intimately connected with the Grecian, and the second with the Oscan tongue; to the former, for the most part, belong all words expressing the arts and relations of civilized life; to the latter, such terms as express the wants of men before society has been organized. We are therefore warranted in conjecturing that the Latin people was a mixed race; that one of its component parts came from some Grecian stock, and introduced the first elements of civilization, and that the other was indigenous, and borrowed refinement from the strangers. The traditions recorded by the historians sufficiently confirm this opinion; they unanimously assert that certain bodies of Pelasgi came into the country before the historic age, and coalesced with the ancient inhabitants. The traditions respecting these immigrations are so varied, that it is impossible to discover any of the circumstances; but there is one so connected with the early history of Rome, that it cannot be passed over without notice. All the Roman historians declare, that after the destruction of Troy, Æneas, with a body of the fugitives, arrived in Latium, and having married the daughter of king Lati'nus, succeeded him on the throne. It would be easy to show that this narrative is so very improbable, as to be wholly unworthy of credit; but how are we to account for the universal credence which it received? To decide this question we must discuss the credibility of the early Roman history, a subject which has of late years attracted more than ordinary attention.
The first Roman historian of any authority, was Fa'bius Pic'tor, who flourished at the close of the second Punic war; that is, about five centuries and a half after the foundation of the city, and nearly a thousand years after the destruction of Troy. The materials from which his narrative was compiled, were the legendary ballads, which are in every country the first record of warlike exploits; the calendars and annals kept by the priests, and the documents kept by noble families to establish their genealogy. Imperfect as these materials must necessarily have been under any circumstances, we must remember that the city of Rome was twice captured; once by Porsenna, and a second time by the Gauls, about a century and a half before Fabius was born. On the latter occasion the city was burned to the ground, and the capital saved only by the payment of an immense ransom. By such a calamity it is manifest that the most valuable documents must have been dispersed or destroyed, and the part that escaped thrown into great disorder. The heroic songs might indeed have been preserved in the memory of the public reciters; but there is little necessity for proving that poetic historians would naturally mingle so much fiction with truth, that few of their assertions could be deemed authentic. The history of the four first centuries of the Roman state is accordingly full of the greatest inconsistences and improbabilities; so much so, that many respectable writers have rejected the whole as unworthy of credit; but this is as great an excess in scepticism, as the reception of the whole would be of credulity. But if the founders of the city, the date of its erection, and the circumstances under which its citizens were assembled be altogether doubtful, as will subsequently be shown, assuredly the history of events that occurred four centuries previous must be involved in still greater obscurity. The legend of Æneas, when he first appears noticed as a progenitor of the Romans, differs materially from that which afterwards prevailed. Romulus, in the earlier version of the story, is invariably described as the son or grandson of Æneas. He is the grandson in the poems of Nævius and Ennius, who were both nearly contemporary with Fabius Pictor. This gave rise to an insuperable chronological difficulty; for Troy was destroyed B.C. 1184, and Rome was not founded until B.C. 753. To remedy this incongruity, a list of Latin kings intervening between Æne'as and Rom'ulus, was invented; but the forgery was so clumsily executed, that its falsehood is apparent on the slightest inspection. It may also be remarked, that the actions attributed to Æneas are, in other traditions of the same age and country, ascribed to other adventurers; to Evander, a Pelasgic leader from Arcadia, who is said to have founded a city on the site afterwards occupied by Rome; or to Uly'sses, whose son Tele'gonus is reported to have built Tus'culum.
If then we deny the historical truth of a legend which seems to have been universally credited by the Romans, how are we to account for the origin of the tale? Was the tradition of native growth, or was it imported from Greece when the literature of that country was introduced into Latium? These are questions that can only be answered by guess; but perhaps the following theory may in some degree be found satisfactory. We have shown that tradition, from the earliest age, invariably asserted that Pelasgic colonies had formed settlements in central Italy; nothing is more notorious than the custom