Volume 2 — ITALY.

The name Italy was applied at different times to a very different extent of country. The Greeks, who scarcely ever transferred themselves from their own point of view to that of other nations, inform us, that the name Italia, beginning in the extreme south, and belonging to a small tract of country, became gradually extended. They relate, that in ancient times the Oenotrians, under this name or without any name, produced the sage Italus, who led them from a state of perfect wildness, or from a life depending on the chase, like that ascribed by the Romans to the Aborigines, to agriculture and fixed habitations, and became their lawgiver. That his laws, resembling those of Minos, were observed for many centuries, and that at first the name Italia was restricted to the southern half of Bruttium, that is, the peninsula between Rhegium and the isthmus, extending from the Scylletian to the Napetinian gulf; that the name was then extended so as to comprise, in about its widest sense, the country south of a line drawn from Posidonia to Metapontum. This whole derivation from the Oenotrian period is without any authority whatever, though it is certain, that in the time of the Persian wars, and perhaps even somewhat later, that line actually formed the boundary of Italy. Nay, that boundary, instead of extending in the course of a whole century, even became somewhat narrower, and the line, instead of beginning at Posidonia, ran from the river Laos to Metapontum, along the subsequent frontier between Lucania and Bruttium, so that the north-western part of the country was detached from it. This boundary afterwards remained fixed with the Greeks; and the countries north of it were designated by different names, of which I shall speak hereafter. But after the middle of the fifth century of Rome, or about twenty years after the death of Alexander, the name Italia was extended by the Greeks as far as the Tiber. Previously Cumae had not been in Italy, but now even Rome is spoken of as a city of Italy.

This view entertained by the Greeks, though one-sided, is so attractive and seductive, that one easily allows one’s self to be captivated by it, especially as we have no detailed account of the natives of Italy to oppose to it. But amid a countless number of particular subjects requiring critical treatment in ancient history, people have forgotten to ask, How did the natives come to use this name? And this question changes our point of view. We have, indeed, no ancient Roman monuments on this subject, but we know for certain, that after the beginning of the seventh century, the name Italy was applied by the Romans to the whole peninsula, as far as Cisalpine Gaul; nay, Polybius extends it even to the foot of the Alps. The name Italy is very ancient, and occurs in the earliest fragments known to us; it is manifestly of native origin, and was habitually used by the Romans in their official language. What then were the limits set to it by the Romans? Did they consider themselves to be living beyond the boundaries of Italy about the middle of the fifth century when the Greeks drew their line of demarcation? If the Samnites and Etruscans were beyond that line, what was the name they applied to the whole of the peninsula? Almost all the coins discovered on the frontiers of Lucania and Samnium in southern Italy, bear the inscription Viteliu; and a statement in Suetonius, a very well read scholar, in his life of Vitellius, mentions Vitellia as a divinity worshipped in all Italy. Some of the coins, moreover, have a peculiar figure, a bull with a man’s face. The ancients lastly inform us, that vitulus, in the ancient Italian language, signified both a calf and a heifer. Accordingly, I recognise in this figure the symbolical representation of a hero and archegetes of the people, who was called by the Greeks Italus, and by the Italian nations Vitellius or Vitalus, and was represented on their coins in a hieroglyphical manner as a bull. This figure of the bull has always been misunderstood; all kinds of symbolical and mythological explanations have been attempted, and a vast deal has been written about Ammon, Bacchus, and the like. All countries derive their names from their inhabitants; Egypt alone, which was thus called by the Ionians from its river (the Odyssey describes it as a διιπετὴς ποταμός), forms an exception. This statement is certain, for Aegyptus was the original name of the river Nile which is singularly remarkable, and when swollen fills the whole country; so that both have the same name. The name Egypt was foreign to the natives as a name of their country; the name with them was Chemi, whence the people ought to have been called Χημοί or Χῆμες. With this single exception, the names of countries are derived from their inhabitants; in Greek geography we always have first the name of the people, and then that of the country. So also Ἰταλοί is the original name of the people, and from it is formed Italia, the country of the Itali. These Itali comprised a number of tribes of Pelasgian origin, which dwelt there under different names, as Oenotrians, Peucetians, Daunians, Tyrrhenians, Latins, Liburnians, and Siculians, extending on both coasts of the peninsula as far as the Eridanus, though it is uncertain whether in early times they occupied the whole peninsula as far as the frontier of Liguria and the Po, or whether in the south they possessed all the country, while in the north they dwelt only on the coasts.

If we go back to the earliest accounts, we may assert, that the country south of a line from the coast of Etruria and Latium, from the Liris and Vulturnus up to the ridge which extends beyond mount Vulturnus as far as the heights of mount Garganus, was wholly inhabited by the Italian nation. The nation, however, was not confined within those limits, but also inhabited Latium and Etruria, and extended on the north of mount Garganus as far as the river Po, under the names of Liburnians, Pelasgians, and Siculians. This is the light in which we must view the population of Italy in the earliest times to which we can go back, before those nations were pressed on by a double immigration. For as in other parts, so here also nations were pushing onward from the north, some in a body, and of others only particular branches. Some of the Italian nations were expelled, and others remained in their native places, because the conquerors were not so savage as to be unable to live among them, and preferred having quiet settlements to a wandering life. The nation which gave this great impulse, and unseated (ἀνέστησαν) others, was in all probability that of the Etruscans. Farther east, the Illyrians spread themselves from the north, and the Etruscans in Italy proceeded in the same direction. The people, which, in the first instance, penetrated into the country of the Italians, partly expelling and partly subduing them, were the Opicans. They must be conceived as pressing onward in a broad line, commencing from the banks of the Tiber, so that they took possession of the country of the Aequians, Marsians, Pelignians, northern Samnium, the district of the Frentanians, and western Apulia. At that time they had not yet established themselves either in Campania or in any part of Samnium. Being pressed by the Sabines, they penetrated into the country of the Italians, and overpowered them in all Daunia, so that Daunia became Apulia; and then they advanced into southern Samnium, Campania, and even into Latium. Italy thus became reduced and confined within those very boundaries mentioned in the earliest Greek traditions, namely, a line from Posidonia to Metapontum. But the Oscan invaders did not long retain these conquests; they maintained one part of them, but lost another. The Sabines were not satisfied with driving them back beyond the ancient frontiers, but pursued them farther, and thus there arose the Sabellian nations, that is, the Samnites in the widest sense of the term, the Lucanians, and, within their boundaries, the Bruttians. The same country, therefore, must be regarded at one period as Italian, and at another as Oscan, and again at another as Sabellian. This is the cause of the immense confusion.

The Sabellians were not a numerous nation, and wherever they settled, they appear to have ruled over the subject people rather than to have changed them; the Oscans seem to have acted differently. In the countries which adopted the Opican name, and had formerly belonged to the Italians, the Opican language supplanted the ancient Italian or Siculian tongue; and when the same countries were taken by the Sabellians, the latter were not numerous enough again to change the language, but they themselves adopted that of the Opicans; and hence the language of the Samnites, Lucanians, and others, is called by the Romans Oscan. It is an established fact, that the ground-work of this language was essentially different from the real Sabine. The whole of the Sabine nation stood to the people among whom they had settled, in the same relation in which the Franks stood to the Gauls, or the Lombards to the nations of Italy. The Franks, for a long time, and in fact until the reign of Charlemagne, spoke Frankish, and the name of the country ever after was France, although the language of the people afterwards became Roman; in like manner the Sabellians bore this name, although their language was Oscan. This is the only method of explaining the apparent contradictions in many ancient accounts: the Oscans and Sabellians were different nations, but their language was the same, the Oscan prevailing everywhere among them. I have for many years laboured to discover how it was possible for the language of the Samnites to be Oscan, seeing that the two nations were essentially, if not altogether, different. Explanations, like that here given by means of comparison with other nations and ages, may be applied to the history of nations as well as to the history of constitutions and laws; a friend of mine, a very ingenious man, has called this “the comparative history of nations,” alluding to comparative natural history. Voltaire says, comparaison n’est pas raison, but still it often leads to the truth, though it can never supply the place of real proof. But to return to our subject, while the Greeks exclusively apply the name Opicans to the foreign settlers in those parts, and call the country Opica or Ausonia, because the people called themselves Auruncans, the natives adhered to the name Italia, although the Italians had either been expelled or were united and mingled with the conquerors. Within this extent of Italy, then, the ruling Sabellians adopted both for themselves and for the Oscans the name of Italicans. Thus, according to the rules of the grammatical logic, which pervades the Latin language, we see Italia derived from Itali, and from this again the name Italici, which without any change might be given to the Italians. Such changes of meaning, however, are of frequent occurrence in the Latin language, for common usage avails itself of such differences, where they exist, for the purpose of adding some modification to the original meaning. It is not till later times, towards the end of the seventh century—the real line of demarcation is formed by the poets of the Augustan age, and by the Augustan age in general—that Itali homines and Itali are used simply to designate Italians in general: Italicum genus and Italici were the inhabitants of Italy within the modern kingdom of Naples, exclusive of the Greeks. This is the meaning of the name in Sallust, who wrote in the old Roman fashion.

I have already mentioned to you that the name Italia was indigenous in the peninsula, and that consequently it was applied to a wider extent of country than was supposed by the Greeks. I have also indicated to you the traces of its history, though not so far back as we are inclined to imagine them to extend. In speaking of the history of Greece, I remarked incidentally, that some events are assigned to dates about two centuries too early. The same is the case in regard to the migrations and conquests of the nations in Italy. About the middle of the fifth century of the city, a decisive change took place in Italy, which had been preparing ever since the time of Dionysius of Syracuse. The Greeks were then more strictly confined to their own territories; and the ancient Italians, who kept up an intercourse with them or were under their dominion, lost their assumed character of Greeks, and became subject to the Sabellian nations, which were known to the Greeks under the general name of Opicans. They bore this name, because there can be no doubt, that the first who conquered a great part of those countries, were for the most part Oscans, who were afterwards obliged to retreat before the Sabellians.

Now, as the whole of the south of Italy, as far as the country of the Marsians, again formed an almost compact Sabellian country (except that in the greater part of Apulia the Sabellians had not made any conquests, but the Opicans maintained their dominion over the ancient Italians), and as the inhabitants of this country called themselves Italicans, it became customary with the Greeks also to call them Italicans, and the southern country Ausonia or Italia—the latter in the language of ordinary life, the former only in poetry;—but the people were rarely or never called Ἰταλοί, nor did the earlier Greeks apply to them the name Ἰταλικοί, but called them Ὀπικοί. This leads me to make a philological observation. It is well known that Juvenal uses the expression opici mures, which is commonly rendered in the dictionaries by “old-fashioned,” “rude,” “stupid,” or “barbarous;” but no further explanation is given. The fact is this. The Greeks viewed the Opicans in a very unfortunate light, as the destroyers of the prosperity of southern Italy, and as men that served as hired mercenaries in the southern armies (e.g. the Mamertines in Sicily); but those who remained at home were by no means contemptible; they appear in a very different light, as the leading men among the Samnites, Lucanians, and others; traits are found among them which inspire great respect, and there are undoubted traces of their having devoted themselves, at an early period, to the study of Greek literature. But those of them with whom the Greeks came most frequently in contact, were people pretty much of the same character as the Thracians and Scythians in the comedies of Aristophanes. The name Opicans was extended by them in a contemptuous sense to all the Italicans, and even to the Romans, as we see from one of the fragments of Cato. The Greeks in general distinguished themselves from all non-Greeks in a harsh and coarse manner; but the designations which they applied to foreigners differ according to the different nations with which they came in contact. The term βάρβαροι was originally no doubt applied only to nations of the Carian race, Carians, Lydians, and Mysians; Ὀπικοί, in the same sense, to the inhabitants of Italy; and Κάρβανοι in the “Supplices” of Aeschylus apparently a Cyrenaic term, seems to have been applied to the Egyptians and Libyans. I do not understand Coptic, nor do I possess any books or dictionary of that language, from which I might derive any information; but I am almost certain that the word Κάρβανοι is Coptic, for Aeschylus uses it in speaking of the Egyptians. Its original meaning is unknown to me. We thus see, how the general contrast between Greeks and foreigners presents itself in different shades.

About the time of Pyrrhus, the name Italy, in its whole extent, was applied to the peninsula as far as the frontiers of Etruria and the river Tiber. In this sense the name was used by the Greeks throughout the sixth century, and probably by the Romans also, for both strictly separate the rest of Italy from Etruria. There is a remarkable passage in Clemens Alexandrinus, who, in his “Stromata,” says, “Italy which borders on Etruria.” I do not quote Clemens as I would any other ancient Alexandrian author, for he did absolutely nothing but copy from the writers of the sixth century, that is, from those who lived about the time of Aristarchus; and he stops short there, because the authors from whose works he made his compilations, belonged to that period alone. Clemens is generally viewed in too favourable a light; still, however, he contains abundant materials, and no philologer ought to neglect him. When Etruria became more and more Romanised, though there were no Roman colonies in the interior of the country, and when the idea of other states existing in Italy by the side of Rome, vanished, another step was made in advance, and the name Italy was applied to the whole peninsula as far as the foot of the Alps; and in this sense Italy is spoken of by Polybius. Another question cannot, perhaps, be answered; it is this: did he include Liguria under the name of Italy?—did he employ the term Alps in such a manner as to comprise the Ligurian mountains between the coast of Genoa as far as the Po?—or did he extend the boundaries of Italy and Gaul from the Macra as far as the territory of Modena about the Po, then continuing them south of the Po, near Placentia and Parma, beyond the river, so as to make them run west of the Ticinus as far as the mountains? The last is the more probable, as it is the more natural line. In the official language of the Romans, the Rubicon formed the boundary of Italy, so that even Ravenna and the three Legations, which were otherwise not Gallic, were included in Cisalpine Gaul. Augustus was the first to add Cisalpine Gaul to Italy, so as to make the river Varus the frontier towards Gaul, and the town of Pola towards Istria. People may think of Augustus as they please; I do not praise him, nor do I blame him; his arrangements were great, and have exercised an influence upon the history of the world; his divisions of Rome and Italy became permanent. His division of Italy remained in force for a period of a thousand years, that is, down to the time of the Ottos, the Saxon emperors; and this durability shows that the divisions were based upon a necessary and natural foundation, whence, with the exception of slight changes, they remained during subsequent periods. On the side of Istria, the boundary has become somewhat narrower, in consequence of the change of the population, which in Istria became Slavonian. Under the emperors after Maximinian it became customary to call Lombardy, including Istria, Italy; what was then the name of the southern countries, I know not; hence the Lombard kings call themselves reges Italiae, and this Italy is termed by Gregorius Turonensis parva Italia.

We shall use the name Italy in the sense in which it is now generally done, excluding Savoy, which, like the French parts of Switzerland and Belgium, belongs to France. The country about the Adige, however, from Roveredo as far as Botzen, ought to be regarded as part of Italy. When you arrive there from Germany by way of Meran, you feel that you are quite in the south, the air and everything else reminds you of it; some of the people indeed speak German, but they are not Germans, and their countenances are ugly; the country, on the other hand, is very beautiful, and in the neighbourhood of Botzen it is like a Paradise. You feel that you are in the south and in Italy, whereas in Savoy you are in France, for it has none of the peculiarities of Italy. If you pay attention to everything, the physiognomy and the dialects, you will be astonished to find how clearly the different tribes of antiquity can still be distinguished. My friend Arndt first directed my attention to this. “When you go to Italy,” said he, “notice the difference of the tribes on the borders of Tuscany.” That was the boundary between the Etruscans and Ligurians. I was quite surprised still to find among the Tuscans the same fat, round faces, which are seen in ancient works of art. The Etruscans can still be distinguished from the Umbrians, and the latter again from the Cisalpine Gauls, at least in masses. In Lombardy you may, notwithstanding the strong mixture, still distinguish the dialects, and through them the parts which were inhabited by Gauls from those of the Veneti. It is a mistake to believe that the Italians are very unlike their ancestors; the actual difference arises from the strong admixture of Slavonians, and not from the immigrations, though the Goths were very numerous; but the Lombards were not; the former came with their women and children, and amounted, according to Procopius, to nearly a million of souls.

The three islands which are now considered as parts of Italy, and in which Italian is spoken, do not belong to it, and must be treated of separately.

Italy proper, as defined by Augustus, commenced at the Alpes Maritimae; the Alps are then further divided into the Cottian, Graian, Pennine, Raetian, Carnian, and Julian Alps. I shall explain to you each of these names, so as to enable you to find your way among, and to become familiar with, those mountains. From the Alps, then, which form the boundary, the Apennines branch off in the north of Piedmont in two ranges; on the one side from the two St. Bernards near Aosta and Ivrea, and on the other from the Maritime Alps, and the two uniting in the territory of Montferrat run through Liguria close to the coast, so that in many parts of the territory of Genoa roads for vehicles along the sea have had to be made by blowing up the rocks, and horses often still find it difficult to pass along the sea-coast. They then turn east from the sea into Tuscany, where the mountains, properly speaking, first receive the name of Apennines. Afterwards they spread and extend in a south-eastern direction towards the Adriatic; then proceeding through the middle of the kingdom of Naples they fill, in many, though not parallel ranges, the whole of Lucania and Bruttium; but there the mountains all at once disappear, though in the Abruzzi, where the isthmus separates the southern from the northern country, they in some parts reach a height of 8,000 feet. For a distance of many miles nothing but small hills are visible. If that country were inhabited by an enterprising people, such as the French or English, the isthmus would long since have been broken through, for nothing would be easier than to make a canal there and to connect the two seas.

The Alps, as is well known, are primary mountains; and their ramifications in the territory of Genoa, which proceed from mount St. Bernard and the Maritime Alps, are of the same character; but the Apennines assume a different nature, and appear throughout Italy as rocks of limestone; in the Majella they may be of a different character, for Alpine productions are found there. In the southernmost part of Italy, facing Sicily, another range of mountains rises of quite a different character, being a continuation of the Sicilian mountains, of which Aetna is the central knot. The country near Rhegium is evidently torn off, as is indicated even by its name.

It is only the middle portion of the western coast of Italy, about a hundred miles from Rome, that is volcanic; the volcanic character always appears south of the Apennines, and prevails in a portion of Latium, as is evident from the soil and the lakes, as e.g., the Alban hills and the Alban lake; the lake of Nemi is a crater. The territory of Campania in its ancient sense (Terra di Lavoro) is of the same character, but it does not extend very far into the interior, for it is visible only in the Phlegraean plains as far as the Liris, and in the country about the gulf of Naples as far as the range of mountains, which terminates between Sorrento and Amalfi; this mountain forms the southern boundary of the volcanic ground. All the rest of Italy is essentially non-volcanic; Lombardy contains indeed a few springs to which one might be inclined to ascribe a volcanic origin, but at any rate only in an improper sense; the coast of the kingdom of Naples on the Adriatic, the whole of Apulia and Iapygia is altogether a limestone country. This stone, in its noblest form, as marble, appears especially in Tuscany on the frontier of Liguria, where the Apennines begin to form a distinct range; it is there that it appears most perfectly crystallised. In the south-eastern countries, on the other hand, it gradually changes into chalk, and forms natural saltpetre by an affinité disposée.

Although Italy is called a unique country, although we think of it as the fair and charming Hesperia, and as the country of oranges described by the poets, still it presents the very greatest variety of climate; the differences are as great, and perhaps even greater than in Germany. We may divide the whole country into three natural parts; we might perhaps make four, but there are in reality only three great divisions. The first may be termed Greek Italy, comprising very little more than the country occupied by Greek settlements, that is, the country of the ancient Itali from the neighbourhood of Terracina exclusive of Latium. Imagine a line running from Terracina across the mountains, the Liris and Vulturnus, down to Beneventum, through the valley of the Calor as far as the Garganus: the country south of this line is what I term Greek Italy, because its vegetation and its climate are Greek; the difference between this part and the countries north of it is greater than that existing between the latter and Germany. All the plants and trees which are seen at Rome only here and there, and are kept up with great labour and difficulty, grow there naturally and almost wild, as, for example, the cactus and aloe, which are really southern plants; the pine-tree is rare, and firs scarcely occur at all, while the dwarf-palm already grows between the rocks. Everything not only ripens earlier, as olives and figs, but the fruit is altogether of a different, a southern character; the vegetation is so mighty and gigantic that we in the north can scarcely form an idea of it. At Rome oranges may be destroyed by frost, but in Greek Italy this is impossible; and things which grow at Rome only in favourable years, are there quite common. This is the case with all plants; in short, a man there finds himself in quite a different country. When at Rome I felt as much at home as a foreigner who has not renounced his own country can possibly feel, and I entered the country free from the prejudices of a native; I visited southern Italy with the physical feeling of a Roman (the Roman climate is still very vividly before my mind), but I had not imagined that every thing could be so different at Terracina. I felt the same when I went from Germany to Italy, though it was then rather the feeling that I was entering a foreign land. The neighbourhood of Terracina is a particularly excellent country. All the wines from the districts of the Liris have a Greek character, whereas those of central Italy stand in the middle between French and Greek wines, and are in reality bad; the sky is of quite a different colour, and the air has something magic and elastic, something elevating and delicious, in comparison with which the atmosphere at Rome is heavy and oppressive. The farther south you go, the more beautiful everything becomes; I never was in the extreme south, but I still hope one day to visit it. However, I have been assured by travellers who had been there, that the charms constantly increase, the farther south you go; you perceive them even at Formiae, still more in the neighbourhood of Naples, and they appear in a still higher degree at Amalfi; in Calabria nature is said to be quite as delightful as on the south coast of Sicily. The physiognomy and the muscles of men also are different.

The second natural division consists of central Italy, which, however, has very different boundaries from those marked in our maps. The southern frontier has already been fixed by what I said before; but the northern runs along the Aesis from the borders of Marca Ancona, the ancient Picenum, across the ridge of the Apennines, so that the sources of the Tiber still belong to central Italy; it then passes along the Apennines on the frontiers of the territory of Bologna to the point where the Apennines unite with the Alps, so that even the coast of Genoa belongs to this part of Italy. This division is likewise based upon the vegetation. Its high mountainous parts have of course a lower temperature than the valleys, though they are by no means thoroughly different; they belong as parts to the whole, as every whole consists of several and diverse parts. Their character, on the other hand, is quite different from that of the opposite heights, which, under the same degree of latitude, descend into Lombardy. This division, then, with the exception of its highest mountain regions, is the country of the olive-tree, whence the excellent olive plantations in the territories of Lucca and Genoa, and also in Marca Ancona. In the south-western parts of Italy, as, for example, at Naples, the olives are not of equal value, though they are still excellent. The race of men in central Italy has less of the southern character; they still share with the southern people the development of the muscular fibres, though they have it in a less degree; but their features are less harsh, the forms being more round and fleshy; yet these features differ according to the different districts and races.

Northern Italy does not at all follow the parallels of latitude; it commences on the frontiers between the Marca Ancona and the duchy of Urbino, and runs along the northern slope of the Apennines up to the Alps: accordingly it encloses the large basin of the Po, extending beyond the Ticino and Doria, where the boundary line rises up to the heights. This part presents a great difference in temperature and vegetation from the southern countries: the winters are severe, and at the foot of the Alps hard frosts are not uncommon; the olive-tree no longer thrives, but is more like a shrub resembling a crippled willow, and all the southern plants which still occur in central Italy, such as oranges and lemons, are raised only by artificial means and with difficulty as in Germany; the cactus, aloe, and the like, are quite out of the question. The winters are of a northern character and commence early; the atmosphere is heavy and unpleasant, and the whole country has this character more or less. A person coming from the south, e.g. from Florence or Ancona, feels that he is in a northern country: in the Tyrol and in the Raetian districts, near Trent and Botzen, the climate is far more southerly than there, although in northern Italy the heat in summer is very great; but the cold in winter is equally great, and, in addition to this, the air is generally moist and warm.

These divisions are also traceable in history: northern Italy was the country of the Gauls, and was but gradually incorporated by the Romans with Italy. The Romans not unjustly speak of the pingue caelum of those countries; and the Milanese are to this day taunted by the southern Italians with their aër crassus. For this reason the inhabitants are on the whole ugly and awkward figures, with the exception of those of Venice, which has a very peculiar and beautiful race of men. The Ligurians also are handsome, the Piedmontese are strikingly fair and almost too delicate, while otherwise the northern Italians have uncommonly coarse skins. The Genoese approach more closely the peculiar Italian race, and the Milanese have vulgar features, and no appearance of refinement and freshness. The Piedmontese, as I have already remarked, show a high degree of refinement, and when, in addition to this, they are blooming, they are most handsome, especially the women; but such a combination is rarely seen, they are generally too fair. The Tuscans are rather a handsome race, with round faces, and the Florentines have even something German in their countenances. The development of the muscles, which we find in southern and to some extent also in central Italy, is wanting in the northern Italians. It has for long time been a matter of doubt, as to whether the ancients studied anatomy; but if a person carefully examines an ordinary Italian model, he will be convinced, that they did not require to study anatomy: the muscles are so perfectly developed, that they can be easily and completely distinguished on a naked arm; the whole play of the muscles can be seen without anatomical operation. This was probably the case to a still greater extent among the Greeks, but this is not so in the bodies of northern nations; and the muscles of a northern Italian are as much concealed under the skin as they are in our own bodies.

The dialects do not quite coincide with this division; in the north of Italy they vary greatly, although the Genoese and Ligurian predominate.

After this account of the division of Italy into three parts, I shall continue the description of its physical features. I shall first speak of the Alps. To describe them is beyond my powers; if you want to form an idea of them, you must read the excellent description of Strabo; I have seen only those of the Tyrol. The Alps with the ancients are much more extensive than in our maps; not because the nations dwelling near them applied the name to a greater range of mountains; but they are too far distant from us, and we, having a different mode of speaking, are not inclined to apply the name to the same extent of mountains; the whole range, however, forms one mass. The southernmost Alps are those known by the name of Alpes Maritimae, which afterwards formed a distinct region in the north of Nice. This city is, properly speaking, situated beyond the natural boundaries of Italy, but strangely enough, belongs to Piedmont, although it is situated beyond the mountains. It is very possible that, if Augustus had not made the Varus the boundary, Nice would now be a town of Provence. The Alps there rise to a mighty height, although they do not belong to the highest; the road from Nice to Coni is a difficult mountain road. It is not quite certain as to whether the ancients had a clear notion of the boundary lines. The Alps, near Briançon, are not distinguished by the ancients by a separate name; the ancient road there ran from the Rhone to Turin; that over Mount Cenis was not made till a later period. These Alps are joined by the Alpes Cottiae, where, until the time of Nero, there existed a small Gallic principality under the supremacy of Rome. Next come the Alpes Graiae with the two St. Bernards, the great and the little; the latter is the mountain passed by Hannibal, according to General Melville and De Luc’s incontrovertible arguments. This fact ought to be beyond all doubt, and it is insufferable to see the old questions on this point raised again and again. The French army in 1800 crossed the great St. Bernard. The Alpes Graiae are said to have received their name from Hercules, who was believed to have crossed them on his expedition into Spain: but the name must have had a different origin. After them follow the Alpes Penninae, the Simplon as far as the Furca; the Alpes Nepontiae, the St. Gothard, Splügen, etc. After this the names are obscure until we reach the Alpes Raeticae, which extend in the Tyrol from Graubündten to the Puster valley. The Alpes Juliae, next to these, appear under this name without any reason being assigned for it; but it was no doubt derived from Julius Caesar, to whose province they belonged, but why they were named after him, is unknown. They are also called Alpes Noricae; they are the Alps of Carniola, and one branch of them extends into Istria, while another runs round the gulf of the Adriatic into Dalmatia.

The Apennines join the Alps in the country of Piedmont south of the Po; at first their character is indefinite, but soon their own peculiarities and a marked difference from the Alps are developed. In ancient times they were, no doubt, a vast woody range from one end of Italy to the other, whereas the greater part is now barren. In the territory of Genoa, where I have seen them, in the neighbourhood of Florence and in the Romagna, with which I am intimately acquainted, and in fact from the frontiers of Modena and Lucca, they present a very sad aspect, for they are utterly barren, and there is something wild, desolate, and terrific about them. During summer, there is no snow on any of those heights; in May it is often seen, though it is but very little: still, however, the mountains are very high, especially on the frontiers of Florence and Bologna. During winter, storms are of very common occurrence, and no man can find his way through them on account of the snow; the description which Livy gives of the storms in those parts is certainly not much exaggerated. I have passed those mountains in fair weather, and when I reached the right height, I perceived at once that I was in the region of storms. The passage of Hannibal with his army across that mountain during a snow-storm must certainly have been terrible, nor can we wonder that the Goths of Radagaisus perished there in winter: I think I have found out the district where this happened. Towards Umbria the mountains become considerably lower; they there form a thoroughly beautiful country, the air on the heights is healthy, and chesnut forests again make their appearance. The mountains then run through Umbria in a south-eastern direction across the country of Camarina into the Abruzzi, and their height again increases immensely, so that perpetual snow is said to be found on mount Majella and some others; but this snow must be limited to the ravines. Winter there commences very early; at Rome the top of mount Leonessa is seen covered with snow even at the beginning of November, and frequently continues there till April. This is the highest ridge in Italy, and about it we have to look for the most ancient seats of the Sabines. Thence the mountains extend into Samnium, and one branch runs towards mount Garganus. Farther south, the mountains lose their excessive height, and are again, up to their top, covered with wood, either chesnuts or other trees that are useful to man. The mountains there are comparatively of a moderate size, and are exposed to the full influence of a southern climate, especially in Lucania, and in their continuation extend into Bruttium down to the peninsula which physically belongs to Sicily. The last extremity, which ought no longer to be called Apennines, for it neither belongs to them in a geological point of view, nor do the mountains run in the same direction—I allude to the mountain between Lucania and the isthmus—is the Sila, the large Bruttian range of mountains covered with fir forests, where the Romans had their large establishments for the manufacture of tar, and whence they derived their timber for ship-building.

These general remarks about the mountains may suffice for the present: I shall enter more into detail, as occasions occur, and now pass on to the rivers.

The Padus, the fluviorum rex Eridanus, has none of the characteristics of a southern river; it has the same natural features as the Waal and the Leck in the Netherlands, for it is muddy, and as it has been so long shut in between embankments, its bed is so high, that the surface of its waters is from fifteen to twenty feet above the level of the surrounding country. The whole basin of the Po, and of the rivers emptying themselves into it, was originally a vast bay of the sea, which was gradually confined to these rivers; it is a “river-marsh,” as the people in Dithmarsh would say. How many thousands of years may this process have lasted! At the time when the mouth of the Po was far above the point where it now is, a succession of downs had been formed from the neighbourhood of Rimini as far as the innermost corner of the Adriatic, or as far as Aquileia and Trieste, just as in the Kurische and Frische Nehrung in Prussia, and as was formerly the case along the coast from Calais to Jutland. Behind these downs there was a vast inland lagune which became gradually filled up; in the neighbourhood of Venice the filling up is prevented only by artificial means. These hillocks of sand are now called lido; such a one exists near Venice, and upon it depends the safety of the city during high floods. Ravenna was in antiquity a city like Venice, built upon islands and stakes; but the space gained in the course of 2000 years scarcely amounts to eight miles. All the rivers descending from the Apennines on the south of the Po empty themselves into it, and all those which flow from the north on the east of the lake of Garda discharge their waters into the lagunes: they all have their share in extending the coast. The most important of these rivers will be mentioned, when I come to speak of the countries to which they belong.

In central Italy, the Tiber is the king of rivers. The orthography Thybris must be ancient, as it was also adopted by the Greek writers. The Tiber is indeed the most renowned river in the world, but it is by no means beautiful; its waters are very muddy and rapid and of a disagreeable appearance; navigation is difficult, and consequently not frequent, and the country about the river is much exposed to inundation. There can scarcely be a more unpleasing sight than that of the Tiber at Rome. Its tributaries are the Anio (now Teverone, even in antiquity called Tiburnus), the Nera or Nar (a Sabine word signifying sulphur, which is contained in its waters), and a number of small streams without particular names; it also receives supplies of water from lake Velinus.

The Arno is the principal river of Tuscany; it is smaller but incomparably more beautiful than the Tiber, especially in the neighbourhood of Florence. I think I have first discovered its extremely remarkable history, partly by my own observations, and partly from the excellent chronicle of Florence. It originally consisted of three distinct rivers. At its mouth the sea formed an estuary, and as the water of those marshes was carried into the sea by a small river in the neighbourhood of Pisa, the inhabitants considerably widened it by making drains through the marshes, and thus carrying the waters into the river. The middle part was a large lake covering the ground now occupied by Florence: the rock Gonfalina formed a barrier against it, but being cut through, an outlet was formed towards the lower Anio, as has been observed even by Villani. The large ancient basin of this lake may still be recognised, and the walls of Fiesole still show how high it was.⁠[1] The third part, now the upper Arno, was formed in the ante-Roman period in the neighbourhood of La’ncisa, likewise by cutting a canal through a rock for the purpose of making an outlet for the water which formerly flowed partly towards the Tiber, and partly formed another lake. In this manner, the most excellent country, with the most wonderful natural beauties, has been almost entirely recovered by human ingenuity.

The Liris, on the frontier between central and southern Italy, is mentioned under the name of the Garigliano as early as the ninth century. It flows down from the Apennines as a beautiful mountain-torrent in the neighbourhood of Arpinum and Sora, but near its mouth it deserves the name of quietus amnis, at least under ordinary circumstances; for during the changes of the seasons, its current is often very strong.

The Vulturnus was no doubt so called from an ancient Oscan or Samnite word vultur, signifying a mountain. The east-wind which is known at Rome under the name of Vulturnus, probably also derives its name from a Samnite mountain, for it has no reference to the river.

The other rivers in the west, which discharge their waters into the Tyrrhenian sea, are insignificant. I may, however, mention the Silarus, which forms the northern, and the Laus, which forms the southern boundary of Lucania.

The Aufidus, now Ofanto, is the only large river in southern Italy, which empties itself into the Adriatic; it is still, when swollen, very rapid and raging, as it is described by Horace. Its fall is greatest near the Apennines; it is not a fine river, and its waters are muddy with lime.

The seas surrounding Italy are: in the west, the mare inferum, Τυρσηνικὴ θάλασσα, extending from the Ligurian gulf to Sicily; it is called mare Tyrrhenicum or Tuscum only by Roman poets and by those who affect to write learnedly. The Romans certainly did not call the Adriatic mare Hadriaticum, but mare superum; the Greeks sometimes call it Ἰόνιος κόλπος. The sea in the south-east of Italy had no special name among the Romans, but the Greeks call it Ἰόνιος θάλασσα.

The bays of Tarentum and Liguria are sufficiently described by their names.

Let us now proceed to the divisions of Italy. I shall first speak of the most ancient ones, which arose with and through the nations themselves. They are very variable, and I am afraid it will not be possible to make their relations quite clear without being very minute.

In the earliest times, Italy may be conceived somewhat in the following manner: southern Italy, from the line I have already mentioned as running from mount Garganus across the country as far as the coast of Latium, is the country of the Itali, who appear there as different tribes and under different names. To the north of that line we have the country of the Opicans, next that of the Sabellians, and to the north of them we have the Umbrians; it is possible, that at the same early period the Etruscans, who had come from the north, may have dwelt there, while the whole coast on both sides, from Pisa as far as the Adriatic gulf, was occupied by Pelasgian tribes. This form of Italy is the most ancient of which we have any knowledge; we have nothing more definite during the historical ages. In passing on to the time which we call the end of regal power, or the beginning of the consulship, we find in the south the Greek settlements scattered in an almost unbroken line from Tarentum to Posidonia, in Apulia and Calabria, while Neapolis and Cumae occur in Campania. The Oenotrian tribes are partly allied with, and partly dependent on, those Greek colonies. The Oscans at that time probably extended into Calabria, and occupied Apulia, Samnium, and Campania; the Volscians and Aequians belonged to them. Whether these Oscan tribes were in any way akin to the Pelasgians, is a question which it is difficult to answer, though it is clear, that afterwards they became mixed and amalgamated with them; for in Latium, for example, Oscans and Pelasgians lived together. Next to them follow the Sabellian tribes from the frontiers of Apulia, viz., the Picentians, Pelignians, Marrucinians, Vestinians, Marsians, Frentanians, Sabines, etc., and they extend down to Rome. The country north of them was occupied by the Umbrians, inhabiting an extensive territory, though they were already a declining people, having been broken by the Etruscans. These Etruscans were then already in full possession of the country as far as the neighbourhood of Rome, and on the other side they extended to the very summits of the Alps in Raetia, and the Alpine tribes in the district of Graubündten belonged to them: they were a great and mighty nation, occupying the whole of the north of Italy. The north-east was inhabited by the Veneti, and in the north-west the Ligurians extended as far as the Ticinus. But then the Gauls invaded Italy, crushed some of the Ligurian tribes, overpowered and annihilated the Etruscans on the Po, with the exception of a few places, such as Mantua and Verona; they even advanced into Picenum, and ruled over many tribes which were not expelled by them. All those who were able to offer resistance remained, but all the others were extirpated; wherever the Gauls appeared, they changed the country which they did not occupy for themselves into a wilderness, and forests arose where formerly agriculture had been flourishing. Hence, when subsequently the Romans extended their dominion in those parts, they found the country a desert, and as such it is described even by Polybius.

I shall not here enter into a description of the condition of Italy, which was the result of the Roman conquest, for I should have to repeat the same afterwards in giving you an account of the separate countries: even a general outline would render it necessary to enter into great detail. We shall at once pass on to the seventh century, as the period of regular organisation, when the Sempronian laws completely fixed the boundaries of Italy. Italy then extended as far as Ariminum, and on the other side as far as the river Macra. The country north of those points was in ordinary life called Gallia Cispadana, but it did not form a province by itself, in the sense of a country regularly governed by propraetors or proconsuls. Before the time of Augustus, and even during the first years of his reign, Gallia Transpadana and Venetia were not included in Italy, but were under a military administration, sometimes united with Illyricum and sometimes with Gaul in the wider sense of the name. Augustus first joined that country politically to Italy, as it had long since become Latinised by the extraordinary influx of Romans from Latium. This is quite surprising. The use of the Latin language seems to have become universal with extraordinary rapidity, and sometimes even in the short space of a single generation. It is remarkable how quickly such a change takes place, while afterwards there occurred a stand-still, and no further extension took place. In France the Latin language had spread so rapidly in consequence of the Roman conquest, that, even at the time when Pliny wrote, it generally prevailed in Provence as far as Lyons, and the Gallic language had disappeared. From Sulpicius Severus and the ecclesiastical fathers, we see that in the fifth century the Romanic was the vernacular tongue in Gaul and not Celtic. This was the case from Provence to Armorica, and during the period of the Frankish kings the boundaries of the Romanic language were undoubtedly the same as they are at present, and for centuries the language of Lower Britany has not lost a single village. I do not mean to say, that the Celtic was everywhere else quite extinct, but it was spoken very little, just as in some villages of Lusatia, Wendish is spoken, of which the inhabitants of the towns do not understand a word. Augustus, then, extended Italy in this manner, because the northern parts had either already become Latinised, or showed every symptom of soon becoming so.

Augustus divided Italy into eleven regions, and afterwards, in the third century of our era, probably under Severus, this number was increased to fifteen. Pliny has made the former the basis of his description, but the latter is not found quite complete in any ancient author. A knowledge of these divisions is of great importance in history, in order to understand the notices of ancient writers, especially of the “Scriptores Historiae Augustae.”

The regions of Augustus are:—1. Latium and Campania, from the Tiber to the Silarus, on the frontier of Lucania. 2. Southern Samnium, Beneventum, the country of the Hirpini, Apulia and Calabria. 3. Lucania and Bruttium. 4. Northern Samnium and the country of the Marsians, Marrucinians, Pelignians, and Vestinians. 5. Picenum. 6. Umbria. 7. Etruria, a name which remained customary until the second century; but from that time and especially during the third century, it was always called Tuscia, as Tusci was always the name of the inhabitants. Tuscia occurs neither in Cicero, nor in Livy, nor in Ennius, nor in Cato. But in the reign of Constantine no scholar ought to speak of Etruria. These are things which serve as hints to him who understands them to indicate the time at which anything is written, and which are stumbling blocks to those who are ignorant of them. When at Rome, I had made such progress in these matters, that in looking at a ruin, I could immediately discern to what century it belonged, and in like manner a practised eye can, even without any statement of time or place, discover whether coins are Thracian or Cilician and whether they belong to the period before or after Alexander. Historical blunders are quite as bad as grammatical ones; they are not indeed illogical, but they grate upon well-trained ears and feelings, and create uneasiness. 8. Ariminum, the legations of Urbino, Ferrara, and Romagna. 9. Liguria, the country south of the river Po, from the borders of Etruria as far as the Alps. 10. Venetia, and 11. Regio transpadana, from the Lago di Garda to the Alps.

If we were to understand the later division into provinces according to this scheme, we should misplace Liguria, for example, entirely, for that country contained nothing of what had previously been comprised under the same name. This later division, as I said before, was made in the third century, probably in the reign of Severus. Paulus Diaconus furnishes the best ground-work of this division, although he is very confused, not enumerating the regions in any definite order. The fifteen regions, according to his statement, are:—1. Venetia et Histria, as far as the Benacus or Lago di Garda. 2. Liguria, the same country which was formerly called Transpadana, from the Lago di Garda to the foot of the Swiss Alps near mount St. Bernard; it was, therefore, on the north of the Po, and only a small corner of it belonged to ancient Liguria. In this sense we find the name used in the Codex Theodosianus and in Procopius. Two limites above Italy were then regarded as parts of Italy, which in the time of Augustus did not yet belong to it, viz., 3. Raetia prima, and 4. Raetia secunda; but their boundaries are not mentioned anywhere. 5. Alpis Cottia, or Alpes Cottiae, the ancient Liguria proper as far as the frontiers of Tuscia; the name is transferred from the Cottian Alps in the neighbourhood of mount Cenis and Susa to the whole of ancient Liguria. 6. Tuscia et Umbria (in the official style, for otherwise people then wrote Thuscia). Thuscia is Tuscany, and the part of Umbria, which was then called Umbria in a narrower sense, embraced Assisi, Spello, Foligno, etc. 7. Campania Aurelia. Campania comprises the whole region which Augustus called Latium et Campania, extending from the Tiber to the Silarus. Hence the modern name of Campagna di Roma, of which traces occur even in the writers of the western empire, as in the expressions, Campania Romana, Campania Romae; in Servius we read: Gabii quondam oppidum Campaniae, but this passage occurs in one of those books (from the end of the fourth to the beginning of the twelfth), of which it can be proved, that their present form belongs to a much later time; the substance was composed in the fourth century, but the form probably arose in the eighth century in the grammatical school of Ravenna.

One hundred miles around Rome, the provinciae suburbicariae, must be distinguished from Thuscia and Campania; they did not belong to the regions, but were under the praefectus urbi, whence Thuscia suburbicaria, subsequently the Patrimonium D. Petri, and Campania suburbicaria were opposed to Campania Aurelia, that is, the Campagna di Lavoro. The name Aurelia has not been understood by the few scholars who have treated of this period; and wherever the name was found, the strangest emendations have been attempted, because it was believed that it was not the name of a province; but express testimony that it was a province occurs in Boëthius and others. 8. Lucania et Brittia. We must adhere to this corrupt ancient mode of spelling Brittia, for so it occurs in MSS., in subscriptions, in the “Scriptores rei Agrariae,” in the “Notitia imperii” and elsewhere.

Our guide now passes on to the Alpes Penninae. Wallis must, probably, be regarded as a region, and also Aosta and Ivrea under the name of 9. Alpes Penninae; Paulus Diaconus, however, calls them Apenninae, and applies the name to some country of central Italy; but it can be proved that such a province never existed. 10. Aemilia, between a part of the Alpes Cottiae and Liguria, from Piacenza to Bologna. 11. Flaminia, that is, Romagna, Ferrara, Pesaro, or the maritime district as far as the Marca Ancona. 12. Picenus (masculine, supply ager), the Marca Ancona with some adjoining Sabellian districts. 13. Valeria, extending from Tibur over the country of the Marsians, Pelignians, and perhaps, also, the Marrucinians; this province is sometimes politically united with Picenus, for Alba, the capital of Valeria, is also called, in the imperial rescripts, Alba in Piceno. 14. Samnium, and 15. Apulia et Calabria. Then come the islands Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica.

These provinces must be remembered in order to understand the history; if a person does not know them, he cannot understand the new and differently used names in Procopius and others. The names Aemilia, Valeria, Flaminia, and Aurelia, were taken from the roads which bore them; Flaminia is the district which Augustus had left without a name, perhaps the regio Ariminensis. The Via Flaminia ran from Rome to Ariminum, and was thence continued under the same name; and Scaurus afterwards continued it as far as Piacenza under the name Aemilia. The Via Valeria led into the interior; its originator is unknown, but it was perhaps Messalla, for in the elegy of Tibullus on him, he is praised for having made roads; earlier writers do not mention this road. Connected with this subject is one of the most pleasing recollections of my life: I had just been reading that elegy, when I was informed that a cross-road had been discovered, unquestionably the same which is described by Tibullus; the part of it which is laid open is preserved as beautifully, as if it had been completed only this year. It is a road running through the midst of Tivoli, and its pavement is so perfectly preserved that the stones have scarcely removed the breadth of a knife’s back from one another; the Romans built for eternity, and succeeded where the destructive hands of barbarians did not interfere. The Aurelia must likewise have been a road, though not a very ancient one, but probably made by M. Aurelius, or else the name of the Via Domitiana was changed, in order to obliterate the hateful recollection. Domitian raised splendid structures, but the hatred with which he was looked upon, transferred many of them to others, as his Forum was transferred to Nerva.

If we arrange the before-mentioned fifteen provinces, we first have, in the north of the territory of Rome, Thuscia, in the south Aurelia, and between them Valeria: on the other side, beginning in the south, we have Lucania et Brittia, Samnium, Picenus, and behind Samnium Apulia et Calabria; in the north, Flaminia, Aemilia; then from the sea-coast the Alpis Cottia, including Genoa and Piedmont, Liguria, Alpes Penninae, Venetia et Istria, and beyond Italy the two Raetiae.

The Codex Theodosianus contains an expression which is so peculiar, that even the great Jacobus Gothofredus mistook it; we there read that some laws were promulgated per Italiam et Alpes. Italia here does not denote the whole peninsula, but only Lombardy, while Alpes signifies the Cottian and Pennine Alps and the two Raetiae.

We shall now take up Italy according to its various countries, beginning with

Latium,

the heart of Italy. I do not mean to say that Samnium might not equally well have become the heart of the country, but history has willed it otherwise. Latium is by its situation destined to exercise the sovereignty, while that of Samnium is less favourable in this respect. The name Latium was not always applied to the same extent of country; the Greek name is ἡ Λατίνη, whereas τό Λάτιον is a later form copied from the Latin, and properly signifies jus Latii, in which sense it is used, for example, by Appian, who was a jurist. Latium received its name from the people of the Lati or Latini; but in what sense the name was given to the people, remains at least a controverted question.

I cannot, in these Lectures, always attempt to prove to you the correctness of my views, and I have done so only in a few instances; but where, owing to the multiplicity of the traditions, no definite conclusion has been come to, or where I have not been able to arrive at a settled conviction, I state to you what can be said for and against it. What I am now going to state is my well-weighed conviction, and not the result of an inquiry made to-day or yesterday. I commenced studying the subject at a very early age, about thirty-five years ago; afterwards I put it on one side for many years, because I was engaged in others, and those the most practical occupations, in financial, commercial, and exchange matters,—years which I do not regret, for I think that in them I did some service to my contemporaries. But I never lost sight of my favourite inquiries, for I cherished them in my walks, in my travels, nay, in the midst of the confusion of war. One of the most important inquiries, viz., that about the Slavonians and Sarmatians, I made in the interior of Russia, when I had no books with me except a Latin translation of Strabo. With this conviction I will at once lay before you the results of my investigations; it would take several years, if I were to attempt to refute the opinions of others: I shall give you that which I honestly hold to be true and correct.

The extent of Latium was different at different times. In the earliest ages, it cannot have been confined between the Tiber and the Liris, but must have extended far beyond the Liris, perhaps as far as Cumae and the frontiers of Italia in its narrowest sense. Such it appears in the treaty between Rome and Carthage; this is evident from the words in Polybius, where it is stipulated, that the Carthaginians should make no conquests on the coast from Ostia to Terracina, which was subject to the Romans. Latium therefore must have extended farther south; I will not absolutely assert, that in the north also it extended beyond the Tiber. As afterwards the whole of the sea coast was taken possession of by the Volscians, the coast for a time did not belong to Latium, and even Antium must have been separated from it. But Latium, in a narrower sense, is the country of the thirty allied towns forming the Latin state during the first period of the Roman republic, when the sea coast was separated from it. This continued to be the extent of Latium until the end of the fourth century of the city, when the maritime towns again united with Latium and formed the great Latin league, which I have described in the first edition of my history, and which, as I have only now discovered, was formed in the year 397. Latium then extended as far as the Liris, but not beyond it, for in the south of this river we find Campania, which during the earliest times is never mentioned. During this period therefore, the Volscians and Auruncans on the coast are likewise called Latins. This meaning of the name afterwards changed again, and only a portion of that country together with all the Latin colonies was termed nomen Latinum, that is gens Latina, or genus Latinum, just as we have nomen Romanum, nomen Fabium in Livy. The Latin colonies consisted of Romans, Latins, and Italicans; they became a single nation, which the Romans planted all over Italy, and they rose to such importance as almost to throw the ancient Latin towns into oblivion, so that at the time of the Hannibalian war the name Latini signified the Latin colonies and the few Latin towns which had belonged to the ancient confederacy and had not yet obtained the Roman franchise. Their number continued to increase until the lex Julia, which conferred the Roman franchise upon all of them; Tibur and Praeneste also, the only remaining towns of the old Latin confederacy, now received the franchise, and for the moment the Latini ceased to exist. However, at Rome any gaps which arose, were immediately filled up; when one generation became effete, another of new and vigorous citizens was established in its place. C. Pompeius Strabo afterwards conferred the jus Latii upon the towns of Gallia Transpadana, and with this wise and progressive measure introduced something quite different from what had been customary before. These new Latins were levied for the Roman legions, whereas the earlier ones had formed cohorts of their own; the latter had been in the relation of isopolity, and by virtue of the jus municipii they might take the Roman franchise whenever they pleased; but the new Latins in Gallia Transpadana could do this only when they had held a municipal office in any of their own towns. They, moreover, had no connubium: when a Roman married such a Latin woman, his children were not Roman citizens. Sigonius is intolerable on this subject, and so also most of the moderns. It is sad that our jurists are not better philologers; I think that in questions of this kind an intimate acquaintance with the ancient authors is indispensable. But on the other hand, philologers ought to possess a very accurate knowledge of Roman law.

This creation of Pompeius Strabo naturally produced two off-shoots. In the first place, some people extra Italiam positi now likewise obtained the jus Latii, especially certain Spanish tribes and the inhabitants of Provence, and all of them on the same footing as the Galli Transpadani. You ought to know these rights of the Transpadani, because they belong to the age of Cicero and Caesar, and are of interest in the history of that period. Secondly, in the reign of Tiberius there was passed the Lex Junia Norbani⁠[2]⁠, which limited the manumission of slaves, and provided regulations to effect a state of security for freedmen without their obtaining the franchise. This is the later Latinitas, mentioned in the law-books. The lex Aelia Sentia had already established similar limitations, to prevent slaves from becoming Roman citizens by manumission; but these restrictions consisted in the formalities of the law, which had grown obsolete, and were, in many instances, troublesome and even injurious. The law had thus become unsettled. Formerly the earlier Latins were not distinguished from the later ones; but the ancient Latins had the connubium; all the Italians, in fact, had it, and most certainly the Latins.

Being a part of larger nations, the Latins bore the names of these nations; hence they were called Tyrrhenians by Greek authors; but even their own names had different forms, for they are called Lavini and no doubt also Lacini. The ancient national name Lavini gave rise to the story that Latinus had a brother Lavinus, and that the latter gave the name to the town of Lavinium—a statement which was adopted by those who would not derive the name of the town from Lavinia. This view of the matter at once explains that which puzzled the grammarians, and which our wretched epitomes of the commentaries on the Aeneid cannot solve. Namely, Virgil often speaks of litora Lavina and arva Lavinia before the arrival of Aeneas in Italy, because he entertained the notion that the name Latini arose afterwards from the union of the Trojans and Aborigines; hence he took the poetical form Lavinus. In like manner, Virgil, in his catalogue, at the end of the seventh book, when speaking of the tribes of Latium, says picti scuta Lavici, which has always been referred to the town of Lavici in Latium, which was called after its inhabitants; but we cannot take this as the name of a town, as both before and after tribes only are mentioned, and Lavici there is nothing else than Latini. There can be no doubt that they were also called Lacini. King Latinus is in some traditions called Lacinus, and under this name he was transferred to southern Italy. This is one of the points which are not sufficiently attended to in the grammatical study of the Latin language. It is indeed very difficult to speak of these matters, as we have so few authentic remains of the ancient Latin dialects, and even the very name “Latin dialects” sounds strange to us, for they are mentioned only by the most ancient among the Latin grammarians. We find it stated, for example, that the Praenestines had a peculiar pronunciation. There can be no doubt that the Latins had their different dialects, though the differences were not so strongly marked as in Greek. The Oscan and several dialects to which the Oscan approached more or less, were kindred languages of the Latin. I hope that more light may be thrown upon this subject, especially by means of inscriptions; several have already been discovered, which I have succeeded in explaining; some exist at Pompeii and Herculaneum, and still more will no doubt be discovered. The Oscan is a language which stands to the Latin in nearly the same relation as that in which the Cretan (which we know, e.g., from inscriptions of Hierapytna) stands to the Ionic dialect.

Besides these names of the Latins, I will mention a few others, and first that of Aborigines. It is inconceivable that this name should ever have been borne by the Latin nation itself, for it is nothing else but the designation of a primitive people. The ancients generally explain it to mean a nation from which others are descended; but this etymology can scarcely be correct, it is probably synonymous with the Greek αὐτόχθονες, for under this name and in this sense they are actually mentioned in Roman traditions. We must bear in mind that all traditions agree in representing the Latins as a mixed race: in the Trojan legends they consist of Trojans and Aborigines, that is, strangers who arrived by sea, and natives. But these legends do not belong to the history of nations; they are mere fictions, which arose out of the Tyrrhenian origin of the Latins. According to the other legend, which has more of the character of an historical tradition, the Latin nation arose out of an immigrating people, which, descending from the mountains, subdued the Siculi (only a dialectic variety of Itali), the ancient inhabitants who extended into the interior as far as Tibur. This immigrating people had no name, or we must suppose that its name or names have disappeared from the traditions. But they were called Casci (which, according to Saufeius in Servius, was the name of the Aborigines) or Prisci. In a later and more detailed account of the history, this relation is completely reversed, the immigrating mountaineers being called Aborigines. This is evidently wrong, for those are not autochthons who subdue others, but those who are subdued: thus the natives of Attica are called autochthons by the conquering Ionians. The name Prisci is an original national name, though it is not mentioned by the ancients: Priscus, like Cascus, became a common appellative in the sense of “old” in the same way as we call a thing Gothic or Old-Frankish; but this is only a later meaning. The name by which the Latins are mentioned in the early history of Rome and in the formulae of the pontifical books, is Prisci Latini. This has been translated “the ancient Latins” as opposed to the colonarii Latini; but this is quite impossible, for they bore that name at a time when no Latin colonies were in existence. Prisci Latini is a combination of two national names just like populus Romanus Quirites, Patres Conscripti, and the legal expressions empti venditi, locati conducti, and signifies “the nation of the Prisci and Latini.” Two words denoting either closely allied, or totally opposed objects, the two extremes or poles of one idea, are put in juxtaposition without any connecting link; this was the practice wherever one whole was to be expressed by two terms. In this respect also much is still to be done for Latin grammar; some things have been treated of with great diffuseness, which might be settled in a few words, while others have been completely neglected. Even in declension entire forms have been misunderstood, but it is especially in regard to syntax that very much remains to be done. The ancient mode of speaking occurs now and then, and is either overlooked altogether or treated as exceptional; but it ought to be treated with the same accuracy as, for example, the epic dialect in Greek. In our case, e.g., the grammatical observation throws light upon history; the Prisci Latini are the people of the thirty towns, consisting of Priscans and Latins. The Priscans are the Oscan conquerors, and the Latins the inhabitants of the coast, or the ancient Tyrrhenian population. As in the genealogies of the Greeks, the Pelasgian race is not separated, whence the heroes of the Trojan time frequently belong to the Pelasgian genealogies, so the heroes of the Oscans also occur among the Latins, and vice versa. Hesiod, in the well-known passage, mentions Latinus, the son of Circe and Odysseus, as ruler of all the Tyrrhenians (Πᾶσι Τυρσηνοῖσιν ἀγακλειτοῖσιν ἀνάσσων), understanding by Tyrrhenians the people dwelling on the coasts, in the wide extent of ἡ Λατίνη.

These are the results of my investigations about the Latins. They are spoken of in two senses: in the most ancient, they comprise all the Siculians or Tyrrhenians on the western coast of Italy; in a narrower and later sense, the Latins are a mixed people of Siculians and the Oscans who had come down from the mountains. The great mass of the real Latins became so amalgamated with the conquerors, that the main body remained essentially Pelasgian; the alleged emigration⁠[3] either does not refer to the Latins at all, or only to a small portion of them; they remained after the foreign conquest in such numbers, that their race did not undergo any change, in the same manner as the Italians, after the Lombard conquest, remained essentially Italians, although the Lombards, who had come with their women and children were the rulers. Even a small people may preserve its peculiar language for a long time; the Franks perhaps had scarcely twenty thousand soldiers. Sismondi, whose judgment is otherwise in most matters of little weight, here observes quite correctly, that in the tenth century, the Dukes of Beneventum still had Lombard names; thus one is called Store Seitz, “preparing seats;”⁠[4] and this was four centuries after the immigration of the Lombards. In like manner, the nobles in Livonia speak Lettish, but among themselves they speak German with a peculiar pronunciation; several of them live on their estates, speak German and have German chaplains, being, among thousands of Livonians, the only Germans. And yet more than five centuries have already elapsed since they settled there.

In describing the physical condition of Latium, I shall use the name in the sense in which we find it, for example, in Pliny, where it signifies the country between the Tiber, the Liris, and the Anio, though on the side of the Anio the frontier must not be taken too strictly. In our maps the boundary line is marked along the Anio; but this is incorrect, for not only Tibur is situated on its right bank, but also Nomentum, Corniculum, and other places. Latium, in a physical point of view, consists of three distinct parts. The first is of a volcanic nature, and its central point is the Mons Albanus (Monte Cavo), with which are connected the hills of Tusculum. This volcanic part extends from the Campagna di Roma as far as Velitrae, so that the country, as it approaches the Tiber and the sea, terminates in low hills and almost forms a plain. This part is at present called the Latin Hills (Monti Latini); the ancients have no corresponding name for it, though it is quite isolated. The second part is on the east of the first, and consists of a continuation of the Apennines, which runs across the Anio as far as the Liris; in front of it are the hills of the Hernicans, which are likewise essentially a part of the Apennines, for they consist of limestone and have no traces of a volcanic nature; they extend as far as the borders of the Pontine marshes. Between them and the neighbourhood of Tivoli, the country is low, and in some parts a perfect plain, as in the district where Gabii was situated; but although the country is level, it still shows traces of volcanic agency. This is the country of the Hernicans, with lofty Praeneste and the Latin colonies on the border of the Pontine marshes; further on, as far as the hills, the country contained the Aequian and Volscian towns. Those hills are extremely beautiful, and the high country of mount Algidus lies between them and the volcanic plain of Campania; the district of mount Algidus forms the watershed, the waters on the one side flowing towards the Liris, and on the other towards the Anio and the sea through the Pontine marshes. On the north-east of Velitrae there is a table-land with broken ground. The third part, or the country in the north-west, the west, and south, is of quite a different character, consisting of loose, volcanic ground, puzzolano and tufo, which are products of volcanic eruptions. The Tiber in the neighbourhood of Rome was once an arm of the sea, as is clear from the undoubted investigations of Brocchi, and pure marine sand is found there; but in whatever part of the country a mineral occurs, it always consists of an immense quantity of puzzolano, which in some parts has become tufo. Such is the nature of all the country round Rome, but strange to say, one part of the Aventine contains a vein of limestone. Towards the sea the nature of the country is, I believe, the same. On the coast, the land sinks down and becomes a plain of sand as in many barren districts of Germany, whence the coast is covered with firs, and was called ager macerrimus by Fabius Maximus.⁠[5] South of Ostia the coast gradually rises and becomes a down connecting Latium with cape Circaeum, the high promontory of Circe. This hill belongs to the Apennines, and it is impossible to say how it may have become attached to Latium; it must, however, originally have been separated from it by an inland sea. Into this sea behind the downs, the river Ufens and several others poured their waters from the hills; and the mud carried down by them has formed the Pontine marshes, the nature of which was distinctly recognised even by the ancients as a πρόσχωσις, that is, a filling up of a place which was once a part of the sea, but they were mistaken as to the period when this happened. Lessing justly observes that many an error consists in merely mistaking the time; I know from my own experience, that even when you entertain a sound and correct view of a thing, you may often err in regard to time: you are anxious at once to fix the time, and commit a blunder. Such is the case also in ancient history. Pliny is one of those men who, by immense industry, have made themselves dull; he is originally not deficient in intelligence and judgment. Many people carry reading and writing to excess; Heyne, for example, would have become a good philologer, had he not undertaken too much, and had he not thereby been obliged to cut many a knotty point instead of solving it. It is possible, therefore, that his name will not be remembered by posterity. In some chapters Pliny does not show his usual manner; many things are treated of with a real love of his subject and with great success, and his history may even have been beautiful and genial. But he thought he was able to produce a work, the extent of which, as he fixed it in his own mind, was beyond the grasp of man, unless he had given up everything else in order to be able to complete it. He dictated, and had a person to read to him even when he was taking his bath or his meals, and by this means all kinds of materials were accumulated without discrimination. It is possible that he may have passed the Pontine marshes a hundred times; but Mucianus had recorded the erroneous opinion, that at one time twenty-three towns had existed there, and Pliny copied it; he states however, in the same breath, that a lake had covered the same country as late as the time of Theophrastus. The latter indeed speaks of islands, but had not seen them himself. The marshes can never have been a high country in which towns existed. The high-road of Trajan was several feet below the present level of the marsh, and it is still constantly rising. The downs continue, but between Terracina and Circeii they leave an opening for the Ufens and other waters so far as they flow out of the marshes.

Topography of Rome.

I shall now at once proceed to say something about the topography of Rome; whether I shall be able afterwards to treat of this subject more in detail, depends upon circumstances; but for the present I will give you a general outline. It is a pity that without drawings it is almost impossible to form a clear idea. This is not the place for speaking about the origin of Rome, but I shall not abstain from noticing the most ancient divisions, and briefly to state their origin.

In very remote times, there existed, according to the most credible accounts, a small town on the Palatine hill; this town was probably called Roma, and its name was afterwards extended so as to embrace other neighbouring places. Another town existed on the Tarpeian hill opposite, occupying at the same time a portion of the Quirinal (not the whole of it); and I am convinced that I have discovered its name, which was undoubtedly Quirium. There are ancient statements that many small towns existed on the summits of the hills in that district—they may, in fact, have been no more than villages. One of these places was situated on mount Caelius, and undoubtedly bore the name of Lucerum. These three towns afterwards grew together, and extended south of the Palatine beyond the great chasm of the Circus as far as the higher and more important hill called the Aventine. This hill also contained a town, which at first, unless it was in friendly alliance, might become dangerous to the city; but when a portion of the Latins was admitted to the Roman franchise, they received settlements there, and in this manner that place likewise became united with Rome. The Aventine being, as it were, an outpost, was connected with the city by means of a rampart extending to mount Caelius. These five hills, then, the Palatine, Quirinal, Capitoline, Caelius, and Aventine, formed together one whole, but each had separate rights, just as in Great Britain at the time when England and Scotland were united, and Ireland had its own parliament under British supremacy. A union existed between Roma and Quirium, while Lucerum, like Ireland, was dependent, though it had its own government; and the town on the Aventine stood in the relation of the English colonies. From the Caelian hill to the foot of the Quirinal another great fortification consisting of a mound and a ditch was formed, whereby the whole became united as one city; the Esquiline and Viminal were drawn into the city at a later period.

In ancient ethnography and history there occur numbers, which, in a surprising manner, recur at the most different periods; they are by no means fanciful; to regard them as something mystical, is itself a strange fancy, though there have been men of great intelligence, who have not been able to resist this notion. The number seven which so often meets us in Roman history, is something peculiar which has taken deep root there. There are unmistakeable traces that, previous to the complete union between the Romans and Quirites, Roma on the Palatine, Lucerum on the Caelius, and the town on the Aventine, together with their suburbs, formed one community, which was divided into seven districts, and bore the name of Septimontium. These seven hills were afterwards transferred to the whole of the city of Rome. Every one knows the passage in Virgil, Septemque una sibi muro circumdedit arces; but these are in part quite different hills from those originally comprised under the name Septimontium, which did not even consist of seven distinct hills.⁠[6] They then were, the Palatine, Capitoline (formerly called Tarpeius), Quirinal, Viminal, Esquiline, Caelius, and Aventine. In this sense, and when all were enclosed by one wall, the Aventine also is reckoned as one of the seven hills, though otherwise it is not always regarded as a part of the city. In order not to go beyond the number seven, two very distinct hills, the Cispius and Oppius, were treated as one under the name Esquiline; the Aventine, at least in the opinion of the Romans, was the highest and most considerable of all; in order, therefore, not to leave it out, the two mentioned before were united into one. They can still be clearly distinguished, however much the forms of the hills have otherwise become obscured by ruins and rubbish: even the most indifferent observer will recognise them as two hills.

Within this circumference, Rome was contained after the agger of Servius Tullius was completed. This agger was an enormous work: it ran, almost an Italian mile, from the Colline to the Esquiline gate, and was a moat of one hundred feet in breadth and thirty in depth, the earth of which was thrown up as a mound lined with a wall and fortified with towers. In the time of Augustus this work was not only still discernible, but was used as a promenade, a kind of boulevard, of which Horace says, aggere in aprico spatiari; it continued to be admired even in Pliny’s time, while the other walls were already destroyed. At present only few traces of it are visible; but I have no doubt that by excavations the lining wall might still be discovered. In some parts, the agger is still discernible as a continuous hill. Through this agger, then, the whole city became one united place. Although the city became greatly extended, by incorporating with itself suburbs and other hills, yet the additional hills were not counted, and Rome remained the city of the seven hills. One of the additions which the city received, was that of the mons Pincius or Hortulorum, on the other side of a wide valley, by which it was separated from the Quirinal: it derived its name from the palace of the Pincii, of which the ruins were to be seen as late as the sixteenth century; it is also remarkable as the place where Belisarius in the sixth century had his head-quarters. Near the Aventine, another hill was added, to which the ancients do not give a distinct name, but which, during the middle ages, was strangely called Asbestus, which is perhaps a corruption of an ancient name. If it be not a mere invention, it is probable that a church may have stood there which was called in Asbesto. Nibby was the first to notice this, at least he first published it.⁠[7] The suburb beyond the bridge (trans Tiberim, Trastevere) also was added, and in like manner the Janiculus became a part of the city, as well as another small hill in the neighbourhood of the second Aventine, the greater part of which, however, was outside the city. The number of hills which were regarded as belonging to the circumference of the city, thus already amounted to ten. In the ninth century, when the Borgo was built and St. Peter was fortified, the Vatican hill also was incorporated, so that at present the number of hills belonging to the city amounts to eleven. A great part of them, however, is now uninhabited, being covered by vineyards. But the division into seven parts had taken such firm root, that Augustus, in dividing the city into regions for the purpose of regulating the administration of the police, made fourteen regions; and this was wise and not a pedantic going back to obsolete institutions. This arrangement of Augustus was very necessary, for Rome was at that time little better than a den of robbers, as is usually the case in republics when the free constitution is not kept fresh and adapted to circumstances, when they become too vast, when morality decays, and when there arises a contradiction between the social condition of the nation and its constitution. In such circumstances the condition of a republic is the most fearful that can be imagined. The collective national wealth is never the main thing: I am convinced that in England, if the middle classes are destroyed (and such a middle class scarcely exists, for the people are either very rich or very poor), morals will decay, and that the nation will come to a point, where it can no longer enjoy its liberty, and will perish by internal convulsions: Hume has predicted this long ago. Whoever wishes to promote and preserve freedom, must first ask himself, Is it possible to preserve morality, virtue, and honesty? Have the morals of the people retained their purity? Do they respect themselves, their fellow-men, and God? If this is not the case, liberty is a curse and not a blessing. Such was the case of the Romans under Augustus: terrible as was his government, still there was no other way. In like manner, the revolution of the 18th Brumaire was the most fortunate event for France, and by it Napoleon did more for the country than by his victories. In his circumstances Augustus could not ask himself, “Is it not a handsome thing to preserve the ancient forms?” but, “What is the task I have to accomplish, especially how can I restore security?” For a man’s life was not safe even in his bed. Home and its vicinity were then probably even more unsafe than in our times; no one then could go from Rome to Albano without risking his life, whereas now even in the worst seasons no one has any thing to fear there. Whoever went out in the dark, had reason to be grateful, if he escaped with his life. Augustus, therefore, with a feeling that it could not be otherwise, divided the city into fourteen regions. In like manner the Christians in the earliest times divided themselves into seven deaneries or ecclesiastical regions, which, however, were by no means as distinctly marked as has sometimes been supposed; and it is evident from monuments that the ancient boundaries were not observed in them. This division into seven continued until a late period of the middle ages, and afterwards we find seven Cardinals, and seven civil dignitaries. Even at the present day Rome is divided into fourteen regions; during the middle ages this number was not kept up, but Sixtus V. again made it up by adding the Borgo.

How much have these numbers been trifled with! The seven arms of the chandelier in the temple of Jerusalem, the seven days of the week, and even the seven planets have been pressed into the service to explain them. But such explanations may be found for any number. At the time of the French revolution I knew a good-natured man, who enthusiastically took up every change and demonstrated that, as man has five fingers and five senses, the Directoire and the Council of the Five Hundred was the most perfect form of government. When there were three consuls, he comprehended this too and found it quite natural; and when at last there was only one, he declared that it was all right, for that unity must prevail in nature. Such trifling with numbers is a bad thing.

I have already spoken to you about the physical character of the whole district. The ground is volcanic, the stones are tufo, and the loose soil puzzolano. These volcanic substances are very useful as cement and very durable. Wherever in architectural structures the ancients speak of arena, we have to understand puzzolano; we translate it indeed by “sand,” but it is a volcanic sand. Thus we read in Cicero’s speech for Cluentius that a dead body was found in a sand-pit (arenaria); such pits were dug very deep and were very extensive. Of the same kind are the catacombs at Rome: they are large subterraneous passages, which, if due care was taken in their construction, did not fall in. In my lectures on Roman antiquities, I have said that these catacombs were the ordinary burial places for the poor. This much may suffice about the hills.

In the earliest times, the Tiber extended between the Palatine and the Aventine, for there the river, as I have already remarked, formed a bay of the sea, and the district between the Tarpeian and the Palatine hills was a marsh, which, when the waters rose high, became a lake: afterwards this place was the Forum. The valley between the Palatine and Aventine was always filled with water, independent of inundations, for the river there formed a real bay: this district was called the Velabrum. Rome consisted, for the most part, of isolated patches of houses on the hills, for the marsh extended from the Forum to the valley between the Viminal and Esquiline. When you examine the history of the restoration of the city, and inquire as to which district was marshy, you find that even now the place once occupied by the Forum Augusti is called Pantani (marsh). For the purpose of draining this marsh, the Romans built the sewers, which are ascribed to one of the Tarquins—it is uncertain whether to the father or to the son—and which still exist. The intention was to drain the whole of the lower districts between the Palatine, Aventine, Capitoline, Esquiline, and the sea, to facilitate the communication between the several hills, to render the plain fit for agriculture, instead of cultivating only the sides of the hills, and at the same time to make the city inhabitable in regard to fortifications: in like manner London has, within a period of twenty years, become an entirely new city; for many thousands of houses have been bought and pulled down for the purpose of making the streets broader. It was necessary to make an embankment by the river side in order to obtain firm ground behind it, and then to build the great sewers (cloacae). We must not conceive these works to be executed according to our dwarfish notions: they were large vaults receiving the waters of the low districts and carrying them into the river; I always feel sorry to be obliged to use an ignoble name for those magnificent works. The marsh then had to be filled up, which is not indeed mentioned by the ancients, but is self-evident. Afterwards, these cloacae were extended at different times, under the Forum as far as the Subura between the Viminal and the Esquiline, so that all those districts were drained by a vast system of sewers. Thus Rome, throughout this extent, was reclaimed as building ground. I shall afterwards have to say something more about these cloacae.