SPECTATOR'S LIBRARY.

HirroaY, Lectures on the History of Rome, from the Earliest Times to the Commencement of the First Punic War. By B. G. Niebuhr. Edited by Dr. M. Isier. Translated, with many additions from MSS., by Dr. Leonhard Schmitz, P.R.S.E., Rector of

the High School of Edinburgh Taylor and Walton. Bioaammr,

The Life of William Shakespeare: including many particulars respecting the Poet and his Family never before published. By James Orchard Halliwell, Esq., F.R.S., &c.

POLITICAL ECONOMY, Russell Smith. A Treatise on the Succession to Property vacant by Death : including inquiries into the Influence of Primogeniture, Entails, Compulsory Partition, Foundations, &c., over the Public Interests. By J. R. leCulloch, Esq., Member of the Institute of France Longman and Co. FicTrow, Our Street. By Mr. K. A. Tttmarsh Chapman and Hall

NIBBUIER'S LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF ROME.

ALTHOUGH the poetical or fabulous character of Roman history haa only become a popular creed since the publications of Niebuhr, the fact itself has been recognized among the critically learned since the days when the extant histories were written. Sallust disbelieved the story of Romulus and Remus, and inclined to ascribe the foundation of the city to the Trojans and aborigines more than four centuries before the received date. Cicero and his learned contemporaries appear to have been equally sceptical as to the earlier history, or the possibility of discovering its truth. Livy starts by expressly declining to vouch for the accuracy of all that he is about to tell ; and incidentally complains, in several places, of the difficulty of arriving at the truth amid the frequent contradic- tions and the paucity of facts, owing to the causes on which modern writers have dwelt so much—the rarity of writing in those ancient times, the loss of the archives in the destruction of the city by the Gauls, and the heraldic fables by which the bards and panegyrists of patrician families had distorted or overlaid the historic verity. Even the confiding Plutarch can find nothing higher to say of the story of Romulus, than that so ex- traordinary a state as Rome might naturally be expected to have an ex- traordinary foundation ; and his contemporary Floras, in the midst of his panegyrics, quietly remarks, that such deeds as those of the early heroes would now seem to be fables were they not found recorded in annals.

The enthusiastic and indiscriminate veneration with which the classics were regarded at the revival of learning, for a time prevented their state- ments from being questioned. As this submissive feeling wore out, va- rious scholars denied or questioned particular parts of the Roman story. But, we believe, the first who took a complete and systematic survey of the whole subject, was Louis De Beaufort, in his Dissertation sur

flu-

certitude des Cing Premiers Sieeles de l'Histoire Romaine • a task which he performed in such a manner as left little for succeeding in- quirers to do. Looking at the barbarity of the earlier centuries of Rome, (which, like a Frenchman of the age of Voltaire and Louis the Fifteenth, he probably overrated,) the rarity of writings, the absence of contemporary writers, and the destruction of all documents by the Gaulish invasion he decided upon the impossibility of having a circumstantial history before the fourth century a. U. c., by reason of the want of materials on which to ground it. From an extensive perusal of classical authors, he brought together their scattered opinions on the subject, and proved that the most authoritative ancients did not always believe the received accounts when writing them. In a patient examination of the different historical nar- rations, he exhibited their most striking inconsistencies and contradic- tions, while he showed that the more discriminating Livy omits matters, even at the expense of his composition, which the less critical Dionysius tells at large. Finally, he passed in review the leading circumstances of the first five centuries of Roman history, and showed that they could not be truly narrated, either from internal evidence or occasional "admis- sions." In chronological investigation, Niebuhr follows the path which Beaufort merely indicated; in the story of Servins Tnllus and Tarquin the Proud, as well as on several constitutional points, he expands or modifies the hints which Beaufort offered; but in the critical examination of the Ganlish invasion, and still more in the whole story of Porsena, and the deductions to be drawn from the first treaty with Carthage, the Ger- man seems to us to add little or nothing to the views of the Frenchman ; and perhaps be scarcely acknowledges the full extent of his obligations. It cannot be said that Beaufort did not reap a reward in proportion to his merit, for his Dissertation was and still is known to the scholar and the student of history ; but he attained no enduring popular reputation, still less did he effect any change in the popular histories of Rome. This is explainable by the fact that he destroyed but did not produce. In the cases we have just alluded to, he threw out hints or made suggestions as to where the truth was, but he did not enable any compiler to construct a fresh narrative or a new system. His scepticism may perhaps haveaa- voured of Voltaire; but he seems more sceptical than he really is because be confined his criticisms to what was fabulous, without attempting, except occasionally, to discover what was real. Hence, though he might impose some check upon the implicit reception of evident fables or equally evi- dent vain-glorious perversions, he furnished no means of superseding them; and what he says of ancient writers may be equally true of modern compilers—" Cam qui oat ecrit Phistoire Romaine, n'ont fait que se co- pier lea unes lea autres pour cc qui regardoit lea premiers temps, sup-

posant valoit. mieux inserer des choses, qu'il reconnoissotent assez pour Jabuleuses, qtte de laisser des vides, qui auraient pu rebuter lee lecteurs."

Niebuhr, on the contrary, only partially destroyed; and he reconstructed a new edifice with such old materials as he pronounced sound and good, making up the deficiency with new of his own discovery or ma- nufacture. Hence, however crabbed, or diffuse, or obscure he some- times may be in treatment, or daring in assertion, there is an entire view, which admits of being condensed and presented as a popular whole by writers who assume the truth or modify the character of the original 'Unitive, without tasking the reader by proofs. The greatest merit of Niebuhr, however, does not seem to us to lie in his systems or his disquisitional discoveries. He wants the art to animate and sometimes the logic to prove his assertions or hypotheses. What he affirms may be true, what he denies may be false, but there often seems 110 more reason for the one than the other ; we have his ipso dixit rather than his conclusion; and as his inquiries sometimes induce him to change an opinion, which is again succeeded by another, a want of confidence in him is felt when he is travelling through obscured regions without any clear path, or it may be in thick darkness. The moat remarkable, or at least the most useful characteristic of Niebuhr, are the qualities he brings to his task. The work is of less value than the workman. In extensive and profound learning he might be matched among the scholars of the seventeenth century ; in daring speculation he had per- haps equals in his German contemporaries or predecessors; and his im- plicit faith in his own opinions might be rivalled among the professors of many countries : but he strikes us as being the first who systematically penetrated the life, so to speak, of ancient history. In addition to his learning, be had a knowledge of modern history and society, which he had looked at with observing eyes ; he was a man of business, as he does not forget to intimate ; and his ponderous genius was vital. Thus quali- fied, he seized upon the essence of the constitutional, legal, and social life of antiquity ; marking where they resembled and where they differed in principle from modern times, illustrating the old by the new, and often throwing a steady light upon both. By no means the least valuable parts of Niebuhr are those passages where he explains Roman history by that of some other ancient state. Much as he has done, his great merit is perhaps less in what he did than what he enables others to do. Even if his early Roman story, with the originals too, were swept away, the best part of Niebuhr might still remain behind ; for he has taught us to look upon ancient history with a more discerning eye and a feeling of closer sympathy and interest. A scholar, a critic, an elegant writer, or all combined, as in Beaufort, might have destroyed or reconstructed with. out other than scholastic results. Niebuhr had the mind to see, the comprehension to grasp, and the creative power to vivify the diskette membra of a remote and dim antiquity.

The book before us is the complement of a previous publication, that contained Niebuhr's Lecture& on Roman History from the first Punic war to the death of Constantine : the present volume treats of the earlier history, and completes the subject. Dr. Schmitz, in his preface, speaks of manuscripts and students' notes ; but, although Niebuhr has added an occasional commentary on the text, we doubt whether the manuscripts alluded to are any other than " reports " by various hands; or, if the lecturer himself wrote his lectures, we suspect that he expanded them during the delivery. Beyond an appearance of curtness, with a dogma- tism that a fuller composition might probably have removed, this is of no consequence to the view.

The work differs somewhat from the common form of historical lectures, in not telling a continuous story. The author treats of Roman history like the professor of a special branch of science, who takes up part after part for full discussion; with this exception, however, that such lecturers generally begin with a compendious review of the whole subject, which Niebuhr does not, beyond a brief summary of the principal reasons for scepticism. Although the leading events, actors, and circumstances are passed before the reader, they are presented in an isolated manner, and diseased separately. It follows as a consequence, that not only is a knowledge of Roman history required to take in the views, but some idea of the author's hypotheses is also necessary to profit by the work. It strikes us, however, that this discussion of particular topics is a far better mode of teaching history, than if the lecturer set himself to speak off a narrative, or planned a regular series of dissertations on a fixed scale. By Niebuhr's method, cognate subjects may be introduced with- out any appearance of digression, and topics may be handled briefly or elaborately according to their bearing upon the elucidation of the history; which cannot be done without awkwardness in a continuous form, where things must in some degree be considered with regard to their epic or narrative importance. It is this real utility of structure and treatment which renders the Lectures under review more popular, and to tyros in Niebuhr's theories more useful, than his history, to which they form a fitting introduction or companion. On these grounds, Dr. Schmitz truly meets an objection as to the necessity of this publication. "It may per- haps be asked," he says," what is the use of publishing the Lectures on that portion of Roman History on which we possess the author's own elaborate volumes ? To this it may replied, that the present Lectures contain a more popular and familiar exposition of the subject, which in the three volumes is treated in a severe style, little calculated to attract ordinary readers. They therefore may be used as an introduction to, or as a running commentary on, Niebuhr's great work. I also agree with the German editor in thinking that it does not seem right to suppress any part of the Lectures on Roman History; one of the objects of their publi- cation being, to give as vivid a picture as possible of the extraordinary personal and intellectual character of Niebuhr."

From the character both of the Lectures and their subject, the volume is not well fitted for isolated extracts ; but a few passages may be quoted bearing upon points that have been touched upon in the notice. The fol- lowing is an example of the manner in which Niebuhr strengthened the argument of uncertainty derived from obvious fables, by accumulating in- ternal discrepancies.

"The story of the miraculous conception of Romulus is an historical impossi- bility, although in the school of Piso it was metamorphosed into a history: the

same must be said of the account of the rape of the Sabine women, whose number was thirty in the original tradition; and also of the ascension of Romulus doing an eclipse of the sun. Such also is the character of the long reign of Numa, with

its uninterrupted peace; and of his marriage with the goddess Egeria, which

among the contemporaries of Scipio was as implicitly believed as the history of the Punk wars. The story of the combat of the Horatii and the Curatii, who

were born on the same day of two sisters, has a very ancient poetical character. We next come to Tarquinina Priem', who was already married to Tonna whoa he migrated to Rome in the eighth year of the reign of Ancus (which lasted twenty-three years). Tarquinius himself reigned thirty-eight years, and was at his death upwards of eighty years old, leaving behind him children under age who were educated during the forty-three years of Servins's reign; so that Tarquinius Superbns must have been at least fifty years aid when he slew his father-m-law. Tanaquil lived to see this crime, and required Servins to take an oath not to re- sign his crown: at that time she must have been 115 years old. One of the first features in the story of Servius is that on one occasion in his infancy his head Was encircled with a flame; which Dionyisius attempts to explain in a natural way. Collatinns is said to have been the son of a brother of Tarquinius Prisons; and this brother, it is stated, was born previously to the migration of Tarquinius Priscus to Rome, that is 135 years before the expuLsion of Tarquinins Superbns; and Collatinns is described as being a young man thirty years old at a time up- wards of 120 years after his father's birth. Brutus is said to have been Tribunes celeruni, which was the first place in the equestrian order, in which he repre- sented the King, assembled the Senate, and was obliged to perform the most im- portant sacrifices; and this place the King is stated to have given to a man whom he thought to be an idiot, and whom, for this reason, he had deprived of the management of his own property ! Brutus, the story goes on to say, feigned kliotcy for the purpose of escaping the envy and avarice of the King. He is de- scribed as the son of a daughter of Tarquitnus Prisons, and as dreading to enrage the King by taking possession of his own property: but Tarquinius did not even belong to the same gens. At the beginning of the reign of Tarquinius Snperbus, Brutus was only a child; and immediately after the King's expulsion be appears

as the father of sons who have attained the age of manhood. * •

"For the first 240 years we have seven kings, whose reigns are said to have been of extraordinary length, for the most part somewhere about forty years each. Even Newton expresses his opinion of the improbability of a succession of princes reigning for so long a period, and assigns to the reign of a king, as a mean num- ber, seventeen years. But the truest parallel is to be found in the case of the Doiesof Venice, who, like the Kings of Rome, were elective princes: in a period of 500 years (A.D. 800—A.D. 1300) Venice had forty Dages; 80 that there were eight in each century."

THE CLOACA MAXLMA.

The reign of Tarquinitus, as I have already remarked, is probably separated by a great chasm from the preceding period; for under him Rome presents quite a different appearance from what it had been before. The conquests ascribed to Ancus Marcius are confined to a very small extent of country: he made himself master of the month of the Tiber, and fortified Ostia. But after him a state of things is described by the historians, of which traces are still visible. Even at the present day there stands unchanged the great sewer, the cloaca maxima; the object of which, it may be observed, was not merely to carry away the refuse of the city, but chiefly to drain the large lake which was formed by the Tiber be- tween the Capitoline, Aventine, and Palatine;then extended between the Palatine and Capitoline, and reached as a swamp as far as the district between the Quiri- nal and Viminal. This work, consisting of three semicircles of immense square blocks, which, though without mortar, have not to this day moved a knife's breadth from one another, drew the water from the surface, conducted it into the Tiber, and thus changed the lake into solid ground; but as the Tiber itself had a marshy bank, a large wall was built as an embankment, the greater part of which still exists. This structure, equalling the Pyramids in extent and massiveness, far surpasses them in the difficulty of its execution. It is so gigantic, that the more one examines it the more inconceivable it becomes how even a large and powerful state could have executed it. In comparison with it, the aqueducts of the Emperors cannot be considered grand; for they were built of bricks, with cement in the inner parts; but in the more ancient work everything is made of square blocks of hewn Alban Stone, and the foundations are immensely 4eep.

THE GF.488., , *Nr•-•-* • An modern states, alrlth the single exception of the Canton of Schwyz, in their governments and divisions have reference to territorial circumstances. Each town is divided into districts and wards; and in constitutional governments the representation is based upon these divisions: whoever lives in a district elects and may be elected in it. But the ancients viewed the soil only as the substratum of the state, which they were of opinion existed in the individuals; so that certain as- sociations gave a different character to the relation in which individuals stood to the state. Accordingly, the state was divided into a number of associations, each of which again consisted of several families. Every one of these associations had its own assemblies, courts, religions rights, laws of inheritance, and of other mat tars. Whoever belonged to one transmitted these peculiarities to his children; and wherever he might live, whether within or without the state, he always belonged to that association. But those who did not belong to it by birth, could be ad- Knitted only by a deviation from the rale, if the association permitted it A person

i

might be admitted to the state with all the rights which the ancients limited to the citizens as such,—the rights, for instance, of acquiring- landed property and of appearing in the courts of justice; and yet if he did not belong to an association, he was only a pale-burgher,—that is, he could not be invested with any office, and was not allowed to vote. This was the principle of the earliest states of antiquity; the power of the state in this particular being limited to giving civil rights, or the rights of a pale-burgher: the state could not order an association to receive this or that individual as a member. Inmany states even the associations themselves had no power to admit a person,—as, for example, where there existed close castes, among which there was no right of intermarriage. Such an association, consist- ing of a number of families, from which a person may withdraw, but into which he either cannot be admitted at all or only by being adopted by the whole asso- ciation, is a gens. It must not be confounded with our family, the members of which are descended from a common ancestor; for the patronymic names of the gentes are nothing but symbols, and are derived from heroes.

This view will be made clearer to the English reader if he calls to mind our livery companies. Race or family has nothing to do with the livery ; nor could the state constitutionally force a member upon the company, unless perhaps in the case of apprenticeship but annum that birth, or election by the body itself, are the only modes of becoming a liveryman, and the essential principle of this ancient and modern mode of

citizenship is analogous if not identical.