DYER'S EARLY ROMAN HISTORY.*

THE genius of the last hundred years has been inconsistent, variable, and destructive, corresponding to that period in the life of the individual when a man, agitated by a restless and ill defined ambition, impatient, perhaps despairing of success and morbidly regretful of every misspent hour, says to himself, Anywhere but here," Anything but what I am,' Any work but that which I have to do.' So there seems to have been perpetually ringing in men's ears a still small voice, " Any political edifice but this, any social system but ours, any religious belief but ours, any doctrine but that which we have been taught, any statement of facts but what we have learnt to credit as historical." And it cannot be asserted that such suggestions lacked plausible and real motives. Our business is at present not with the state of things which had resulted from belief in the divine right of kings, the identity of the Monarch and the State, the infallibility of religious tradition, or the wisdom of accepted philosophical systems, but with the credibility which had been assigned to historical narratives, and basing our considerations upon Dr. Dyer's recent work, we shall 'endeavour to point out the course which has been adopted by the most conscientious and skilful inquirers into the authenticity of the history of the Roman Kings, and to indicate some landmarks for future guidance. If the considerations which so often disturb the objective treatment of sacred history are less likely to distort our views of profane records and narratives, experience amply prom that, be the subject of study what it may, the scepticism which commends itself to many ingenious and honestly disposed critics often seems contemptible to others equally acute and equally well intentioned.

The first critics and historians who persuaded themselves that the early history of Rome was of unhealthy growth did not hesi- tate to apply the axe to the root of the tree, and while Niebuhr asserts that " the names of the kings are perfectly fictitious," and that " no man can tell how long the Roman Kings reigned, as we do not know how many there were," Dr. Arnold says, even of the latter part of the regal period, " the general picture before us is a mere fantasy." But one thing is certain, that, dispute its credi- bility as we may, the record of a regal period of Roman history exists, and the critics whose scepticism has prompted them to deny its genuineness and accuracy have felt bound to account in some manner for its origin. The objection's which have been urged against the extant narrative are based upon the improbability and impossibility of many events which it records, the difficulty of reconciling its contradictory assertions, and the confusion of its chronology. It has, therefore, been argued that the story of the Kings of Rome must have some other foundation than historical fact. Sceptical inquiry into the credibility of the received records is notably connected with the name of Niebuhr, who brought forward, and for a time sustained by his authority, the assumption that this narrative was founded on ancient historical poems, occa- sional pieces in honour of distinguished individuals, sung at ban- (Diets, and at the funerals of the illustrious dead. This bold and pic- turesque conception, worked out with the industry and ability of Niebuhr, convinced Dr. Arnold and prompted the poetical enthu- siasm of Lord Macaulay. But it certainly implies a vast assump- tion of credulity and dishonesty, to assert that a narrative was -composed and received as history of which the links were mere snatches of songs written to enliven dinner parties, or to solace -and flatter surviving friends by exalting the virtues and achieve- ments of the dear departed. With regard to these latter occasions, " the Romans," as Dr. Dyer observes, " could not have been always singing funeral dirges. They would not have formed very lively entertainments at a dinner party, nor can we imagine any other occasion, except the actual funeral, on which people would have assembled for the pleasure of hearing them. These nmnim, there- fore, however great the individual in whose honour they were sung, could not have been very extensively known among the people at

* The History of the Kings of Rome, with a Prefatory Dissertation on its Sources and

Evidence. By T. H. Dyer, LL.D. London : Bell and Daldy. 1808.

large, and consequently could not have formed the basis of any popu- lar history." The popularity of Niebuhr's theory did not last very

long, and it has been elaborately refuted by Sir Gs C. Lewis in his work on the Credibility of the Early Roman History. Sir G. C.

Lewis himself puts forward a different hypothesis. Taking it for granted that all the genuine early records perished in the Gallic conflagration, he adduced what he considered sufficient testimony to "lead to the inference that after the early annals had been destroyed, or when a demand arose for annals which had never existed, forgeries were executed by which a record of this kind for the early period of Rome was supplied." This theory admits of two suppositions, either that these records were forged by the officials to whom the keeping of the public registers was confided, perhaps for political purposes, or that they were a literary forgery, such as we have had instances of in more recent times, composed

perhaps to replenish the purse of some needy littirateur at the cost of the public. Another theory, which Dr. Dyer summarily dis- misses, although it received the support of so accurate a critic as Schlegel, is that the early Roman history was nothing more than

a romance derived by the Romans from Greek writers.

These theories seem to Dr. Dyer insufficient and unsatisfactory, and we think that he has met thearguments by which they have been supported soundly and forcibly. It remains now to consider a view of the origin of early Roman history brought forward in

Schwegler's Romische Geschichte. According to Schwegler, the genuine tradition of the foundation of Rome was so soon lost, that probably in the time of the Decemvirs the Romans knew nothing certain respecting the origin of their city. But being by no means

indifferent about their own history, they demanded a definite account of events of which no historical knowledge existed; and to supply this demand, "on a foundation of obscure remembrances and unconnected legends which had been preserved, a history was subtly constructed from proper names, monuments, institutions, and usages wherewith to fill up the gap of tradition." It is, perhaps, not absolutely necessary to suppose that in the elaboration of this narrative there was an intention to deceive ; it may have been believed that from such landmarks as were found the course of events had been correctly traced and the original history recon- structed. The greater part of the Roman traditions, as Schwegler thinks, fall neither under the definition of legend, that is, the memory of remarkable occurrences propagated from generation to generation in the mouth of the people, and unconsciously decked out by the imagination, as, for instance, the story of Brutus, of Horatius Codes, of the battle of Lake Regillus, or the destruc- tion of the Fabii—nor of pure myth, that is, the elabora- tion of some definite idea, in which an actual occurrence is the means only to bring the idea in view, such as, for example, the story of the procreation of Serving Tullius by the Las of the Palace. The Roman traditions are, according to Schwegler, " aetiological myths, that is, they relate events and occurrences which have been imagined or subtly invented in order to explain genetically some given fact, or the name of a custom, usage, worship, institution, place, monument, sanctuary," &c. To this style of myth he subordinates the etymological myth, " which takes as its point of departure some given proper name, and seeks to explain its origin by suggesting for it some actual event," and he describes another sort of Roman tradition as " mythical cloth- ings of actual relations and events which thus occupy a middle place between myth and legend." By legendary and mythical traditions of these kinds Schwegler believes what was long accepted as Roman history to have been linked together.

Schwegler's whole theory is combated with much vigour, but, as it appears to us, with very partial success by Dr. Dyer, who is, we think, inclined to overlook the fact that the theory by which Schwegler seeks to account for many of the episodes which we find in the narrative of Roman history does not exclude alto- gether substantial and genuine tradition. This may clearly be gathered from the following, among other passages quoted by Dr. Dyer :—

" First of all, it must be recognized that certain fundamental things in the traditional history of the kings are historical, and derived from historical memory. Some remembrance, though a very confused one, of the principal points in the development of the Roman constitution was preserved till the literary times. Hence we cannot withhold from the constitutional traditions a certain degree of credibility. The united kingdom of the Romans and Sabines ; the three stem tribes, and their successive origin ; the tlfree centuries of knights ; the successive augmentation of the Senate till it reached the number of 300 ; the addition of a plebs; the creation of the gentes minores; the introduction of the census ; the overthrow of the monarchy, and the foundation of a republic—these fundamental points of the oldest constitutional history are in all probability essentially historical ; although the details, and especially the numerical ones, with which they are related, as well as the causal connection in which they are placed by the historians, may,

nevertheless, be invented or formed by construction. But over this foundation of facts a rank and luxuriant growth of invention has entwined itself ; a growth of legends which we must now more closely examine, and lay them bare in their germs."

An inquiry into the credibility of the early Roman history in this spirit does not seem by any means inconsistent with the work which Dr. Dyer has undertaken, of rescuing the early Roman annals from the oblivion to which reckless and indiscriminate scepticism seemed likely to consign them. The golden rule of all historical inquiry, if it is to lead to lasting results, must be, " Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." We have no hesitation in saying that Dr. Dyer has gone to work in the right way, and seems influenced by an honest and impartial spirit. The task of reconstructing history, that is, of removing from the structure the excrescences of time and restoring its original proportions, its genuine outline, and its legitimate ornaments, by which we mean the authentic records of patriotism, devotion, or military courage, is one which requires skilful adjustment and cool manipulation. In the restoration of old texts it is of primary importance to remember that our ignorance of many social customs and phrases often disturbs our apprehension of passages which, if such ignorance

were replaced by knowledge, would at once be clear enough, and in the reconstruction of history it is equally important that no

statement shall be rejected merely on the ground of its improba- bility or of its appearing to contradict or to confuse accepted -chronological or historical combinations, until we are certain that such apparent distortions are not the result of an obliquity of our own historical vision arising from ignorance or misapprehension.

It will be understood from what we have said that Dr. Dyer has set himself a threefold task,—to show the insufficiency of the causes which have been assigned for the existence of the early Roman history, to refute the arguments which have been urged -against its authenticity from its alleged general improbability, and to

vindicate the authenticity and genuineness of its sources. The result of his investigations is that he finds " the methods which have been invented in order to account for the existence of the history not only destitute of all evidence, but also inadequate and improbable, and the objections which have been urged against it, on the

ground of its internal improbability, altogether insufficient to in- validate its origin from contemporary record." For ourselves, we candidly admit that our own opinion as to the credibility of much of the early Roman history is only in process of formation, nor do we expect to have any fixed belief on the subject until antiquarian research has thrown additional light upon many things which are now hidden in darkness. But we can conscientiously recommend Dr. Dyer's work, in which a long and laborious critical discmcion is carried on with patience, coolness, and judgment. Dr. Dyer never seems to forget how much care is requisite for the fair ad- justment of such minute quantities as the grains of testimony which are often the only evidence of important historical pheno- mena. Without wishing to detract from the merits of others, we may add that Dr. Dyer has in this contest chosen a stand-point for himself, and not one indicated by some adventurous spirit of the German classical legion.