LECTURES ON ANCIENT ETHNOGRAPHY AND GEOGRAPHY.
LECTURES
ON
ANCIENT ETHNOGRAPHY
AND GEOGRAPHY,
COMPRISING
GREECE AND HER COLONIES, EPIRUS, MACEDONIA,
ILLYRICUM, ITALY, GAUL, SPAIN, BRITAIN,
THE NORTH OF AFRICA, ETC.
BY
B. G. NIEBUHR.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN EDITION OF DR. ISLER, BY
DR. LEONHARD SCHMITZ, F.R.S.E.
RECTOR OF THE HIGH SCHOOL OF EDINBURGH;
WITH ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS FROM HIS OWN MS. NOTES.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. II.
LONDON:
WALTON AND MABERLY,
UPPER GOWER STREET, AND IVY LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW.
M.DCCC.LIII.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY J. WERTHEIMER AND CO.
CIRCUS PLACE, FINSBURY CIRCUS.
CONTENTS OF VOL. II.
PAGE
Italy, its name 1
Population 3
Physical character 10
Divisions of Italy 13
Latium 30
Extent of Latium 31
Latin Colonies 32
Jus Latii, Latinitas 33
Different names of the Latini 33
Physical condition of Latium 37
TOPOGRAPHY OF ROME 41
The most ancient parts 41
The Seven Hills, Septimontium 42
The Agger of Servius Tullius 43
Further extension 43
The Regions of Augustus 44
Nature of the ground 46
The Cloacae 47
Fortification of ancient towns 48
Course of the ancient walls of Rome 48
The Marrana 50
Suburbs 52
Extension of the city 52
Tombs 52
_Horti, Villae_ 53
The Wall of Aurelian 57
The Gates 59
Roads 62
Interior of Rome 65
The Capitoline Hill 65
_Clivus, Semita_ 65
Streets of Rome 66
The Asylum, the Tarpeian Rock 66
The Capitoline Temple 67
Parts of ancient temples 67
The _Carcer_ 69
The Forum Romanum 69
The Comitium 73
The Rostra 73
The Curia Hostilia 75
The Curia Julia 76
Buildings of the Forum Romanum 77
Basilicae 79
Other Fora 80
_Vicus, Pagus_ 86
_Platea_ 87
Aqueducts 87
Circi 88
Theatres 90
Amphitheatres 90
Thermae 93
The Palatine 96
Via Sacra, Velia 98
Triumphal arches 98
Subura 98
Carinae 99
The Quirinal 99
The Esquiline, Caelius, Aventine 99
Suburbs 100
Campi 100
Moles Hadriani 101
Trastevere 103
Bridges 103
Insula Tiberina 104
The rest of Latium 105
The Hernicans 116
The Volscians and Aequians 119
Campania 127
The Sabellians, Sabines, Samnites 141
Sabellian confederations 142
The Lucanians 144
The Bruttians 144
Constitution of the Sabellians 145
Country of the Sabines proper 147
Picenum 150
The Upper Confederation of the Marsians,
Pelignians, Marrucinians, and Vestinians 153
The Marsians 156
The Pelignians 157
The Marrucinians 157
The Vestinians 157
The Samnites 158
The Samnite Tribes 160
The Frentanians 161
The Pentrians 161
The Caudines 161
The Hirpinians 161
Apulia 168
Poediculi, Peucetii 175
Messapia 177
Ancient Oenotria 179
The Lucanians 182
The Bruttians 183
Greek towns on the coast of Italy 185
Magna Graecia 188
The Achaean towns 190
Locri 199
The Chalcidian towns 202
Etruria 206
The Faliscans 229
Umbria 231
Gallia Cisalpina or Togata 234
The Boians 236
Gallic tribes in northern Italy 236
Gallia Cispadana, Transpadana 236
Liguria 249
Population of Italy 252
Sicilia 256
Punic towns in Sicily 267
Egesta 269
Towns of the interior 270
Sardinia 273
Corsica 278
Hispania 279
Iberians, Celts, Celtiberians 280
Baetica 282
The Turdetanians 283
The Edetanians 291
The Lusitanians 297
Celtici, Celtae 298
Oretani, Carpetani, Vaccaei 298
The Celtiberians 299
Callaici, Astures, Cantabri 301
Iberians north of the Pyrenees 302
Gallia 303
Difference between Celts and Germans 305
Difference between the Celts and Belgae 306
The Druids 308
Political division 311
Arverni, Aedui, Sequani 312
Aquitani 313
Armorica 318
Belgae 319
Treviri 319
Germania prima, secunda 320
Britannia 320
Its Population 321
Celtic nations on the east of the Rhine 323
Aravisci, Boii, Norici, Vindelici 323
Taurisci, Scordisci 324
Galatia 325
Bastarnae, Sciri 325
AFRICA.
Cyrenaica 327
Carthaginian Republic 330
Arae Philaenorum 330
The Syrtes 330
Population, language 332
Population of the interior 334
Numidia 339
Aethiopia, Egypt 340
Meroe 341
Some more Greek colonies (in Lydia and Pamphylia) 347
Cyprus 348
Phoenicia 350
LECTURES
ON
ANCIENT ETHNOGRAPHY AND GEOGRAPHY.
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.