is of the same formation as _Romulus_, the same as _Romanus_, just as
_Graeculus_ is the same as _Graecus_, etc. Accordingly, _Apulus_, _Apus_,
and _Apicus_, and with a change of vowel, _Opicus_, are identical. The
Oscan language has the letter _p_ where the Latin has _qu_ (pronounced
as _k_), and just as in the Greek dialects π and κ are interchangeable.
_Apulus_, therefore, is in no way different from _Aequi_, _Aequuli_,
_Aequani_. If we attentively trace the dialects, there is scarcely any
nation which admits such great changes in them as the Oscan. It is a
very correct and ancient law of logic, “principia praeter necessitatem
non esse multiplicanda,” and in the history of ancient nations, too, it
ought not to be lost sight of. It certainly is true, that sometimes we
recognise the existence of many quite different nations living close
to one another—in the Caucasus and in America, there are districts of
not many square miles, in which great numbers of languages are spoken,
that do not bear the slightest resemblance to one another; and in like
manner essentially different nations dwell side by side in a portion of
Africa—but we, nevertheless, cannot adopt such lists of nations as are
given by the ancients, for they are not rationally arranged, and are
often without any meaning at all. The ancients had no interest in forming
accurate notions on such points; when they dwelt upon inquiries of this
kind, matters became almost worse: they then wrote thoughtlessly, putting
down things as essentially different, which seemed to present ever so
slight a difference, and treating as identical those which were really
different. There does not exist a more singular mass of confusion than
in Pliny’s account of the different nations. I know from experience,
how many stages a man has to pass through before he arrives at positive
certainty upon such questions. Garve very truly says, “the second is the
beginning.” A person assuming that in Italy everything was originally
different, feels as if a wheel were spinning round in his head; and he
soon arrives at the conviction that his supposition has no meaning, and
gives up the whole matter in despair. I have experienced this same thing,
but did not rest until I arrived at a definite result. The subject does
not suffer from its being confused: many things are treated with scorn,
merely because they are abused; if things were not represented in a false
light, there would be no danger of things deserving attention ever being
scorned. But it does happen, when things are erroneously conceived, and
are defended with obstinacy, when they cannot be defended at all. It is
the sad but natural consequence of such a defence of what is opposed to
reason and truth, that many men despise even that which is deserving
of consideration. Hence so many follies. A fancy of this kind during
the period of my youth, was the belief in perfectibility, when people
imagined that in every respect they were far above their ancestors. But
it is an equally great folly unconditionally to praise our ancestors,
and to forget that there is an endless number of points in which we move
sometimes forward and sometimes backward. The question whether an entire
period is superior or inferior to another, is of a very different nature,
and one which it is difficult to answer, if it is put in a rational way.
I should least of all wish to exchange the present time for the middle
ages, which fools only praise as the happiest era in history. There can
be no doubt that in the middle ages life was more intense, sympathies
were stronger, and activity was more vigorous; but our age has other
advantages, and our progress in science especially is immense. When I
compare the moral condition of our age with what it was a hundred or a
hundred and twenty years ago, I cannot hesitate for a moment, with a full
knowledge of all the facts, to say that our age, not only in Germany, but
even in France, is infinitely better.
He, therefore, is the true friend of antiquity who disentangles it from
its confusion and places it in its true light. The ancients knew but
little about the nations of Italy, and later writers, especially Pliny,
knew no more, so that we cannot even discern how far Cato saw clearly in
this matter, and how far not. He still recognised that the Aborigines
of Latium belonged to a race akin to the Greeks, a fact which Varro no
longer understood. From Fabius down to Cato and Pliny, the knowledge of
the early history of Italy decreased more and more.
As all names of countries are derived from those of nations, as _Italia_
from _Itali_, _Graecia_ from _Graeci_, so _Apulia_ is formed from
_Apuli_. Pliny says that there were _tria genera Apulorum_: 1. _Apuli
Teani_; 2. _Daunii_; and 3. _Apuli Lucani_. From Strabo, we see that
the real Apulians dwelt in the north-west of Apulia as far as the river
Cerbalus: these are the Oscans. But the Daunians were Itali, dwelling
at Arpi (Argyrippa), a Greek town, and at Canusium. They are put in
connection with the Tyrrhenians, Turnus (the same as Turinus) being
called a son of Daunus. The Daunians in Apulia, therefore, are the
ancient Tyrrheno-Pelasgian inhabitants of that country, akin to the
Peucetians, who were likewise regarded by the Greeks as Pelasgians. The
Oscans, who did not maintain themselves in their conquests in Samnium,
rose to power in Apulia, and the Daunians remained in the country as
the subject people. The _Apuli Lucani_ are, doubtless, nothing else
than portions of Apulia, which were peopled either by Lucanians or by
Samnites, and, therefore, at all events, by a Sabellian race; in these
parts, the ancient Itali were governed by them, so that a Samnite-Oscan
population was the ruling people, whose subjects originally consisted,
for the most part, of Itali, with whom, however, some Oscans also may
have been mixed. Whether these Lucanians had proceeded from the already
constituted nation of the Lucanians, or directly from Samnium, is a
question which can no longer be answered. The chaos is, I hope, cleared
up by this explanation. Apulia furnishes rich materials for ethnography,
and far more than Samnium which is otherwise a much more splendid
country.
Apulia has the form of a theatre (Greek geographers would call it
θεατροειδές). The Greeks called it Iapygia, though this name embraces a
greater extent of country, all Messapia and Calabria being included, so
that Tarentum also belonged to Iapygia. The name _Iapyx_ again is only
a dialectic variety of _Apulus_. The Latin termination icus is in Oscan
_ix_, as we see in _Meddix Tutix_, the title of the highest magistrate,
which the Romans changed into _Maddix Tuticus_: hence _Iapicus_ =
_Apicus_ = _Opicus_. When I repeatedly direct your attention to view this
point rightly, I do not do so from distrust, but because I know, from my
own experience, how difficult it is to make up one’s mind to believe that
Iapygia and Apulia are the same name. I myself have long been mistaken
about this, and did not see the truth until I became familiar with the
remains of the Oscan language, and was thus enabled to establish the
etymology.
Apulia is surrounded by a semicircle of not very high hills, beginning
with mount Garganus on the Adriatic, continued by the chain of the
Apennines, and then separating Apulia from Samnium and Lucania.
Afterwards this range terminates in low hills towards Terra di Lecce.
The inner part of the semicircle, containing the thymele, orchestra, and
stage, is formed by the plain of Apulia, a chalk country, like Champagne
or the kingdom of Leon in Spain. It is, however, not a perfect plain, but
has small elevations (_verrucae_); it has very few rivers, the springs
not being able to break through the ground. As the chalk lies in strata,
the waters are drawn down towards a few rivers, which traverse the plains
without being fed by tributaries, just like the Minho and Douro in the
kingdom of Leon, and the Aisne, Marne, and Seine in Champagne. The
AUFIDUS is a very powerful river, its bed is cut very deep; in summer
its water is low, but during the winter every shower of rain swells it
immensely. The plain through which it flows is a barren chalk-field;
water is found there by boring very deep wells, so that the country
requires much rain. After a good rain in the autumn, the land covers
itself with excellent and extremely rich grass. In some parts where
irrigation is possible, where the soil is a little mixed, and where it
is carefully tilled by man, the country is excellent for growing corn,
which ripens at an extremely early season. An intimate friend of mine at
Naples was intendant of Apulia, and from him I learned that the harvest
of wheat in Apulia takes place about the end of May, that is, three weeks
earlier than at Athens, where the 20th of June is the harvest season, a
fact which it is of importance to know in reading Thucydides, who often
describes the season of the year by mentioning the harvest-time. About
the foot of the hills, Apulia is altogether barren, at least at present,
but I cannot say whether the same was the case in antiquity. The country
is now for many miles covered with nothing but ferula and ferns.
Western Apulia, which Pliny calls by the name of _Teani Apuli_, the
country of the real and genuine Apulians, is of very little importance
in history. The towns of Apulia mentioned in history, belong to the
Daunians. Apulia was not a politically united country, it presents even
less of national unity than Samnium, for it contained several systems of
towns which were quite independent of, and even hostile to, one another.
Arpi and Canusium were the most important towns, and the others seem to
have been grouped around them.
ARPI, in Greek, Ἀργυρίππα, shows by its name its Pelasgian origin; it
is the same as Argos. Some indeed call it Ἄργος Ἵππιον, but this name
occurs but rarely, and it is doubtful whether it is a genuine ancient
name, or whether it arose from later etymological speculations. Arpi was
the first place that joined the Romans. All the Apulian coins have Greek
inscriptions; those of Arpi bear the inscription ΑΡΠΑΝΩΝ, but in point of
artistic execution, they are not quite Greek, and those who have eyes
for such things cannot fail to discover a peculiar character. Other works
of art also have been dug out of the ground in Apulia, and those who have
practised eyes do not find it difficult to distinguish bronzes of Apulia
from those of Lucania. Those of Apulia are extremely beautiful in their
way, but still have something strange about them. In the days of Strabo
it was still possible to perceive, from the vast circumference of the
walls, that Arpi had once been a large place, but it was deserted. You
cannot conceive a greater contrast than that between Samnium and Apulia:
in the latter country all the towns were fortified with walls and other
works, while in Samnium they were protected by nature against hostile
attacks. The fidelity of Arpi during the second Samnite war was rewarded
by the Romans with large possessions, but in the Hannibalian war it
received its fatal blow. At present it has entirely disappeared. Apulia
has, on the whole, very few ruins, which is the consequence of the soft
chalk-stone, of which all monuments were made, and which cannot stand
against the influence of the weather.
We should not believe that CANUSIUM was a town of such importance, were
it not expressly attested by Strabo, that Apulia was divided between Arpi
and Canusium. In Livy, it appears as an insignificant place. We may also
infer from Strabo, that during the second Samnite war, it was at the head
of the Apulian towns which had joined the Samnites, while Arpi sided with
the Romans. After the battle of Cannae, the Romans, by an inconceivable
carelessness on the part of Hannibal, were enabled almost under his very
arrows to retreat to the walls of Canusium, where they rallied and then
proceeded to Venusia. In the second Punic war, Canusium does not appear
to have been hostile to Rome; in the Samnite war, as I have already
observed, it supported the Samnites, but the whole country afterwards
submitted to the Romans on terms which were by no means unfavourable.
Still, however, they revolted during the war with Pyrrhus: it cannot be
accurately traced what influence this step had on their fate. The town
suffered severely in consequence of both its revolt from Rome and from
the hostility of the Carthaginians, and the Apulian towns did not easily
recover after being once destroyed. In the time of Strabo, it was a
deserted place, large walls enclosing a number of decayed houses. In this
light the town also appears in Horace’s journey to Brundusium. It is now
called Canosa.
SIPONTUM and SALAPIA belonged to the territory of Arpi. The name Sipontum
(Σιποῦς) betrays its Tyrrhenian origin. All these places suffered
severely during the Hannibalian war. When the Romans punished Arpi for
its revolt, they deprived it of the dominion over these towns, and sent
a colony to Sipontum. The neighbourhood of Sipontum is a salt plain and
therefore unhealthy.
LUCERIA was situated on the height between Arpi and Beneventum. It was
an Apulian town, but was captured by the Samnites, as I have clearly
ascertained, and was afterwards taken from them by the Romans, and
changed into a Romano-Latin colony. The establishment of this colony in
so distant a country is one of the bold measures of the Romans, whereby,
after the long struggle, in which even the greatest exertions proved
unsuccessful, they decided the final issue of their war against the
Samnites.
VENUSIA was another great creation of the Romans; it is uncertain whether
it belonged to Apulia or Lucania, but it was situated at the foot of
mount Vultur, which is probably the Oscan word for mountain in general.
It was likewise a Romano-Latin colony, founded after the third Samnite
war by the Romans, who were then on friendly terms with the Lucanians and
ruled over Apulia. By this colony they prepared their future undertaking
against Tarentum, as by it they completely cut off the communication
between the Samnites and that city. In a fragment of Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, in the Excerpta of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Romans
are said to have sent 20,000 colonists to Venusia, that is 20,000
families, or at least 20,000 men capable of bearing arms: this number is
incredible, there must be a mistake here. By admitting the neighbouring
Oscan and Lucanian people, Venusia must, in the course of time, have
become much estranged from Home, for, during the Social War, it was the
only colony which, according to a statement in Appian, rose against Rome.
From the expressions of Horace it may be inferred, that afterwards it
became one of the military colonies of Caesar.[54] The town will ever be
memorable as the birth-place of Horace.
Having thus gone through Apulia in the Roman sense, we shall proceed in a
south-eastern direction to the people of the POEDICULI or PEUCETII. The
name is a double derivative, as we often see in ethnic names, e.g., in
Aequiculi; the simple form was no doubt Poedi, though it does not occur
anywhere. The people themselves are not mentioned in Roman history; we
find them in a state of subjection, but do not see when they fell into
that condition; their name is not mentioned in the Triumphal Fasti; and
the struggle with them cannot have been great. The name Poediculi appears
to be very different from Peucetii, and yet the difference consists
only in a transposition of the letters. It is attested and generally
acknowledged, that the two names belong to the same people; they are
called by the Greeks Pelasgians, and belonged to the same race as the
Oenotrians, together with whom they are placed on a level with the
Thesprotians, Epirots, and Arcadians. This is, in fact, quite natural,
for as the Daunians were of this race, the Peucetians, living still
nearer to Greece, certainly belonged to it.
BARIUM, the most important place among the Peucetii, occupies no
prominent position in ancient history; but in the middle ages, it was
the seat of the Byzantine governors (Capitani) of southern Italy: its
present name is Bari. The physical nature of the country of the Peucetii
is very remarkable; it is still the same chalk soil as in Apulia, but
it has here the peculiarity of constantly forming saltpetre: there is
no place in Europe that bears any resemblance to it. There are large
holes in the ground in the shape of funnels, in which the saltpetre
is collected: this phenomenon is extremely remarkable, showing the
formative tendency of mineral nature. The country, though without
water and dry, is not really barren, but still the want of water has
its great disadvantages. The Terra d’Otranto (Terra di Lecce), or the
Iapygian headland, however, which projects farther into the sea, is a
much more fertile and favoured country; it has indeed the same physical
conformation, but the upper stratum does not exclude the water; it is
richer in springs, and accordingly more fertile. For the cultivation of
olives, it is the most excellent country in the world, but it is not
suited for first class wines. The olive-tree grows very well with less
moisture, and even at this day it is very excellent there, although the
art of cultivating it has sunk very low. It was in vain that I requested
the papal government to add to the plants in the botanic garden which
are cultivated for ordinary use, those also which are of interest to the
scholar. At Naples something has been done for the cultivation of olives,
and many things which have been handed down from antiquity may still be
recognised. The Iapygian headland is a beautiful hilly country, covered
all over with olive plantations. The olive is not a handsome tree, nearly
resembling a willow; its varieties, however, like those of the vine, are
very numerous; it spreads very rapidly, and is almost imperishable, as if
Minerva had given it immortality. It is said that near Tivoli it lives
a thousand years, though no one can prove it; but certain it is, that
it can live several hundred years: it then becomes quite hollow, like a
willow, and continues its life through its bark. At this stage its fruit
is most perfect, but the root of the tree requires the greatest care,
and to prevent the tree being thrown down by the winds, the root must be
covered with a great quantity of soil. All agriculture in Italy is still
the same as in antiquity, and as we find it described in the “Scriptores
Rei Rusticae;” you may still see every point as described by Varro.
MESSAPIA
had a somewhat greater extent than the present Terra di Lecce. The
ancient Greek name is ἀκτὴ Ἰαπυγία. It is a beautiful hilly country, but
its geography is in a singular predicament. The name Messapii is only
once mentioned by the Romans, and that in the Triumphal Fasti; but we
know from Strabo, that Messapia was inhabited by two different nations,
the Messapians and Calabrians; and from other authorities we learn that
the inhabitants of Brundusium were Calabrians. In the course of time,
the name Calabria became established among the Romans for the whole of
Messapia. It is remarkable, however, to find, that in the middle ages the
name was transferred to Lucania and Bruttium, whereas Calabria Proper
ceased to have this name. The explanations given of this singular change
are unsatisfactory.
The inhabitants of the western side of this Acte were the SALLENTINES,
while the eastern coast, from the Iapygian promontory to Brundusium,
was occupied by CALABRIANS. The strangest traditions are current about
the origin of the Sallentines: they are sometimes called Bottiaeans
and sometimes Cretans; in short, they share the character of the
Tyrrheno-Pelasgian nations. But were the Calabrians of the same race? I
believe not, and am rather inclined to think that they were immigrating
and conquering Oscans; for the fact, that Ennius of Rudiae in Calabria
calls Oscan and Greek his mother tongues, shows that, during the Roman
period, Oscan was spoken there. All the towns in those parts were
δίγλωσσοι, that is, they spoke Tyrrhenian and Oscan. In like manner,
the Albanese spoke both Greek and Albanese, as had formerly been the
case with the Albanese at Argos and in Hydra. So also every man in the
towns of upper Silesia, who makes any pretence to education, and even
in rural districts, speaks German, although the national language is
Polish. At Ragusa, all respectable persons, both nobles and commoners,
speak Italian and Slavonian. A priest of Ragusa, who was a dear friend
of mine, told me, that the little children at school do not commence by
learning Slavonian, but Latin and Italian, and that all books are written
in Italian, which language is explained to the children while they learn.
The educated classes in Corfu speak Italian quite perfectly, and as
correctly as it is spoken in Tuscany.
As we know that Brundusium arose after the expulsion of the Pelasgian
inhabitants, it seems beyond a doubt that the Calabrians formed the last
train of the Oscan immigrants who came from the north through Apulia.
The oracles which are said to refer to this country, have no authority
whatever; they all belong to the period of Timaeus, or are but little
older than his age.
There must have once been a town of the name of Σαλλοῦς or Sallentum,
from which the name of the Sallentines is derived. The existence of
such a town has, in fact, been assumed by many moderns, and those who
have read “Telemachus” will remember that it is mentioned in that book.
This is in reality correct, but the existence of the town cannot be
historically proved: it must have perished at a very early period. In
ancient times the Messapians were mortal enemies of the Tarentines, who
had endeavoured to make them ἀνάστατοι; but the Messapians maintained
their independence. When, centuries later, circumstances were changed,
and the neighbours had come in closer contact, Messapia placed itself
under the protection of Tarentum.
The towns in the country of the Messapians are unimportant; there still
exist very beautiful ruins, especially a fine temple on the Iapygian
headland; and in the neighbourhood of Manduria a complete wall still
exists. The two most important towns were Hydruntum and Brundusium.
HYDRUNTUM (Ὑδροῦς), now Otranto, had probably Tarentine epoeci, by whom
it was hellenised. It was a place of great consequence, being the point
from which people sailed across to Apollonia and Oricus, as now people
sail from Calais to Dover. Hydruntum retained this character until the
Norman period, and as long as southern Italy was connected with the
eastern empire.
BRUNDUSIUM was distinguished for its excellent harbour, which was valued
the more because there was not a single good harbour between Brundusium
and Ancona. It consisted of several branches, and could admit more ships
than ever sailed in those seas. For this reason the Romans secured the
possession of that town as early as possible, and established a Latin
colony there. At present the harbour is partly filled up with mud.
ANCIENT OENOTRIA.
The Oenotrians in southern Italy are the real Itali. I shall speak of
them first, and after having put them in their right light, I shall pass
on to the Greek towns on the the coasts, which are commonly called Magna
Graecia.
Oenotria is the same as Italia in the limited sense of the name. You
remember the varying circumstances, according to which the name Italia
was given to a larger or smaller extent of country, and that in its
widest sense it embraced the country as far as the Tiber and mount
Garganus. In consequence of the extension of other nations, the Itali
were afterwards confined to the southern country, and thereby became
so compact, that they were wholly governed by the Greek colonies on the
coast, and hence when, e.g., a person went from Sybaris to Posidonia,
or from Croton to Terina, he had to pass, if not through a country
altogether peopled by Greeks, at least through one governed by Greek
towns. Oenotria thus became Italy proper; but it cannot be said, on the
other hand, that the name Italia was transferred from that small district
to the whole of the peninsula. If we were confined to the Roman writers
alone, and if we had no information from Greek authors, especially
Dionysius and Strabo, we should be in utter ignorance about the
Oenotrians, and we should scarcely have any idea of Italian archaeology.
From this we may infer how much more information must be lost about more
distant countries, which had no literature of their own. The Lucanians,
whom we afterwards find spread over the whole of that country, occupied,
at the period of the Persian wars, only the north-eastern portion of
Lucania, while all the rest of the country afterwards called Lucania,
and the whole of Bruttium, were inhabited by Oenotrians. On the coast,
Greek colonies were established, which ruled over them as sovereigns,
so that the greater part of the Oenotrians were reduced to a state
of servitude, but another portion of them was never subdued. These
Oenotrians were Pelasgians or Siceli of the same stock as the Epirots,
as is stated by the scholiast on the Odyssey, on the authority of the
Macedonian Mnaseas, the disciple of Aristarchus. _Siceli_ and _Itali_
are the same, as was recognised even by the ancients; the names are also
etymologically identical, _Italus_ being the same as _Vitulus_, the
sibilant taking the place of the digamma. In a narrower sense, the name
Siculi was applied to the Oenotrians, the inhabitants of the southernmost
part of Italy. It is very strange to find that this very ancient mode of
designation re-appears in the geography of the middle ages, for in the
division of the Byzantine empire into provinces, the southernmost part
of Italy was called Sikelia. This is generally referred to the vanity
of the Byzantine court, which is said to have been desirous to have a
province called Sicily, after the island had been taken from it by the
Arabs. This indeed is not impossible; but I believe it to be a very
arbitrary conjecture, and am rather inclined to believe that the country,
in ordinary life, still continued to be called Sikelia, as the earliest
Italians were called Siceli by Thucydides and Timaeus (in Polybius). In
this manner, the name was probably propagated, and this also seems to
have been the origin of the strange appellation of “the two Sicilies,”
which at present is indeed quite absurd, but, in its origin, was probably
quite intelligible.
Besides these Siceli, which, in some districts that can no longer be
defined, were called _Italietes_ and _Morgetes_, there existed in
southern Italy yet another race of the Oenotrians, called CHAONIANS or
CHONIANS. This name also re-appears in Epirus. The metropolis of the
Chaonians was called Chone, and had been situated not far from Croton; it
may have been destroyed by the Greeks.