that coast. The place still has the most beautiful Greek ruins in all
Italy, and three ancient temples are preserved there in tolerable
completeness; before the first half of the eighteenth century, they
were not known at all, for they were not discovered till 1730. The
cause of this may have been the circumstance, that they are situated
in a very pestilential and deserted district; but at present they are
known to everybody. The ruins belong to the ancient Greek period, when
Posidonia was still powerful. There have also been found great numbers
of coins of a very ancient style, resembling those of Sybaris, which
are at least as old as the sixtieth Olympiad, and perhaps even older.
Posidonia was conquered by the Lucanians, though it is unknown at what
time, and it remained under their dominion until the war of Pyrrhus,
when the Romans established a colony there under the name of Paestum.
The fact, that previously the Lucanians had a colony there, is clear
from the account of Aristoxenus, in Athenaeus, about an annual festival
which the inhabitants celebrated quite in the ancient Greek fashion,
and at which they, among other things, complained of their losing their
Greek character and peculiarities, and of their becoming barbarians in
consequence of their being ruled over by barbarians. Athenaeus indeed
mentions the Romans as their rulers, but he is either mistaken in
the name, or the book which he quotes was not by Aristoxenus, but a
_pseudepigraphon_, which is certainly possible. It is interesting on this
occasion to become acquainted with the nature of the colonies, and with
the manner in which a new ruling class of men establish themselves among
the people, introducing their language and manners to such an extent
as to cause the nationality of the ancient inhabitants to disappear.
The most striking example of this phenomenon is the diffusion of the
language and manners of the Arabs over the East and Africa: all the
languages which were previously spoken there, Greek, Latin, Egyptian,
and Syriac, having given way to the Arabic. In like manner, the Turkish
language has become predominant in Armenia and Hyrcania. This accounts
for the fact, that, although the Arab immigration into Spain was not
very numerous in comparison with the ancient inhabitants, yet when in
the thirteenth century Andalusia was re-conquered by the Christians, the
people spoke nothing but Arabic. The Ommayad khalifs had introduced
the Arabic language by putting to death any one refusing to adopt it.
The term colony, therefore, is very vague: we generally imagine that
the colonists constitute the real body of the people; but this is not
so, for the colony only furnishes the form. I very well remember, that
about thirty-five years ago, when I read that account of Aristoxenus, the
matter appeared to me strange; but the mixture of the two nationalities
clears up everything.
ETRURIA.
Etruria is in every respect a highly important and interesting country,
and in ancient history it is at the same time great and powerful; it
derives a particular interest from the fact of its being the mother
country of the modern Tuscans, a people on whom all the honour of Italy,
in regard to intellectual and artistic greatness, rested during the
middle ages no less than in modern times, just as the honour of Greece
rested on Athens. In the whole range of modern history there is not a
people, which is so strongly marked with the antique character as the
Florentines; they possess all the great qualities of the Athenians,
without their light-headedness. They also have been too severely judged
of; I do not, indeed, mean to say that they are faultless, but they are,
in spite of any faults, deserving of the highest respect. A man who is
familiar with the old Italian literature and history, cannot but feel
the greatest affection and attachment to Tuscany, and this affection and
attachment are unconsciously transferred to the ancestors of the modern
Tuscans. But the great renown enjoyed by the ancient Etruscans is not
owing to this, but rather to the irresistible charm with which man is
drawn towards that which is mysterious and enigmatical. We can, indeed,
see that the Etruscans were a very remarkable people, and that in regard
to the fine arts, they occupy, next to the Greeks, the highest rank in
antiquity; yet so many monuments and inscriptions of this same people
are perfect mysteries to us; inscriptions exist in great numbers, but
are altogether inexplicable. All the statements of the ancients about
the Etruscans are full of contradiction. The difficulties have been
increased by the opinion which has been established for a long time, that
the Romans derived the greater part of their institutions and character
from the Etruscans, an opinion which formerly I also entertained. But I
have given it up, and in the second edition of my Roman History I have
honestly stated my reasons. The cause of the great confusion among the
ancients about them is the supposition that the Etruscans and Tyrrhenians
were the same people. I have shown in my history that the Greeks, who
are here our only authorities, as we have no other statements, called
the Tyrrhenians Pelasgians, and Tyrrhenians existed not only on the
coasts of Etruria, but occupied the whole coast of Italy down to the
Oenotrian frontier, before the Ausonians subdued those districts. Being
Pelasgians, the Tyrrhenians, according to the views of the Greeks, were
of the same race as the ancient Meonians in Lydia, as the inhabitants
of Lemnos and the islands near the Hellespont, and as the occupants of
the neighbouring coasts. Hence also the tradition about the connection
between the two. These original inhabitants of Etruria, from Luna as
far as the Tiber, were then overpowered by a nation invading Italy from
northern Europe, just as we have seen in the case of the Illyrians; Greek
historians afterwards called the conquerors Tyrrhenians, partly because
a large proportion of the population of Etruria actually was Tyrrhenian,
and partly because the whole country bore the name Tyrrhenia. In like
manner the English are called Britons, and the Spaniards in Mexico and
Peru Mexicans and Peruvians; and in the same way the Greeks applied
the name Oscans to the Sabellians inhabiting Lucania and Samnium,
although the Oscans were the subjects and the Sabellians the ruling
people. As the conquerors have often entirely changed the language of
the conquered people (the coins of Posidonia, when in the end it had
become Roman, have Latin inscriptions in Latin characters), so the
language of the Tyrrhenians, under the dominion of the Etruscans, gave
way to the language of the rulers; and hence we cannot be surprised at
finding on Etruscan monuments none but the mysterious Etruscan language.
I mentioned before the Mexicans as an illustration: the Spaniards who
conquered Mexico amounted only to a few thousands, while the country they
subdued contained many millions of inhabitants. The latter, it is true,
were extirpated by inhuman cruelty, epidemics, and the like; but still
the fact of the Spanish language having become quite universal there
remains a remarkable phenomenon. The Spanish colonists had scarcely any
women with them, and accordingly took native Mexican women for their
wives, whence we might expect to find the Spanish language would have
disappeared all the more naturally and easily. It is a foolish opinion
to believe that the depopulation of Spain was the consequence of the
emigration to the provinces in America; for the number of emigrants to
the new world was on the whole but small. Granting that in the course
of time a few hundred thousand emigrated, the men who arrived there
entirely without families, exercised such an influence upon the language
of millions, that at present not a man in the city of Mexico speaks
Mexican, and the native language exists only in the remotest districts;
the commonest Indian speaks Spanish. There are even large provinces in
New Spain where the ancient language has entirely disappeared, without
its being possible to show that any considerable immigrations ever took
place. In the Baltic provinces of Mecklenburg and Pomerania, where
the ruling families have always remained the same, where the nobility
consists for the most part of Wendish families, and where the Germans
have never appeared as conquerors, the Wendish language is entirely lost,
merely because the introduction of Christianity from Germany was in the
course of a few centuries followed by the German language. The ancient
Tyrrhenian language may, even before the conquest, have become unsettled
and shifting, as the Umbrians occupied the interior of the country while
the Tyrrhenians inhabited the coasts.
The inquiries into the Etruscan language have hitherto yielded no results
at all; all the alleged explanations by Mazzochi, Passeri, and Lanzi are
mere delusions. I must direct your particular attention to the incredibly
small compass of what is commonly called learning. Common sense has
often been most disgracefully trampled under foot, and intuitive truth
has been overlooked and disregarded; and this has been the case more
particularly in the inquiries about the ancient Italian languages. People
have been extremely anxious to discover the Etruscan language, and who
should not be so? I would readily give a considerable part of my property
as a prize to any one who should discover it; an entirely new light
would thereby be thrown upon the character of the nations of Italy. But
desirable as this object is, it does not follow that it is attainable;
it is deplorable, however, if people assume it to be attainable without
examining as to whether the method they adopt be the correct one. Passeri
and Lanzi enjoy quite an undeserved reputation; they have treated the
ancient Italian languages of the Etruscans and Umbrians in quite a
disgraceful manner; and I have many years ago expressed my indignation
at the absurdity with which the inquiry is pursued. Lanzi assumes that
Etruscans and Tyrrhenians are the same,—a fact which has never been
doubted—that Tyrrhenians are Pelasgians, and that Pelasgians are ancient
Greeks: he then proceeds, without having any general principle to guide
him, to interpret words merely according to some remote resemblance in
sound to Greek or Latin words, and by this process he elicits a sense
which is no better than if it had been his object to make the whole
inquiry ridiculous. Any one who has a taste for Greek must reject such
trash with the greatest indignation. There are only a very few words the
meaning of which can be guessed: on all the tomb-stones we read _avil
ril_ followed by a number (the Etruscan and Roman numbers are the same),
whence we may suppose these two words to mean _vixit annos_; sometimes
we find _ril_ alone, which may accordingly mean “year.” It is possible
that the word is indeclinable, and it may even be imagined that all nouns
in Etruscan, as in many eastern languages, are indeclinable. Now Lanzi,
not being able to find a similar word in Greek or Latin, objects to the
interpretation of these words which alone are known; and he connects
_avil_, which probably signifies _vixit_, with the Greek αἰών, though he
would prefer a word with a stronger resemblance. On several works of art
we find the word _turce_ added to a name, which he interprets ἐποίει,
and I will let this pass; but he adds that _turce_ is nothing but the
contracted τὸ ἔρξε, that is, τοὖρξε. Such things have found admirers,
and even in Germany! I feel no inclination to speculate where I do not
stand on firm ground; but it certainly is much more probable, that _ce_
is the termination of the noun, like _us_ in Latin; and accordingly I
say “_turce_ may be the same as _Tuscus_, for _r_ and _s_ are very often
interchanged.” In the fifteenth century, a number of bronze tables were
found at Gubbio in Umbria, with inscriptions partly in Etruscan and
partly in Latin characters, but in an unknown language: who knows what
these tables contain! A man with the faculty of divination possessed
by Champollion might perhaps be able to explain the language, but it
requires a full consciousness of the analogy of languages; this is
the only way in which it might be made out, but it is impossible to
explain it by itself. The Italians, like Passeri, have proceeded on
the supposition that the Etruscans were _haruspices_, interpreters of
lightning, and the like, and that consequently their monuments contain
all kinds of _fulguratio_: on such premises they then attempted to
translate the inscriptions with a truly revolting impertinence: you can
scarcely form an idea of this kind of nonsense. I say this because I have
been described as wanting in modesty by people who no doubt may have been
extremely modest all their lives; and the remark has been added, that I
had not read the productions of those inquirers. But I have read Lanzi’s
work, and deliberately declare that it is thoroughly bad. Lanzi was a man
of talent and acuteness, but completely ignorant of Greek literature,
and he had but a poor knowledge of Latin. He was an encyclopaedist, who
undertook much, but finished only half of what he undertook. I have here
expressed my conviction with the fullest confidence, that it is not only
my conviction, but the pure truth. It is possible that a resemblance may
be discovered between the Etruscan and the Ligurian language.
The ancients were far less concerned about the Etruscans than the
moderns; they took indeed an interest in them, but did not enter deeply
into the inquiry about them; and it may be that they were prevented by
their utter ignorance of the Etruscan language. Herodotus relates that
the Etruscans were a Lydian colony, a statement which has been correctly
refuted even by Dionysius, who says that Xanthus the Lydian did not
say anything about it; that the Lydians did not bear the slightest
resemblance to the Etruscans in language, customs, manners, or religion;
and that there existed no traditions about such a colony either among the
Lydians or among the Etruscans. Herodotus had heard, that Tyrrhenians
existed in Italy as well as in Lydia (where, however, the Meonians,
and not the entirely foreign Lydians, were Tyrrhenians); his idea of a
colony was a mere inference from his knowledge that the Tyrrhenians and
Meonians were nations of the same race. But Tyrrheni and Tusci are the
same words, and so are Tyrrheni, Turini, Turni; Tusculum is nothing but
the town of the Tyrrheni; Etrusci and Tusci, however, are different, and
the name Tusci was afterwards transferred to the Etrusci. The native name
of the Etruscans was Rasena. Previously to the Gallic conquest, the same
Etruscan nation was also established in the plains of Lombardy; and,
according to Livy, all the tribes about the river Padus, such as the
Raeti and others belonged to it. It is, moreover, quite in accordance
with all analogy to suppose that the nation had come down from the Alps
in consequence of commotions in the north. Here we must also bear in mind
the other tradition which states that, before the time of the Etruscans,
the Umbrians dwelt in Etruria, and that 300 Umbrian towns were destroyed
by the invading Etruscans. No importance can be attached to the number
300, which is only a multiple of 3; 3, 30, 300, and 600, all signify only
“very many,” and in other circumstances the same might be expressed by
4, 16, 64, etc. I am persuaded that the time is not far distant (it may
have arrived already), when no man will think of quoting the statement
of Herodotus about the Lydian origin of the Tyrrhenians as an authority
against other opinions. Everything which, after the lapse of hundreds or
thousands of years, has to be made out by reason and argument meets with
opposition, and this is in accordance with nature; nay, it is good that
it is so, as it imposes upon us the duty to give to our doctrines the
greatest possible distinctness, and to expound them so clearly as to make
them intelligible to all.
It is well-known that Etruria, south of the Apennines, contained twelve
ruling towns, to which the others were subject. We must not, however,
suppose that there existed no more than twelve places deserving the name
of towns, but they were twelve sovereign cities, and all the others were
dependent upon them. This fact is certain and beyond all doubt. They
were all situated within the district from the Apennines about Luna
and the Tiber. But which of the Etruscan towns they were, is quite a
different question; some of them are certain, others can be named only
with probability, while others, again, can only be guessed. Descending
from the north, we find the following towns, which Livy, in his account
of the second Punic war, distinctly affirms, were ruling cities:
Volaterrae, Populonia, Rusellae, and Tarquinii; and in the interior,
Arretium, Perusia, Caere and Clusium. Four accordingly are wanting,
either because they had perished, or because they had ceased to belong
to the Etruscan nation. Veii and Vulsinii had been destroyed, and Capena
had become a Roman municipium. But whether Capena ever was one of the
sovereign cities, may seem doubtful. All these relations belong to so
remote a period, and the notices we have of them in the ancient authors
are so vague, that we must be extremely cautious. The case of Cortona
is particularly doubtful. Livy, near the close of the first decad,[57]
mentions it as an Etruscan town; but at the time of the second Punic war
he does not name it among those which distinguished themselves by the
support they gave to Scipio. Herodotus, in speaking of his own time, says
that Cortona[58] was inhabited by Pelasgians who were foreign to the
Tyrrhenians, that is, to the Etruscans and Ombricans. This is a great
mystery, which it is impossible to solve with any degree of certainty.
Had Cortona become Etruscan in the middle of the fifth century, while
during the first half of the fourth it was still Tyrrhenian? or did
Herodotus transfer to his own time that which was correctly applicable
only to an earlier period? Different conjectures may be entertained as
to why it is not mentioned in the second Punic war: Livy either forgot
it, or the town had, perhaps, not been included in the general peace
which the Etruscans concluded with the Romans at the time of the war with
Pyrrhus; it is possible also that it may have concluded a separate peace,
or that it had been conquered. For the books of Livy and Dionysius,
containing the account of that period, are lost, and the brief extracts
furnish no satisfactory information. We may, therefore, have recourse to
several modes of explanation, but we must be cautious and not regard as
certain what is merely possible.
One or two places at the least, therefore, are still wanting. On the
coast we find Cossa, a large town, the walls of which still exist, and
show that the place was strongly fortified. But it is called Cossa
Volcientium, whence it is probable that it was no more Etruscan than
Falerii, which, geographically speaking, likewise belonged to Etruria. We
may, however, take it almost for certain that Faesulae, situated beyond
Florence, was one of the twelve towns. It is not indeed mentioned in the
history of the wars with the Romans, that is, in the ninth and tenth
books of Livy; but we can draw no inference from this, as the eleventh
and twelfth books are wanting. From these last we should have learned,
whether at that period it was one of the Etruscan towns or not.
In a physical point of view, Etruria may be divided into three parts.
The central portion is formed by the main stock of the Apennines, both
those in the neighbourhood of Siena and those in the north of the river
Arno, for they belong together, having been separated only by the hand
of man to make an opening for letting the Arno pass through. This part
comprises the whole of the Apennines, which now separate Tuscany from
Bologna and Romagna, together with the interior from the neighbourhood
of Siena to the Roman towns of Aquapendente and Viterbo. This range of
mountains contains indeed many beautiful valleys, but in some parts
there are none, and on the frontiers of Tuscany and Bologna the country
consists of rough, wild and inhospitable mountains, which at present have
scarcely any wood at all; in ancient times it was different, for thick
forests appear to have existed at least on the frontiers of Etruria and
the country of the Gauls. The second part comprises the whole territory
extending below Volterra, the so-called Maremma, or hilly coast land.
It embraced the whole of _Suburbicaria Tuscia_, the modern Patrimonio
di. S. Pietro, a district formerly containing the towns of Vulsinii
and Saturnia, and at present Tuscanella and others, and extending to
the very gates of Rome. The geological character of this part is quite
different from that of the Apennines; it is of a volcanic nature, the
lakes of Vulsinii, Bacanae, and all the others in that district are
decayed craters, and volcanic stones and productions of every kind are
found there in all directions as on the opposite side of the Tiber. The
country is at present extremely unhealthy, and was in all probability
never quite healthy on account of the bad quality of the water; there
seem to be really poisonous exhalations. In ancient times, however,
important towns existed there notwithstanding, and there was no doubt a
corresponding degree of agriculture; at the time when Florence and Siena
were flourishing republics, the state of the country was likewise better
than it is now. It was ruined by the princes of the house of Medici,
who made the towns responsible for the whole amount of taxes, as is the
custom in the East; when one place was decayed, the others had to make
up the sum among themselves. In some parts this system was carried so
far, that during the second half of the seventeenth century, under Cosmo
III., whole villages were ruined; and it was the greatest misfortune for
the country that this Cosmo reigned for a period of half a century. In
this manner the country became desolate by fiscal extortions. Wherever
the population has once become extinct, it rarely re-appears; the emperor
Leopold II. did every thing in his power to mend matters, but it was
of little avail. The third part comprising the marshy country from the
Arno as far as the Gonfalina, is a large and low district with many
marshes and lakes, extending as far as Luna and Pescia; it has quite the
appearance of the countries in the Netherlands. In the time of Hannibal,
it was one continuous marsh, but he made his way through it, and deceived
the Romans, who thought it impossible for him to advance through that
morass, and accordingly considered themselves quite safe. We may say in
general that the manner, in which the Romans at that time carried on
the war, was beneath all criticism. The upper Arno was formerly a lake,
and near Faesulae, too, there was a lake, but they have been drained by
making a passage for the waters through the Gonfalina and La’ncisa.
I shall now proceed to give you an account of the separate towns,
mentioning at once the things for which they were remarkable at different
periods, for our time is too short accurately to separate the geography
of the different periods.
LUCA. The northern part about Luca was afterwards in the hands of the
Ligurians, and nothing is known about it in regard to the Etruscan
period. Soon after the Hannibalian war, the town was taken by the
Romans who established a colony there, for the purpose of securing the
possession of the country. Throughout the middle ages, Luca was a place
of considerable importance.