cities of Etruria. Its greatness may be inferred from the fact that in
the Hannibalian war it furnished arms for 30,000 men of the army of
Scipio. We must not, however, conceive these towns to have been confined
to their own territories, but as sovereigns of districts of many square
miles, whence they were able to do things which seem to us impossible.
Arretium was an industrial place, and rich by its manufactures,
especially its potteries, like Staffordshire in England; whence Augustus,
in a fragment of a letter to Maecenas, calls him a Tuscan potter.
Augustus often tried to be witty, but his witticisms were mostly dull.
The pottery of Arretium was highly valued even during the middle ages,
though otherwise few collections were made. At present such vessels are
extremely rare: I have brought with me from Italy a small piece as a
relic, for I am not rich enough to purchase an entire Arretine vase.
They are not painted, but have figures, leaves, animals, and the like,
in relief, and are of exquisite beauty. Arretium completely shared the
fate of Etruria itself. There were three different Arretiums, _vetus_,
_fidens_ and _Julium_. Sulla destroyed the city, sold its inhabitants
as slaves, and founded in the vicinity a new colony for his soldiers,
under the name of _Arretium fidens_. Augustus built _Arretium Julium_ in
the neighbourhood of the two others. The modern Arezzo occupies the site
of Arretium Julium, whence it contains no Etruscan antiquities; but the
Roman town was much more important than the present Arezzo. If systematic
excavations were made in the neighbourhood, many things might certainly
be discovered. I regret not having visited the Grand Duke of Tuscany, an
excellent young man, full of taste for, and appreciation of, knowledge,
for I might perhaps have induced him to make excavations, especially near
Arezzo and Chiusi.
FAESULAE was situated on a hill above Florence. Florentine traditions
call it the metropolis of Florence, which would accordingly be a colony
of Faesulae; but a statement in Machiavelli and others describes Florence
as a colony of Sulla, and this statement must have been derived from some
local chronicle. Faesulae was no doubt an ancient Etruscan town, probably
one of the twelve. It was taken in the war of Sulla, and was then in
the same desperate condition as Arretium and Volaterrae, both of which
were deprived by Sulla of their freedom and territory. Hence a Sullanian
colony is mentioned by Cicero as existing there in the war of Catiline.
My conjecture is, that Sulla not only built a strong fort on the top of
the hill of Faesulae, but also the new colony of Florentia below, and
gave to it the _ager Faesulanus_. If this be true, the statement before
alluded to would be correct, though we cannot trace it to any authentic
source. The Etruscans built their towns on inaccessible hills in order
to be able to control their subjects; the Romans not being under this
necessity, built their towns in convenient and accessible places, to
which they could make roads. Faesulae could not be reached, except on
foot or on horseback; no vehicle could get up the hill, whereas the
Romans employed many vehicles in the intercourse among the towns. But
although Florentia was a colony of Sulla, the _agrimensores_ subsequently
describe it as a colony of the triumvirs, and it is indeed possible that
not one of the twenty-eight military colonies of Sulla may have been
kept up until the time of the triumvirs. This subject is in the greatest
confusion, and no one has yet attempted to clear it up. First we have
the colonies of the republic, then the military colonies of Sulla, then
again a second series of military colonies under Caesar, and lastly those
of the triumvirs and Augustus. The earlier colonies lost their character
through the Lex Julia, and became municipia; then followed the Sullanian
and Julian colonies, so that the same place at three different times may
have had three different colonies. This view of the matter makes clear
that which Cluver and Cellarius, with all their merits, have left in
utter confusion.
Within the territory of Tuscia or Etruria, we find on the banks of the
Tiber a place, or rather a tribe, which in all our maps is described as a
part of Etruria, but which the ancients, Strabo, e.g., expressly say did
not belong to Etruria. This is the people of the FALISCANS. Respecting
their nationality, the ancients have in reality only this negative
statement, and we cannot ascertain to what race they belonged, except
by divination and indirect evidence. Virgil in his Aeneid speaks of
_Aequi Falisci_, which the commentators, and even the ancient scholiasts,
taking _Aequi_ as an adjective, translate “just Faliscans”; but it is
highly probable that _Aequi_ is a name, and that we have to regard the
expression in the same light as, e.g., _Chaonii Campi_, where Campi is
explained even by the scholiasts as the name of a people. The identity
of the Aequians and Faliscans is confirmed also by other evidence. Among
the Faliscans we find the word _hirpus_, whence their language may be
inferred to be a branch of the Oscan, in which, as we have seen, this
word signifies a wolf. Lastly, the name of the Faliscans may be traced
at once to that of the Volscians, _Volsci_, _Volisci_, _Falisci_; and
as we know that they were of foreign, that is, non-Etruscan origin, we
cannot, considering the geographical position of the people, doubt the
correctness of the view here expounded. There is some plausibility also
in the other tradition which is traced to Cato, that the country, before
it was taken possession of by the Faliscans, was inhabited by Siculians.
This quite agrees with our supposition of successive conquests. The most
ancient inhabitants were Pelasgians, who were succeeded by an Ausonian
people, and the latter again are pushed onward by the Sabines; for it
should be observed, that the Sabines did not penetrate between these
Faliscans and Aequians and the Volscians until a later period.
The Faliscans had several towns, of which FALERII was the most important.
For reasons which are quite unknown to us, the Romans, after the first
Punic war, conquered and destroyed this town. This fact is all we know;
but we may suppose that the place, to escape from oppression, was
tempted to a rash and inconsiderate act, for the condition of Italy
was then such as to render any undertaking against Rome hopeless.
The town was afterwards restored. Near Civita Castellana, there is a
place called Falera, which is no doubt the ancient Falerii; Faliscan
inscriptions are still found there. It was a deeply rooted mistake among
the first scholars after the revival of letters, to suppose that Civita
Castellana was the ancient Veii; but this error was refuted even by Lucas
Holstenius. The real town of Falerii was situated a little to the east of
it.
Mount SORACTE, which is always visible from Rome, was in the country of
the Faliscans. Horace, in one of his Odes, speaks of Soracte as being
covered with snow, and this has given rise to the erroneous inference,
that the climate of Rome is now changed and milder than in antiquity. The
Abruzzi, Leonessa, and other heights, may be covered with snow, without
its being cold at Rome, but when there is snow on mount Soracte the cold
at Rome is severe. This is indeed not often the case; but when it does
happen, the snow-capped Soracte, is seen very distinctly from Rome.
Horace has not availed himself of a poetical license in this respect. I
mention this, because people, very frequently, if not generally, speak
of poetical license as if an inaccurate expression in a poet ought to
be pardoned. There may, indeed, be poets of this kind, as, for example,
Ausonius, and Greek poets of the period of decay; and modern poets, too,
very frequently make use of such licenses; but it is quite certain that
the good poets of antiquity give to things only such epithets as are
quite clear and true to their own minds.
UMBRIA.
Of this country I have little to say. Umbria, in its proper sense, in
which the name is used by the Romans, is situated for the most part in
the Apennines, though we cannot even positively assert that it extended
to the southern slope of the Apennines. But in more ancient times it
extended much farther on both sides. There is great probability in the
tradition that the Umbrians were confined to their small territory
by the Etruscans, who are said to have taken 300 Umbrian towns. This
number, however, must not be taken literally, for it is only a general
number like μυρίοι, and _sexcenti_. Its earlier and larger extent is
also attested by the river Umbro in the territory of Siena, and by the
fact, that even at a later time a part of Etruria continued to be called
Umbria. At one period the Umbrians also possessed the whole country about
Rimini as far as the mouth of the Padus; there they were either expelled
or subdued by the Gauls, or, as is still more probable, completely
extirpated, for the Gauls were most fearful enemies and barbarians in the
strictest sense of the term, annihilating and devastating everything that
came in their way. During the Roman period, the Umbrians were extremely
weak, and down to the fifth century, when the Romans came in contact with
them, they were no doubt tributary to the Gauls. What could they in fact
have done against such an enemy? They were obliged either to repel them
or pay tribute to them. We know that other neighbouring tribes did so,
whence it is probable that the Umbrians did the same. The Gauls, who so
often advanced to the lower Tiber, cannot have come through any other
country but Umbria, for the Etruscans in their towns defended themselves
against them, and were protected in the north by the Apennines. Hence the
unfortunate country of Umbria had constantly to suffer from the passages
of the Gauls, who, in like manner, always took their road to Apulia
through Picenum.
At the time when the Umbrians come in contact with the Romans, they seem
to act as one nation, though it does not follow from this that they
actually formed one state. A fact, however, which may seem to support
this view is, that the different districts of the country are mentioned
under the name of _tribus_ or _plagae_ (_tribus Materina_, _Sapinia_),
which denote parts of one great whole. Yet this union, if it did exist,
can have embraced only a portion, for the Sarsinates, or Sassinates,
stood apart, and in the war of Pyrrhus they alone, for a time, defended
their independence against the Romans. The Umbrians allowed themselves to
become involved in the war of the Samnites and Gauls, but appear to have
carried it on without energy; and a treaty seems to have been concluded
with them similar to that with the Etruscans, for both are mentioned
among the nations which supported Scipio. I am well aware that Italicans
did the same, but they did it in a different manner.
Several of the Umbrian towns were made Roman colonies, especially
_Spoletium_ and _Narnia_, previously called _Nequinum_; both places
were fortified by the Romans (Narnia after the second Samnite war,
and Spoletium afterwards), for the purpose of keeping the country in
subjection, and of protecting the frontier against the Gauls.
All Umbria was full of towns: _Hispellum_, _Tuder_, _Fulginium_,
_Assisium_, _Camerinum_, and _Iguvium_ (Gubbio), were places of
considerable importance. In the last of them, tables have been dug out
of the ground with inscriptions in Etruscan and in another language in
Latin characters; the latter language seems to resemble the Latin and
Oscan. When once the Oscan language shall be better known, more light
will perhaps be thrown upon the Umbrian language also. The name _Umbria_
and the Greek Ὀμβρικοὶ seem actually to be akin to Ὀπικοί, which is in
fact intimated in a passage of Philistus; whence the Umbrians probably
belonged to the great Ausonian race. So far as I have seen Umbria, it
is a very excellent and picturesque country; the Apennines are there
much more beautiful than in Tuscany; they are covered with particularly
fine forests, and have magnificent, rich, and fertile valleys. All the
rest of Italy is ill-suited to the breeding of oxen, but Umbria has the
most splendid kinds: I have seen a herd of white oxen near the well of
Clitumnus, which consisted of the finest and noblest animals of the kind;
they were like those in southern Poland and Russia. The cattle here in
Germany is wretched. The extension and change of the races of animals
in Italy may be traced back to the times of antiquity: buffaloes, for
example, were introduced into Campania in the seventh century, when the
country was almost a wilderness.
GALLIA CISALPINA OR TOGATA.
Down to the middle of the fourth century, the country beyond the
Apennines was called northern Etruria, but after that time it bore the
name _Gallia Cisalpina_ or _Togata_, but it extended further than Etruria
proper, for the sea-coast as far as the river Aesis never belonged to
Etruria.
The country now called Lombardy in its narrower sense, was inhabited
in the earliest times by Ligurians, as is clear from most indubitable
indications, and hence we must suppose, that subsequently they were
driven by the Etruscans across the Ticinus. But these events belong
to too remote an epoch, and I cannot say much either of this or of
the Etruscan period. Certain it is that Etruscan towns existed in
those parts, and that Etruscans dwelt there as the conquerors of the
Ligurians and as the lords of the land; and there can be no doubt that
after descending from the Alps the Etruscans established their first
settlements there. _Melpum_ is said to have been a great Etruscan
settlement in the neighbourhood of Milan; and _Felsina_ (Bononia),
_Mutina_, _Parma_, and _Brixia_, are spoken of in the same way. _Verona_
is sometimes called Raetian and sometimes Etruscan, and _Mantua_ is
called Etruscan by Virgil. It is possible that Verona may have been
termed Raetian because it was situated on the Raetian frontier, and may
for all this have been an Etruscan town.
The immigration of the Gauls into those parts is assigned by Livy in a
most unhistorical manner to the time of Tarquinius Priscus; he has no
other reason for it than the very legendary connection supposed to have
existed between this emigration of the Gauls, and the settlement of the
Phocaeans at Massilia. There is much more probability in the statement,
that not long before the attack upon Rome by the Senones, the Gauls had
first poured down upon all Italy in great masses. This is supported by
the express testimony of Polybius, that they had shortly before come
across the Alps, and also by the tradition that they took Melpum in the
same year in which Veii was taken by Camillus (358). Just at that time,
the Etruscans on quitting Veii seem to have turned their attention to an
object of greater interest in a different direction. About that same time
the Gauls appear in Slavonia and Lower Hungary, where they stirred up the
Triballians, and according to an ancient tradition the Gauls migrated
at the same time across the Alps and across the Rhine. They evidently
marched into Italy through Switzerland, which may previously have been
inhabited by quite different tribes. The ruins on the Ottilienberg in
Alsace have a complete Etruscan appearance; they strongly resemble the
fortifications of Volaterrae, and are situated on the plateau of a hill:
they are altogether foreign to the Celtic character; the Celts had
nothing of the kind. The supposition of the antiquarians of Alsace, ever
since the time of Schoepflin, that, as those ruins are not Celtic, they
belong to the decaying period of Rome, perhaps the reign of Valentinian,
is extremely unfortunate. These ruins are far more ancient than the
Celtic period, and belong to a people, which was expelled by the Gauls.
The great Gallic migration was a mighty commotion extending from the
frontiers of Spain to the Ukraine. In the subsequent counter-movement of
the Slavonic migrations, the Gauls were driven back from east to west;
and then they appear under the name of Cimbri together with the Germanic
nation of the Teutones, and return to their ancient homes as ravaging
conquerors.
The Gauls who settled south of the Alps consisted of several tribes,
partly entire and partly ἀποδασμοὶ of those of which a portion remained
behind in Gaul. In this light we must view the _Boians_; very few of
them may have remained in Gaul itself; the greater part advanced into
the country south of the Po, and another branch settled in Bavaria and
Bohemia. On the whole there were about four or five Gallic tribes which
settled in Italy on both sides of the Po; but besides them large numbers
of volunteers, individuals and roaming vagabonds joined and strengthened
one tribe or the other. I shall enumerate them in the order in which
we find them established, beginning in the west. The Ticinus forms the
frontier between the Gauls and Ligurians, as it still forms that between
the territories of Milan and Piedmont.
1. The INSUBRIANS, in the modern territory of Milan proper.
2. The CENOMANIANS, in the territory of Brescia and Bergamo, between lake
Garda and the mouth of the Po.
3. The BOIANS, in the south of the latter; their territory is made too
small in all our maps; they occupied the county from Piacenza to the sea,
including Parma, Modena, Reggio, Bologna and Ferrara. They were divided,
according to Cato, into 112 pagi.
4. The SENONES, in the modern Romagna and Urbino, as far as the Aesis and
the frontiers of Picenum.
5. The LINGONES must have occupied the country to the north of the
former, that is Ferrara and the territory of Rovigo.
In the later political geography of the Romans, Gallia Cisalpina is
divided into two parts which are very different from each other, viz.,
_Gallia Cispadana_ and _Gallia Transpadana_. In political terminology
the latter acquired a greater extent, not being limited to the country
between the Ticinus and lake Garda, but also comprising Venetia. The
inhabitants of all this country, who received the _jus Latii_, were
called _Transpadani_. The _Cispadani_ are not much spoken of, which
arose from particular circumstances, which I will explain to you because
history does not do it. I have mentioned to you, that the whole country
south of the Po, from Piacenza to the frontier of Picenum, was inhabited
by two Gallic tribes, the Boians and Senones. The Senones were extirpated
to a man, as, e.g., the Eretrians were extirpated by the Persians. The
Romans invaded their country, burnt down their villages, and carried off
their women and children into slavery; the men, capable of bearing arms,
who in their despair returned, like beasts of prey whose young ones are
taken from them, to save their families, were completely defeated, and
those who escaped fled to the Boians. The whole of modern Romagna became
a complete desert, such as we sometimes find in the history of Germany,
e.g., the desert of the Avars in the time of Charlemagne, and Servia,
after its devastation by Attila, when it was in such a condition that
the ambassadors of Theodosius II. travelled seven days without finding
any other traces of man, except the bodies of the murdered inhabitants.
After its devastation, the Romans gave up the country partly to Roman
citizens and partly to Italicans, who might cultivate it as they pleased,
for it had become _ager publicus_. C. Flaminius afterwards distributed a
portion of it _viritim_ among Roman citizens. There now arose in those
extensive districts entirety new settlements, the names of which are of
a peculiar character: _Faventia Pollentia_, _Florentia_ and _Placentia_
are all names derived from verbs implying a favourable omen. Other places
are termed _Fora_, and according to the American practice they might be
called territories; they were inhabited by Roman citizens, who fully
enjoyed the benefits of the Roman law, but did not form corporations.
They lived isolated from one another, and thus were deprived of that
advantage which was so important in antiquity, I mean, of the privileges
of corporations: they had no magistrates to administer justice, whence
there were many acts which they could not perform at all. It was contrary
to the feelings of the Romans to appoint magistrates according to
districts, and it was for this reason that they instituted Fora, places
in which court-houses were built, and where a praefect, appointed by the
praetor urbanus, resided, and where, accordingly, judicial business could
be transacted.
The Boians survived the Senones about ninety years; during the
Hannibalian war, they were enraged against the Romans, who, by fortifying
and colonising Placentia and Cremona, had planted the yoke upon their
necks, but the vengeance of the Romans was such, that in the course of
about ten years they extirpated the whole Boian nation. A fragment of
Cato in Pliny (iii. 15) furnishes express testimony on this subject, and
the account in Livy, too, speaks distinctly enough. After this, no Boians
are mentioned in Italy. In treating of Roman history, and especially of
the _Lex de Gallia Cisalpina_, the question often presents itself to us,
how it happens that in Cicero’s time we hear such frequent mention of
Gallia Transpadana, while Gallia Cispadana is never spoken of. The matter
is explained by what I have said. The Gallic population of the latter was
utterly annihilated; in regard to the Senones, it is expressly attested,
and the survivors of the Boians were not more numerous than, for example,
those of the Indian tribes in America. The whole country then was taken
possession of by Romans and Italicans in the manner before described, and
several colonies, such as Mutina, Bononia, Parma, etc., were established
in it; the country, however, was partly _ager publicus_ and partly _ager
divisus_. In this manner, the whole country south of the Po was severed
from Gaul, and all that remained of Gaul consisted of a small territory
north of the Po, between the Ticinus and the lake of Garda; and this
latter is the country of the Insubrians and Cenomanians, who, together
with the Venetians, formed those Transpadani, who, through Cn. Pompeius
Strabo, obtained the _jus Latii_ of the later kind.
The following are the towns in the territory of Gallia Cispadana,
proceeding from west to east:—PLACENTIA, the first Roman colony in those
districts, was established two years before Hannibal’s passage over
the Alps. Like Cremona, it was situated on the northern bank of the
river, and its fortification was one of the most energetic measures for
maintaining the Roman dominion in those parts.
PARMA, a Latin colony, was founded like MUTINA after the Hannibalian war.
BONONIA, anciently called Felsina, and at present Bologna, was a
remarkable place even in antiquity on account of its favourable
situation, though it can in no way be compared with what it was during
its subsequent greatness. We may estimate its ancient circumference with
tolerable accuracy from the extent of the town in the middle ages, which,
however, was scarcely the fifth part of what it is at present.
In the subsequent province of Flaminia, which ever since the time of
the exarchate was called _Romania_ (Romagna), there existed several
towns between Bologna and Rimini, such as _Faventia_, _Forum Cornelii_,
_Forum Popillii_, and others. Most of them were as ancient as the time
of the Roman republic, but their history is unimportant. Ever since the
beginning of the exarchate, their sad celebrity is that their defence and
conquest are much spoken of.