formerly mentioned, on which the annals of Ennius were in a great measure
built, and to which may be traced some of those wonderful incidents of
Roman history, chiefly contrived for the purpose of exalting the military
achievements of the country. Many things which of right belong to such
ancient poems, still exist under the disguise of an historical clothing in
the narratives of the Roman annalists. Niebuhr, the German historian of
Rome, has recently analysed these legends, and taken much from the Roman
history, by detecting what incidents rest on no other foundation than
their chimerical or embellished pictures, and by shewing how incidents, in
themselves unconnected, have by their aid been artificially combined.
Such, according to him, were the stories of the birth of Romulus, of the
treason of Tatia, the death of the Fabii, and the incidents of an almost
complete Epopée, from the succession of Tarquinius Priscus to the battle
of Regillus. These old ballads, being more attractive and of easier access
than authentic records and monuments, were preferred to them as
authorities; and even when converted into prose, retained much of their
original and poetic spirit. For example, it was feigned in them that
Tullus Hostilius was the son of Hostus Hostilius, who perished in the war
with the Sabines, which, according to chronology, would make Tullus at
least eighty years old when he mounted the throne; but it was thought a
fine thing to represent him as the son of a genuine Roman hero, who had
fallen in the service of his country. Niebuhr, probably, as I have already
shown, has attributed too much to these old heroic ballads, and has
assigned to them an extent and importance of which there are no adequate
proofs. But I strongly suspect that the heroic or historical poems of
Ennius had formed a principal document to the Roman annalists for the
transactions during the Monarchy and earlier times of the Republic, and
had been appealed to, like Ferdousi’s Shad-Nameh, for occurrences which
were probably rather fictions of fancy than events of history.
The Greek writers, from whom several fables and traditions were derived
concerning the infancy of Rome, lived not much higher than the age of
Fabius Pictor, and only mention its affairs cursorily, while treating of
Alexander or his successors. Polybius, indeed, considers their narratives
as mere vulgar traditions(130), and Dionysius says they have written some
few things concerning the Romans, which they have compiled from common
reports, without accuracy or diligence. To them have been plausibly
attributed those fables, concerning the exploits of Romans, which bear so
remarkable an analogy to incidents in Grecian history(131). Like to these
in all respects are the histories which some Romans published in Greek
concerning the ancient transactions of their own nation.
We thus see that the authentic materials for the early history of Rome
were meagre and imperfect—that the annals of the Pontiffs and public
monuments had perished—that the _Leges Regiæ_, Twelve Tables, and remains
of the religious or ritual books of the Pontiffs, could throw no great
light on history, and that the want of better materials was supplied by
false, and sometimes incredible relations, drawn from the family
traditions—“_ad ostentationem scenæ gaudentis miraculis aptiora quàm ad
fidem_(132).” The mutilated inscriptions, too, the scanty treaties, and
the family memoirs, became, from the variations in the language, in a
great measure unintelligible to the generation which succeeded that in
which they were composed. Polybius informs us, that the most learned
Romans of his day could not read a treaty with the Carthaginians,
concluded after the expulsion of the kings. Hence, the documents for
history, such as they were, became useless to the historian, or, at least,
were of such difficulty, that he would sometimes mistake their import, and
be, at others, deterred from investigation.
When all this is considered, and also that Rome, in its commencement, was
the dwelling of a rude and ignorant people, subsisting by rapine—that the
art of writing, the only sure guardian of the remembrance of events, was
little practised—that critical examination was utterly unknown; and that
the writers of no other nation would think of accurately transmitting to
posterity events, which have only become interesting from the subsequent
conquests and extension of the Roman empire, it must be evident, that the
materials provided for the work of the historian would necessarily be
obscure and uncertain.
The great general results recorded in Roman history, during the first five
centuries, cannot, indeed, be denied. It cannot be doubted that Rome
ultimately triumphed over the neighbouring nations, and obtained
possession of their territories; for Rome would not have been what we know
it was in the sixth century, without these successes. But there exists, in
the particular events recorded in the Roman history, sufficient internal
evidence of its uncertainty, or rather falsehood; and here I do not refer
to the lying fables, and absurd prodigies, which the annalists may have
inserted in deference to the prejudices of the people, nor to the almost
incredible daring and endurance of Scævola, Cocles, or Curtius, which may
be accounted for from the wild spirit of a half-civilized nation, and are
not unlike the acts we hear of among Indian tribes; but I allude to the
total improbability of the historic details concerning transactions with
surrounding tribes, and the origin of domestic institutions. How, for
example, after so long a series of defeats, with few intervals of
prosperity interposed, could the Italian states have possessed resources
sufficient incessantly to renew hostilities, in which they were always the
aggressors? And how, on the other hand, should the Romans, with their
constant preponderance of force and fortune, (if the repetition and
magnitude of their victories can be depended on,) have been so long
employed in completely subjugating them? The numbers slain, according to
Livy’s account, are so prodigious, that it is difficult to conceive how
the population of such moderate territories, as belonged to the
independent Italian communities, could have supplied such losses. We,
therefore, cannot avoid concluding, that the frequency and importance of
these campaigns were magnified by the consular families indulging in the
vanity of exaggerating the achievements of their ancestors(133). Sometimes
these campaigns are represented as carried on against the whole nation of
Volsci, Samnites, or Etruscans, when, in fact, only a part was engaged;
and, at other times, battles, which never were fought, have been extracted
from the family memoirs, where they were drawn up to illustrate each
consulate; for what would a consul have been without a triumph or a
victory? It would exceed my limits were I to point out the various
improbabilities and evident inconsistencies of this sort recorded in the
early periods of Roman history. With regard, again, to the domestic
institutions of Rome, everything (doubtless for the sake of effect and
dignity) is represented as having at once originated in the refined policy
and foresight of the early kings. The division of the people into tribes
and curiæ—the relations of patron and client—the election of senators—in
short, the whole fabric of the constitution, is exhibited as a
preconcerted plan of political wisdom, and not (as a constitution has been
in every other state, and must have been in Rome) the gradual result of
contingencies and progressive improvements, of assertions of rights, and
struggles for power.
The opinion entertained by Polybius of the uncertainty of the Roman
history, is sufficiently manifest from a passage in the fourth book of his
admirable work, which is written with all the philosophy and profound
inquiry of Tacitus, without any of his apparent affectation.—“The things
which I have undertaken to describe,” says he, “are those which I myself
have seen, or such as I have received from men who were eye-witnesses of
them. For, had I gone back to a more early period, and borrowed my
accounts from the report of persons who themselves had only heard them
before from others, as it would scarcely have been possible that I should
myself be able to discern the true state of the matters that were then
transacted, so neither could I have written anything concerning them with
confidence.” What, indeed, can we expect to know with regard to the Kings
of Rome, when we find so much uncertainty with regard to the most
memorable events of the republic, as the period of the first creation of a
dictator and tribunes of the people? The same doubt exists in the
biography of illustrious characters. Cicero says, that Coriolanus, having
gone over to the Volsci, repressed the struggles of his resentment by a
voluntary death; “for, though you, my Atticus,” he continues, “have
represented his death in a different manner, you must pardon me if I do
not subscribe to the justness of your representations(134).” Atticus, I
presume, gave the account as we now have it, that he was killed in a
tumult of the Volsci, and Fabius Pictor had written that he lived till old
age(135). Of the reliance to be placed on the events between the death of
Coriolanus and the termination of the second Punic war, we may judge from
the uncertainty which prevailed with regard to Scipio Africanus, a hero,
of all others, the most distinguished, and who flourished, comparatively,
at a recent period. Yet some of the most important events of his life are
involved in contradiction and almost hopeless obscurity.—“Cicero,” says
Berwick, in his Memoirs of Scipio, “speaks with great confidence of the
year in which he died, yet Livy found so great a difference of opinion
among historians on the subject, that he declares himself unable to
ascertain it. From a fragment in Polybius, we learn, that, in his time,
the authors who had written of Scipio were ignorant of some circumstances
of his life, and mistaken in others; and, from Livy, it appears, that the
accounts respecting his life, trial, death, funeral, and sepulchre, were
so contradictory, that he was not able to determine what tradition, or
whose writings, he ought to credit.”
But, although the early events of Roman history were of such a
description, that Cicero and Atticus were not agreed concerning them—that
Polybius could write nothing about them with confidence; and that Livy
would neither undertake to affirm nor refute them, every vestige of Roman
antiquity had not perished. Though the annals of the Pontiffs were
destroyed,—those who wrote, who kept, and had read them, could not have
lost all recollection of the facts they recorded. Even from the family
memoirs, full of falsehoods as they were, much truth might have been
extracted by a judicious and acute historian. The journals of different
rival families must often have served as historical checks on each other,
and much real information might have been gathered, by comparing and
contrasting the vain-glorious lies of those family-legends(136).
Such was the state of the materials for Roman history, in the middle of
the sixth century, from the building of the city, at which time regular
annals first began to be composed; and notwithstanding all unfavourable
circumstances, much might have been done, even at that period, towards
fixing and ascertaining the dates and circumstances of previous events,
had the earliest annalist of Rome been in any degree fitted for this
difficult and important task; but, unfortunately,
QUINTUS FABIUS PICTOR,
who first undertook to relate the affairs of Rome from its foundation, in
a formal and regular order, and is thence called by Livy _Scriptorum
antiquissimus_, appears to have been wretchedly qualified for the labour
he had undertaken, either in point of fidelity or research: and to his
carelessness and inaccuracy, more even than to the loss of monuments, may
be attributed the painful uncertainty, which to this day hangs over the
early ages of Roman history.
Fabius Pictor lived in the time of the second Punic war. The family
received its _cognomen_ from Caius Fabius, who, having resided in Etruria,
and there acquired some knowledge of the fine arts, painted with figures
the temple of _Salus_, in the year 450(137). Pliny mentions having seen
this piece of workmanship, which remained entire till the building itself
was consumed, in the reign of the Emperor Claudius. The son of the painter
rose to the highest honours of the state, having been Consul along with
Ogulnius Gallus, in the year 485. From him sprung the historian, who was
consequently grandson of the first Fabius Pictor. He was a provincial
quæstor in early youth, and in 528 served under the Consul Lucius Æmilius,
when sent to repel a formidable incursion of the Gauls, who, in that year,
had passed the Alps in vast hordes. He also served in the second Punic
war, which commenced in 534, and was present at the battle of Thrasymene.
After the defeat at Cannæ, he was despatched by the senate to inquire from
the oracle of Delphos, what would be the issue of the war, and to learn by
what supplications the wrath of the gods might be appeased(138).
The Annals of Fabius Pictor commenced with the foundation of the city, and
brought down the series of Roman affairs to the author’s own time—that is,
to the end of the second Punic war. We are informed by Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, that for the great proportion of events which preceded his
own age, Fabius Pictor had no better authority than vulgar tradition(139).
He probably found, that if he had confined himself to what was certain in
these early times, his history would have been dry, insipid, and
incomplete. This may have induced him to adopt the fables, which the Greek
historians had invented concerning the origin of Rome, and to insert
whatever he found in the family traditions, however contradictory or
uncertain. Dionysius has also given us many examples of his improbable
narrations—his inconsistencies—his negligence in investigating the truth
of what he relates as facts—and his inaccuracy in chronology. “I cannot
refrain,” says he, when speaking of the age of Tarquinius Priscus, “from
blaming Fabius Pictor for his little exactness in chronology(140);” and it
appears from various other passages, that all the ancient history of
Fabius which was not founded on hearsay, was taken from Greek authors, who
had little opportunity of being informed of Roman affairs, and had
supplied their deficiency in real knowledge, by the invention of fables.
In particular, as we are told by Plutarch(141), he followed an obscure
Greek author, Diocles the Peparethian, in his account of the foundation of
Rome, and from this tainted source have flowed all the stories concerning
Mars, the Vestal, the Wolf, Romulus, and Remus.
It is thus evident, that no great reliance can be placed on the history
given by Fabius Pictor, of the events which preceded his own age, and
which happened during a period of 500 years from the building of the city;
but what must be considered as more extraordinary and lamentable, is, that
although a senator, and of a distinguished family, he gave a prejudiced
and inaccurate account of affairs occurring during the time he lived, and
in the management of which he had some concern. Polybius, who flourished
shortly after that time, and was at pains to inform himself accurately
concerning all the events of the second Punic war, apologizes for quoting
Fabius on one occasion as an authority. “It will perhaps be asked,” says
he, “how I came to make mention of Fabius: It is not that I think his
relation probable enough to deserve credit: What he writes is so absurd,
and has so little appearance of truth, that the reader will easily remark,
without my taking notice of it, the little reliance that is to be placed
on that author, whose inconsistency is palpable of itself. It is,
therefore, only to warn such as shall read his history, not to judge by
the title of the book, but by the things it contains—for there are many
people, who, considering the author more than what he writes, think
themselves obliged to believe everything he says, because a senator and
contemporary(142).” Polybius also accuses him of gross partiality to his
own nation, in the account of the Punic war—allowing to the enemy no
praise, even where they deserved it, and uncandidly aggravating their
faults.(143) In particular, he charges him with falsehood in what he has
delivered, with regard to the causes of the second contest with the
Carthaginians. Fabius had alleged, that the covetousness of Hannibal,
which he inherited from Asdrubal, and his desire of ultimately ruling over
his own country, to which he conceived a Roman war to be a necessary step,
were the chief causes of renewing hostilities, to which the Carthaginian
government was totally averse. Now, Polybius asks him, if this were true,
why the Carthaginian Senate did not deliver up their general, as was
required, after the capture of Saguntum; and why they supported him,
during fourteen years continuance in Italy, with frequent supplies of
money, and immense reinforcements(144).
The sentiments expressed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, concerning Fabius
Pictor’s relation of events, in the early ages of Rome, and those of
Polybius(145), on the occurrences of which he was himself an eye-witness,
enable us to form a pretty accurate estimate of the credit due to his
whole history. Dionysius having himself written on the antiquities of
Rome, was competent to deliver an opinion as to the works of those who had
preceded him in the same undertaking; and it would rather have been
favourable to the general view which he has adopted, to have established
the credibility of Fabius. We may also safely rely on the judgment which
Polybius has passed, concerning this old annalist’s relation of the events
of the age in which he lived, since Polybius had spared no pains to be
thoroughly informed of whatever could render his own account of them
complete and unexceptionable.
The opinion which must now be naturally formed from the sentiments
entertained by these two eminent historians, is rather confirmed by the
few and unconnected fragments that remain of the Annals of Fabius Pictor,
as they exhibit a spirit of trifling and credulity quite unworthy the
historian of a great republic. One passage is about a person who saw a
magpie; another about a man who had a message brought to him by a swallow;
and a third concerning a party of _loup garous_, who, after being
transformed into wolves, recovered their own figures, and, what is more,
got back their cast-off clothes, provided they had abstained for nine
years from preying on human flesh!
Such were the merits of the earliest annalist of Rome, whom all succeeding
historians of the state copied as far as he had proceeded, or at least
implicitly followed as their authority and guide in facts and chronology.
Unfortunately, his character as a senator, and an eye-witness of many of
the events he recorded, gave the stamp of authenticity to his work, which
it did not intrinsically deserve to have impressed on it. His successors
accordingly, instead of giving themselves the pains to clear up the
difficulties with which the history of former ages was embarrassed, and
which would have led into long and laborious discussions, preferred
reposing on the authority of Fabius. They copied him on the ancient times,
without even consulting the few monuments that remained, and then
contented themselves with adding the transactions subsequent to the period
which his history comprehends. Thus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus(146)
informs us that Cincius, Cato the Censor, Calpurnius Piso, and most of the
other historians who succeeded him, implicitly adopted Fabius’ story of
the birth and education of Romulus; and he adds many glaring instances of
the little discernment they showed in following him on points where, by a
little investigation, they might have discovered how egregiously he had
erred. Even Livy himself admits, that his own account of the second Punic
war was chiefly founded on the relations of Fabius Pictor(147).
This ancient and dubious annalist was succeeded by Scribonius Libo, and by
Calpurnius Piso. Libo served under Ser. Galba in Spain, and on his return
to Rome impeached his commander for some act of treachery towards the
natives of that province. Piso was Consul along with Mucius Scævola in
620, the year in which Tib. Gracchus was slain. Like Fabius, he wrote
Annals of Rome, from the beginning of the state, which Cicero pronounces
to be _exiliter scripti_(148): But although his style was jejune, he is
called a profound writer, _gravis auctor_, by Pliny(149); and Au. Gellius
says, that there is an agreeable simplicity in some parts of his work—the
brevity which displeased Cicero appearing to him _simplicissima suavitas
et rei et orationis_(150). He relates an anecdote of Romulus, who, being
abroad at supper, drank little wine, because he was to be occupied with
important affairs on the following day. One of the other guests remarked,
“that if all men did as he, wine would be cheap.”—“No,” replied Romulus,
“I have drunk as much as I liked, and wine would be dearer than it is now
if every one did the same.” This annalist first suggested Varro’s famous
derivation of the word Italy, which he deduced from _Vitulus_. He is also
frequently quoted by Plutarch and Dionysius of Halicarnassus(151). Niebuhr
thinks, that of all the Roman annalists he is chiefly responsible for
having introduced into history the fables of the ancient heroic
ballads(152).
About the same time with Piso, lived two historians, who were both called
Caius Fannius, and were nearly related to each other. One of them was
son-in-law of Lælius, and served under the younger Scipio at the final
reduction of Carthage. Of him Cicero speaks favourably, though his style
was somewhat harsh(153); but his chief praise is, that Sallust, in
mentioning the Latin historians, while he gives to Cato the palm for
conciseness, awards it to Fannius for accuracy in facts(154). Heeren also
mentions, that he was the authority chiefly followed by Plutarch in his
lives of the Gracchi(155).
Cœlius Antipater was contemporary with the Gracchi, and was the master of
Lucius Crassus, the celebrated orator, and other eminent men of the day.
We learn from Valerius Maximus, that he was the authority for the story of
the shade of Tiberius Gracchus having appeared to his brother Caius in a
dream, to warn him that he would suffer the same fate which he had himself
experienced(156); and the historian testifies that he had heard of this
vision from many persons during the lifetime of Caius Gracchus. The chief
subject of Antipater’s history, which was dedicated to Lælius, consisted
in the events that occurred during the second Punic war. Cicero says, that
he was for his age _Scriptor luculentus_(157); that he raised himself
considerably above his predecessors, and gave a more lofty tone to
history; but he seems to think that the utmost praise to which he was
entitled, is, that he excelled those who preceded him, for still he
possessed but little eloquence or learning, and his style was yet
unpolished. Valerius Maximus, however, calls him an authentic writer,
(_certus auctor_(158);) and the Emperor Hadrian thought him superior to
Sallust, consistently with that sort of black-letter taste which led him
to prefer Cato the Censor to Cicero, and Ennius to Virgil(159).
Sempronius Asellio served as military tribune under the younger Scipio
Africanus, in the war of Numantia(160), which began in 614, and ended in
621, with the destruction of that city. He wrote the history of the
campaigns in which he fought under Scipio, in Spain, in at least 40 books,
since the 40th is cited by Charisius. His work, however, was not written
for a considerable time after the events he recorded had happened: That he
wrote subsequently to Antipater, we have the authority of Cicero, who says
“that Cœlius Antipater was succeeded by Asellio, who did not imitate his
improvements, but relapsed into the dulness and unskilfulness of the
earliest historians(161).” This does not at all appear to have been
Asellio’s own opinion, as, from a passage extracted by Aulus Gellius from
the first book of his Annals, he seems to have considered himself as the
undisputed father of philosophic history(162).