dependence on the Sabine conqueror whom tradition calls Titus Tatius;
hence he was slain during the Laurentine sacrifice, and hence also his
memory was hateful. The existence of a Sabine town on the Quirinal is
attested by the undoubted occurrence there of a number of Sabine
chapels, which were known as late as the time of Varro, and from which
he proved that the Sabine ritual was adopted by the Romans. This Sabine
element in the worship of the Romans has almost always been overlooked,
in consequence of the prevailing desire to look upon everything as
Etruscan; but, I repeat, there is no doubt of the Sabine settlement, and
that it was the result of a great commotion among the tribes of middle
Italy.
The tradition that the Sabine women were carried off because there
existed no _connubium_, and that the rape was followed by a war, is
undoubtedly a symbolical representation of the relation between the two
towns, previous to the establishment of the right of intermarriage; the
Sabines had the ascendancy and refused that right, but the Romans gained
it by force of arms. There can be no doubt that the Sabines were
originally the ruling people, but that in some insurrection of the
Romans various Sabine places, such as Antemnæ, Fidenæ, and others, were
subdued, and thus these Sabines were separated from their kinsmen. The
Romans, therefore, reëstablished their independence by a war, the result
of which may have been such as we read it in the tradition--Romulus
being, of course, set aside--namely, that both places as two closely
united towns formed a kind of confederacy, each with a senate of one
hundred members, a king, an offensive and defensive alliance, and on the
understanding that in common deliberations the burghers of each should
meet together in the space between the two towns which was afterward
called the _comitium_. In this manner they formed a united state in
regard to foreign nations.
The idea of a double state was not unknown to the ancient writers
themselves, although the indications of it are preserved only in
scattered passages, especially in the scholiasts. The head of Janus,
which in the earliest times was represented on the Roman _as_, is the
symbol of it, as has been correctly observed by writers on Roman
antiquities. The vacant throne by the side of the _curule_ chair of
Romulus points to the time when there was only one king, and represents
the equal but quiescent right of the other people.
That concord was not of long duration is an historical fact likewise;
nor can it be doubted that the Roman king assumed the supremacy over the
Sabines, and that in consequence the two councils were united so as to
form one senate under one king, it being agreed that the king should be
alternately a Roman and a Sabine, and that each time he should be chosen
by the other people: the king, however, if displeasing to the
non-electing people, was not to be forced upon them, but was to be
invested with the _imperium_ only on condition of the auguries being
favorable to him, and of his being sanctioned by the whole nation. The
non-electing tribe accordingly had the right of either sanctioning or
rejecting his election. In the case of Numa this is related as a fact,
but it is only a disguisement of the right derived from the ritual
books. In this manner the strange double election, which is otherwise so
mysterious and was formerly completely misunderstood, becomes quite
intelligible. One portion of the nation elected and the other
sanctioned; it being intended that, for example, the Romans should not
elect from among the Sabines a king devoted exclusively to their own
interests, but one who was at the same time acceptable to the Sabines.
When, perhaps after several generations of a separate existence, the two
states became united, the towns ceased to be towns, and the collective
body of the burghers of each became tribes, so that the nation consisted
of two tribes. The form of addressing the Roman people was from the
earliest times _Populus Romanus Quirites_, which, when its origin was
forgotten, was changed into _Populus Romanus Quiritium_, just as _lis
vindiciæ_ was afterward changed into _lis vindiciaruum_. This change is
more ancient than Livy; the correct expression still continued to be
used, but was to a great extent supplanted by the false one. The ancient
tradition relates that after the union of the two tribes the name
_Quirites_ was adopted as the common designation for the whole people;
but this is erroneous, for the name was not used in this sense till a
very late period. This designation remained in use and was transferred
to the plebeians at a time when the distinction between Romans and
Sabines, between these two and the Luceres, nay, when even that between
patricians and plebeians had almost ceased to be noticed. Thus the two
towns stood side by side as tribes forming one state, and it is merely a
recognition of the ancient tradition when we call the Latins _Ramnes_,
and the Sabines _Tities_; that the derivation of these appellations from
Romulus and T. Tatius is incorrect is no argument against the view here
taken.
Dionysius, who had good materials and made use of a great many, must, as
far as the consular period is concerned, have had more than he gives;
there is in particular one important change in the constitution,
concerning which he has only a few words, either because he did not see
clearly or because he was careless. But as regards the kingly period, he
was well acquainted with his subject; he says that there was a dispute
between the two tribes respecting the senates, and that Numa settled it
by not depriving the Ramnes, as the first tribe, of anything, and by
conferring honors on the Tities. This is perfectly clear. The senate,
which had at first consisted of one hundred and now two hundred members,
was divided into ten _decuries_, each being headed by one, who was its
leader; these are the _decem primi_, and they were taken from the
Ramnes. They formed the college, which, when there was no king,
undertook the government, one after another, each for five days, but in
such a manner that they always succeeded one another in the same order,
as we must believe with Livy, for Dionysius here introduces his Greek
notions of the Attic _prytanes_, and Plutarch misunderstands the matter
altogether.
After the example of the senate the number of the augurs and pontiffs
also was doubled, so that each college consisted of four members, two
being taken from the Ramnes and two from the Tities. Although it is not
possible to fix these changes chronologically, as Dionysius and Cicero
do, yet they are as historically certain as if we actually knew the
kings who introduced them.
Such was Rome in the second stage of its development. This period of
equalization is one of peace, and is described as the reign of Numa,
about whom the traditions are simple and brief. It is the picture of a
peaceful condition with a holy man at the head of affairs, like Nicolas
von der Flue in Switzerland. Numa was supposed to have been inspired by
the goddess.
Egeria, to whom he was married in the grove of the Camenæ, and who
introduced him into the choir of her sisters; she melted away in tears
at his death, and thus gave her name to the spring which arose out of
her tears. Such a peace of forty years, during which no nation rose
against Rome, because Numa's piety was communicated to the surrounding
nations, is a beautiful idea, but historically impossible in those
times, and manifestly a poetical fiction.
The death of Numa forms the conclusion of the first _sæculum_, and an
entirely new period follows, just as in the Theogony of Hesiod the age
of heroes is followed by the iron age; there is evidently a change, and
an entirely new order of things is conceived to have arisen. Up to this
point we have had nothing except poetry, but with Tullus Hostilius a
kind of history begins, that is, events are related which must be taken
in general as historical, though in the light in which they are
presented to us they are not historical. Thus, for example, the
destruction of Alba is historical, and so in all probability is the
reception of the Albans at Rome. The conquests of Ancus Martius are
quite credible; and they appear like an oasis of real history in the
midst of fables. A similar case occurs once in the chronicle of Cologne.
In the Abyssinian annals, we find in the thirteenth century a very
minute account of one particular event, in which we recognize a piece of
contemporaneous history, though we meet with nothing historical either
before or after.
The history which then follows is like a picture viewed from the wrong
side, like phantasmata; the names of the kings are perfectly fictitious;
no man can tell how long the Roman kings reigned, as we do not know how
many there were, since it is only for the sake of the number that seven
were supposed to have ruled, seven being a number which appears in many
relations, especially in important astronomical ones. Hence the
chronological statements are utterly worthless. We must conceive as a
succession of centuries the period from the origin of Rome down to the
times wherein were constructed the enormous works, such as the great
drains, the wall of Servius, and others, which were actually executed
under the kings and rival the great architectural works of the
Egyptians. Romulus and Numa must be entirely set aside; but a long
period follows, in which the nations gradually unite and develop
themselves until the kingly government disappears and makes way for
republican institutions.
But it is nevertheless necessary to relate the history, such as it has
been handed down, because much depends upon it. There was not the
slightest connection between Rome and Alba, nor is it even mentioned by
the historians, though they suppose that Rome received its first
inhabitants from Alba; but in the reign of Tullus Hostilius the two
cities on a sudden appear as enemies: each of the two nations seeks war,
and tries to allure fortune by representing itself as the injured party,
each wishing to declare war. Both sent ambassadors to demand reparation
for robberies which had been committed. The form of procedure was this:
the ambassadors, that is the Fetiales, related the grievances of their
city to every person they met, they then proclaimed them in the
market-place of the other city, and if, after the expiration of thrice
ten days no reparation was made, they said, "We have done enough and now
return," whereupon the elders at home held counsel as to how they should
obtain redress. In this formula accordingly the _res_, that is, the
surrender of the guilty and the restoration of the stolen property, must
have been demanded. Now it is related that the two nations sent such
ambassadors quite simultaneously, but that Tullus Hostilius retained the
Alban ambassadors, until he was certain that the Romans at Alba had not
obtained the justice due to them, and had therefore declared war. After
this he admitted the ambassadors into the senate, and the reply made to
their complaint was, that they themselves had not satisfied the demands
of the Romans. Livy then continues: _bellum in trigesimum diem
dixerant_. But the real formula is, _post trigesimum diem_, and we may
ask, Why did Livy or the annalist whom he followed make this alteration?
For an obvious reason: a person may ride from Rome to Alba in a couple
of hours, so that the detention of the Alban ambassadors at Rome for
thirty days, without their hearing what was going on in the mean time at
Alba, was a matter of impossibility. Livy saw this, and therefore
altered the formula. But the ancient poet was not concerned about such
things, and without hesitation increased the distance in his
imagination, and represented Rome and Alba as great states.
The whole description of the circumstances under which the fate of Alba
was decided is just as manifestly poetical, but we shall dwell upon it
for a while in order to show how a semblance of history may arise.
Between Rome and Alba there was a ditch, _Fossa Cluilia_ or _Cloelia_,
and there must have been a tradition that the Albans had been encamped
there; Livy and Dionysius mention that Cluilius, a general of the
Albans, had given the ditch its name, having perished there. It was
necessary to mention the latter circumstance, in order to explain the
fact that afterward their general was a different person, Mettius
Fuffetius, and yet to be able to connect the name of that ditch with the
Albans. The two states committed the decision of their dispute to
champions, and Dionysius says that tradition did not agree as to whether
the name of the Roman champions was Horatii or Curiatii, although he
himself, as well as Livy, assumes that it was Horatii, probably because
it was thus stated by the majority of the annalists. Who would suspect
any uncertainty here if it were not for this passage of Dionysius? The
contest of the three brothers on each side is a symbolical indication
that each of the two states was then divided into three tribes. Attempts
have indeed been made to deny that the three men were brothers of the
same birth, and thus to remove the improbability; but the legend went
even further, representing the three brothers on each side as the sons
of two sisters, and as born on the same day. This contains the
suggestion of a perfect equality between Rome and Alba. The contest
ended in the complete submission of Alba; it did not remain faithful,
however, and in the ensuing struggle with the Etruscans, Mettius
Fuffetius acted the part of a traitor toward Rome, but not being able to
carry his design into effect, he afterward fell upon the fugitive
Etruscans. Tullus ordered him to be torn to pieces and Alba to be razed
to the ground, the noblest Alban families being transplanted to Rome.
The death of Tullus is no less poetical. Like Numa he undertook to call
down lightning from heaven, but he thereby destroyed himself and his
house.
If we endeavor to discover the historical substance of these legends,
we at once find ourselves in a period when Rome no longer stood alone,
but had colonies with Roman settlers, possessing a third of the
territory and exercising sovereign power over the original inhabitants.
This was the case in a small number of towns, for the most part of
ancient Siculian origin. It is an undoubted fact that Alba was
destroyed, and that after this event the towns of the _Prisci Latini_
formed an independent and compact confederacy; but whether Alba fell in
the manner described, whether it was ever compelled to recognize the
supremacy of Rome, and whether it was destroyed by the Romans and Latins
conjointly, or by the Romans or Latins alone, are questions which no
human ingenuity can solve. It is, however, most probable that the
destruction of Alba was the work of the Latins, who rose against her
supremacy; whether in this case the Romans received the Albans among
themselves, and thus became their benefactors instead of destroyers,
must ever remain a matter of uncertainty. That Alban families were
transplanted to Rome cannot be doubted, any more than that the _Prisci
Latini_ from that time constituted a compact state; if we consider that
Alba was situated in the midst of the Latin districts, that the Alban
mount was their common sanctuary, and that the grove of Ferentina was
the place of assembly for all the Latins, it must appear more probable
that Rome did not destroy Alba, but that it perished in an insurrection
of the Latin towns, and that the Romans strengthened themselves by
receiving the Albans into their city.
Whether the Albans were the first that settled on the Cælian hill, or
whether it was previously occupied, cannot be decided. The account which
places the foundation of the town on the Cælius in the reign of Romulus
suggests that a town existed there before the reception of the Albans;
but what is the authenticity of this account? A third tradition
represents it as an Etruscan settlement of Cæles Vibenna. This much is
certain, that the destruction of Alba greatly contributed to increase
the power of Rome. There can be no doubt that a third town, which seems
to have been very populous, now existed on the Cælius and on a portion
of the Esquiliæ: such a settlement close to other towns was made for the
sake of mutual protection. Between the two more ancient towns there
continued to be a marsh or swamp, and Rome was protected on the south
by stagnant water; but between Rome and the third town there was a dry
plain. Rome also had a considerable suburb toward the Aventine,
protected by a wall and a ditch, as is implied in the story of Remus. He
is a personification of the _plebs_, leaping across the ditch from the
side of the Aventine, though we ought to be very cautious in regard to
allegory.
The most ancient town on the Palatine was Rome; the Sabine town also
must have had a name, and I have no doubt that, according to common
analogy, it was Quirium, the name of its citizens being Quirites. This I
look upon as certain. I have almost as little doubt that the town on the
Cælian was called Lucerum, because when it was united with Rome, its
citizens were called, _Lucertes_ (_Luceres_). The ancients derive this
name from Lucumo, king of the Tuscans, or from Lucerus, king of Ardea;
the latter derivation probably meaning that the race was Tyrrheno-Latin,
because Ardea was the capital of that race. Rome was thus enlarged by a
third element, which, however, did not stand on a footing of equality
with the two others, but was in a state of dependence similar to that of
Ireland relatively to Great Britain down to the year 1782. But although
the Luceres were obliged to recognize the supremacy of the two older
tribes, they were considered as an integral part of the whole state,
that is, as a third tribe with an administration of its own, but
inferior rights. What throws light upon our way here is a passage of
Festus, who is a great authority on matters of Roman antiquity, because
he made his excerpts from Verrius Flaccus; it is only in a few points
that, in my opinion, either of them was mistaken; all the rest of the
mistakes in Festus may be accounted for by the imperfection of the
abridgment, Festus not always understanding Verrius Flaccus. The
statement of Festus to which I here allude is that Tarquinius Superbus
increased the number of the Vestals in order that each tribe might have
two. With this we must connect a passage from the tenth book of Livy,
where he says that the augurs were to represent the three tribes. The
numbers in the Roman colleges of priests were always multiples either of
two or of three; the latter was the case with the Vestal Virgins and the
great Flamines, and the former with the Augurs, Pontiffs, and Fetiales,
who represented only the first two tribes. Previously to the passing of
the Ogulnian law the number of augurs was four, and when subsequently
five plebeians were added, the basis of this increase was different, it
is true, but the ancient rule of the number being a multiple of three
was preserved. The number of pontiffs, which was then four, was
increased only by four: this might seem to contradict what has just been
stated, but it has been overlooked that Cicero speaks of _five_ new ones
having been added, for he included the Pontifex Maximus, which Livy does
not. In like manner there were twenty Fetiales, ten for each tribe. To
the Salii on the Palatine Numa added another brotherhood on the
Quirinal; thus we everywhere see a manifest distinction between the
first two tribes and the third, the latter being treated as inferior.
The third tribe, then, consisted of free citizens, but they had not the
same rights as the members of the first two; yet its members considered
themselves superior to all other people; and their relation to the other
two tribes was the same as that existing between the Venetian citizens
of the mainland and the _nobili_. A Venetian nobleman treated those
citizens with far more condescension than he displayed toward others,
provided they did not presume to exercise any authority in political
matters. Whoever belonged to the Luceres called himself a Roman, and if
the very dictator of Tusculum had come to Rome, a man of the third tribe
there would have looked upon him as an inferior person, though he
himself had no influence whatever.
Tullus was succeeded by Ancus. Tullus appears as one of the Ramnes, and
as descended from Hostus Hostilius, one of the companions of Romulus;
but Ancus was a Sabine, a grandson of Numa. The accounts about him are
to some extent historical, and there is no trace of poetry in them. In
his reign, the development of the state again made a step in advance.
According to the ancient tradition, Rome was at war with the Latin
towns, and carried it on successfully. How many of the particular events
which are recorded may be historical I am unable to say; but that there
was a war is credible enough. Ancus, it is said, carried away after this
war many thousands of Latins, and gave them settlements on the Aventine.
The ancients express various opinions about him; sometimes he is
described as a _captator auræ popularis_; sometimes he is called _bonus
Ancus_. Like the first three kings, he is said to have been a
legislator, a fact which is not mentioned in reference to the later
kings. He is moreover stated to have established the colony of Ostia,
and thus his kingdom must have extended as far as the mouth of the
Tiber.
Ancus and Tullus seem to me to be historical personages; but we can
scarcely suppose that the latter was succeeded by the former, and that
the events assigned to their reigns actually occurred in them. These
events must be conceived in the following manner: Toward the end of the
fourth reign, when, after a feud which lasted many years, the Romans
came to an understanding with the Latins about the renewal of the
long-neglected alliance, Rome gave up its claims to the supremacy which
it could not maintain, and indemnified itself by extending its dominion
in another and safer direction. The eastern colonies joined the Latin
towns which still existed: this is evident, though it is nowhere
expressly mentioned; and a portion of the Latin country was ceded to
Rome, with which the rest of the Latins formed a connection of
friendship, perhaps of isopolity. Rome here acted as wisely as England
did when she recognized the independence of North America.