But what is remarkable, the whole force of the empire, although exerted to the utmost under Severus, one of its most warlike princes, could not totally subdue the nation of the Caledonians, whose invincible ferocity in defence of freedom1 at last obliged that emperor, after granting them peace, to spend near two years in building, with incredible labour, a wall of solid stone, twelve feet high and eight feet thick, with forts and towers at proper distances, and a rampart and ditch, from the Solway frith to the mouth of the Tyne, above sixty-eight miles, to repress their inroads.2

3

The wall of Severus is called by some murus, and by others VALLUM. Spartianus says it was 80 miles long. Eutropius makes it only 32 miles.1 See also Victor, Epit. xx. 4. Orosius vii. 17. Herodian. iii. 48. Beda, Hist. i. 5. Cassiodorus, Chronicon. Camden, p. 607. edit. 1594. Gordon's Itinerary, c. 7—9. p. 65—93. Gough's translation of Camden, vol. iii. p. 211.

APPENDIX.

App. A, page 1.

THE origin commonly assigned to the city of Rome appears to rest on no better foundation than mere fabulous tradition. The uncertainty which prevailed on this subject, even in ancient times, is clearly evinced by the numerous and varying accounts of the origin of that city which are mentioned by Plutarch in the introduction to his life of Romulus. From that passage two conclusions are evidently to be deduced: first, that the true origin of Rome was to the ancients themselves a fertile theme of controversy; and, secondly, that from the very number of these varying statements, as well as their great discrepancy, the city of Rome must have been of very early origin; so early, in fact, as to have been almost lost amid the darkness of fable. But whence do we obtain the commonly received account? We derive it from Fabius Pictor, who copied it from an obscure Greek author, Diocles the Peparethian; and from this tainted source have flowed all the stories concerning Mars, the Vestal, the wolf, Romulus and Remus. Of Diocles we know nothing. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Fabius had no better authority for the great proportion of events which preceded his own age than vulgar tradition. 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 is the same Fabius, who, in the few unconnected fragments that remain of his Annals, tells us of a person who had a message brought him by a swallow, and of a party of loupgarous, 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 upon human flesh! So low, indeed, even among the Romans themselves, had the character of Fabius for historical fidelity fallen, that Polybius apologizes on one occasion for quoting Fabius as an authority. If Fabius be proved from his very narrative to have been a visionary, fabulous, and incorrect writer, his prototype Diocles must have been equally, if not more so.

We propose to offer an account of the origin of the imperial city, different, and, we hope, of a more satisfactory character;-one which will trace the foundation of Rome to a period long prior to the supposed era of Romulus ; and which, advancing still farther, will show that Roma was not the true or Latin name of the city.-Among the cities of the Pelasgi, in the land once possessed by the Siculi, that is, in Latium, mention is frequently made of one denominated Saturnia. This city, thus known by the name of Saturnia, is no other than Rome itself. Thus Pliny (3, 5,) observes, "Saturnia, where Rome now stands." So Aurelius Victor (3.), "Saturnia, built on one of the hills of Rome, was the residence of Saturn." But by whom was Saturnia built? Was it of Pelasgic origin, or founded by the ancient Siculi? The following authority will furnish a satisfactory answer. Dionysius (i. 73.) quotes an old historian, named Antiochus of Syracuse, whom he styles, at he same time, "no common or recent writer," to the following effect: "Antiochus of Syracuse says that when Morges reigned in Italy, there came to him from Rome an exile named Siculus." This passage is deserving of very close consideration. In the first place, as Morges, according to the same writer, succeeded Italus, and as the very name of this latter prince carries us back at once to the earliest periods of Italian history, we find the name Rome applied to a city, which must of consequence have been one of the oldest in the land. In the next place, it is evident that Antiochus relates a fact not based upon his own individual knowledge, but upon an old and established tradition; for Antiochus brought down his history of Sicilian affairs to the 98th olympiad, that is, to the 388th year before the Christian era, a

period when neither he himself nor any other Grecian writer knew aught of Rome, even by report, as a city actually in existence; since only two years previous (B. C. 390) it had been burned by the Gauls, and it was not until more than a century afterwards that the Romans became known to the Sicilian Greeks by the capture of Tarentum. It would seem, then, that Rome (Roma) was the most ancient name; that it was displaced for a time by Saturnia, and was afterwards resumed.

We shall now enter more fully into the consideration of our subject, and endeavour to find other additional grounds for the support of the opinion which we are advocating. To the same region of Italy where Saturn had erected on the Capitoline mountain the city of Saturnia, and opposite to whom Janus had also established his residence on the Janiculum, came, according to Dionysius (i. 31.), an individual named Evander, who was received in a friendly manner by the reigning monarch Faunus. Two ships were sufficient to carry him and his followers, and a mountain was assigned him as the place of his abode, where he built a small city, and called it Pallantium, from his native city, in Arcadia. This name became gradually corrupted into Pallatium, while the mountain took the appellation of Mons Palatinus. Thus far Dionysius. Now, that a mere stranger, with but a handful of followers, should be received in so friendly a manner by the Pelasgi and Aborigines, as to be allowed to settle in their immediate vicinity, and in a place, too, which was, in a later age, as Dionysius informs us, the very heart of Rome, is scarcely entitled to belief; still less is it to be credited that he wrested a settlement there by force. If, then, we are to retain this old tradition respecting Evander and his followers (and we have nothing whatever which can authorize the rejection of it), there are but two ways in which the whole can be explained. Either Evander was the leader of those very Pelasgi, who, uniting with the Aborigines, drove out the Siculi from Latium, and received for his portion the city of Rome, with its adjacent territory; or, he was a wandering Pelasgus, driven from Thessaly by the arms of the Hellenes, and after many unsuccessful attempts elsewhere, induced to come to Italy in quest of an abode. It becomes extremely diffi cult to decide between these two hypotheses, since they both receive consi derable support from ancient authorities. The Pelasgi had already, on their very first irruption into Latium, founded a city called Pallantium in the territory of Reate, whose ancient situation Dionysius of Halicarnassus endeavours to point out. The name Pallantium was subsequently transferred by these same Pelasgi to the city of Rome, after they had become masters of it by the expulsion of the Siculi. Varro speaks in very express terms on this subject (L. I. iv. 8.): "the inhabitants of the territory of Reate, named Palatini, settled on the Roman Palatium." A passage of Festus, moreover, (v. Sacrani) is fully to the point: "the Sacrani, natives of Reate (i. e. the territory), drove the Ligures and Siculi from Septimontio (i. e. Rome).” After reading this passage, there surely can be no doubt remaining in our minds as to the early existence of the city of Rome, as well as of its occupation by a band of Pelasgi and Aborigines. It is curious, moreover, to compare the name Sacrani, which evidently means sacred, or consecrated to some deity, with the acknowledged fact of the Pelasgi being a sacerdotal caste or order; as well as with the circumstance of there being a class of priests at Ardea called Sacrani, who worshipped Cybele, a goddess whose worship is most clearly traced from the East. On the supposition, then, that Evander was the leader of the Pelasgi, we are enabled to clear up the old tradition of his having introduced into Italy the use of letters, and the knowledge of various arts. The Greeks also were indebted to the Pelasgi for an acquaintance with written characters, and with many of the arts of civilized life. The second hypothesis, namely, that Evander was a wandering Pelasgus who had come to Italy in quest of an abode, and had been hospitably received by those of his nation who were already established there, receives in its turn an air of great probability, from the concurrent testimony of all the ancient writers as to his having come to Italy by sea, as well as from the circumstance so explicitly stated, that he arrived in two ships with his band of followers. If, now, we turn our attention for a moment to the fact, that after the Hellenes had driven the Pelasgi from Thessaly, a portion of the latter retired into Epirus, while another part sailed to the western coast of Asia Minor, where Homer speaks of them as the allies of the Trojans ; if, in addition to this, we call to mind that both divisions eventually settled

in Italy, and laid the foundation of the Etrurian confederacy; and if, finally, we take into consideration what Plutarch tells us in his life of Romulus, though he assigns no authority for it, that Romus, king of the Latins, drove out of the city the Tyrrheni, who had come from Thessaly to Lydia, and from Lydia to Italy, the balance preponderates considerably in favour of this second hypothesis. Perhaps, however, they may both be reconciled together by supposing that those of the Pelasgi who had come from the upper part of Italy, had changed the name of ancient Rome to that of Palatium, and that Evander came to, and was received among, them. It is most probable that Evander was one of the leaders of the Pelasgi from the coast of Asia, and bore a part in the founding of the Etrurian republic.

The question now arises as to the actual existence of Romulus. In order to answer this satisfactorily, we must go a little into detail. In the district of Latium, there were, exclusive of Rome, many cities of the Aborigines or Latins, who had settled in this part of the country together with the Pelasgi. Of these Alba Longa was the most powerful. Through internal dissensions, and from the operations of other causes, the Pelasgi had lost in most places out of Etruria their original ascendancy. A leader from Alba Longa, with a band of voluntary followers, conducted an enterprize against Rome, where the power of the Pelasgi was in like manner fast diminishing. The enterprize succeeded: the conqueror became king of the ancient city, and increased its inhabitants by the number of his followers. The Pelasgi remained, but they no longer enjoyed their former power. Whether two brothers or only a single individual conducted the enterprize, whether they were previously named Romulus and Remus (i. e. Romus), or, what is far more probable, whether they received these appellations from the conquered city, is a point on which we cannot decide.

From the theory thus established, many important inferences may be drawn, which will tend to throw light on certain obscure parts of early Roman history. 1. We cease to wonder at the successful resistance which Rome, apparently in her very infancy, offered to her powerful neighbours; for even at this early period the city must be regarded as of remote and ancient origin. 2. We understand very clearly why Tuscan troops formed one of the wings of the army of Romulus; for there is very strong probability that they were in reality the old Tyrrhenian or Pelasgic inhabitants, and that Coeles Vibenna, their leader, was in truth the lucumo, or ruler, of Rome at the time of its capture by Romulus. 3. We perceive also the meaning of the Etrurian writer Volumnius, quoted by Varro (L. L. iv. 9.), when he states that the three appellations for the early Roman tribes, Ramnes and Tatienses, as well as Luceres, are all Etrurian terms; the preponderating language in Rome at the time of its capture being Tyrrhenian or Etrurian. 4. We can comprehend the close union and intercourse which subsisted at a later period between the Romans and Etrurians, Rome being, in fact, an Etrurian city. 5. The account no longer appears exaggerated of Romulus having only 3000 foot and 300 horse when he founded Rome, and of there being 46,000 foot and 4000 horse at the period of his death: the former means the forces which accompanied him on his enterprise against the ancient city; the latter were the combined strength of his followers and the ancient inhabitants. 6. We see, too, what to many has appeared altogether inexplicable, how the Roman kings, during their continual wars, were yet able to cherish at home the taste for building, which never can exist among a rude and early community: how it was that, even at this remote period, the Cloaca, the Circus Maximus, the Capitol, and other public constructions were undertaken and accomplished. These stupendous structures, altogether beyond the resources of Rome, if she is to be considered as an infant state at the time of their execution, were, in fact, the work of the Etrurian part of the population of Rome. 7. We discover the reason of the most distinguished of the Roman youth being sent to the principal Etrurian cities for the purposes of education: it was done, in fact, from motives of state-policy, in order that, amid the tumult of almost incessant wars, they might still keep alive that spark of early knowledge and refinement which had distinguished Rome from the very outset, and which marks her not as the receptacle of a horde of banditti, but as an ancient and civilized city, falling by right of conquest into the hauds of a military chieftain. 8. We are enabled to discover many of the secret springs which impelled the complicated and apparently discordant machinery of the Roman government. The old inhabitants being much farther

advanced in civilization than their conquerors, would naturally, even after the fall of the city, be respected by the victors for their superior improvement, and the most distinguished of them would be called, from motives of policy, to some slight participation in the affairs of the government. Accordingly, we find that almost one of the first acts of Romulus was the institution of a senate, whose limited number freed him from any apprehension of their combining to overthrow his power; while their confirmation of his decrees, in case it should be needed, would have great weight with the old population of the city. The impolitic neglect which Romulus subsequently displayed towards this order, ended in his destruction. That such indeed was his fate, and that the senate were privy to the whole affair, admits of no doubt, when we call to mind the monstrous falsehood asserted by the senator Proculus Julius, for the purpose of freeing that body from the suspicion of having taken the life of the king.-After all that has been said, we hazard little, if any thing, in asserting that the early Roman nobility were the descendants of a sacred or sacerdotal caste. That the Pelasgi were such an order, has been frequently asserted, and we trust satisfactorily established. The Étrurians, the descendants of the Pelasgi, preserved this singular feature in the form of government which they had adopted. The Etrurian confederacy was composed, indeed, of twelve independent cities, yet the government was by no means in the hands of the people; it was the patrimony of an hereditary caste, who were at once invested with the military power, and charged with the sacerdotal functions. This strange form of government threw the whole power into the hands of the higher classes, who were, no doubt, the immediate descendants of the Pelasgi, and subjected to their control the whole mass of the lower orders, who very probably were sprung from the early Aborigines. Now, reasoning by analogy, we must allow this very same form of government to have prevailed in Etrurian Rome before its conquest by Romulus. This arrangement would throw into the hands of the upper classes the chief power, and give them the absolute control of religious affairs; and, on his capture of the city, Romulus would leave them in full possession of the latter as a matter almost of necessity, while from motives of policy he would allow them to retain a small portion of the former. Hence the origin of the Roman nobility. Many circumstances combine to strengthen what has just been advanced. The nobility had for a long time in Rome the sole custody of religious affairs, and from their order all the priests were for a long series of years constantly chosen, Every patrician gens, and each individual patrician family, had certain sacred rites peculiar to itself, which went by inheritance in the same manner as effects, and which the heir was bound to perform. In this way, too, is to be explained the relation of patron and client, which in the earlier days of the Roman government was observed with so much formality and rigour. It was an artful arrangement on the part of a sacerdotal order, and may be regarded as analogous to, and no doubt derived from, the institution of castes in India. Its object was to keep the lower orders in complete dependence upon the higher, and to effect this end the terrors of religion were powerfully annexed: it was deemed unlawful for patrons and clients to accuse or bear witness against each other; and whoever was found to have acted otherwise, might be slain with impunity as a victim devoted to Pluto and the infernal gods. A regular system of castes seems thus to have prevailed in Rome both before and a long period after its conquest by Romulus.

We come now to the true or Latin name of the Roman city. Macrobius (iii. 9.) informs us that the Romans, when they besieged a city, and thought themselves sure of taking it, used solemnly to call out the tutelary gods of the place, either because they thought that the place could not otherwise be taken, or because they regarded it as impious to hold the gods in captivity. "On this account," he adds, "the Romans themselves have willed that both the deity under whose protection Rome is, as well as the Latin name of the city, remain secret and undivulged. The name of the city is unknown even to the most learned." To the testimony of Macrobius may be added that of Pliny (iii. 5.), "Rome, whose other name it is forbidden by the secret ceremonies of religion to divulge." Now, in the sanctuary of Vesta was preserved the Palladium, "the fated pledge of Roman dominion," (fatale pignus imperii Romani, Liv. xxvi. 27.) May we not then suppose Pallas or Minerva to have been the true tutelary deity of Rome, and the real or Latin name of the city to have been Pallantium ?