BOOK I. Favour shown to the kings by the younger patrician houses. Treatment of the washed their horses. From this time the Romans were no more troubled by Tarquin and his house. And they made new laws and ordinances, that they might keep the freedom which they had gained and never again be under the power of kings. Critical examination of the Story of the attempts of The stories of the various attempts of the expelled. Tarquin to regain his lost dominion are not without some traces of a true and genuine tradition pointing to the circumstance that the revolution was by no means limited to a change of the constitution. The conspiracy among the nobles, in favour of Tarquin, appears not to have been formed by young men, as it is represented, but by the younger patrician houses. These younger houses, which are said to have been added to the old nobility by the first Tarquin,' appear to have been Etruscans, and to have settled in Rome at the time of the Etruscan conquest. Their union with the older population is the circumstance so often mentioned as an augmentation of the senate and of the knights, and ascribed to Romulus, to Tullus, and to the first Tarquinius. It cannot be doubted that such an increase of the noble houses by the addition of Etruscans took place, and it was these younger houses who took the side of Tarquinius, and were banished with him in great numbers. Thus Rome regained about this time its original nationality; it became again a Latin town. The Etruscan element, which had never penetrated the body of the people, was cast out again, leaving only those few traces behind which, at a later period, kept alive the memory of the Etruscan conquest. In the usual narrative the last Tarquinius is charged with senate by having humbled and degraded the senate, banished and murdered many senators, and with having reigned at last Tarquin. Cicero, De Rep., ii. 20, 35. Livy, i. 35. 2 See above, pp. 12, 38, 54. Patres minorum gentium' are not members of lesser' but of 'younger' houses. without consulting the senate at all. Hence, as it is said, it became necessary for Brutus to nominate a considerable number of new senators for the purpose of restoring the senate to its own functions in the commonwealth. This story cannot be accepted as it stands. It was neither possible nor desirable for a Roman king to reign without a senate. A tyrant like Tarquinius might fill the senate with his adherents, and might avail himself of them for his tyrannical purposes, but it would have been a mad and suicidal policy in him to weaken a body of men whom he could make useful instruments of his policy. If, therefore, the senate was not complete under Tarquinius, the cause of it must have been the absence from it of the representatives of the old Latin nobility. After the revolution, when most of the Etruscan noble families had emigrated, there were again numerous vacancies, which were filled by the nomination of national senators. CHAP. IX. with the The war with the Etruscan cities Tarquinii and Veii, The war which endeavoured to restore the expelled king by force Etruscan of arms, need not occupy us long. It is entirely fabulous, cities. as is apparent from the circumstance that the voice of a god proclaimed the Romans as conquerors. But the war would not have been introduced into the narrative, if the insurrection against the Tarquins had not been looked upon as a national struggle of the Latins with the Etruscans. CHAPTER X. THE WAR OF PORSENNA. BOOK I. Difficulties of the nar rative. Contradictory statements as to the results of the war. THE war of Porsenna belongs to those parts of the history of the Roman kings which were first successfully attacked by modern criticism as unauthentic.' The story betrays itself on the first glance as fictitious. The heroic deeds of Horatius Cocles, of Mucius Scævola, and of Cloelia, are indeed not miracles, but are of such a nature that, upon the evidence which we possess of them, we cannot receive them as historical. Moreover, the entire war, in its causes, its whole course, and in its conclusion, as it is commonly represented, appears mysterious and contradictory. Porsenna, the powerful King of the Etruscans, warmly espouses the cause of his expelled countryman and of the kingly power, makes war upon the Romans, but allows himself to be so terrified by the attempt of Mucius Scævola to murder him, that he makes peace, abandons the cause of Tarquinius, and shows himself to the Romans as a most magnanimous enemy. On the other hand, the report that the Romans had to give hostages to Porsenna, showing that they were conquered, implies a totally different result of the war. Moreover, two statements have been preserved by Pliny and Tacitus, from which we see that, not only was Rome conquered by the Etruscan king, but completely overthrown. So thoroughly were they at the mercy of the conqueror that they were obliged to give up their arms, and were 3 1 See Beaufort, Dissertation sur l'incertitude de l'histoire des cinq premiers siècles de l'histoire romaine, 237 ff. Utrecht, 1738. 2 Pliny, Hist. Nat., xxxiv. 39. 3 Tacitus, Hist., iii. 72. allowed the use of iron only for agricultural purposes.' We may rest assured that no Roman has invented this story, so injurious to national pride. We certainly cannot assume that the alleged treaty with Porsenna, which contained the hard conditions of subjection, was preserved in any authentic form; but we cannot help believing that the tradition existed of an Etruscan conquest in Rome, and that in the account of the victory of Porsenna we have one of the numerous versions of the dominion of Mezentius over Latium. CHAP. X. If this be the case, it is clear that the war of Porsenna Absurdities in the had originally no fixed date in the Roman chronicles, and narrative. was introduced arbitrarily and unskilfully into the history of the Tarquins. It is in no way connected with the preceding or with the subsequent attempts of the Tarquins to regain their power. Porsenna appears as a foolish adventurer. From pure magnanimous sympathy with a countryman he undertakes a war, is victorious in it, yet makes no use of his victory, either for himself or for the expelled king. On the other hand, conquered and humbled Rome is able at once to carry on a great war with the Latin confederacy. More than that; Porsenna's son Aruns marches with the Etruscan army from Rome against the Latins, who appear soon afterwards as allies of Tarquinius in his new attempt against the Romans, and he is beaten by them and the Greeks from Cumæ, under Aristodemus, at Aricia. If we suppose that the story of an Etruscan conquest, as it is represented in the legends of Mezentius and Porsenna, rests on a real tradition, and points to actual events, then the question arises to what age does it belong? Certainly 1 Dionysius (v. 35) relates that the Romans sent to Porsenna the insignia of royalty sceptre, diadem, ivory chair, and purple cloak-which implies that they recognised him as their sovereign. 2 From Pliny's words it would appear that he believed or pretended that he had seen an authentic copy of the treaty of Porsenna. He says, 'In fædere, quod expulsis regibus populo Romano dedit Porsenna, nominatim comprehensum invenimus, ne ferro nisi in agricultura uterentur.' Here is an example which shows what an air of accurate knowledge Roman writers adopt with regard to prehistoric events. Time of the war of Porsenna. BOOK not to the first period of the republic, with the events of which it can in no way be reconciled. It seems much rather to belong to the period which we can designate as that of the Etruscan dominion, and which preceded the beginning of the republic. If thereby Porsenna is removed to a still darker and more fabulous age, it can hardly be considered an injustice to him; for he appears in various particulars as an entirely mythical personage. It may be a mere accident that the current story places Porsenna in the first years of the republic, and that no contradictory statement has been preserved. But, in like manner, it is related that the Claudian family was received at this time into the Roman state; and by a mere chance we learn from Suetonius2 that, according to another opinion, their reception took place in the time of Titus Tatius; that is to say, at the commencement of Roman history, almost two centuries and a half earlier. Whatever we may think of the possible events to which the story of Porsenna refers, thus much is certain, that the common narrative throws no historical light on the first years of the republic, but is entirely incomprehensible and incredible.3 1 The tomb of Porsenna is a building not less befitting a mythical age than the palace of Alcinous in the Odyssey (see Pliny, Hist. Nat., xxxvi. 19). Porsenna is also able to conjure lightning (Pliny, Hist. Nat., ii. 54). 2 Suetonius, Tiber. 1. 3 Compare the comments on the war with Porsenna in Sir G. C. Lewis' Credibility of Roman History, ii. 36–44. |