Theophrastus, in his History of Plants, states that the trees of the fir species in Latium were extremely fine, but, though superior to those of Southern Italy, were not comparable with those of Corsica. He then adds, that, at some former time, the Romans being desirous of founding a city in Corsica, sailed thither with twenty-five ships; but they found the island so thickly covered with wood, that they abandoned their intention. He likewise mentions that some Romans who crossed over cut so large a quantity of timber in a small space, that they made of it a raft which required fifty sails: the raft however came to pieces in the sea. (237) This passage is remarkable as containing the earliest mention of the Romans, which occurs in any extant classical work. It is conjectured by Niebuhr that the expedition to which Theophrastus refers was made near the end of the Second Samnite War, about 302 B.C.(238) Theophrastus however seems to refer to some previous time; no mention of such a colony occurs in any Roman writer.(239) Compare Becker, vol. i. p. 651: Niebuhr, vol. iii. p. 408-9; Lect. vol. i. p. 406; Arnold, vol. ii. p. 395. Niebuhr and Dr. Arnold agree in thinking that the Roman ambassadors really brought a tame snake to Rome. Tame snakes were kept in the temple of Esculapius at Epidaurus; Paus. ii. 28, § 1. Compare above, vol. i. p. 64. (237) Hist. Plant. v. 8, where ovdèv elvai πpòs tà èv tỹ Kúpv should be read with the best MSS. See vol. v. p. 44, ed. Schneider. (238) Hist. vol. iii. p. 241. (239) Theophrastus, Caus. Plant. i. 19, refers to the archonship of Nicodorus (314 B.C.), and de Lapid. § 59, to the archonship of Praxibulus (315 B.C.). These dates are cited by Pliny, H. N. iii. 9, xiii. 30, xxxiii. 37, who makes the year of Nicodorus correspond with 440 U.c., and the year of Praxibulus correspond with 439 U.c. Pliny says that Theophrastus wrote 390 years before his time. As Pliny died in the year 79, he appears to reckon 314 +76390. Niebuhr, Hist. vol. i. n. 39, remarks of the History of Plants, that Pliny places the composition of the whole work about the year 440 U.c.' The mention of Nicodorus, to which Pliny refers, occurs not in this work, but in the work on the Causes of Plants; see Schneider, vol. iv. p. 585. Theophrastus, however, mentions the Athenian archon Simonides, 311 B.C., in his History of Plants, vi. 3, and the expedition of Ophellas against Carthage, of 308 B.C., in the same work; iv. 2. Concerning the dates mentioned in the writings of Theophrastus, see Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. p. 366, n. 9. 488 CHAPTER XIV. GENERAL RESULTS OF THE PRECEDING INQUIRY. CORRESPONDING COMPARISON WITH THE PERIOD OF GREEK HISTORY. THE HE entire ground of inquiry traced out in the introductory chapter, with respect both to the external attestation and the internal character of the early Roman history, has now been travelled over.(1) We have found that the extant narrative of Roman affairs, for the first four hundred and seventy-two years of the city, was not originally framed by contemporary historians; but was derived, by writers posterior to the events related, though prior to the extant historians, partly from oral traditions, and partly from written documentary sources, the nature of which is imperfectly reported. We have also seen that the historical narrative for the last two centuries of the Republic, rests on a wholly different basis, and was derived by the authors, in whose works we read it, from the writings of well-informed contemporary historians. We have further ascertained, by a detailed examination of the early historical narrative, in six successive periods, (2) that its internal character and texture exhibit on the whole such an appearance as its defective external attestation would lead one to expect. The results at which we have arrived, with respect to the external attestation, corroborated by the internal evidence of the narrative, are on the whole unfavourable to the credibility of the Roman history down to the war with Pyrrhus, and are to a great extent inconsistent with it. In estimating the weight of the various circumstances which have been successively pointed out, in the course of the pre (1) See above, vol. i. p. 15-18. ceding investigation, much will depend upon the general principles respecting traditionary historical evidence, which the reader may be disposed to adopt. The discussion may therefore seem incomplete, unless some attempt is made to reconcile the discordant opinions on this important subject. § 2 All persons, to whatever school of historical criticism they may belong-from the extreme of the most incredulous rigour, to that of the most credulous laxity-agree in holding that a narrative, in order to be historical, must proceed ultimately from actual witnesses; from persons who had personal cognizance of the facts. Every historical event must have fallen under the observation of some living persons, and if they had not imparted to others the results of their observation, its occurrence never could have been known. When therefore a narrative is presented to us from a time for which there were no national contemporary historians, as of the legislation of Solon, or of the siege of Veii, all agree in requiring that it should be ultimately traceable to some contemporary testimony, if it is to be received as historical. This contemporary testimony may be embodied in an ancient poem, or in some ancient inscription or record, or in a family register; or it may have been preserved by a faithful oral tradition reduced into writing by a subsequent generation. But all concur in demanding, as a preliminary condition to belief, that the memory of the events should have been preserved from the accounts of actual witnesses. It is indeed obvious that without some assumed personal attestation, as the highest link in the chain of evidence, an alleged historical narrative would stand on the level of any tale of fiction. What is it, for example, that constitutes the difference between a fiction which observes all the canons of probability (such as one of Defoe's or Miss Austen's novels), (3) and a true narrative? It is that in the (3) Walter Scott, in his Life of Defoe, Prose works, vol. iv. p. 262, furnishes an excellent explanation of the unequalled dexterity with which Defoe has given an appearance of reality to the incidents which he narrates.' former the events described are purely subjective; that they owed their origin exclusively to the mind of the novelist: whereas the events in the latter are real objective occurrences, which were perceived and observed by the persons present when they took place, and through their report became known and believed. The main difference, therefore, which subsists between the divergent schools of historical criticism, in reference to a narrative of this class, is as to the extent to which contemporary attestation may be presumed without direct and positive proof.(*) Those who incline to admit the historical character of events long anterior to contemporary history, either assume the existence of ancient records, inscriptions, poems, and family memoirs, which are not expressly mentioned, but are understood to have formed the basis of the extant account, or they suppose that the memory of the events was handed down from the original witnesses, who had personal knowledge of the facts, through certain intermediate links, to the writers who first rescued them from the unfixed state of oral repetition; or, they combine both these hypotheses. But whatever may be the hypothesis, or combination of hypotheses, which they may adopt, they must assume that the events of which they assert the historical character were (4) Mr. Grote, arguing against Mr. Clinton's treatment of the early period of Greek history, makes the following remark: The word tradition is an equivocal word, and begs the whole question; for while in its obvious and literal meaning it implies only something handed down, whether truth or fiction, it is tacitly understood to imply a tale descriptive of some real matter of fact, taking its rise at the time when that fact happened, and originally accurate, but corrupted by subsequent oral transmission;' Hist. of Gr. vol. ii. p. 68. This tacit understanding' is the keystone of the whole argument; in order to invest a popular story respecting former times with the historical character, it must be assumed to have been faithfully handed down to the present generation, through successive stages, from the original eye-witnesses of the fact. On the other hand, Col. Mure, speaking of events prior to the age of contemporary historians, remarks:It is obvious that in every such case, where, at the best, no positive historical proof is attainable, the balance of historical probability must reduce itself very much to a reasonable indulgence to the weight of national conviction, and a deference to the testimony of the earliest and most critical native authorities; Hist. of the Lit. of Gr. vol. iii. p. 503. The reasonable indulgence,' of which Colonel Mure here speaks, necessarily implies that the national conviction' is ultimately traceable to the testimony of actual witnesses. not mere ideas, but were real occurrences, the objects of external observation, which were known by the actors concerned, and perceived by the senses of the persons present on each occasion. This view is equally entertained by those who hold with the greatest strictness the canon of contemporary written evidence, and those who give the widest latitude to the dominion of authentic oral tradition. Both assume the same mode of proving the occurrence of a historical fact; but the former refuse to infer the existence of the proof from the existence of an oral tradition; the latter consider that inference legitimate. The former deny that the existence of a popular belief with respect to the past, derived from oral reports, raises a presumption that the events narrated were, at the time of their supposed occurrence, observed by credible witnesses, and by them handed down to posterity. The latter, on the other hand, hold that the existence of such a popular belief (combined perhaps with some accessary circumstances) authorizes the conclusion that the current story was derived from credible contemporary witnesses, and has descended from them in a substantially unfalsified state. For example, those who maintain that the account which has reached us, of the Doric invasion of Peloponnesus, and the return of the Heraclidæ, is historical, must assume that the prevalent belief in the reality of this event, which Herodotus and Thucydides found in existence, must have had a legitimate origin, and have been derived, through a long series of reporters, from the persons who had taken part in the expedition, or had witnessed its effects; who had seen the ships which had carried the invaders, and had witnessed the landing and march of the Doric bands. They may further assume that this belief was confirmed by the allusions of early poets, whose verses are no longer extant, and by the preservation of the names of the kings or chieftains of the invaders, in authentic contemporary registers, which were accessible to the historians of the fifth century, B.C. In like manner, a person who receives as historical the account of the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus and the abolition of the royal government of Rome, as related by |