invasion of Alexander of Epirus, (190) however, and still more that of Pyrrhus, place us at once in the midst of the full light of Greek contemporary history. Instead of the shadowy and theatrical forms which have hitherto moved on the stage, the Roman consuls here appear invested with the same reality as the successors of Alexander. (19) A similar remark applies to the period of the first Punic war, as narrated by Polybius; his birth falls, indeed, nearly forty years after the termination of the war, but his account must have been derived from contemporary materials. (192)

Whenever any event is related in histories written after the time, and not avowedly founded on contemporary testimony, the proper mode of testing its historical credibility is to inquire whether it can be traced up to a contemporary source. If this cannot be done, we should be able to raise a presumption that those who transmitted it to us in writing received it, directly or through a trustworthy tradition, from contemporary testimony. If neither of these conditions can be fulfilled, the event must be considered as incurably uncertain, and beyond the reach of our actual knowledge.

In examining the evidence for events which have come down to us by the reports of non-contemporary historians, our first object is to inquire how far the fact is likely to have been remembered by the persons from whom these historians derived their information. Thus, the expulsion of the Pisistratidæ from Athens,

(190) See Livy, viii. 3, 24.

(191) Pyrrhus wrote memoirs of his own life, which are cited by Dionysius, xix. 11, and Plutarch, see Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. p. 461. Pausanias (i. 11, § 7) remarks that he was the first Greek who fought with the Romans. Hieronymus, the historian of the successors of Alexander, a contemporary writer, also described his war with the Romans.-Fragm. Hist. Gr. ib. p. 450-60. Timæus likewise wrote at the same time a separate work on the wars of Pyrrhus, in which that against the Romans was included.—Ib. vol. i. p. 231; and Dion. Hal. i. 6.

The speech of Appius the Blind, made on the occasion of the message of Pyrrhus to the Roman senate, was extant in the time of Cicero.— Brut. c. 14, 16; De Sen. c. 6. The embassy of Ptolemy Philadelphus to Rome, in the year after Pyrrhus had left Italy (273 B.C.), is another point of contact, at this period, between Greek and Roman history.

(192) See Arnold's Hist. of Rome, vol. ii. p. 562; and Clinton, ad ann. 129.

and the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome, were two events nearly coëval; the former was in 510, the latter in 509 B.C. Now Greece had historians as early as that time; and if these writers did not relate contemporary events, historians immediately subsequent, who had still access to authentic oral traditions, preserved its memory with accuracy. Rome, however, had no chronicler whose date at all approaches that of the expulsion of the kings: the contemporary testimony is irreparably gone, or is undistinguishable as such; and therefore all accurate knowledge as to the details of that event is now unattainable. Thucydides informs us that Hippias, not Hipparchus, was the eldest son of Pisistratus, and succeeded him as despot, although the common belief of the Athenians reversed the two brothers. (193) There is

:

a similar discrepancy in the accounts respecting the sons of Tarquin some represent Sextus Tarquinius as the youngest; others as the eldest, of the three sons. Again, some describe Sextus, others Aruns, as the ravisher of Lucretia. (19) Now, with respect to the sons of Pisistratus, we may be assured that the version of Thucydides, on account of his propinquity to the events, and his habits of accurate and painstaking research, is to be preferred to the popular tradition: but with respect to the sons of Tarquin, we have no such guide. None of the accounts comes to us recommended by any decisive authority; we have no reason for preferring any one, and are even ignorant whether they may not all be false.

Newton, in his work on chronology, has laid it down, that

(193) vi. 54-5.

(194) According to Livy, i. 53, and Ovid, Fast. ii. 691, Sextus Tarquinius was the youngest of three sons. According to Dion. Hal. iv. 64, he was the eldest son. Cic. (De Rep. ii. 25) says that the eldest son of Tarquin was the ravisher of Lucretia, but without specifying the name. The common story makes Sextus the ravisher; but Florus (i. 10) and Servius (ad En. viii. 646) name Aruns. Compare Bayle Dict. Lucrèce,' note B. Tradition likewise varied with respect to the day of the year on which the Tarquins were expelled. Three several days in the Roman calendar were assigned for the regifugium, viz. the 24th of February, the 24th of March, and the 24th of May.-See Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 470. Müller says that the account of the overthrow of the Tarquinian rule is nothing but a collection of fables.—Etrusker, vol. i. p. 387. See above, n. 185.

'before the use of letters, the names and actions of men could scarce be remembered above eighty or one hundred years after their deaths.'(195) It is indeed certain that, in a rude society, ignorant of the art of writing, no historical tradition would be propagated in a genuine form for more than this period. But for an age (such as the first three centuries of the Olympiads in Greece, and the first five centuries after the building of the city at Rome) when, though there is no contemporary history, yet some leading facts are preserved in writing, oral tradition, having a certain fixed point to rest upon, may be of longer duration. It is, besides, impossible to establish any precise time for the preservation of oral accounts; for some historical events are more likely than others to be handed down by a faithful tradition, and to live in the popular memory. Facts known to a whole community, and possessing a national interest, particularly if they have continued to exist through a long series of years, are likely to be remembered. Thus, a long period of royal government, like that of Rome, (196) as well as of Athens, (197) and other Greek states, would infallibly leave deep traces in the popular recollection. Institutions subsisting in the historical period, such as the King Archon at Athens, and the Interrex at Rome, for the creation of consuls, would likewise serve as reminiscences of the ancient royalty. Again, a conquered community would long remember with pain the fact of its subjugation, and cherish the recollections of its lost independence. The Messenians seem never to have for

(195) Sir Isaac Newton, The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended (1728, 4to); introd. p. 7. See above, p. 218, n. 74.

(196) A gilt wooden statue of Servius Tullius was preserved in the Temple of Fortune at Rome in the time of Dionysius, and was treated with great reverence. It was said to have been miraculously saved in a conflagration of the temple.-Dionys. iv. 40; Ovid, Fast. vi. 611-28. There were ancient statues of Brutus and the kings on the Capitol.- Plutarch, Brut. i.; Dio Cass. xliii. 45. Nothing, however, is known as to the time when these statues were erected. A statue of Tanaquil, or Caia Cæcilia, was also shown in the Temple of Sancus.-Plin. H. N. viii. 74; Plut. Quæst. Rom. 30.

(197) Mr. Grote, while he confines authentic names and events to the period of the annual archons, admits, as historical, the general fact of the existence of a primitive line of hereditary kings at Athens, vol. iii. p. 67. Compare vol. i. c. 11.

gotten that they had once been their own masters; they kept up for nearly three centuries the memory of their early wars with Sparta; and their national hero, Aristomenes, was believed to have fought at Leuctra, where he smote down the Lacedæmonians, as St. James smote down the Moors at the battle of Clavijo.(199) In the ancient republics, moreover, the colonial relation between a parent state and its colony could not pass into oblivion, inasmuch as it was kept up by periodical missions of sacred envoys, and communication of religious rites, as well as by similarity of language, laws, customs, dress, and names. (199) As the colony looked to its mother country for assistance in difficulties, and a sort of filial feeling towards it was maintained,

(198) Pausanias (iv. 26, § 4) says that the scattered Messenians came together sooner than might have been expected, on account of their regret for their native country, and the hatred of the Lacedæmonians which they had always retained. As to Aristomenes fighting at Leuctra, see ib. 32, § 4. The shield of Aristomenes was preserved at Lebadea, in Bœotia, and was seen by Pausanias, ib. 16, § 4; 32, § 5. A traditional couplet respecting a victory of Aristomenes over the Lacedæmonians was still sung in the time of Pausanias.-Ib. 16, § 4.

The custom, preserved to the time of Livy, and even to that of Plutarch, of selling the 'goods of Porsena,' in all sales of public property, seems to be a reminiscence of some humiliation inflicted on Rome by Porsena. See Livy, ii. 14; Dionys. v. 34; Plutarch, Public. 19.

Gibbon (c. 35, note) remarks that the scepticism of the Count de Buat with respect to the capture of Metz by the Huns, in 451 A.D., cannot be reconciled with any principles of reason or criticism: Is not Gregory of Tours (he says) precise and positive in his account of the destruction of Metz? At the distance of no more than a hundred years, could he be ignorant, could the people be ignorant, of the fate of a city, the actual residence of his sovereigns, the kings of Austrasia ?' Walter Scott alludes to the enduring memory of a national defeat :

'Tradition, legend, tune, and song,

Shall many an age that wail prolong;
Still from the sire the son shall hear
Of the stern strife and carnage drear,
Of Flodden's fatal field:

Where shivered was fair Scotland's spear,
And broken was her shield.'

Marmion, canto vi.

(199) See Wachsmuth, Hell. Alt. i. 1, p. 102; K. F. Hermann, Pol. Ant. § 74; Schoemann, Jus Publ. Gr. p. 420. Such usages as those mentioned in Thuc. i. 25, for the colonies of Corinth (viz. of showing certain marks of honour to the mother country in common festivals, and beginning with a Corinthian man in public sacrifices), were likely to perpetuate the memory of the relation: compare Diod. xii. 30. Carthage sent annually similar missions to Tyre, and even paid a tithe to the mother temple of Hercules, Diod. xx. 14; Arrian, ii. 24; Curt. iv. 2; Polyb. xxxi. 20,

VOL. I.

T

there was likewise an inducement of interest not to allow the relation to be forgotten. (200)

Lastly, the memory of great lawgivers was likely to be long preserved, because their laws remained in force, and were perpetuated on metal or stone, or by some other enduring record. In this way, the fame of Lycurgus remained; the memory of the ancient Zaleucus was kept up among the Epizephyrian Locrians; (2) the legislation of Draco and Solon was remembered at Athens; (2) while the twelve tables of Rome were learnt by heart as a necessary lesson, and the decemviral legislation was considered by the Romans as the source of all their

§ 12. As to similarity of dress, see Thuc. i. 6. As to language, see the saying of the Syracusan woman in Theocritus, when reproached with her broad dialect:

ὡς δ ̓ εἰδῆς καὶ τοῦτο, Κορίνθιαι εἰμὲς ἄνωθεν,

ὡς καὶ ὁ Βελλεροφῶν· Πελοποννασιστὶ λαλοῦμες,

Δωρίσδεν δ ̓ ἔξεστι, δοκῶ, τοῖς Δωριέεσσι.-Id. xv. 91-4. Bellerophon was a Corinthian hero.-See Iliad, vi. 155; Paus. ii. 2, § 4.

Thucydides states that Himera, in Sicily, was founded by Chalcideans from Zancle, with some Syracusan exiles : Hence (he says) their dialect was mixed of Chalcidean and Doric, but the Chalcidean institutions prevailed,' vi. 5. Müller remarks that the Byzantians, a colony of Megara, though far removed from their mother state, so carefully preserved the memory of it, that they carried over almost all the names of their native country and the neighbouring region.'-Dorians i. 6, § 9.

(200) Thuc. i. 24; Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 2, 3. As an instance of colonial recollections, compare the verses of Mimnermus on the colonization of Colophon and Smyrna. He flourished as early as 630 B.C.

ἡμεῖς δ ̓ αἰπὺ Πύλον Νηλήιον ἄστυ λιπόντες
ἱμερτὴν ̓Ασίην νηυσὶν ἀφικόμεθα

ἐς δ ̓ ἐρατὴν Κολοφῶνα βίην ὑπέροπλον ἔχοντες
ἑζόμεθ ̓ ἀργαλέης ὕβριος ἡγεμόνες

κεῖθεν δ ̓ Αστήεντος ἀπορνύμενοι ποταμοίο

θεῶν βουλῇ Σμύρνην εἵλομεν Αἰολίδα.

Fragm. 9, Schneidewin.

(201) See Aristot. Pol. ii. 12. Zaleucus, who is said to have made the earliest code of written laws in Greece, is referred to the year 660 B.C.See Clinton, ad ann.; Heyne, Opusc. Acad. vol. ii. p. 62. According to this date, his legislation was 66 years before that of Solon.

(202) Demosthenes speaks of Solon and Draco being praised by the Athenians, because they established excellent laws, tending to the common good, Adv. Timocrat. p. 765. Cratinus, the comic poet, mentioned Solon and Draco together.-Plut. Sol. 25.