CHAPTER XX. THE KINGS TULLUS, ANCUS, AND THE kingly office at Rome, as in the Etruscan cities, was vested for life, by an election independent of any hereditary limitations. Its legitimate powers did not exceed those of the dictator, under which name, the supreme magistrate amongst the Latins seems to have been at that time already limited to a specific period. The exercise of such authority, during life, by one who appeared to his fellow-citizens capable of filling the highest station, certainly strengthened his influence over the mass of the fluctuating magistracy, and when such a ruler lived to see his son arrive at the age of manhood, must have led to the hereditary succession. Historians aver, that the people elected, and the senate ratified the election. Here the word "People," leads us astray, as it excites the idea of a democratic assembly. Later authors have presumed this on the authority of Dionysius. But the nation, or rather the body of citizens who possessed the elective franchise, were far from forming any such assembly. Tullus Hostilius, is called the son of Hostus Hostilius, who fell in the Sabine war as a Roman general; so completely did the authors of the early fictions disregard years or possibilities in their calculations. Fable might overlook that the warrior king must thus have ascended the throne on the verge of his eightieth year, or rather in relating the story of the Sabine war, has invented for him a Roman hero as his father. Whoever looks for historical truth or consistency in the history of the first century of Rome, must find it quite inexplicable, that Alba absolutely disappears at the moment of the foundation of Rome. The story says not a word of any help given by the parent city to Rome in the crisis of her danger-nor explains why Romulus was excluded from the throne when the race of Æneas became extinct in Numitor. The statements as well as the omissions on this head equally exemplify the species of information which we call history. Alba and Rome were wholly unconnected with each other; the former was already in the enjoyment of a free constitution; C. Clintius was elected dictator there, while Tullus reigned at Rome. The war between Rome and Alba-at least the union of the Romans and Albans, is the earliest un 6 This has escaped the notice even of Dionysius, who is in other respects anxious to avoid the appearance of chronological inaccuracy. questionable historical fact in this history. Yet it is not history in its proper shape-but rather a perfect epic poem, the dry abridgment of whose contents would be an unpardonable injustice, and a copy of which, would only take up the room destined for other objects. Livy has immortalized these fictions, with a genuine and inimitable spirit, though we, who are free from the prevailing taste for rhetorical ornaments, perceive the traces of the mischief alluded to, with painful motions in the speech of Horatius. I shall only, therefore, allude to the ingenuity with which the Roman king threw upon Alba the blame of having originated the war, to the indecision of the two armies who continued so long in the field without coming to battle, and to the combat between the three brothers from each party which decided the fate of Alba. As far as regards critical investigation of the history, it is remarkable that the legend seems to doubt whether the Horatii or the Curiatii were the champions on the part of Rome. The popularity of the Horatian gens seems to decide for the former. Thus tradition always librates between extreme points. Thus in the northern fictions, Die Nibelungen are Burgundians; Hagen is the brother of Ehriemhilds, and the home of Brunhild is transferred to the Rhine. Alba submitted to the yoke of the treaty, yet bore it with impatience as apparently the decision of chance not of necessity. The Etruscan Fidenæ, five miles from Rome, defended itself by the help of the Veientes against the conquerors. To this war came the levy of the Albans under Mettius Fuffetius 65 their dictator, in whom, according to the custom of the early nations, the chief authority as well as the whole unaltered forms of the constitution, were permitted to remain, though the supremacy had passed into the hands of another people. The Albans were stationed on the right wing of the Roman army. Mettius, cowardly and indecisive, sought for safety in a middle course, and thinking by this means if fortune was unfavourable, he should at least escape the present danger and watch for a future opportunity, he drew off his troops during the battle towards a hill on his right, so that the flank of the Roman army was left exposed to the attack of the Fidenates, if they had placed any confidence in his strange conduct, and ventured a vigorous assault. But Mettius kept the Albans at some distance as spectators of the combat. Tullus therefore with much presence of mind and good fortune was enabled to persuade both his troops and the enemy, that the retreat of these allies, was a matter arranged by himself, in order to out-flank the Fidenates. The Romans thus were victorious, as if they had fought with their single strength and without the least impediment, and when the battle was decided, a new treachery was practised by the dictator. The routed troops who had ventured on the engagement relying on his promise, fled towards him, and he 65 According to the analogy of Vettius, this form which Ennius also uses, is probably more purely Latin than Mettus, as we read in Livy. availed himself of the position which was intended to betray the Romans, for completing the defeat of the Fidenates; thus attempting to efface by this timely service, the suspicions which might attach to his equivocal conduct. The general voice of his own countrymen whom he had utterly ruined, of Fidenæ whom he had betrayed, and of Rome against whom he had planned a base and detestable treachery, applauded the horrible sentence of the exasperated commander who condemned him to be torn in pieces by horses. Alba, however, was taken by surprise, the inhabitants removed to Rome, and the Coelian Hill allotted as their quarters; the city itself was razed to the ground. According to the Italian law of nations-which, in a case of such complete extirpation, would also have been the law of nature-the property of the Alban territories must have vested in Rome. This, however, seems more than doubtful; on the contrary, it was not Rome, but the Latins who must have taken possession, because their national councils were held at the source of the Ferentina, near the place where once stood Alba ". This is a very remarkable circumstance, which, equally with the fact that Alba had singly, and unassisted by the thirty Latin cities, waged war against Rome, gives rise to the conjecture, that this narrative is based upon a wholly different historical truth; viz. that Alba was destroyed by the Latins, and not by Rome; 66 Livius, I. c. 50; VII. c. 25. Dionysius (III. c. 34.) confounds this place with Ferentinum of the Hernici. |