Part 21

VULSINII, situated on lake Bolsena, was one of the largest Etruscan towns. When after the Gallic war we find Etruria in arms, we must suppose that the Vulsinians were the soul of those undertakings. They were involved in hostilities with Rome even before the Gallic war; afterwards they are, for a time, not mentioned at all, whence their relations with Rome seem to have ceased; the frontier heights between Rome and Etruria were allowed to grow wild and to become covered with an impenetrable forest, as has been the case in modern times in the neighbourhood of Licca, on the frontier between Croatia and Turkish Bosnia. This is the _Ciminian forest_, the description of which in Livy is exaggerated in a ridiculous manner; it often happens that his great imaginative power leads him to make descriptions which would be excellent in a novel, but are ludicrous in a work where truth is the object. The history of Vulsinii is remarkable both for its facts and for its fables. It is a fact that ever since A.U. 440, and for a period of thirty years, Vulsinii offered a resistance to the Romans, which larger Etruscan towns recoiled from, and that at length Rome, in the height of her power, when she was the mistress of Italy, with difficulty conquered and then destroyed it. In later times it re-appears, for Sejanus was a native of Vulsinii. Metrodorus of Scepsis says that the real cause of the destruction of Vulsinii was the circumstance that the Romans wanted to obtain possession of 2000 magnificent statues which existed there. This is a fable, and no doubt the view of a Greek, which he attributed to the Romans. The latter were far from attaching such value to works of art; gold and silver were the things they sought after. The real reason was that Vulsinii, by its thirty years’ resistance, had distinguished itself above all Etruscan tribes; and the Romans, therefore, were determined to take the sap out of the tree, so as to prevent its ever growing again. The ancient inhabitants had called in the Romans against their slaves. These slaves, however, must not be understood to have been domestic slaves, but serfs, or the subdued ancient population, whom elsewhere the Etruscan magnates kept in servitude, while the Vulsinians had given them freedom and the franchise. The commonalty, having thus become free, did not stop short there, but, indignant at the ancient wrong done to them, they attacked their former tyrants; they did not, however, expel, but only weakened them. The latter then applied to Rome, and preferred having their town destroyed to living on a footing of equality with the commonalty. The correct spelling of the name is _Vulsinii_ and not _Volsinii_, for, as I have already mentioned, the Etruscans had no _o_; hence we find _Vulsinii_ in the Capitoline Fasti, though in genuine Roman words it is more correct to write _o_ after _v_, as _volnus_ and not _vulnus_.

In the centre of Etruria there was no ruling city, nay, no Etruscan place at all. Augustus established there _Sena Julia_ as a military colony, the sixth legion being stationed there. As there was no road through the centre of the country, but only one along the coast, and another through the eastern part, Augustus made the one running by Aquapendente.

The Etruscan towns in the eastern part of the country were Clusium, Perusia, Cortona (though its Etruscan character is doubtful), Arretium, and Faesulae.

The greatness of CLUSIUM belongs to the most ancient times, for in Roman history it is not of any importance; nor do the Romans mention any ruins of Clusium, for all that is related of the buildings of Porsena, belongs to the domain of fable.

PERUSIA was situated east of Clusium. During the period described in the ninth and tenth books of Livy, Perusia acts the same part as the other Etruscan towns; but after having suffered a defeat, it concluded a truce. The Perusines undertook the war in a foolish manner, and the first reverse discouraged them. Here, too, a military colony was afterwards established, probably by Sulla. The town is remarkable in history for the obstinate resistance it offered to Augustus, as in fact the descendants of Sulla’s soldiers in the military colonies were almost everywhere opposed to the party of Caesar. The town was taken and the most illustrious citizens put to death, or rather butchered, at the altar of Julius Caesar. Afterwards a new military colony was sent thither under the name of _Colonia Julia Augusta Perusina_.

CORTONA, also a military colony, probably likewise founded by Sulla, was situated on a very high hill and in a very strong position. Its ancient walls do not appear to have been particularly strong.

ARRETIUM was more important than Cortona, and probably one of the largest cities of Etruria. Its greatness may be inferred from the fact that in the Hannibalian war it furnished arms for 30,000 men of the army of Scipio. We must not, however, conceive these towns to have been confined to their own territories, but as sovereigns of districts of many square miles, whence they were able to do things which seem to us impossible. Arretium was an industrial place, and rich by its manufactures, especially its potteries, like Staffordshire in England; whence Augustus, in a fragment of a letter to Maecenas, calls him a Tuscan potter. Augustus often tried to be witty, but his witticisms were mostly dull. The pottery of Arretium was highly valued even during the middle ages, though otherwise few collections were made. At present such vessels are extremely rare: I have brought with me from Italy a small piece as a relic, for I am not rich enough to purchase an entire Arretine vase. They are not painted, but have figures, leaves, animals, and the like, in relief, and are of exquisite beauty. Arretium completely shared the fate of Etruria itself. There were three different Arretiums, _vetus_, _fidens_ and _Julium_. Sulla destroyed the city, sold its inhabitants as slaves, and founded in the vicinity a new colony for his soldiers, under the name of _Arretium fidens_. Augustus built _Arretium Julium_ in the neighbourhood of the two others. The modern Arezzo occupies the site of Arretium Julium, whence it contains no Etruscan antiquities; but the Roman town was much more important than the present Arezzo. If systematic excavations were made in the neighbourhood, many things might certainly be discovered. I regret not having visited the Grand Duke of Tuscany, an excellent young man, full of taste for, and appreciation of, knowledge, for I might perhaps have induced him to make excavations, especially near Arezzo and Chiusi.

FAESULAE was situated on a hill above Florence. Florentine traditions call it the metropolis of Florence, which would accordingly be a colony of Faesulae; but a statement in Machiavelli and others describes Florence as a colony of Sulla, and this statement must have been derived from some local chronicle. Faesulae was no doubt an ancient Etruscan town, probably one of the twelve. It was taken in the war of Sulla, and was then in the same desperate condition as Arretium and Volaterrae, both of which were deprived by Sulla of their freedom and territory. Hence a Sullanian colony is mentioned by Cicero as existing there in the war of Catiline. My conjecture is, that Sulla not only built a strong fort on the top of the hill of Faesulae, but also the new colony of Florentia below, and gave to it the _ager Faesulanus_. If this be true, the statement before alluded to would be correct, though we cannot trace it to any authentic source. The Etruscans built their towns on inaccessible hills in order to be able to control their subjects; the Romans not being under this necessity, built their towns in convenient and accessible places, to which they could make roads. Faesulae could not be reached, except on foot or on horseback; no vehicle could get up the hill, whereas the Romans employed many vehicles in the intercourse among the towns. But although Florentia was a colony of Sulla, the _agrimensores_ subsequently describe it as a colony of the triumvirs, and it is indeed possible that not one of the twenty-eight military colonies of Sulla may have been kept up until the time of the triumvirs. This subject is in the greatest confusion, and no one has yet attempted to clear it up. First we have the colonies of the republic, then the military colonies of Sulla, then again a second series of military colonies under Caesar, and lastly those of the triumvirs and Augustus. The earlier colonies lost their character through the Lex Julia, and became municipia; then followed the Sullanian and Julian colonies, so that the same place at three different times may have had three different colonies. This view of the matter makes clear that which Cluver and Cellarius, with all their merits, have left in utter confusion.

Within the territory of Tuscia or Etruria, we find on the banks of the Tiber a place, or rather a tribe, which in all our maps is described as a part of Etruria, but which the ancients, Strabo, e.g., expressly say did not belong to Etruria. This is the people of the FALISCANS. Respecting their nationality, the ancients have in reality only this negative statement, and we cannot ascertain to what race they belonged, except by divination and indirect evidence. Virgil in his Aeneid speaks of _Aequi Falisci_, which the commentators, and even the ancient scholiasts, taking _Aequi_ as an adjective, translate “just Faliscans”; but it is highly probable that _Aequi_ is a name, and that we have to regard the expression in the same light as, e.g., _Chaonii Campi_, where Campi is explained even by the scholiasts as the name of a people. The identity of the Aequians and Faliscans is confirmed also by other evidence. Among the Faliscans we find the word _hirpus_, whence their language may be inferred to be a branch of the Oscan, in which, as we have seen, this word signifies a wolf. Lastly, the name of the Faliscans may be traced at once to that of the Volscians, _Volsci_, _Volisci_, _Falisci_; and as we know that they were of foreign, that is, non-Etruscan origin, we cannot, considering the geographical position of the people, doubt the correctness of the view here expounded. There is some plausibility also in the other tradition which is traced to Cato, that the country, before it was taken possession of by the Faliscans, was inhabited by Siculians. This quite agrees with our supposition of successive conquests. The most ancient inhabitants were Pelasgians, who were succeeded by an Ausonian people, and the latter again are pushed onward by the Sabines; for it should be observed, that the Sabines did not penetrate between these Faliscans and Aequians and the Volscians until a later period.

The Faliscans had several towns, of which FALERII was the most important. For reasons which are quite unknown to us, the Romans, after the first Punic war, conquered and destroyed this town. This fact is all we know; but we may suppose that the place, to escape from oppression, was tempted to a rash and inconsiderate act, for the condition of Italy was then such as to render any undertaking against Rome hopeless. The town was afterwards restored. Near Civita Castellana, there is a place called Falera, which is no doubt the ancient Falerii; Faliscan inscriptions are still found there. It was a deeply rooted mistake among the first scholars after the revival of letters, to suppose that Civita Castellana was the ancient Veii; but this error was refuted even by Lucas Holstenius. The real town of Falerii was situated a little to the east of it.

Mount SORACTE, which is always visible from Rome, was in the country of the Faliscans. Horace, in one of his Odes, speaks of Soracte as being covered with snow, and this has given rise to the erroneous inference, that the climate of Rome is now changed and milder than in antiquity. The Abruzzi, Leonessa, and other heights, may be covered with snow, without its being cold at Rome, but when there is snow on mount Soracte the cold at Rome is severe. This is indeed not often the case; but when it does happen, the snow-capped Soracte, is seen very distinctly from Rome. Horace has not availed himself of a poetical license in this respect. I mention this, because people, very frequently, if not generally, speak of poetical license as if an inaccurate expression in a poet ought to be pardoned. There may, indeed, be poets of this kind, as, for example, Ausonius, and Greek poets of the period of decay; and modern poets, too, very frequently make use of such licenses; but it is quite certain that the good poets of antiquity give to things only such epithets as are quite clear and true to their own minds.

UMBRIA.

Of this country I have little to say. Umbria, in its proper sense, in which the name is used by the Romans, is situated for the most part in the Apennines, though we cannot even positively assert that it extended to the southern slope of the Apennines. But in more ancient times it extended much farther on both sides. There is great probability in the tradition that the Umbrians were confined to their small territory by the Etruscans, who are said to have taken 300 Umbrian towns. This number, however, must not be taken literally, for it is only a general number like μυρίοι, and _sexcenti_. Its earlier and larger extent is also attested by the river Umbro in the territory of Siena, and by the fact, that even at a later time a part of Etruria continued to be called Umbria. At one period the Umbrians also possessed the whole country about Rimini as far as the mouth of the Padus; there they were either expelled or subdued by the Gauls, or, as is still more probable, completely extirpated, for the Gauls were most fearful enemies and barbarians in the strictest sense of the term, annihilating and devastating everything that came in their way. During the Roman period, the Umbrians were extremely weak, and down to the fifth century, when the Romans came in contact with them, they were no doubt tributary to the Gauls. What could they in fact have done against such an enemy? They were obliged either to repel them or pay tribute to them. We know that other neighbouring tribes did so, whence it is probable that the Umbrians did the same. The Gauls, who so often advanced to the lower Tiber, cannot have come through any other country but Umbria, for the Etruscans in their towns defended themselves against them, and were protected in the north by the Apennines. Hence the unfortunate country of Umbria had constantly to suffer from the passages of the Gauls, who, in like manner, always took their road to Apulia through Picenum.

At the time when the Umbrians come in contact with the Romans, they seem to act as one nation, though it does not follow from this that they actually formed one state. A fact, however, which may seem to support this view is, that the different districts of the country are mentioned under the name of _tribus_ or _plagae_ (_tribus Materina_, _Sapinia_), which denote parts of one great whole. Yet this union, if it did exist, can have embraced only a portion, for the Sarsinates, or Sassinates, stood apart, and in the war of Pyrrhus they alone, for a time, defended their independence against the Romans. The Umbrians allowed themselves to become involved in the war of the Samnites and Gauls, but appear to have carried it on without energy; and a treaty seems to have been concluded with them similar to that with the Etruscans, for both are mentioned among the nations which supported Scipio. I am well aware that Italicans did the same, but they did it in a different manner.

Several of the Umbrian towns were made Roman colonies, especially _Spoletium_ and _Narnia_, previously called _Nequinum_; both places were fortified by the Romans (Narnia after the second Samnite war, and Spoletium afterwards), for the purpose of keeping the country in subjection, and of protecting the frontier against the Gauls.

All Umbria was full of towns: _Hispellum_, _Tuder_, _Fulginium_, _Assisium_, _Camerinum_, and _Iguvium_ (Gubbio), were places of considerable importance. In the last of them, tables have been dug out of the ground with inscriptions in Etruscan and in another language in Latin characters; the latter language seems to resemble the Latin and Oscan. When once the Oscan language shall be better known, more light will perhaps be thrown upon the Umbrian language also. The name _Umbria_ and the Greek Ὀμβρικοὶ seem actually to be akin to Ὀπικοί, which is in fact intimated in a passage of Philistus; whence the Umbrians probably belonged to the great Ausonian race. So far as I have seen Umbria, it is a very excellent and picturesque country; the Apennines are there much more beautiful than in Tuscany; they are covered with particularly fine forests, and have magnificent, rich, and fertile valleys. All the rest of Italy is ill-suited to the breeding of oxen, but Umbria has the most splendid kinds: I have seen a herd of white oxen near the well of Clitumnus, which consisted of the finest and noblest animals of the kind; they were like those in southern Poland and Russia. The cattle here in Germany is wretched. The extension and change of the races of animals in Italy may be traced back to the times of antiquity: buffaloes, for example, were introduced into Campania in the seventh century, when the country was almost a wilderness.

GALLIA CISALPINA OR TOGATA.

Down to the middle of the fourth century, the country beyond the Apennines was called northern Etruria, but after that time it bore the name _Gallia Cisalpina_ or _Togata_, but it extended further than Etruria proper, for the sea-coast as far as the river Aesis never belonged to Etruria.

The country now called Lombardy in its narrower sense, was inhabited in the earliest times by Ligurians, as is clear from most indubitable indications, and hence we must suppose, that subsequently they were driven by the Etruscans across the Ticinus. But these events belong to too remote an epoch, and I cannot say much either of this or of the Etruscan period. Certain it is that Etruscan towns existed in those parts, and that Etruscans dwelt there as the conquerors of the Ligurians and as the lords of the land; and there can be no doubt that after descending from the Alps the Etruscans established their first settlements there. _Melpum_ is said to have been a great Etruscan settlement in the neighbourhood of Milan; and _Felsina_ (Bononia), _Mutina_, _Parma_, and _Brixia_, are spoken of in the same way. _Verona_ is sometimes called Raetian and sometimes Etruscan, and _Mantua_ is called Etruscan by Virgil. It is possible that Verona may have been termed Raetian because it was situated on the Raetian frontier, and may for all this have been an Etruscan town.

The immigration of the Gauls into those parts is assigned by Livy in a most unhistorical manner to the time of Tarquinius Priscus; he has no other reason for it than the very legendary connection supposed to have existed between this emigration of the Gauls, and the settlement of the Phocaeans at Massilia. There is much more probability in the statement, that not long before the attack upon Rome by the Senones, the Gauls had first poured down upon all Italy in great masses. This is supported by the express testimony of Polybius, that they had shortly before come across the Alps, and also by the tradition that they took Melpum in the same year in which Veii was taken by Camillus (358). Just at that time, the Etruscans on quitting Veii seem to have turned their attention to an object of greater interest in a different direction. About that same time the Gauls appear in Slavonia and Lower Hungary, where they stirred up the Triballians, and according to an ancient tradition the Gauls migrated at the same time across the Alps and across the Rhine. They evidently marched into Italy through Switzerland, which may previously have been inhabited by quite different tribes. The ruins on the Ottilienberg in Alsace have a complete Etruscan appearance; they strongly resemble the fortifications of Volaterrae, and are situated on the plateau of a hill: they are altogether foreign to the Celtic character; the Celts had nothing of the kind. The supposition of the antiquarians of Alsace, ever since the time of Schoepflin, that, as those ruins are not Celtic, they belong to the decaying period of Rome, perhaps the reign of Valentinian, is extremely unfortunate. These ruins are far more ancient than the Celtic period, and belong to a people, which was expelled by the Gauls. The great Gallic migration was a mighty commotion extending from the frontiers of Spain to the Ukraine. In the subsequent counter-movement of the Slavonic migrations, the Gauls were driven back from east to west; and then they appear under the name of Cimbri together with the Germanic nation of the Teutones, and return to their ancient homes as ravaging conquerors.

The Gauls who settled south of the Alps consisted of several tribes, partly entire and partly ἀποδασμοὶ of those of which a portion remained behind in Gaul. In this light we must view the _Boians_; very few of them may have remained in Gaul itself; the greater part advanced into the country south of the Po, and another branch settled in Bavaria and Bohemia. On the whole there were about four or five Gallic tribes which settled in Italy on both sides of the Po; but besides them large numbers of volunteers, individuals and roaming vagabonds joined and strengthened one tribe or the other. I shall enumerate them in the order in which we find them established, beginning in the west. The Ticinus forms the frontier between the Gauls and Ligurians, as it still forms that between the territories of Milan and Piedmont.

1. The INSUBRIANS, in the modern territory of Milan proper.

2. The CENOMANIANS, in the territory of Brescia and Bergamo, between lake Garda and the mouth of the Po.

3. The BOIANS, in the south of the latter; their territory is made too small in all our maps; they occupied the county from Piacenza to the sea, including Parma, Modena, Reggio, Bologna and Ferrara. They were divided, according to Cato, into 112 pagi.

4. The SENONES, in the modern Romagna and Urbino, as far as the Aesis and the frontiers of Picenum.

5. The LINGONES must have occupied the country to the north of the former, that is Ferrara and the territory of Rovigo.