Pinnock's improved edition of Dr. Goldsmith's History of Rome: $b to which is prefixed an introduction to the study of Roman history, and a great variety of valuable information added throughout the work, on the manners, institutions, and antiquities of the Romans; with numerous biographical and historical notes; and questions for examination at the end of each section.; $c By Wm. C. Taylor.Goldsmith, Oliver
History
Pinnock's improved edition of Dr. Goldsmith's History of Rome: $b to which is prefixed an introduction to the study of Roman history, and a great variety of valuable information added throughout the work, on the manners, institutions, and antiquities of the Romans; with numerous biographical and historical notes; and questions for examination at the end of each section.; $c By Wm. C. Taylor.
Goldsmith, Oliver
Rome -- History
The traditions respecting the origin of Rome are innumerable; some
historians assert that its founder was a Greek; others, AEneas and his
Trojans; and others give the honour to the Tyrrhenians: all, however,
agree, that the first inhabitants were a Latin colony from Alba. Even
those who adopted the most current story, which is followed by Dr.
Goldsmith, believed that the city existed before the time of Rom'ulus,
and that he was called the founder from being the first who gave it
strength and stability. It seems probable that several villages might
have been formed at an early age on the different hills, which were
afterwards included in the circuit of Rome; and that the first of them
which obtained a decided superiority, the village on the Palatine
hill, finally absorbed the rest, and gave its name to "the eternal
city".
There seems to be some uncertainty whether Romulus gave his name
to the city, or derived his own from it; the latter is asserted by
several historians, but those who ascribe to the city a Grecian
origin, with some show of probability assert that Romus (another form
of Romulus) and Roma are both derived from the Greek [Greek: rome],
_strength_. The city, we are assured, had another name, which the
priests were forbidden to divulge; but what that was, it is now
impossible to discover.
We have thus traced the history of the Latins down to the period when
Rome was founded, or at least when it became a city, and shown how
little reliance can be placed on the accounts given of these periods
by the early historians. We shall hereafter see that great uncertainty
rests on the history of Rome itself during the first four centuries of
its existence.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] It is scarcely necessary to remark that the Pelas'gi were the
original settlers in these countries.
[2] In all these places we find also the Tyrrhenian Pelas'gi.
* * * * *
CHAPTER III.
THE TOPOGRAPHY OF ROME.
Full in the centre of these wondrous works
The pride of earth! Rome in her glory see.--_Thomson._
1. The city of Rome, according to _Varro_, was founded in the fourth
year of the sixth _Olympiad_, B.C. 753; but Cato, the censor, places
the event four years later, in the second year of the seventh
Olympiad. The day of its foundation was the 21st of April, which was
sacred to the rural goddess Pa'les, when the rustics were accustomed
to solicit the increase of their flocks from the deity, and to purify
themselves for involuntary violation of the consecrated places. The
account preserved by tradition of the ceremonies used on this
occasion, confirms the opinion of those who contend that Rome had a
previous existence as a village, and that what is called its
foundation was really an enlargement of its boundaries, by taking in
the ground at the foot of the Palatine hill. The first care of
Ro'mulus was to mark out the Pomoe'rium; a space round the walls of
the city, on which it was unlawful to erect buildings.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account