The History of the Kings of Rome. With a prefatory dissertation on its sources and evidence

Front matter

THE HISTORY OP THE KINGS OF ROME. WITH A FEEFATOEY DISSERTATION ON ITS SOURCES AND EVIDENCE. HY THOMAS HENRY DYER, LL.D. OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS. LONDON : BELL AND DALDY, YOBK STBEET, COVENT GARDEN. 1868. LONDON : E. CLAY, SON, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS, BREAD STREET HILL. PIIEFACE. The design of most of the recent historians of Eome appears to have been to obliterate as much as they could of its ancient history. " Negemus omnia ; comburamus annales, beta hæc esse dicamus " — such seems to have been the maxim of almost every critic and historian who has handled this subject since the days of Niebuhr. The Germans have of course taken the lead in this crusade, as in everything else connected with classical literature, and, in England at least, they have been almost implicitly followed ; where the scholars who have ventured to assert any independence of thought are few indeed.

Yet, after all, there is little originality in the German scepticism. All the chief objections to the early Eoman history were urged by De Beaufort, a century before Niebuhr. The Germans following in his track have, with characteristic industry and perseverance, picked the bones of the quarry cleaner. And they have done worse than this. They have attempted to reconstruct, as well as to destroy, to dress out the skeleton with figments of their own, possessing generally not n tithe of PKEFACE. IV the probability and consistency of the narrative which they are intended to supplant. We are thus threatened with a succession of Boman histories, each totally unlike its predecessor. The work now offered to the public is written on a directly opposite plan. The object of it is to preserve, instead of to destroy, as much as it may be possible of the ancient history ; and in this respect at least it may lay claim to comparative novelty.

Neither labour nor expense is spared in endeavouring to rescue from oblivion the smallest material relic of O antiquity; a statue, a picture, a gem, or even the meanest implement of household use; yet, in what regards the traditions of ancient times, we appear to pursue an entirely opposite course. Hence it appeared to the author that an attempt to rescue the early Boman annals from the oblivion with which they are menaced might at aU events be a laudable one, and, if he should succeed only in some small part of his design, he wiU esteem himself abundantly re compensed for his labour. Such an undertaking necessarily involved a large amount of critical discussion. The narrative part of the book is, indeed, little more than a translation of Livy, intended only as a vehicle for the remarks appended to it.

Preface

. V on the " Credibility of the Early Boman History." The observations of the last-named writer, as weU as those of other scholars, have been occasionally examined, where they appeared to supplement, or to offer any divergence from, Schwegler's arguments ; and the author hopes it will be found that he has not evaded the discussion of any important objections. By way of introduction a dissertation on the sources of early Boman history, and on its internal evidence, has been prefixed to the book ; since without an examination of these, any work on the subject must necessarily be incomplete. London, October 1867. CONTENTS. rAn f: Prefatory Dissertation on the Sources and Evidences of early Roman History v — cxxxv