xvi
FABRICATED PERIODS.
who found pleasure in the exercise of his invention. Wherever
in history we find numbers capable of being resolved into
arithmetical proportions, we may say with the greatest cer-
tainty, that they are artificial arrangements to which the
history has been adapted, as the philosopher exclaimed, when
he saw mathematical diagrams in the sand, “ I see traces of
man.” The course of human affairs is not directed by nume-
rical proportions, and wherever they are found, we may according
to a law, which Leibnitz would have laid down as an axiom,
declare unhesitatingly, that there is an arrangement according
to a certain plan. Such artificial arrangements we find in the
Indian and Babylonian eras : long periods are divided according
to certain numerical proportions. Such also is the case with
the history of Rome from its foundation down to the burning
of the city by the Gauls. For this period 360 years were
assumed, which number was taken for granted by Fabius and
Polybius, who copied it from a table (ττAα^).2 Of these 360
years 240 were allotted to the kings, and 120 to the common-
wealth. In all Roman institutions the numbers 3, 10, 30 and
12 play an important part; all numerical combinations con-
nected with Rome arise out of multiples of three, which is most
frequently multiplied by ten, as 30, 300, 3000. Such also is
the number of the 360 houses at Athens in its ancient consti-
tution. Of the 240 years assigned to the kings 120 is the half,
and hence the middle of the reign of Ancus Martius, the fourth
king, falls in 120. IIe is the creator of the plebeian order,
and consequently 120 is the date of the origin of the plebeians,
Thus wo have three periods, each containing ten times twelve
years: 120 years previously to the existence of the plebeian
order, 120 with plebeians, and 120 without kings. How could
it ever have happened that of seven kings the fourth should
just fall in the middle of the period assigned them, and that
this period should be divided into two halves by the middle of
the reign of the fourth king3? Here is evidence for those who
will judge with reason and without prejudice; even if there
were not other circumstances in the history which involve im-
possibilities, such as the statement that Tarquinius Superbus
was a grandson of Tarquinius Priscus.4 For this whole period,
then, down to the Gallic conquest, we have a made-up history
2 Dionysius, i. 74. Compare vol i. p. 242, note 656.
3 CompaievoLi. p.252, foil. 4 VoLi. p.372, foil.
CHANGES OF METRICAL LEGENDS.' Xvii
at least with regard to chronology. The restoration may indeed
have been founded upon the scanty information gained from the
pontiffs, and on the date of the eclipse of the sun mentioned
by Cicero. No prodigies are mentioned by Livy before the
burning of the city by the Gauls. It is true, they are not fre-
quent during the first century after that event, but this only
proves that he did not pay any especial attention to them till
he had finished the tenth book, after which, and not till then,
he had annals as his sources. Dionysius likewise describes no
prodigies previously to the Gallic conquest.
Yesterday, I directed your attention to the fact, that the
question concerning the sources of early Roman history has
been considered from a false point of view. It is quite a
matter of indifference, whether the ancient history existed in
the form of poems or in prose, whether it was written or not,
and whether those poems still existed at the time when histo-
rians began to compose their works or not. I will only remind
you of what we have seen in our own literature, for those who
have studied its history, know the various changes which our
epic poems have undergone. Since we have become acquainted
with the poem of Hildebrand and Hadubrand, first published
by Eccard, and afterwards explained by W. Grimm5, who
shewed that it was part of an alliterative poem in a language
which is not Franconian, but a modification of the Gothic, we
see the threads of the whole cycle. It is much more ancient
than the time of Charlemagne. In the tenth century a Latin
paraphrase of it was made, which is very good considering the
time. We know the lay of the Nibelungen only in the form
which it received in the thirteenth century ; but the original
must be referred, as Schlegel has shewn very satisfactorily, to
the frontiers of Suabia, and may have passed through various
phases. Afterwards, we find the much more prosy paraphrase of
it in the Heldenbuch ; and at a still later period, we find the
prose work, Siegfried, constructed out of the same materials ;
and in this last form, it has, for some centuries, always been in
s Nicbuhr here refers to the fragment of the lay of Hildebrand, which was
first published by Eccard in hi⅞ Franc. Orient, i. p. 864, foil. It was for a long
time believed to be a fragment of a prose woιk in the old idiom of Lower
Germany, until its alliterative character was pointed out by the brothers Grimm
in their edition of “Die beideɪi altesten deutechen Gedichte aus dem achten
Jahrhundert." Cassel, 1812.
tOL. I. C