t notice. All the Roman historians
declare, that after the destruction of Troy, AEneas, with a body of the
fugitives, arrived in Latium, and having married the daughter of king
Lati'nus, succeeded him on the throne. It would be easy to show that
this narrative is so very improbable, as to be wholly unworthy of
credit; but how are we to account for the universal credence which it
received? To decide this question we must discuss the credibility of
the early Roman history, a subject which has of late years attracted
more than ordinary attention.

The first Roman historian of any authority, was Fa'bius Pic'tor, who
flourished at the close of the second Punic war; that is, about five
centuries and a half after the foundation of the city, and nearly a
thousand years after the destruction of Troy. The materials from which
his narrative was compiled, were the legendary ballads, which are in
every country the first record of warlike exploits; the calendars and
annals kept by the priests, and the documents kept by noble families
to establish their genealogy. Imperfect as these materials must
necessarily have been under any circumstances, we must remember that
the city of Rome was twice captured; once by Porsenna, and a second
time by the Gauls, about a century and a half before Fabius was born.
On the latter occasion the city was burned to the ground, and the
capital saved only by the payment of an immense ransom. By such a
calamity it is manifest that the most valuable documents must have
been dispersed or destroyed, and the part that escaped thrown into
great disorder. The heroic songs might indeed have been preserved in
the memory of the public reciters; but there is little necessity for
proving that poetic historians would naturally mingle so much fiction
with truth, that few of their assertions could be deemed authentic.
The history of the four first centuries of the Roman state is
accordingly full of the greatest inconsistences and improbabilities;
so much so, that many respectable writers have rejected the whole as
unworthy of credit; but this is as great an excess in scepticism, as
the reception of the whole would be of credulity. But if the
founders of the city, the date of its erection, and the circumstances
under which its citizens were assembled be altogether doubtful, as
will subsequently be shown, assuredly the history of events that
occurred four centuries previous must be involved in still greater
obscurity. The