Gutenberg Articles

Appearance

Excerpt ​

Excerpt from Lays of Ancient Rome, by Baron Thomas Babington Macaulay Macaulay

 Virginia<br />
   The Lay

 The Prophecy of Capys<br />
   The Lay

That what is called the history of the Kings and early Consuls of
Rome is to a great extent fabulous, few scholars have, since the
time of Beaufort, ventured to deny. It is certain that, more than
three hundred and sixty years after the date ordinarily assigned
for the foundation of the city, the public records were, with
scarcely an exception, destroyed by the Gauls. It is certain that
the oldest annals of the commonwealth were compiled more than a
century and a half after this destruction of the records. It is
certain, therefore, that the great Latin writers of the Augustan
age did not possess those materials, without which a trustworthy
account of the infancy of the republic could not possibly be
framed. Those writers own, indeed, that the chronicles to which
they had access were filled with battles that were never fought,
and Consuls that were never inaugurated; and we have abundant
proof that, in these chronicles, events of the greatest
importance, such as the issue of the war with Porsena and the
issue of the war with Brennus, were grossly misrepresented. Under
these circumstances a wise man will look with great suspicion on
the legend which has come down to us. He will perhaps be inclined
to regard the princes who are said to have founded the civil and
religious institutions of Rome, the sons of Mars, and the husband
of Egeria, as mere mythological personages, of the same class
with Perseus and Ixion. As he draws nearer to the confines of
authentic history, he will become less and less hard of belief.
He will admit that the most important parts of the narrative have
some foundation in truth. But he will distrust almost all the
details, not only because they seldom rest on any solid evidence,
but also because he will constantly detect in them, even when
they are within the limits of physical possibility, that peculiar
character, more easily understood than defined, which
distinguishes the creations of the imagination from the realities
of the world in which we live.

Explanation ​

This excerpt from Thomas Babington Macaulay’s Lays of Ancient Rome (1842) serves as a prefatory historical and critical introduction to his poetic retellings of Roman legends, particularly those from the early Republic. Macaulay, a Whig historian, politician, and essayist, was deeply engaged with the romanticized yet skeptical view of ancient history that emerged in the 19th century. This passage reflects his historical skepticism while also setting the stage for his poetic reinterpretations of Roman myths. Below is a detailed breakdown of the text, its themes, literary devices, and significance, with a focus on the excerpt itself.

1. Context of the Excerpt ​

Macaulay’s Lays of Ancient Rome is a collection of narrative poems (or "lays") that dramatize legendary episodes from Rome’s early history, such as Horatius at the Bridge, Virginia, and The Prophecy of Capys. The excerpt provided is not a poem but a prose introduction in which Macaulay acknowledges the historical unreliability of Rome’s early records while justifying his poetic engagement with them.

Key historical context:

  • Destruction of Roman records: Macaulay notes that the Gallic sack of Rome (390 BCE) destroyed most public archives, meaning later historians (like Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus) had to rely on oral tradition, fragmented annals, and political myths.
  • Augustan historians: Writers like Livy (1st c. BCE) admitted that early Roman history was embellished with legend (e.g., Romulus and Remus, the Rape of the Sabine Women).
  • 19th-century historiography: Macaulay was influenced by skeptical scholars like Henry Beaufort (17th c.), who questioned the historicity of early Rome. His approach reflects the Romantic-era tension between myth and history—a fascination with legendary pasts while recognizing their fictional elements.

2. Themes in the Excerpt ​

A. The Unreliability of History ​

Macaulay’s primary argument is that early Roman history is largely fabulous (i.e., mythical or invented). He presents three key points:

  1. Loss of records: The Gauls destroyed Rome’s archives in 390 BCE, leaving later historians without primary sources.
  2. Late compilation of annals: The earliest surviving histories (e.g., Fabius Pictor, 3rd c. BCE) were written centuries after the events, relying on oral tradition and political propaganda.
  3. Admissions by ancient historians: Even Livy (a source Macaulay respected) acknowledged that early Roman history was filled with invented consuls and battles.

Macaulay’s skepticism aligns with modern historiography, which often treats early Rome as a blend of myth, legend, and kernel truths.

B. The Spectrum of Belief: From Myth to History ​

Macaulay suggests a gradual shift from disbelief to cautious acceptance as one moves from purely mythological figures (e.g., Romulus, son of Mars) to semi-historical events (e.g., the wars with Porsena and Brennus). His framework is:

  • Total skepticism: Figures like Perseus and Ixion (Greek myths) are pure fiction.
  • Partial credibility: Some institutions and events (e.g., the struggle of the orders, the decemvirate) may have a basis in truth, but the details are suspect.
  • Distrust of "imaginative" details: Even plausible stories often bear the hallmarks of legend—exaggerated heroism, moral lessons, and dramatic coincidences.

This reflects 19th-century historicism, where scholars like Niebuhr (whose History of Rome Macaulay admired) tried to separate myth from history in ancient sources.

C. The Nature of Legend vs. Reality ​

Macaulay describes a qualitative difference between historical reality and legendary invention:

"that peculiar character, more easily understood than defined, which distinguishes the creations of the imagination from the realities of the world in which we live."

This is a subtle but crucial observation:

  • Legend tends toward archetypal patterns (e.g., the hero’s rise and fall, divine interventions).
  • History is messier, less morally clear, and lacking in poetic symmetry. Macaulay implies that while some events may have happened, their literary shaping (by annalists and poets) distorts them into moral fables.

3. Literary Devices & Rhetorical Strategies ​

Macaulay’s prose is persuasive and methodical, using several key techniques:

A. Repetition for Emphasis ​

  • "It is certain" (repeated three times) – Reinforces the irrefutable nature of his historical claims.
  • "He will..." (anaphora) – Guides the reader through a progressive argument about skepticism.

B. Appeal to Authority ​

  • Cites Beaufort (a respected skeptic) and Augustan writers (Livy, etc.) to bolster his credibility.
  • Uses scholarly phrasing ("fabulous," "chronicles," "misrepresented") to position himself as a serious historian.

C. Contrast Between Myth and History ​

  • Mythological comparisons: Equates Romulus with Perseus and Ixion (Greek myths) to suggest Roman legends are equally fictional.
  • Gradual acceptance: The phrase "as he draws nearer to the confines of authentic history" creates a sliding scale of believability.

D. Metahistorical Reflection ​

Macaulay doesn’t just dismiss legends; he analyzes why they persist:

  • They fill gaps in the historical record.
  • They serve political and moral purposes (e.g., glorifying Rome’s past).
  • They reflect universal human tendencies to mythologize origins.

This aligns with Romantic-era ideas about national myths (e.g., Herder’s folk traditions, Scott’s historical novels).

4. Significance of the Passage ​

A. Justification for Poetic License ​

Macaulay’s Lays are not historical accounts but literary reimaginings. This excerpt preemptively defends his approach:

  • Since the facts are unreliable, he is free to embellish for artistic effect.
  • Yet, by acknowledging the myths, he avoids the charge of naive credulity.

B. Influence on 19th-Century Historiography ​

Macaulay’s skepticism reflects a broader shift in how historians treated ancient sources:

  • Niebuhr’s History of Rome (1811) had already argued that early Roman history was mostly legend.
  • Macaulay popularized this view for an English audience, blending scholarship with literary flair.

C. Romantic Nationalism & Mythmaking ​

The Lays were part of a Romantic fascination with national epics (e.g., Ossian, The Song of Hiawatha). Macaulay:

  • Elevates Roman legends to the status of national poetry.
  • Uses them to comment on Victorian values (e.g., civic virtue, resistance to tyranny).
  • Balances skepticism with admiration—he doubts the facts but celebrates the moral lessons.

D. Modern Relevance ​

Macaulay’s approach foreshadows modern debates about:

  • Historical fiction (e.g., I, Claudius, Rome TV series).
  • The use of myth in politics (e.g., how nations construct founding narratives).
  • The line between history and legend (e.g., debates over Troy, King Arthur).

5. Key Takeaways from the Text Itself ​

  1. Early Roman history is unreliable due to lost records and late compilations.
  2. Legend and history blur—some events may be true, but details are shaped by imagination.
  3. A wise historian (or reader) should be skeptical but not dismissive of cultural significance.
  4. Macaulay’s Lays are conscious mythmaking—he knows the stories aren’t strictly true but values their poetic and moral power.

Conclusion: Why This Matters ​

This excerpt is not just a historical disclaimer but a manifestation of 19th-century intellectual tensions:

  • Between science and romance (fact vs. legend).
  • Between skepticism and nationalism (questioning history while celebrating it).
  • Between scholarship and art (Macaulay as both historian and poet).

Macaulay’s self-aware engagement with myth allows him to recreate Rome’s legends in a way that is both entertaining and thought-provoking, inviting readers to enjoy the stories while questioning their truth. This duality makes Lays of Ancient Rome a bridge between history and literature, much like the works of Walter Scott or Lord Byron in the same era.