The New York herald., 1868-04-13
BOOK NOTICE.

TIE HISTORY OF TUE KINGS OF ROME. With q
PREDATORY Dissertation on its Sources and Evi-
dences. BY I. II. Dyer, LII. d. London: Bell b
Daddy
It is curious to notice how the sentiments and
opinions Of mankind, as represented by leading
minds, periodically oscillate from one extreme to
another. 1t Is equally curious to notice how essen
tal such oscillation Is to intellectual progress and to
the discovery OF truth 1t seems to be law Of the
human mind that one class of influences shall con-
tinue to be in the ascendant until they have ex-
hausted themselves, and that precisely at that point
where exhaustion begins to manifest itself another
and an opposite class OF influences shall begin to
veal their authority. For well nigh hundred years
the dominant characteristic OF human thought has
been skepcal destructive. In politics. in religion.
in morals in science but particularly in history this
tendency has been marked and decided. Such ten
dency, judging from many sgns seems to have
worked itself out. 1t has had its day-a long one
doubtless; but the day seems to have reached its
close. The probability Is that we shall become
not only more conservative, but that vigorous at
tempts will be made to restore much Of what we
have destroyed, to gather up much of what we have
flung away.
The book now before us is an Illustration Of what
we mean Since the days of .Niebuhr early Roman
history has been set aside as simply fabulous Ac-
cOrdng to Niebuhr "the names Of the kings are
perfectly fictitious" nor can 1t be said who
they were or how long they regned DR.. Arnold fol-
lowed in the same vein and pronounced the general
picture Of the regal period "a mere phantasy" Even
Macaulay in his "Lays Of Ancient Rome" did not
show himself above the prevailing sentiment. Sir G.
c. Lewis was the first English writer OF eminence to
set himself in opposition to Nicbuhr's theory; but
Sir George drew his inspiration largely from the
German Schwegler According to Schwegler the
genuine tradition OF the foundation Of Rome was 80
Decemvrs little nothing was known Of the origin
Of the city. Later attempts were made to I'LL the
void, and "on a foundation of obscure remen-
brances and unconnected legends which had been
preserved history was subtly constructed from
proper names, monuments, institutions, usages &C."
The theory of Schwegler is well put by himself in
the following PASSAGE
First Of all, It must be recognized that certain
fundamental things in the traditional history OF the
kings are historical, and derived from historical
memory. Some remembrance, though a very con-
Of the Roman ne cpnstop was n preserved iii the
literary times. Hence we cannot withhold from the
constitutional traditions certain degree Of credit
bility. The united kingdom of the Romans and
Sabines; the three stem tribes and their successive
origin; the three centuries OF knights the successive
augmentation OF the Senate till 1t reached the num-
the gs"ss s 's i"orss; the Introduction @ Of the
tai tai points Of the Oldest constitutional history
are HlStOTlCal,
the details and especially the numerical ones with
which they related, well as the casual connec
tOn in which they are placed by the historian, may,
nevertheless, be invented formed by construction.
But over this foundation Of facts q rank and luxu-
RANT growth Of invention has entwined ttself-s
growth Of legends which we must now more closely
examine and lay them bare In their germs.
1t is Schwegler's theory that DR.. Dyer combats,
and it is only fair to say that he combats it with
great ability although we sometimes feel as II he
did not give schwegler sufficient credit for the adms
sions which he makes AS the result OF his nvestga
tons DR.. Dyer finds "the methods which have been
invented in order to account for the existence OF the
history not only destitute Of all evidence but also in
adequate and improbable, and the objections which
have been urged against it, on the ground OF its in
ternal improbabty, altogether insufficient to nvaIi
date its origin from contemporary record" The diff
ference between the two, as 1t seems to u.s. is that
Dyer insists too much fact and Schwegler insists
too much on legend. We commend Dr. Dyer's book
as an able scholarly and impartial review OF the
whole subject. To us 1t is valuable chiefly as 1t indi-
Gates the new and more healthful turn which intel
lectual activity has taken.