After having exposed my thoughts on the Achean-Arcadian origins

After having exposed my thoughts on the Achean-Arcadian origins of our city, I think it is useful to add a warning aimed at preventing some observations that an unwise criticism could perhaps make to the contrary. I said in Chapter III that Oenotro and Peucezio , sons of Lycaon King of Arcadia before the Trojan War, landed in our Regions with a large following of Arcadi and other peoples of the Peloponnese, and founded two Dominations, one of which took the name of Oenotria and the other of Peucezia , where our city is located.

I am not unaware that some modern writers have considered this tale to be fabulous, which is found in the Greek and Latin writers reported by me in the said chapter III, and in some others. This opinion mentioned by our illustrious Canon Mazocchi [274] was, to leave out others, more widely expounded by the very clear Giuseppe Micali in several places of his valuable History of the Ancient Italian Peoples . I respect these names very much, but the faculty of reasoning is free to all.

I could say that their assumption is not supported by positive demonstrations drawn from precise testimonies of other ancient accredited writers who had deliberately denied the aforementioned story. From what is written by any of them on the ancient position of Italy, arguments and negative inferences have been drawn about the coming of the aforementioned sons of Lycaon, and of the two Dominations which they believed to be constituted. It is known, however, that negative arguments do not always have full force for themselves. I could also add that it is always difficult to accuse overwhelming credulity. Most learned men of Antiquity who lived eighteen centuries or more before us, and therefore could know much more than we know, and be better in the case of discerning the true historical facts with fabulous narratives.

[a320]
The criticism is not so sure here, since the foretold ancient writers to whom I have referred had many other Greek and Latin books, which unfortunately have not come down to us. It is therefore not easy to affirm and decide that in the midst of so much light they were hallucinated, and considered as true purely fabulous tales, which they had not found accredited even by those writers who had at their hands , but we miss them.

However, if these considerations of no small weight have been put by the band, I limit myself to observing that given the fabulous arrival of Oenotro and Peucezio in our Regions, therefore, what has been thought and written by me on the origin of our city could not remain altered. . I observe in the first place that those same modern writers who bring forward this opinion have agreed that the places near the sea, especially of Peucezia, were occupied by the Greek colonies which came to settle in Italy at different times, and that the ancient inhabitants of purely Italian origin they withdrew in the inner part and in the mountainous places both because more appropriate to their own safety, and because more similar to their pride and their simple and rural way of life, and in the end because the land near the sea at that time was largely marshy was not very expensive. And how can we fail to agree with a factual truth contested by innumerable monuments of Greek origin found in the aforementioned places?

Now our city, being founded in a region washed by the Adriatic Sea and a few miles away from the coast of it, is a consequence that it is in that stretch of country that the aforementioned modern writers do not disagree that it was occupied by the Greek colonies. What therefore can be said of their warning concerning the coming of Oenotro and Peucezio, the Greek origin of our city also fits well with the already mentioned positions.

From these general views, descending to the particular, the very numerous ancient monuments unearthed there in our time do not leave the slightest doubt about this. I like to repeat here the learned and very sensible observations of Mazocchi himself reported in my preface on p. 6. Scriptorum quorumlibet testimoniis longe exploratiora sunt [a321]nummorum, lapidum, ænearum tabularum monumenta, quæ si Græca fuerint, ecquis de Græcanico earum urbium conditu dubitabit? Quod si pleraque Etruscis, Oscis, aut omnino peregrinis elementis exarata deprehenduntur, tunc antiquos Auctores omnes, vel si milleni fuerint, here Græcam originm crepantibus buccis jactaverint, contemnerem [275] .

With reason, since the evidence of a positive factual truth arises from the ancient monuments, which cannot be destroyed by any testimony of writers. Since in the legal criterion the ancient public monuments always prevail over the sayings of the witnesses, so the same rule also applies in the historical criterion [276] . Now in the ancient monuments and in the ancient Ruvestine coins everything being purely Greek and nothing at all except Greek, there can be no question about the Greek origin of our city.

If these elements, however, constitute the indisputable proof of its origin, it is no less true that equal value, and the same influence must have in investigating which of the ancient peoples of Greece were able to found it. In this very interesting part, its ancient coins are those that give us the Ariadne’s thread in order to be able to attribute its foundation to the Greek Populations of the Peloponnese. The oldest of them bear the legend Ρὑψ (Rhyps), such as those reported at numbers 1 2 3 and 4 of the first table, and 6 and 7 of the second. In the most recent ones, the π is changed to β as I observed on page 95 at the end and 96. They therefore carry the legend ΡΥΒΑΣΤΕΙΝΩΝ, or abbreviated ΡΥΒΑ, from which the Latin name Rubi was taken .

But the ancient name was imposed on our city by its first founders as it cannot be repeated from any other principle than by having wanted to reproduce here the ancient and illustrious city of Achaea called Rhypæ , as conclusively demonstrated in chapter V p. 90 to 97, its Achean origin results from this as a necessary consequence. It helps [a322]here also observe that Porcio Catone in his book De originibus Italicarum urbium , Lucio Sempronio and other Writers who the insult of time has taken away from us, gathered in a landing of Greeks in our Regions left from Acaja before the Trojan War, as we have makes known Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the place reported above on page 38 [277] ; which fits perfectly with the premise observation suggested by the aforementioned ancient Ruvestine coins.

It is true that with the usual Greek presumptuousness he resumes the already said Roman Writers for not having undertaken to make known from which Greek cities they departed, under which Condottiere, and for what reason they left their homeland, and for not having alleged any testimony of some Greek Writer. Their silence on these circumstances, however, is not enough to destroy the main fact they contested, namely the arrival of the Achaeans in Italy before the Trojan War, something that such learned men could certainly not have disposed of without any foundation.

This is all the more to be said as the severe censorship of the Greek writer ended up with he too having agreed that the Greeks, who landed here before the Trojan War were Arcadians . Considered therefore the main fact as an historical fact, all the more little is relevant. Which of the Greek populations then came here it is not difficult to investigate from the ancient monuments that contest their customs and their Rites considered in the places they occupied. Now both in the coins and in the Ruvestini clay pots, as we find sure evidence that our city preserved the customs and the Arcadian Rites for the circumstances I have noted from page 74 to page 76, there is every reason to say that in the foundation of it there is the Arcadians and that these also took part [a323]it was in the number of the Greeks that Porcio Cato, Lucio Sempronio and others objected to having left from Acaja before the Trojan war.

It is well known how much the consideration of the cult of the Divinities, the Genj and the Heroes that an ancient city held has an influence in such investigations. These conjectures also suggested by the ancient Writers have been believed by today’s Archaeologists to investigate the origin of ancient cities, as is known to anyone with knowledge of the subject. Add to what Strabo in the place reported on page 42 was of the opinion that in general the Greeks who occupied Peucezia had come from Arcadia. It cannot be believed that such a grave Writer has said this by chance. It must be agreed that his opinion was founded either on the authority of other writers who the insult of time has taken away from us, or on the ancient traditions held by the inhabitants of that Region, it being a regular and natural thing that peoples transplanted from their native country to other distant regions should keep the memories of their origin. After so many centuries and so many events suffered by poor Italy these are now lost. At the time of Strabo, however, the inhabitants of Peucezia could still retain them, and it is to be assumed that they retained them, and he, who was a very accurate and minute writer, collected them.

So the landing of Oenotro, and Peucezio in our Regions or whether it is a historical fact or who wants to believe it is a fairy tale, this is not relevant to the detriment of the things I have said about the origin of our city. If the Greeks of the Peloponnese who founded it were not led by Oenotro and Peucezio, could it therefore be said that they could not have happened there under other Condottieri? Since the ancient emigrations of the Greeks to our regions and the occupation made by the Greek colonies of the places adjacent to the sea cannot be questioned, it is of no importance for the object in question whether the names of their chiefs are known. The particular circumstances that I noted in order to investigate the peoples of Greece who were part of the foundation of our city,