The latter part of the above quotation which I have marked with italics, shews that the learned author of Nimrod was not aware that the great year was either the great or little Neros—either 600 or 608 years. His expression respecting the games probably being celebrated in more periods than the 608th year of Rome, in the time of Sylla, seems to shew that they were not then understood, and it seems actually to prove the correctness of the idea also of Nimrod, that all the early Roman history is a Mythos. I consider the fixing of the period by Augustus at 110 years, as a manifest modern contrivance to serve political purposes of the moment. The extreme difficulty and profound pontifical investigation necessary to fix the time of the Ludi Sæculares, admitted by Nimrod, was one of the circumstances which gave weight to the opinion of Figulus, named before, in Chap. II. Sect. 7, because he was considered to be the most learned in dark and mysterious science of any man in Rome.
From a careful consideration of all that has been written on the subject of the Ludi Sæculares, I am quite satisfied that the Romans had no certain knowledge respecting them, which is proved by the circumstance of their having celebrated them at different times, in order that they might hit upon the right time. Another fact, that one of these times was the supposed 608th year from the foundation of Rome, the great Neros, raises a strong presumption that this was originally the religious forgotten period to which they referred. The pretended period of 120 years, as a real period of history, is disposed of by an observation of the only historian of Rome to whom any attention can be paid—Niebuhr—who says,[1] “From the foundation of Rome to the capture, I here find 360 years, (Rome’s fundamental number, twelve times thirty,) and this period as a whole broken into three parts: one third manifestly occupied by the three first kings, to the year 120; the second by the remaining kings, to the banishment of Tarquin; the third, the commonwealth. Divisions so accurate are never afforded by real history. They are a sign which cannot be mistaken, of an intentional arrangement dependent on the notion of a religious sanctity in numbers.” This kind of superstition has every where prevailed and corrupted all history. Mr. Niebuhr’s observation, that twelve times thirty make the 360, is true; but why should these numbers have been adopted? I apprehend they, in this case, counted by the cycle of Vrihaspati 60, and they made 6 cycles; 6 × 60 = 360: and this was founded on the Indian dodecan 5, which, with them, was called a Lustrum, and which, equally with the 6, formed a base for the cycle of 60, or of 120, or of 600, or of 1200, or of 6000, or of 432,000. By means of the two sacred numbers, 5 and 6, already described in my preliminary observations, (p. 6,) they would always form cycles, which would be commensurate with one another, so as easily to count their time, in order to regulate their festivals.
The ancient Etruscan sacred period was ten—that of the Romans (disguised under a story of twelve vultures) was twelve—but to make the two come together the twelve periods were made of 120 years each, (10 × 120 = 1200,) this makes up just two Neroses. But probably the Indian system of 432,000 was the secret cycle; for, from the founding of Rome to the building of Constantinople was called 1440 years: 4 × 360 = 1440, and 12 × 360 = 4320: the same cyclical system. These circumstances, and the evident identity of the Sanscrit and Etruscan written languages, seem to raise a fair presumption, that the sacred cycles were the same in both India and Italy. I repeat that I feel no doubt that the Roman Sæculum of 110 years was, comparatively speaking, a modern invention, when, from the carelessness of the Consuls or Priests, the burning of the sacred books, or some other cause, their ancient measures of time had become lost. Varro states,[2] “In the eighth Sæculum it was written, that, in the tenth, they were to become extinct.” This evidently refers to the 10 Neroses.
The observation of Mons. Niebuhr, respecting the Mythos, is very just, but he might have
