12. According to Cicero, one of the first Romans to write in Latin was the Sabine Claudius (gens), Appius Caecus who was consul in 307 and 296 BC. His speech to the Senate, in Latin, was against making peace with Pyrrhus, the Greek king of Epirus.
13. The first Roman historians who wrote in Latin were Porcius Cato (234-140 BC) and Lucius Cassius Hemina (circa 146 BC).
14. One would logically ask : what language did the Romans speak, read and write before Latin if not Greek? Why are all occidental commentators so very silent about this issue ?
15. All of the aforementioned occidental commentators agree on the general outlines of Roman beginnings (Ursprung), as this is revealed through the existence of the official Roman “sacred tablets” (Ιεραί Δέλτοι) or annales maximi [15] mentioned by the first annalists. However, the original annales have been lost, and we only have what historians and annalists mention, due to the uncertainty of the events and figures, and the confused state of the Roman calendar prior to the Julian Reform.
16. On the basis of unreliable Cato fragments, the Gallo-Roman French revolutionaries of 1789 reckoned that the Romans and Greeks were one and the same people, as one group of French revolutionaries were called the “Catonistes à la Robespierre”, at which revolutionary time, the overwhelming majority of Gallo-Romans were re-gaining control of the land, plundered, for so many centuries, by a tyrannical Teutonic Frankish minority of just about 2% of the population.[16] Enthusiasm for Greco-Roman antiquity and hatred for Papal Christianity, used by the Frankish conqueror to completely debase 85% of the population, led to the establishment of a new revolutionary natural religion, overriding Papal Christianity.
In spite of Cato’s popularity during the French Revolution, only fragments of his work were and still are publicly known. Dionysius of Halicarnassus is the only historian we know of who differentiates between Greek and Roman sources regarding Roman chronology and the henceforth tendentious falsifications, very popular since the sacking of Rome in 390 BC. The stories concerning the founding of Rome are the most tendentious anomalies entertained through misinterpretations, cognomina and anomalies ever since the fourth century BC. Despite both Cato and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, they all agree to efface the Greek origins of Rome, its peoples and its empire. The chronological scheme is supposed to be based on the Ιεραί Δέλτοι, i.e. sacred tablets,[17] or the Septimontium. The only outcome is the utter ridicule concerning the founding of Rome, and the first five centuries of its historical existence. In short, according to occidental ideology of history, nothing happened before Julius Caesar, and the Romans suddenly spake Latin out of the historic blue!
17. Livy reports a short but accurate summary account of the foundation annals. He takes for granted that Rome was founded as a Greek city and nation. He wrote his history in Latin, whereas the historic annals were written in Greek. Those who wrote in Greek simply copied what they read in Greek. It was Lucius Cassius Hemina who started writing the annals of Roman history in Latin. Evidently, however, he and his imitators did not make full use of appropriate Greek texts and speeches at their disposal, which they would have had to translate; those who wrote their histories in Greek, simply copied the Greek texts directly from the annals. Since the primitive Romans were Greeks, why should the official annals be in what we now call Latin? As mentioned earlier, the primitive Latins and Romans were a combination of Greek Arcadians, Trojans, Pelasgians and Lacedaemonian Sabines. Just as it is clear there has never been any Roman Gods, religion or Mythology; the Gods were Greek, as were the people who believed in them. We can even state there has never been any kind of Latin or Roman culture, architecture, music, science or anything pertaining to advanced civilisation. Everything was Greek; and educated Romans learned, spoke and wrote in Greek. Only second rate political figures and annalists wrote in Latin.
Notae :
[ 15 ] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, RA I.LXXIII, 1. These “Ιεραί Δέλτοι”(sacred tablets) are usually understood to be the annales maximi kept each year by the Pontifex Maximus. The foundation narratives about Rome’s beginnings do not vary substantially from the final tradition. The names involved in the final Roman foundation tradition are basically the same as in the earliest 3 traditions quoted by Dionysius as follows: 1) “Some of these say that Romulus and Romos, the founders of Rome, were the sons of Aeneas, 2) others say that they were the sons of a daughter of Aeneas, without going on to determine who was the father; they were delivered as hostages to Latinus, the king of the Aborigines, when the treaty as made between the inhabitants and the new comers, and that Latinus, after giving them a kindly welcome, not only did them many other offices, but, upon dying without male issue, left them his successors to some part of his kingdom. 3) Others say that after the death of Aeneas, Ascanius, having succeeded to the entire sovereignty of the Latins, divided both the country and the forces into three parts, two of which he gave to his brothers, Romulus and Romos. He himself, they say, built Alba Longa; Romos built cities which he named Capua, after Capys, his great-grandfather, Anchisa, after his grandfather Anchises, Aeneia (which was afterwards called Janiculum), after his father, and Rome after himself. This last city was for some time deserted, but upon the arrival of an other colony, which the Albanians (Αλβανοί) sent out under leadership Romulus and Romos, it received again its ancient name.”
[ 16 ] In preparation for the convocation of representatives of the clerical and lay nobility and of the middle class the king ordered a counting of the total population of about 26,000,000 which resulted in the following breakdown: nobility 2%, middle class 13% and villains and serfs 85%. For these population figures see the edition of Germaine de Staël’s book, Considérations sur La Révolution Française, par Tallandier, Paris 1881, p. 610. Jacques Godechot who prepared the reedition of this book cites J. Dupaquier, La population française aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Paris (Que sais-je?) 1979. Madame de Staël (1766-1817) was the daughter of Louis XVI’s Finance Minister Jacques Necker (1732-1804). These figures are also in DICTIONNAIRE GENERAL de la POLITIQUE par M. MAURICE BLOCK, NOUVELLE EDITION, TOME PREMIER, PARIS 1873, p. 1023
[ 17 ] Just quoted.