A History of the Roman World (63 page)

5
J
ANUS
. L. A. Holland,
Janus and the Bridge
(1961) has argued that the god Janus was a
numen
attached to water-crossings,
Janus
meaning gateway. In later times the gateways
and temples of Janus were opened in war and closed in peace: Mrs Holland explains that originally the Janus was opened by removing the bridge (
Ianus invius
) when war threatened, and closed (
Ianus pervius
) by replacing the bridge in times of peace. Her book is full of ingenious ideas and her thesis has been accepted by e.g. E. Gjerstad (cf.
JRS
, 1963, 229 f.) and (apparently) J. Heurgon (
Rise of R.
, 32). A major obstacle is that the ancient sources do not seem to connect Janus with water-crossings.

6
F
OUNDATION LEGENDS
. See especially Dion. Hal., i, 72–4; Livy, i, 1–7 (with Ogilvie’s
Livy
). A full up-to-date bibliography of the large modern literature on this topic is given by T. J. Cornell,
Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc.
, 1976, 1, n. 2 (note also two recent discussions: H. Strasburger, ‘
Zur Sage von der Gründung Roms
’,
Sb. Heidelb. Akad.
, 1968, and G. K. Galinsky,
Aeneas, Sicily and Rome
(1969)). Cornell’s article, ‘Aeneas and the Twins: the Development of the Roman Foundation Legend’ (op. cit.
supra
) is a valuable and thoroughly documented discussion. He argues that the story of Romulus and Remus was the original authentic Roman version of the founding of the city. He counters the arguments of Strasburger who believes in a late literary origin for the twins (early third century) and that the story was invented as anti-Roman propaganda by an unknown Greek author (the story had unsavoury episodes, such as the murder of Remus and the rape of the Sabine women). The evidence is extremely complex, so reference must be made to Cornell’s article for further detail. On the myths of early Rome in general see M. Grant,
Roman Myths
(1973).

7
A
ENEAS IN ETRURIA
. See G. K. Galinsky, op. cit, n. 6, ch. iii; and A. Alföldi,
Early Rome and the Latins
(1965), 287. For recent attempts to lower considerably the date of the Aeneas statuettes in Etruria see M. Torelli,
Roma medio-repubblicana
, 335 f.,
Dialoghi di Arch.
, 1973, 339 ff., and for the consequential dating of the whole legend of Aeneas in Italy see T. J. Cornell,
Liverpool Classical Monthly
, 4, April 1977, 75 ff.

8
L
AVINIUM AND ALBA LONGA
. See F. Castagnoli (ed.),
Lavinium
, i (1972), ii (forthcoming),
Par. Pass
, xxxii, 1977, 340 ff. Timaeus: Dion. Hal., i, 67; Jacoby,
FGrH
566 F 59. Inscription to Lar: S. Weinstock,
JRS
, 1960, 114 ff; doubts about the reading have been raised by H. G. Kolbe,
Röm. Mitt.
, 1970, 1 ff. which though countered by M. Guarducci, ibid., 1971, 73 ff., still persist (see Cornell, op. cit
supra
, n. 7). Heroon: Dion. Hal, i, 64; P. Sommella,
Atti pont, accad. rom. arch. Rendiconti
, xliv (1971–2), 47 ff.;
Civiltà del Lazio primitivo
(1976), 305 f., (bibliography in Cornell, op. cit.
supra
, n. 6, p. 14 n. 3; photograph in
Arch. Reports 1973–4
, 47). For some difficulties in accepting the identification with the shrine described by Dionysius and an origin of the cult in the sixth century see Cornell,
Liverpool Cl. Monthly
, April 1977, 79 ff.
    Aeneas was linked with Alba Longa as well as with Lavinium. In rivalry, Alba twice unsuccessfully tried to transfer the Penates from Lavinium to itself (Dion. Hal., i, 67), and a Greek mythologer Conon (first century
BC
) preserved a version that Aeneas had settled in Alba, not Lavinium; in Ennius and Naevius Aeneas may have married the daughter of the king of Alba, not Lavinia. Further, according to legend Aeneas was led by a sow (with thirty piglets, symbolizing the thirty Latin peoples) to the site of Lavinium (so e.g. Timaeus) or alternatively to the site of Alba, which got its name Alba from a
sus alba
(so Fabius Pictor, frg. 4, Peter). Though no archaeological evidence supports the claim that Rome was settled by Alba (as has often been believed), yet Alba may well have exercised some leadership (through the religious league) in Latium before she was destroyed in the mid-seventh century, and as such would be thought to have claims as strong as Lavinium. On Alba’s claim to Aeneas see Galinsky,
Aeneas, Sicily and Rome
(1966), 43 ff.; Alföldi,
Early Rome and the Latins
, 271 ff.

9
T
HE EARLY KINGS AND DUMÉZIL
. Attempts to dismiss the early kings as gods or as personifications of the seven hills have been demolished by G. De Sanctis,
SR
, 1,358 ff. With
great ingenuity and in a large number of books G. Dumézil has developed novel ideas about early Roman society, its gods, and kings. These are based on the assumption that, since the Romans shared with Indians and Celts a common Indo-European ancestry, it is legitimate to seek help in these other areas in order to solve problems and obscurities in early Rome. Thus he believes that early Roman society, like early Indian, was divided into three classes: the priests (who included the kings), the warriors, and the producers or farmers, corresponding respectively to religious sovereignty, military strength and fertility. This tripartite division was seen in early Rome in the three tribes of Ramnes (priests), Luceres (warriors) and Tities (producers). In religion Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus were responsible for the three functions, with their corresponding priests (
flamines
). In many legends and myths a ‘terrible’ type of king (who was also a magician) was contrasted with a more just ruler: in India they are Varuna and Mitra, in Rome they are the gods Jupiter and Fides (or Divus Fidius) and the earthly kings the terrible Romulus and the pious and peaceful Numa. The second, military, function produced Indra, Mars and Tullus Hostilius; the third, fertility, produced Quirinus and Ancus Marcius. Later, Tarquin contrasted with Servius Tullius. It is unnecessary here to list the numerous works in which Dumézil has argued his views, except his synthesis,
Archaic Roman Religion
, 2 vols (1970): these views have had considerable influence especially among French historians of religion, but for rejection see, e.g., H. J. Rose,
JRS
, 1947, 183 ff., or A. Momigliano,
Terzo Contrib.
, 581 ff., who concludes that ‘not only is his evidence weak, but his theories are unnecessary’.
    For discussion about the legends concerning the kings, and indeed on all aspects down to 390
BC
see above all R. M. Ogilvie,
Livy
. This work is indispensable for any study of this period but since reference cannot be made to it at all relevant points, this general direction of the reader’s attention to it must be emphasized. See also Ogilvie’s shorter synoptic work,
Early Rome and the Etruscans
(1976).
    A. Alföldi,
Die Struktur des voretruskischen Römerstaates
(1974) is ‘essentially a work of comparative anthropology, not history’: so writes R. M. Ogilvie in his review of this book (
Cl. Rev.
, 1976, 240 f.). It tries to discern the society of the Latins while they were still living in a nomadic state when they passed, so it is supposed, from a matriarchy with triadic institutions to a patriarchy with binary institutions: see A. Momigliano,
Rivista Storia Italiana
(1977), 160 ff.

10
S
ABINE SETTLEMENT
. Long ago Mommsen dismissed a supposed early union of some Sabines and Romans as an anticipation of the granting of Roman citizenship to the Sabines in the third century. The most recent exponent of this negative view is J. Poucet: at length in
Recherches sur la légende sabine des origines de Rome
(1967), at medium length in
Aufstieg NRW
, i, i (1972), 48–135, and more briefly in
L’Ant. Class.
, 1971, 129 ff., 293 ff. With Mommsen, Poucet believes the whole story was designed to justify the dual magistracy at Rome; also that the fighting in Rome was based on the capture of the Capitol by the Sabine Appius Herdonius in 460
BC
(Livy, iii, 15) and on the battle with the Samnites at Luceria in 294 (if the former of these supposed precedents is possible, the latter is almost certainly to be rejected). For a criticism of Poucet’s views (including his assumption about Livy’s sources) see R. M. Ogilvie
Cl. Rev.
, 1968, 327 ff. From the historical point of view the important question is not so much the details of the legends but rather whether a vague tradition of a real infusion of Sabines into early Rome is likely to have survived into later times.

11
T
ARQUINIUS PRISCUS
. A tomb of the Tarchna family has been found at Caere, with the Latin equivalent of the name as Tarquitius, which is probably the same as Tarquinius. Thus the Tarquins may have come to Rome from Caere rather than from Tarquinii. See M. Cristofani,
La tomba delle iscrizioni a Cerveteri
(1965), appendix 1. Additional support
is given to Priscus’ existence by the consideration that Etruscan influence is shown by archaeology to have continued at Rome throughout the sixth century: so why not two Tarquins, as the Romans believed?

12
T
HE VULCI PAINTING AND MASTARNA
. For the painting see F. Messer-schmidt,
Nekropolen von Vulci
(1930), A. Momigliano,
Claudius
(1961) 11 ff., 85 f., A. Alföldi,
Early Rome and the Latins
(1965), 220 ff., M. Cristofani,
Dialoghi di Archeologia
, 1967, 186 ff. The emperor Claudius in a speech (the Table of Claudius, discovered at Lyons in 1528:
ILS
, 212, Smallwood,
Documents… of Gaius, Claudius and Nero
(1967), 369; cf. Tacitus,
Ann.
, xi, 23 ff.) quotes the Roman tradition that Servius Tullius was the son of Ocresia, a war captive, but prefers the Etruscan version that Servius was the same as Mastarna who came to Rome after his friend and leader Caelius Vibenna had been killed, and was honoured when one of the hills was named the Caelian after him. The Etruscan version is illustrated by the Vulci painting, though not all details are clear. Three other groups in the painting show single combats in which men from Volsinii, Sovana, and (?) Falerii, are being killed by three warriors who presumably came from Vulci (their names, and those of the towns of the vanquished, are painted in). One important aspect of the painting is that it reveals the existence of Etruscan historical traditions, separate from the Roman: thus Mastarna became known to the Romans only much later, though his discoverer is uncertain: see T. J. Cornell,
Amali di Pisa
, iii, 6 (1976), 432 ff.
    There is no need to follow G. De Sanctis (
SR
, I, 375, 446 ff.) who regarded Mastarna as a duplicate of Lars Porsenna (p. 75), or L. Pareti (
St. Etr.
, v, 154 ff.) who carried the argument further by identifying Mastarna with both Porsenna and Servius Tullius, who are considered to be reduplications of one person, as are the two Tarquins whom they succeeded.
    
Macstarna
is the Etruscan form of the Latin word
magister
, and therefore appears to be a title rather than a personal name. That, however, does not necessarily mean that this anonymous hero did not perform the acts attributed to ‘Macstarna’, while if Claudius was right his name will have been Servius and he may well stand in that part of the sixth century to which tradition assigned Servius. Ogilvie (
Early Rome
, 88), however, is inclined to place him, together with the Vibennae, in the late rather than the earlier sixth century and to regard him as an adventurer who seized the superior magistracy at Rome during the chaos following the fall of the Tarquins.
    For the Vibenna inscription from Veii and two others (from Bolsena and Vulci) see M. Pallottino,
St. Etr.
, xii, 455 ff. and the works listed by W. V. Harris,
Rome in Etruria
(1971), 11, n. 7.
    A. Alföldi,
Early Rome and the Latins
(1965), ch, v, has put forward the imaginative theory that Rome was in fact ruled by a series of conquering Etruscan kings from Tarquinii, Caere, Vulci, Veii and Clusium. It is perhaps sufficient here to refer to A. Momigliano’s review of this book (
JRS
, 1967, 211 ff. =
Quarto Contrib.
, 487 ff.) and on this point to his conclusion that ‘the theory… seems to me to be without the slightest foundation in our evidence’. For Alföldi’s restatement of his theory see
Römische Frühgeschichte
(1976), 168 ff.

13
D
IANA’S AVENTINE TEMPLE
. The attempt by A. Alföldi (
Early Rome
, 85 ff.) to assign this temple to a date after 500
BC
as a mere imitation of the federal sanctuary at Aricia has been rejected by A. Momigliano (
Terzo Contrib.
, 641 ff.) and R. M. Ogilvie (
Livy
, 182 f.). This is only one item in Alföldi’s main thesis, namely that Rome in fact gained predominance among the Latin cities only in the fifth century, and that the picture of Rome’s earlier leadership which is given by Livy is a deliberate and false invention by the annalist Fabius Pictor which has imposed itself on later writers. For discussion and rejection of this ingenious theory see A. Momigliano,
Quarto Contrib.
, 487 ff, Ogilvie,
Cl.
Rev.
, 1966, 94 ff, A. N. Sherwin-White,
Rom. Cit.
, edn 2, 190 ff. and M. Pallottino,
Comptes Rendus
, 1977, 216 ff. Pallottino’s article provides an excellent survey of the recent archaeological work which demonstrates the economic and cultural importance of sixth-century Rome and also assesses the historicity and achievements of Servius Tullius. See further below, p. 471 n 1.
    Granted that the Aventine cult of Diana goes back to Servius and the sixth century, its temporal relation to the Arician cult remains uncertain. Momigliano argued that it was the original cult, designed to unite Latium in a common bond with Rome (thus, e.g., old excavations at Aricia provided little evidence for cult before
c.
500
BC
); however, the evidence does not seem sufficiently conclusive to dismiss the priority of Aricia (cf. Ogilvie,
Early Rome
, 68). Ogilvie also stresses the connection between the Aventine cult and the Greek city of Massilia: Strabo (iv, 180) records that Diana’s statue was set up in the same way as that of Artemis (= Diana) at Massilia, which in turn derived from Ephesus. The emperor Claudius referred to rites which should be paid to Diana ‘according to the laws of the king (Servius) Tullius’ (
ex legibus Tulli regis
, Tacitus,
Ann.
xii, 8); these rites may therefore have been influenced by the federal cult of Artemis at Ephesus and more directly by that at the Greek colony at Massilia.