recent archaeological dis
Roman religion, law, and
to uncover the historical
from which the traditio
trates Livy s linguistic
his text It is both a ru
mentary on the text of
source-book for the sto
Oxford U niversity Press Am en House London E .C.4
GL SGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON
BOMB Y C LCUTT M DR S K R CHI L HORE D CC
C PE TOW N S LISBURY N IROBI IB  D  N CCR
KU L LUMPUR HONG KONO
Oxford University Press Amen House London
E.C.4
BOMIIAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI L HORE DACCA
C PE TOWN SALISBURY N IROBI IB D N ACCRA
KU L LUMPUR
 
  C O M M E N T R Y O N
L I V Y
B Y
AT THE C LAR END ON PRESS
i 9
 
PACEM Q VAESIVIT DEV
to
to
D. H. Cameron of Lochiel who gave me
then
mountain backs misty
where it was possible to read and write
The study ofLivy has always travelled
and Ratherius Petrarch and Macchiav
are but a few of the illustrious who hav
and been moved by it. And ifhe has been
the editions of Gronovius and Madvig
monuments of classical scholarship. t s
a new Commentary even on the first five
been done: so much still remains to do.
versial matters of history law and religi
inscrutable about his narrative techniq
understanding particularly of early Ro
with
years into numerous details ofstyle and la
that
ferent investigations together. The aim o
be to
day so
are obscure to us and many things were
this
Inevitably no two readers will ask the sa
quence I have had to be content with di
interested me as a reader. I have not ther
for the needs of the schoolboy or the un
but rather for the use of anyone who w
a systematic history of early Rome: stil
Livy himself.
every debt to written sources or personal
vii
appended a selective bibliography to eac
The abbreviations used throughout con
used by L Annee
publications shows
der rom. Republik or A. Momigliano s pap
53 (19
R
C O N T E N T S
L I S T O F M A P S x
A B B R E V I A T I O N S x i i i
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Life i
Sources 5
Select Bibliog raphy 22
C O M M E N T A R Y
Book 1 23
Book 2 233
Book 3 39
Book 4 526
Book 5 626
Persons 753
General 763
Latin 77
 
enc
much in
history and improving a
draft of the ty
P. G. Walsh for laboriously correcting t
saving me from countless errors; Mr.
advice on
Cambridge, for allowing me to consult
annotated copies of Livy; the librarian
Verona, for permitting me to collate t
(Codex Veronensis); the librarian of
Florence, for permitting me to collate
Director and Staff of the British School
the Trustees of the Craven Fund for ge
travelling expenses; the Governing B
Oxford, and Clare College, Cambridg
unworried research; Professor Sir Rona
Williams, Professor W. D.
A. . Bryan-Brown, Mr. C. G. Hardi
Jasper Griffin, Mr. G. W. Bowersock fo
my pupils, among whom should be me
Dr. G. C. Duncan, Mr. Henry Brooke,
Macleod, Mr. C. P. Jones, Mr. P. F. D.
Barber, for many provocative discussi
Oxford University Press for willingly un
far outgrown its original limits, and th
readers; and Jennifer who typed the
selfishly allowed me to be preoccupied f
xi
 
A B B R E V I A T I O N S
Bu rck = E . Bu rck ,  Die Erzählungskunst des T Livius  Berlin,
K lo tz = A . K lo tz ,  Livius u s Vorgänger  Ne ue W eg e z.
Ant ike , 1941) .
S c h u l z e = W . S c h u l z e ,  Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennam en
Berl in , 1904) .
Sk a rd = E . Sk a rd ,  Sallust u s Vorgänger  Oslo, 1957).
S o l t a u = W . S o l t a u ,  Livius  Geschichtswerk seine Komposition und
seine Quellen  Leipzig , 1897) .
S y d e n h a m — E . A . S y d e n h a m ,  The Coinage of the Roman Republic
London , 1952) .
Livius Berlin,
Antike, I94I .
Berlin, I904).
W. Soltau, Livius Geschichtswerk seine Komposition und
sei le
London, I952).
In Corn. 68; Martial I 61.
3) and accoun
Rome in
Jerome ad Euseb. Chron. ad
Ann. Abr. 195
in A.D. 13, Livy in A.D. 17. The dates for
years. Messalla
eight (31 B.C.) and he was dead by A.D. 8 (
ThatJerome s date
for Livy s
death is rig
Periocha of Book
142
book
the last thr
same. Moreover, the superscriptionreadse
to
confusion between the consuls· of 64 Ca
59
A.D.12 •.
Livii figure in various inscriptions from .
and one
T. Livius C.J. with two sons and a wife, Cas
has been presuIIJ.ed to be the historian s
us nothing of his private life or of his par
a daughter who
of
It may
that he received his early education loc
fluency in Greek (5. 33-35 n.) and his
matters
may
Livy is next heard of in Rome as the hi
of approach enable us to date the change.
first five books indicates that they were co
25
B.C.
I .
cf.
I .
56.2
n., 57. 9 n., 59. 12 n., 2 34. 12 n., 43
5
8
0
there is nothing in
death ofDrusus in 9 B.C., were a later add
the work. Livy s first objective had been
and
of
begun to return to normal
and
academic
optimism that is evident in Virgil s Georgi
flourish once again.
realistic, permeates his writing. Personal fa
this outlook. Padua
young and, if his interests are any guide,
the pursuits
Epist I . 14.,6; Martial 16; Pomponi
trade and trade requires the settled co
nationality
and
and
p
hi
write history (Suetonius, Claudius 41.
I)
be traced in the debt which thirty years l
speeches still owed to Livy s style. Yet L
I For Livy s political ignorance see r. 32. 12 n.
44·
12
n., 52. 10 n., 56. 4 n., 5. 9. 3
n.; cf. also 4·
f of the
Pliny the Elder, until their author s death
ing, and perhaps incriminating, contents.
of
more important. Livy recognized the gre
had rendered Rome
He is never mentioned as one of Maece
never linked with any other
ofthe literar
Knowledge of it came to Augustus ears w
promising a star and
come involved. He left his mark only o
imperial household, the invalid Claudi
highest degree improbable, as has someti
sonal familiarity through
court circles ena
the
of Antony (Vell. Pat. 2. 86. 3) whom he
Pollio had been governor of Cisalpine G
harsh measures against Padua. Here was
Pollio had taken up Sallust s role as an his
literary adviser Ateius Philologus (Sueto
proceeded to compose a continuation o
finished at
political attitude to history
stated (Seneca,
the manner ofSallust
5
Ira
but
not
appeal
tested and ridiculed by Sallust, who was.
Suas. 6. 15, 6. 24, 6. 27). Cicero had consi
and apart from party, if only because he
He had advocated peace
virmagnus ac memorabilis
10. I 39). He himself shows at all points
of the great orator. Yet even here Livy c
righteous criticism. Cicero, he judges, ha
deservedly, but with the sole exception
of
There
ofhumour are to
to offer moral judgements
Rome to see the great author· (Pliny,
Dialogus 10):
I/Jvxfj
spent most
for c. 2
that
were written then), and
effective
(cf.
4
 
I . 5. 56; cf 8. I. 3; see on Style below). T
deeper to the provincial and middle-class
at Padua not Rome.
Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. 64 (1959),
critically reviewed by G. V. Sumner, Au
Mette, Gymnasium, 68 (1961), 269 ff.: see
92 (1961),440 ff For later mythology ab
Studies in the Italian 60 ff.; G
P. Sambiri, Ital. Med. e Uman. 1 (1958),
The personal details about Livy are all
know more it would not help us to apprec
of his history. For Livy was preoccupied
affairs of the day
Lawrence of Arabia to claim that he ha
Oxford Union Library. But, true or fals
his method
particular section
an
analysi
one
of
e
a comparison leaves
no doubt that
vestigations is given by Walsh, Livy, 110-
that although his methods may
be
more
wrong to conceive ofLivy combing throug
sitting down to write a composite account
and adapted a single version for the main n
name variantsor cite alternatives, but this i
pedantry expected of an historian. t me
5
absence of any knowledge of Varro s pr
engage in original research himself is u
Varro had done
short digression
Di
searches into the rural tribes (1. 43. 13 n.
Cremera Cn. Fabius and not, as was first p
Fabius (4.43. 1 n.). He is content with L
planation of the ovatio
whom Varro canvassed as the elder Tarqu
example
of
The
that Livy was not concerned to further
anxious to write history and, for that
supply
of
collatio, as Pliny remarked in a similar co
As it is probable that at any moment Li
and
generally consulted by him will be ver
I Since I do not believe that Livy directly con
dealbatae as exposed by the pontijices (Cicero, de Dr
Macrobius
3.2.
Scaevola, the pontifex maximus c. I23 B.C. , I ha
any account of these documents in
the
Introduct
in the Commentary and to list in the Index thos
my opinion derive ultimately from the Annales. Fr
contrary to prevailing opinion, I believe that a
n
much more variegated material than is usually ass
and that their editi<ili, so far from amounting to a
history, consisted of
a consecutive narrative. For recent discussions o
Crake, Class. Phil. 35 (I940), 375 fr.; P. Fraccaro,
same reason I do not discuss two of the
main
sour
dates-imaginary the of
are trea
Macer, and Q Aelius Tubero. Livy s n
treated too seriously. The identity and c
be unravelled
a wide area the picture which emerges
employed only two main sources for the h
them alternately. For digressions on leg
graphical matters (5. 33-35 nn.) he
might
hind
cast on the early historyofRome. In order
of historical writing before Livy and to ap
became at once a classic that relegated i
it is necessary to examine the life and
w
day a prominent politician and was the f
Calvus. His immediate ancestry is unkno
father was called Lucius and that he m
closing years of the second century B.C. if
(or possibly 88: Pliny, N H 7. 165). A c
116 may
tribune
in
Cicero 9. 2).
not
It
but Sulla s law which excluded tribunes
repealed in 75. To his tribunate two sig
instituted an abortive prosecution of
C.
100, and
7
no less striking is another series issue
figuring, as it is generally interpreted, V
723, 724, 726, 732). These six issues of
the latest are unique in Republican coin
employed as a type-motif. The challenge is
genetrix,
that patron of he old Italian nation (Varro
(Virgil, Georgics
significance, the Veiovis-type must be th
propaganda and Licinius is one of those
Licinius is a
to define what the
Marius and his friends, or to vilify Sulla,
argument
speech delivered by Licinius as tribune 3.
sation and rewriting Sallust himself indulg
of capital importance for Licinius att
ominously by reminding the people of t
maioribus relictum vobis et hoc a Sulla par
slogans and jargon of party politics hi
placency has allowed the people to surre
fare; and their destinies into the hands ofa
engendered by promises
delenimenta) and f
themselves
above all, to organize themselves as a uni
can
are asked to believe professed no more th
doxy-an ideal supremacy of the peopl
authority ofa benevolent Senate (M. I H
85) but
ad summam
judices and politics into the writing ofhist
8
places where wrong attributions have be
the process produces a coherent body of
Licinius was fashioned after the regula
Fabius Pictor
as to the date
that he directed his energies to history duri
the political wilderness. The extant frag
with
allusion to Pyrrhus (fr. 20 P.). He is
no
incomplete, or at least had not extended
at his death.
In surnaming his son Calvus, Macer r
of his forefathers, P. Licinius Calvus. Liv
allows Macer s bias to shine through. A
against all probability, P. Licinius is ass
plebeian consular tribune, to have won hi
campaign, to have resigned a second co
him by popular demand, in favour of his
and to have been given precedence in t
1-2 nn., 18. 5 n., 20. 4-10 n.). Nor was th
in that way. The list
of
did
not
placed him
ea propriae familiae laus leviorem
auctorem
had
both
(cf. fr. 19 P.). His date for the Battle ofCre
that battle and the fate of its survivors
3.
more revealing in th
Sicinii amply graced the pages
of
Mac
Alban Sicinius (1. 24. In.). Sicinii are nu
call of avant-garde tribunes (2. 32. 2 n., 5.
plebeian Sicinius is substituted for a patri
One ofthe most interesting of these person
(n.). Macer alone ofhistorians records the
One of the last prominent Marians, Q
terms with Sulla in 82 (Vell. Pat. 2 27. 6
to death on Sulla s orders in 81 (Plutarch,
the reward of a consulship although he
B.G. 1
t7T Tr€a
throw episodes or incidents from contem
past. Livy himself was not above doing th
to have done so liberally. What is
of
esp
associates
or
detractions
of
Sulla.
The
so M
turn of speech.
(Plutarch,
Marius
28)
This luckless noble, whose military career
was immortalized by having the details
o
the Senate
successor, the consul Cinna. This was an
Licinius challenged n his narrative ab
(2. 2 2-1 In.). Sulla had revived the di
120 years. The move was portentous an
among his opponents. Licinius insistently
that dictators could only be appointed b
with constitutional procedure (5.46. 7-1
1
or l l by
of the people 3.4. 9 n.). It is the people
I t is the people, not the Senate, who sho
determine their terms of reference (4. 51.
settle the conditions ofelection and powers
It is the people who should decide the is
this to be possible or effective the people
and led. There had to be a powerful and
telum
acerrimum libertati paratum as Macer c
Livy 3. 55. 3 n.). Macer, as it is to be exp
cerned about
feature of his account is that he believe
to be derived from a foedus between t
 4.
6
struggle of the populus against the opportu
the struggle of the plebs against th
Time and time again we find Licinius gi
interpretation of an institution. The class
the Lex Canuleia de conubio and the origi
Equally biased but less obtrusive is his
(4. 12. 2 n.). It was as much for their pol
the desire to employ new material for itsow
the libri lintei as the source for his list of e
libri
ofJuno Mo
of the
fact they possessed no independent valu
them like the consular tribunate itself as
these specific facts, there is much gen
political hue. In his speech he protested t
dangers should receive the rewards (18
nulla
pars
(4. 49· I n.), complaints about the ine
land whereby the plebs were deprived
2. 42. n.). He hammers his message ho
force by the wholesale use of slogans and
 
which found political or rational explan
We may recognize the LiCinian slant in th
line Temple (2. 8. 6. n.), in the death o
legendofTatius (1.14. I-3n.), in the ration
4. 10 I I (n.) which so resemble his acc
or the Lavinian festival (fr. 5). Licinius w
with all the prejudices and faults of his cl
outlook that made his history fresh and e
The
interest. It has been remarked that Lici
the Italian cities and their oppression un
history he shows
of
that
h
of
due to him. Licinius had evidently resear
partiCipated in theferiae Latinae (c£ D.H.
he gave a political origin. Many of thes
occur in passing in Licinian sections of th
For instance eight
Priscus I. 38. 1-4 nn.). The three notices
betray the ·same bent (4. 29. 8 n.).
Such, then, were the sympathies of the
of the history
VALERIUS
ANTIAS
not given), was of a different stamp. As f
barked on a political career although a
other Valerius with that
an
undistingu
there is virtually no evidence. VeI1eius Pat
as a contemporary
Catilinarian conspiracy and the career of
of early Republican history. Neither ar
The
hu
on insp
Valerius obscurity. He was not a senator.
men like Macer or Sisenna would naturall
of be
75 (fr. 62 P.), but unfortunately the conte
committal and
be placed. The la
ment (fr. 57 P. from Aul. Gell. 6. 9. 12 is
and refers to the activities ofTiberius Gra
  f he figure 22 is correct, Valerius must h
two generations before his own at much g
history.
later date can hardly be sustained if 4.
Tubero edunt is taken seriously, for
Tubero had consulted Valerius history ju
Macer s (10.
Tubero was active in the 40 s and 30 s (
late date of40-30 B.C. for Valerius propos
is thus ruled out. I would conjecture that t
or thereabouts.
been duly observed and pilloried. The fi
ever, afford an opportunity of studying h
 
I t is not certain that fr. 60 P., said to come f
need refer
100,
is unknown in this period, and Licinius
need no
domination of Cinna, i
be M. Mariu (Gratidianus).
cently published a useful summary
Sitzun
although they were branded by Cicero
106), they contained some selection from t
Valerius indebtedness to him is witnes
I. 31. 8 n., 46. 4 n., 2. 13. 11 n., 32. In .
this foundation Valerius set out to constr
The most striking single feature is the
which outdoes anything which Macer c
though
before Antias wrote, the Valerii claim a
firsts .
The
M . Valerius 2. 18.6 n.); the first recip
games was M . Valerius Volusi f. 3 I.
popular demand was awarded to L Val
public subscription for a funeral was aw
IQ-I I n.; cf. 3. 18. I I). It can be shown th
naming L Valerius as the prosecutor o
and M. Valerius as the prosecutor ofM.
Valerii were the saviours
the First
L. Valerius restored order and confidenc
3· 7
history, there would seem to be little roo
gentes,
Genucii at 2.52.3,3. 33· 3, 7.42. 1-2: the
only contemporary Genucius of whom we
of Cybele (Val. Max. 7. 7. 6). Others ar
no claim to antiquity but prominent in th
compliments-a
sponsible for the fantastic cognomen Cicer
suggestive Cornicen (3. 35. 11 n.).
The
of political allies of respectable Roman
14
mediator with Sulla was required
it
was
and the other L
shared
by
Sulla is examined below. Here we
may n
but it
proud patricians
(2.23. 15;
of Sulla s staunchest allies was Ap. Claud
Sulla as consul in 79. At least one episode
his army
by Cinna
none other than L. Appuleius (Saturnin
The main centre of Valerius admirati
pressly stated but the evidence leaves no r
Sulla Valerius need not be specifically
The relative dates are not settled althou
Valerius is slightly the younger. Even if
Macer
is
should have written his own version inde
Sulla had aimed so to strengthen the s
it would be capable of ruling on its own
or subject to individual commanders bac
therefore to cast Sulla in the role of Serviu
echoes throughout Valerius account of
organization,
the
Sullan enactments such as that concern
games (2. 3 I . 3 n.), the reaffirmation of th
the calling of speakers in the Senate (2. 2
dictators (2. 31.
the v
factured for all that was good in Sulla's c
emphasized
not
atmospheri
the
(I. 53. 6 n., 2.
23.
3.66.4 n.).
led Valerius to take
to believe that a r i u s ~ sack of Antium i
to do with it.
petit (4. 59. 2 n.). Of course not every allu
to him
reasonably be assumed to be the source b
to be lavish and inquisitive in the detail
63.6 n., 3.
drags in the history of
the insignificant
Q. AELIUS
The
identity
of
this
Tubero
for s
had as of his legates in 60 B.G. a L. T
an historian ad QF I I 10; cf. pro Plane.
disqualified
by
his
Livy w
have written history
under the Triumvir
Dionysius of Halicarnassus addressed h
a Q. Aelius Tubero, generally taken to
expresses criticism of some contemporary
dides and makes it clear that Tubero was
16
panian delegation in 7. 30-31, which is bas
is modelled on the Corcyrean debate in
expressly censured one of Sallust s ada
(Seneca, Gontr.
than to that
of memorable epigrams, e.g. 4. 57. 4 cum
humana consilia ,Thuc. I 142. 1TOV a 7To
they give a thoroughly Thucydidean flav
23. 7· n., 25· 2 n., 49. 2 n., 58. 5 n., 3.
1 n., 71. 5 n., 5. 27. 12
n., 28. 8 n.).
the same Q. Aelius Tubero who remodelle
Thucydidean veneer. In that
cannot be demonstrated and since in poi
tinctive imprint seems to have been of
assume that Valerius was
paid to the technique of his compositio
exhaustive lists ofclasssical and non-classi
pages. Others have examined his direct
dividual episodes have been subject to m
my intention to add to these studies b
the problems which Livy faced som
devised to overcome them. In this way I
to see the purpose
I H;R.R.
fr.; R.
Imperii Romani
8 4432
data as he found them in his sources in o
account of early times,
by being turned into moral parables. The s
exemplifies the principles of pietas and
Lucretia I. 57-59) and
quam moderationis 4. 41.7). The affair of
tion to prove the rule of
Roman clementia
necessary virtue
facilitated
by
Thus, to cut across the vertical lines o
Livy constructs a series of episodes round
secure the unity of these episodes
he
has
They
introductions-erat tum inter equites tribunu
 4· 19· 1,2.33.5,2.3.
prefaced by a moralizing sententia 2.2.2,
reader that he should expect an anecdote.
struction of
the episodes
struction as defined by Aristotle and alrea
history by Hellenistic historians (D.H. de
Polybius 1.3.4,3. I 4-5,
principles ofthe Unities of
two separate campaigns into one 2.
34-
nonsense
but
and of the conspiracy ofBrutus sons are
nique of simplification: the scene-chang
cidental characters omitted. A compariso
of
and
purpose, engaged the reader s attention
the modern. His descriptions ofscenes and
and substance of the novel, were given
in
time he suggested the atmosphere of the
p
it was branded as a dark dialect of Angl
In this way Scott captured two worlds, t
Livy s technique is similar. Steeped fro
oratory of Cicero, acquainted with the
and familiar every weapon the rh
politics, Livy could with ease represent an
and vocabulary of his day. He often did s
for the throne ofRome reads more like an a
conspiracy than a prehistoric usurpation (
is the conspiracy of the sons of Brutus rep
cepted letters to match those of the Allo
which attended
(2. 35)
has all the air ofa political trial of he 50 S a
on the trial of Milo in 52 3. 11-13).
The
marked
or
made by T. Quinctius 3. 67-68), C. Canu
 5. 3-6), and Camillus (5. 51-54) to sou
not disappointed. Anyone of them cou
Cicero s audiences. But the same method is
also. Cincinnatus vehement appeal (3.
defence 4. 44. 7), C. Terentilius advoca
tinctively and richly Ciceronian . Each is
rhetorical art. No wonder that the senato
ried round with
.19
or interchange of dialogue. We may dete
technique which Livy must have evolve
sophical dialogues. And these fragments
indirect speech are flavoured by the judic
language. A colloquialism or an archaism,
term woven into the dialogue serves to c
to make him sound as a figure from the
rtescio quo pacto antiquusfit animus (43. 13. 2)
Hercules and Cacus is Evander's greeti
religious and poetical phrases are mingled.
to action by dramatic language (I. 41. 3)
Tarquinius Superbus is conveyed by a
(I. 47. 3-5). The coarse impetuosity of
in a single vulgar exclamation (I. 50. g)
highlighted by the menaces of Sex. Tar
poignant interchange between Lucretia a
At the height of his exploit Horatius Cocl
found also n Ennius (2.10.11). The final
comprises the moving dialogue between
inwhich language.and rhythm combine to
(2. 40. 4-9). C.
Laetorius is crude and
guage indiscriminately. t S wrong to
archaic
and
laterDecades tow
yopla,s (ad Pomp. 3. 20), Philistus as o v 8 ~
a v v € ~ a w v T US ;\6yovs (ibid. 5. 6), and
7TPE7TOVTOS T rS 7TpoaW7TO'S 7To;\;\aK JaTO
8,a ,6yo,s 7TP€7T01Jcrn p.a.>J..ov aTpaTtWTtKOrS
Lucian similarly advocates that speec
7TpoaW7TCfl (Quomodo Historia 58 .
Macaulay wrote
confident the author had heard of the fight
Be that
single combat of the Curiatii and
the
H
 4.
2B.
again there were precedents. Battle-des
literary exercise
which the boundary between poetry an
be very thin.
to ask what purpose it was meant to serv
found true that most such phenomena f
categories outlined above. It
writing is often plain, sometimes ineleg
14.4 n., 2. 16.
53. In., 3. 26. 2 n., 4. 47. 4n.)-the Patav
On other occasions he will deliberately e
Annales 3. 5. 14 n., 10.6 n.,
4.30.
a pageant. 1
I His use
is important in this co
65· 7 n·,3· 9· 12 n., 5· 35· n., 37· 4 n.). In partic
is disavowed by Cicero (Orator 217) and Quinti
statistical analysis of the narrative sections of
the
of
figures given by Zielinski are 0·6 per cent. and
a dactylic rhythm, seen also in his opening senten
of words (e.g. the frequentative imperito for impero
for
explicavi ,
epic charac
See also
Symb. O
images Epitomes have been called th
eat out the poetry of it A Defence ofPoet
SELECT BIBLIOG
H.
  A . J .P . 70 (1949), 118ff.
R. jUMEAU R E A 38 (1936),63-68; Rev. Ph
W. KROLL Studien zum Verstiindnis der romisc
351 ff.
M. L W. LAISTNER The Greater Roman Histor
A.
194
6
R. M.
et
W.
S. G. STACEY Archivf Lat. Lex. 10 (1898), 1
B. L ULLMAN T A P A 73 (1942),25-33.
R. ULLMANN
19
2
7).
E t ud e sur le style des discours de Tite-Live (
P. G. WALSH Rh. Mus. 97 (1954), 97-114.
Livy, His Historical Aims and Methods
(Ca
A general bibliography of recent works cove
has been compiled by K.
Gries, Class. World
employed in this edition see:
R. M.
G. BILLANOVICH Ital. Med. e Uman. 2 (1959),
22
T H E P R E F A C E
T H E  historian w as exp ected to preface his volu m e with a prooemium  in
which he set out the scope and purpose of his work and advanced his
own attitude to history (Cicero,  ad Att,  16. 6 . 4 ; Lu cian, Quomodo
Historia
 52 -5 5) . T h e custom had been begun by Hec ataeus , Hero dotus ,
and Thucydides and had been canonized by the historians of the
Hellenistic period under the influence of Isocrates and others. As
the writing of history was increasingly governed by rhetorical prin
ciples,
  so the themes deployed in such prefaces degenerated into
rhetorical com m onplac es. Th eir aim w as the rhetorical aim of winn ing
the reader s goodw il l by presenting the history as som ething wo rthy
of his attention, as something useful and profitable. Into the basis
of that util ity they did not closely inquire. It was taken for granted
that the statesman would learn to regulate his policy or the individual
his conduct by historical example.
The Romans inherited the custom from the Greeks with l i t t le
change . The impersonal
  or
  OVKV818T)S
AOrjvatos
 m ight g ive way to the mo re int ima te
  ego
  but the content and
character of the preface remained the same. The rules for its com
position were formulated in handbooks (cf.
 Rhet, Lat. Min.,
  p. 588. 28
Halm). L. was no exception to the fashion. In form his Praefatio  cor
responds to the tradit ional mode. Most of the arguments can be
paralleled from the prefaces of his predecessors and are illustrated
in the notes below. Yet i t would be wrong to assume that because
L.  em ploys com m onp laces he does not necessarily subscribe to them
himself. A cliche need not be a l ie. In such a formal context it would
have been difficult, if not improper, to make radical innovations,
N on e the less it is the novelties wh ich tell us m ost abo ut his intentio ns,
and it is possible to form some impression of where L. disagreed with
earlier historians.
The closeness of Praef 9-11 (nn.) to the language used by Sallust
is proof that in writing his preface L. had his formidable predecessor
in mind. In the  Catiline  and the  Jugurtha  Sallust had adopted and in
the
  Historiae
  only tangentially modified the thesis that 146 B.C. was
the turning-point of R om an history. Before that date the R om an s had
uniformly displayed
 that is, they h ad aspired to accom plish on
behalf of the state  egregia
 facinora
  through
  and so to w in
gloria;  after that date, when the destruction of Carthage had removed
the last externa lly cohesive influence o n R o m an m orals (1. 19. 4 n.)
the society was invaded by  avaritia a n d  ambitio  cupido honorum)  which
3
P R E F A C E
led remorselessly   to  d e p r a v i t y  (luxuria).  It was not a  pro fou nd thesis.
Sal lust was not a  profound th inker . Such ideas en joyed wide c i rcu la
t ion  in  c o n te m p o r a ry R o m e .  But  Sal lust bel ieved  in it  e n o u g h  to  dis
t o r t  the  facts  of  his tory  to fit the  strai t - jacket  of his  phi losophica l
s c h e m e .  L.  rejects  it. In  assessing  t e decl ine  of p u b l i c m o r a l i t y  up to
his  own day L.  a d m i t s  the  e m e r g e n c e  of   avaritia  but is  s i len t ab ou t
ambitio  (Praef.
  10)  because  he  r ecogn izes tha t whereas  the  o p p o r -
tun i t e s for  af f luent l iv ing only b eca m e ava i lab le  in the  second cen tur y ,
forces such   as ambitio had  a lways been  at  work f rom  the very found a
t ion  of the  ci ty .  By  o m i t t i n g  ambitio L.  taci t ly rebukes Sal lust  for his
over-s implif ied  and  schemat i c ph i losophy .  L. had the  t ru er h is tor ica l
j u d g e m e n t . W h e r e S a l l u s t t a i l o r e d   his m a t e r ia l  to fit his v iew  of the
histor ical process ,  L. p r e s u p p o s e d  no  s u c h d e t e r m i n i s m .  For him the
course  of  his tory  was not a  straight progression from black  t   whi te
b u t  a  c h e q u e r e d p a t c h w o r k  in  which good  and  evil  had  a lways been
i n t e r w o v e n . E a c h e ve n t  had its m o r a l , but t h e m o r a l w a s the eye r o u n d
w h i c h the s tory co uld  be  cons t ruc ted  not a  fa r ther s tage a long  a  p r e
d e t e r m i n e d p a t h .
L. ' s re ject ion   of   Sal lust ' s thesis that  ambitio was a  l a te  and  decisive
p h e n o m e n o n , e x p l a i n e d   as it may be by the fact th at S allust 's earliest
efforts  as an his tor ian we re conf ined  to the events of the recen t pas t ,  is
in te res t ing  in  a n o t h e r w a y .  In it we may discern  the pre judices of the
m a n .  So far as we  k n o w ,  L. he ld  no  public office  and his  i g n o r a n c e of
publ ic bus iness  is d isclosed  by  a lmost every page  of the h i s to ry .  The
pol i t ica l ambi t ions  of the  n o r m a l R o m a n a p p e a r n ev e r  to  have
a t t r a c t e d   him.  ambitio  or  cupido honorum did no t  h a v e  the  s a m e  sig-
ficance for  him  t h a t  it did for  Sal lust ,  the  t r i b u n e  and  pro -consu l .
The second s ingu la r i ty of the Preface  is L. s escapism.  H e  confesses
tha t ea r ly h i s to ry appea led   to him  because  it  dis t rac ted  the m i n d  for
a t ime from   the  presen t  [Praef.
 5). One m ay   search  the  prefaces  of
other h is tor ians  in  va in  for a  similar confession,  but it is very typica l
of L. who e lsewhere s ta tes 'm in i ve tus tas  res scr ibent i nesc ioquo pa c to
a n t i q u u s  fit  a n i m u s '  (43. 13. 2) .
The th i rd d is t inc t ive fea ture   is L. s  e m p h a s i s  on the  m a g n i t u d e  of
his task  [Praef  4  immensi operis; Praef.
 13  tantum operis). F r o m   the  very
b e g i n n i n g  L. gives  the sense of bein g o pp ressed  by w h a t  he has  u n d e r
t a k e n   and  this feeling, which must often assail  his   c o m m e n t a to r s  as
wel l ,  is co iTobora ted  by the  a n e c d o t e t h a t  he  c o n t e m p l a t e d a b a n d o n
in g   the  w o r k w h e n  it was a l r ea dy we l l adv an ced (P liny , N.H.  praef
16).  It is a new n o t e ,  not h e a r d  in the conf iden t p ro c l am a t ions  of his
predecessors .
T h u s b e n e a t h   the  conven t iona l t hemes  and  figures  the  Praefatio
tells  us m u c h .  It is the preface  of a  sma l l  man, de tac he d from affairs ,
who wri tes less   to  preach po l i t i ca l  or  moral lessons than  to  enshr ine
4
raef i
in l i t e ra ture persons and events tha t have g iven h im a thr i l l o f exc i te
ment a s he s tud ied them. See a l so the In t roduc t ion , p . 3 .
For the preface see H. Dessau,
  Festschrift 0. Hirschfeld,
  461 fF.; G.
 R.I.G.L
  1 ( 1 9 17 ) , 7 7 - 8 5 ; E . D u t o i t ,
  R.E.L.
  2 0 ( 1 9 4 2 ), 9 8 - 1 0 5 ;
L . A m u n d s e n ,
  Symb. OsL
  2 5 ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 3 1 - 3 5 ; L - F e r r e r o ,
  Riv. FiL
27 (i949)>
  x
~ 4 7 ; O . L e g g e w i e ,
  Gymnasium,
-
(
x
955)> 3 ^ 9 - 8 3 ; H . O p p e r m a n n ,  D. Altsprach. Unterricht (1 9 5 5 ), 8 7 - 9 8 ;
I . K a j a n t o ,  Arctos,  2 (1958) ,  5 5 - 6 3 ;  A . D . L e e m a n ,  Helikon  I. 28 fF.
Fo r s imi la r prefaces c f, e .g . , H ec a ta eu s , F. Gr. Hist.
  1 F 1 ; H ero do tus
1 . 1 ; T h u c y d i d e s 1. 1 ; E p h o r u s ,  F. Gr. Hist.  70 F 7 - 9 ; Poly bius 1. 1 -5 ;
T a c i t u s ,  Hist.  1. 1.
The Reasons for Undertaking a Subject already treated by Many and Dis-
tinguished uthors
1. facturusne  operae  pretium sim:
  conf i rmed by Qu in t i l ian 9 . 4 . 74 w ho
says tha t the cor rupt order
  facturusne sim  operae  pretium,
  foun d in N ,
ha d a l r ead y ga ined cu r ren cy by h is ow n day . T h e t ru e o rd e r g ives
a dactyl ic opening (7". Livius hexametri exordio coepit) w hic h seems to
ha ve be en a fashionab le a ffectat io n; cf. T ac i tu s ,  Annals  1. 1 urbem
Rom am a principio reges habuere.  I t lends n o suppor t t o Lu nd s t ro m ' s
be l ie f tha t L . ' s opening words a re a quota t ion f rom Ennius  (Eranos,
15 (1915) ,  1-24).  The ref lec t ion on the wor th-whi le na ture of the
task is a co nv ent io na l wa y of beg innin g (3 . 26 . 7 n . ; see Fr aen ke l ,
Horace,
 81 ) . See a l so M . M ul le r ' s n .
a primerdio urbis: cf. Saliust,  Hist.  fr. 8 M .  nam a principio urbis ad
bellum  Per si Macedonicum .
res populi Rom ani: cf. Sallust,  Hist.  fr. 1 M .  res populi Romani. .  .
militiae et domi gestas composui Catiline 4. 2.
2 .  cum veterem turn volgatam
: cf. X en op ho n ,
  H.G.
  4. 8. 1. F or th e all i tera
t ion cf . Plautus , Epid.  350.
novi sem per scriptores:  for this an d 3)  in tanta scriptorum turba  cf.
Sallust,  Hist.  fr. 3 M.  nos in tanta
 doctissumorum hominum
3 .
  principis terrarumpopuli . cf. H er od ot us 1. 1.
et ipsum:
 et ipse
 cf. 7 . 4 , 12. 3 , 46 . 2 . T h e m ar g in al
  me
ad de d b y the cor rec tors of M an d O resu l ts f rom the m isp lac ing of
me
 in th e following sen tenc e.
nobilitate:  of L . ' s p redecessors am o ng h is tor ians , Q, . Fa biu s P ic tor
was a sen a tor (Polybius 3 . 9 . 4 ) , L . Cinc iu s A l im entu s a pr ae to r
(26.  23 . 1) , A. Po s tum ius Alb inus consul (Polybius 35 . 3 . 7 ) , M .
Porc ius C at o consul an d censor , L . Cal pu rn iu s P iso consul a n d censor ,
L. Coe l ius An t ipa te r a
  nobilis
  (Cicero ,
 Brutus
5
Praef. 3 P R E F A C E
t r ibu ne and p ra e to r . O n ly o f L . Cassius H em in a is no th in g kn ow n.
Even Valer ius Antias came from a service family (see above, p . 12)
an d Q . Ael ius T u b er o be long ed to a family d is t inguished in the p ub l ic
service (Cicero,  Brutus  1 1 7 ; P o m p o n i u s ,  Enchiridii  40) . L . migh t ,
therefore , wel l fee l abashed a t ventur ing in to such company. For the
genera l sen t iments c f . Mar t ia l , Praef,
 1. I t was mo re us ua l to d en igr a te
the incom pete nce an d d ishones ty of foregoing au tho rs (5 n . ) .
eorum me  . . .  meo: the reading of N is sure .
The Magnitude of  the  Undertaking
4 .  praeterea:  a second reason for br idl ing at the prospect of wri t ing
R o m a n h i st o ry . N o t m e r e l y h a v e so m a n y i m p o r t a n t m e n t u r n e d
the i r hands to i t before but the task i s daunt ing in   itself.  This v iew
seems unique to L .
The Unpalatability of Early History
voluptatis:  cf. Th uc yd ide s 1. 22 . 4 ; Ta c i tu s , Annals  2. 88. L. 's allusion
to the cur ren t fash ion for contemporary h is tory  haec nova) m ay be an
obl ique reference to Sal lust or to his re lat ions with Pol l io and Tima-
genes (see above, p . 4) .
5 .  nostra  . . .  aetas:  not ice the hyperba ton which i s no t poe t ic (H. J .
M i i l le r ) b u t em ph at i c . L . ' s d i s tas te for h is ow n t im es could n ot be
more s t rongly s ta ted .
tantisper:  1. 3 . 1, 22 . 5 b ut avo ided ther eaf te r : ' a wee w hi le ' . T h e
col loquial character of the word is seen in the fact that Cicero uses i t
in racy le t ters  (ad Att.  12. 14. 3 ;  ad Fam.  9. 2 . 4) an d in a q uo ta t io
f rom Terence  (de Fin.  5 . 2 8 ;  Tusc. Disp.  3. 65) whereas Caesar , Sal lust ,
Vi rg i l , T ac i tu s , an d L ucre t iu s eschew i t a l tog e ther . I t is co m m on in
P lau tus and Terence .
[total ilia mente:  there a re no good grounds for de le t ing  tota  which
wa s re ad by N : cf. C icero ,  pro Cluent.  1 9 0 ;  Phil.  10. 23 . T h e o nly
mat te r for doubt i s i t s pos i t ion . N 's order , prisca tota ilia mente, involves
a harsh in te r lac ing which cannot be sa t i s fac tor i ly para l le led . Perhaps
7r ' s emended order  (ilia  tota),  accep ted by W eissenbo rn , H . J . M i i l le r ,
Bayet , and Ernout , should be fo l lowed.
avertam:  th e novel ty of L . ' s escapis t a t t i tu de is disclosed by the car e
which Cur t ius , l iv ing a genera t ion la te r , took to rebut i t (10 . 9 , 7 ) :
ut ad
 contemplatio
 publicae felicitatis  a v e r t e r a t  redeam.
curae  . . . a vero:  th e reg ul ar c la im of his to r ians for w hich cf. H ec a-
taeu s 1 F 1; Th uc yd id es 1. 22. 2 ; Sal lust , Hist.  fr. 6 M . neque
 m e
 diversa
pars in civilibus armis movit a vero;  Catiline 4. 2 ; T ac i tus ,  Annals  1. 1.
posset:  for the tense cf. 1. 26. 10, 35. 3, 9. 29. 10.
The Indifference to Prehistoric History
6 .  decora:  for the th o ug ht cf. Th uc yd id es 1. 1 . 3 . L . doe s no t im ply
6
P R E F A C E Praef. 6
tha t h i s sources for the ear l ies t Roman h is tory were d i rec t ly the poe ts
bu t r a the r tha t t he ma te r i a l wh ich was t r ansmi t t ed abou t i t was more
sui ted for poe t ica l than h is tor ica l t rea tment .
7 .  miscendo humana divinis:  a s r e c o m m e n d e d b y C i c e ro ,  de Inv.  i . 23
for secur ing the favourable a t ten t ion of readers .
Interest in the Moral Aspects of History
L's in te res t in human conduct i s no t , l ike Sa l lus t ' s , d idac t ic or
ph i lo soph ica l bu t p sycho log ica l . The behav iour and r eac t ions o f men
fasc ina te h im as such , wh i le the wor k of the gods he is re ad y to ra t io n
a l ize , ab bre via te , o r by-pass (c f , e .g . , h i s t re a tm en t of N u m a (1 .1 8- 21 ) ;
the omission of the Dioscuri (2 . 19-20)) .
9   mores . . .  viros: the co l loca t ion reca l l s Ennius ,  Ann.  500 V .  moribus
antiquis res stat Romana virisque bu t the te rm s had lo ng passed in to the
pol i t ica l vocabulary ( see Ear l ,  Political Thought of Sallust,  4 ff.).
artibus domi militiaeque: cf . Plautus ' humorous def ini t ion of bonae artes
(virtutes)  as  quae domi duellique male fecisti  which shows tha t there was
a fami l ia r equat ion of  bonae artes  a n d  domi duellique bene facta (Asin.
558 ff. -
labente  . . .  desidentes;  cf. Sallust,  Hist.  fr. 16 M . ' ex qu o te m po re
m a i o r u m m o r e s n o n paulatim  u t an tea sed to r r en t i s modo  praecipitati:
adeo iuven tus  luxu atque avaritia  co nru p ta u t m er i to d i ca tu r gen i tos
esse qui  neque ipsi h ab ere  possent  res famil iares  neque alios  pati .  T h e
s imi la r i ty ex tend s no t on ly to the thou gh t b ut to the phr as in g as the
i ta l ic ized words display.
T h er e is do ub t abo u t the exac t t ex t . N r ead   labente  . . .  diss (disc-
yi)identis. labente   Phil.
2.  51  labentem et prope cadentem rem publicam.  The me taphor wi l l be o f a
l a rge ob jec t beg inn ing to s l ip downhi l l and ga the r ing momentum fo r
th e f inal p lu ng e. So in Sal lust . Eve n i f i t w ere no t a t va r ia nc e with th e
m e t a p h o r i m p l i e d b y  labente, dissidentis wo uld ca l l for com m en t s ince
dissido is only found in th e perfect (Fr aen kel ,  Thes. Ling. Lat.  s.v.) and
discido  is a lw ays t r ans i t ive (cf. Lu cre t ius 3 . 65 9) .  dissidentis  would ,
therefore , have to come f rom  dissideo  Tall ap ar t , d i sag ree ' . T h e
accep ted emenda t ion i s  desidentes  ' subs id ing ' , a l re ad y pro posed by
the ear ly humanis t s ; c f . Cicero , de Div.  1.97: o ther wr i te rs only use the
word l i te ra l ly . E lsewhere , however , L . wr i tes  labante egregia discipline
(36.  6. 2) and Cicero  tota ut labet disciplina {de Fin.  4. 53) , whereas  dis-
ciplina labitur wo uld be un iqu e he re . I t h ink t ha t Gronov ius ' s  labante
must be read . I f so , the metaphor i s no t of a s l ipp ing body but of a
house to t t e r ing , b reak ing up , and co l l aps ing and  dissidentes, descr ib ing
the d isuni ty and d is in tegra t ion of the  mores,  seems an ap pro pr i a t e
word (cf. Seneca,
  Benef.
  1. 10. 3 ;  Epist.  18. 2, 56 . 5 ;  Dial.  7. 8. 6).
Rather ius so unders tood i t , g loss ing  discordantes.
7
nee vitia nostra nee remedia
: cf . 34. 49. 3; Plutarch,
  Cato min.
  2 0
;
Josephus ,  B.J.  4. 9 . 11 . T h e conven t iona l char ac te r of the express ion
might lead us to see in i t a general reference to opposi t ion to Augustus
5
so lu t ion of R om e 's d i sorders by perso nal go v er nm en t ; c f. Ta c i tu s ,
Annals  1. 9 . 4 . But the connexion between moral , especial ly sexual ,
lax i ty and pol i t ica l d i sas te r was made in very s imi la r t e rms by Horace
in
  Odes
  Odes
 a t m uc h th is
da te (soon af ter 28 B.C.). I n 2 8 B.C. Au gu stu s h ad at te m p te d t o int ro
duce mora l leg is la t ion enforc ing marr iage by law and invoking
penal t ies on immora l i ty (Proper t ius 2 . 7 ) , bu t had been dr iven by
oppos i t ion to wi thdraw i t and was only ab le to renew the a t tempt in
18 B.C. and  A.D.  9. I t i s hard, therefore , to doubt that Livy, l ike
H or ac e, is referr ing to the fai lure of th at legis la t ion. See Sym e,
Harvard Studies in Class. Phil.
  64 (1959) , 42 -3 ; G . W. Wi l l i ams ,
  J.R.S.
52 (1962), 28 ff.
The Usefulness of History
In parenthes is L . pays formal t r ibu te to the mora l va lue of h is tory ,
a r egu la r  TOTTOS  der iv ing f rom T hu cy did es 1. 22 . 4 an d g iven a n ex
clusively moral appl icat ion by Hel lenis t ic his tor ians (cf . Polybius
I . 1 . 2 , 2 . 61. 3; Diodorus 1. 1 . 4; Sal lust ,  Jugurtha  4. 5 ; Tac i tus ,
Annals  3. 65 .  1  ; Agr.  46. 3) . For L . the mora l content i s l ess impor tan t
than the l i t e r a ry oppor tun i ty the reby p rov ided . See In t roduc t ion ,
p .  18.
1 0 .  hoc illudesse:  5. 2. 3 n.
in inlustri posita  monumento: the g en era l sense is c le ar— 'his tor y offers
exa m ple s of every sor t of co n d uc t '— b ut the precise force of these w or ds
is dis pu ted (Foster ,
  T.A.P.A.
  42 (1911) , lxv i ) . T he y hav e be en ta ke n
to m ea n ' (examples) ensh r ined in conspicuous h is tor ica l ch ara c ter s '
(Haupt , Greenhough) but th i s does not su i t the context which i s con
cerned more wi th h is tory in genera l ra ther than h is tor ica l personages /
(cf.  in  cognitione  rerum).  I would take  monumento to refer to h istor y as
such , the h is tory of a na t io n— 'ex am ple s se t in the c lear record of a
n a t i o n ' .
The Remarkable Character  of Rome
I I .  amor:  cf . Polybius 1. 14. 2: Phi l inus and Fabius  SoKovm . .  . /xot
TTeiTOvSevai
  rt
  TrapairXriaiov
  rots
epiocri
nulla
 cf. T hu cy d id es 1. 1. 3.
civitatem:
  ther e is no need to dele te the w or d as an int erp ola t io n af ter
res publica
  (Novak); for such repeti t ion of ideas cf. 2. 28. 3, 5. 2. 8,
10.  1. 4.
avaritia luxuriaque:
  Sallust dated the moral cr is is a t Rome to the
avaritia luxuriaque:
  Sallust dated the moral cr is is a t Rome to the
des truc t ion of C ar th ag e in 146 B.C.
  {Catiline
Praef.  u
date i s lower than tha t g iven by most au thors who tended to se lec t a
turning-point in the f i rs t half of the century, Piso f ixing on 154 (Pl iny,
N.H.  17. 24 4) , Poly bius on 168 (3 1. 25 . 3 , 6 . 57. 5) , an d L ivy 's ann al is-
t ic source on 187 (39. 6 . 7) . They were agreed that the causal factors
were the contac t wi th Greek mater ia l p rosper i ty , the e l imina t ion of
an ex te rna l menace , and the oppor tun i t i e s fo r i nd iv idua l Romans to
a c q u i r e w e a l t h ,
  avaritia
  luxuria
  in i ts t ra i n . A p ar t f rom th e omis
sion of ambitio L . does n o t dis pu te th e t ra di t io na l diagno sis fully set ou t
by Sal lust  {Catiline  10-12) .
For  avaritia  and  luxuria contrasted w ith  paupertas and  parsimonia cf
34.  4 . 2 -13 (Ca to ' s speech) . The t e rms a re conven t iona l rhe to r i c .
The  nvocation of the Gods
Such invoca t ions , a l though r egu la r a t t he commencemen t o f g rea t
affairs (22. 9. 7, 38. 48. 14, 45. 39. 10) and at the start of poems (e.g.
Homer , Theogn i s , Enn ius , V i rg i l : fo r t he fo rmula i c open ing  <rV Aios
dpx<6fj,€crda  see G ow on T he oc r i tu s 17 . 1), we re no t m ad e by ea r l ie r
his tor ians. Besides convent ional piety L. ' s decis ion ref lects on his
at t i tude to his task. He saw himself as a creat ive ar t is t , as a poet ra ther
than a researcher .
B O O K I
T H E  f i rs t f ive books were planned and publ ished as a uni ty , and
Book i s t a t e s the overa ll t he m e— the g rea tness o f R o m e . R o m
was a gre a t c ity bo th as a phys ica l en t i ty an d as a wo r ld-p ow er . Fr om
the very outset L. s t resses the s t rength of the ci ty (9. 1
 iam res Romana
adeo  erat valida
; cf. 11 . 4, 2 1 . 6) a n d rei ter ate s i ts inc rea sin g size (8. 4
crescebat  interim urbs;
  cf. 9. 10, 30. 1, 33. 9, 35. 7, 37. r, 44. 5). Rome
ear ly became and r ema ined a g rea t c i ty . And co r re spond ing to he r
phys ica l grea tness was an imper ia l g rea tness . Rome was to be , as
L. is a t pains to repeat ,  caput rerum  (16. 7 , 45. 3 , 55. 6) .
Book r a lso ad um br a te s the o the r themes wh ich fo rm the d om ina n t
threads in the la ter four books. Book 2
  is
and p rob lems o f
  libertas.
 A lre ad y in 17. 3 w e are given a fore bo ding
of this  (libertatis dulcedine nondum experta;  cf. 46. 3, 48. 9, 56. 8)« The
consequence  oflibertas,  as of free ent erp ris e, is discordia  as is i l lustrated
by the events of the la t ter half of Book 2 and as is a l ready hinted in
r. 17. 1 or 1. 42. 2. A free society requires for i ts preservation the
exercise by individual c i t izens of the social vir tues . To give way to
avaritia
  modestia
 m us t entai l th e disr up t ion of society
(Praef. 11 n .) . T hi s is c lear ly seen in the c ourse of Book 3 ; an d th e wa y
is pr ep are d in Book 1 w he re Ancu s M ar c iu s ' p i l lag ing (35 . 7) is in
con t ras t wi th R o m ul u s ' forb earan ce (15 . 4) . I t is in  modestia an d the
cor re spond ing v i r tue o f moderation  the theme of Book 4, that the las t
Tarquin i s egreg ious ly def ic ien t . Book 5 i s shot th rough wi th
  pietas:
R om e's success dep end s bo th on d iv ine wi ll an d on her own observ ance
of d iv ine o rd inan ce . In m an y ways th i s was a da r in g an d nove l t h em e .
Divine causa l i ty had been banished f rom his tory s ince Herodotus /
(Cicero ,
 de Orat.
  2. 63) but in re in t roducing i t L . caught the mood of
his generat ion. Once again he foreshadows i t in Book 1. Aeneas, l ike
Gam il lus , is afatalis dux  (1 .4 ) an d R o m e is founded un de r t he gu id anc e
of the fates (7 . 15) . Much at tent ion is given to the desirabi l i ty of
performing due r i tes and ceremonies (18. 10, 19. 7 , 36. 6) for only so
can d iv ine co-opera t ion be secured . L . ' s own a t t i tude to the gods and
the al leged s tor ies of their intervent ion on ear th is of ten scept ical and
rat ional is t ic (4 . 2 n . ) . He wil l offer a natural is t ic interpretat ion s ide-
by-s ide wi th a mirac le .
T h e s t ruc tu re of the book is d ic ta ted by the leng th an d ch ara c te r
of th e re igns of the k ings . T ra di t io n h ad a l re ad y g iven each k ing a
dist inct ive pe rso nal i ty before the phi losoph ies of co nst i tu t ion al his
to ry began to press them in to the moulds of  fxovapxia  /W iAeia, or
3
 
F O U N D A T I O N O F R O M E
Tvpawis.
  L . accepts the gen era l ph i loso phy of de te r iora t ion . T ul lu s
a n d A n c u s a r e d e c a d e n t c o u n t e r p a r t s o f R o m u l u s a n d N u m a . E a c h
is s ingled out for some one par t icu lar qua l i ty : Romulus for mi l i ta ry
exper t i se , N u m a for the c rea t ion of the re l ig ious observances of pea ce
t i m e ,  Tullus for feroci ty , Ancus for the ceremonies of war; and the
com par i son b e tw een th em is express ly d ra w n (22 . 2 (Tul lus)
  ferocior
  Numa in pace  religiones, a(b Anco) bellkae caeri-
moniae).  As Numa founded d iv ine law, so Serv ius Tul lus founds the
social order (42. 4) .
 superbia
 cha rac t e r i zes the la s t T a r qu in . T hu s each
sec t ion wi th in the book has i t s own p lace wi th in a genera l f ramework
and the cor respons ion be tween the two ha lves of the book g ives the
whole a symmetr ica l shape .
The Foundation of Rome
 The Facts
There a re a few t races of Ghalcol i th ic and Bronze Age se t t lement
a t Rome, ch ie f ly f rom the Esqui l ine , which may cor respond to the
legends about Sicels and Aborigines but the f i rs t extensive evidence
comes from the middle of the eighth century. A ser ies of post-holes
have been found on the two r idges of the Pa la t ine , the Pa la t ium and
the Germalus , which can be da ted s t ra t igraphica l ly and by the
po t te ry assoc ia ted wi th th em , wh ich is chara c ter i s t ic of the Ea r ly I r o n
A g e ,  to
  c.
  750 . Con tempora ry wi th th i s ea r l i e s t communi ty a t Rome
was a cemete ry in the Forum. Excava t ions have shown tha t bo th
c remat ion and inhumat ion were p rac t i s ed . The a shes were r egu la r ly
plac ed in a small u rn in the sha pe of a hu t whic h wa s s tored w ith o the r
u tens i l s in a la rge funerary ja r . The hut urns cor respond prec ise ly
wi th the p lan as i t can be recons t ruc ted of the Pa la t ine huts whose
memory was a l so preserved in the casa Rom uli.  The pr imi t ive cu l ture of
the Pa la t in e co m m un i ty i s found a t the same per iod e l sewhere in
Lat ium, par t icu lar ly a t Alba Longa . I t i s a reg ional var ian t of the
Vi l l anovan cu l tu re wh ich was widesp read th roughou t I t a ly in the
e ighth century . Li t t l e can be hazarded about the e thnic or ig ins of
these ear l ies t inhabi tan ts . The l inguis t ic charac ter of the Lat in lan
gua ge has sugges ted to some tha t t hey were a wave o f In do -E ur op ean
i m m i g r a n t s w h o c a m e fr om C e n t r a l E u r o p e
 c.
 1000 B.C. a n d w ho fou nd
the i r abode in La t ium abou t 800  B.C. T h e com m un i ty w as a r e s iden t
nucleu s of shep herd s an d sw ineherd s .
Very short ly af ter the f i rs t huts had been bui l t on the Palat ine and
th e f irst grav es sunk in th e Fo ru m , oth er groi )S set t led on oth er hi l ls
of R o m e. Cem eter ies ha ve been found in e Esqui l ine an d the
Q ui r in a l , wh ich imply the ex is tence of v l" ag c ' om m un i t ies on those
Q ui r in a l , wh ich imply the ex is tence of v l" ag c ' om m un i t ies on those
hi l ls as wel l . The excavat ions on the Quir inal were s ignif icant in that
i
 
F O U N D A T I O N   OF  R O M E
they d isc losed only inhumat ion-graves ,  a  fact which lends colour  to
the t rad i t iona l be l ie f tha t   the  i n h a b i t a n t s  of the  Q u i r i n a l w e r e  of
different racial origin from   the i nh ab i t a n t s o f t he Pa la t ine and t h a t  the
m i x t u r e o f i n h u m a t i o n a n d c r e m a t i o n   to be found  in the  Fo ru m resu l ts
from   the  gradual fus ion  and  i n t e r m i n g l i n g  of the L a t i n s  and an off
shoo t o f t he Osco -U m br ian s ,  the Sab ines . M an y o f t he o ldest nam es at
R o m e a p p e a r  to be  S a b i n e ,  and  L a t i n d e m o n s t r a b l y c o n t a in s m a n y
S a b i n e w o r d s .  T h e  dua l i ty  is to be  seen  in the  formal t i t le
  populus
Romanus Quirites.
I n s u m m a r y  it can be  sa id tha t  a  se t t l emen t  had  existed  on the
Pala t ine f rom pre-h is tor ic t imes , tha t  it e x p a n d e d  in the  m i d d l e of the
e ighth century , tha t soon af te rwards   the Q u i r i n a l  was set t led by a dif
fe ren t , possib ly Sab ine , com m un i ty , th a t   the two comm uni t i e s toge the r
wi th o thers on oth er h il ls grad ual ly coa lesced , and  t h a t  the process of
synoecism w as com ple ted   by th e d r a i n i n g of t h e F o r u m a nd the b u i l d
ing of a ma rke t -p la ce c . 62 5-5 75 . T h e sa l ien t po in ts of R o m a n t rad i t ion
are thus v indica ted ."Al l  the a t t e nd an t de t a il s and  l egends te l l no th ing
a b o u t  the  ac tua l h i s tory  of R o m e  but  m u c h a b o u t  how  th a t h i s tory
was wr i t t en   an d how it  c a m e  to be  r e g a r d e d .
The a rchaeo log ica l ev idence   is  most convenient ly  to be  found  in
t he th ree vo lumes   of E. G jers tad ' s
  Early Rome. T h e bes t gen era l in t r o
d u c t i o n  in  Engl i sh  is R.  Bloch,  The
  Origins
  of
  Rome,  in the  series
Ancient Peoples and Places, pub l i shed  by T h a m e s  and H u d s o n .  See also
E. Gjers tad ,  Legends and Facts  of  Early Roman History,  6 ff.
The Legends
Two mutua l ly exc lus ive legends ,   of  R o m u l u s  and of  Aeneas ,
a t t e n d   the founda t ion  of  R o m e .  Of  th e se R o m u l u s  was the  o lde r  and
t h e m o r e d e e p - r o o t e d ;  it is  assumed  in an off ic ia l R o m a n ded ica t ion
a t Chios  of  c.  225 B.C. T h e  l egend  of A e n e a s b e c a m e c u r r e n t \ i n  the
s ix th century   and  represents  the v iew wh ich  the Greeks  of  t ha t t ime
t oo k o f R o m e .  It was left  to  l a te r h i s tor ians  to effect  a  synthesis of  the
two .
R o m u l u s   is the  e p o n y m o u s f o u n d e r  of   R o m e .  T e  suffix  -ulus  is
E t r u s c a n   and  deno tes  a  /cricmfc: Gaeculus  is the  m yth ica l founder
o f P raenes t e .  In the  earl ies t legends  he is  variou sly associated w ith
L a t i n u s ,  the epon ym ous he ro o f t he La t ins , who had  pen e t r a t e d G reek
consciousness  as early as Hes iod
  (Theog.
  1011) . In one vers ion La t inu s
w as  the  fa ther  of  R h o m e  and  R h o m y l o s . J n a n o t h e r L a t in u s  had a
s i s t e r Rhome  and was himsel f  the  founder  of R o m e .  In yet  a n o t h e r
L a t i n u s had a  d a u g h t e r  who m a r r i e d I t a l u s f ro m w h o m R h o m o s was
b o r n .  All  these accounts  say no  m o r e t h a n t h a t R o m e  was  founded
by   the  Lat ins . Equa l ly  the two d o m i n a n t f ac ts a b o u t  the  personal i ty
by   the  Lat ins . Equa l ly  the two d o m i n a n t f ac ts a b o u t  the  personal i ty
o f R o m u l u s  as  t hey ma te r i a l i zed  in  la ter te l l ing,  the  antagonis t ic
3
 
F O U N D A T I O N O F R O M E
riva l ry wi th h i s bro ther and the aggress ive mi l i ta r i sm which cont ras t s
so abrupt ly with the piety of his successor , correspond to no his tor ical
ac tua l i ty . T he y r ep resen t a pecu li a r ly R o m an fo rm o f m yth m uc h
o lde r than Rome which be long to the ve ry co re o f Indo-European
t h o u g h t . R o m u l u s a n d R e m u s a r e C a i n a n d A b e l or J a c o b a n d E s a u .
R o m u l u s a n d N u m a a r e V a r u n a a n d M i t r a o r U r a n u s a n d Z e u s . T h e
de ta i l ed b iog rap hy w i th wh ich th e n am e of R om ulu s was c lo thed
was m a d e u p from a ser ies of m yt hs mo st of w hic h ar e aet iological in
na tu re exp la in ing ob jec t s and monument s and ce remonies . Many
hav e been supp lem ente d f rom th e resources of Greek m ytho logy .
They are s tudied indiv idual ly in the i r p lace .
T h e legend of Ae neas can be m or e c losely de te rm ine d . Sca t te red
grou ps of m igr an ts f rom Gr eece or Asia M in or m ay wel l hav e to uch ed
the coast of Lat ium in the seventh and s ixth centur ies but the f i rs t
con nex ion of Aen eas wi th cen t ra l I ta ly i s revea led by s ta tue t tes f rom
Vei i , Gr eek vases f rom Et ru r ia an d Spin a , an d o n Et rusca n scarabs
a l l por t ray ing Aeneas car ry ing h is fa ther on h is shoulders and a l l
d at in g from th e en d of th e s ixth ce nt ur y. T h e first l i tera ry al lusion to
Aen eas in I ta ly occurs a cen tury la te r (D .H . 1 .47-48 . 1 = He l lan icu s ,
F.Gr. Hist  4 F 31 Ja co b y) b u t it is possible th at th e t radi t ion w as
a l re ad y kno w n to S tes ichorus if the Ta b u la I l iaca , wh ich d epic ts
Aeneas depa r t ing wi th h i s f a the r and the  sacra  eV  rqv 'EmrepLav  is
based on Stes ichorus . The route by which the legend reached I ta ly
is no t cer ta in . W eins tock conjec tured th a t it was m ed ia t ed thr ou gh
Sic i ly . More recent ly Bomer has a rgued tha t i t came wi th the
Phocaeans when they f led to the wes t
  c.
  540 . The impor t an t po in t i s
tha t i t was a Greek v iew imposed on I ta ly . The Greeks a t t r ibu ted to
heroes of the Gree k wo r ld the d iscovery an d se t t lem ent of th e co m -
m un i t ies of the wes t wi th whic h they ha d dea l ings . D iom ed e , Ev an de r ,
and , above a l l , Ulysses provided pedigrees in the i r wander ings .
Aenea s found a hom e in the E t ruscan wo r ld and in pa r t i cu la r a t R o m e .
In i t ia l ly the Aeneas s tory was wide ly spread in Et rur ia . I t became
loca l ized a t Rome par t ly because the Greeks a l ready recognized in
the Romans of the ear ly f i f th century those same qual i t ies of   pietas
wh ich d is t inguished A ene as an d pa r t ly because of the acc iden ta l
occur rence of a p re - In do -E ur op ean p lace na m e T ro ia on the coast
n e a r R o m e ( 1 . 3 1 1 . ) .
T h e legen d repre sente d the cha ng ing im age of R o m e, first as seen
through Greek eyes , then in re la t ion to her pos i t ion in Lat ium and
I ta ly , f ina l ly as the adversary of Car thage . S imul taneous ly a more
mechanical process was at work synthesizing the confl ic t ing s tor ies of
Romulus and Aeneas and dev i s ing r e l a t ionsh ips wh ich wou ld co
ord ina te the two incompa t ib l e s . These ea r ly s t ages a re no t ge rmane ,
ord ina te the two incompa t ib l e s . These ea r ly s t ages a re no t ge rmane ,
for i t was only when Eratosthenes f ixed a date for the Fal l of Troy
8 4432
 
F O U N D A T I O N O F R O M E
tha t t he ch rono log ica l gap be tween Aeneas and Romulus the founder
o f R o m e bec am e man i fes t an d r equ i red b r idg ing . I t is p ro bab ly tha t
bo th Fab ius P ic to r and Enn ius were aware tha t a p ro longed so journ
a t A lb a was r equ i red if Aen eas and R om ulu s were to be r e t a in ed in
the t r ad i t ion bu t Ca to , who ca l cu la t ed the in t e rva l be tween the Fa l l
of T ro y an d t he fo un da t ion of R o m e as 432 years ( fr. 17) , wa s the f irst
to f i l l the gap wi th c i rcumstant ia l events drawn f rom loca l t rad i t ions .
Hi s ve r s ion may be b r i e f ly summar ized . La t ium was inhab i t ed by
Abor ig ines unde r King La t inus . Aeneas , l and ing wi th h i s f a the r
Anchises (fr. 9 ) , foun ded T ro ia (fr. 4 ) . La t inu s gr an ted h im an
area of 2 ,700
  iugera
 an d th e h a n d of his d au g h te r L av ini a ( frr. 8 , 11)
an d the un i t ed peop les ad op ted the na e o f La t in s . T h e T ro jans ,
how ever , d i sh on ou red th e t rea ty by em ba rk in g on a foray (fr. 10) . I n
d isgus t , the Lat ins (Abor ig ines) tu rned to Turnus the k ing of Rutu-
l ians who nursed a gr ievance aga ins t Aeneas for marry ing Lavin ia
( f r . 12) . In the resu l t ing war both Lat inus and Turnus were k i l led ,
whi le Aeneas d isappeared f rom human s ight . Aeneas ' son Ascanius ,
now ca l led f rom his beard lu lus , k i l led Mezent ius who had come to
Turnus ' a id and ru led over the c i ty of Lauro lav in ium ( f r r . 9 , 10 , 11) .
Dur ing the d i s turbances Lavin ia had f led to the woods , where she
bore a son Si lvius . Thir ty years af ter the Trojan arr ival in I ta ly
Ascan ius handed Lauro lav in ium ove r to Lav in ia and S i lv ius h i s   half-
bro ther , and h im sel f foun ded A lb a Lo ng a (fr. 13) . F ina l ly he t rans
fe r red Alba Longa a l so to S i lv ius who thus became the fa ther of the
dyn as ty of A lba n k ings , the las t o f w ho m , Nu m ito r , wa s fa ther of a
daughter var ious ly known as I l i a , Rhea , or S i lv ia . I t was she who was
t h e m o t h e r o f R o m u l u s a n d R e m u s .
The Alban king-l is t did violence to his tory in order to preserve a
l i t e ra ry chronology. Rome was not the la te -born of fspr ing of Alba
Longa . The two v i l l ages sha red a con tempora ry cu l tu re . None the le s s
Ca to ' s accou n t o f ea r ly R o m an h i s to ry bec am e the s t an da r d vu lga te
f rom which la te r wr i te rs only d iverged to asser t the i r ind iv idual i ty .
It f inds typical expression in the
  elogium
(Inscr. Ital.
  13 no . 85 : the re we re elogia of Aene as a nd the A lba n k ings
a l so a t Rome) , o r i n t he numerous ve r s ions a s sembled by D .H. The
surviving fragments of Cassius Hemina (fr . 2) , Sisenna (fr . 2) , and
Sem pron ius T u di ta nu s ( fr. 1 ) show no d isagre em ent of subs tanc e . W e
kno w of severa l m in or mo di f ica tions . T h e Aem il i i subs t i tu ted an
Aemil ia for Rhea Si lv ia (P lu tarch ,
  Romulus
  2 ) . O t h e r s d o u b t e d t h e
pa te rn i ty o f R om ulu s (D .H . 1. 77 ) . V ar ro a dd ed r e lig ious an d
an t iqua r i an r e f inemen t s .
It is to this late stage in the synthesis of the legends that the two
autho r i t ies wh ich L . consu l ted be long (1 . 6 n . , 3 . 2 n . ) . U nl ik e Virg i l ,
autho r i t ies wh ich L . consu l ted be long (1 . 6 n . , 3 . 2 n . ) . U nl ik e Virg i l ,
w ho app ear s to ha ve re l ied on the ep ic t rad i t ion c rea ted by Nae vius a n d
34
 
F O U N D A T I O N O F R O M E
i. i. 1-3
En nius ra th er th an th e C ato ni an , L . fo llowed recen t h is tor ians (3 . 8 n . ) .
There i s no t race of Ennius in h is account . S ince noth ing surv ives of
Valer ius Ant ias
5
  or L ic in ius Macer ' s t r ea tmen t o f t he Tro jan p re
his tory of L at i um , L . ' s sources can no t be cer ta in ly ident i fied . T h e o nly
signif icant idiosy ncrasy is th at in L . As can ius is th e son of A en eas a n d
his second wife , Lavinia , and Si lvius is the grandson not the son of
Aeneas .
T h e p r in c ipa l mo de rn works on the sub jec t a re J . Pe r re t ,  Les
Origines de la Legende Trqyenne de Rome,
  r ev i ew e d b y M o m i g l i a n o ,
  J.R.S.
35 (
r
_ I O
  Rom und Troia,
  1957; see a l so P . Ducat i ,
  Tito L ivio e le
origini di Rom a.
  T h e thesi s t ha t L . is de pe nd en t upon Enn ius is m a in
t a ined among o the r s by W. Aly ,  Livius und Ennius;  M . G h i o ,  Riv. FiL
Class.  29 (1 95 1), 1 ff.
1 .  1 - 3 .  The Legend of Antenor
N ot hi ng is kn ow n h is tor ica lly or a rchaeolo gica l ly ab ou t the E ug an ei
who were supposed to inhabi t in c lassical t imes the sub-alpine regions
abo ve the Po va l ley . A nu m b er of inscr ip t ions f rom the V al C am on ica
da t ing f rom l a t e r t han  c.  500  B.G.  have been adduced as ev idence of
t h e E u g a n e a n l a n g u a g e , f o r C a t o  ap.  Pl iny ,  N.H.  3 . 134 listed th e
Camunia a s pa r t o f t he Euganean peop le . The l anguage i s I t a l i c ,
having a c loser re la t ionship wi th the Lat in-Fal i scan group than wi th
the Osco-Umbr ian . Th i s does no t , however , t e l l any th ing abou t the
e thnic or cu l tura l charac ter of the people s ince the language may wel l
ha ve bee n acqu i red a t a la te s tage in the i r h i s tory . In de ed p lace -nam es
f rom the reg ion have been used to suppor t the t rad i t iona l account
tha t t he Eugane i were ve ry o ld inhab i t an t s o f t he a rea who p re
d a t e d a n y I n d o - E u r o p e a n c o n t a m i n a t i o n .
M u ch m ore is kn ow n abo u t t h e Ve ne t i (5 . 33 . 10 ). T he i r ch ie f
cent res were Padua and Es te (Ates te ) , where a se t t l ed cu l ture , d i s t inc t
f rom the Vi l lanovan, can be t raced f rom the ten th to the second
century . The Venet i were d is t inguished for the i r meta l -work and for
the i r ho r se -b reed ing and had commerc ia l con tac t s w i th the Greeks
f rom before the s ix th century . Thei r language a l so i s now genera l ly
agreed to have had i ts c losest aff ini ty with the Lat in-Fal iscan group
a l tho ug h i ts a lp ha be t was bo r ro wed f rom the E t rusca ns an d some
wo rds hav e been c l a imed as I l l y r i an . T h e phe no m en a can be exp la ined
by the cu l tura l pressures to which the Venet i were by the i r very s i tua
t ion subjec ted . The e thnic or ig in of the Venet i remains in doubt .
H ero do tus (1 .196) speaks o f  'IWvpt&v 'Everol  but the long-fash ionable
theory t ha t the Ven et i we re a wa ve of m igr a t in g I l ly r ians is no longer
accep ted and canno t be suppor t ed by the widesp read d i s t r ibu t ion
accep ted and canno t be suppor t ed by the widesp read d i s t r ibu t ion
of the na m e (e .g . the V en etu lan i in Lat i n , the Ven et i o f A rm or i ca , the
35
i . i . 1-3
F O U N D A T I O N O F R O M E
Slavon ic Ven id i , & c ) . T h e t r ad i t io na l accou n t tha t t he Eu gan e i were
displaced by Venet ic inf i l t ra t ion  may be tr u e. I t is at least as l ikely th a t
the two groups were or iginal ly akin cul tural ly as wel l as l inguis t ical ly
but tha t the Euganei in the i r i so la ted reg ion were gradual ly out
s t r ipped by the more adap tab le and p rog res s ive Vene t i .
T h e connex ion of A nte no r an d h is En et i w i th the Ve net i be longs ,
however , no t t o h i s to ry bu t t o Greek romanc ing abou t the Adr i a t i c .
I t i s na tura l tha t i t should be as o ld as the commerc ia l pene t ra t ion
of the area by the Greeks and hence there is no diff icul ty in bel ieving
that i t formed the basis of Sophocles '
  Antenoridae
Pea r son ,
  The Fragments of
 Sophocles,  1. 8 6 -9 0 ; i t was pe rh aps ad ap ted by
Accius; see Polybius 2. 17. 6 with Walbank's note) . I t i s a t least cer
t a in tha t the Antenor idae , a l though not necessar i ly Antenor , had a
cul t as far west as Gyrene by the f i f th century (Pindar ,  Pyth.  5 . 80 -88) .
In i t ia l ly , then , the Antenor legend represented the Greek a t t i tude to
the Venet i . I t was insp i red by no more than a casua l p lay on names
  N.H.   'EVCTOI:
Partheneion 51 ). G ato was pe rh ap s the fi rs t R o m a n to interes t h imself
in i t and so to l ink the dest inies of the Venet i and the Romans
(fr. 42 ) . As p ro p ag an d a his wo rk was wel l t im ed , for the Ven et i w ere
peaceful ly ab so rb ed b y the R o m an s in 184 B.C. T h e ident i f icat ion
was r e i t e ra t ed by the geographe r Po lemo  c.  180 B.C.  (E  Eur ip ides ,
Hipp.  231) an d thencefor th h ad a f irm p lace in R o m a n h is tory
(Tac i tus ,
  ad Aen.
  1. 243).
T h e l ink ing of the two T ro jan foun dat ions in I ta ly thr ou gh the
para l le l l egends of Aen eas and A nte no r was thus a la te ac t ion . I t was
chief ly motivated by pol i t ical considerat ions but folk-memory or
academic research may have reca l led the cur ious fac t tha t however
separa ted they might be geographica l ly and cu l tura l ly the Venet i
and Lat ins were l inguis t ical ly near kin. But for L. the legend had
a spec ia l meaning . He was a Paduan and the s tory of h is home c i ty
was ther eb y jo in ed to the his tory of the cap i ta l c i ty . H en ce he b egins
his his tory wit h A nt en or no t Ae neas (bu t see 1. 1 n . ) an d takes for
g ra n te d a s com m on know ledge tha t An teno r founded Pa du a .
For the his tory of the Venet i see  Storia di Venezia  1 (19 57) ; R .
Ba t t ag l i a ,  Bull, di Paletn . Italiana,  1959, w i th b ib l iog rap hy ; G .
Capov i l l a ,  Miscellanea Galbiati,  1. 238 ff.; for the V en etic la ng ua ge see
M. S. Beeler,  The
  enetic Language; Palmer,  The Latin  Language 41 ff.;
fo r t he A n ten or l egend se eT ha l lo n  A. J.A.  28 (192 4), 47 fT.; B ea um on t,
J.HS.
-
1 . 1 .  iam primum :  the openin g of the h is tory is un usu al . T h e conv en
t ion al pract ic e was to s ta te a t the outset the na m e of the his to r ian (cf.
t ion al pract ic e was to s ta te a t the outset the na m e of the his to r ian (cf.
t he open ings of He rod o tu s and Th uc yd ide s : see Gow on Th eocr i tu s
36
 
F O U N D A T I O N O F R O M E
i . i . i
i . 65) or the na m e of the subject (cf. Polyb ius 1.5 . 1; T ac i tu s ,
  Annals
 Cn. Iulius Agricola \  D.H. 1. 8 . 9) . This
pecul ia r i ty led Wex to doubt whether the opening surv ives in i t s
or iginal form  {Neue Jahrb.f.  PhiloL  71 (1855) , 123-5) . He
  n o t e
d tha t
Servius  (ad Aen.  1. 242) ap p ea re d to cred i t L . w ith hav ing told of
Aeneas ' be t r aya l o f T roy  (hi enim duo (Antenor et Aeneas) Troiam pro-
didisse dicuntur secundum  Livium;  cf.  Origo Gentis Romanae 9. 1-2) a n d h e
observed that L. never uses
  iam primum
  to begin a p ar ag ra p h (cf.
  5 1 . 6 , 28 . 39. 5 , 39. 52. 8, 40 . 3 . 3) . F ro m this he con clu ded th at a
sentence or sentences had been lost . But L. ' s reason for not naming
Rome at the very beginning is that he gives pr ide of place to his nat ive
dis t r ic t o f Padua and
  iam primum
  is not strictly the opening for i t
fo l lows on f rom the genera l in t roduct ion conta ined in the  Praefatio.
satis constat: imp ly ing th a t L . has consul ted m or e th an on e au tho r i ty
(48.  5. 5- 33- 5, 37- 34- 7)-
vetusti: An tenor had en te r t a ined Mene laus and Odysseus when they
came to Troy  (Iliad  3. 207 with  2J) a n d h a d r e c o m m e n d e d t h e s u r
render of Helen  (Iliad  7. 347 ff . ; Horace,  Epist.  1. 2. 9 ). T h e ea rliest
version s do no t associate A en ea s in these n eg otia tion s b u t cf., e.g. ,
Q u in t us Sm yr n. 13. 291 ff.
1 . 2 .
  et sedes:
  the sense is that they had lost their homes because they
had been d r iven ou t o f Paph lagon ia and the i r l eade r because Py lae -
menes had been ki l led.
Pylaemene:
  cf.
  Iliad
  2. 851, 5 . 576.
1 .  3 .  Troia:  so also Steph. Byz. s .v.  Tpola.  The same p lace -name i s
be t te r a t tes ted on the coas t of L a t i um ( 1 . 4 ; Gato fr. 4 ; Paulus Fes tus
504 L . ; D .H . 1. 53 . 3 ; Serv ius , ad Aen.  1.5, 7 . 158, 9 . 47) . An Etruscan
oinochoe f rom Caere depic t ing a labyr in th has the inscr ip t ion
  Truia
and the very pr imi t ive mi l i ta ry r i te a t Rome was known as the
  lusus
Troiae.
  x^paZ-
  This ev idence , whether
i t be co up led w ith th e n am e of old T ro y itself or no t , has been tak en
to ind ica t e tha t T ro ia was a p re - In do -E uro pea n t e rm , used a s a p l ace -
name, meaning a for t i f ied p lace (Rehm,
  Philologus,
  Su pp . Ban d , 24
(1932) ,  46 f f . ) . When once the Greeks began to spread the Tro jan
legend to I ta ly they na tu ra l ly a t tac he d it to s imi la r na m es . T h e L at i an
Troia is to be s i ted at or near Zingarini .
1 .  4 - 3 .  Aeneas and the Alban Kings
1.  4 .
  rerum.
Macedoniam
: t he o ld town o f Rake los in M ac ed on ia - T hr ac e chan ged
i ts n am e to Ain e ia (H ero do tus 7 . 123. 2 ; Ly cop hro n 1236 wi th
  U)
i ts n am e to Ain e ia (H ero do tus 7 . 123. 2 ; Ly cop hro n 1236 wi th
  U)
an d issued coins of A en eas ca rry in g Anch ises , on his sho ulde rs (H ea d,
37
i. i. 4
F O U N D A T I O N O F R O M E
Historia Numorum,  214 ) . T h e ch an ge is pe rh ap s to be assoc ia ted w i th
Pis is t ra t id contro l of the are a (Aris tot le ,  Ad.
  -TTOX.  15. 2; see  Ath.
Tribute Lists  1. 465) . T h e connex ion o f n am e was , how ever , l ong
sta nd in g in th e dis t r ic t (cf. Ainos) a n d tak en w ith  Iliad  20, 303 ff.,
sugges ts tha t the Aeneadae had come to Troy f rom the Balkans in the
p l a c e - n a m e s  en route.  S e e M a l t e n ,  Arch iv f. Relig.-Wissen.  29 (193 1) ,
33 ff
Siciliam: T hu cyd ides ( 6 .2 . 3 d ra w ing on Ant iochus ) ca ll ed th eE ly m i
whose ch ief towns were Seges ta and Eryx Trojan re fugees , and Hel -
lan icus  (F. Gr. Hist.  4 F 31) na m ed E lym us a s a com pan ion- in -a rm s
of Aeges tus an d Aene as , tho ug h in an ot he r contex t say ing th a t the
E lym i cam e from I t a ly (4 F 79 b wi th Jac ob y ' s no te ) . T he i r cu l tu re
was cha rac te r i zed by e l emen t s wh ich were more Phoen ic i an than
Greek, lending colour to the bel ief that they reached Sici ly f rom the
Eas t before the Greeks (de ta i l s in Dunbabin ,  The Western Greeks,
3 3 6 - 7 ) .
  The specif ical ly Trojan or igin may have been devised, or a t
leas t pub l i shed , by S tes ichorus of H im er a an d insp i red by the cu l t
o f A ph rod i t e Aene ias a t E ry x (D .H . 1. 53 ) . T h e Aeneas s to ry was
ro ot ed in Sici ly a t the end of th e s ixth cen tu ry a n d Sicily wa s a possible
channe l by wh ich i t cou ld have r eached Rome .
Laurentem:  1. 10 n.
tenuisse: sc.  cur sum  'he had held course with his f leet to the land of
the L au ren tes ' , cf. 3 1 . 45 . 14 ; for  classe cf 36 . 7. 15. L .'s u se  oftenere
is ,  however , awkward here so close to two places where i t i s used
in the m ean ing inhabit
5
Fr ige l l p roposed de le t ion .
1 .
  5 .  Aborigines',  t he inhab i t an t s o f L a t iu m w ere kn ow n to Hes iod a s
L a t i n i . T h e A b o r i g i n e s  (ab origine)  figure first in Gallias  (F. Gr. Hist.
564 F 5 a an d b ) a pp a re n t ly because the in t ro duc t ion o f t he Aenea s
l egend en ta il ed tha t t he La t in s cou ld no t hav e been an au to ch th on ou s
race bu t mu st have been t he resu l t o f the fus ion of T ro ja n a n d na t iv e
(abor ig ina l ) s tock (Cato f rr . 9 -11 P . ) . Th erea f te r they re m ain ed a
cons tan t e lement in the s tory ( for Lycophron ' s  Bopelyovoi  cf. Zielinski,
Deutsch. Philol.  1891, 4 1 ; de Sanct i s ,  Storia,  1 . 173 ; Kre t schmer ,
Glotta  20 (1932), 198),
1 . 6 .  duplex:  the second vers ion , which spares the La t ins the humi l ia
t ion of defeat an d th e R o m an s the infamy of aggress ion , doub t less
ga ined cu r rency f rom the l a t e fou r th cen tu ry whe n the found a t ion
legend was invoked to improve re la t ions wi th the Lat ins . I t i s in sub
stance the vers ion of Cato, Virgi l (7 . 170 ff . ) , and Varro (cf . D.H.
1. 5 7- 60 , 64 ) . T h e f irst vers ion, wh ich m ak es A ene as th e aggressor is ,
l ike the d ismissa l of Ju l i an pre tens ion s in 3 . 2 (n . ) , an t i -dy nas t ic .
38
 
F O U N D A T I O N O F R O M E i. 1 .6
Laurentinum:
  Laurentem,
here against 7r
1 .  9 .
  (C.I.L.
  14. 2067 -8) wi th
the modern P ra t i ca d i Mare . The r e l a t ion o f t he   ager Laurens  an d the
peo ple kn ow n as La ure nte s to the c ity of L av in iu m w as obscure even
in classical t imes. No town of Laurentum is a t tes ted in inscr ipt ions,
i t iner ar ies , or his tor ic al sources (b ut cf. S tep h. Byz. s .v . ^ vr ei a) , bu t
the ad jec t ive Laurens denotes a people as ear ly as the f i r s t Car tha
gin ian t rea ty (Polybius 3 . 22 . 11 w i th W alb an k ' s no te :  apevrlvajv  as
emended) and the Arician League (Gato fr . 58 P.) In classical in
scr ip t ions i t i s a lmost invar iab ly l inked wi th Lavinas
  (C.I.L.
  14.
20 70- 8) an d alw ays from the s ite of L av in iu m . I t is th